Lindsey Lord High Constable â— Our Author borrows this Error as he does some others from the former History and makes it worse by an addition of his own For first The Earl of Lindsey was not made High Constable upon this occasion nor did he act there in that capacityâ—â— He had been made High Constable to decide the difference between the Lord Rey and David Ramsey which being an extraordinary case was likely to be tried by battle But in this case there was no need of any such Officer the Triall being to be made by proofs and Evidences the verdict to be given by the Lords of Parliament and sentence to be pronounced by the Lord High Steward all â— things being to be carried and transacted in due form of Law Secondly The Court being broken up which was before the passing of the Bill of Attainder in the end of April the Office of Lord High Steward expired also with it And therefore when our Authour speaks of a Request which was made unto the King in Parliament that the Earl of Pembroke should be made Lord High Steward in the place of the Earl of Arundel then absent fol. 430. he either speaks of a Request which was never made or else mistakes the Lord Steward of the Kings houshold which place might possibly be desired for the Earl of Pembroke not long before turn'd out of the Office of Lord Chamberlain for the Lord High Steward of the Kingdome And now we are fallen on his mistakes touching these great Officers I shall adde another It being said in our Authours unfigured Sheets that the King having signed the Bill of Attainder sent Sir Dudly Carlton Secretary of State to acquaint him what he had finished An errour too grosse and palpable for our Authour to be guilty of considering his Acquaintances in the Court and relations to it which may perswade me to beleeve that these unfigured Sheets patcht in I know not how between fol. 408. and 409. should be none of his But whether they be his or not certain I am that there was no Secretary at this time but Sir Henry Vane Windebank being then in France and his place not filled with the Lord Falkland till the Christmas after Sir Dudly Carlton Lord Imbercourt and Vicount Dorchester was indeed Secretary for a while but he died upon Ashwednesday in the year 1631. which was more then nine years before the sending of this message and I perswade my self the King did not raise him from the grave as Samuel was once raised at the instance of Saul to go on that unpleasing errand Sir Dudly Carlton whom he means being Brothers son unto the former was at that time one â—f the Clerks of the Councel but never attained unto the place and honour of a principall Secretary Our Authour having brought the businesse of the Earl of Strafford toward a Conclusion diverts upon the Authour of the Observations on the former History to whom he had been so much beholden for many of the most materiall and judicious Notes in the former part of his Book and he chargeth thus Fol. 406. I conceive it convenient in more particular to clear two mistakes of our Authours concerning the Articles of Irâ—land and the death of the Earl of Strafford reflecting upon the late most Reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland whilest he was liuing and worse pursued since his decease somewhat too sharp also upon D. Bernard What Fee or Salary our Authour hath for this undertaking I am noâ— able to determine but if he be not well paid by them I am sure he hath been well paid by another who in his Answer to D. Bernards Book entituled The â—udgement of the late Primate of Ireland Ac. hath fully justified the Observator against all the exceptions which either our Authour or D. Bernard or the Lord Primate himself have made against him in these two points Which being extrinsecall as to the matter of this History shall not be repeated the Reader being desired if he want any further satisfaction to look for it there All I shall here observe is this that our Authour grounds himself in his whole Discourse of that businesse upon somewhat which he had in writing under the hand of the said Lord Primate and more which he hath took verbatim out of the said Book of D. Bernards who being both parties to the Suit ought not to be admitted for Witnesses in their own behalf And yet our Authour having driven the matter to as good a conclusion as he could from such faulty Premises conceives an hope that by the â—ight of those Testimonies he will be of more moderation notwithstanding he hath there shewn much disaffection to the Primate in endeavouring to his utmost to evade divers of those particulars either in giving the worst sense of them or turning them to other ends But as I can sufficiently clear the Observator from bearing any disaffection to the Lord Primates person and the equal Reader may defend him from the imputation of giving the worst sense of any thing which he found in the Pamphlet called The Observator observed or turning it to other ends then was there intended so am I no more satisfied by this tedious nothing touching the Articles of Ireland or the death of the Earl of Strafford as they reflect upon the Archbishop of Armagh then I was before As little am I satisfied with the following passage in the last Folio of the unfigured Sheets viz. That D. Iuxon Bishop of London resigned his Office of Treasurer of England into the hands of five Commissioners more sufficient then he could be Our Authour might have spared these last words of disparagement and diminution and yet have left his Proposition full and perfect But taking them as they come before me I must first tell him that the Lord Bishop of London resigned not his Office of Treasurer into the hands of any Commissioners but only into the hands of the King who not knowing at the present how to dispose of it for his best advantage appointed some Commissioners under the great Seal of England to discharge the same And next I would have him tell me what great sufficiency he found in those Commissioners which was not to be found in the Bishop of London how many of his debts they paid what improvement they made of his Revenue what stock of money they put him into toward the maintaining of the Warre which not long after followed In all which particulars the Bishop of London had very faithfully performed his part though not as to the Warre of England to the great honour of the King and content of the Subject But to look back upon some passages in the businesâ—e of the Earl of Strafford which are not toucht at by the Observator or his alteridâ—m the first we meet with is a very pretty devise of the Bishop of Lincoln to cheat the poor Gentleman of his head by getting a return of the
Monroe an old experienced Commander with his three thousand old and experienced Scots train'd up for five or six years then last past in the Wars of Ireland By whose assistance it is possible enough that he might not have lost his first Battle not long after his Head which was took from him on the same day with the Earl of Hollands But God owed him and that Nation both shame and punishment for all their â—reacheries and Rebellions against their King and now he doth begin to pay them continuing payment after payment till they had lost the Command of their own Countrey and being reduced unto the form of a Province under the Commonwealth of England live in as great a Vassalage under their new Masters as a conquered Nation could expect or be subject to Fol. 1078. This while the Prince was put aboard the revolted Ships c. and with him his Brother the Duke of York c. the Earls of Brentford and Ruthen the Lord Cuâ—pepper c. In the recital of which names we finde two Earls that is to say the Earls of Brentford and Ruthen which are not to be found in any Records amongst our Heralds in either Kingdom Had he said General Ruthen Earl of Brentford he had hit it right And that both he and his Reader also may the better understand the Risings and Honors of this Man I shall sum them thus Having served some time in the Wars of Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden he was Knighted by him in his Camp before Darsaw a Town of Pomerella commonly counted part of Prussia and belonging to the King of Poland Anno 1627. at what time the said King received the Order of the Garter with which he was invested by Mr. Peter Yong one of his Majesties Gentlemen Huishers and Mr. Henry St. George one of the Heralds at Arms whom he also Kinghted In the long course of the German Wars this Colonel Sir Patrick Ruthen obtain'd such a Command as gave him the title of a General and by that title he attended in a gallant Equipage on the Earl of Morton then riding in great pomp towards Windsor to be installed Knight of the Garter At the first breaking out of the Scots Rebellion he was made a Baron of that Kingdom and Governor of the Castle of Edinburgh which he defended very bravely till the Springs which fed his Well were broken and diverted by continual Batteries Not long ater he was made Earl of Forth and on the death of the Earl of Lindsey was made Lord General of his Majesties Army and finally created Earl of Brentford by Letters Patents dated the 27 of May Anno 1644. with reference to the good Service which he had done in that Town for the fiâ—st hanselling of his Office So then we have an Earl of Brentford but no Earl of Ruthen either as joyn'd in the same Person or distinct in two Not much unlike is that which follows Ibid. His Commissions to his Commanders were thus stiled Charls Prince of great Britain Duke of Cornwal and Albany Here have we two distinct Titles conferred upon one Person in which I do very much suspect our Authors Intelligence For though the Prince might Legally stile himself Duke of Cornwal yet I cannot easily believe that he took upon himself the Title of Duke of Albany He was Duke of Cornwal from his Birth as all the eldest Sons of the Kings of England have also been since the Reign of King Edward the third who on the death of his Uncle Iohn of Eltham E. of Cornwal invested his eldest Son Edw. the Black Prince into the Dukedom of Cornwal by a Coronet on his head a ring on his finger and a silver Verge in his hand Since which time as our learned Camden hath observed the King of Englands eldest Son is reputed Duke of Cornwal by Birth and by vertue of a special Act the first day of his Nativity is presumed and taken to be of full and perfect age so that on that day he may sue for his Livery of the said Dukedom and ought by right to obtain the same as well as if he had been one and twenty years old And he hath his Royalties in certain Actions and Stannery Matters in Wracks at Sea Customs c. yea and Divers Officers or Ministers assigned unto him for these or such like matters And as for the Title of Duke of albany King Charls as the second Son of Scotland receiv'd it from King Iames his Father and therefore was not like to give it from his second Son the eldest Son of Scotland being Duke of Rothsay from his Birth but none of them Dukes of Albany for ought ever I could understand either by Birth or by Creation Fol. 1094. And so the dignity of arch-Arch-Bishops to fall Episcopal Iurisdiction also Our Author concludes this from the general words of the Kings Answer related to in the words foregoing viz. That whatsoever in Episcopacy did appear not to have clearly proceeded from Divine Institution he gives way to be totally abolished But granting that the Dignity of Arch-Bishops was to fall by this Concession yet the same cannot be affirmed of the Episcopal Iurisdiction which hath as good Authority in the holy Scripture as the calling it self For it appears by holy Scripture that unto Timothy the first Bishop of Ephâ—sus St. Paul committed the power of Ordination where he requires him to lay hands hastily on no man 1 Tim. 5 22 And unto Titus the first Bishop of Crete the like Authority for ordaining Presbyters or Elders as our English reads it in every City Tit. 1. v. 5. Next he commands them to take care for the ordering of Gods publick Service viz. That Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of Thanks be made for all men 1 Tim. 2. 1. which words relate not to the private Devotions of particular persons but to the Divine Service of the Church as it is affirmed not onely by St Chrysostom Theophylact and Oâ—cumenius amongst the Ancients and by Estius for the Church of Rome but also by Calvin for the Protestant or Reformed Churches Next he requires them to take care that such as painfully labor in the Word and Doctrine receive the honor or recompence which is due unto them 1 Tim. 5. 17. as also to censure and put to silence all such Presbyters as preached any strange Doctrine contrary unto that which they had received from the Apostles 1 Tim 1. 3. And if that failed of the effect and that from Preaching Heterodoxies or strange Doctrines they went on to Heresies then to proceed to Admonition and from thence if no amendment followed to a rejection from his place and deprivation from his Function 1 Tit. 3. 10. as both the Fathers and late Writers understand the Text. Finally for correction in point of Manners as well in the Presbyter as the people St. Paul commits it wholly to the care of his Bishop where he adviseth Timothy not to receive an Accusâ—ation against
at Hampton Court and that it was affirmed by some of the Bishops that the Crosse in Baptism was used in the time of Constantine Dr. Reynolds the most able Man of the opposiâ—e party who had before acknowledged it to have been in use in other cases from the very times of the Apostles had not one word to say against it And to say truth no man of modesty and Learning could have spoke against it when it was proved so clearly by Dr. Andrews then Dean of Westminster oâ—t of Tertullian Cyprian Origen each of which died long time befoâ—e Constantines Birth to have been used in immortali Lavacro in that blessed Sacrament That good old saying of Tertullian Caro signetur ut anima muniatur may serve once for all And therefore when our Author telleth us in the following words that in that age nothing was used with Baptism but Baptism it must be considered as a smack of that old Leaven which more and more will soure the lump of his whole discourse We have already had a taste of it in the very first Book we finde a continuance of it heâ—e and we shall see more of it hereafter Our Authoâ— not being coy in shewing his good affections not only to the Persons of the Non-conformists but their inconformity not to the men only but their Doctrines and Opinions also And this is that which we must trust to in the whole course of this History Having now done with the Acts of Austin we shall not keep our selves to so continued a diâ—course as before we did but take our Authors Text by piecemeal as it comes before us and making such Animadversions on the same as may best serve to rectifie the story and maintain the truth as namely Fol. 65. Thus the Italian Spanish and French Daughters or Neeces to the Latine are generated from the corrption thereof This is I grant the common and received opinion but yet me thinks our Author who loves singularities should not vouchsafe to travel on the publick Road. For in my minde it is affirmed with better reason by our learned Brerewood That those tongues have not sprung from the corruption of the Latine by the inundation and mixture of Barbarous people in those Provinces but from the first imperfect impression and receiving of it in those forein Countries For the Latine tongue was never so generally received in any of the conquered Provinces out of Italy as to be spoken ordinarily by the common people the Gentry and Nobility might be perfect in it for the better dispatch of their Affairs with the Roman Magistrates who had the Government and Lieutenancy in their several Countries And some 〈◊〉 of it might be found with the vulgar also who having continual intercourse with the Roman Souldiers and some recourse for Trade to the Roman Colonies could not but get a smattering of the Latine tongue Just so the Gentry and Nobility both in Wales and Ireland are trained up for the same reasons in the English tongue which notwithstanding could never get the mastery of the natural Languages 〈◊〉 much ground on those of inferior quality Secondly had these National Languages proceeded from the depravation of the Latine tongue by the mixture of the baâ—barous Nations it must needs follow that the Italian had not now been the language of all people in Italy nor the French of all the Nations which inhabit France sic de caeteris My reason is because the Heruli being setled in those parts which we now call Piedmont the Longobards more towards the East the Goths about the middle parts the Saracens and Greeks in the Realm of Naples there must needs be as many distinct languages in that one Continent as there were Barbarous Nations planted in it or at the least such different Dialects as could be scarse intelligible unto one another Whereas it is certainly and most plainly known that there is only one Language spoken in all that Countrey equally understood by all without so much as any sensible difference in pronunciation more then is usuall in all places between the Countrey Villages and the neighbouring Citizens The like may be affirmed of the antient Gallia planted on the Eastside of the Loyre by the Burgundians on the West side of that River and towards the Mediterranean the Pyrenies and the Aquitan Ocean by the Gothish Nations in most other parts of it by the Franks and yet all speaking with very little difference the same one Language which from the most predominant People we now call the French More to which purpose might be said were not this sufficient Ibid. The Hebrew the common Tongue of the whole world before it was inclos'd that is to say divided into several Languages An Opinion as common as the other and as weakly grounded such as I marvel at in our Author who having travel'd over all the Holy-Land should have been better studied in the true nature and original of the Holy-Tongue Nor is it the opinion only that this Tongue was spoken universally before the Flood and even in Paradise it self in the state of innocency but that it shall be spoken in the Celestial Paradise the language of the Saints in glory in somuch that some good women of my old acquaintance were once very eagerly bent to learn this Language for fear as I conceive they should not chat it handsomely when they came to heaven Now for the ground thereof it is no other then an old Iewish Tradition importing that this being the common Language of all people before the Flood was afterwards appropriated unto Phaleg the son of Heber and to his Posterity because not present with the rest aâ— the building of Babel and consequently not within the curse of conâ—ounded Languages But against this it is disputed first that it is but a Tradition and therefore of no sure foundation to build upon And secondly that it is such a Tradition as holds no good coherence with the truth of Story it being a most clear and demonstrative truth that the Hebrew Tongue was not the Language which Abraham brought with him out of Chaldea and Mesopotamia but that which he found spoken in the Land of Canaanâ—t â—t his coming thither to which both he and his posterity did conform themselves Or had it been the Language of Heber as they say it was but most undoubtedly was not yet thirdly had this been a priviledge conferred on Heber that he and his posterity should speak the Original Language without alteration or corruption it must have been extended to all those of the House of Iâ—cktan which descend from him as also to the House of Laban in Padan-Aram and to the Moabites and the Ammonites as the seed of Lot and finally to the Madianites Ishmaeelites and Idumaeans descended of Abraham and Esau and not be limited and confined only to the House of Iacob Now that the language which afterwards was and still is called by the name of the Hebrew was
