Examen historicum, or, A discovery and examination of the mistakes, falsities and defects in some modern histories occasioned by the partiality and inadvertencies of their severall authours / by Peter Heylin ...

ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Ninth Book OF The Church History OF BRITAIN.

Containing the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

THe short Reigns of King Edward the sixth, and Queen Mary being briefly past over by our Author, he spends the more time in setting out the affairs of the Church under Queen Elizabeth; not so much because her Reign was long, but because it was a busie Age and full of Faction. To which Faction how he stands affected he is not coy to let us see on all occasions, giving us in the very first entrance this brief but notable Essay, viz.

Fol. 51. Idolatry is not to be permitted a moment; the first minute is the fittest to abolish it: all that have power have right to destroy it by that grand Charter of Religion, whereby every one is ••ound to advance Gods glory. And if

Soveraigns forget, no reason but Subjects should remember their duty] Our Author speaks this in behalf of some forward•• Spirits, who not enduring the la••inesse of Au∣thority in order to the great work of Reformation, fell beforehand to the beating down of superstitious Pictures and Images. And though some others condemned their indiscretion herein, yet our Author will not, but rather gives these Reasons for their justification; 1. That the Popish Religion is Idolatry. 2. That Idolatry is to be destroyed by all that have power to do it. 3. (Which is indeed the main) that if the Soveraigns do forget, there is no reason but Subjects should remember their duty. This being our Authors Master-piece, and a fair g••••••ndwork for Seditious and Rebellious for the times ensuing, I shall spend a little the more time in the examination of the p••opositions, as before we had them. And

[ 151] 1. It will be hard for our Author to prove that the Romish Religion is Idolatry, though possible it is that some of the members of that Church may be proved Idolaters. I know well what great pains Dr. Reynolds took in his laborious work entituled, De Idololatria Ec∣clesiae Romanae; and I know too that many very lear∣ned and moderate men were not th••oughly satisfied in his proofs and Arguments. That they are worshippers of Images, as themselves deny not, so no body but themselves can approve them in it. But there is a very wide difference betwixt an Image and an Idol, betwixt the old Idolate••s in the state of Heathenism, and those which give religious worship unto Images in some pa••ts of Chris••endom. And this our Author being well st••died in Antiquity, and not a stranger to the 〈…〉〈…〉 of the present times, cannot chuse but know; tho••gh zeal to the good cause, and the desire of being co••stan•• to himself, drew this p••••••age from him. The Ch••istian faith delivered in the h••ly Gospels suc∣ceeded

over the greatest part of the then known wo••••d in the place of that Idolatrous worship, whi••h like a Le∣prosie had generally overspread the whole face thereof. And therefore that the whole Mass of Wickliffes He••e∣rodoxies might be Christned by the name of Gospel, our Author thinks it necessary that the Popish Mass, and the rest of the Superstitious of that Church should be call'd Idolatry.

2. That Idolatry is to be destroyed by all them that have power to do it, I shall easily grant. But then it [ 152] must be understood of a lawful power, and not permit∣ted to the liberty of unlawful violence. Id possumus, quod jure possumus, was the rule of old, and it held good in all attempts for Reformation in the elder times. For when the Fabrick of the Jewish Church was out of order, and the whole Worship of the Lord either de∣filed with superstitions, or intermingled with Idolatries, as it was too often: did not Gods servants carry and await his leisure, till those who were supreme both in place and power, were by him prompted and inflamed to a Reformation? How many years had that whole people made an Idol of the Brazen Serpent, and burnt ••••cense to it, before it was defaced by King H••zekiah? How many more might it have longer stood undef••ced▪ untouched by any of the common people, had not the King given order to demolish it? How many years had the seduced Israelites adored before the Altar of Bethel, before it was hewn down and cut in p••eces by the good King Iosiah? And yet it cannot be denyed but that it was as much in the power of the Iews to destroy that Idol, and of the honest and religious Isra••lites to break down that Altar; as it either was, or could be in the power of our English Zealots to beat down superstiti∣ous Pictures and Images, had they been so minded. Solo∣mon in the Book of Canticles compares the Church unto a Army, Acies Castrorum ordina••a, as the Vulgar hath it,

an Army terrible with Banners, as our English reads it. A powerful Body out of doubt, able which way soever it moves, to waste and destroy the Countrey, to burn and sack the Villages through which it passeth. And que∣stionless too many of the Souldiers knowing their own power, world be apt to do it, if not restrained by the Authority of their Commanders and the Laws of war. Ita se Ducum Authoritas, sic Rigor Disciplinae habet, as we finde in Taci∣tus. And if those be not kept as they ought to be, Con∣fusi Equites Pedites{que} in exitium ruunt; the whole runs on to a swift destruction. Thus is it also in the Church with the Camp of God; If there be no subordination in it, if every one might do what he list himself, and make such uses of that power and opportunity as he thinks are put into into his hands, what a confusion would en∣sue, how speedy a calamity must needs fall upon it? Courage and zeal do never shew more amiably in infe∣rior powers, then when they are subordinate to good directions, especially when they take directions from the right hand, from the Supreme Magistrate, not from the interests and passion of their fellow subjects. It is the Princes office to command, and theirs to execute. With which wise caution the Emperor Otho once represt the too great forwardness of his Souldiers, when he found them apt enough to make use of their power in a matter not commanded by him, Vobis Arma & Ani∣mus, mihi Consilium & virtutis vestrae Regi∣men relinquites as his words there are. He understood their duty, and his own authority, allows them to have power and will, but regulates and restrains them both to his own command. So that whe∣ther we behold the Church in its own condition, pro∣ceeding by the warrant and examples of holy Scripture, or in resemblance to an Army (as compared by Solomon) there will be nothing left to the power of the people

either in way of Reformation or Execution▪ till they be vested and intrusted with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lawful power deriv'd from him whom God hath plac'd in Authority over them. And therefore though Idolatry be to be destroy'd, and to be destroyed by all which have power to do it, yet must all those be furnisht with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 lawful power, or otherwise stand guilty of as high a crime as that which they so zealously endeavour to condemn in others.

