The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Part 3 · Book 11 · Part 2 (1 of 2)

The Appeal of Injured Innocence · Part 3 · Book 11 · Part 2 (1 of 2)

p. 27Lib. XI. Part. II. Containing the last 12. Years of the Reign of King Charls.

Dr. Heylyn.

ANd now we come to the last and most unfortunate Part of this King's Reigne, which ended in the Losse of his owne Life, the Ruine of the Church, and the Alteration of the Civill Government. Occasioned PRIMARILY, as my Author saith, by sending a new Liturgy to the Kirk of Scotland.

Fuller.

I deny such a Word that I said the Liturgy did PRIMARILY occasion the War with Scotland: Rather the cleane contrary may (by Charitable Logick) be collected from my Words, when having reckoned up a Complication of Heart-burnings amongst the Scots, I thus Conclude,

Church-History. Book 11. Page. 163.

Thus was the Scottish Nation full of discontents, when this Book being brought unto them bare the Blame of their breaking forth into more dangerous designes: as when the Cup is brim-full before, the LAST (though LEAST) superadded drop is charged alone to be the Cause of all the running over.

Till then that the Word PRIMARILY can be produced out of my Book, let the Animadvertor be beheld PRIMARILY, as One departed from the Truth; and SECONDARILY as a Causelesse accuser of his Brother.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Folio. 160. Miseries caused from the sending of the Book of Service, or new Liturgy thither which may sadly be termed a Rubrick indeed dyed with the blood of so many, of both Nations slaine on that Occasion.] Our Author speakes this in Relation to the Scottish Tumults, Anno 1637. In telling of which Story he runs (as commonly elsewhere) into many Errours. For first those Miseries, and that blood-shed was not caused by sending the Liturgy thither &c.

Fuller.

Seeing the Animadvertor denies the Liturgy to have had any Causall influence on the Scots War, I must manifest my dissent from his Iudgement; and here I crave the Reader's leave to be his humble Remembrancer of the Kinds of Causes, so far as they conduce to the clearing of the present Controversie.

Causes are twofold, Solitary or Totall foreign; or Ioynt and fellow Causes foreign. The latter againe is twofold, Proegumena [long leading before] and inwardly disposing and inclining to Action; or Procatarctica (called also Causa irritatrix or Primitiva provocans) which is outwardly impulsive to Action.

The former is tearmed by Physitians, Causa Antecedens; the latter Causa Evidens of a disease. Thus in a Feaver, corrupt humours bred within and without the Veines, are the Antecedent cause thereof: whilst, being in the hot Sun, walking in the South-wind &c. stopping the Pores, and stirring the ill Humours to heat, may be the evident cause of a Feaver.

p. 28I thus apply it: The inward discontents of the Scots on severall accounts (which follow on the next Paragraph) were the Antecedent causes of their War; whilst the evident Cause thereof, was the Obtruding the Liturgy upon them. And so much for my cleare sense in this Controversie.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Plot had been laid long before upon other grounds, that is to say, Questioning of some Church Lands, then in the hands of some great Persons, of which they feared a Rovocation to the Crown. And secondly, the manumitting of some poor subjects from the tyranny and vassallage which they lived under, in respect of their Tithes, exacted with all cruelty and injustice by those, whom they call the Lords of new erection. Which Plot so laid, there wanted nothing but some popular occasion for raising a Tumult first, a Rebellion afterwards; and this occasion they conceived they had happily gain'd, by sending the new Liturgy thither, though ordered by their own Clergy first, as our Author tells us, at the Assembly of Aberdeen, Anno 1616. and after a… Perth, Anno 1618. and fashioned for the most part by their own Bishops also. But of this there hath so much been said between the Observator and his Antagonist, that there is nothing necessary to be added to it. Secondly, there was no such matter as the passing of an Act of Revocation, for the restoring of such Lands as had been alienated from the Crown, in the minority of the Kings Predecessors, of which he tells us, fol. 192. The King indeed did▪ once intend the passing of such an Act, but finding what an Insurrection was likely to ensue upon it, he followed the safer counsell of Sir Archibald Acheson, by whom he was advis'd to sue them in his Courts of Justice. Which course succeeding to his wish, so terrified many of those great persons, who had little else but such Lands to maintain their Dignities, that they never thought themselves secure, as long as the King was in a condition to demand his own. Thirdly, though it be true enough, that some persons of honour had been denied such higher Titles as they had desired, fol. 163. yet was it not the denying of such Titles unto Men of Honour, which wrought these terrible effects; but the denying of an honorary Title to a man of no honour. If Colonel Alexander Lesly, an obscure fellow, but made rich by the spoils and plunder of Germany, had been made a Baron when he first desired it, the rest of the male-contents in Scotland might have had an heart, though they had no head. But the King not willing to dishonour so high a Title, by conferring it on so low a person, denyed the favour: Which put the man into such a heat, that presently he joyned himself to the faction there, drove on the plot, and finally undertook the command of their Armies. Rewarded for which notable service with the Title of Earl of Levin by the King himself, he could not so digest the injury of the first refusall, but that he afterwards headed their Rebellions upon all occasions.

Fuller.

Little opposition against, some variation from, and more addition unto what I have written, is herein contained: Which if tending to the Reader his clearer information, I am right glad thereof, and wish him all happinesse therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 163. Generally they excused the King in their writings, as innocent therein, but charged Arch-bishop Laud as the principall, and Dr. Cousins as the instrumentall compiler thereof.] This is no more then we had reason to expect from a former passage, li…. 4. fol. 193. where our Author telleth us, that the Scotish Bishops withdrew themselves from their obedience to the See of York, in the time when George Nevil was Arch-bishop. And then he adds, Hence-forwards no Arch-bishop of York medled more with Church-matters in Scotland; and happy had it been, if no Arch-bishop of Canterbury had since interressed hims…lf therein. His stomack is so full of choller against this poor Prelate, that p. 29he must needs bring up some of it above an hundred years before he was born.

Fuller.

What could more calmly be written? Perchance some cold flegme, but nothing of choller is in the expression. I say again, It had been happy for King, Queen, Royall Issue, Church, State, the Arch-bishop himself, Animadvertor, Author, Reader, All England.

Dr. Heylyn.

Hence is it, that he takes together all reports which makes against him, and sets them down in rank and file in the course of this History. If Arch-bishop Abbot be suspended from his Jurisdiction, the blame thereof was laid on Arch-bishop Laud, as if, not content to succeed, he endeavoured to supplant him, fol. 128. The King sets out a Declaration about lawfull Sports, the reviving and enlarging of which must be put upon his account also, some strong presumptions being urged for the proof thereof, fol. 147. The reduction of the Church to her antient Rules, and publick Doctrines, must be nothing else but the enjoyning of his own private practises and opinions upon other men, fol. 127. And if a Liturgy be compos'd for the use of the Church of Scotland, Who but he must be charged to be the Compiler of it?

Fuller.

If all the places here cited are passed already, they have received their severall Answers; if any of them be to come, they shall receive them, God-willing, in due time: that so for the present we may be silent, to prevent repetition.

Dr. Heylyn.

But what proofs have we for all this? OnelyOnly the malice of his enemies, or our Authors own disaffection to him, or some common fame. And if it once be made a fame, it shall pass for truth, and as a truth find place in our Author's History, though the greatest falshood. Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut, quicquid famae liceat fingere, illi esset libenter audire, in my Author's language. But for the last he brings some proof, (he would have us think so at the least) that is to say, the words of one Bayly, a Scot; whom it concern'd to make him as odious as he could, the better to comply with a Pamphlet, called, The intentions of the Army; in which it was declared, That the Scots entred England with a purpose, to remove the Arch-bishop from the King, and execute their vengeance on him. What hand Dr. Couzens had in assisting of the work, I am not able to say. But sure I am, that there was nothing was done in it by the Bishops of England, but with the counsel and co-operation of their brethren in the Church of Scotland, viz. the Arch-bishop of St. Andrews, the Arch-bishop of Glasco, the Bishops of Murray, Ross, Brechin, and Dunblane, as appears by the Book, entituled, Hidden works of darkness, &c. fol. 150, 153, 154, &c. And this our Author must needs know, (but that he hath a mind to quarrell the Arch-bishop upon every turn) as appears plainly, 1. By his Narrative of the Designe in King Iames his time, from the first undertaking of it by the Arch-bishop of St. Andrewes, and the Bishop of Galloway then being; whose Book corrected by that King, with some additions, expunctions, and accommodations, was sent back to Scotland. 2. By that unsatisfiedness which he seems to have, when the project was resum'd by King Charls, Whether the Book by him sent into Scotland, were the same which had passed the hands of King Iames, or not; which he expresseth in these words, viz. In the Reigne of King Charls, the project was resumed, but whether the same Book, or no, God knoweth, fol. 160. If so, if God onelyonly know whether it were the same or no, how dares he tell us that it was not? And if it was the same, (as it may be for ought he knoweth) with what conscience can he charge the making of it upon Bishop Laud? Besides, (as afterward he telleth us, fol. 163) The Church of Scotland claimed not onelyonly to be Independent, and free as p. 30any Church in Christendom; a Sister, not a Daughter of England. And consequently the Prelates of that Church had more reason to decline the receiving of a Liturgy impos'd on them, or commended to them by the Primat of England, for fear of acknowledging any subordination to him; than to receive the same Liturgy here by Law establisht, which they might very safely borrow from their Sister-Church, without any such danger. But, howsoever it was, the blame must fall on him who did least deserve it.

Fuller.

I will return to my words, which gave the Animadvertor the first occasion of this long discourse.

Generally they excused the King in their writings, but charged Arch-bishop Laud.

I do not charge the Arch-bishop for compiling the Book, but say, The Scots did. Nor do I say, That what they charged on him is true; but it is true, that they did charge it on him. Had I denyed it, I had been a liar; and seeing I affirmed no more, the Animadvertor is a caviller.