on their 〈…〉 Our Author tells us in his Brerewood upon a diligent enquiry hath found it otherwise then our Author doth letting us know That the first Countrey in Christendom whence the Jews were expelled without hope of return was our Countrey of England whence they were banished Anno 1290. by King Edward the first and not long after out of France Anno 1307. by Phiâ—ippus Pulcher. Not out of France first out of England afterwards as our Author would have it Fol. 100. Thus men of yesterday have pride too much to remember what they were the day before An observation true enough but not well applyed The two Spenâ—â—rs whom he speaks this of were not men of yesterday or raised out of the dirt or dunghill to so great an height but of as old and known Nobility as the best in England insomuch that when a question grew in Parliament whether the Baronesse de Spencer or the Lord of Aburgaveny were to have precedency it was adjudg'd unto de Spencer thereby declar'd the antientest Barony of the Kingdom at that time then being These two Spencers Hugh the Father was created Earl of Winchester for term of life and Hugh the Son by marrying one of the Daughters and co-heirs of Gilbert dt Clâ—re became Earl of Gloster Men more to be commended for their Loyalty then accused for their pride but that the King was now declining and therefore it was held fit by the prevalent faction to take his two supporters from him as they after did Fol. 113. The Lord Chancellor was ever a Bishop If our Author by this word ever understands 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most commonly or for the most part he is right enough but then it will not stand with the following words viz. as if it had been against equity to employ any other 〈◊〉 〈…〉 he take the word ever in its proper and more natural sense as if none but Bishops had ever been advanced unto that office he doth not only misinform the Reader but confute himself he having told us fol. 31. of this present book that Thomas Becket being then but Archdeacon of Canterbury was made Lord Chancellor and that as soon as he was made Archbishop he resign'd that office But the truth is that not only men in holy Orders but many of the Laity also had attained that dignity as will appear to any who will take the pains to 〈◊〉 the Catalogue of the Chancellors and 〈◊〉 of the Grâ—at Seal in the Glossary of Sir Henry 〈◊〉 in which appear not only some of inferior dignity as Deans Archdeacons House-hold Chaplains but many also not dignified with any Ecclesiasticall â—â—â—â—or Notification and therefore in all probability to be looked on as meer Laymen Counsellors and Servants to the Kings in whose times they lived or otherwise studied in the Lawes and of good affectionâ— and consequently capable of the place of such trust and power Fol. 116. This yearâ— viz. 1350. as Authors generally agree King Edward instituted are Order of the Garter Right enough as unto the time but much mistaken in some things which relate unto that antient and most noble Order our Author taking up his Commodities at the second hand neither consulting the Records noâ— dealing in this business with men of credit For first there are not 〈◊〉 Canons resident in the Church of Winâ—or but thirteen only with the Dean it being King Edwards purpoâ—e when he founded that Oâ—deâ— consisting of twenty 〈◊〉 Knights himself being one to 〈◊〉 as many greater and lesser Canons and as many old Souldiers commonly called poor Knightsâ— to be pensioned there Though in this last the number was 〈…〉 up to his first intention He tels us secondly that if he be not mistaken as indeed he is Sir Thomas Row was the last Chancellor of the Order whereas Sir Iames Palmer one of the Gentlemen Huishers of the Privy Chamber succeeded him in the place of Chancellor after his decease Anno 1644. He tels us thirdly that there belongs unto it one Register being alwayes the Dean of Winsor which is nothing so For though the Deans of late times have been Registers also yet ab initio non suit sic it was not so from the beginning The first Dean who was also Register being Iohn Boxul Anno 1557. Before which time beginning at the year 1414. there had been nine Registers which were not Deans but how many more before that time I am not able to say their names not being on Record And soâ—â—thly he tels us that the Garter is one of the extraordinary Habiliments of the Knights of this Order their ordinary being only the blew Ribbon about their necks with the picture of St. George appendant and the Sun in his glory on the left shoulder of their Cloak whereas indeed the Garter is of common wearing and of such necessary use that the Knights are not to be seen abroad without it upon pain of paying two Crowns to any Officer of the Order who shall first claim it unless they be to take a journey in which case it is sufficient to wear a blew Ribbon under their Boots to denote the Garter Lastly whereas our Author tels us that the Knights heâ—eof do wear on the left shoulder of their Cloaks a Sun in his glory and attributes this wearing as some say to King Charles I will first put him out of doubt that this addition was King Charles his then shew him his mistake in the matter it self And first in the first year of that King Ap. 26 1626. it was thus enacted at a publick Chapter of the Oâ—der viz. That all Knights and Companions of the Order shall wear upon the left part of their Cloaks Coats and riding Cassacks at all times when they shall not wear their Roabs and in all places of Assembly an Escocheon of the Armes of St. George id est a Crosse within a Garter not enriched with Pearls or Stones in token of the honour which they hold from the said most noble Order instituted and ordained for persons of the highest worth and honour Our Authour secondly may perceive by this Act of the Kings that St. Georges Crosse within the Garter is the main device injoyned to be worn by all the Knights of that noble Order to which the adding of the Sun in his glory served but for ornament and imbellishing and might be either used or not used but only for conformities sake as they would themselves So many errors in so few lines one shall hardly meet with The Fourth Book From the first Preaching of Wickliffe to the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the Eighth OUR Author begins this Book with the Story of Wickliffe and continueth it in relating the successes of him and his followers to which he seems so much addicted as to Christen their Opinions by the name of the Gospel For speaking of such incouragements and helps as were given to Wickliffe by the Duke of Lancaster with other advantages which
thereof in the main body of it not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses This I can say on certain knowledge being casually invited to his Funeral when I thought not of it though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of Fol. 153. The Right to the Crown lay not in this Henry but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March descended by his Mother Philippa from Lionel Duke of Clarence elder son to Edward the third I shall not now dispute the Title of the House of Lancaster though I think it no hard matter to defend it and much less shall I venture on the other controversie viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry though I finde him better studied in it then in matter of History And certainly our Author is here out in his own dear Element Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence and Mother of Roger Mortimer Earl of March whom Richard the second to despite the House of Lancaster declared Heir apparent to the Kingdom of England 'T is true this Edmond was the son of another Philippa that is to say of Philip Montacute wife of a former Roger Earl of March one of the founders of the Garter So that in whomsoever the best Title lay if lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it 〈◊〉 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing 〈…〉 the Temporaâ—â— and Spiritual Lordsâ— that 〈…〉 be tryed per pares by their Peers being 〈…〉 Noâ— shall I here dispute the point 〈…〉 may not challenge to be tryed by his 〈…〉 wheâ—â—er the Bishops were not Barons and 〈◊〉 of the Realm Our Author intimates that they were not but I think they were and this I think on the authority of the learned Selden in whom we finde that at a Parliament at Northampton 〈◊〉 Henry the 2. the Bishops thus challenge their own â—ee age viz. Non sedemus hiâ— Episcopi sed Barones Nos â—â—â—â—nes vâ—s Barones Pares hiâ— sumus that is to 〈◊〉 We 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 as Bishops only but as Barons We are Barons and you are Barons here we sit as Peers Which last is also 〈…〉 in terminis by the words of a Statuâ—e 〈◊〉 Act of Parliament wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to â—e Peers of the Land And for further proof heâ— eoâ— Ihon â—tratford Archbishop of Canterbury if I remember it aright being fallen into the displeâ—sure of King Edward the third and denyed entrance into the House of 〈◊〉 made his Protest that he was Primus 〈◊〉 Regni the 〈◊〉 Peer of the Realm and therefoâ—e not to be 〈…〉 from his place and Suffrage But of this Argument enough iâ— not too much as the case now stands 〈…〉 thing to consider what they have 〈…〉 what they are at this preâ—ent 〈…〉 Reign theâ—e paâ—â— an Act of Paâ—liament by which it was enacted That the Countrey of Wales should be stand and continue for ever from thenceforth incorpoâ—aâ—ed united and annexed to and with this Realm of England And that all and singular person and persons born and to be born in the said principality countrey or dominion of Wales shall have inâ—oy and inhe â—it all and singular Freedoms Liberties Rights Priviledges and Lawes within this Realm and other the Kings Dominions as other the Kings Subjects naturally boâ—n within the same have and injoy and inheâ—â—it And thirdly between the time which our Author speaks of being the 14 year of King Henry the fourth and the making of this Act by King Henry the eighth there passed boâ—e an hundâ—ed and twenty years which intimates a longer time then some years after as out Author words it Fol. 168. I will not complain of the dearness of this Univeâ—sity where seventeen weeks cost me more then seventeen years in Cambridge even all that I had The oâ—dinary and unwary Reâ—der might collect from hence that Oxford is a chargeable place and that all commodities there are exceeding dear but that our Author lets him know that it was on some occasion of distâ—â—bance By which it seems our Author doth 〈◊〉 to the time of the War when men from all 〈◊〉 did repair to Oxford not as a University but a place of safety and the fear Royall of the King at 〈◊〉 time notwithstanding all provisions were so plenâ—â—ull and at such cheap rates as no man had reason to complain of the 〈◊〉 of them No better argument of the 〈◊〉 of the soil and richness of the 〈◊〉 in which Oxford standeth then that the 〈…〉 on the accession of such 〈…〉 at that 〈◊〉 and on that occasion 〈◊〉 Author therefoâ—e 〈◊〉 be thought to relate unto somewhat else then is here expâ—essed and possibly may be that his being at Oxford at that time 〈◊〉 him within the compass of Delinquency and consequently of Sequestration And 〈…〉 hath 〈…〉 son to complain of the Vniversity or the dearness of it but rather of himself for coming to a place so chargeable and destructive to him He might have tarryed where he was for I never heard that he was sent foâ— and then this great complaint against the dearness of that Vniversity would have found no place Fol. 175. Surely what Charles the fifth is said to have said of the City of Florence that it is pity 〈◊〉 should be seen save only on holy-dayes c. Our Author is somewhat out in this in fachering that saying on Charles the fifth Emperor and King of Spain which Boterus and all other Authors ascribe to Charles Archduke of Austria that is to say to Charles of Inspruch one of the younger sons of the Emperor Ferdinand the first and consequently Nephew to Charles the fifth Not is oâ—r Author very right in taking Aquensis for Aix in Provence Fol. 178. Especially â—aith he if as I take it by Aquensis Aix be meantâ— scited in the fâ—rthermost parts of Provence though even now the English power in France was a waning For first the English never had any power in Provence no interest at all therein nor pretentions to it as neither had the French Kings in the times our Author speaks of Provence in thoâ—e dayes was independent of that Crown an absolute Estate and held immediately of the Empire as being a part and member of the Realm of Burgundy and in the actual possession of the Dukes of â—njou on the expiring of which House by the last will and Testament of Duke Rene the second it was bequeathed to Lewis the eleventh of France by him and his successors to be enjoyed upon the death of Charles Earl of Maine as it was accordingly And secondly that Bernard whom the Latine cals Episcopus Aquensis is very ill taken by our Author to be Bishop of Aix He was indeed Bishop of Acqus or
