The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Part 2 · Book 5

The Appeal of Injured Innocence · Part 2 · Book 5

p. 55THE FIFTH BOOK. Relating to the time of King Henry the Eight.

Dr. Heylin.

WE are now come to the busie times of King Henry the Eight, in which the power of the Church was much diminisht, though not reduced to such ill terms as our Author makes it We have him here laying his foundations to overthrow that little which is left of the Churches Rights. His super-structures we shall see in the times ensuing more seasonable for the practise of that Authority which in this fifth Book he hammereth onelyonly in the speculation.

Fuller.

I deny, and defie any such Designe, to overthrow the foundations of the Churches right. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous doe? I… my Back could butterresse them up, it should not be wanting. However, I am not sensible that any such invasion was made on the true property of the Church, but that the King resumed what by God was invested in him, and what by the Pope was unjustly taken from him; though none can justifie every particular in the managery of the Reformation.

Dr. Heylin.

But first we will begin with such Animadversions as relate unto this time and story, as they come in our way; leaving such principles and positions as concern the Church, to the close of all; where we shall draw them all together, that our discourse and observations thereupon may come before the Reader without interruption.

And the first thing I meete with, is a fault of Omission; Dr. Newlen who succeeded Dr. Iackson in the Presidentship of Corpus Christi Colledge in Oxford, Anno 1640 by a free election, and in a statutable way, being left out of our Authors Catlogue of the Presidents of C. C. C. in Oxford, fol. 166. and Dr. Stanton who came in by the power of the Visitors above eight years after being placed therein. Which I thought fit (though otherwise of no great moment) to take notice of, that I might doe the honest man that right which our Author doth not.

Fuller.

Would the Animadvertor had given me the Christian, as well as the Sir…name of the Doctor, that I may enter it in my next Edition. But I will endeavour some other wayes to recover it.

Such, and greater Omisions, often attend the Pens of the most exact Authors. Witnesse the Lord Stanhop, created Baron of Harington in Narthampton-shire, …ertio Iacobi, left out in all the Editions [Latine and English] of the Industrious and Judicious Mr. Camden though his junior Baron (the Lord Arundel of p. 56Wardour) be there inserted. This his omission proceeded not from the least neglect, as I protest my Innocence in the casual preterition of Dr. Newlen.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. King Henry endeavoured an uni…ormity of Grammer all over his Dominions; that so youths, though changing their School-Masters, might keep their learning.] That this was endeavoured by King Henry, and at last enjoyned, I shall easily grant. But then our Author should have told us (if at least he knew it) that the first hint thereof proceeded from the Convocation in the year 1530▪ in which, complaint being made, Quod multiplex & varius in Scholis Grammaticalibus modus esset docendi, &c. That the multiplicitie of Grammers did much hurt to learning; it was thought meet by the Prelates and Clergy then assembled,Acta Convoca…ionis 1530. Ut una eadem edatur formula auctoritate hujus sacrae Synodi, in qualibet & singula Schola Grammaticali per Cantuariensem Provinciam usitanda & edocenda: that is to say, that one onelyonly form of teaching Grammar should be enjoyned from thenceforth by the Authority of the Convocation, to be used in all the Grammar Schools of the Province of Canterbury. Which being so agreed upon, Lilly then Schoolmaster of St. Pauls School, was thought the fittest man for that undertaking; and he performed his part so well, that within few years after, it was enjoyned by the Kings Proclamation to be used in all the Schools throughout the Kingdom. But here we are to note withall, that our Author anticipates this businesse, placing it in the eleventh year of this King, Anno 1519. whereas the Convocation took not this into consideration till the eighth of March, Anno 1530. and certainly would not have medled in it then, if the King had setled and enjoyned it so long before.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor discovers much indiscretion, in cavelling at a well-timed truth in my Book, and substituting a falshood in the room thereof.

The endeavor of Henry the eight, for uniformity of Grammar throughout all his Dominions, begun (as I have placed it) one thousand five hundred and nineteen, William Lillie being the prime person imployed for the composure thereof.

Indeed it met not with universal Reception for some years (babits not being easily deposed:) and therefore the Convocation concurring with the Kings pleasure therein, added their assistance in the year 1530. as the Animadvertor observeth; and soon after by the Kings Proclamation, the matter was generally effected.

But whereas he sayth, That after that time 1530. William Lillye was thought the fittest man for that undertaking, Let me tell him, That a man dead five, if not eight years before, was not fit to make a Grammar.

I appeal to Bale and Pitts, both which render William Lillye to dye in the year 1525. but mistaken herein; For indeed he dyed three years before, if the Epitaph on his Monument, made by his sonne George Lillye, may be believed, in a brass plate near the great North dore of St. Pauls. Gulielmo Lilio Paulinae Scholae olim, Preceptori Primario, & Agneti Conjugi, in Sacratissimo hujus Templi coemiterio hinc à tergo nunc destructo consepultis, Georgius Lillius hujus Ecclesiae Canonicus, parentum memoriae piae consulens, Tabellam hanc ab amicis conservatam, hic reponendam curavit. Obiit ille G. L. Anno Dom. 1522. Calend. Mart. Vixit annos 54.

Wherefore this unnecessary Animadversion, to correct what was right before, might very well have been spared.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. Howsoever it is probable, some other Gardiner gathered the Flowers (made the Collections) though King Henry had the honor to p. 57wear the Posie.] I am not ignorant that the making of the Kings Book against Martin Luther ▪ is by some Popish Writers ascribed to Dr. Iohn Fisher, then Bishop of Rochester. But this Cavil was not made till after this King had rejected the Popes Supremacy, and consequently the lesse credit to be given unto it. It is well known, that his Father King Henry the seventh designed him for the Archbishoprick of Canterbury, and to that end caused him to be trained up in all parts of learning which might enable him for that place. But his eldest brother Prince Arthur dying, and himself succeeding in the Crown, though he had laid aside the thoughts of being a Priest, he could not but retain that Learning which he had acquired, and reckon it amongst the fairest Flowers which adorned his Diadem. Too great a Clerk he was to be called Beauclerk junior, as i… he were as short in learning of King Henry the first (whom commonly they called Beauclerk) as he was in time ▪ though so our Author would fain have it, Hist. Cam. p. 2.3. A little Learning went a great way in those early dayes, which in this King would have made no shew, in whose time both the Arts and Languages began to flourish. And if our Author doth not suspect this Kings lack of learning, he hath no reason to suspect his lack of time, the work being small, the glory great, and helps enough at hand if he wanted any. But of this enough.