3. But our Author is not of this minde, and there∣fore [ 153] adds, That if the Soveraign do forget, the Subjects should remember their duty. A lesson which he never learn'd in the Book of God. For besides the examples which we have in demolishing the Brazen Serpent, and the Altar of Bethel, not acted by the power of the peo∣ple, but the command of the Prince; I would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 know where we shall finde in the whole cour••e and cur∣rent of the holy Scriptures, that the common people in and by their own authority, removed the high places, and destroyed the Images, or cut down the G••oves, those excellent Instruments of Superstition and Idolatry; or that they did attempt any such thing till warranted and commissionated by the Supreme Powers. Where shall we finde that any of the seven thousand person: which had not bowed the knee to Baal, did ever go about to destroy that Idol? Or that Eliah or Elisha (two men as extraordinary for their calling, as their zeal and courage) did excite them to it? Where shall we finde the Primitive Christians, when living under the command of Heathenish Emperors busied in destroying Idols, or defacing the Temples of those Gods whom the Pagans worshipped; tho••gh grown in those times to such infinite multitudes, that they filled all places of the Em∣pire, & Vestra omnia implevim••••, Cities, Illes, Castles, Burroughs, your places of Assembly, Camps, Tribes, Palaces, yea the very Senate and common Forum, as Tertullian pleads it. No other Doctrine 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••eard

of till either the new Gospel of Wickliffe, or the new Lights shining from Geneva, gave beginning to it: when the Genevians were resolv'd on a Reformation, and could not get the consent of their Bishop, who was also their immediate Prince, they resolv'd to take the work into their own hands, and proceed without him. And that the presence of their Bishop might not be a hinderance unto their designs, they rais'd a tumult, put themselves in to a posture of war, and thereby force him and his Clergy to forsake the City. And this being done, they did not only order matters of Religion as they pleas'd themselves, but took the Soveraignty of the City into their own hands, changing the Government thereof to the form of a Common-wealth. Eo ejecto Genevates Mo∣narchiam in popularem Statum commutarunt, as Calvin hath it in his Epistle unto Cardinal Sadolet. The practice of these men drawn afterwards into example by Knox, and others, became at last to be the standing Rule and Measure of all Reformations. For when the King and Queen of Scots, refus'd to ratifie two Acts which were sent unto them concerning the abolishing of the Mass, and the Popes supremacy, Knox, Winram, and the rest of that gang without more ado de∣vised, and set up a new form of Discipline, ingrossing that power unto the Kirk, which formerly had been usurped by the Popes of Rome. Af∣terwards when the Queen was return'd into Scotland, and that some of their importunate Petitions were neglected by her, it was concluded by the Ministers in as plain terms as might be, that if the Queen will not, then we must, ibid. fol. 33.

According to this Rule the Netherlands proceeded also, not only driving on the design which they had in hand (as the French Hugonots also did) without the Kings Authority, but against it also. Finally, from a mat∣ter practical it came at last to be delivered for a point of

Doctrine, that if the Prince or Supreme Magistrate did not reform the Church, then the people might. For this I finde in Clesselius, one of the Contra-Remonstrants of Roterdam. If saith he, the Prince and Clergy do neg∣lect their duties in the Reforming of the Church, Necesse est tumid facere plebeios Israelitas, that then, it doth be∣long to the common people. And it is with a Necesse too, if you mark it well▪ they might not only do it, but they must be doing. Not in the way of Mediation or Petition, by which the dignity of the Magistrate might be preserv'd, but by force and violence, Licet ad san∣guinem us{que} pro eo pugnent, even to the shedding of their own bloud, and their brethrens too. Our Author preach∣eth the same Doctrine, whether by way of Application or Instruction, it comes all to one; for, Qui Parentes laudat filios provocat, as Lactantius has it, Posterity is too soon taught to follow the ill examples of their Pre∣decessors. And though he press it not so home as Clesse∣lius did, yet when the gap is once set open, and the Hedge of Authority torn down, bloodshed and war, and other acts of open violence will come in of course. So that we may affirm of this dangerous Doctrine, as the Sorbonists once did of the Iesuites, viz. Videtur in negotio sidei periculosa, pacis Ecclesiae perturbativa, & magis ad destructionem quàm ad aedificationem. But I have staid too long upon these first Notes, I now proceed unto the rest.

Fol. 54. This Parliament being very active in matters of Religion, the Convocation (younger Brother thereunto) was little employed and less regarded.] Our Author fol∣lows his design of putting matters of Religion into the power of Parliaments though he hath chosen a very ill Medium to conclude the point. This Parliament as [ 154] active as he seems to make it, troubled it self so little with matters of Religion, that had it done less, it had done just nothing. All that it did, was the Repealing of

some Acts made in the time of Queen Mary, and setling matters in the same State in which she found them at her first coming to the Crown. The Common Prayer Book being reviewed and fitted to the use of the Church by some godly men, appointed by the Queen alone, receiv'd no other confirmation in this present Parliament then what it had before in the last years of King Ed∣ward. The Supremacy was again restor'd, as it had been formerly; the Title of Supreme head which seem'd of∣fensive unto many of both Religio••s, being changed in∣to that of Supreme Governor, nothing, in all this done de novo, which could entitle this Parliament to such acti∣vity in matters of Religion, but that our Author had a minde to undervalue the Convocation, as being little im∣ployed, and less regarded. I grant indeed, that the Con∣vocation of that year did only meet for forms sake, with∣out acting any thing; and there was very good reason for it. The Bishops at that time were so ••enaciously ad∣dicted to the Church of Rome, that they chose all (ex∣cept Anthony Kitchin of Landaffe) rather to lose their Bishopricks then take the Oath of Supremacy. So that there was little or no hope of doing any thing in Con∣vocation to the Queens content in order to the Refor∣mation of Religion, which was then design'd, had they been suffered to debate, treat, and conclude of such parti∣culars as had relation thereunto. But we shall see when things are somewhat better setled, that the activity of the next Convocation will make amends for the silence and unsignificancy of this.