It is observable, that when our Chroniclers relate, how Queen Anne Bollen was charged for Incontinency; Margaret Countess of Salisbury, for treasonable compliance with the Pope; Henry Earl of Surrey, for assuming the Arms of England; Edward Duke of Somerset, for designing the death of some Privy Counsellors; Thomas Duke of Norfolk, for aspiring, by the match of the Queen of Scots, to the English Crown; Robert Earl of Essex, for dangerous machinations against the person of Queen Elizabeth; Thomas Earl of Strafford, for endeavouring to subject England and Ireland to the King's arbitrary Power: That the Historians, who barely report these Persons thus charged, are not bound to make the charge good; it is enough if they name their respective accusers, as here I have named the Scots.

It is also observable, that some of the Persons aforesaid, though condemned and executed, have since found such favour (or justice rather) with unpartiall Posterity, that though they could not revive their persons, they have restored their memories to their innocence. And if the like shall be the hap of this Arch-bishop, I shall rejoyce therein; I mean, if the Animadvertor's defence of him seems so clear, as to out-shine the evidence; so weighty, as to out-poize all allegations, which in printed Books are published against him.

In testimony whereof, I return nothing in contradiction to what the Animadvertor hath written; and it is questionable, whether my desire that he may, or distrust that he will not, be believed be the greater. Whatever the success be, I forbear farther rejoynder.

To fight with a shaddow, (whether one's own or another's) passeth for the proverbiall expression of a vain and useless act. But seeing the dead are sometimes tearmed shaddows, umbrae, to fall foul on them, without absolute necessity, is an act, not onelyonly vain, but wicked; not onelyonly useless, but uncharitable: And therefore no more hereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceedeth, 167. Thus none, seeing now foul weather in Scotland, could expect it fair Sun-Shine in England.] In this I am as little of our Author's Opinion, as in most things else. The Sun in England might have shined with a brighter Beam, if the Clouds which had been gathered together, and threatned such foule Weather in Scotland, had been dispersed and scattered by the Thunder of our English Ordnance. The opportunity was well given, and well taken also, had it not been unhappily lost in the Prosecution.

Fuller.

Grant the Thunder of our English Ordnance, had scattered the Scottish Cl…uds; yet, (by the confession of the Animadvertor) there must first be foul weather in England, before there could be such fair weather to follow it. The p. 31Skyes are alwayes dark and lowring, even whilst the Thunder is Engendering therein. Military preparations, (in order to a Conquest of the Scotts) must needs give our Nation great troubles, and (for the time) un-Sunshine England, which is enough to secure my Expression from just exception.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Scots, were then weak, unprovided of all Necessaries, not above three thousand compleat Armes to be found amongst them: The English on the other side making a formidable appearance, gallantly Horst, compleaty Armed, and intermingled with the Choisest of the Nobility, and Gentry, in all the Nation.

Fuller.

I am much of the mind of the Animadvertor, that there was a visible Disparity betwixt the two Armies, and the Ods in the eye of flesh, on the side of the English. They were Gallantly Horst indeed, whether in Reference to their Horses or Riders, and the King pleasantly said, It would make the Scots fight against them, were it but to get their brave Cloaths. Indeed the strength of the Scots consisted in their Reputation to be strong, (reported here by such as Friended them) and the Scotch Lyon was not half so fierce, as he was painted unto us. On the other side, The greatest disadvantage to the English was their owne injurious Modesty, observed alwayes to over-prize strangers above themselves, being ignorant of their owne Strength and Valour in War, because they had been so long accustomed to Peace. In all this Paragraph the Animadvertor and the Author may go abrest in their Judgments; and to prevent Quarrells, the Animadvertor shall have the right Hand, that they do not justle one the other.

Dr. Heylyn.

And had the Scots been once broken, and their Country wasted, (which had been the easiest thing in the World, for the English Army,) &c.

Fuller.

This is consonant to what He hath written, of the same Subject in the **pag. 74.Short view of the Life and Reign of King Charls, that the King set forth against the Scots, accompanied with such an Army of Lords and Gentlemen as might ASSURE him of a cheap and easie VICTORY. His Majesty, I am sure, had, (as it became a good Christian,) a more modest and moderate apprehension of his owne Army, such as might give him pregnant Hopes but no ASSURANCE of Victory. I never heard of an ASSURANCE-Office, for the successe of Battels.

But all this is written by the Animadvertor like an Historian, but not like a Doctor in Divinity. This mindeth me of a **Cambden's Remains pag. 250.Passage of King Henry the Second, who standing on the Cliffes about St. David's in Wales, and there viewing Ireland, I with my Ships am able (saith he), to make a Bridge over it, if it be no further: Which speech of his being related to Murchard King of Lemster in Ireland; he demanded, if he added not to his speech [with the Grace of God]: When it was answered that he made no mention of God; Then, said he more cheerfully, I feare him the lesse, which trusteth more to Himselfe, then to the Help of GOD.

When the Animadvertor tells us, that it had been the easiest thing in the world for the English to have broken the Scots Army, I must tell him; here was one thing in the world easier, namely the inserting of these words, by God's Ordinary blessing, or something to that purpose. Otherwise we know, who it was that said, that the race **Eccle….is not to the Swift, nor the battell to the Strong, neither yet bread to the Wise, nor yet riches to men of Understanding, nor yet favours to men of Skill: time and chance happeneth to them all.

Time was, when the Animadvertor did needlessely Lavish a **In these his Animadversions (as by him set forth pag. 8.GOD-BLESSE; God blesse not onelyonly our Historian, but Baronius himselfe, from being held an Author p. 32of no * Credit. He that then spent it, when he should have spared it, spares it now, when he should have spent it.

Dr Heylyn.

The Scots had been utterly disabled from creating Trouble to their King, disturbances in their owne Church, and destruction to England. So true is that of the wise Historian, Conatus subditorum irritos imperia semper promovêre; the Insurrections of the People when they are supprest, do alwayes make the King stronger, and the Subjects weaker.

Fuller.

All this proceeds (as the former) on the Supposition that the English had beaten the Scots, which though (in the eye of flesh) probable, was uncertain. The Latines and English have the same word MOMENTUM, MOMENT, which signifieth, as Time of the least Continuance, so matters of most Concernment, to shew that the Scales of Successe, which God alone holds in his Hand, are so ticklish, that the MOTE of a MOMENT may turne them on either side, which is the reason, why no man can positively conclude of future Contingencies.

Dr. Heylyn.

The Sermon ended, we chose Dr. Stewart Dean of Chicester Prolocutor, and the next day of Sitting, We met at Westminister in the Chappell of King Henry the Seventh.] Had it not been for these and some other passages of this Nature, our Author might have lost the Honour of being took notice of, for one of the Clerks of the Convocation; and one not of the lowest forme, but passing for some of those wise men, who began to be fearfull of themselves, and to be jealous of that power by which they were enabled to make new Canons. How so? Because it was feared by the Iudicious (himself still for one) lest the Convocation, whose power of medling with Church-matters, had been bridled up for many yeares before, should now, enabled with such Power, over-act their Parts, especially in such dangerous and discontented times, as it after followeth. Wisely fore-seen. But then why did not WEE, that is to say, our Author, and the rest of those Wise and Iudicious Persons, fore-warne their weak and unadvised Brethren of the present danger; or rather, Why did they go along with the rest for company, and follow th…se who had before out-run the Canons by their additionall Conformity?

Fuller.

Dear Honour indeed, Honos Onus: for which I was fin'd with the Rest of my Brethren two hundred Pounds by the House of Commons, though not put to pay it, partly because it never passed the House of Lords; partly, because they thought it needlesse to shave their Haire, whose Heads they meant to cut-off; I meane, they were so Charitable as not to make them pay a Fine, whose Place in Cathedralls they intended, not long after, to take away.

I insert the word WE, not to credit my self, but to confirm the Reader; relations from an eye and ear-witness, meeting with the best belief. Such insinuations of the Writer, being present at the actions he writeth of, want not precedents in holy and profane Authors. Hence it is collected, that St. Luke accompanied St. Paul in his dangerous voyage to Rome, Act. 27.37. WE were all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.

Let the Animadvertor lay what load he pleaseth on me, whose back is broad and big enough to bear it; but O let him spare my worthy friends, some now glorious Saints in Heaven, Bishop Westfield, Dr. Holmsworth; and some of the highest repute still alive, whom I forbear to name. It comforteth me not a little, that God hath chosen — the foolish things of this world to con…ound the wise.

p. 33Dr. Heylyn.

How wise the rest were, I am not able to say. But certainly our Author shew'd himself no wiser than Waltham's Calf, who ran nine mile to suck a Bull, and came home athirst, as the Proverb saith. His running unto Oxford, which cost him as much in seventeen weeks, as he had spent in Cambridge in seventeen years, was but a second sally to the first Knight-Errantry.

Fuller.

I can patiently comport with the Animadvertor's Ieers, which I behold as so many Frogs, that it is pretty and pleasing to see them hop and skip about, having not much harm in them: but I cannot abide his Railings, which are like to Toads, swelling with venom within them. Any one may rail who is bred but in BILLINGS-GATE-COLLEDGE: and I am sorry to hear such language from the Animadvertor, a Doctor in Divinity; seeing railing is as much beneath a Doctor, as against Divinity.

When Dr. Turner, a Physitian sufficiently known, gave the lie (at the Earl of Pembrokes Table) to the Earl of Carnarvon; I will take the Lye from you, (replied the Earl) but I will never take Physick from you. If such railing be consistent with the Doctor's Divinity, this once I will take the Calf, but never learn Divinity from him.