Fuller.

No considerable variation from what I have written, so that my Answer thereunto is not required. Let him be another Beauclerk instead of Beauclerk junior.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 196. Which when finished (as White-Hall, Hampton-Court, &c.) he either freely gave to the King▪ or exchanged them on very reasonable considerations.] That Hampton-Court was either freely given by Wolsey, or otherwise exchanged on very reasonable tearms, I shall grant as easily; but Whitehall was none of his to give, as belonging to the Archbishop in the right of the See o… York, and then called York place. But the Kings Palace at Westminster being lately burnt, and this house much beautified by the Cardinal, the King cast a longing eye upon it; and having attainted the Cardinal in a Praemunire, he seised upon this house with all the furniture thereof, as a part of the spoil. Which when he found he could not hold, as being the Archbishops and not the Cardinals, he sent an Instrument unto him, to be signed and sealed for the surrendry of his title and estate therein; and not content to have forc'd it from him (the Cardinal honestly declaring his inability to make good the grant) he caused the Dean and Chapter of York to confirm the same unto him under their Common Seal, in due form of Law; which being obtained, and much cost bestowed upon the House, he caused it to be called Whitehall; gratifying the Archbishops of York with another House, belonging then to the See of Norwich, and now called York-house.

Fuller.

My words are, he either freely gave to the King, or exchanged them, [but I say not FREELY] on very reasonable tearms. Now though he did not freely give Whitehall to the King, he exchanged it, (though unwillingly) on very reasonable considerations; seeing for bignesse, building, and circuit of ground, it then was worth Ten of York-house, given to his See, in lieu thereof. However, the Animadvertor is exact in some circumstances of this Exchange, which I knew not before.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 170. So that lately there were maintained therein one Dean, eight Canons, three publique Professors of Divinity, Hebrew and Greek, sixty Students, &c.] Our Author tells us, Lib. 4. that he spent seventeen weeks in this University, but he that looks on this and some other passages, would think he had not tarryed there above seventeen hours.

p. 58Fuller.

Yea, the Animadvertor would perswade his Reader, That I never spent seaventeen weekes in Oxford or in any other University, if all the errors be so many and great as he accuseth me of. But I prepare my selfe to heare his Charge.

Dr. Heylin.

For besides his omitting of Dr. Newlin spoken of before, and his giving of the name of Censors to the Deans of Magdalen, which I finde afterwards, Lib. 8. fol. 7. he is very much mistaken in the matters of Christ Church.

Fuller.

What Dr. Newlen again? What if I called the Dean of Magdalen Colledge, the Censor. Grande piaculum!

Doe I not confesse it possible, That my Cambridge Sibboleth may make me lisp, and mispronounce the topicall offices in Oxford, and publiquely desired pardon, when such mistakes are committed? Where hath the Animadvertor left or lost his ingenuity, that so another may looke after, and make use of it, if so pleased?

Hereafter I shall remember that there is, though not a Censor now living in Magdalen Colledge, yet there was therein a Censurer [the Animadvertor] when no just cause is given him.

I expected rather, that he would have thanked, than censured me; Who being a Cambridge man, and finding their printed Catalogue of the presidents of Magdalen Colledge imperfect, as set forth by their own Antiquary Bryan Twyne, did amend the same, by inserting (in his due time) no meaner man than Dr. Walter Haddon, that famous and learned Civilian formerly omitted.

Dr. Heylin.

For first the three Professors, of Divinity, Hebrew, and Greek, are no necessary parts of that foundation, nor can be properly said to be founded in it. Till of late times they were and might be of other Colledges, as they are at this present, this Colledge being onelyonly bound to pay them for their annuall Pensions fourty pounds a piece. In after times, King Iames annexed a Prebends place in this Church, to the Professor of Divinity, as King Charles did another to the Hebrew Reader. But for the Greek Reader he hath only his bare pension from it, and hath no other relation to it, but by accident onelyonly; the last Greek Reader of this House being Dr. Iohn Perin who dyed in the yeare 1615

Fuller.

I say not, that those three professors were founded in that Colledge, but that they are maintained therein. And seeing the Colledge (as the Animadvertor confesseth payes them their salaries, my words are subject to no just Exceptions.

Dr. Heylin.

And secondly, he is very far short in the number of Students, diminishing them from an hundred to sixtie, there being an Hundred and one of that foundation by the name of Students, equivalent to the Fellowes of most other Colledges in the Revenues of their place and all advantages and incouragements in the way of learning. But this perhaps hath somwhat in it of design, that by making the foundations of Oxford to seeme lesse than they are, those in the other University, might appear the fairer.

Fuller.

'Tis a meere pen-slip, and shall be amended accordingly. God knowes I hatch no such envious design, who could wish, that not onelyonly sixty, but six score six hundred, were founded, &c. therein. Alwayes provided, p. 59That the Nursery exceed not the Orchard: And that the Universities by too large a Plantation breed not more Scholars, than the Kingdome is able to prefer and imploy.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 171. And here Wolsey had provided him a second Wife (viz.) Margaret Countesse of Alanzon, sister to Francis King of France.] As much out in his French as his English Heraldry. For first the Lady Margaret here spoken of, was never Countesse, though sometimes Dutchesse of Alanzon, as being once wife to Charles the fourth Duke thereof. And secondly, at the time when King Henries Divorce from Queen Katherine was first agitated, this Lady was not in a capacity of being projected for a Wife to King Henry the eighth, being then actually in the bed of another Henry, &c.

Fuller.

Margaret (who shall be amended Dutchesse) of Alanzon was Here, (I mean not just in this year, but in this businesse, afterwards designed by Wolsy for a Wife to King Henry.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 178. Yet had he the whole Revenues of York Archbishoprick (worth then little lesse than four thousand pounds yearly) besides a large Pension paid him out of the Bishoprick of Winchester.] And a large Pension it was indeed (if it were a Pension) which amounted to the whole Revenue, &c.