In the mean time I would fain know our Authors Rea∣son, why speaking of the Convocation, and the Parlia∣liament in the notion of Twins, the Convocation must be [ 155] made the younger Brother. Assuredly there had been Convocations in the Church of England some hundreds of years before the name of Parliament had been ever heard of; which he that lists to read the collection of Councils

published by that learned and industrious Gentleman Sir Henry Spelman, cannot but perceive.

Fol. 71. This year the spire of Poles-steeple covered with lead strangely fell on fire.] More modestly in this then when he formerly ascribes the burning of some great Abbeys to Lightning from heaven. And so this steeple was both reported and believed to be fired [ 156] also, it being an ordinary thing in our Common Al∣manacks till these latter times, to count the time (among the other E••oches of Computation) from the year that St. Paul-steeple was fired with Lightning. But afterwards it was acknowledg'd (as our Author truly notes) to be done by the negligence of a Plummer carelesly leaving his Coles therein; ••••nce which acknow∣ledgement we finde no mention of this accident in our yearly Almanacks. But whereas our Author finds no other Benefactors for the repairing of this great Ruine but the Queens bounty, and the Clergie•• Bene∣volence, I must needs tell him that these were only accessories to the principall charge. The greatest part [ 157] hereof, or to say better, the whole work was by the Queen imposed on the City of London, it being affir∣med by Iohn Stow, that after this mischance the Queens Majesty directed her Letters to S••ow Su••ve•• the Maior, willing him to take order for the speedy repairing of the same. And in pur∣suance of that order (besides what issued from the pub∣lick stock in the Chamber of London) the Citizens gave first a great Benevolence, and after that three Fifteens to be speedily paid. What the Queen did in the way of furtherance, or the Clergy of the Province of Canterbu∣ry in the way of help, is to be lookt upon as their free voluntary Act, no otherwise obliged thereto, but as the publick Honour of the Church and State did invite them to it. The Maior and City were the parties upon whom the command was laid, as most concerned

in the Repair of their own Cathed••al▪ Which I thought good to put our Author in minde o•• as a fault of omissi∣on only, leaving such use as may be made of the Obser∣vation to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of others.

Fol. 71. Here I would fain be informed by some lear∣ned men in the Law, what needed the restoring of those Children whose ••ather was condemned and died only for Heresie, which is conceived a personal crime, and not tainting the bl••nd. The Parliament this year had pas∣sed an Act for the Restitution in bloud of the children of Thomas Cranmer late Archbishop of Canterbury, for which our Author as it seems can see no reason, in regard he was condemned and died only for Heresie. For though (saith he) this Archbishop was first accused of High-Treason, yet it afterward was waved, and he tryed upon [ 158] Heretical opinions But in this our Author is mistaken. For though Cranmer was condemned and died for He∣resie, yet he was not condemned for that only; nor was the accusation for Treason wav'd, as he saith it was, but the conviction of him as an Heretick superadded to it. Being accused of High-Treason for subscribing (though unwillingly) to the Proclamation of the Lady Iane, he was committed to the Tower on the 15. of September, and on the 13. of No∣vember following arraigned at the Guildhall in London, and there convicted and condemned, together with the said Lady Iane, the Lord Guilford Dudley her Husband, and the Lord Ambrose Dudley her Husbands Brother. Of which four the Lady Iane and her Husband only suffered death on that condemnati∣on; the Lord Ambrose Dudley being reprieved for a better fortune, and the Archbishop reserved for a mo••e cruell death. For the Queen finding it more satisfacto∣ry to the Court of Rome to have him burnt for an He∣retick then hanged for a Traytor, and being impla∣cably bent against him for his activeness in the Divorce;

thought good to wave her first proceeding, and to have him put to death for Heresie. But the Attainder holding still good at the Common-Law, there was great rea∣son 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 sa∣tisfied, 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 dissen∣ting judgements.] This is the active Convocation which [ 159] before I spake of, not setling matters of Religion in the same estate in which they were left by King Ed∣ward; 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 ef∣fected, 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 [ 160] 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 mista∣ken. For first the Church of England hath alwayes con∣stantly

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 Convo∣cation 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 interpretati∣ons, was not conceived to be a clear and sufficient evi∣dence to prove the Article. For which see Bishop Bil∣sons 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 [ 161] 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 up∣on 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 con••••••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 addi∣tion of this Clause was made by the Bishops, or the sub∣straction 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 be∣ginning 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 mat∣ter 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 de∣signed for the Rider of the Church at that time, fol. 74. Strange that a man who undertakes to write an History [ 162] 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 af∣t••••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 Frankfor••▪ at such time as the Faction was there hottest against the Liturgy, and other Rites and ••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 Au∣thor hath not done with these Articles yet, for he tels us of this Clause, that it was

Ibid. Omitted in the English and Latin Arti•••••••••• set forth 1571 when they were first ratified by Act••••▪ Our [ 163] ••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 Ar∣ticles; 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 Sacra∣ments 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 Eccle∣siastical 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 inducti∣on, with declaration of their unfaigned assent to the same, on the pain aforesaid, in all which there was n••••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 Ca∣nons 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

[ 164] till the year 1572. The Bishops had been more sparing in p••••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 Parlia∣ment &c. In which on•• Autho•• shews much zeal, and but little kno••ledge, the••e being no Canons mad•• in the Convo••ation of 1562. (1563. in our Authors reckoning) no•• 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 Parlia∣ment shall not have the power of confirming Canons, our Author will finde our some Canons for them to con∣firm which never had a being or existence but in his brains only. From the Articles our Author proceeds unto the Ho••ilies approved in those Articles, and of them he tels us,