Two things comfort me under his reviling: First, that no worse man than David himself complained, that he became a **Psal. 69.11.Ps 69:11PROVERB to his enemies. Secondly, though a Calf be a contemptible creature, passing for the emblem (not with the Dove of simplicity, but) of plain silliness; yet is it a clean one, and accepted of **Heb. 9.19.Heb 9:19God for sacrifice. Whereas the snarling Dog (though a creature of far more cunning and sagacity) was so odious and unclean, that by a peculiar **Deut. 23.18.Deut 23:18Law it was provided, that the price of a dog should not be brought into the house of God.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author thus proceedeth, fol. 168. Next day the Convocation came together, &c. when, contrary to the generall expectation, it was mentioned to improve the present opportunity, in perfecting the new Canons which they had begun.] I have not heard of any such motion, as our Author speaks of, from any who were present at that time, though I have diligently laboured to inform my self in it: Nor is it probable, that any such motion should be made, as the case then stood. The Parliament had been dissolv'd on Tuesday the 5th. of May; the Clergy met in Convocation on the morrow after, expecting then to be dissolved, and licensed to go home again. But, contrary to that generall expectation, in stead of hearing some newes of his Majesties Writ for their dissolution, there came an Order from the Arch-bishop to the Prolocutor, to adjourn till Saturday. And this was all the businesse which was done that day; the Clergy generally being in no small amazment, when they were required not to dissolve, till further Order. Saturday being come, what then? A new Commission, saith he, was brought from his Majesty, by vertue whereof WE were warranted still to sit, not in the capacity of a Convocation, but of a Synod. I had thought our Author, with his wise and judicious Friends, had better harkened to the tenour of that Commission, than to come out with such a gross and wild absurdity, as this is, so fit for none as Sir Edward Deering, and for him onelyonly, to make sport withall in the House of Commons. At the beginning of the Convocation, when the Prolocutor was admitted, the Arch-bishop produc'd his Majesties Commission under the Great Seal; whereby the Clergy was enabled to consult, treat of, and conclude such Canons, as they conceiv'd most expedient to the peace of the Church, and his Majestie's service. But this Commission being to expire with the end of the Parliament, it became void, of no effect as soon as the Parliament was dissolved. Which being made known unto the King, who was resolv'd p. 34the Convocation should continue, and that the Clergy should go on in compleating those Canons, which they had so happily begun; He caus'd a new Commission to be sent unto them, in the same words, and to the very same effect, as the other was; but that it was to continue duran…e beneplacito onelyonly, as the other was not.

Fuller.

The Reader may take notice, that there is some difference in judgment betwixt the Animadvertor and me; and no wonder then if some (no great, I hope) variations betwixt us, in relating the passages of this Convocation, each of us observing what made most for his own interest. The Reader also may be pleased to use his own discretion, and to credit him, whom he believeth most probable of the two, exactly to observe, firmly to remember, and faithfully to relate, what we saw done, (both of us being there) and since borrowing help of our friends, then present, where we fall short in our intelligence.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author goes on as followeth, Ibid. Dr. Brownrig, Dr. Hacket, Dr. Holdsworth, &c. with others, to the number of thirty six, earnestly protested against the continuance of the Convocation.] It's possible enough that Dr. Brownrig, now Lord Bishop of Excester, Dr. Hacket, and the rest of the thirty six, our Author being of the Quorum, (in his own understanding of the word) might be unsatisfied in the continuance of the Convocation, because of some offence, which, as they conceiv'd, would be taken at it. But if they had protested, and protested earnestly, as our Author tells us, the noise of so many Votes concurring, must needs be heard by all the rest which were then assembled; from none of which I can learn any thing of this protestation.

Fuller.

I am nothing moved with his jeer, when he calleth me of the Quorum in this Convocation. Mithridates King of Pontus is commonly reported, so habited to the eating of poyson, that that which was nauseous and noxious at the first, by custom became harmless unto him. I am so used to the bitter jeers of the Animadvertor, so frequently laid in my dish, that now they are become food, not physick, unto me; and the greatest quantity of them will not so much as stir my constitution, to anger.

It seemeth strange to me indeed, that the Protest of the Dissentors was not …eard, by the rest in the Convocation; I cannot be so uncharitable, to think them in this point like those of whom the **2 P…. 3.5.Apostle speaketh, foreign, this they are willingly ignorant of: I impute it rather to their forgetfulness, most of them surviving being aged persons, and this done more then sixteen years since. For though it be true, Omnia quae curant senes meminerunt; yet were they more prone to oblivion in this particular, because they cared not for that Protestation, they disliked; and therefore never charged it on their Memories.

The best is, I may speak (I hope, as yet) of the thirty six Dissentors, in the same language of the **1 Cor. 15.6.1 Cor 15:6Apostle, Of whom the greater part remain untill this present, but some are fallen asleep. Bishop Brownrig, Dr. Hacket, Dr. Warmester, &c. are still (and may they long be) alive, who will be believed in this point, that they protested against the sitting of the Convocation, after the dissolution of the Parliament.

Dr. Heylyn.

Or if they did protes… so earnestly, as he said they did, why was not the Protestation reduc'd into writing, subscribed with their hands in due form of Law, and so delivered to the Register to remain upon Record (amongst the other Act of that House) for their Indemnity: Which not being done, rendr… this Protest of theirs (if any such Protest there were) to signifie nothing, but their dislike of the continuance.

p. 35Fuller.

Herein the Animadvertor doth speak a sad truth; the Dissentors were ill advised herein, whereby their Protest (significant onelyonly in their own consciences) was legally rendred of none effect.

But herein they may partly be excused, because they (though not entring a written Protest) supposed a verball one would manifest their dislike, and hoped it would sufficiently secure them from a danger, which (though suspected) was not certain to ensue.

This afterwards was very eagerly urged against them, by a Committee in Parliament; and sorry I am, that they could not make their answer as clear as the objection.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whereas our Author tells us, that the whole House consisted but of six score persons, it may be thought that he diminisheth the number of set purpose, to make his own party seem the greater. For in the lower House of Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, if all parties summon'd do appear, these are no fewer then two and twenty Deans, four and twenty Preb…ndaries, fifty four Archdeacons, and forty four Clerks, representing the Dioc…san Clergy, amounting in the totall to an hundred forty four persons; whereof the thirty six Protestors (if so many there were) make the fourth part onelyonly. Howsoever, all parties being not well satisfied with the lawfulness of their continuance, his Majesty was advertis'd of it. Who, upon conference with his Judges and Counsell learned in the Laws, caus'd a short Writing to be drawn, and subscribed by their severall hands, in these following words, viz. at White-hall, May the 10th. 1640. the Convocation being called by the Kings Writ, is to continue till it be dissolved by the Kings Writ, notwithstanding the dissolving of the Parliament. Subscribed by Finch Lord Keeper, Manchester Lord Privy Seal, Littleton chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Banks Atturney Generall, whit…ield and Heath, his Majesties Serjeants.

Fuller.

I protest, and now will enter my protestation, in scriptis, (that it may be valid) I had no designe either to substract from the number in the Convocation, or add to those of the Dissentors.

I believe the Animadvertor is very right in his Arithmetick of Persons, in the Provinciall Convocation of Canterbury.

But concerning the Arch-deacons, give me leave once to enlarge my self, in stating their true number, because it is hard to find either a printed or written Catalogue of them, which is exact herein: They are generally reckoned up but FIFTY TWO, as followeth.

p. 36The two first containing eighteen a piece, the last, sixteen; which are but fifty two in my Arithmetick.

St. Asaph.

St. Asaph.

Bangor.

Bangor.

Anglesey.

Merioneth.

Bristol.

Dorset.

Bath and Wels.

Wels.

Bath,

Taunton.

Canterb.

Canterbury.

Chichest.

Chichester.

Lewes.

Covent. & Lich.

Stafford.

Derby.

Covent.

Salop.

Ely.

Ely.

Exeter.

Exeter.

Cornwall.

Exeter.

To…nes.

Barnstaple.

Glocester.

Hereford.

Hereford.

Salop.

London.

London.

Middlesex.

Essex.

Colchester.

St. Albans.

Lincoln.

Lincoln.

Stow.

Bedford.

Buckingham.

Huntington.

Leicester.

Landaff.

Landaff.

St. Davids.

St. Davids.

St. Davids.

Carmarthen.

Cardigan.

Brecknock.

Norwich.

Norwich.

Norfolk.

Suffolk.

Sudbury.

Oxford.

Oxford.

Peterburg.

Northampton.

Rochester.

Rochester.

Salisbury.

Wilts.

Berks.

Sarum.

Winchest.

Winchester.

Surrey.

Worcest.

Worcester.

This is the best printed List I have ever seen, presented in Weaver's **pag. 386. &c.Funerall Monuments, having the valuation of each Archdeaconry annexed; taken, as he saith, (and I believe him therein) out of Sir Robert Cotton's Library: and yet I am sure it is not compleat.

Wherefore I supply Warwick (in the Diocesse of Worcester) as I find it in a more perfect written Catalogue. And yet still one is wanting, even Westminster, who…e Church was advanced to the See of a Bishop by King Henry the Eighth; and though since it hath been set back from a Cathedrall to a Collegiat-Church; yet it still retaineth the honour to send one of their Prebendaries (by the Title of their Arch-deacon) to the Convocation. And thus we have our full number of fifty four.

But whereas the Animadvertor taxeth me for saying, The Convocation consisted of six-score: I confess, when I first read his words, I had not a Church-History by me to confute it. Yet I conceived such positiveness in a number improbable to fall from my Pen, who had learn'd this Lesson from the best of Teachers, the Spirit of God, not to be peremptory, but to leave a latitude in numbers of this nature.

But upon inspection of my Book, my words were, The whole House consisting of ABOUT six score; where [about] is receptive of more or less. Besides, the Convocation, as to the effectuall managing of matters, properly consisted not of the Members belonging thereto, but present therein; and some five score and ten was the generall and constant appearance, the rest being absent for age, sicknesse, and other detentions.

Dr. Heylyn.

Which Writing (an Instrument our Author calls it) being communicated to the Clergy by the Lord Arch-bishop on the morrow after, did so compose p. 37the minds of all men, that they went forwards very cheerfully with the work in hand. The principall of those whom our Author calls Dissenters, bringing in the Canon of Preaching for conformity, (being the eighth Canon in the Book, as now they are plac'd) which was received and allowed of, as it came from his hand without alteration.

Fuller.