Fuller.

For quietnesse sake, he shall have the whole Bishoprick, though I have read, that after Wolsey fell in the Kings displeasure, his revenue in Winchester (which he kept in Commendam) was reduced to a Pension.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 184. The Clergy of the Province of Canterbury alone bestowed on the King One hundred thousand pounds, to be paid by equall portions in the same year, say some; in four years say others, and that in my opinion with more probabily.] Here have we three Authors for one thing, some, others, and our Author himself, more knowing than all the rest in his own opinion. But all out alike. This great summe was not to be paid in one year, nor in four years neither, but to be paid by equall portions (that is to say, by twenty thousand pound per annum) in the five years following, &c.

Fuller.

Not reckoning the first summe, which was paid down on the Nail, that had just four years assigned them for the payment of the remainder.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 186. But he might have remembred, which also produced the peerlesse Queen Elizabeth, who perfected the Reformation.] Either our Author speaks not this for his own opinion, as in that before, or if he doe, it is an opinion of his own, in which he is not like to finde many followers. The Puritan party whom he acts for in all this work, will by no means grant it; comparing that most excellent Lady in their frequent Pasquils, to an idle Huswife, who sweeps the middle of the house to make a shew, but leaves all the dirt and rubbish behind the door. The grand Composers of the Directory doe perswade themselves, that if the first Reformers had been then alive, Pres. to the Directory.they would have joyned with them in the work, and laboured for a further Reformation. And what else hath been clamoured for during all her Reign, and the Ring leaders of the Faction endeavoured ever since her death, but to carry on the work of Reformation from one step to p. 60another, till they had brought it unto such a perfection as they vainly dreamt of, and of which now we feel and see the most bitter consequences? And as for the Prelatical party, the high Royallists, as our Author calls them, they conceive the Reformation was not so perfected in the time of that prudent Queen, but that there was somewhat left to doe for her two Successors; that is to …ay, the altering of some Rubricks in the Book of Common-prayer, the adding of some Collects at the end of the Letany, the enlargement of the common Catechism, a more exact translation of the Bible than had been before, the setling of the Church upon the Canons of 603. and finally, a stricter and more hopefull course for suppressing Popery, and for the maintenance both of conformity and uniformity by the Canons of 640.

Fuller.

I have the company of many honest and learned men going before, with, or after me, in the same opinion.

Perfection, in relation to the Church, is two-fold, Absolute or Exact, Gradual or Comparative.

The former is onelyonly Christs work to perform for whom alone the honor is reserved, to present the Church without spot or wrinkle to his father.

The latter, viz. Gradual and Comparative Perfection, may be attributed to particular militant Churches.

Queen Elizabeth did gradually perfect the Reformation, leaving it in a farre better condition than she found it in, in the reign of King Edward the sixth. Yet doe I not deny but that her Successors made commendable additions thereunto, notwithstanding all whose endeavors, I doubt not but still something did remain, to be amended; So that it will be perfectio perficienda as long as the Church is militant.

The Animadvertor must not strain up perfection (when appliable to any Church on Earth) too high to the Pin, with which the spirits **Heb. 11.23.Heb 11:23of just men are made perfect. For as long as the Church hath a FORME on Earth, it will be subject to deformities, and consequently will need reformation.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 187. And now I cannot call King Henry a Batchelor, because once married; nor a married man, because having no wife; nor properly a Widower, because his wife was not dead.] Our Author speaks this of Henry the eighth immediatly after his divorce, but is much mistaken in the matter. King Henry was so averse from living without a Wife, that he thought it more agreeable to his constitution to have two Wives together, than none at all. To that end while the businesse of the Divorce remained undecided,Hollinsh p. 129 he was married privately to the Lady Anne Bullen, on the 14 of November, &c.

Fuller.

It will rectifie all if I change those words having no wife, into as yet publiquely owning no wife, which shall be done accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 208. Though many wilde and distempered Expressions be found therein, yet they contain the Protestant Religion in Oare, which since by Gods blessing is happily refined.] Our Author speaks this of a Paper containing many erronious Doctrines presented by the Prolocutor to the Convocation: some few of which, as being part of Wickliffs Gospel and chief ingredients in the Composition of the new Protestant Religion lately taken up, I shall here subjoyn.

1. That the Sacrament of the Altar, is nothing else but a piece of bread, or a little predie Round-Robin.

2. That Priests have no more Authority to minister Sacraments than the Lay-men have.

p. 613. That all Ceremonies accus…omed in the Church, which are not clearly expressed in Scripture, must be taken away, because they are Mens inventions.

4. That the Church commonly so called is the old Synagogue; and that the Church, is the Congregation of good men onelyonly.

5. That God never gave grace nor knowledge of holy Scripture to any great Estate or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same.

6. That all things ought to be common.

7. That it is as lawfull to Christen a child in a Tub of water at home, or in a Ditch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the Church.

8. That it is no sin or offence to eat White-meats, Egges, Butter, Cheese, or Flesh in Lent, or other Fasting dayes commanded by the Church, and received by consent of Christian people.

9. That it is as lawfull to eat flesh on Good-Friday, as upon Easter-day, or other times in the year.

10. That the Ghostly Father cannot give or enjoyn any penance at all.

11. That it is sufficient for a Man or Woman to make their confession to God alone.

12. That it is as lawfull at all times to confesse to a Lay-man as to a Priest.

13. That it is sufficient that the sinner doe say, I know my self a sinner.

14. That Bishops, Ordinaries, and Eccelesiastical Iudges, have no Authority to give any sentence of Excommunication or censure, ne yet to absolve or loose any man from the same.

15. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in, or to doe any divine service in.

16. That buryings in Churches and Church-yards be unprofitable and vain.

17. That the rich and costly Ornaments in the Church are rather high displeasure than pleasure or honour to God.

18. That our Lady was no better than another Woman, and like a bag of Pepper or Saffron when the spice is out.

19. That Prayers, Suffrages, Fasting, or Alms-deeds, doe not help to take away sin.

20. That Holy-dayes ordained and instituted by the Church, are not to be observed and kept in reverence, in as much as all dayes and times be alike.

21. That Plowing and Carting, and such servile work, may be done in the same, without any offence at all, as on other dayes.