why his Children should desire a restitution in bloud not otherwise to be obtained but by Act of Parliament And so without troubling the learned in the Law for our information I hope our Author will be satisfied and save his Fee for other more necessary uses Fol. 72. In the Convocation now sitting the nine and thirty Articles were composed agreeing for the main with those set forth in the Reign of King Edward the sixth though in some particulars allowing more liberty to dissenting judgements This is the active Convocation which before I spake of not setling matters of Religion in the same estate in which they were left by King Edward but altering some Articles expunging others addingsome de novo and fitting the whole body of them unto edification Not leaving any liberty to dissenting Iudgments as our Author would have it but binding men unto the literal and Grammatical sense They had not othewise attained to the end they aimed at which was ad tollendam opinionum dissensionem consensum in vera Religione firmandum that is to say to take away diversity of Opinions and to establish an agreement in the true Religion Which end could never be effected if men were left unto the liberty of dissenting or might have leave to put their own sense upon the Articles But whereas our Author instances in the Article of Christs descent into Hell telling us that Christs preaching unto the Spirits there on which the Article seemed to be grounded in King Edwards Book was left out in this and thereupon inferreth that men are left unto a latitude concerning the cause time manner of his descent I must needs say that he is very much mistaken For first the Church of England hath alwayes constantly maintained a locall Descent though many which would be thought her Children the better to comply with Calvin and some other Divines of forain Nations have deviated in this point from the sense of the Church And secondly the reason why this Convocation left out that passage of Christ preaching to the Spirits in hell was not that men might be left unto a latitude concerning the cause time and manner of his Descent as our Author dreams but because that passage of St. Peter being capable of some other interpretations was not conceived to be a clear and sufficient evidence to prove the Article For which see Bishop Bilsons Survey p. 388 389. Fol. 74. In a word concerning this clause whether the Bishops were faulty in their addition or their opposites in their substraction I leave to more cunning Arithmeticians to decide The Clause here spoken of by our Author is the first Sentence in the twentieth Article entituled De Ecclesiae Authoritate where it is said that the Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of the Faith Which being charged upon the Bishops as a late addition the better to support their power and maintain their Tyranny the late Archbishop of Canterbury in his Speech in the Star-Chamber Iune the 15 1637. made it appear that the said Clause was in a Printed Book of Articles published in the year 1563. being but very few moneths after they had passed in the Convocation which was on the 29. of Ianuary 1562. in the English account And more then so he shewed unto the Lords a Copy of the twentieth Article exemplified out of the Records and attested by the hands of a publick Notary in which that very Clause was found which had been charged upon the Bishops for an innovation And thus much I can say of mine own knowledge that having occasion to conâ—â—â—t the Records of Convocation I found this controverted Clause verbatim in these following words Habet Ecclesia Ritus statuendo jus in fidei Controversis Authoritatem Which makes me wonder at our Author that having access to those Records and making frequent use of them in this present History he should declare himself unable to decide the doubt whether the addition of this Clause was made by the Bishops or the substraction of it by the opposite party But none so blinde as he that will not see saies the good old proverb But our Author will not so give over He must first have a fling at the Archbishop of Canterbury upon this occasion In the year 1571. the Puritan Faction beginning then to grow very strong the Articles were again Printed both in Latin and English and this Clause left out publisht according to those copies in the Harmony of Confessions Printed at Geneva Anno 1612. and publisht by the same at Oxford though soon after rectified Anno 1636. Now the Archbishop taking notice of the first alteration Anno 1571. declares in his said Speech that it was no hard matter for that opposite Faction to have the Articles Printed and this clause left out considering who they were that then governed businesses and rid the Church almost at their pleasure What says our Author to this Marry saith he I am not so well skilled in Historical Horsemanship as to know whom his Grace designed for the Rider of the Church at that time fol. 74. Strange that a man who undertakes to write an History should professe himself ignorant of the names of those who governed the businesse of the times he writes of But this is only an affected ignorance profest of purpose to preserve the honour of some men whom he beholds as the chief Patrons of the Puritan Faction For aftâ—â—wards this turn being served he can finde out who they were that then governed businesses and rid the Church almost at their pleasure telling us fol. 138 that the Earl of Leicester interpos'd himself Patron-general to the non-subscribers and that he did it at the perswasion of Roger Lord North. Besides which two we finde Sir Francis Knollys to be one of those who gave countenance to the troubles at Frankforâ— at such time as the Faction was there hottest against the Liturgy and other Rites and â—eremonies of the Church of England Who being a meer kinsman of the Queens and a Privy Counsellor made use of all advantages to pursue that project which being 〈◊〉 on foot beyond sea had been driven on here and though Leicester was enough of himself to rid the Church at his pleasure it being fitted with such helps Sir Francis Walsingham and many more of that kind which the times then gave him they drove on the faster till he had almost plung'd all in remedilesse Ruine But our Author hath not done with these Articles yet for he tels us of this Clause that it was Ibid. Omitted in the English and Latin Artiâ—â—â—â—â— set forth 1571 when they were first ratified by Actâ—â— Our â—uthor doth so dream of the power of Parliaments in matters of Religion that he will not suffer any Canon or Act of Convocation to be in sorce or obligatiory to the subject till confirmed by Parliament But I would fain know of him where he finds any Act of Parliament
except it be in his own dreams to confirm these Articles or that the Parliament of the 13 of the Queen being that he speaks of appointed any Committee for Religion to examine the Oxthodoxy of those Articles and make report unto the House All that was done was this and on this occasion Some Ministers of the Church too stiffly wedded to their old Mumpsimus of the Masse and some as furiously prosecuting their new Sumpsimus of Inconformity it was thought fit that between these contending parties the Doctrine of the Church should be kept inviolate And thereupon it was Enacted That every person under the degree of a Bishop which did or should pretend to be a Priest or Minister of Gods holy word and Sacraments in the Church of England should before Christmas then next following in the presence of his Diocesan Bishop testifie his assent and subscribe to the said Articles of the year 1562. Secondly that after such subscribing before the Bishop he should on some Sunday in the forenoon in the Church or Chappel where he served in time of Divine Service read openly the said Articles on pain of being deprived of all his Ecclesiastical promotions as if he were then naturally dead Thirdly that if any Ecclesiastical person should maintain any Doctrine contrary to any of the said Articles and being convented by his Bishop c. should persist therein it should be just cause to deprive such person of his Ecclesiastical promotions Fourthly that all persons to be admitted to any Benefice with Cure should likewise subscribe to the said Articles and publickly read the same in the open Church within two moneths after their induction with declaration of their unfaigned assent to the same on the pain aforesaid in all which there was nâ—â—thing done to confirm these Articles but only a pious care expressed for reformation of such disorders as were like to rise amongst the Ministers of the Church by requiring their subscription and assent unto them under such temporal punishments which at that time the Canons of the Church had not laid upon them So that our Author very well might have spared this Flourish that the Obligatoriness of these Articles as to temporal punishments beares not date nine years before from their composition in Convocation but henceforward from their confirmation in Parliament And here I must crave leave to fetch in another passage relating to the Acts of this Convocation fol. 102. in which he telleth us that till the year 1572. The Bishops had been more sparing in pâ—â—ssing and others more daring in denying subscription because the Canons made in the Convocation Anno 1563. were not for nine years after confirmed by Act of Parliament c. In which onâ— Authoâ— shews much zeal and but little knoâ—ledge theâ—e being no Canons madâ— in the Convoâ—ation of 1562. 1563. in our Authors reckoning noâ— any thing at all done in it more then the setling of the Articles and passing a bill for the granting of a Subsidie to the Queen as by the Records thereof may be easily seen But rather then the Parliament shall not have the power of confirming Canons our Author will finde our some Canons for them to confirm which never had a being or existence but in his brains only From the Articles our Author proceeds unto the Hoâ—ilies approved in those Articles and of them he tels us Fol. 75. That if they did little good they did little harm With scoâ—â— and insolence enough Those Homilies were so composed as to instruct the people in all positive Doctrines necessary for Christian men to know with reference both to Faith and Manneâ—s and being penned in a plain style as our Author hath it were â—â—tter for the edification of the common people then either the strong lines of some or the flashes of 〈◊〉 wiâ— in others in these latter times And well it had been for the peace and happiness of this Church if they had been more constantly read and nor discredited by those men who studied to advance their own inventions above those grave and solid pieces composed by the joynt counsels and co-operations of many godly learned and religious peâ—sons But it is well howsoever that by reading these so much viâ—ified Homilies the Ministeâ—â— though they did little good did but little harm it being to be feared that the precommant humor of Sermonizing hath on the contrary done much harm and but little good But our Author hath not yet done with this Convocation for so it followeth Fol. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves impowered by their Canons began to shew their authority in urging the Clergy of their Diâ—â—eâ—s to subscribe to the Liturgie Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were braaded with the odious name of Puritans Our Author having given the Parliament a power of confirming no Canons as before was shewed he brings the Bisâ—ops acting by as weak Authority in the years 1563. 1564. theâ—e being at that time no Canons for them to pâ—oceed upon for requiring thâ—ir Clergy to subscribe to the Liturgie Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church And therefore if they did any such thing it was not aâ— tâ—ey were impowered by their Canons but as they were inâ—â—bâ—â—d by that Authoâ—ity whiâ—h was inherent naturally in their Epiâ—copal Office But whereas he tells us in the following words thâ—t the name of Puritan in that notion began this year viz. 15â—4 I fear he hath anticipated the time a little Genebrard a right good Chronologer placing it ortos in Angâ—â—â— Puritanâ—s about two years after Anno 1566. And so far I am of our Authors minde that the grief had not been great if the name had ended that year upon condition thâ—t the occasion for which it was given them had then ended also But when he tells us that the name of Puritans was given to the opposers of the Hierarâ—â—y and Church-Serviceâ— and signifâ—eth a Non-conformist as often as I meet such Opposers and such Non-conâ—oâ—mists in the coâ—â—e of this Hiâ—â—ory I have warrant good enough to call them by the name of Puritans If any did abuse the nâ—mâ—s as â—â—â—â—leth us afterwards lib. x. fol. 100. to asperse the most Orthodox in Doctrine and religious in Conversation they weâ—e the moâ—e to blame let them answer for it But if those Orthodox and religious persons were Orthodox only in his sense and under the colour of Religion did secretly 〈◊〉 with those who oppos'd the Hierarchy and the eâ—â—â—blisht Orders of the Church it might be a disgrace but no wâ—ong unto them to be called Puritans And if it 〈◊〉 extended further to denote such men also as mainâ—â—â—ned any of the private Opinions and Doctrines of 〈◊〉 against the tendries of the Church I see no reason why our Author should complain of it so much as he does in the place afoâ—esaid The practices of some men are many times Doctrines to others and the Calvinia 〈◊〉 being built upon Calvins practices and those
forth c. The offenders to suffer such pain of death and forfeiture as in case of Felony A Statute made of purpose to restrain the insolencies of the Puriâ—â—n Faction and by which many of them were adjudged to death in the times ensuing some as the Authors and others as the publishers of seditious Pamphlers But being made with limitation to the life of the Queen it expired with her And had it been reviv'd as it never was by either of the two last Kings might possibly have prevented those dreadful mischiefs which their posterity is involved in Fol. 157. Sure I am it is most usual in the Court of Marches Arches rather whereof I have the best experience This is according to the old saying to correct Magnificat Assuredly Archbishop Whitgift knew better whan he was to write then to need any such critical emendations And therefore our Author might have kept his Arches for some publick Triumph after his conquest of the Covetous Conformists and High Royalists which before we had It was the Court of the Marches which the Bishop speaks of and of which he had so good experience he being made Vice-Precedent of the Court of the Marches by Sir Henry Sidney immediately on his first coming to the See of Worcester as Sir George Paul telleth us in his life Fol. 163. By the changing of Edmond into John Contnar it plainly appears that as all these letters were written this year so they were indited after the sixth of July and probably about December when Bishop Grindal deceased â— I grant it for a truth that Grindal died on the sixth of Iuly and I know it also for a truth that Whitgift was translated to the See of Canterbury on the 23. of September then next following But yet it follows not thereupon that all the Letters here spoken of being 12 in number which are here exemplified were writ in the compass of one year and much less in so narrow a time as about December Nay the contrary hereunto appears by the Lettâ—â—s themselves For in one of them written to the Lord Treasurer fol. 160. I finde this passage viz. Your Lordship objecteth thaâ— it is said I took this câ—urse for the better maintenance of my Book My Enemies say so indeed but I trust my friends have a better opinion of me what should I look after any Confirmation of my Book after twelve years or what should I get thereby more then already Now the Book mentioned by the Bishop was that entituled The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition against the Reply of T. C. printed at London An. 1574. To which the 12 years being added which we finde mentioned in this Letter it must needs be that this Letter to the Lord Treasurer was written in the year 1586. and consequently not all written in the year 1583. as our Author makes them The like might be collected also from some circumstances in the other Letters but that I have more necessary business to imploy my time on Fol. 171. The severe inforcing of Subscription hereunto what great disturbance it occasioned in the Church shall hereafter by Gods assistance be made to appear leaving others to judge whether the offence was given or taken thereby Our Author tells us fol. 143. that in the business of Church government he would lie at a close guard and offer as little play as might be on either side But for all that he cannot but declare himself for the stronger party He had not else left it as a matter doubtful whether the disturbances which insued on the Archbishops inforcing of Subscription and the scandal which did thence arise were to be imputed to the Imposer who had Authority on his side as himself confesseth or the refusers carried on by self ends and untractable obstinacy As for the Articles to which subscriptions were required they were these that follow viz. 1. That the Queen only had Supreme Authority over all persons boâ—n within her Dominion 2. That the Book of Common-Prayer and Ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons containeth nothing contrary to the Word of God 3. That the Articles of Religion agreed on in the year 1562. and publisht by the Queens Authority were consonant to the word of God All which being so expresly built on the Lawes of the Realm must needs lay the scandal at their doores who refused subscription and not at his who did require it But love will creep they say where it cannot go And do our Author what he can he must discover his affection to the causeâ—pon â—pon all occasions No where more mâ—nifestly then where he telleth us Fol. 187. That since the High-Commission and this Oath it is that ex Officio which he meaneth were taken away by the â—â—ct of Parliament it is to be hoped that if such swearing were sâ— great a grievance nihil analogum nothing like unto it which may amount to as much shall hereafter be substituted in the room thereof What could be said more plain to testiâ—ie his disaffections one way and his zeâ—l another The High-Commission and the Oath repâ—oâ—ched as Grievances because the greatest curbs of the Puritan party and the strongest Bulwarks of the Church a congratulation â—o the times for abolishing both though as yet I â—â—nde no Act of Parliament against the Oath except it be by consequence and illation only and finally a hope exprest that the Church never shall revert to her foâ—mer power in substituting any like thing in the place thereof by which the good people of the Land may be stopt in their way to the fifth Monarchy so much fought after And yet this does not speak so plain as the following passage viz. Fol. 193. Wits will be working and such as have a Satyrical vein cannot better vent it then in lashing of sin This spoken in defence of those scurrilous Libels which Iob Throgmorton Penry Fenner and the rest of the Puritan Rabble published in Print against the Bishops Anno 1588. thereby to render them ridiculous both abroad and at home The Qâ—een being 〈◊〉 exclaimed against and her Honorable Councell scandalously censured for opposing the Gospel they fall more foully on the Bishops crying them down as Antichristian Petty-popes Bishops of the Devil cogging and cozening knaves dumb dogs enemies of God c. For which cause much applauded by the Papists beyond Sea to whom nothing was more acceptable then to see the English Hierarchy reproachâ— and vilified and frequently â—â—red by them as unquestioned evidences For if our Authors rule be good fol. 193. That the fault is not in the writer if he truly cite what is false on the credit of another they had no reason to examine punctually the truth of that which tended so apparently to the great advantage of their cause and party But this Rule whether true or false cannot be used to justifie our Author in many passages though truly cited considering that he cannot chuse but know them to be false in themselves