Fol. 75. That if they did little good, they did little [ 165] harm.] With sco•••• and insolence enough. Those Ho∣milies were so composed, as to instruct the people in all positive Doctrines necessary for Christian men to know, with reference both to Faith and Manne••s; and being penned in a plain style, as our Author hath it, were ••••tter for the edification of the common people then either the strong lines of some, or the flashes of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wi•• 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 lear∣ned and religious pe••sons. But it is well howsoever, that by reading these (so much vi••ified) Homilies, the Ministe•••• 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 im∣powered by their Canons, began to shew their authority, in urging the Clergy of their Di••••e••s to subscribe to the Litur∣gie, Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church, and such as refused the same, were braaded with the odious name of Pu∣ritans.] Our Author having given the Parliament a power of confirming no Canons, as before was shewed, he brings the Bis••ops acting by as weak Authority in [ 166] the years 1563. & 1564. the••e being at that time no Canons for them to p••oceed upon for requiring th••ir Clergy to subscribe to the Liturgie, Ceremonies, and Di∣scipline of the Church. And therefore if they did any such thing, it was not a•• t••ey were impowered by their Canons, but as they were in•• ••b••••d by that Autho••ity whi••h was inherent naturally in their Epi••copal Office. But where∣as he tells us in the following words, th••t the name of Puritan in that notion began this year, viz. 15••4. I fear he hath anticipated the time a little, Genebrard a right good Chronologer placing it (ortos in Ang•••••• Puri∣tan••s) [ 167] 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 th••t the occasion for which it was given them had then ended al∣so▪ But when he tells us that the name of Puritans was [ 168] given to the opposers of the Hierar••••y and Church-Service•• and signif••eth a Non-conformist; as often as I meet such Opposers, and such Non-con••o••mists in the co••••e of this Hi••••ory, I have warrant good enough to call them by the name of Puritans. If any did abuse the n••m••s as ••••••••∣leth us afterwards, (lib. x. fol. 100.) to asperse the most Or∣thodox [ 169] in Doctrine, and religious in Conversation; they we••e the mo••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 e••••••blisht Orders of the Church; it might be a disgrace, but no w••ong unto them to be called Puritans. And if [ 170] it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 extended further to denote such men also, as main••••••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 afo••esaid. The practices of some men are many times Doctrines to others: and the Cal∣vinia. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 being built upon Calvins practices, and those ••b••tted and confirm'd by his following Doctrines: the name of Puritan, though first found out to denote such as followed Calvin, in dissenting from the Hierar••hy in Disciplin and Church-government, might not unfitly be applyed to such as maintain'd his Doctrines also. But of this Argument enough, I shall adde only, and so proceed to other businesses, that Mr. Fox is broug•••• in as re∣quired to subscribe to the Canons by Archbishop Parker; whereas there were at that time no Canons to subscribe unto, nor is it the custom of the Church to require sub∣scription [ 171] unto Canons, but unto those only who consented to the making of them.

Fol. 9••. John Felton who fastned the Popes Bull to the Palace ••f London, being taken•• and refusing to fly, was [ 172] hanged on a Gibbet before the Popes Palace.] The Bull here mention'd was that of Pope Pius the fifth, for excom∣municating Q••een Elizabeth, which this Iohn Felton (a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Papist) had hang'd up at the Gates of the Bi∣shop of Lond••••s House, that the Subjects might take no∣••••••e of it; and for that fact was hang'd neer the same 〈…〉〈…〉 he had offended. But why our Author should call the Bishop of Londons House by the name of the Popes 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I do very much wonder; unless it were to hold 〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the style of Martin Mar-Prelate, and the 〈…〉〈…〉 Faction. Amongst whom nothing was more common then to call all Bishops Petty-Popes▪ & more par∣ticularly

to call the Archbishop of Canterbury the Pope of Lambeth, and the Bishop of London, Pope of London. But I hope more charitably then so, being more willing to impure it to the fault of the Printers, then the pen of our Author. I only adde, that to make even with this Iohn Felton (a zealous Papist) another Iohn Felton of the next age, a zealous Puritan, committed that execrable murther on the Duke of Buckingham.

Fol. 98. Against covetous Conformists it was provided, that no Spiritual Person, Colledge, or Hospital, shall let lease other then for twenty one years, or three lives, &c.] No mention in the Statute of Covernous Con••ormists, I am sure of that; and therefore no provision to be made against them, the Coverous Conformist is our Authors own. I finde indeed that long and unreasonable Leases had been [ 173] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by, Colledges, Deans, and Chapters, Parsons, Vicar••, and other ••aving Spiritual promotions; which being found to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the causes of Dilapidations, and the decay of all Spiritual Livings and Hospitality, and the utter impoverishing of all Successors incumbents in the same, the Parliament thought it high time to provide against it. In all which Bedroll, it were strange if we should finde no Non-conformists, who had by this time got a great part of the Church Preferments, and were more likely to occasion those di••apidations then the regular and conformable Clergy: these la•••••• looking▪ on the Church with an eye to succession, the former being intent only on the present profit: And if we mark it well, we shall finde that Coverousness and Non∣conformity are so married together, that it is not easie to divorce them: though here the crime of coverous∣ness be wrongfully charg'd on the Conformists, to make them the more odious in the eye of the vulgar Reader. High Royalists in one place, Covetous Conformists in another, are no good signs of true affections to Con∣formity, and much less to Royalty.