22. That it is sufficient and enough to beleeve, though a man doe no good works at all.

23. That seeing Christ hath shed his blood for us, and Redeemed us, we need not to doe any thing at all, but to believe and repent if we have offended.

24. That no humane Constitutions or Laws do binde any Christian man, but such as be in the Go…pels, Pauls Epistles, or the New Testament: and that a man may break them without any offence at all.

25. That the singing or saying of Mass, Mattens, or Even song, is but a roring, howling, whistling, mumming, tom…ing, and jugling, and the playing on the Organs a foolish vanity.

This is our Authors golden Oare, out of which his new Protestant Religion was to be extracted. So happily refin'd, that there is nothing of the Old Christian Religion to be found therein. Which though our Author doth defend as Expressions rather than Opinions, the Careers of the Soul, and Extravagancies of humane infirmity, as he doth the rest; yet he that looks upon these points, and sees not in them the rude draught and lineaments of the Puritan Plat-form, which they have been hammering since the time of Cartwright and his Associates, must either have better eyes than mine, or no eyes at all. I see our Author looks for thanks for this discovery for publishing the paper which contain'd these new Protestant truths, and I give him mine.

Fuller.

I have many things to return in this Contest. First, had I garbled the Opinions p. 62of my own Head, and not presented them to the Reader, as I found them presented in the Records of the Convocation, then the Animadvertor had had just advantage against me.

Secondly, He taketh exception at me in his Introduction, for not giving in the Degrees by which Heterodoxies in Religion were ejected and cast out: Yet not he is offended at me, because I goe about to doe it, shewing how bad Religion was before the Reformation, even in the best Professors thereof.

Thirdly, It is more than probable, that these Opinions, presented by such as were disaffected to the Reformation, were not over favourably stated, but rather worded to the disadvantage.

Fourthly, Some of these Opinions, thus condemned by the Animadvertor, are …ound in themselves. I instance in that which in this his List is the eleventh in number, viz That it is sufficient for a man or woman to make confession to God alone. This at this day is defended by the Protestan… Church, which though commending Confession as expedient in some cases, especially when the afflicted Conscience cannot otherwi…e get any ea…e, yet doth it not command it on any as necessary, necessitate precepti, so that the omission thereof should amount to a sin. I am confident that the Animadvertor himself never solemnly confessed his sins to any but to God alo…e. And it is injurious in him, to demand of another to doe that which was never done by himself.

Lastly, How unjust were it to put all **Ier. 24.2.Jer 24:2Ieremies bud figs by themselves, and thence to conclude all the rest (which indeed were very good) to be like unto them? Such the dealing of the Animadvertor herein, who hath called out the very Refuse and Dross of the Dross in these Opinions, and left out the rest, then maintained by Gods People in opposition to the Errors and Superstition of that Age, some whereof are here inserted.

1. They deny Extreme Unction to be any Sacrament.

2. That all those are Antichrists, who deny the Laity the Sacrament under both kindes.

3. That it is plain Idolatry, to set up any Lights before any Images, or in any place of the Church in time of Divine Service, as long as the Sun giveth light.

4. That Au…icular Confession is invented to know the secrets of mens hearts, and to pull money out of their purse.

5. That Sain…s are not to be invocated, and that they understand not, nor know nothing of our Petitions, nor can be Mediators or Intercessors betwixt us and God.

6. That Diriges, Mass…s, &c. done for the Souls of those which are departed out of this World, are bu… vain, and of no profit.

7. That Souls departed goe strait to Heaven, others to Hell.

8. That there is no mean place betwixt Heaven and Hell, where Souls departed may be aff…cted.

9. That there is no distinction of Sin, to be Venial and Mortal.

10. That hallowed Water, Bread, Candles, Ashes, Palmes, are of none effect, and are onelyonly used to seduce people.

The rest I refer to my Church-History.

Had that all been like these, I would have called them the Gold, but (because of many Errors mixed amongst them) I resume my Metaphor, and term them the Golden Oare, out of which the Reformed Christian Religion was extracted. And let the Author and Reader joyn in their thanks to Gods Goodnesse, by whose blessing on the pious endeavors of the Reformers, th… bad Figs, I mean those false, indiscreet, scandalous, and dangerous Doctrines are cashired and condemned, and the good ones, understand me, the Positions which were pious and orthodox, retained, defended and practised at this day in the Church of England.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 239. At this time also were the Stews suppressed by the Kings command.] And I could wish that some command had been laid upon p. 63our Author by the Parliament to suppresse them also, and not to have given them any place in the present History, especially not to have produc'd those arguments by which some shamelesse persons endeavoured to maintain both the conveniency and necessity of such common Brothel-houses. Defence of the Apolog.Had Bishop Iewel been alive, and seen but half so much from Dr. Harding pleading in behalf of the common women permitted by the Pope in Rome, he would have thought, that to call him an Advocate for the Stews had not been enough. But that Doctor was not half so wise as our Author is, and doth not fit each Argument with a several Antidote as our Author doth, hoping thereby, but vainly hoping, that the arguments alledged will be wash'd away. Some of our late Criticks had a like Designe in marking all the wanton and obscene Epigrams in Martial with a Hand or Asterism, to the intent that young Scholars, when they read that Author, might be fore-warn'd to passe them over: Whereas on the contrary, it was found, that too many young fellows, or wonton wits, …s our Author calls them, did ordinarily skip over the rest, and pitch on those which were so mark't and set out unto them. And much I fear that it will so fall out with our Author also, whose Arguments will be studied and made use of, when his Answers will not.

Fuller.

The commendable Act of King Henry the eighth, in suppressing the Stews, may well be reported in Church-History, it being recorded in **1 King. 15.121 Kgs 15:12Scripture to the eternal praise of King Asa, that he took away the Sodomites out of the Land. I hope my collection of arguments in confutation of such Styes of Lust, will appear to any rational Reader of sufficient validity.

Indeed it is reported of Zeuxes, that famous Painter, that he so lively pictured a Boy with a Rod in his hand, carrying a Basket of Grapes, that Birds (mistaking them for real ones) peckt at them; and whilest others commended his Art, he was angry with his own work-manship, confessing, that if he had made the Boy but as well as the Grapes, the Birds durst not adventure at them.