reciting the course both of his preferments and imployments he telleth us that soon after the Kings coming to the Crownâ—â— he was made Dean of Christ-Church in Oxon and chosen one of the four Preachers in the Conference at Hampton-Court But first Dr. King was not Dean of Christ-Church at the time of the Conference at Hampton-Court that Conference being held in Ianuary An. 1603. and Dr. King not coming to the Deanry of Christ-Church till the year 1605. Secondly he was none oâ— the fouâ— Preachers in the Conference at Hampton-Court there being no such Preachers chosen for the â—ime of that Conference But as it is a true and old sayâ—â—g that Omnis fabula fundatur in Historia so I may â—â—y that there was something true and real which might â—arry him inadvertently upon this Error For in Sepâ—â—mber Anno 1606. it pleased King Iames to call before â—im at Hampton-Court the Melvins and some other of â—he principal sticklers for Presbytery of the Scottish Naâ—ion For information of whose judgement and reâ—â—ucing them if possible to some conformity he caused four Sermons to be there preached in their heaâ—ing by â—our of his most able Divines that is to say Dr. Andrews then Bishop of Chichester Dr. Barlow before mentioned then Bishop of Rochester Dr. King then Dean of Christ-Church after Bishop of London and Dr. Buckeridge who after succeeded in the See of Rochesterâ— and dyed Bishop of Ely Which four Sermons being afterwards printed and bound together though they gave very good satisfaction to most persons else could get no ground upon those refractary Scots who were resolved aforehand not to hear the voice of those Charmers charmed they never so sweetly Fol. 27. Indeed a Statute had formerly been made thâ— 13. of Queen Elizabeth which to prevent final 〈◊〉 of Church Land did disable all Subjects from 〈◊〉 them but in that Statute a liberty was left unto the Crown to receive the same Our Author speaks this on occasion of a Statute made in the first Parliament of King Iamâ—â— by which the King and his Successors were made uncapable of receiving any Grants or Leases of Lands from any Archbishops or Bishops for longer then 21 years or three lives But he is much mistaken in the grounds of it For first the Statute he relates unto was not made in the thirteenth year of the Queen that Statute extending only unto Deans and Chapters Masters of Colledges and Hospitals as also unto Parsons and Vicars who by long Leases had dilapidated the publick Patrimony of the Church and their several Houses Not a word in it which concerns Archbishops and Bishops or any Leases by them made And secondly that Staâ—ute whatsoever it be doth not disable all Subjects from accepting such Leases Grants and Alienations but disableth the said Archbishops and Bishops from making such Grants unto the Subjects But the truth is that Statute which our Author means is an unprinted Statute made in the first year of Queen Elizabeth By which it was enacted That it should be lawful for the said Queen as often as any Archbishoprick or Bishoprick should be vacant to take unto herself any of the Castles Mannors Lanâ—s Tenements and Here ditaments to the same belonging and to pay the said Archbishop or Bishop in Impropriations Tithes and Portions of Tithes And this is that Statute which our Author relates unto lib. 9. fol. 70. where it is said That a Bill passed for the assurance of certain Lands assumed by the Queen from some Bishoprickâ— during their Vacation And secondly it was enacted in the said unprinted Statute that it should not be lawful for any Archbishop or Bishop to grant any Lands Leases or Estates for more then 21 years or three lives to any person whatsoever except it were unto the Queen 〈◊〉 Heirs and Successors which last words opened such a gap to sacrilege and rapine that what the Queen thought fit to leave unto the Church vacante sede the Couâ—â—iers would finde some way to divest it of by making use of this last clause first in obtaining such a 〈◊〉 to be made to the Queen and then from the Queen unto themselves So that our Author might have sav'd his Advocating for this clause of that Act considering that he saw the ill consequents and effects thereof Fol. 54. Some of the greatest Prelates how much Self is there 〈◊〉 all men though seemingly forward really remiâ—â— in the matter This spoken in relation to Cheâ—sey Colledge the stop whereof must be imputed to some great Prelaâ—es fearing to grow less both in esteem power and jurisdiction if that work went foâ—wards Contrary whereunto he â—elleth us of folâ—57 â—57 That he was very forward in founding Chelsey Coâ—â—edge which as a two edged Sword was to cut on both sides to suppress Papists and Sectaries Upon which grounds there is no question to be made but that the work was furthered also by the rest of the Bishops at the least not hindered Our Author hath indeed afforded us this Marginal Note viz. This obstruction signifies nothing of discreet men how ever it must pass for company sake But it had argued more discretion in him as I conceive to have left this obstruction as he calls it out of his Discourse then first to break the Bishops heads and then give them this plaister Howsoever he viz. Mr. Nicholas â—uller left behinde him the reputation of an honest man No question of it It is a thing so incident to the name that whatsoever they do or say they are honest still Before we had the story of Thomas Fullâ—r of Hammersmith condemn'd for felony but still so honest and to entirely beloved by King Harry the sixth after his decease that he appear'd to him on the top of the Gallows incourag'd him and so claâ—m'd the Rope that it did not strangle him lib. 4. 154. Afterwards we meet with Iohn Fuller Doctor of the Laws a better then he a Persecutor in Queen Maries dayes but a pitiful man as the Index telleth us Here we have Nicholas Fuller a Counsellor the best of the three decrying openly the Authority of the High Commission and thereby giving a legal advantage to Archbishop Bancroft by whom imprison'd and there dying but dying with the reputation of an honest man And then another Thomas Fuller a Minister the best of all the company and an honest man too so well deserving of the Church and all good Church-men both alive and dead by this notable History as not to doubt of the like favour at their hands should there be occasion as Thomas of Hammersmith receiv'd of King Harry the sixth Fol. 57. I am credibly informed from a good hand how in the days of King James a Scotch man and a prevalent Courtier had swallowed up the whole Bishoprick of Durhâ—m had not this Archbishop seasonably interposed his power with the King and dashed the design Credible though the information were yet it was not true there being no such prevalent Courtier not no such
Design 'T is 〈◊〉 the stomack of the Scots were sharp set still crying Give give but never satisfied King Iames as bounâ—â—ful and open handed towards them as they could desire But neitheâ— were they to impudent as to crave nor the King to impotent as to give a whole Bishopâ—ick 〈◊〉 onâ—e especially so rich a Bishoprick as this of Durham But the truth is that George Hume Earl of Dunbar Lord Treasurer of Scotland and highly favour'd by the King having procur'd a grant of all the batable grounds as they then called them upon the Borders of both Kingdoms began to cast his eye upon Norham-Castle and the Lands about it belonging to the See of Durham conceiving it a fit place to command the rest But being a well principled man and a great Minister of that Kings in restoring the Episcopal Government to the Church of Scotland he acquainted Bishop Bancroft with his desires who knowing what great use might be made of him for the good of this Church and being sure enough of the consent of Dr. Matthews then Bishop of Durham he thus ordered the business Whereas the Revenue of Norham-Castle and the lands adjoyning were valued at one hundred twenty pounds per annum in the Bishops Rental it was agreed that the Earl should procure of the King an abatement of sixscore pounds yearly out of the annual pension of a thousand pound which had been said upon that Bishoprick by Queen Elizabeth as before is said Secondly that he should obtain from the King for the said Dr. Matthews and his Successors a restitution of his House in the Strand called Durham-House with the Gardens Stables and Tenements thereto appertaining which had been alienated from that Bishoprick ever since the dissolving of it by King Edward the sixth Thirdly that in consideration hereof Bishop Matthews should make a grant of Norham-Castle and the Countrey adjoyning in Feefarm to the King by him immediately to be convey'd to the Earl of Dunbar And fourthly that his own 〈◊〉 being thus serv'd the said Earl should joyn with Bishop Bancroft and his friends for obtaining from the King an Act of Parliament whereby both he and his successors should be made uncapable of any the like Grants and Alienations for the time to come which as it was the 〈◊〉 Markeâ— that ever Toby Matthews was at so was it the best bargain which was ever driven for the Church of England so â—ar from swallowing up that Bishoprick that it was the only means to save that and preserve the rest And yet perhaps the credible information which our Author speaks of might not relate unto the Bisâ—oprick but the Deaâ—ry of Durham bestowed by that King being then not well studied in the Composition of the Church of England on Sir Adam Newton a Courtier prevalent enough as having been Tutor to Prince Henry the Kings eldest Son And possible it is that the Scots might have kept it in their hands from one generation to another if Dr. Hunt not otherwise to be remembred had not bought him out of it and put himself into the place Fol. 59. And as about this time some perchance overvaluâ—d the Geneva Notes out of that especial love they bare to the Authors and place whence it proceeded so on the other side some without cause did slight or rather without charity did slander the same â— I trow our Author will not take upon him to condemn all those who approve not of the Genevian Notes upon the Bible or to appear an Advocate for them though he tells us not many lines before that they were printed thirty times over with the general liking of the people I hope he will not do the first for King Iames his sake who in the Conference at Hampton-Court did first declare that of all the Translations of the Bible into the English Tongue that of Geneva was the worst and secondly that the Notes upon it were partial untrue seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits For pâ—oof whereof his Majesty instanced in two places the one on Exod. 1. vers 19. where disobedience to Kings is allowed of the other in â— Chron. 8. 15 16. where Asa is taxed for deposing his Mothâ—r only and not killing her A Note wheâ—eof the Scottish Presbyterians made special use not only deposing Mary their lawful Queen from the Regal Thâ—one but prosecuting â—er openly and under hand till they had took away her life These instances our Author in his Summary of that Conference hath passed over in silence as loath to have such blemishes appear in the Genevians or their Annotations And I hope also that he will not advocate for the rest For let him tell me what he thinks of that on the second of St. Matthews Gospel v. 12. viz Promise ought not to be kept where Gods honour and preaching of his truth is hindered or else it ought not to be broken What a wide gap think we doth this open to the breach of all Promises Oaths Covenants Contracts and Agreements not only betwixt man and man but between Kings and their Subjects Whâ—t Rebel ever took up Arms without some pretences of that nature What Tumults and Rebellions have been rais'd in all parts of Christendom in England Scotland Ireland France the Netherlands Germany and indeed where not under colour that Gods honour and the preaching of the truth is hindered If this once pass for good sound Doctrine neither the King nor any of his good Subjects in what Realm â—oever can live in safety Gods Honour and the preaching 〈◊〉 his Truth are two such pretences as will make void all Laws elude all Oathes and thrust our all Covenants and Agreements be they what they will Neâ—â— I would have our Author tell me what he thinks of this Note on the ninth of the Revelation ver 3. where the 〈◊〉 which came out of the smoak are said to be 〈◊〉 teachers Hereticks and worldly subtil â—relates with 〈◊〉 Fâ—iers Cardinals Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops 〈◊〉 Batchelors and Masters Does not this note 〈◊〉 fasten the name of Locusts on all the Cleâ—â—y of 〈◊〉 Realm that is to say Archbishops Bishops and all 〈◊〉 as are graduated in the University by the name of Doctors Batchelors and Masters And doth it not as plainly yoak them with Fâ—iers Monkâ— and Cardinals pâ—incipal instruments in all times to advance the Popecom I know the words which follow after are alleadged by some to take off the envy of this Note viz. who forsake Christ to maintain false doctrines But the enumeration of so many particulars makes not the Note the lets invidious the said explication notwithstanding because the Note had been as perfect and significant had it gone thus in generals only that is to say by Locusts here are meant false Teachers Hereticks and other worldly subtil men that seduced the people perswading them to foâ—sake Christ to maintain false Doctrine But the Genevians who account Archbishops and Bishops to be limbs of the Pope
resolved to joyn them with the rest of his members Fryers Monks and Cardinals and our Author being a great favourer of the Presbyterians must not take notice of this scandal especially considering that Papacy and Praelacy are joyn'd together in the language of the present times and therefore fit to go together in this Annotation Fol. 68. In this Parliament Dr. Harsnet Bishop of Chichester gave offence in a Sermon preached at Court pressing the word Reddite Caesari quae sunt Caesaris as if all that was levied by Subsidies or paid by Custom to the Crown was but a redditum of what was the Kings before This Parâ—â—ament is placâ—â— by our Author in the year 1613. but 〈◊〉 Parliament in the sitting whereof Bishop Haâ—â—â—et 〈◊〉 the Sermon above mentioned was held by Proâ—ogation in the year 1609. and afterwards dissolved by Proclâ—mation in December of the year next following Concerning which Sermon King Iames gives this account to the Lords and Commons assembled before him at White-hall March 23. and therefore sâ—ith he That Reverend Bâ—shop here amongst you though I hear by divers he was miâ—â—aken or not well understood yet did he preach both learnedly and 〈◊〉 ancient this point concerning the power oâ— a King for what he spake of a Kings power in abstracto is most true in Divinity for to Emperors or Kings that are Monarchs their Subjects bodies and goods are due for their defence and maintenance But if I had been in his place I would only have added two words which would have cleared all for after I had told as a Divine what was due by the Subjects to their Kings in general I would then have concluded as an English man shewing this people that as in general all subâ—ects were bound to relieve their King so to exhort them that as we lived in a setled state of a Kingdom that was governed by his own fundamental Laws and Orders that according thereunto they were now being assembled for this purpose in Parliament to consider how to help such a King as now they had and that according to the antient form and order established in this Kingdom putting so a difference between the general power of a King in Divinity and the setled and established state of this Crown and Kingdom and I am sure that the Bishop meant to have have done the same if he had not been straiâ—ned by time which in respect of the greatness of the present Preaching befoâ—e us and such an Auditory he durst not presume upon 〈◊〉 that the doctrine of the Bishop being thus justified and explained by King Iames and the Parliament continuing undissolved till December following we have no reason to believe that the Parliament was dissolved upon this occasion and much less on the occasion of some words spoken in that Parliament by Bishop 〈◊〉 of which thus our Author Ibid. Likewise Dr. Neile Bishop of Rochester uttered words in the House of Lords interpreted to the disparagement of some reputed zealous Patriot in the House of Commons â— In this passage I have many things to excepâ— against As 1. That this Patriot is not nam'd to whoâ—e disparagement the words are pretended to be uttered And 2. that the words themselves are not here laid down and yet are made to be so hainously taken that to sâ—ve the Bishop from the storm which was coming â—owards him the King should principally be occasion'd to â—â—ssolve that Parliament 3. That Dr. Neile is here call'd Bishop of Rochester whom twice before viz. sel. 64. 