Fol. 121. These Prophesyings were founded on the Apo∣stles Precept; For ye may all Prophesie one by one, that all may learn and all be comforted; but so as to make it out, they were fain to make use of humane prudential Additions.] Not grounded, but pretended to be grounded on those words of St. Paul; the Prophesying there spoke of not being [ 174] 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be drawn into example in the change of times, when 〈…〉〈…〉 of the Spirit were more restrain'd and li∣mited then they had been formerly. For were they g••••••nded on that Text, it had been somewhat sawcily done, to adde their own prudential Additions to the di∣rection and dictamen of the holy Spirit. A course much favoured as it seems by Archbishop Grindal, whose Let∣ter to the Queen is recommended to the welcom of the pious Reader. fol. 122. But both the Queen and her wise Councel conceiv'd otherwise of it, looking upon these Prophesyings as likely to prove in fine the ••ane of the Common-wealth, as our Author hath it. No•• did King Iames conceive any better of them, as appeareth by the conference at Hampton Court, in which it was mov'd by Dr. Reynolds, (chief of the Millenary party)

That the Clergy might have meetings once every three weeks, and therein to have ••••••phesying, according as the Reverend Father Arch∣bishop Grindall, and other Bishops desired of her late Majesty. No, said the King, (looking upon this mo∣tion as a preamble to a Scottish Presbytery) then Iack, and I••m, and Will, and Dick, shall at their pleasures, ce••••••re me and my Councel, and all our proceedings: then Will shall stand up and say, It must be thus; then Dick shall reply and say, Nay, marry, but we will have it thus: And therefore stay I pray you for one 7 years before you demand that of me: and then if you finde me 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and fat and my windepipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to you: for if that government be once up, I am sure I shall be kept in breath, then shall we all of

us have work enough, both our hands full.

But let King Iames and Queen Elizabeth conceive what they will, our Author hath declared it to be Gods and the Churches cause, fol. 130. And being such, it is enough to make any man consident in pleading for it, or appear∣ing in it.

Fol. 135. A loud Parliament is always attended with a silent Convocation, as here it came to pass. The Acti∣vity of the former in Church matters left the latter nothing to do.] A man would think by this, that the Parliament [ 175] of this year, being the 23. of the Queen, had done great feats in matters of Religion, as making new A••ticles of Faith, or confirming Canons, or something else of like importance. But for all this great cry we have little wool; our Author taking notice of nothing else which was done this Parliament, but that it was made•• eason for the Priests or Jesuites to seduce any of the Queens Subjects to the Romish Religion, and for the Sub••ects to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, with other matters nor within the power and cognizance of the Convoca∣tion. But he conceals another Statute as necessary to the peace and safety of the Church and State as the other was.

By which it was En∣acted, that if any person or persons should advisedly devise, or write, print, or set ••orth any man∣ner of Book, Rime, Ballade, Letter, or Writing, con∣taining any false, seditious and s••anderous matter, to the defamation of the Queens Majesty, or to the in∣couraging, stirring, or moving of any In••••••rection or Rebellion within this Realm, &c. or that shall pro∣cure, or cause such Book, Rime, Ballade, &c. to be written, printed, published, or set forth, &c. The of∣fenders to suffer such pain of death, and forfeiture as in case of Felony.

A Statute made of purpose to re∣strain the insolencies of the Puri••••n Faction, and by which many of them were adjudged to death in the times

ensuing: some as the Authors, and others as the pub∣lishers 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 Magni∣ficat. [ 176] Assuredly Archbishop Whitgift knew better whan he was to write, then to need any such critical emenda∣tions. And therefore our Author might have kept his Arches for some publick Triumph after his conquest of the Covetous Conformists and High Royalists which be∣fore we had. It was the Court of the Marches which the Bishop speaks of, and of which he had so good ex∣perience; 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 tel∣leth us in his life.

Fol. 163. By the changing of Edmond into John Cont∣nar, 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. •• [ 177] 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 Septem∣ber then next following. But yet it follows not there∣upon, 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 Lett••••s themselves. For in one of them written to the Lord Treasurer, fol. 160. I finde this passage viz. Your Lordship objecteth, tha•• it is said I took this c••urse for

the better maintenance of my Book. My Enemies say so in∣deed, 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 Admoni∣tion against the Reply of T. C. printed at London, An. 1574. To which the 12 years being added, which we finde men∣tioned 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 here∣unto, 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 [ 178] 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 bo••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 affecti∣on to the Holy cause ••pon all occasions. No where more m••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 ••••ct of Parliament, it is to be hoped, that (if such swearing were s•• great a grievance) nihil analogum, nothing like unto it (which may amount to as much) shall [ 179] hereafter be substituted in the room thereof.] What could be said more plain to testi••ie his disaffections one way, and his ze••l another? The High-Commission and the Oath rep••o••ched as Grievances, because the greatest curbs of the Puritan party, and the strongest Bulwarks of the Church, a congratulation ••o the times for abolishing both, though as yet I ••••nde no Act of Parliament a∣gainst the Oath except it be by consequence and illa∣tion only; and finally a hope exprest that the Church never shall revert to her fo••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 [ 180] 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 Q••een being 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exclaimed against, and her Honorable Councell scandalously cen∣sured 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 reproach•• and vilified) and frequently ••••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 can∣not chuse but know them to be false in themselves. And he that knowing a thing to be false, sets it down for true, not only gives the lie to his own consci∣ence, but occasions others also to believe a falshood. And from this charge I cannot see how he can be acquitted in making the Bishops to be guilty of those filthy sins, for which they were to be so lashed by Saty∣rical wits, or imputing those base Libels unto wanton wits, which could proceed from no other fountain then malicious wickedness.

But I ••m we••ry and ashamed of taking in so impure a kennel, and for that cause also shall willingly passe over his apology for Hacket that blasphemous wretch, [ 181] and most execrable miscreant, justly condemned and executed for a double Treason, against the King of Kings in Heaven, and the Queen on earth. Of whom he would not have us think, fol. 204. that he and his two Companions (his two Prophets, for so they called them∣selves) were worse by nature then all others of the English

Nation, the natural corruption in the hearts of others being not lesse headstrong, but more bridled: And finally, that if Gods restraining grace be taken from us, we shall all run unto the same excesse of Riot. Which Plea if it be good for Hacket, will hold good for Iudas; and pity it is, that some of our fine wits did never study an apo∣logy for him.