And calleth it an Instrument properly enough, both to the originall notation, and modern acception of the word. Instrument is so termed ab instruendo, from Instructing. This Writing did first instruct Us at the present, that, by the judgment of those great States-men and Lawyers, We might legally continue, notwithstanding the dissolution of the Parliament. And since, this Writing hath (by the event thereof) instructed us, that seeing the judgments of the Grandees in the Law were censured erroneous in Parliament, it is unsafe in matters of this nature, to rely on the opinions of any [comparatively] private persons.

As for the modern acception of the word, I appeal to the Criticks in Language, whether this Writing (as the Animadvertor is fain to term it) of the Judges, may not be called by the generall name of Instrument, harmoniously enough to the propriety thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Howsoever, our Author keeps himself to his former folly, shutting up his extravagancy with this conclusion, fol. 169. Thus was an old Convocation converted into a new Synod.] An expression borrowed from the speech of a witty Gentleman, as he is called by the Author of the History of the Reign of King Charls, and since by him declar'd to be the Lord George Digby, now Earl of Bristow. But he that spent most of his wit upon it, and thereby gave occasion unto others for the like mistakings, was Sir Edward Deering, in a speech made against these Canons, Anno 1640. where we find these flourishes: Would you confute the Convocation? They were a holy Synod. Would you argue against the Synod? Why, they were Commissioners. Would you dispute the Commission? They will mingle all powers together, and answer, that they were some fourth thing, that neither we know nor imagine; that is to say, (as it followes afterwards, pag. 27.) a Convocationall-Synodicall-Assembly of Commissioners. More of this fine stuff we may see hereafter. In the mean time we may judge, by this remnant, of the whole Piece; and find it upon proof to be very sleight, and not worth the wearing. For first, the Gentleman could not, and our Author cannot chuse but know, that a Convocation and a Synod (as us'd in England of late times) are but the same one thing under divers names, the one borrowed from a Grecian, the other from a Latin Originall. The Convocation of the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, being nothing but a Provinciall Synod; as a Nationall Synod is nothing else, but the Convocation of the Clergy of both Provinces. Secondly, our Author knowes by this time, that the Commission which seems to makes this doughty difference, changed not the Convocation into a Synod, (as some vainly think) but onelyonly made that Convocation active in order to the making of Canons, which otherwise had been able to proceed no further then the grant of Subsidies. Thirdly, that nothing is more ordinary, then for the Convocations of all times since the Reformation, to take unto themselves the name of Synods. For, the Articles of Religion made in the Convocation Anno 1552. are called in the Title of the Book, Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi convenit, &c. The same name given to those agreed on in the Convocation, Anno 1562. as appears by the Title of that Book also, in the Latin Edition. The Canons of the year 1571. are said to be concluded and agreed upon in Synodo inchoatâ Lond. in aede Divi Pauli, &c. In the year 1575. came out a Book of Articles, with this Title following, viz. Articles whereupon it was agreed by the most reverend father in God, the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, p. 38and other the Bishops, and the whole Clergy in the Province of Canterbury, in the Convocation or synod holden at Westminster. The like we find in the year 1597. (being the last active Convocation in Queen Elizabeth's time) in which we meet with a Book entituled, Constitutiones Ecclesiasticae, &c. in Synodo inchoatâ Londini vicesimo quinto die mensis Octobris.

Fuller.

I request the Reader would be pleased, to call to his remembrance a passage of the Animadvertors, on my fifth Book, relating to the Reigne of King Henry the Eighth. I must confess my self to be at a loss in this intricate Labyrinth, unless perhaps there were some criticall difference between a SYNOD and a CONVOCATION; the first being called by the Arch-bishops, in their severall and respective Provinces, as the necessities of the Church; the other onelyonly by the King, as his occasions and affairs, did require the same.

I find my self now in the like labyrinth, and can meet with no Ariadne's thread, to extricate my self. I confess; commonly, CONVOCATION and SYNOD pass for Synonyma's, signifying one and the same thing; yet some make this nice difference.

1. Convocation, which is, in the beginning and ending, parallel with the Parliament.

2. Synod, which is called by the King out of Parliament.

I acknowledge my self a Seeker in this point, and will not wilfully bolt mine eyes against the beams of Truth, by whomsoever delivered: Mean time, I crave leave to enter this my dissatisfaction herein, seeing the Animadvertor so lately did confess his, in a thing of the like nature.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author finally is to know, that though the members of the two Convocations of York and Canterbury did not meet in person, yet they communicated their counsells, the results of the one being dispatcht unto the other, and there agreed on, or rejected, as they saw cause for it.

Fuller.

I am not to know it, for I knew it before, and nothing in my Book appears to the contrary; that the two Provinciall Synods privately did communicate their transactions, as they were in fieri, in the making; and at last, publickly, viz. when We at Westminster had compleated the Canons, by Our subscription thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

Which laid together, shewes the vanity of another passage in the Speech of Sir Edward Deering, where he vapoureth thus, viz. A strange Commission, wherein no one Commissioner's name is to be found; a strange Convocation, that lived when the Parliament was dead; a strange holy Synod, where one part never saw, never conferred with the other. Lastly, Sir Edward Deering seems to marvell at the Title of the Book of Canons then in question, expressing, that they were treated upon in Convocation, agreed upon in Synod. And this, saith he, is a new Mould to cast Canons in, never us'd before. But had he looked upon the Title of the Book of Canons, Anno 1603. he had found it otherwise. The Title this, viz. Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiasticall, treated by the Bishop of London, President of the Convocation for the Province of Canterbury, &c. and agreed upon with the Kings Majesty's licence in their Synod begun at London, Anno 1603. And so much for the satisfaction of all such persons, whom either that Gentleman, or this our Author, have mis-informed, and consequently abused in this particular.

Fuller.

He hath now vapoured out that, which by the **Jam 4.….Jas 4Apostle is termed, even a p. 39vapour which appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away. Being dead, the Animadvertor might have spared this expression upon him.

I believe neither he nor the Author did wittingly or willingly mis-informe any, and therefore cannot by any charitable pen be justly condemned for abusing them.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Ibid. Now because great Bodies move slowly, &c. it was thought fit to contract the Synod into a select Committee of some twenty six, beside the Prolocutor.] No such contracting of the Synod as our Author speaks of. There was indeed a Committee of twenty six, or thereabouts, appointed to consider of a Canon for uniformity in some Rites and Ceremonies, of which number were the principall of those whom he calls Dissenters, and our Author too amongst the rest; who having agreed upon the Canon, it was by them presented to the rest of the Clergy in Convocation, and by them approv'd. And possible it is, that the drawing up o… some other Canons might be referr'd also to that Committee, (as is accustomed in such cases) without contracting the whole House into that small body, or excluding any man from being present at their Consultation.

Fuller.

I know not what offence the word contracting may give, but my meaning, obvious to any Reader, is this, that a select Committee was appointed, to prepare matters of greatest importance. No member being excluded from being present at, but from giving a Vote in, that Consultation.

Dr Heylyn.

But whereas our Author afterwards tells us, that nothing should be accounted the Act of the House till thrice (as he takes it) publickly voted therein.] It is but as he takes it, or mistakes it rather, and so let it go.

Fuller.

He might have allowed me the liberty of that modest Parenthesis, without carping at it. Some things I confesse (having since better informed my self) passed at the first time; but others which were meerly new were Thrice read, on the same token that it occasioned the contest betwixt the Prolocutor and Doctor Holdsworth.

Dr. Heylyn.

But I needed not to have signified, that our Author was one of the Committee, he will tell it himself; and he will tell us more then that, publishing himself for one of the thirty six Dissenters, the better to ingratiate himself with the rising side. The next day (so he lets us knovv) We all subscribed the Canons, suffering our selves (according to the order of such Meetings) to be all concluded by the majority of Votes, though some of US in the Committee privately dissented in the passing of many particulars.] So then, our Author was content to play the goodfellow at the last, and go along hand in hand with the rest of his company; dissenting privately, but consenting publickly, which is as much as can be looked for.

Fuller.

It is not worth the while for him who is falling into the grave to endeavour to ingratiate himselfe with any rising-side. I appeal to the Animadvertor's own Conscience, if I have not written the plaine truth herein.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Ibid. No sooner came these Canons abroad into a publick view, but various were mens censures upon them.] Not possible that in such a confusion, both of affections and opinions, it should otherwise be. Non omnibus p. 40una voluntas, was a note of old, and will hold true as long as there are many men to have many minds. And yet, if my information deceive me not, these Canons found great approbation from the mouths of some, from whom it had been least expected; particularly from Justice Crook, whose Argument in the case of Ship-mony, was printed afterwards by the Order of the House of Commons. Of whom I have been told, by a person of great worth and credit, that having read over the Book of Canons, when it first came out, he lifted up his hands, and gave hearty thanks to Almighty God, that he had liv'd to see such good effects of a Convocation. It was very well that they pleased him; but that they should please all men was not to be hoped for.

Fuller.

This is all additory, nothi…g at all opposite to what I have written; so we may proceed.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 171. Many took exception at the hollowness of the Oath in the middle thereof, having its bowels puffed up with a windy &c. a cheveral word, which might be stretched as men would measure it.] Of this &c. which has made so much noise in the world, I shall now say nothing. Somewhat is here subjoyn'd by our Author in excuse thereof, the rest made up by the Observator. OnelyOnly I shall make bold to ask him, why he observ'd not this &c. when the Oath was first under consideration? or why he signified not his dissent when it came to the Vote, and shewed some reasons which might move him to object against it? It had been fitter for a wise and juditious man to signifie his dislike of any thing when it might be mended, then to joyne with others in condemning it, when it was past remedy.

Fuller.

I was not sensible of any just cause of exception therein. The Animadvertor confesseth that I have subjoyned some what in the excuse thereof. And set me add that that somewhat is as much to purpose in the defence of that Oath (being borrowed from as learned and pious a pen, as England then enjoyed) as any thing, that the Animadvertor or his party can alledge. Wherefore except, joyning with those who do defend it, be the same with, joyning with those who do condemne it, the Animadvertor hath unjustly ranked me amongst the latter.

Dr. Heylyn.