I have the same just cause to be offended with my own indeavors, if the Arguments against those Schools of Wantonnesse should prove insufficient, though I am confident that if seriously considered, they doe in their own true weight preponderate those produced in favour of them. However, if my well-intended pains be abused by such who onelyonly will feed on the poisons, wholy neglecting the Antidotes, their destruction is of themselves, and I can wash my hands of any fault therein.

But me thinks the Animadvertor might well have passed this over in silence, for fear of awaking sleeping wontonnesse, jogged by this his Note; so that if my Arguments, onelyonly presented in my Book, be singly, this his Animadversion is doubly guilty on the same account, occasioning loose eyes to reflect on that which otherwise would not be observed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 253. Otherwise some suspect, had he survived King Edward the sixth, we might presently have heard of a King Henry the ninth.] Our Author speaks this of Henry Fitz Roy, the Kings natural Son by Elizabeth Blunt, and the great disturbance he might have wrought to the Kings two daughters in their Succession to the Crown. A Prince indeed whom his Father very highly cherished, creating him Duke of Somerset and Richmond, Earl of Nottingham, and Earl Marshal of England, and raising him to no small hopes of the Crown it self, as appears plainly by the Statute 22 H. 8. c. 7. But whereas our Author speaks it on a supposition of his surviving King Edward the sixth, he should have done well in the first place to have inform'd himself, whether this Henry and Prince Edward were at any time alive together. And if my Books speak true, they were not; Henry of Somerset and Richmond dying the 22 of Iuly, Anno 1536. Prince Edward not being born till the 12 of October, Anno 1537. So that if our Author had been but as good at Law or Grammar, as he is at Heraldry, he would not have spoke p. 64of a Survivor-ship in such a case, when the one person had been long dead before the other was born.

Fuller.

Terms of Law when used not in Law-Books, nor in any solemn Court, but in common Discourse, are weaned from their critical sense, and admit more latitude. If the word surviving should be tied up to legal strictnesse, Survivour is appliable to none save onelyonly to such who are Ioint-tenants. However, because co-viving is properly required in a Survivor, those my words had he survived, shall be altered into had he lived to survive Prince Edward, and then all is beyond exception.

Dr. Heylin.

These incoherent Animadversions being thus passed over, we now proceed to the Examination of our Authors Principles, for weakning the Authority of the Church, and subjecting it in all proceedings to the power of Parliaments. Concerning which he had before given us two Rules Preparatory to the great businesse which we have in hand. First, that the proceedings of the Canon Law were subject in whatsoever touched temporals, to secular Laws and National Customes. And the Laitie at pleasure limited Canons in this behalf, Lib. 3. n. 61. And secondly, that the King by consent of Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in cases of Heresie. Lib. 4. n. 88. And if the Ecclesiastical power was thus curbed and fettered when it was at the highest, there is no question to be made, but that it was much more obnoxious to the secular Courts when it began to sink in reputation, and decline in strength. How true and justifiable, or rather how unjustifiable and false these two principles are, we have shewn already, and must now look into the rest, which our Author in pursuance of the main Design hath presented to us. But first we must take notice of another passage concerning the calling of Convocations or Synodical meetings, formerly called by the two Archbishops in their several Provinces by their own sole and proper power, as our Author grants, fol. 190. to which he adds,

Fol. 190. But after the Statute of Premunire was made (which did much restrain the Papal power, and subject it to the Laws of the Land) when Arcbishops called no more Convocations by their sole and absolute command, but at the pleasure of the King.] In which I must confesse my self to be much unsatisfied, though I finde the same position in some other Authors. My reasons two, 1. Because there is nothing in the Statu…e of Praemunire to restrain the Archbishops from calling these meetings as before; that Act extending onelyonly to such as purchase or pursue, or cause to be purchased or pursued, in the Court of Rome, or elsewhere any such Translations, Processes, Sentences of Excommunication, Bulls, Instruments, or any other things whatsoever which touch the King, against him, his Crown and his Regality, or his Realm; or to such as bring within the Realm or them receive, or make thereof notification, or any other Execution whatsoever within the same Realm, or without, &c. And secondly, because I finde in the Statute of the submission of the Clergy, that it was recognized and acknowledged by the Clergie in their Convocation, Stat 25 H 8. c. 19.that the Convocation of the said Clergie is, alwaies hath been, and ought to be assembled alwaies by the Kings Writ. And if they had been alwaies call'd by the Kings Writ, then certainly before the Statute of Praemunire; for that the whole Clergy in their Convocation should publiquely declare and avow a notorious falshood, especially in a matter of fact, is not a thing to be imagined. I must confesse my self to be at a losse in this intricate Labyrinth, unless perhaps there were some critical difference in those elder times between a Synod and a Convocation: the first being call'd by the Arch-bishops in their several and respective Provinces, as the necessities of the Church; the other only by the King, as his occasion and affairs did require the same. But whether this were so or not, is not much material, as the case now stands, the Clergie not assembling since the 25 of King Henry the eighth, but as they are convocated and convened by the Kings Writ only. I only add that the time and year of this submission is mistook by our Author▪ who placeth it in 1533. whereas indeed the p. 65Clergy made this acknowledgement and submission in their Convocation, Anno 1532. though it pass'd not into an Act or Statute till the year next following. Well then, suppose the Clergy call'd by the Kings Authority, and all their Acts and Constitutions ratified by the Royals assent, are they of force to binde the Subject to submit and conform unto them? Not, if our Author may be judge; for he tels us plainly,