From Hack•••• he goes on to Travers, a man of an unquiet spirit, but not half so mischievous, of whom he saith,

Fol. 214. At Antwerp he was ordained Minister by the Presbyt••ry there, and not long after that, he was put in Orders by the Presbytery of a forain Nation.] Here have [ 182] we Ordination and putting into Orders ascribed to the Pre••bytery of A••t••••erp; a Mongrel company consisting of two blew Aprous to each Cruel night-cap: and that too in such positive terms, and without any the least qualification, that no Presbyterian in the pack could have spoke more plainly. The man hath hitherto stood distracted betwixt shame and love; love to the cause, and shame to be discovered for a party in it, drawing several wayes. Pudor est qui suade•••• illinc, Hinc dissuadet Amor, in the Poets language. And in this fit he thought it good to withdraw himself or stand by a•• a silent Spectator, that his betters might have room to come forth and speak in the present controversie of Church Govern∣ment, fol. 143. But here love carries it away, and he de∣clares himself roundly for the Presbyterians, by giving them the power of Ordination, and consequently of Ecclesiastical censure in their several Consistories. Had he used the words of the Certificate, which he grounds upon, and told us that Travers was admitted by that Presbytery to the Ministery of the holy word (in sacr•• verbi Dei Ministerio institutus, a•• their words there are) he had done the part of an Historian. They may make Ministers how and of whom they list, and put

that Heavenly treasure into what vessels they please. Scripturarum ars est quam omnes passim sibi vindicant, as St. Ierom complained in his time. Let every Trades∣man be a Preacher, and step from the shop-board to the Pulpit, if they think well of it. This may be cal∣led a making of Ministers in such a sense as Phoebe is said to be a Minister of the Church of Cenchrea, to mi∣nister to the necessities of their Congregations. But to ascribe unto them a power of Ordination or of giving Orders which they assume not to them∣selves, savours too strong of the party, and contradicts the general Rules of the ancient Fathers. At this time I content my self with that saying of Ierom, because esteemed no friend to Bishops, viz. Quid facit Episcopus, excepta Ordinatione, quod Presbyter non fa∣ciat? and for the rest refer the Reader to the learned Treatise of Dr. Hammond, Entituled, Observations upon the Ordinance of the Lords and Commons at Westminster for the Ordination of Ministers pro tempore, Printed at Oxford 1644. Only I shall make bold to quit my Au∣thor with a merry tale (though but one for an hundred) and tis a tale of an old jolly popish Priest, who having no entertainment for a friend who came to him on a Fasting day, but a piece of Pork, and making consci∣ence of observing the appointed Fast, dipt it into a tub of water, saying down Porke up Pike. Satisfied with which device (as being accustomed to transubstantiate, he well might be) he caused it to be put into the p••t and made ready for dinner. But as the Pork for all this suddain piece of wit, was no other then Pork; so these good fellowes of the Presbytery by laying hands upon one another, act as little as he: the parties so impos'd upon (impos'd upon indeed in the proper no∣tion) are but as they were, Lay-brethren of the bet∣ter stamp, Ministers if you will, but not Priests nor Deacons, nor any wayes Canonically enabled for

divine performances. But fearing to be chidden for his levity, I knock off again, following my Author as he leads me; who being over shooes, will be over boots also. He is so lost to the High Royalist and covetous Con∣formist, that he cannot be in a worse case (with them) then he is already. And therefore having declared himself for a Presbyterian in point of Government, he will go thorough with his work, shewing himself a profest Calvinist in point of Doctrine, and a strict Sab∣ba••arian too in that single point, though therein diffe∣ring (as the rest of that party do) from their Master Calvin. First for the Sabbath (for the better day the better deed) having repeared the chief heads of Dr. Bounds book published Anno 1595. in which the Sabbatarian Doctrines were first set on soot, he addes, that learned men were much divided in their judgements about the same.

Fol. 228. Some (saith he) embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, [ 183] now seasonably revived for the encrease of piety.] Amongst which some, he that shall take our Author for one, will not be m••ch mistaken either in the man, or in the mat∣ter. For that he doth approve Bounds Doctrines in this particular, appears;

First, By a passage, fol. 165. where he con••nts with him in reckoning the casual falling of the Scaffolds at Paris-Garden on the Lords-day, Anno 1583. for a di∣vine judgement upon those who perished by it, as they were beholding that rude pastime.

Secondly, By his censure of the proceedings of Arch∣bishop Whitgift against these Doctrines, of whom he tel∣leth us, fol 229. That his known opposition to the p••••ceed∣ings of the Brethren, rendred his actions more odious, as if out of envy he had caused such a pearl to be con∣cealed.

Thirdly, by making these Sabbath Doctrines to be the Diamond in the Ring, of those Catechisms and Con∣troversies which afterwards were set out by the stricter Divines. And

Fourthly, by the sadnesse which he findes in re∣counting the grief and distraction occasioned in many honest mens hearts by the several publishings of the Declaration about lawful sports, lib. ••o. fol. 74.