But, Mala mens, malus animus, as the saying is. The Convocation had no ill intent in it when they passed it so, though some few, out of their perversness and corrupt effections, were willing to put their own sense on it, and spoil an hones… meaning Text with a factious Gloss. But let us follow our Author as he leads the way, and we shall find, that

Ibid. Some Bishops were very forward in pressing this Oath, even before the time thereof. For, whereas a liberty was allowed to all to deliberate thereon, untill the Feast of Michael the Arch-angel, some presently pressed the Ministers of their Diocesses for the taking thereof.] It seems by this, that our Author was so far from taking notice of any thing done in the Convocation, when the Canon for the Oath was framed, that he never so much as looked into the Canon it self, since the Book came out. He had not else dreamt of a liberty of Deliberation, till the Feast of St. Michael the Arch-angel, which I am sure the Canon gives not. The Synod did indeed decree, that all Arch-bishops and Bishops, and all other Priests and Deacons, in places exempt or not exempt, should, before the second day of November next ensuing, take the following Oath, against all innovation of Doctrine or Discipline. By which we see, that the Oath was to be given and taken before the second of November, but no such thing as Liberty of Deliberation till the Feast of St. Michael. And therefore if some Bishops did press the Clergy of their severall and p. 41respective Diocesses, as soon as they returned home from the Convocation; they might well do it by the Canon, without making any such essay of their activity, if providence (as our Author most wisely words it) had not prevented them▪

Fuller.

Though there was no Solemn Order entered, or printed; yet am I sure, (having cause to be assured thereof) such a condescention was agreed on, and I know who did plead the Benefit of such Deliberation, on the same token it was denied it him.

Dr. Heylyn.

If any of the Bishops did require their Clergy to take the Oath upon their knees, (as he saies they did) though it be more then was directed by the Canon; yet I conceive, that no wise man would scruple at it, considering the gravity and greatness of the business which he was about.

Fuller.

The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy, being of as high and holy a nature and concernment, are never urged in that posture. All things are disposed of by divine Providence; and let the Doctor write against me, what he pleaseth; but take heed how he writes corrective Animadversions on the proceedings of the Greatest and Best of Beeings.

Dr. Heylyn.

But then, Ibid. The Exception of Exceptions was, because they were generally condemned as illegally passed, to the prejudice of the fundamentall liberty of the Subject, whereof we shall hear enough in the next Parliament.] Not generally condemned, either as illegally passed, or as tending to prejudice of the Subjects Rights, I am sure of that. Scarse so much as condemned by any for those respects, but by such whom it concern'd, (for carrying on of their De…ignes) to weaken the authority of the Church, and advance their own. But because our Author tells us, that we shall find enough of this in the following Parliament, we are to follow him to that Parliament for our satisfaction: And there we find, that Mr. Maynard made a Speech in the Committee of Lords against the Canons, made by the Bishops in the last Convocation, in which he endeavoured to prove, &c.

Fuller.

Diogenes being demanded what one should give him to strike on the head as hard as he could, Give me, (sayed he) but an Helmet. Well fare my Helmet, the seasonable interposition of the word ENDEAVOURED! which hath secured me from the blowes of the Animadvertor, and perchance his hand thereby retunded. Besides I have a double Helmet, Master [now Serjeant] Mainard, no lesse eminently known for his skill in Law, than for his love to the Clergy, by pleading so effectually (in his success as well as desire) for their Tithes. Wherefore being weary with this long contest, I resolve for a while even to take my naturall rest, and will quietly sleep, untill Iogged by that, which particularly concerneth me.

Dr. Heylyn.

Endeavoured to prove, that the Clergy had no power to make Canons, without common consent in Parliament, because in the Saxon's times, Lawes and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall had the confirmation of Peers, and sometimes of the People; to which great Councills our Parliaments do succeed.] Which Argument, if it be of force to prove, that the Clergy can make no Canons, without consent of the Peers and People in Parliament; it must prove also, that the Peers and People can make no Statutes without consent of the Clergy in their Convocation. My reason is, Because such Councels in the times of the Saxons were mixt Assemblies, consisting as well of Laicks as of Ecclesiasticks; and the matters there concluded on of a mixt nature also, Laws being passed as commonly in p. 42them in order to the good governance of the Common-wealth, as Canons for the regulating such things as concern'd Religion. But these great Councels of the Saxons being divided into two parts in the times ensuing, the Clergy did their work by themselves, without any confirmation from the King or Parliament, till the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth. And if the Parliaments did succeed in the place of those great Councells, (as he saies they did) it was, because that antiently the Procurators of the Clergy, not the Bishops onelyonly, had their place in Parliament, though neither Peers nor People voted in the Convocations. Which being so, it is not much to be admired, that there was some checking (as is said in the second Argument) about the disuse of the generall making of such Church-Laws. But checking or repining at the proceeding of any Superiour Court, makes not the Acts thereof illegall; for, if it did, the Acts of Parliaments themselves would be reputed of no force, or illegally made, because the Clergy for a long time have checkt (and think they have good cause to check) for their being excluded. Which checking of the Commons appears not onelyonly in those antient Authors which the Gentleman cited, but in the Remonstrance tendred by them to King Henry the Eighth, exemplified at large in these Animadversions, lib. 3. n. 61. But because this, being a Record of the Convocation, may not come within the walk of a Common Lawyer, I shall put him in mind of that memorable passage in the Parliament, 51 Edw. 3d. which in brief was this: The Commons finding themselves aggrieved, as well with certain Constitutions made by the Clergy in their Synods, as with some Laws or Ordinances which were lately passed, more to the advantage of the Clergy then the Common People, put in a Bill to this effect, viz. That no Act nor Ordinance should from thenceforth be made or granted on the Petition of the said Clergy, without the consent of the Commons; and that the said Commons should not be bound in times to come by any Constitutions made by the Clergy of this Realm, for their own advantage, to which the Commons of this Realm had not given consent. The reason of which is this, (and 'tis worth the marking) Car eux ne veulent estre obligez a nul de vos Estatuz ne Ordinances faitz sanz leur Assent. Because the said Clergy did not think themselves bound (as indeed they were not in those times) by any Statute, Act, or Ordinance, made without their assent in the Court of Parliament. But that which could not be obtain'd by this checking of the Commons, in the declining and last times of King Edward 3. was in some part effected by the more vigorous prosecution of King Henry 8. who, to satisfie the desires of the Commons in this particular, and repress their checkings, obtained from the Clergy, that they should neither make nor execute any Canons, without his consent, as before is said; so that the Kings power of confirming Canons was grounded on the free and voluntary submission of the Clergy, and was not built, as the third Argument objecteth, on so weak a foundation as the Pope's making Canons by his sole power: the Pope not making Canons here, nor putting his Prescripts and Letters decretory in the place of Canons, but onelyonly as a remedy for some present exigency. So that the King's power in this particular not being built upon the Popes, as he said it was, it may well stand, That Kings may make Canons without consent of Parliament, though he saith they cannot. But whereas it is argued, in the fourth place, that the clause in the Statute of Submission, in which it is said, that the Clergy shall not make Canons without the Kings leave, doth not imply, that by His leave alone they may make them; I cannot think that he delivered this for Law, and much less for Logick. For, had this been looked on formerly as a piece of Law, the Parliaments would have check'd at it at some time or other, and been as sensible of the Kings enchroachments, in executing this power without them, as antiently some of them had been about the disuse of the like generall consent in the making of them.

p. 43Fuller.

DORMIT SECURUS.

Dr. Heylyn.

Fol. 180. In the next place our Author tells us, that Mr. Maynard endeavoured also to prove, that these Canons were against the King's Prerogative, the Rights, Liberties, and Properties of the Subject.] And he saith well, that it was endeavoured to be proved, and endeavoured onelyonly, nothing, amounting to a proof, being to be found in that which followes. It had before been Voted by the House of Commons, that the Canons are against fundamentall Laws of this Realm, against the Kings Prerogative, Property of the Subject, the Right of Parliament, and do tend to faction and sedition. And it was fit that some endeavours should be used to make good the Vote. But, this being but a generall charge, requires a generall answer onelyonly, and it shall be this: Before the Canons were subscribed, they were imparted to the King by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, and by the King communicated to the Lords of the Councill; who calling to them the assistance of the Judges, and some of the Kings Councill learned in the Laws of this Realm, caus'd the said Canons to be read and considered of, the King being then present. By all which, upon due and mature deliberation, the Canons were approv'd; and being so approv'd, were sent back to the Clergy in the Convocation, and by them subscribed. And certainly it had been strange, that they should pass the approbation of the Judges and learned Lawyers, had they contained any thing against the fundamentall Laws of the Land, the Property of the Subject, and the Rights of Parliament, or been approv'd of by the Lords of his Majesties Councill, had any thing been contained in them derogatory to the Kings Prerogative, or tending to faction and sedition. So that the foundation being ill laid, the superstructures and objections which are built upon it, may be easily shaken and thrown down. To the first therefore it is ansvvered, that nothing hath been more ordinary in all former times, than for the Canons of the Church to inflict penalties on such, as shall disobey them; exemplified in the late Canons of 1603. many of which extend not onelyonly unto Excommunication, but even to Degradation and Irregularity, for which, see Can. 38.113. &c. To the second▪ that there is nothing in those Canons which determine…h or limiteth the Kings Authority, but much that makes for, and defendeth the Right of the Subject, for which the Convocation might rather have expected thanks then censure, from ensuing Parliaments. To the third, That when the Canon did declare the Government of Kings to be founded on the Law of Nature, it was not to condemn all other Governments, as being unlawfull, but to commend that of the Kings as being the best. Nor can it Logically be inferr'd, that because the Kingly Government is not receiv'd in all places, that therefore it ought not so to be: or that the Government (by this Canon) should be the same in all places, and in all alike; because some Kings do, and may lawfully part with many of their Rights for the good of their Subjects, which others do, and may as lawfully retain unto themselves. To the fourth, That the Doctrine of Non-Resistance is built expresly on the words of St. Paul, Rom. 13. v. 2. and therefore to condemn the Canon in that behalf, is to condemn the Word of God upon vvhichwhich it is founded. Finally, to the fifth and last, That the Statute of 5, 6 Edw. 6. declaring, that the daies there mentioned shall be kept for Holy-daies, and no other, relates onelyonly to the abolishing of some other Festivalls, which had been formerly observ'd in the Realm of England, and not to the disabling of the Church from ordaining any other Holy-dayes, (on emergent causes) in the times to come.

p. 44Fuller.