67. he makes to be Bishop of Coventry and Leiâ—hfield And 4. That the words here intimated should be spoken in Parliament Anno 1613. whereas by giving Dr. Neile the Title of Rochester it should rather be referred to the Parliament holden by prorogation till the last of December Anno 1610. when it was dissolved and then dissolved as appears by the Kings Proclamation for not supplying his necessities and other reasons there expressed whereof this was none Fol. 70. Some conceive that in revengâ— Mr. John Selden soon after set forth his Book of Tithes wherein he Historically proveth that they were payable jure humano and not â—therwise Whether the acting of the Comedy called Ignoramus might move Mr. Selden at the first to take this revenge I enquire not here though it be probable it might that Comedy being acted before King Iames Anno 1614. and this Book coming out about two years after Anno 1616. But here I shall observe in the first place our Authors partiality in telling us that Mr. Selden in that book hath proved Historically that Tithes are payable 〈◊〉 humano and not otherwise whereas indeed he undertook to prove that point but proved it not as will â—ppear to any which have read the Answers set out against him I observe secondly our Authors ignorance in the Book it self telling us within few lines after that the first part of it is a meer Iew of the practice of Tithing amongst the Hebrews the second a Christian and chiefly an English man whereas indeed that part thereof which precedes the manner of Tithing amongst Christians hath as much of the Gentil as of the Iew as much time spent upon examining of the Tithes paid by the Greeks and Romans as was in that amongst the Hebrews Thirdly I must observe the prejudice which he hath put upon the Cause by telling us in the next place that though many Divines undertook the Answer of that Book yet sure it is that never a fiercer storm fell on all Parsonage Barn since the Reformation then what this Treatise raised up And so our Author leaves this matter without more ado telling us of the Churches danger but not acquainting us at all with her deliverance from the present storm neither so violent not so great nor of such continuance as to blow off any one Tile or to blow aside so much as one Load of Corn from any Parsonage barn in England For though this History gave some Countrey Gentlemen occasion and matter of discourse against paying Tithes yet it gave none of them the audaciousness to deny the payment So safe and speedy a course was took to prevent the mischief which since our Author hath not told us as had he plaid the part of a good Historian he was bound to do I will do it for him No sooner was the Churches Patrimony thus called in question but it pleased God to stir up some industrious and learned men to undertake the answering of that History which at the first made so much noise amongst the people Dr. Tillesly Archdeacon of Rochester first appeared in the Lists managing that part of the Controversie which our Author cals a Christian and an English-man relating to old Chartularies and Infeodations The three first Chapters which Dr. Tillesly had omitted concerning the payment of Tithes by the Iews and Gentiles were solidly but very smartly examined and confuted by Mr. Mâ—ntague at that time Fellow of Eaton Colledge and afterwards Lord
Author speaks of but some years before They were now come unto their height and had divided the whole body of the united Belgick Provinces into two great Factions that of the Remonstrants whom in reproach they call their Minions being headed by Iohn Olden Barnevelt a principal Counseller of State and of great Authority in his Countrey the other of the Calvinists or Contra-Remonstrants being managed by Maurice Prince of Orange the chief Commander of the Forces of the States united both by Sea and Land But the troubles and divisions were now come to their full growth they began many years before occasioned by a Remonstrance exhibited to the States of Holland by the followers of Dr. Iames Harmin who liked better the Melanchthonian way then that of Calvin Anno 1610. and that Remonstrance counterballanced by a Contra-Remonstranâ—â— made by â—uch Divines who were better pleased with Calvins Doctrine in the deep Speculations of Predestination Grace Freewil c. then with that of Melanchthon Hence grew the names of Remonstrants and Contra-Remonstrants occurring frequently in the Writings on both sides till the Remonstrants were condemned in the Synod of Dort and either forced to yield the Cause or quit their Countrey Each party in the mean time had the opportunity to disperse their Doctrines in which the Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adversaries especially after they had been admitted to a publick Confeâ—ence at the Hague Anno 1611. in which they were conceived to have had much the better of the day and so continued in encrease of their power and credit till the Quarrels and Animosities between the Prince and Barnevelt put a full period to the businesse by the death of the one and the Authority of the other Fol. 82. Hereby the equal Reader may judge how candidly Mr. Montague in his Appeal dealeth with our Divines charging them that the Discipline of the Church of England is in this Synod held unlawfull And again the Synod of Dort in some points condemneth upon the by even the Discipline of the Church of England Assâ—redly Mr. Montague deals very candidly with our Divines professing that he doth reverence them for their places worth and learning though not obliged as he conceived to all or any of the Conclusions of the Synod at Dort And he might very well declare as indeed he doth that the Discipline of the Church of England in that and other Dutch Synods was held unlawfull and by them condemned upon the by For whereas in the Confession of the Belgick Churches ratified and confirmed in the Synod of Dort it is declared and maintained that all Ministers are by the word of God of equall power it must needs follow thereupon that the Superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is against Gods word Quantum verò attinet Divini verbi Ministros ubicunque locorum sint eandem illi Potestatem Authoritatem habent ut qui omnes sint Christi unici illius Episcopi universalis unicique Capitis Ecclesiae Ministri These are the words of that Confewon as it stands ratified and recorded in the Acts of the Synod of Dort as before was said In which and by which if the Discipline of the Church of England be not made unlawful in terminis terminantibus as they use to say I am sure it is condemned upon the by which is as much as Mr. Montague had affirmed of it And howsoever Dr. Charleton then Bishop of Landaffe as well to vindicate his own dignity as the honour of the Church of England tendred his Protestation of that Synod in behalf of Episcopacy yet was it made to signifie nothing nor so much as honored with an Answer our Author noting at the end of this protestation Britannorum interpellationi responsum ne gru qâ—â—dem viz. to this interpellation of the British Divines nothing at all was answered There might be some wrong done to our Divines by the rest of that Synod but no wrong done by Mr. Montague neither to our Divines nor unto that Synod Fol. 89. Now whilest in common discourse some made this Iudge others that Sergeant Lord Chancellor King James made Dr. Williams lately and still Dean of Westminstet and soon after Bishop of Lincoln In this and the rest which followes touching the advancement of Dr. Williams to the place and dignity of Lord Keeper there are three things to be observed And first it is to be observed that though he was then Dean of Westminster when the custody of the Great Seal was committed to him yet was he not then and still Dean of that Church that is to say not Dean thereof at such time as our Author writ this part of the History For fol. 80. speaking of Dr. Hals return from the Synod of Dort Anno 1618. he addes that he continued in health till this day thirty three years after which fals into the year 1651. And certainly at that time Dr. Williams then Archbishop of York was not Dean of Westminster that place having been bestowed by his Majesty upon Dr. Steward Clerk of the Closet An. 1645. being full six years before the time which our Author speaks of Secondly whereas our Author tells us that the place was proper not for the plain but guarded Gown I would â—ain know how it should be more proper for the guarded Gown then it was for the plain There was a time when the Chancellors as our Author telleth us elsewhere were always Bishops and from that time till the fall of Cardinal Wolsey that Office continued for the most part in the hands of the Prelates at what time that great Office was discharged with such a general contentment that people found more expedition in their Suits and more ease to their Purses then of later times By which it seems that men who are never bred to know the true grounds and reasons of the Common Law might and could mitigate the Rigour of it in such difficult cases as were brought before them the Chancery not having in those days such a mixture of Law as now it hath not being so tyed up to such intricate Rules as now it is But thirdly whereas our Author in advocating for the Common Lawyers prescribeth for them a Succession of six Descentâ—s he hath therein confuâ—ed himself and â—aved me the trouble of an Animadveâ—sion by ◠〈◊〉 Note in which netelleâ—â— us that Sir Ch. Hatton was not bred a Lawyer If so then neither was the Title 〈◊〉 strong nor the Pâ—oscriptions so well grounded as ouâ— Author makes iâ— the intâ—â—position of Sir Christopher Hatton between Sir Tho. Bromley and Sir Iohn Puckering 〈◊〉 it to three descents and but thirty years which is too short a time 〈◊〉 a Prescription to be built upon Fol. 93. He had 14 years been Archbishop of Spalato c. Conscience in shew and covetousness indeed caused his coming hither â— This is a very hard sâ—ying a censure which enâ—â—enches too much upon the Pâ—iviledges of Almighty God who alone knows the
tels us secondly of Archbishop Abbot in particular That his extraordinary remiâ—ness in not exacting a strict conâ—oâ—mity to the prescâ—â—bed Orders of the Church in point of Ceremony seemed to dissolve those legall ceâ—erminations to their firsâ— principle of indifferency â—nd led in such an habit of inconformity as the future edâ—cation of those tender conâ—cienced men too long discontinued obedience was interpreted an innovation And finally he tels of Archbishop Laud who succeeded Aâ—bâ—t in that See that being of another minde anâ— mettle he did not like that the externall worship of God should follow the fashion of every private fancy and what he did not like in that subject as he was in State so he thought it was his duty to reform To which enâ— in his Metropolitical visitation he cals upon all both Clergy and Laity to observe the Rules of the Church And this is that which our Author calâ— the enjoyning his private practices private perhaps iâ— the private opinion of some men who had declared themselves to be professed enemies to all publicâ— Order Fol. 127. A Commission was granted unto five Bishopâ— Whereof Bishop Laâ—d of the Qâ—orum to suspend Archbishop Abbot from exercising his Authority any longer because uncanonical for casual Homicide Had our Author said that Bishop Laud had been one of the number he had hit it right the Commission being granted to five Bishops viz. Dr. Montain Bishop of London Dr. Neil Bishop of Durham Dr. Buckeridge Bishop oâ— Rochester Dr. Howson Bishop of Oxford and Dr. Lauâ— Bishop of Bathe and Wels or to any four three 〈◊〉 two of them and no more then so Had Bishop Laud been of the Quorum his presence and consent had been so necessary to all their Consultations Conclusions and dispatch of Businesses that nothing could be done without him whereas by the words of the Commission any two of them were impowered and consequently all of them must be of the Quorum as well as he which every Iustices Clerk cannot chuse but laugâ—â— at Nor is there any such thing as a Casual Homicidâ— mentioned or so much as glanced at in that Commiâ—sion the Commission only saying That the saiâ— Archbishop could not at that pâ—esent in his own person attend those services which were otherwiâ—e proper for his 〈◊〉 and Jurisdiction and which as Archbishop of Canterbury he might and ought in his own person to have performed and executed I am loth to rub longer on this sore the point having been so vext already betwixt the Historian and the Observator that I shall not trouble it any further Only I must crave leave to rectifie our Author in another passage relating to that sad Accident for which saith he Ibid. It would be of dangerous consequence to condemn him by the Canons of forain Councels which were never allowed any Legislative power in this Land Which words are very ignorantly spoken or else very improperly For if by Legislative power he means a Power of making Laws as the word doth intimate then it is true That the Canons of forain Councels had never any such power within this Land But if by Legislative power he means a Power or Capability of passing for Laws within this Kingdom then though he use the word improperly it is very false that no such Canons were in force in the Realm of England The Canons of many forain Councels General National and Provincial had been received in this Church and incorporated into the body of the Canon-Law by which the Church proceeded in the exercise of her juriâ—diction till the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eighth And in the Act confirmative of that Submission it is said expâ—esly That all Canons Conâ—titutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial as were made befoâ—e the said Submission which be not contrary or repugnant to the Laws Sâ—â—tutes and Cusâ—oms of this Realm nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings pâ—erogative Royal weâ—e to be used and executed as in â—ormer times 25 H. 8. c. 19. So that unlesse it can be proved that the proceedings in this case by the Canons of forain 〈◊〉 was either contrary or repuâ—â—ant to the Lawes and 〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉 or to the dammage of the Kings prerogative Royal there is no dangerous consequence at all to be â—ound therein But whereas our Author addes in some following words that ever since he means ever since that unhappy accident he had executed his jurisdiction without any interruption I must needs add that he is very much mistaken in this partilar Dr. Williams Lord elect of Lincoln Dr. Carew Lord elect of Exceter and Dr. Laud Lord elect of St. Davids and I think some others refusing to receive â—piscopal Consecration from him upon that accompt Far more mistaken in the next in which he telleth us that Fol. 128. Though this Archbishop survived some years after yet henceforward he was buried to the world No such matter neither For though for a while he stood confined to his house at Ford yet neither this confinement nor that Commission were of long continuance For about Christmas in the year 1628 he was restored both to his liberty and jurisdiction sent for to come unto the Court â—eceiv'd as he came out of his Barge by the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Dorset and by them conducted to the King who giving him his hand to kisse enâ—oyned him not to fail the Councel Table twice a week After which time we finde him sitting as Archbishop in the following Parliament and in the full exercise of his Jurisdiction till the day of his death which hapned upon Sunday August 4. 1633. And so much for him Fol. 137. My pen passing by them at present may safely salute them with a God speed as neither seeing nor suspecting any danger in the design Our Author speaks this of the Feoffees appointed by themselves for buying in such Impropriations as were then in the hands of Lay-persons I say appointed by themselves because not otherwise authorized either by Charter from the King Decree in Chanâ—â—ery or by Act of Parliament but only by a secrâ—t combination of the Brothâ—rhood to advance their projects For though our 〈…〉 us fol. 136. that they were legally setled in trust to make such Purchaces yet there is more required to a legal settlement then the consent of some few persons â—mongst themselves for want whereof this combinâ—tion wâ—s dissolved the Feoffees in some danger of sentence and the impropriations by them purchased adjudged to the King on a full hearing of the cause in the Couâ—t of Exchequer Anno 1632. Howsoever our Author 〈◊〉 them good speed as neither seeing nor suspecting any danger in their design but other men as wiâ—e as he did not only suspect but see the danger And this our Author might see also if zeal to the good cause had not darkened the eyes of his understanding For first the Parties tâ—usted in the managing of this Design were of such affections