But leaving him to stand or fall to his own Master, I would fain know what text of Scripture, ancient Writer, or approved Councel can be brought to justifie Bounds Doctrines which he affirms for ancient truths [ 184] and consonant to holy Scripture. But more particularly where he can shew me any ground for the third Positi∣on, viz. That there is as great reason why we Christians should take our selves as straightly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath; it being one of the moral Commandements, whereof all are of equall authority. This if it be a truth is no ancient truth; and whensoever it be received and allowed for truth, will in conclusion lay as heavy and insupportable Burthens upon the consciences of Gods people as ever were im∣posed upon the Jewes by the Scribes and Pharisees. And secondly, I would fain know the meaning of the fol∣lowing words, in which it is said, that others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom, but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion, it was pity to oppose them. I would fain know I say, considering that the foundation [ 185] of the Christian faith is laid on the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, Christ himself being the chief cor∣ner stone; how any thing which is not built upon this foundation, but grounded on a wrong bottom (as this see∣med to be) could tend to the manifest advance of the true Religion. That it tended to the manifest advance of some Religion I shall easily grant; and if our Author mean no otherwise, we shall soon agree. But sure I

am, no part of the true Religion was ever grounded upon ••alshood, and therefore is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Doctrine were grounded on so ill •• bottom a•• they say it was, it might ••on∣•••••• to the advancement of a Faction and mens private 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but to the true Religion it was likely to contribute nothing but disgrace and scandal. L••stly, I am to minde our Author, that he makes Mr. Greenhams [ 186] Treatise of the Sabbath to be published in pursuance of Bounds opinions, which could not be till in or after the year 1595. Whereas he had laid him in his grave above two years before, telling us that he died of the Plugue in London, Anno 1592. fol. 219. By which it seems that Greenham either writ this Treatise after his decease; o•• else our Author hath done ill in giving the f••••st ho∣nour of these new Doctrins unto Dr. Bound. In the next place we shall see our Author engage himself in defence of the Calvi••an Doctrins about Predest••ation, Grace, &c. of which he telleth us, that

Fol. 229. Having much troubled both the Schools and Pu••pit, Archbishop Whitgift, out of his Christian care to propogate the truth, and suppress the opposite errors, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 used a solemn meeting of many grave and learned 〈◊〉〈◊〉 at [ 187] Lanib••th.] The occasion this. The controvers•••• a∣bout Predestination, Grace, &c. had been long 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Schools between the Dominicant on the one side and the Francis••ans on the other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Dominicans groun∣ding their opinion on the Authority of St. Augustin, Prosper, and some others of the following 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Franciscans, on the general current of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Fa∣thers, who lived ante mot•• certamina Pelagiana▪ before the rising of the Pelagian Here••ies. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 disputes be∣ing after taken up in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Churches, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mo∣derate Lutherans (as they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them) followed the Do∣ctrine of Melanch••hon, conformable to the 〈…〉〈…〉 those particulars: The others whom they 〈…〉〈…〉 or rigid Lutherans, of whom 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Illyricus was the

chief, go in the same way with the Dominicans. The au∣thority of which last opinion, after it had been entertai∣ned and publishe in the works of Calvin, for his sake found admi••••ance in the Schools and Pulpits of most of the Reformed Churches. And having got footing here in England by the preaching of such Divines as had fled to Geneva in Queen Maries time, it was defended in the Schools of Cambridge without opposition, till Peter Bar•• a French man came and setled there. Who being the Lady Margarets P••ofessor in that University, and liking better of the Melanchthonian way, then that of Calvin, defended it openly in the Schools; many of parts and q••ality being gained unto his opinion. Which gave so much displeasure to Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Tyndall, Mr. Per∣kins, and some other leading men of the contrary judge∣ment, that they thought best to use the Argument ab Authoritat•• to convince their Adversaries; and com∣plained thereof to the Archbishop, and in the end pre∣vailed with him to call that meeting at Lambeth which our Author speaks of: in which some Articles (com∣monly called the Nine Articles of Lambeth) were a∣greed upon, and sent down to Cambridge in favour of Dr. Whitaker and his Associates. But our Author not content to relate the story of the Quarrel, must take upon him also to be a judge in the Controversie. He had before commended the Dominicans for their Or∣thodoxie [ 188] in these points of Doctrine as they were then in agitation betwixt them and the Iesuits. He now pro∣ceeds to do the like between the two parties (men of great piety and learning appearing in it on both sides) disputing the same points in the Church of England: honouring the opinion of Dr. Whitaker and his Associates with the name of the truth; and branding the other with the Title of the opposite error. And yet not thinking that he had declared himself sufficiently in the favour of the Calvinian party, he telleth us not long after of these

Lambeth Articles, fol. 232. that though they wanted the Authority of Provincial Acts, yet will they readily be re∣ceived of all Orthodox Christians for as far as their own puri∣ty bears conformity to Gods word. Which last words (though somewhat perplextly laid down) must either in∣timate their conformity to the word of God, or else signi∣fie nothing. But whatsoever opinion our Author hath of these Nine Articles, certain it is that Queen Eliza∣beth was much displeased at the making of them, and commanded them to be supprest, which was done accor∣dingly; and with such diligence withall, that for long time a Copy of them was not to be met with in that Uni∣versity. Nor was King Iames better pleased with them then Queen Elizabeth was▪ Insomuch that when Dr. Renalds mov'd (in the Conference of Hampton-Court) that the Nine Articles of Lambeth might be superadded to the 39. Articles of the Church of England; King Iames upon an information of the true sta••e of the businesse, did absolutely refuse to give way to it. But of this [ 189] more at large elsewhere. I only add a Memorand••m of our Authors mistake in making Dr. Richard Bancroft Bishop of London, to be one of the Bishops which were present at the meeting at Lambeth, whereas indeed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Richard Fletcher, Bishop elect of London, and by that name entituled in such Authors as relate this story; Dr. Bancroft not being made Bishop of London or of any place else till the year 1597. which was two years after this Assembly. Alike mistake relating to this business also, I finde in the History of Cambridge, about Dr. Baro•• of whom our Author tels us thus:

Fol. 125. Hist. Cam. The end of Dr. Peter Baro (the Margaret Professor) his triennial Lectures began to draw neer, &C. And not long after, the Vniversity intended to cut him off at the just joint, when his three y••ars should be ex∣pired.] [ 190] This shews our Author, though well travelled in other Countries, to be but peregrinus domi, a stranger in

his own University; in which the Margaret Professor is not chosen for three years, but for two years only. And this appears plainly by the Statutes of that Foundation, the precise words whereof are these, viz. Et volumus insuper quod de caetero quolibet biennio ultimo die cessationis cujustibet termini ante magnam vacationem Vniversitatis praedictae, una habilis, apta & idonea persona in lectorem le∣cturae praedictae pro uno biennio integro, viz. a festo Nativita∣tis B. Mariae virginis tunc proximè sequente duntaxat du∣rature, eligatur, fol. 105. in nigro cedice. For this I am beholding to the Author of the Pamphlet called the Ob∣servator observed, and thank him for it. Which said we shall close up this ninth Book with some considerations on these following words, which our Author very inge∣nuously hath laid before us, viz.