Fol. 191. That even such Convocations with the Royal assent, subject not any (for recusancie to obey their Canons) to a civil penalty in person or property, until confirmed by Act of Parliament.] I marvel where our Author took up this opinion, which he neither findes in the Registers of Convocation, or Records of Parliament. Himself hath told us, fol. 190. that such Canons and Constitutions as were concluded on in Synods or Convocations, before the passing of the Statute of Praemunire, were without any further Ratification, obligatory to all subjected to their jurisdiction. And he hath told us also of such Convocations as had been called between the passing of the Statute of Praemunire, and the Act for Submission, that they made Canons which were binding, although none other than Synodical Authority did confirm the same. Upon which premisses I shall not fear to raise this Syllogism, viz. That power which the Clergy had in their Convocations before their submission to the King, to binde the Subject by their Canons and Constitutions without any further ratification than own Synodical Authority, the same they had when the Kings power signified in his Royal assent was added to them; but the Clergy (by our Authors own confession) had power in their Convocations before their submission to the King, to bind the Subject by their Canons and Constitutions, without any further ratification than their own Synodical Authority; Ergo they had the same power to bind the Subjects, when the Kings power signified by the Royal assent was added to them. The Minor being granted by our Author, as before is shewed, the Major is onelyonly to be proved. And for the proof hereof, I am to put the Reader in minde of a Petition or Remonstrance exhibited to the King by the House of Commons, Anno 1532. in which they shewed themselves agrieved, that the Clergy of this Realm should act Authori…atively and Supremely in the Convocations, and they in Parliament do nothing, but as it was confirmed and ratified by Royal assent. By which it seems that there was nothing then desired by the House of Commons, but that the Convocation should be brought down to the same level with the Houses of Parliament; and that their Acts and Constitutions should not binde the Subject as before, in their Goods and Possessions, until they were confirmed and ratified by the Regal Power. The Answer unto which Remonstrance being drawn up by Dr. Gardiner then newly made Bishop of Winchester, and allowed of by both Houses of Convocation, was by them presented to the King. But the King not satisfied with this Answer, resolves to bring them to his bent, lest else perhaps they might have acted something to the hindrance of his divorce, which was at that time in agitation; and therefore on the tenth of May he sends a Paper to them by Dr. Fox, (after Bishop of Hereford) in which it was peremptorily required, That no Constitution or Ordinance shall be hereafter by the Clergy Enacted, Promulged, or put in Execution, unlesse the Kings Highnesse do approve the same by his high Authority and Royal assent; and his advice and favour be also interponed for the execution of every such Constitution among his Highnesse Subjects. And though the Clergy on the receipt of this paper remov'd first to the Chappel of St. Katherines, and after unto that of St. Dunstan to consult about it, yet found they no Saint able to inspire them with a resolution contrary to the Kings desires; and therefore upon the Wednesday following, being the fifteenth of the same MonethMonth, they made their absolute submission, binding themselves in Verbo Sacerdotii, not to make or execute any Canons or other Synodical Constitutions, but as they were from time to time enabled by the Kings Authority. But this submission being made unto the King in his single person, and not as in conjunction with his Houses of Parliament, could neither bring the Convocation under the command of Parliaments, nor render them obnoxi…us to the power thereof, as indeed it did not. But to the contrary hereof it is said by our Author, that

p. 66Fol. 194. He (viz. the King) by the advice and consent of his Clergy in Convocation and great Councel in Parliament, resolved to reform the Church under his inspection from grosse abuses crept into it.] To this I need no other Answer than our Author himself, who though in this place he makes the Parliament to be joyned in Commission with Convocation, as if a joynt Agent in that great businesse of Reforming the Church; yet in another place he tels us another tale. For fol. 188. It will appear, saith he (and I can tell from whom he saith it) upon serious examination, that there was nothing done in the Reformation of Religion, save what was acted by the Clergy in their Convocations, or grounded on some Act of theirs precedent to it, with the Advice, Counsel, and Consent of the Bishops and most eminent Church-men; confirmed upon the Postfact, and not otherwise by the Civil Sanction, according to the usage of the best and happiest times of Christianity. So then the Reformation of the Church was acted chiefly by the King with the advice of the Clergy in their Convocation; the confirmation on the post-fact by the King in Parliament: and that (by his leave) not in all the Acts and Particulars of it, but in some few onelyonly, for which consult the Tract entituled, The Way and Manner of the Reformation of the Church of England. Now as our Author makes the Parliament a joynt Assistant with the King in the Reformation, so he conferreth on Parliaments the Supreme Power of ratifying and confirming all Synodical Acts.

Fol. 199. The Parliament (saith he) did notifie and declare that Ecclesiastical Power to be in the King, which the Pope had formerly unjustly invaded: Yet so, that they reserved to themselves the confirming power of all Canons Ecclesiastical; so that the person or property of Refusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty without consent of Parliament.] But certainly there is no such matter in that Act of Parliament, in which the submission of the Clergy and the Authority of the King grounded thereupon is notified and recorded to succeeding times; nor any such reservation to themselves of a confirming power, as our Author speaks of, in any Act of Parliament (I can knowingly and boldly say it) from that time to this. Had there been any such Priviledge, any such Reservation as is here declared, their Power in confirming Ecclesiastical Canons had been Lord Paramount to the Kings; who could have acted nothing in it, but as he was enabled by his Houses of Parliament. Nor is this onelyonly a new and unheard of Paradox an Heterodoxie (as I may call it) in point of Law, but plainly contrary to the practise of the Kings of England from that time to this; there being no Synodical Canons or Constitutions (I dare as boldly say this too) confirmed in Parliament, or any otherwise ratified, than by the superadding of the Royal assent. For proof whereof look we no further than the Canons of 603 and 640 confirmed by the two Kings respectively, and without any other Authority concurring with them in these following words (viz.) We have therefore for Us, our Heirs, and lawfull Successors, of our especial Grace, certain knowledge, and meer motion, given, and by these presents doe give our Royal assent according to the form of the said Statute or Act of Parliament aforesaid, to all and every of the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and to all and every thing in them contained. And furthermore, we doe not onelyonly by our said Prerogative Royal, and Supreme Authority, in causes Ecclesiastical, ratifie, confirm, and establish by these our Letters Patents, the said Canons, Orders, Ordinances, and Constitutions, and all and every thing in them contained, as is aforesaid: But doe likewise propound, publish, and straightly enjoyn and command by our said Authority, and by these our Letters Patents, the same to be diligently observed, executed, and equally kept by all our loving Subjects of this our Kingdome, both within the Province of Canterbury and York, in all points wherein they doe or may concern every or any o… them according to this our Will and Pleasure hereby signified and expressed. No other Power required to confirm these Canons, or to impose them on the People but the Kings alone. And yet I trow there are not a few particulars, in which those Canons doe extend, to the propertie and persons of such Refusers as are concerned in the same; which our Author may soon finde in them p. 67if he list to look. And having so done, let him give us the like Precedent for his Houses of Parliament (either abstractedly in themselves, or in cooperation with the King) in confirming Canons; and we shall gladly quit the cause, willingly submit to his **I bilieve this should be better, as may appear in the Errata. But because the page is mistaken, 121, for 101, I dare not alter it.ter judgement.