Chappel of King Henry the seventh Had it not been for these and some other passages of this nature our Author might have lost the honoâ— of being took notice of for one of the Clerks of the Convocation and one not of the lowest fourm but passing for some of those wise men who began to be fearful of themselves and to be jealous of that power by which they were enabled to make new Canons How so Because it was feared by the judicious himself still for one lâ—st the Convocation whose power of medling with Church matters had been bridled up for many years before shâ—uld now enabled with such power over-act their parts especially in such dangerous and discontented times as it after followeth Whâ—ly fore-seen But then why did not WE that is to say our Author and the rest of those wise and judicious Persons fore-warn their weak and unadvised Brethren of the present danger or rather why did they go along with the rest for company and follow those who had before out-run the Canons by their additional Conformity How wise the rest were I am not able to say But certainly our Author shew'd himself no wiser then Walthams Calf who ran nine mile to suck a Bull and came home a thirst as the Proverb saith His running unto Oxford which cost him as much in seventeen weeks as he had spent in Cambridge in seventeen years was but a second Sally to the first Knight-Errantry Fol. 168. Next day the Convocation came together c. when contrary to general expectation it was motioned to improve the present opportunity in perfecting the new Canons which they had begun I have not heard of any such motion as our Author speaks of from any who were present at that time though I have diligently labour'd to inform my self in it Not is it probable that any such motion should be made as the case then stood The Parliament had been diâ—â—olv'd on Tuesday the 5 oâ— May. The Clergy met in Convocation on the morrow after expecting then to be dissolved and licenced to go home again But contrary to that general expectation in stead of hearing some news of his Majesties Writ for their dissolution there came an Order from the Archbishop to the Prolocutor to adjourn till Saturday And this was all the business which was done that day the Clergy generally being in no small amazement when they were required not to dissolve till further Ordeâ— Saturday being come what then A new Commission saith he was brought from his Majesty by vertue whereof WE were warranted still to sit not in the capacity of a Convocation but of a Synod I had thought our Author with his wise and judicious Friends had better hearkened to the â—enor of that Commission then to come out with such a gross and wilde absurdity as this is so fit for none as Sir Edward Deering â—nd for him only to make sport within the House of Commons At the beginning of the Convocation when the Prolocutor wâ—s admitted the Archbishop produc'd his Maâ—esâ—ies Commission under the Great Seal whereby the Clergy was enabled to consult treat of conclude such Canons as they conceiv'd most expedient to the peâ—ce of the Church and his 〈◊〉 service But this Commission being to expire with the end of the Parliament it became void of no effect assoon as the Parliament was dissolved Which being made known unto the King who was resolv'd the Convocation should continue and that the Clergy should go on in compleating those Canons which they had so happily began he caus'd a new Commission to be sent unto them in the same words and to the very same effect as the other was but that it was to continue durante beneplacito only as the other was not It follows next that Ibid. Dr. Brownrig Dr. Hacket Dr. Holdsworth c. with others to the number of thirty six earnestly protested against the continuance of the Convocation It 's possible enough that Dr. Brownrig now Lord Bishop of Excester Dr. Hacket and the rest of the thirty six our Author being of the Quorum in his own understanding of the word might be unsatisfied in the continuance of the Convocation because of some offence which as they conceiv'd would be taken at it But if they had protested and protested earnestly as our Author tells us the noise of so many Voâ—es concurring must needs be heard by all the rest which were then assembled from none of which I can leaâ—n any thing of this Protestation Or if they did protestâ—o â—o earnestly as he sayes they did why was not the Protestation reduced into writing subscâ—ibed wiâ—h their hands in due form of Law and so delivered to the Register to remain upon Record amongâ— the other Acts of that House for their indemnity Which not being done rendreth this Protest of theirs if any such Protest there were to signifie nothing but their dislike of the continuance But whereas our Author tells us that the whole â—ouse consisted but of six score persons it may be thought that he diminisheth the number of 〈◊〉 purpose to make his own party seem the greater For in the lower â—ouse of Convocation for the Province of Canterbury iâ— all paâ—ties summon'd do appear there are no fewer then two and twenty Deans four and twenty Prebendaries fifty four Archdeacons and forty four Cleâ—ks representing the Diocesan Clergy amounting in the total to an hundred foâ—ty four persons whereof the thirty six Protestors if so many they were make the fourth part only Howsoever all parties being not well satisfied with the lawfulness of their continuance his Majesty was advertis'd of it who upon conference with his Judâ—es and Councel learned in the Laws caus'd a short Writing to be dâ—wn and subscribed by their several hands in these following words viz. at White-hall May the 10. 1640. the Convocation being called by the Kings Writ is to continue till it be dissolved by the Kings Writ notwithstanding the dissolving of the Parliament Subscribed by Finch Lord Keeper Manchester Lord Privy Seal Littleton chief Justice of the Common Pleas Banks Attourney General Whitfield and Heath his Majeâ—â—iâ—s Serjeants Which writing an Instrument our Author calls it being communicated to the Clergy by the Lord Archbishop on the morrow after did so compose the mindes of all men that they went forwâ—â—ds very cheerfully with the work in hand the principal of those whom oâ—r Author calls Dissenters bringing in the Canon oâ— preaching for conformity being the eighth Canon in the Book as now they are plac'd which was received and allowed of as it came from his hand without alteration Howsoever our Author keeps himself to his former folly shutting up his extravagancie with this conclusion Fol 169. Thus was an old Convocation converted into a new Synod An expression borrowed from the speech of a witty Gentleman as he is called by the Author of the History of the Reign of King Charles and since by him declar'd to be the Lord George
with a windy c. a cheveral word which might be stretched as men would measure it Of this c. which has made so much noise in the world I shall now say nothing Somewhat is here subjoyn'd by our Author in 〈◊〉 thereof the rest made up by the Observator Only I shall make bold to ask him why he observ'd not this c. when the Oath was first under consideration or why he signified not his dissent when it came to the vote and shewed some reasons which might move him to object against it It had been fitter for a wise and judicious man to signifie his dislike of any thing when it might be mended then to joyn with others in condemning it when it was past remedy But Mala mâ—ns malus animus as the saying is The Convocation had no ill intent in it when they passed it so though some few out of their perverseness and corrupt affections were willing to put their own sense on it and spoil an honest-meaning Text with a factious Gloss. But let us follow our Author as he leads the way and we shall finde that Ibid. Some Bishops were very forward in pressing this Oath even before the time thereof For whereas a liberty was allowed to all to deliberate thereon until the Feast of Michael the Arch-angel some presently pressed the Ministers of their Diocesses for the taking thereof It seems by this that our Author was so far from taking notice of any thing done in the Convocation when the Canon for the Oath was framed that he never so much as looked into the Canon it self since the Book came out He had not else dâ—eamt of a liberty of Deliberation till the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel which I am sure the Canon gives not The Synod did indeed decree that all Archbishop and Bishops and all other Priests and Deacons in places exempt or not exempt should before the second day of November next ensuing take the following Oath against all innovation of Doctrine or Discipline By which we see that the Oath was to be given and taken before the second of November but no such thing as Liberty of Deliberation till the Feast of St. Michael And therefore if some Bishops did press the Clergy of their several and respective Diocesses assoon as they returned home from the Convocation they might well doe it by the Canon without making any such Essay of their Activity if providence as our Author most wisely words it had not prevented them If any of the Bishops did require their Clergy to take the Oath upon their knees as he says they did though it be more then was directed by the Canon yet I conceive that no wise man would scruple at it considering the gravity and greatness of the business which he was about But then Ibid. The Exception of Exceptions was because they were generally condemned as illegally passed to the prejudice of the fundamental Liberty of the Subject whereof we shall hear enough in the next Parliament Not generally condemned either as illegally passed or as tending to prejudice of the Subjects Rights I am sure of that Scarse so much as condemned by any for those respects but by such whom it concern'd for carrying on of their Designs to weaken the Authority of the Church and advance their own But because our Author tells us that we shall finde enough of this in the following Parliament we are to follow him to that Parliament for our satisfaction And there we finde that Mr. Maynard made a Speech in the Committee of Lords against the Canons made by the Bishops in the last Convocation in which he endeavoured to prove that the Clergy had no power to make Canons without common consent in Parliament because in the Saxon times Laws and Constitutions Ecclesiastical had the confirmation of Peers and sometimes of the People to which great Councels our Parliaments do succeed Which Argument if it be of force to prove That the Clergy can make no Canons without consent of the Peers and people in Parliament it must prove also that the Peers and People can make no Statutes without consent of the Clergy in their Convocation My reason is because such Councels in the times of the Saxons were mixt Assemblies consisting as well of Laicks as of Ecclesâ—asticks and the matters there concluded on of a mixt nature also Laws being passed as commonly in them in order to the good governance of the Common-wealth as Canons for the Regulating such things as concern'd Religion But these great Councels of the Saxons being divided into two parts in the times ensuing the Clergy did their work by themselves without any confirmation from the King or Parliament till the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eighth And if the Parliaments did succeed in the place of those great Councels as he sayes they did it was because that antiently the Procurators of the Clergy not the Bishops only had their place in Parliament though neither Peers nor People voted in the Convocations Which being so it is not much to be admired that there was some checking as is said in the second Argument about the disuse of the general making of such Church Laws But checking or repining at the proceeding of any superior Court makes not the Acts thereof illegal For if it did the Acts of Parliaments themselves would be reputed of no force or illegally made because the Clergy for a long time have checkt and think they have good cause to check for theiâ— being excluded Which checking of the Commons apâ—ears not only in thosâ— antiâ—nt Authors which the Gentleman cited but in the Remonstrance tendred by them to King Henry the Eighth exemplified at large in these Animadversions lib. 3. n. 61. But because this being a Record of the Convocation may not come within the walk of a common Lawyer I shall put him in minde of that memorable passage in the Parliament 51. Edw. 3. which in brief was this The Commons fâ—nding themselves aggrieved as well with certain Constitutions made by the Clergy in their Synods as with some Laws or Ordinances which were lately passed more to the advantage of the Clergy then the common people put in a Bill to this effect viz. That no Act nor Ordinâ—nce should from thenceforth be made or granted on the Petition of the said Clergy without the consent of the Commons and that the said Commons should not be bound in times to come by any Constitutions made by the Clergy of this Realm for their own advantage to which the Commons of this Realm had not given consent The reason of which is this and 't is worth the marking Car eux ne veulent estre obligez a nul de vos Estatuz ne Ordinances faitz sanz leur Assent because the said Clergy did not think themselves bound as indeed they were not in those times by any Statute Act or Ordinance made without their Assent in the Court of Parliament
But that which could not be obtain'd by this checking of the Commons in the declining and last times of King Edw. 3. was in some part effected by the more vigorous prosecution of King Hen. 8. who to satisfie the desires of the Commons in this particular and repress their checkings obtained from the Clergy that they should neither make nor execute any Canons without his consent as before is said so that the Kings power of confirming Canons was grounded on the free and voluntary submission of the Clergy and was not built as the third Argument obâ—ecteth on to weak a foundation as the Popes making Canons by his sole power the Pope not making Canons here nor putting his Rescripts and Letters decretory in the place of Canons but only as a remedy for some present exigency So that the Kings power in this particular not being built upon the Popes as he said it was it may well stand That Kings may make Canons without consent of Parliament though he saith they cannot But whereas it is argued in the fourth place that the clause in the Statute of Submission in which it is said that the Clergy shall not make Canons without the Kings leave doth not imply that by his leave alone they may make them I cannot think that he delivered this for Law and much less for Logick For had this been looked on formerly as a piece of Law the Parliaments would have check'd at it at some time or other and been as sensible of the Kings encroachments in executing this power without them as antiently some of them had been about the disuse of the like general consent in the making of them Fol. 180. In the next place our Author tells us that Mr. Maynard endevoured also to prove that these Canons were against the Kings Prerogative the Rights Liberties and Properties of the Subject And he saith well thâ—t it was endevoured to be proved and endeavoured only nothing amounting to a proof being to be found in that which follows It had before been voted by the House of Commons that the Commons are against fundamental Laws of this Realm against the Kings Prerogative propâ—â—â— of the Subject the Right of Parliament and do tend to faction and sedition and it was fit that some endeavours should be used to make good the Vote But this being but a general charge requires a general answer only and it shall be this Before the Canons weâ—e subscribed they were imparted to the King by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the King communicated to the Lords of the Councel who calling to them the assistance of the Judges and some of the Kings Councel learned in the Laws of this Realm caus'd the said Canons to be read and considered of the King being then present By all which upon due and mature deliberation the Canons were approv'd and being so approv'd were sent back to the Clergy in the Convocation and by them subscribed And certainly it had been strange that they should pass the approbation of the Judges and learned Lawyers had they contained any thing against the fundamental Laws of the Land the property of the Subject and the Rights of Parliament or been approv'd of by the Lords of his Majesties Conncel had any thing been contained in them derogatory to the Kings Prerogative or tending to Faction and Sedition So that the foundation being ill laid the superstructures and objections which are built upon it may be easily shaken and thrown down To the first therefore it is answered that nothing hath been more ordinary in all former times then for the Canons of the Church to inflict penalties on such as shall disobey them exemplified in the late Canons of 603. many of which extend not only unto Excommunication but even to Degradation and Irregularity for which see Can. 38. 113. c. To the second That there is nothing in those Canons which determineth or limiteth the Kings Authority but much that makes for and defendeth the Right of the Subject for which the Convocation might rather have expected thanks then censure from ensuing Parliaments To the third That when the Canon did declare the Government of Kings to be founded on the Law of Nature it was not to condemn all other Governments as being unlawful but to commend that of Kings as being the best Nor can it Logically be infer'd that because the Kingly Government is not received in all places that therefore it ought not so to be or that the Goveâ—nment by this Canon should be the same in all places and in all alike because some Kings do and may lawfully pâ—t with many of 〈◊〉 Rights for the good of their Subjectâ— which others do 〈◊〉 may as lawfully retain unto themselves â—o the fourth That the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is 〈…〉 the words of St. Paul Rom. 〈…〉 condemn the Canon in that behalf 〈…〉 Word of God upon which it is 〈…〉 fifth and last That the Statute 〈…〉 that the dayes there mâ—ntion◠〈…〉 dayes and no other relâ—tes only to the 〈…〉 some other Festivals whiâ—h had been formerly 〈…〉 in the Realm of England and not to the 〈…〉 Church from ordâ—ining any other Holy 〈…〉 causes in the times to come Assuredly 〈…〉 Lawyer would have spoke more home 〈…〉 could the cause have born it Floquentâ—m 〈…〉 in the Oraâ—oâ—s language And therefore 〈…〉 on the heads of the Arguments â—s our 〈…〉 them to us I must needs think that they were 〈◊〉 fitted to the sense of the House then they were 〈…〉 own What influence these arguments might have on the House of Peers when reported by the Bishop of 〈◊〉 I am not able to affirm But â—o far I 〈…〉 our Author that they lost neither 〈…〉 came from his moâ—th who as our Author sayes 〈◊〉 back friend to the Canons because made 〈…〉 and durance in the Tower A piece of 〈…〉 I did not look for The power of 〈…〉 thus shaken and endangered that of 〈…〉 and the Bishops Courts was not 〈…〉 one being taken away by Act of 〈…〉 other much weaâ—ened in the 〈…〉 a clause in that Act of which 〈…〉 Fol. 182. Mr. 〈…〉 should so supinely suffer themselves to be surprised in their power And well might Mr. Pim triumph as having gain'd the point he aim'd at in subverting the coercive power and consequently the whole exercise of Ecclesiastical Jâ—risdiction But he had no reason to impute it to the â—inger of God or to the carelesness of the Bishops in suffeâ—ing themselves to be so supinely surpris'd For first â—e Bishops saw too plainly that those general words by which they were disabled from inflicting any pain or penalty would be extended to Suspension Excommunication and other Ecclesiastical censures But secondly they saw withall that the stream was too strong for them to â—ive against most of the Lords being wrought on by the popular party in the House of Commons to pass the Bill Thirdly they were not without hope that when the Scots Aâ—my was disbanded