DORMIT SECURUS.

Dr. Heylyn.

Assuredly that able Lawyer would have spoke more home unto the point, could the cause have born it. Eloquentem facit causae bonitas, in the Orator's language. And therefore looking on the heads of the Arguments (as our Author represents them to us) I must needs think, that they were rather fitted to the sense of the House, than they were to his own.

Fuller.

I now begin to awake, and rub my Eyes, hearing somewhat wherein I am concerned, as if I had unfaithfully related these Arguments.

I confesse it is but a Breviat of them, accommodated to the proportion of my Book; and had they been at large, much lustre must be lost whilst related, seeing none but Mr. Mainard can repeat the Arguments of Mr. Mainard to equal advantage. However, I had them from as observant, and judicious a Person as any in house of Lords; and if I should name Him, the Animadvertor would believe me herein.

Dr. Heylyn.

What influence these Arguments might have on the House of Peers, when reported by the Bishop of Lincoln, I am not able to affirm: But so far I concur with our Author, that they lost neither life nor lustre, as they came from his mouth, who (as our Author sayes) was a back friend to the Canons, because made during his absence and durance in the Tower.] A piece of ingenuity which I did not look for.

Fuller.

There are some Pens that if a Man do look for Ingenuity from them, he may look for it.

Dr. Heylyn.

The power of Convocation being thus shaken and endangered, that of the High Commission and the Bishops Courts was not like to hold; the one being taken away by Act of Parliament, and the other much weakned in the coercive power thereof, by a clause in that Act, of which our Author tell us, that

Fol. 182. Mr. Pim triumphed at this successe, crying out digitus Dei, it is the finger of God, that the Bishops should so supinely suffer themselves to be surprised in their power.] And well might Mr. Pim triumph, as having gain'd the point he aim'd at, in subverting the coercive power, and consequently the whole exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. But he had no reason to impute it to the finger of God, or to the carelesnesse of the Bishops in suffering themselves to be so supinely surpris'd. For first the Bishops saw too plainly, that those general words by which they were disabled from inflicting any pain or penalty, would be extended to Suspension, Excommunication, and other Ecclesiastical censures. But secondly, they saw withall that the stream was too strong for them to strive against, most of the Lords being wrought on by the popular party in the House of Commons, to passe the Bill. Thirdly, they were not without hope, that when the Scots Army was disbanded, and that Nation satisfied, by the Kings condescensions to them, there might be such an explication made of those general words, as to restrain them unto temporal pains and civill penalties, by which the censures of the Church might remain as formerly. And fourthly, in order thereunto they had procured a Proviso to be entred in the House of p. 45Peers, That the general words in this Bill should extend onelyonly to the High Commission Court, and not reach other Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, for which consult our Author, fol. 181. Having thus passed over such matters as concern the Church, we will now look upon some few things which relate to the Parliament. And the first is that —.

Fuller.

I said not Mr. Pim had just cause to triumph; yea somewhat followeth in my History to the contrary, shewing He had no reason to rejoyce, and condemn the Bishops herein, seeing not Supinesse but Prudentiall condescention, for the time, made them rather sufferers then surprized herein. OnelyOnly I say, there are many alive, who heard him sing aloud this his Victoria, and the Eccho thereof it still soundeth in their Eares.

The Animadvertor himselfe, sometimes triumpheth over my mistakes, and carrieth me away in his own conceit; whilst still I am sensible of my owne Liberty, that I am in a free condition.

Dr. Heylyn.

Fol. 174. Dr. Pocklinton, and Dr. Bray, were the two first that felt the displeasures of it, the former for preaching and printing, the latter for licensing two Books, one called Sunday no Sabbath, the other the Christian Altar.] No other way to pacifie the high displeasures of the Bishop of Lincoln, but by such a Sacrifice, who therefore is intrusted to gather such Propositions out of those two Books as were to be recanted by the one, and for which the other was to be depriv'd of all his preferments. And in this the Bishop serv'd his own turn, and the peoples too: his own turn first, in the great controversie of the Altar, in which he was so great a stickler, and in which Pocklington was thought to have provoked him to take that revenge. The Peoples turn he serv'd next, in the condemning and recanting of some points about the Sabbath, though therein he ran cross to his former practice. Who had been not long since so far from those Sabbatarian rigors, (which now he would fain be thought to countenance) that he caus'd a Comedy to be acted before him at his house at Budgen, not onelyonly on a Sunday in the afternoon, but upon such a Sunday also on which he had publickly given sacred Orders both to Priests and Deacons. And to this Comedy, he invited the Earl of Manchester, and divers of the neighbouring Gentry.

Fuller.

I was neither an Actor in, nor a Spectator of that Comedy. The better day, the worse deed. I recount it amongst none of those his Good works, wherewith he abounded.

Dr. Heylyn.

Though on this turning of the tide, he did not onelyonly cause these Doctors to be condemned for some Opinions which formerly himselfe allowed of, but mov'd at the Assembly in Ierusalem-Chamber, that all Books should be publickly burnt, which had disputed the Morality of the Lords-day-Sabbath. Quo teneam nodo, &c. as the Poet hath it.

Fuller.

I have been credibly informed, that when in Ierusalem-Chamber, Mr. Stephen Marshall urged most vehemently for severe punishment, on the Authors of those Books; Bishop Williams, fell foul on the Books, moving they might be burned, that their Authors might the better escape. Let every one betine his share herein.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whereas our Author tells us in the following words, that soon after both the Doctors deceased for grief, I dare with some confidence tell him, there vvas no p. 46such matter; Dr. Pocklinton living about tvvo years, and Dr. Bray above four years after, vvith as great chearfulnesse and courage as ever formerly. Hovv he hath dealt vvith Dr. Cousen, vve shall see more at large hereafter in a place by it selfe, the discourse thereof being too long and too full of particulars, to come vvithin the compasse of an Animadversion. In the mean time proceed we unto Bishop Wren, of vvhom thus as followeth.

Fuller.

I went to Peterborough on purpose in Quest after Information, and saw Dr. Pocklinton's Grave; on the same token, it was in the Church-yard, just in the place, where so many Saxons were murdered, and Martyred by the Danes: and there I heard that he enjoyed not himself after his censure. Of Dr. Bray (though I could) I say nothing; and shall return an Answer to Dr. Cosins at the end of this Book.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 182. A Bill (saith our Author) was sent up by the Commons against Mathew Wren Bishop of Ely, containing 25 Articles, &c.] That such a Bill was sent up from the House of Commons, is undoubtedly true. And no lesse true it is, that many Impeachments of like nature were hammered, at, and about, the same time against many other Clergy men of good note, though inferiour Order; the Articles whereof were Printed and exposed to open saile to their great disparagement. And therefore I would faine know the Reason, why this Man should be singled out amongst all the rest to stand impeached upon record in our Author's History; especially considering that there was nothing done by the Lords in pursuance of it, the Impeachment dying in a manner as soon as born. Was it because he was more Criminall then the other were, or that the charge was better proved, or for what Cause else?

Fuller.

I will give the Reader a true and fair… account thereof. Many Clergy men, (as the Animadvertor observeth) being then articled against; I thought, to insert all would clog my Book with needlesse Numbers, as to omit all, would be interpreted Partiality, and Unfaithfullnesse in an Historian: I chose therefore the middle, (as the safest) way, to instance in four; two Doctors, Bray and Pocklinton; one Dean, I. Cosins; and one Bishop, Matthew Wren, conceiving these a sufficient Representation of all the rest. Wherefore I cannot see how the Animadvertor can properly say, that Bishop Wren was by me singled out, except a QUATERNION be a single Man. It was not because his Charge was better (which for ought I know was not at all) proved, but for these Reasons:

1. He was one of the first in Time. Clamoured against.

2. He was one of the highest in Dignity. Clamoured against.

3. He was one that hath longest been a Sufferer for his un-prosecuted Accusation.

And here had the Animadvertor been pleased, as well to take notice of Flowers and Herbs in my Church-History, as what he counteth Weeds therein, he might have inserted, (yea with Justice could not have omitted) this following **Book 11. p. 196.passage. Bishop Wren his long imprisonment, (being never brought into a publick Answer) hath converted many of his Adversaries, into a more Charitable opinion of him.

Dr. Heylyn.

Well, since our Author will not, I will tell you, why (he singled out M. Wren amongst all the rest) And I will tell it in the words of King Iames, in the Conference at Hampton-court, upon occasion of a needlesse exception taken by Dr. Reynolds at a passage in Ecclesiasticus, What trow ye, (said the King,) makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus? By my Sal, I think he was a Bishop, or else they would never use him so. And so much for that.

Fuller.

Whether Ecclesiasticus was a Bishop or no, I know not; this I know that Ecclesiastes was a Preacher. The words of Kings are most proper for the Mouths of Kings, and Soveraignes may speak their Pleasure to their Subjects, which fit nor fellow-Subjects one to another. And so much for that.

My extraction who was Prebendarius Prebendarides, and Relation (as the Animadvertor knows) to Two no meane Bishops, my Uncles, may clear me from any Episcopall Antipathy. I honour any who is a Bishop, both Honour and Love him who is a Religious and Learned Bishop.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 174. About this time was the first motion of a new Protestation to be taken all over England, which some months after was generally performed.] What time this was our Author tells us in the margin, pointing to Feb. 4. about which time there was no mention of the Protestation, nor occasion for it. The first mention which was made of the Protestation was upon Munday, May the third, on which day it was mentioned, fram'd, and taken by all the Members of the House of Commons, excepting the Lord George Digby (now Earl of Bristol) and an Uncle of his.