But if it be objected, as perhaps it may, That the Subsidies granted by the Clergy in the Convocation, are ratified and confirmed by Act of Parliament, before they can be levied either on the Granters themselves, or the rest of the Clergy.

I answer, that this makes nothing to our Authors purpose, that is to say, that the person or property of Refusers should not be subjected to temporal penalty, without consent of Parliament. For first, before the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the 8. they granted Subsidies and other aids unto the King in their Convocations, and levied them upon the persons concerned therein, by no other way than the usual Censures of the Church, especially by Suspension and deprivation, if any Refuser prove so refractary as to dispute the payment of the sum imposed. And by this way they gave and levied that great sum of an Hundred thousand pounds in the Province of Canterbury onelyonly; by which they bought their peace of the said King Henry, at such time as he had caused them to be attainted in the Praemunire. And secondly, there is a like Precedent for it since the said Submission. For whereas the Clergy in their Convocation in the year 1585. being the 27 year of Queen Elizabeth, had given that Queen a Subsidy of four sh…llings in the pound, confirmed by Act of Parliament in the usual way; th…y gave her at the same time (finding their former gift too short for her present occasions) a Benevolence of two shillings in the pound to be raised upon all the Clergy, by virtue of their own Synodical Act onelyonly, under the penalty of such Ecclesiastical Censures as before were mentioned. Which precedent was after followed by the Clergy in their Convocation, An 1640. the Instrument of the Grant being the same verbatim with that before; though so it hapned (such influence have the times on the Actions of men) that they were quarreld and condemned for it by the following Parliament in the time of the King, and not so much as checkt at, or thought to have gone beyond their bounds in the time of the Queen. And for the ratifying of their Bill by Act of Parliament, it came up first at such times (after the Submission before mentioned) as the Kings of England being in distrust of their Clergy, did not think fit to impower them by their Letters Patents for the making of any Synodical Acts, Canons or Constitutions whatsoever, by which their Subsidies have been levied in former times, but put them off to be confirmed and made Obligatory by Act of Parliament. Which being afterwards found to be the more expedite way, and not considered as derogatory to the Churches Rights, was followed in succeeding times without doubt or scruple; the Church proceeding in all other Cases by her native power, even in Cases where both the persons and property of the Subject were alike concerned, as by the Canons 1603, 1640, and many of those past in Queen Elizabeths time (though not so easie to be seen) doth at full appear. Which said, we may have leisure to consider of another passage relating not unto the Power of the Church, but the wealth of the Churchmen. Of which thus our Author.

Fuller.

I conceived it Civil to suffer the Animadvertor (to use his own phrase) parler le tout, to speak all out in this long Discourse; which, although it consisteth of several Notes, yet because all treat of the same subject, and because a Relative strength might result thereby to the whole, I have presented it intire: Yet when all is said, I finde very little I have learnt thereby, and lesse (if any thing) which I am to alter.

These my two preparatory Rules (as the Animadvertor terms them) I have formerly stated, and proved, and here intend no repetition.

It is no Beame, and but a Moat-fault at most, if I have dated the submission of the Clergy to the King, not from the first private performance, but the passing thereof p. 68into Print and publique cognisance. Thus the Age of Children are by their Parents reckoned from their birth, but by others from their entrance in the Register.

But the main fault (and that a foul one, if true) layed to my charge is, for weakning the Authority of Church, and subjecting it to the power of Parliaments. But know it is past the might and spight of the most malicious man finally to weaken the just Authority of the Church, God having solemnly promised That the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Yet Princes (as King Henry the eighth did) might retrence the Power of the Church (or ambitious Church-men rather) when they invaded the just priviledges of others.

I shall onelyonly return a few plain and general answers to what is objected. First, before I entred on the difficult Subject of Synods and Convocations (before and since the Clergies Submission) with their respective powers, I placed, as followeth,

Church-History, Book 1. pag. 191.

This I humbly conceive to be the difference betwixt the three kindes of Convocations, submitting what I have written, to the censure and correction of the learned in the Law, conscious of my own ignorance therein, as indeed such skill neither is to be expected or required in one of my profession, who am ready with willingnesse, yea with chearfulnesse, yea with thankfulnesse to God and man publickly to recall and retract what any such convince me to have mistaken herein; hoping that my stumbling in so dark a subject, may prevent the failing of others.

Having thus humbly desired (I say not deserved) favour, I hope it will be indulged unto me.

Secondly, I presume to tender this (I hope reasonable) motion to the Reader, that seeing the Animadvertor not onelyonly freely confesseth this Subject to be an intricate Labyrinth, but also fairly acknowledgeth, that he findeth the Positions I maintain in SOME OTHER AUTHORS, that I may be discharged, and that the guilt (if any) may be derived on such Authors as have misguided me.

Thirdly, When I use the word Parliament, it expoundeth it self what was meant thereby (capable in that age of no other comment) viz. The aggregation of the King, Lords, and Commons.

Fourthly, I distinguish betwixt a consultive, conclusive, and punitive power in matters of Religion. The consultive power God hath intrusted his Church with, and the Clergy as the Representative thereof. The conclusive power also is invested in them, so far forth as to declare what is Orthodox, and what Heretical. But the punitive power (especially when exceeding Church Censors) and extending to Life, Limb, and Estate, is in the Parliament; that so neither Royal Prerogative nor Subjects Right may be injured.

Fifthly, I distinguish betwixt the power which the Convocation had over the Clergy, and what they have over the Laity. Over the Estates of the latter, they have no power.

As for the Clergy, they are all represented, by their voluntary elections, in their Clerks or Proctors: Volenti non fit injuria, A man that is willing is not wronged. What summes therefore they give away of the Clergy, they may be presumed impowred therein, with the consent of the Clergy. However, to clear all doubts, the consent of Parliament hath [since the Submission of the Clergy] been required unto it.