whom he thus upbraideth had been left by their Fatheâ—s From the first part of which calumny the Bishops freed themselves well enough as appears by our Author And from the second since they were too modest to speak in their own commendations our Author might have freed them with one of the old tales which are in his budget And the tale is of a Nobleman in King Harry the eighths time who told Mr. Pacâ— one of the Kings Secretaries in contempt of Learning that it was enough for Noblemens sons to winde their horn and carry their Hauk fair and to leave study and learning to the children of mean men to whom the aforesaid Mr. Pace replyed then you and other Noblemen must be content that your children may winde their horns and keep their Hauks while the children of mean men do mannage matters of Estate And certainly there can be no reason why men that have been verst in Books studied in Histories and thereby made acquainted with the chief occurrences of most States and Kingdomes should not be thought as fit to manage the affairs of State as those who spend their time in Hauking and Hunting if not upon some worse employments For that a Superinduction of holy Orders should prove a Supersedeas to all civil prudence is such a wilde extravagant fancy as no man of judgement can allow of Fol. 188. The next day the 12 Subscribers were voted to be committed to the Tower save that Bishop Morton of Durham and Hall of Norwich found some favour Our Author speaks this of those twelve Bishops who had subscrib'd a Protestation for preserving their Rights and Votes in the House of Peers during the time of their involuntary absence to which they were compelled by threats menaces and some open acts of violence committed on them But in the name of one of the Bishops who found the favour of not being sent unto the Tower he is much mistaken it not being Dr. Hall Bishop of Norwich but Dr. Wright Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield who found that favour at their hands The like Misnomer I finde after fol. 193. where he speaks of William Earl of Bath the Earl of Bath of whom he speaks being nam'd Henry and not William unless he chang'd his name when he succeeded in that Earldom as I think he did not I am sure our Author will not say he did As much he is mistaken also in point of time leaving the Bishops in prison for eighteen weeks whereas they were scarce detained there for half that time For being committed to the Tower in the end of December they were released by an Order of the House of Peers on the fifteenth of February being the next day after the Bill for taking away their Votes had passed in Parliament But then the Commons looking on them as devested of their Right of Peerage and consequently as they thought in the same rank with themselves return'd them to the Tower again and having kept them there some few weeks long enough to declare their power discharged them upon Bail and so sent them home Fol. 195. About this time the word Malignant was 〈◊〉 born as to common use in England and first as a nâ—te â—f disgrace on the Kings Party and because one had had as good be dumb as not speak with the volge possibly in that sense it may occur in our ensuing History Nothing more possible then that our Author should make use of any word of disgrace with which the Kings party was râ—proached And if he calls them formerly by the name of Royalists and High Royalists as he â—ometimes 〈◊〉 it was not because he thought them worthy of no woâ—â—e a Title but because the name of Malignant hâ—d not then been born He cannot chuse but know that the name of Round-head was born at the same time also and that it was as common in the Kings Party to call the Parliamentarians by the name of Round-heads as it was with those of the Parliament Party to call the Kings Adherents by the name of Malignants And yet I 〈◊〉 〈…〉 that the word Round-head as it was fixed as a 〈◊〉 of disgrace on the Parliament party doth not occur on any occasion whatsoever in our Authors History But kissing goes by favour as the saying is and therefore let him â—avour whom he pleases and kiss where he favouâ—eth Fol. 196. By this time ten of the eleven Bishops formerly 〈◊〉 their Protestation to the Parliament were after sâ—me moneths durance upon good Bail given released c. Of the releasing of these Bishops we have spoke already We aâ—e now only to observe such mistakes and errors as relate unto it And first they were not released at or about the time which our Author speaks of that is to say after sâ—ch time as the word plunder had begun to be us'd amongst us Plunder both name and thing was unknown in England till the beginning of the war and the war began not till September Anno 1642. which was some moneths after the releasing of the Bishops Secondly he telleth us that ten of the eleven which had subscribed were released whereas theâ—e were twelve which had subscrib'd as appears fol. 187. whereof ten were sent unto the Tower and the other two committed to the cusâ—ody of the Black-Rod fâ—l 188. And if ten only were releast the other two must be kept in custody for a longer time whereas we finde the Bishop of Norwich at home in his Diocess and the Bishop of Durham at liberty in London they being the two whom he makes so far favour'd by the Parliament as they sâ—apt the Tower Thirdly he telleth us that when all others were releast Bishop Wren 〈…〉 detain'd in the Tower which is nothing so That Bishop was releast upon bail when the other were return'd into his 〈◊〉 as the otheâ—s did and there continued for a time when on a sudden he was snatched 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 at 〈◊〉 in the Isle of Ely carryed 〈◊〉 the Tower and there imprisoned never being brought unto a hearing nor any cause shewn 〈◊〉 his imprisonment to this very day Fourthly Aâ—chbishop Williams after his restoring unto liberty went not into the Kings Quarters as our Authoâ— saith but unto one of his own houses in Yorkshire where he continued till the year 1643. and then came to Oxâ—â—rd not that he found the North too cold for him oâ— the 〈◊〉 but to solicit for renewing of his Câ—mmâ—ndam in the Deaâ—ry of Westminster the time for which he wâ—s to hold it drawing towards an end Fol. 196. Some of the aged Bishops had their tongues so used to the language of a third Estate that more then once they ran on that reputed Rock in their speâ—ches for which they were publickly sâ—enâ— and enjoyned an acknowledgement of their mistake By whom they were so publickly shent and who they were thâ—t so ingenrously acknowledged their mistake as my Author telleth us not so neither can I say whether it be 〈◊〉 or
of the Reformation here by law establisht But to say truth it is no wonder if he concur with otheâ—s in the condemnation of particular persons since he concurs with others in the condemnation of the Châ—rch it self For speaking of the separation made by Mr. Goodwin Mr. Nye c. fol. 209. he professeth that he rather doth believe that the sinful corruptions of the worship and government of this Church taking hold on their consciences and their inability to comport any longer therewith was rather the true cause of their deserting of their Countrey then that it was for Debt or Dangerâ— as Mr. Edwards in his Book of his had suggested of them What grounds Mr. Edwards had for his suggestion I enquire not now though coming from the Pâ—n of one who was no friend unto the Government and Liturgy of the Church of England it might have met with greater credit in our Author For if these men be not allowed for witnesses against one another the Church would be in worse condition then the antient Borderers Amongst whom though the teâ—â—imony of an English man against a Scot or of a Scot against the English in matters of spoil and depâ—edation could not finde admittance yet a Scots evidence against a Scot was beyond exception Lege inter Limitaneos cautum ut nullus nisi Anglus in Anglum nullus nisi Scotus in Scotum testis admittatur as we read in Camden We see by this as by other passages which way our Authors Bowl is biassed how constantly he declares himself in favour of those who have either separated from the Church or appear'd against it Rather then such good people shall be thought to forsake the Land for Debt or Danger the Church shall be accus'd for laying the heavy burthen of Conformity upon their Consciences which neither they nor their fore-fathers the old English Puritans were resolved to bear For what else were those sinful Corruptions of this Church in Government and Worship which laid hold of their Consciences as our Author words it but the Government of the Church by Bishops the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church here by law establisht which yet must be allowed of by our Author as the more true and real cause of their Separation then that which we finde in Mr. Edwards Nor can our Author save himself by his parenthesis in which he tells us that he uses their language only for using it without check or censure he makes it his own as well as theirs and â—ustifies them in the action which he should have condemn'd Fol. 214. Here Mr. Christopher Love gave great offence to the Royalists in his Sermon shewing the impossibility of an Agreement c. This happen'd at the Treaty at Vxbridge where he had thrust himself as the Commissioners affirm'd upon that attendance And for the words at which the offence was taken they were these viz. That the Kings Commissioners came with Hearts full of bloud and that there was as great distance between that Treaty and Peace as between Heaven and Hell For which though some condemn him for want of charity and others for want of discretion yet our Author seems more willing to have mens censures fall lightly on him because since he hath suffered and so saâ—â—fied here for his faults in this or any other kinde This Rule I both approve and am willing to practise and could wish our Author were so minded who will not let the Archbishop of Canterbury be at rest in his grave after all his sufferings notwithstanding the great difference between the persons and the impulsives to their deaths But Mr. Love was Mr. Love and Bishop Laud was but a Bishop to whom now we come Fol. 216. As appears by his own Diary which if evidence against him for his faults may be used as a witness of his good works The Diary which our Author speaks of was the Archbishops practical Commentary on those words of David viz. Teach me O Lord so to number my days that I may apply my heart unto wisdom No memorable passage hapned in the whole course of his life till the end of May 1633. when his Papers were seis'd on by Mr. Prin which he had not book'd in a Memorial by the way of a Diary or Journal Out of which though Mr. Prin excerpted nothing but that which he conceiv'd might tend most visibly to his disgrace and disadvantage and publish'd it to that end in pâ—int yet when it came to the perusal of equal and indifferent men it was so far from serving as an evidence of his faults as our Author words it that it shew'd him to be a Man of Exemplary Piety in himself unmov'd fidelity to his friend of most perfect loyalty to his Master and honest affections to the Publick He that shall look upon the list of the things projected to be done and in part done by him fol. 28 29. will finde that both his heart was set on and his hand engag'd in many excellent pieces of work tending to the great honour and benefit both of Church and State not incident to a man of such narrow comprehensions as some of his profest Enemies were pleas'd to make him Certain I am that as Mr. Prin lost his end so he could not get much thanks for that piece of service Fol. 217. He is generally charged with Popish inclinations and the story is commonly told and believ'd of a Lady c. Here is a charge of the Archbishops inclination unto Popery and the proof nothing but a tale and the tale of a Lady Quid vento Mulier Quid Muliere Nihil The substance of the tale is this that a certain Lady if any Lady may be certain who turning Papist was askt by the Archbishop the cause of her changing to which she answered that it was because she alwayes hated to go in a croud And being askt the meaning of that expression she replyed again that she perceiv'd his Lordship and many others making haste to Rome and therefore to prevent going in a press she had gone befoâ—e them Whether this tale be true or false though he doth not know yet he resolves to set it down and to set it down also with this Item that it was generally believ'd Be it so for once For not being able to disprove it I shall quit our Author with one story and satisfie the equal Reader with another First for my Author I have heaâ—d a tale of a Lady too to whose Table one Mr. Fuller was a welcome though a frequent guest and being asked once by her whether he would please to eat the wing of a Woodcâ—ck he would needs put her to the question how her Ladyship knew it was a Woodcock and not a Woodhen And this he pressed with such a troublesome impoâ—tunity that at last the Lady answered with some shew of displeasure that the woodcock was Fuller headed Fuller breasted Fuller thighed and in a word every way Fullâ—r Whether this tale
â—ther things that the French King should marry the Laâ—y Mary King Henries Sister But he deceasing within few â—onthes aftter on the first of Ianuary the widow Queen â—as married in May next following Anno 1515. to Charles â—andon Duke of Suffolk The next accord which seemes 〈◊〉 be hear ment by the Historian was made between the 〈◊〉 King Henry and King Francis the first Anno 1518. 