Fuller.

I appeal to the surviving Members of the House of Commons, (the most competent Judges in this point) whether such a Protestation was not hammered (though not perfected) about the date by me assigned.

Acts of State never ride Post; and it seems to me improbable, that the Protestation by such unused approperation, to be mentioned, framed, and taken all in one day. But herein I submit to those who best know it.

Dr. Heylyn.

The occasion of it was a Speech made by the King in the House of Peers in favour of the Earl of Strafford, upon the Saturday before; which mov'd them to unite themselves by this Protestation for bringing to condign punishment, all such as shall either by force, practice, plots, counsels, conspiracies, or otherwise do any thing to the contrary of any thing in the same Protestation contain'd. Which Protestation being carried into the House of Peers, was after some few dayes generally taken by that House also. But the prevalent party in the House of Commons, having further aims then such as our Author pleaseth to take notice of, first caus'd it to be printed by an Order of the fifth of May, that they might be sent down to the Sheriffes and Iustices of Peace in the severall Shires; to whom they intimated, that as they justified th… taking of it in themselves, so they could not but approve it in all such as should take it. But finding that this did not much edifie with the Country people, they desired the Lords to concur with them in imposing the same. Failing whereof, by an Order of their own House onelyonly, Iuly 30. it was declared, that the Protestation made by them was fit to be taken by every Person that was well affected in Religion, and to the good of the Common-wealth; and therefore what Person soever did not take the same, was unfit to bear Office in the Church or Common-wealth. Which notwithstanding, many refus'd to take it, as our Author telleth us, not knowing but that some sinister use might be made thereof: as afterward appeared by those Pikes and Protestations, which conducted some of the five Members to the House of Commons.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor and the Author have in this Paragraph lovingly shaken hands together I fear, for meeting and parting at once; and that it will not be long before we disjoyne them again.

p. 48Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 183. About this time came forth the Lord Brook his Book against Bishops, accusing them in respect of their Parentage to be de faece populi, of the dregs of the people; and in respect of their Studies? no way fit for Government, or to be Barons in Parliament.] A passage mis-becoming no mans pen so much as his that writ it; whose Father neither was of a better extraction then …ome, nor better left, as in the way of his subsistance, then any of the Bishops (whom he thus upbraideth) had been left by their fathers.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor will, I hope, acknowledge me a fair and ingenuous Adversary, on a token best known to us alone. However, Christianity obligeth me to take no unworthy advantage of my Brother in the same Profession.

Dr. Heylyn.

From the first part of which calumny, the Bishops freed themselves well enough, as appears by our Author. And from the second, since they were too modest to speak in their own commendations, our Author might have freed them with one of the old tales which are in his budget. And the tale is of a Nobleman in King Harry the eights time, who told Mr. Pace, one of the Kings Secretaries, in contempt of Learning, that it was enough for Noblemens sons to wind their Horn, and carry their Hauk fair; and to leave study and learning to the children of mean men: to whom the aforesaid Mr. Pace replied, Then you and other Nobl…men must be content, that your children may wind their Horns, and keep their Hauks, while the children of mean men do manage matters of Estate. And certainly there can be no reason why men that have been verst in Books, studied in Histories, and thereby made acquainted with the chief occurrences of most States and Kingdoms, should not be thought as fit to manage the affairs of State, as those who spend their time in Hauking and Hunting, if not upon some worse employments. For that a Superinduction of holy Orders should prove a Supersedeas to all civill prudence, is such a wild extravagant fancy, as no man of judgment can allow of▪

Fuller.

I never said it, nor thought it; I will never write a syllable against mine own Vocation. The Clergy, I am sure, cannot be impaired, and Lay-Noblemen, I hope, may be improved, (to make them more industrious to enable themselves) by the Animadvertor's story, well reported, and better urged and applied.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 188. The next day the 12 Subscribers were voted to be committed to the Tower, save that Bishop Morton of Durham, and Hall of Norwich found some favour.] Our Author speaks this of those twelve Bishops, who had subscrib'd a Protestation for preserving their Rights and Votes in the House of Peers, during the time of their involuntary absence, to which they were compelled by threats, menaces, and some open acts of violence committed on them. But in the name of one of the Bishops, who found the favour of not being sent unto the Tower, he is much mistaken; it not being Dr. Hall Bishop of Norwich, but Dr. Wright Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, who found that favour at their Hands.

Fuller.

Not much, who (if at all) could not be lesse mistaken. I shall provide, God willing, the next Edition shall be reformed herein; and meane time desire the Owner of my former, to rectifie it with their Pen, who immediately can remove Coventry and Lichfield, (though 80 Miles distance) to Norwich, and thereby he will much wright me, and nothing at all wrong himself.

p. 49Dr. Heylyn.

The like Misnomer I find after, fol. 193. where he speaks of William, Earl of Bath;] The Earl of Bath of whom he speaks being nam'd Henry, and not William, unlesse he chang'd his name when he succeeded in that Earldom, as I think he did not, and I am sure our Author will not say he did.

Fuller.

That noble Earl, (questionable whether of more Honour or Learning) so cordiall to the cause of the Church, (far from all new dipt Sectaries,) never changed his Name, till he changed his Life, and then of a Militant became a Triumphant Saint. The Reader will believe me knowing enough in his Christian name, whose Relict (since Countess of Middlesex) was my late Parishoner at Waltham, where I have seen his name above a thousand times, prefixed with his own hand writing, before the severall Books in the Numerous and choise Library at Copt-hall. It was indeed a meer mistake of the Printer.

Dr. Heylyn.

As much he is mistaken also in point of time, leaving the Bishops in prison for eighteen weeks, whereas they were scarce detained there for half that time. For, being committed to the Tower in the end of December, they were released by an Order of the House of Peers on the fifteenth of February, being the next day after the Bill for taking away their Votes had passed in Parliament. But then the Commons looking on them, as devested of their Right of Peerage, and consequently (as they thought) in the same rank with themselves, return'd them to the Tower again: and having kept them there some few weeks (long enough to declare their power,) discharged them upon Bail, and so sent them home.

Fuller.

A great cry and a little Wool. 1. From the end of December to the fifteen of February was seven weekes. 2. They continued afterwards there some few weeks, as the Animadvertor confesseth. Weeks imply two at the least; some few, denote 4 or 5 in proper sense. Lastly some of the Bishops staid there longer than others, even for lack of Money to pay their fees: If the Reader be pleased to take all these up, he will find them fall little short of 18 Weeks. And let not the Animadvertor wilfully persist in an error, who may know from Bishop Wren, that none of them were released before the sixth of May.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceedeth, Fol. 195. About this time the word Malignant was first born (as to common use) in England, and fixed as a note of disgrace on the Kings Party, and (because one had as good he dumb as not speak with the volge) possibly in that sense it may occur in our ensuing History.] Nothing more possible then that our Author should make use of any word of disgrace with which the Kings party was reproached.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor in this Point, proves himselfe a Malignant indeed, taxing me with so odious and untrue an Aspersion: nothing more improbable, then that my hand should hurt that Cause, which my Heart did Honour in the Writing of my Book. Though this Passage be by me premised by way of prevention, if the Word Malignant casually fell from my Pen; yet such was my Cautiousnesse, that very rarely, if at all, it is used as mine own word. Besides, the Ingenuous Reader knoweth that the Writers of Civill Dissentions are sometimes necessitated for differencing of Parties, to use those Tearmes they do not approve.

p. 50Dr. Heylyn.

And if he calls them formerly by the name of Royalists and High-Royalists, as he sometimes doth; it was not because he thought them worthy of no worse a Title, but because the name of Malignant had not then been born.

Fuller.

Not so. For then since the Name MALIGNANT was born, I would have used it on them, which I do not: Those words of the Animadvertor, [worthy of no WORSE a TITLE] intimate, as if ROYALIST and HIGH-ROYALIST were BAD TITLES, which if not Honourable must be Inoffensive. If ROYAL the Primitive be GOOD, [a **Jam. 2.8.Jas 2:8ROYAL Law, **1 Pet. 2 9.1 Pet 2:9a ROYAL Priest-hood] ROYALIST the Derivative cannot be BAD, much lesse HIGH-ROYALIST, except Height makes that BAD being added thereunto, which was GOOD before.

Dr. Heylyn.

He cannot chuse but know, that the name of Round-head was born at the same time also, and that it was as common in the Kings Party to call the Parliamentarians by the name of Round-heads, as it was with those of the Parliament Party, to call the King's adherents by the name of Malignants. And yet I do confidently say, that the word Round-head, as it was fixed as a note of disgrace on the Parliament party, doth not occur, on any occasion whatsoever, in our Authors History. But kissing goes by favour, as the saying is; and therefore let him favour whom he pleases, and kisse where he favoureth.

Fuller.

I confesse the name ROUND-HEAD at the same time Trundled about in the Mouths of many men; but I conceived it beneath an Historian to make use thereof, because his Majesty in all his Proclamations, Declarations, and other Acts of State, never made mention thereof, whilst MALIGNANT was often used in Acts of Parliament.

But if my bare Mention (not using) of MALIGNANT, be so distastfull; I will Cut down all the Ill Wood therein, to the last Sprig, quench all the ill fire therein to the last Spark; I meane, God willing, totally delete that Paragraph in the next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 196. By this time ten of the eleven Bishops formerly subscribing their Protestation to the Parliament, were after some months durance (upon good Baile given) released, &c.] Of the releasing of these Bishops we have spoke already. We are now onelyonly to observe such mistakes and errors as relate unto it. And first they were not released at or about the time which our Author speaks of, that is to say, after such time as the word plunder had begun to be us'd amongst us. Plunder both name and thing, vvas unknovvn in England, till the beginning of the War; and the War began not, till September, An. 1642. which vvas some months after the releasing of the Bishops.

Fuller.

I hope novv the Animadvertor is dravving to a Conclusion, because an Ague commonly is leaving one, vvhen beginning to double its Fits. Formerly he found fault but once, in four Pages; novv four times, in one Paragraph.