As for the black Swan in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, I mean that single and signal instance of tha… Unparliament-impowred-Convocation, which gave that supplimental Subsidie to Queen Elizabeth; I humbly conceive that the popularity of so peerlesse a Princesse, the necessity of her occasions, and the tranquilitie of those times (a happinesse denyed in our Age) made that unquestioned, which might be questionable if any turbulent Clergy-man had proved recusant in payment.

As to the Convocation 1640. let me request the Reader, that I may without danger humbly tender my opinion therein. That Convocation (as all others) consisted of Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, and Clerks. Of these, the three former acted onelyonly in their personal capacities, and carrying their own Purses in their own pockets, might give Subsidies to the King to what proportion they pleased, and justifie the doing thereof.

p. 69Not so the fourth and last Members, being Clerks chosen for their respective Cathedrals and Diocesses, legally to sit as long as the Parliament lasted. After the dissolution whereof they desisted to be publique Persons, lost the notion of Representatives, and returned to their private condition. In which capacity they might have given for themselves what sums they pleased, but could not vote away the estates of other Clergy-men, except the respective Cathedrals and Diocesses had re-Elected them; which had it been done, they might no doubt have justifyed the giving away of Subsidies, as authorized thereunto, though the Parliament had been dissolved, seeing every man may doe with his owne as he pleaseth, and the diffusive Clergy were justly interpreted to doe what was done by their Proctors. Truth may be blamed, but cannot be shamed, and I have unbosomed my thoughts and judgment herein. But this outswelleth the proportion of my booke, and let me make a faire motion to the Animadvertor. I resume my two former Propositions, (viz.)

1 The proceedings of the Canon Law in what touched temporals of Life, Limb, and Estate, was alwaies limited with the secular Lawes and Nationall Customes of England.

2 That the King, by consent of Parliament, directed the proceedings of Ecclesiasticall Courts, against declared Hereticks, so that they could not punish them in Life or Limbe, but as limited by the Statute.

If the Animadvertor, who hath leisure and abilitie, be pleased in confutation of these my Propositions, to write a few sheets (it being richly worth his and the Readers paines) cleerly, briefly, fully and fairly, without the least dash of ill language, subscribing his name thereunto, I will God willing returne him my answere qualified accordingly; and, though I confesse the Animadvertor hath the advantage of me at the weapon of Law, yet my confidence of a good Cause will make mee undertake the Challenge; alwaies provided, That no advantage be taken against us by any for delivering our Judgements and Consciences in so nice a Controversie: For the present I forbeare, because this dispute is substantive enough to stand by it self, and too large to bee adjected to this booke.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 253. I have heard (saith he) that Queen Elizabeth being informed that Dr. Pilkington Bishop of Durham had given ten thousand pounds in marriage with his Daughter; and being offended that a Prelates daughter should equall a Princesse in Portion, took away one thousand pounds a year from that Bishoprick, and assigned it for the better maintenance of the Garrison of Barwick.] In telling of which story our Author commits many mistakes, as in most things else. For first to justifie the Queens displeasure (if she were displeased) he makes the Bishop richer, and the Portion greater than indeed they were. The ten thousand pounds Lib 9 fol. 109. being shrunk to eight; and that eight thousand pound not given to one Daughter (as is here affirmed) but divided equally between two: whereof the one was married to Sir Iames Harrington, the other unto Dunch of Berkshire. Secondly, this could be no cause of the Queens displeasure, and much lesse of the Countries envie; that Bishop having sat in the See of Durham above seventeen years. And certainly he must needs have been a very ill Husband if out of such a great Revenue he had not saved five hundred pounds per annum to prefer his Children; the income being as great, and the charges of Hospility lesse than they have been since. Thirdly, the Queen did not take away a thousand pound a year from that Bishoprick, as is here affirmed. The Lands were left to it as before, but in regard the Garrison of Barwick preserved the Bishops Lands and Tenants from the spoil of the Scots; the Queen thought fit, that the Bishops should contribute towards their own defence, imposing on them an annual pension of a thousand pound for the better maintaining of that Garrison. Fourthly, Bishop Pilkington was no Doctor, but a Batchelor of Divinity onelyonly; and possibly had not been raised by our Author to an higher title and Degree than the University had given him, but that he was a Conniver at Non-conformity, as our Author p. 70telleth us Lib. 9. fol. 109. Lastly, I shall here add, that I conceived the Pension above mentioned, not to have been laid upon that See after Pilkingtons death, but on his first preferment to it, the French having then newly landed some forces in Scotland, which put the Queen upon a necessity of doubling her Guards and increasing her Garrisons. But whatsoever was the cause of imposing this great yearly payment upon that Bishoprick, certain I am, that it continued, and the money was duly paid into the Exchequer for many years, after the true cause thereof was taken away; the Queens displeasure against Pilkington ending either with his life or hers, and all the Garrisons and forces upon the Borders being taken away in the beginning of the Reign of King Iames. So true is that old saying, Quod Christus non capit, fiscus rapit; never more fully verified than in this particular.

Fuller.

I have given in a double account of Bishop Pilkingtons Issue and Estate.

1. As same reported, and as envio…s Courtiers represented it to Queen Elizabeth, that he gave ten thousand with his onelyonly Daughter, Lib. 5. fol. 253.

2. As it was in truth, giving but four thousand a piece with Two daughters, lib. 8. fol. 109.

The Animadvertor may allow me knowing in his family, my wife being Grandchild to his Eldest Daughter, married to Sir **So is his name in my corrected Books.Henry Harrington.

Yet no relation to him, or favour for him as a semi-non conformist, but mere love to the Truth, made me entitle him Doctor, though I confesse Bishop Godwin maketh him but Batchelour in Divinity. For Dr. Caius, Master of Gonvil Hall, whilest Pilkington was of St. Iohns in Cambridge, giveth him the stile of **In his List of the Masters of St. Iohns.Doctor, who must be presumed most exact in the Titles of his own Contemporary.

The difference is not great, betwixt taking away 1000 l. yearly from the Bishoprick, and charging it with an annual Pension of 1000 l. to maintain the Garrison of Barwick. However if the Reader can gain any information from what is additory in the Animadvertor, I shall be light glad thereof.