〈◊〉 which the surrendry of Tourney was agreed uâ—on and a â—pitulation made for marrying the young Dolphin of â—rance with another Mary being the daughter and not the Sister of King Henry then beiâ—g about two years old which is the marriage here intended thoâ—gh misâ—ook in the party fol. 2. Iames the fift the 108. King of Scotland Which may come some what neer the truth allowing the succession of the Scottiâ—h Kings 39. in number from the first Fergus to the second But that succession being discarded by all knowing Antiquaries King Iames the fift must fall so much short of being the 108. King of the Scottish Nation Nor can it hold exactly true as unto that number if that succession were admitted King Iames the first Monarch of great Britain and the Grandchild of this Iames the fift pretending onely to an hundred six Predecessors in the throne of Scotland as appears by this inscription which he somewhere used viz. Nobis haec invicta tulerunt Centum Sex Proavi Ibid. To palliat such potency he procures an interview with him at Nice a Maritine Town in the Confines of Provence A worse mistake in place and persons then we had before For if the interview procured was between King Henry and the Pope as by the Grammar of the Text must be unstood then is the Author much mistaken in the place and Persons but if he mean it of an interview between K. Hâ—â—â—y and King Francis it is true enough as to the Persons but not to the place An interview there was between the two Kings at Ardâ—es in the Marches of Calice far enough from the conâ—â—nes of Provence and a like interview there was between King Francis and the Pope at Nice here mentioned for enough from the borders of King Henries Dominions at which he neither was present nor desired to be fol. 8. Prelate Bishops brought in by Palladius The Author speaks not this as his own opinion but as the opinâ—on of some of the Scoâ—s who ground themselves on the Aâ—thority of Bâ—chanan a fiery Presbyâ—erian and consequnâ—â—â— a profest enemy to Bishops and his words are these Nam ad id nsque temâ—us Ecclesiae aâ—squâ— Episcopis per Monachos regebâ—â—ur that is to say the Church unto that time was governed by Mâ—nks without Bishops But Buchanan perhaps might borrow this from 〈…〉 another Writer of that Nation and of greater Credit who tells us this per Sacerdotes 〈◊〉 hos sine Episcopis Scoti in â—ide erudiebantar The Scots he said were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Mâ—nks without Bishops But I trow teaching and governing are two sâ—veral Offices And though it may be true that some particâ—lar persons of the Scotish Nation might be instrusted in 〈◊〉 Gospel by Priests and Monks withour help of Biâ—hops as is said by Major yet doth it not follow thereupon that their Churches were governed in the same manner as is said by Buchannan And yet upon these faulty grounds it is infered by the 〈◊〉 with great joy and triumph that in some places of the world the government by Bishops was never received for many years together For say they we read that in antient times the Scots were instructed in the Christian faith by Priests and Monks and were without Bishops 290. years Instructed possibly at the first without Bishops by such Priâ—sts and Monks as came thither out of Ireland or the 〈◊〉 of Man or the more Southern parts of Bâ—itain but not so governed when they were increased multiplied into several Churches and Congregations And so it is affirmed by Arâ—h-Bishop Spotswood who tellâ—th uâ—â—ut of 〈…〉 that antiently the Priests of Scotland whom they then called 〈◊〉 were wont for their better government to elect some one of their number by Common suffrage to be chief and principal amongst them without whose knowledge and conâ—â—nt nothing was done in any matter of importance and that the Person so elected was called Scotorum Episcopus the Scots Bishop or a Bishop of Scotland By which it doth appear most plainly first that the Prelate Bishop was not first ordained here by 〈◊〉 as the Scotish say and secondly that that Church was not so long a time without Bishops if it were at all as the English Presbyterians would fain have it fol. 15. Iohn Calvin a Freâ—â—hman of Aquitain â— Not so but a Native of Noyoâ—â— City of Picardie far enough from Aquitain as is affirmed by all others which have written of him The like mistake to which we finde fol. 9â— where it is said that the Lords of Aâ—bygny take name frâ—m Aubygny â— village in Aquitain Whereas indeed the Castle and Signeury of Aubygny from whence the younger house of Lenâ—â— takes their denomination is not within the Province of Aquitam but the Country of Berry fol. 20 And therefore to strike in with his Son and 〈…〉 his Fathers obsequies with magnifiâ—ent Solemnâ—ly in Pauls Church This spoken of the Obsequies of King Henry the second of France performed by Queen 〈◊〉 with great Magnificence not so much on the particular ground which I finde here mentioned as to preserve her Reputation and the Reputation of this Church by such Rites and Ceremonies with all forrain princes To which end she did Solemnize the Obsequies of such Kings and Emperors as died during her Reign in as great pomp and splendor as she did this Kings for before this in very Princely manner were performed solemn Obsequies for 〈◊〉 the fift a riâ—h â—all of gold laying upon the Herse the Emperours Embassador being chief Mourner accompanied with many Princes and Peers of England And after this 〈◊〉 did the like for many others with no great difficulty to 〈◊〉 found in our commâ—n Chronicles By means whereof 〈◊〉 did not onely maintain her own Estimation but caused thâ— Church of England to be looked on with greater veneratioâ— and 〈…〉 popish Princes then it hath been since thâ—â— leaving off 〈◊〉 due observances fol. 27. And â—y coâ—pute of their own Loâ—ds of the Congâ—gation a hundred marks a year was then sufficient for a single Minister Understand not here an hundred marks sterling at the rate of 13. s. 4. d. to the Mark as the English count it amounting to 66 l. 13. s. 4. d. in the total 〈◊〉 but an hundred Marks Scâ—tish each Mark containing no more then thiâ—teen pence halfe penny of our English money which make but 5. l. 13. s. upon our accompt A sorry pittance in it self though thought enough by their good Masters for their pains in preaching Fol. 53. Three of our Kings
hundred thousand pound which the King desired to borrow of them upon good security so peny wise and so pound foolish was that stubborn City Fol. 107. Which we shall refer to the subsequent time and place fitting But of those in their due place hereafter Our Author had found fault with the Observator for saying that the King had not done well in excluding the Bishops from their Votes in Parliament and that there was some strange improvidence in his Message from York June 17. where he reckons himself as one of the three Estates a Member of the House of Peers But why he thus condemneth the Observator we must seek elsewhere which is a kinde of Hallifax Law to hang him first and afterwards to put him upon his Tryal Seek then we must and we have sought as he commandeth in subsequent time and place fitting in their due place hereafter as the phrase is varied But neither in the latter end of the year 1641. when the Bishops were deprived of their Votes in Parliament nor in all the time of the Kings being at York Anno 1642. can we finde one word which relates to either of those points In which our Author deals with the Observator as some great Criticks do with their Authors who when they fall on any hard place in Holy Scripture or any of the old Poets or Philosophers which they cannot master adjourn the explication of it to some other place where they shall have an opportunity to consider of both Texts together Not that they ever mean to touch upon it but in a hope that either the Reader will be so negligent as not to be mindeful of the promise or else so charitable as to think it rather a forgetfulness then an inability in the undertaker Fol. 115. To these he was questioned by a Committee and in reason â—ustly sentenced The party here spoken of is Doctor Manwaring then Vicar of the Parish of St. Giles in the Fields his Crime the preaching of two Sermons in which he had maintained that the King might impose Taxes and Subsidies on the Subject without consent in Parliament and that the people were bound to pay them under pain of Damnation his Sentence amongst other things that he should be Imprisoned during the pleasure of the Parliament pay a thousand pound Fine unto the King and be made uncapable of all Ecclesiastical Preferments for the time to come which heavy Sentence our Author thinks to have been very justly inflicted on him though the Doctor spake no more in the Pulpit then Serjeant 〈◊〉 in Queen Elizabeths time had spoke in Parliament By whom it was affirmed in the Parliament of the 43 of that Queen that He marvell'd the House stood either at the granting of a Subsidy or time of payment when all we have is her Majesties and she may lawfully at her pleasure take it from us and that she had as much right to all our Lands and Goods as to any Revenue of the Crown and that he had presidents to prove it For which see the Book called The Free-holders grand Inquest pag. 62. But some may better steal a Horse then others look on as the saying is the Serjeant being never questioned and the poor Doctor sentenced and justly as our Author makes it to an absolute ruine if the King had not been more merciful to him then the Commons were From Dr. Manwaring our Author proceeds to the Observator for saying that Doctrinal matters delivered in the Pulpit are more proper for the cognizance of the Convocation or the High Commission then the House of Commons which though it may consist most times of the wisest Men yet it consists not many times of the greatest Clerks For saith he Fol. 116. That the Preacher is Jure Divino not to be censured but by themselves smells of the Presbyter or Papist But Sir by your good leave neither the Presbyter nor the Papist stand accused by our Orthodox Writers for not submitting themselves their Doctrines and Opinions to the power of Parliaments who neither have nor can pretend to any Authority in those particulars That which they stand accused for is that they acknowledge not the King to be the supream Governor over all persons in all causes as well Ecclesiastical as Civil within his Dominions and consequently decline his Judgement as incompetent when they are called to answer unto any charge which is reducible to an Ecclesiastical or Spiritual nature How stiff the Papists are in this point is known well enough by their refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy And for the peremptoriness of the Presbyterians take this story with you One David Blake at a Sermon preached at St. Andrews in the time of King Iames had cast forth divers Speeches full of spight against the King the Queen the Lords of Councel and Session and among the rest had called the Queen of England an Atheist a Woman of no Religion For which being complained of by the English Ambassador he was cited to appear before the King and his Councel on the tenth of November Aâ—no 1596. Which being made known to the Commissioners of the last general Assembly it was concluded that if he should submit his Doctrine to the Tryal of the Councel the liberties of the Church and Spiritual Government of the House of God would be quite subverted and therefore that in any case a Declinator should be used and Protestation made against these Proceedings This though it was opposed by some moderate men yet it was carried by the rest who cryed out it was the cause of God to which they ought to stand at all hazards thereupon a Declinaâ—or was formed to this effect That howbeit the Conscience of his Innocency did uphold him sufficiently against the Calumnies of whomsoever and that he was ready to defend the Doctrine uttered by him whether in opening the Words or in Application yet seeing he was brought thither to be judged by his Majesty and Councel for his Doctrine and that his answering to the pretended Accusation might import a prejudice to the Liberties of the Church and be taken for an acknowledgement of his Majesties Iurisdiction in matters meerly Spiritual he was constrained in all humility to decline â—udicatory Which Declinator being subscrib'd by the Commissioners and delivered by Blake he referred himself to the Presbytery as his proper Iudges And being interrogated whether the King might not judge of Treason as well as the Church did in matters of Heresie iâ— said That speeches delivered 〈◊〉 Pulpiâ—s albert alledged to be 〈…〉 could not be judged by the King till the Church 〈…〉 therâ—of What became after of this 〈…〉 may â—inde it in Arch-Bishop Spotswoods History of the Church of Scotland Had Dr. Manwaring done thus and the Observator justified him in it they had both favored of the Presbyter or Papist there 's no question of it But being the Observator relates onely to the proceedings in Parliament and incroachments of the House of
and Wife to Roger Mortimer Earl of March from whom the House of York laid their claim to the Diadem But our Author is as good at the Pedigree of the House of the Beauforts as of that of Mortimer telling us That Cardinal Beaufort was not onely great Uncle to King Henry the sixth but Son to John of Gaunt and his Brother Cardinal of York The first two parts whereof are true but the last as false Cardinal Beaufort I am sure had no such Brother as our Author gives him for so he must be understood though the Grammar of the words will not bear so much sense namely a Cardinal of York unless it were King Henry the fourth whom Iohn of Gaunt had by Blanch of Lancaster his first Wife Iohn Earl of Somerset or Thomas Duke of Excester which two together with this Cardinal Beaufort he had by his last Wife Katherine Swinfort More Sons then these none of our Heralds or Historians give to Iohn of Gaunt and therefore no such Brother as a Cardinal of York to be found out any where for this Cardinal Beaufort except onely in our Authors Dreams Fol. 419. That in Anno 37. of Henry the eighth Letters Patents were granted to Lay-men to exercise all maner of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction as the Kings Officers not the Bishops These are the words of Mr. Thomas in his Invective against the Bishops before mentioned and these our Author swallows without chewing not searching whether Mr. Thomas had rightly given the sense of that Act of Parliament or not but telling his in his gloss upon it That no Reason or Iustice are to be deduc'd from that Kings Actions more like an Atheist then a Christian either Ecclesiastical or Temporal But by the leave of good Mr. Thomas there can be no such matter gathered from that Statute of King Henry the eighth viz. That Letters Patents were granted to Lay-men to exercise all maner of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction as the Kings Officers not the Bishops Before this time no man could be admitted to the Office of a Chancellor Vicar-General Commissary or Official in any Ecclesiastical Court or exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction except he were a single person and in Holy Orders To take away which curb and thereby to give the better incouragement to Students in the Civil Laws it was Enacted by this Statute that all such Ecclesiastical Officers whether made by the Kings Letters Patents as in the case of Sir Thomas Cromwel the Kings Vicar General or by any Arch-Bishop Bishop or Arch-Deacon within this Realm might from thencforth lawfully execute and exercise all maner of Iurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining or in any wise belonging unto the same albeit such person or persons be Lay married or unmarried so that they be Doctors of the Civil Law lawfully created and made in any Vniversity Out of which premises if Mr. Thomas can conclude that such Lay-men so quallified to exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction were the Kings Officers and not the Bishops he must have some new piece of Sandersons Logick which never was read in any of the Universities in which those lay persons did receive the Degree of Doctors Fol. 419. She was the right Heir apparent to her Brother and the onely right Issue to the Crown begotten no donbt in lawful Matrimony I dare not take upon me to dispute of Titles to the Crown but I dare take upon me to tell our Author that there was some doubt made by the most learned men of that time whether Queen Mary of whom he speaks were begotten and born in lawful Marriage All the Bishops in this Realm by a publick Writing under their Hands and Seals declared the Marriage of King Henry the eighth with Queen Maries Mother to be unlawful and so did the most eminent Divines in both the Universities as also in the Cathedrals Monasteries and other Conventual Bodies within this Realm The like declared also by several Universities in France and Italy under their publick Seals And so it was declared finally by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and the Commons assembled in â— full and free Parliament in which it was pronounced That the Marriage between the King and the Lady Katherine of Spain the Relict of his Brother was null and void to that it seems there was some doubting in this case though our Author makes no doubt of it at all Nor is it very certain neither that Queen Mary was the right Heir apparent to her Brother For if the Law of the Crown diffâ—r not from the Law of the Land in this particular which I leave unto our learned Lawyers she could not be the Heir to her Brother King Edward the sixth as being born of another Venter and consequently his Sister by the half blood onely Now as he makes no doubt of Queen Maries Title to the Crown so he makes the Title of Queen Elizabeth to be subject unto some dispute which all the Estates of the Realm convened in her first Parliament declared in the way of Recognition to be past disputing But I leave these inviduous Arguments and proceed to some other Fol. 429. Doctor Wren Bishop of Ely and Dean of the Kings Chappel had been accused of Misdemeanors in his Diocess amounting to Treason And being committed to the Tower there he hath lain ever since But fitst no misdemeanors how great soever can amount to a Treason nor ever was it so adjudged but onely in the Case of the Earl of Strafford Secondly There was no Evidence taken upon Oath to prove any of the misdemeanors which were charged upon him our Author confessing that after he had been Voted in the House of Commons unworthy and unfit to hold and exercise any Office or Dignity in Churh or Commonwealth there was no further speech of him or his Crimes Thirdly He was not committed to the Tower for any misdemeaners charged against him by those of his Diocess but for subscribing to the Protestation with the rest of the Bishops in the end of Dâ—cember 1641. who were committed at the same time also Fourthly He hath not remain'd there ever since his commitment neither but was discharged with the other Bishops about the end of February then next followâ—ng and about three or four Moneths after brought back again Anno 1642. without any Accusation brought against him either then or since Fol. 430. And then they adjourned until the twentieth of October and a standing Committee of the House of Commons consisting of fifty Members appointed during the Recess Of this Committee Mr. Iohn Pim was the principal Man without whom all the rest were Ciphers of no signification And by him there issued out an Order against Innovasions extended and intended also for taking down the Rails before the Communion-Table levelling the ground on which the said Table stood and placing the said Table in the middle of the Church or Chancell In which it is to be admired how eagerly this Order was pursued by