Fol. 233. If we look on the Non-conformists, we shall finde all still and quiet, who began now to repose themselves in a sad silence, especially after the execution of Udal and Penry had so terrified them, that though they might have secret d••signs, we meet not their open and publick motions.] And to say [ 191] truth, it was high time for them to change their course in which they had so often been foil'd and worsted. The learned works of Dr. Bilson, (after Bishop of Winchester) in defence of the Episcopal Government, of Dr. Cousins Dean of the Arches, in m••intenance of the proceedings in ••ourts Ecclesiastical; with the two Books of Dr. Bancroft, the one discovering the absurdities of the Pretended holy Discipline, the other their practices & Positions to advance the same, gave the first check to their proceedings at the push of pen. All which being publisht, An. 1593. were se∣conded about two years after by the accurate & well stu∣died Works of Ric. Hooker, then Master of the Temple, and Prebend of Canterbury; in which he so asserted the whole body of the English Liturgy, & laid such grounds to found her politie upon, that he may justly be affirmed to have struck the last blow in this Quarrel. But it was not so

much the Arguments of these learned 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as the sea∣sonable execution of some principal sticklers, which oc∣casioned the great calm both in Church and State, not only for the rest of the Queens time, but a long time after. For besides, that Cartright, and some other of the principal and most active Leaders, had been imprison'd and proceeded against in the Court of Starchamber; the edge of the Statute 23 Eliz. c. 2. which before we spake, of, had made such terrible work amongst them, that they durst no longer venture on their former courses. Copping and Thacker hang'd at St. Edmondsbury in Suffolk, Bar∣row and Greenwood executed at Tyburn, and Penry at St. Thomas of Waterings, Vdal, Billot Studley, and Bouler condemned to the same death, though at last reprieved, (not to say any thing of Hacke••, with Coppinger, and Ar∣thington his two Prophe••s, as more mad then the rest) could not but teach them this sad lesson, that, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is no safe dallying with fire, nor jesting with edge tools. But there are more wayes to the Wood then one, and they had wit enough to cast about for some other way, s••nce the first [ 192] had fail'd them, Hac non successit, aliâ tentandum est, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, had been learn't in vain, if not reducible to practice. So that it is no marvel, if after this we finde them not in any publick and open motion; when wearied with their former blusterings, and terrified with the sad remembr••nce of such executions, they betook themselves to secret and more dark designs. Occultior Pompeius Caesare, non mesior, as it is in Tacitus. Pompeys intentions were not less mis∣chievous to the Common-wealth then Caesars were, but more closely carried. And b••cause closely carryed, the more likely to have took effect, had any but Caesar been the head of the opposite party. The Fort that had been found impregnable by open batteries, hath been took at last by undermining. Nor ever were the Houses of Parli∣ament more like to have been blown up with gunpowder, then when the Candle which was to give fire to it was

carried by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in a dark 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Henceforward therefore we shall finde the Brethren 〈◊〉〈◊〉 anoth•••• ward, practising their party underhand, working their business into a State-faction, and never so dangerously carrying on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as when least observed. Fill in the end when all preventions were let slip, and the danger grown be∣yond prevention, they brought their matters to that end which we shall finde too evidently in the end of this History. To which before we can proceed, we must look back upon a passage of another 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which with∣out 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the coherencies of the former Observati∣ons could not be taken notice of and rectifed in its pro∣per place, and is this that followeth▪

Fol. 179. Queen Elizabeth coming to the Crown, sen•• for Abbot Fecknam to come to her, whom the Messenger found setting of Elms in the Orchard of Westminster Abbey: But he would not follow the messenger, till first he had finished his Plantation.•• The tale goes otherwise by Tradition then is [ 193] here delivered; and well it may. For who did ever hear of my Elms in Westminster Orchard, or to say truth, of any Elms in any Orchard whatsoever of a late Plantation? Elms are for Groves, and Fields, and Forests, too cumber∣som and over-spreading to be set in Orchards. But the tale goes that Abbot Feck••an•• being busied in planting Elms near his Garden wall in the place now 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Dea••s-yard was encountred with one of his acquaintance, saying, My Lord you may very well save your labour the Bill for dissolving of your Monastery being just now passed. To which the good old man, unmoved, returned this answer, that he would go forwards howsoever in his plantation; not doubting, though it pleased not God to continue it in the state it was, but that it would be kept and used as a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Lear∣ning for all times ensuing. Which said, our 〈◊〉〈◊〉 need not trouble himself with thinking how his 〈…〉〈…〉 this day, as he seems to do; he knows where to finde them.

Notes

• Tacit. H••••st. l 1.
• Tacit. Hi••t. l. 1.
• Hist. of Q. Mary s. 25.
• S••ow Su••ve•• of Lond. p. 623.
• S••ow•• An. fol. 617.
• Archbishops Speech, p. 71.
• Lib. 8 fol 35.
• 13 El. ••. 12.
• 13. Eliz. c. 20.
• Co••fer p. 80.
• 29 Eliz. c. 2.