Here is nothing Mis-timed in this point; the name PLUNDER beginning in England some Months, the Practise thereof some Weeks, before our War. Indeed COMMISSION'D PLUNDER begun with the war, but UNCOMMISSION'D PLUNDER vvas before it, committed by those, vvhose activity onelyonly did Authorise (or rather Impower) them to take avvay the goods of others. Such vvere they that PLUNDERED, (for I am sure they will not say they ROBBED) the p. 51House of the Countesse, Rivers at Long-Mellford in Suffolk, before the University of Cambridge sent their Pla…e to the King to York, and consequently before the Warr.

Dr. Heylyn.

Secondly, he telleth us, that ten of the eleven which had subscribed, were released, whereas there were twelve which had subscrib'd as appears fol. 187. whereof ten were sent unto the Tower, and the other two committed to the custody of the Black-Rod, fol. 188. And if ten onelyonly were releast, the other two must be kept in custody for a longer time: whereas we find the Bishop of Norwich at home in his Diocess, and the Bishop of Durham at liberty in London; they being the two whom he makes so far favour'd by the Parliament, as they scap't the Tower.

Fuller.

The small numerall fault shall be amended, to prevent exceptions, in my next Edition.

Dr. Heylyn.

Thirdly, he telleth us, that, when all others were releast, Bishop Wren was still detain'd in the Tower, which is nothing so. That Bishop was releast upon Bail, when the other were returned unto his Diocesse, as the others did, and there continued for a time; when of a suddain he was snatched from his House at Downham, in the Isle of Ely, carried to the Tower, and there imprisoned; never being brought unto a Hearing, nor any cause shewed for his imprisonment to this very day.

Fuller.

Would it were nothing so indeed, Si mea cum vestris valuissent Vota.

If the Animadvertor's and Author's Joynt-desires might have taken Effect, there had been no difference about this passage in my Book.

Tuque domo proprià, nos (Te Praesul) Poteremur

Thou hadst enjoy'd thy house, and we,

Prelate, had enjoyed Thee.

But alas it is so, He is still and still (when all other Bishops are released) detained in the Tower, where I believe he maketh Gods Service, his perfect freedom. My words, as relating to the time when I wrote them, containe too much sorrowfull truth therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

Fourthly, Archbishop Williams after his restoring unto liberty …ent not into the Kings Quarters, as our Author saith, but unto one of his own houses in Yorkshire, where he continued till the year 1643. and then came to Oxford: not that he found the North too cold for him, or the War too hot; but to solicit for ren…wing of his Commendam in the Deanry of Westminster; the time for which he was to hold it drawing towards an end.

Fuller.

Nothing false or faulty. The Arch-bishop of York, stayed some weeks after his enlargement at Westminster, thence he went privately to the house of Sir Thomas Hedley in Huntingon shire, and thence to his Palace at Ca…ood nigh York, where he gave the King a magnificent Intertainment.

King James setled the Deanry of Westminster under the great Seal on Dr. Williams, so long as he should continue Bishop of Lincoln. Hinc illa Lacrimae, hence the great heaving and hussing at Him, because He would not resigne it, which was so signal a Monument of his Master's favour unto him.

Being Arch-bishop of York, King Charls confirmed his Deanry unto him for p. 52three years, in lieu of the profits of his Arch-bishoprick, which the King had taken Sede vacante. So that it is probable enough, the renuing that Tearm might be a Joynt-Motive of his going to Oxford.

But I see nothing which I have written can be cavilled at, except because I call Yorkshire the King's Quarters, which as yet was the Kings WHOLE, when the Arch-bishop first came thither, (as being a little before the War began) though few Weeks after, it became the King's Quarters. Such a Prolepsis is familiar with the best Historians; and, in effect, is little more, then when the **Animadversions, pag. 205.Animadvertor calleth the Gag and Appello Caesarem, the Books of Bishop Montague; who, when they were written by him, was no (though soon after a) Bishop.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 196. Some of the aged Bishops had their tongues so used to the language of a third Estate, that more then once they ran on that (reputed) Rock in their speeches, for which they were publickly shent, and enjoyned an acknowledgment of their mistake.] By whom they were so publickly shent, and who they were that so ingenuously acknowledged their mistake, as my Author telleth us not, so neither can I say whether it be true or false.

Fuller.

I tell you again, It is true. The Earl of Essex and the Lord Say were two of the Lords (though this be more then I need discover) who checked them. And of two of those Bishops, Dr. Hall, late Bishop of Norwich, is gone to God, and the other is still alive.

Dr. Heylyn.

But I must needs say, that there was small ingenuity in acknowledging a mistake in that, wherein they had not been mistaken; or by endeavouring to avoid a reputed Rock, to run themselves on a certain Rock, even the Rock of Scandall.

Fuller.

Their brief and generall acknowledgment, that they vvere sorry that they had spoken in this point, vvhat had incurred the displeasure of the Temporall Lords, was no trespass on their own ingenuity, nor had shadovv of scandall to others therein.

I confess, men must not bear fals-witness, either against themselves or others; nor may they betray their right, especially when they have not onelyonly a personall concernment therein, but also are in some sort Feoffees in trust for Posterity. However, vvhen a predominant Power plainly appears, which will certainly over-rule their cause against them; without scandall, they may (not to say in Christian prudence they ought) to wave the vindication of their priviledges for the present, waiting, wishing, and praying, for more moderate and equall times, wherein they may assert their right, with more advantage to their cause, and less danger to their persons.

Dr. Heylyn.

For that the English Bishops had their vote in Parliament as a third Estate, and not in the capacity of temporal Barons, will evidently appear by these reasons following. For first, the Clergy in all other Christian Kingdoms of these Northwest parts make the third Estate; that is to say, in the German Empire, as appears by Thuanus the Historian, lib. 2. In France, as is affirmed by Paulus Aemilius, lib. 9. In Spain, as testifieth Bodinus in his De Repub. lib. 3. For which consult also to the Generall History of Spain, as in point of practise, lib. 9, 10, 11, 14. In Hungary, as witnesseth Bonfinius, Dec. 2. l. 1. In Poland, as is verified by Thunus also, lib. 56. In Denmark, as Pontanus telleth us in Historia rerum Danicarum, p. 53l. 7. The Swedes observing antiently the same form and order of Government as was us'd by the Danes. The like we find in Camden for the Realm of Scotland, in which antiently the Lords Spirituall, viz. Bishops, Abbots, Priors, made the third Estate. And certainly it were very strange, if the Bishops and other Prelates in the Realm of England, being a great and powerfull body, should move in a lower Sphere in England, then they do elsewhere. But secondly, not to stand onelyonly upon probable inferences, we find first in the History of Titus Livius, touching the Reign and Acts of King Henry the fifth, that when his Funerals were ended, the three Estates of the Realm of England did assemble toge…her, and declared his Son King Henry the sixth, being an Infant of eight months old, to be their Soveraign Lord as his Heir and Successor. And if the Lords Spirituall did not then make the third Estate, I would know who did. Secondly, the Petition tendred to Richard Duke of Glocester, to accept the Crown, occurring in the Parliament Rolls, runs in the name of the three Estates of the Realm, that is to say, The Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and the Commons thereof. Thirdly, in the first Parliament of the said Richard lately Crowned King, it is said expresly, that at the request and by the consent of the three Estates of this Realm, that is to say, the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and Commons of this Land assembled in this present Parliament, and by Authority of the same it be pronounced, decreed, and declared, That our said Soveraign Lord the King, was, and is the very and undoubted King of this Realm of England, &c. Fourthly, it is acknowledged so in the Statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 3. where the Lords Spirituall and Temporall, and the Commons in that Parliament assembled, being said expresly, and in terminis, to represent the three Estates of this Realm of England, did recognize the Queens Majesty to be their true, lawfull, and undoubted Soveraign Liege Lady, and Queen. Add unto these the Testimony of Sir Edward Cook, though a private person, who in his Book of the Jurisdiction of Courts (published by order of the long Parliament) chap. 1. doth expr…sly say; That the Parliament consists of the Head and Body; that the Head is the King, that the Body are the three Estates, viz. the Lords Spirituall, and Temporall, and Commons. In which words we have not onelyonly the opinion and testimony of that learned Lawyer, but the Authority of the long Parliament also, though against it selfe. Those aged Bishops had been but little studied in their owne concernments, and betray'd their Rights, if any of them did acknowledge any such mistake in challenging to themselves the name and priviledges of the third Estate.

Fuller.

In this long discourse, the Animadvertor hath given in the severall Particulars, whereof I, in my Church-History, gave the Totall summe; when saying, that there were passages in the old Statutes, which did countenance the Bishops sitting in Parliament in the Capacity of a THIRD ESTATE.

I have nothing to returne in Opposition, and heartily wish that his Arguments (to use the Sea-man's phrase) may prove stanche and tight, to hold water, when some Common-Lawyer shall examine them.

But seeing the Animadvertor hath with his commendable paines go… so farre in this point, I could wish he had gon a little further, even to answer the two Common Objections against the THIRD-ESTATE SHIP of Bishops.

The First is this: The Bishop not to speak of Bishops Suffragan, of the Isle of Man, is a Bishop for all purposes, and intents, of Jurisdiction and ordination, yet hath he no place in Parliament, because not holding per In egram Baroniam, by an Intire Barony. Now if Bishops sat in Parliament as a THIRD-ESTATE, and not as so many Barons, why hath not the Bishop of Man, being in the Province of York, a place in Parliament as well as the rest?

Secondly, If the Bishops sit as a THIRD-ESTATE, then Statutes made without p. 54them are man… and defective, which in law will not be allowed, seeing there were some Sessions of Parliament wherein Statutes did passe, Excluso Clero (at least wise, Absente Clero) which notwithstanding are acknowledged Obligatory to our Nation.

I also, request him (when his Hand is in) to satisfie the Objection, taken from a **Alledged by th… Animadvertor, formerly in his fourth Book.passage in the Parliament at Northampton under Henry the Second, when the Bishops challenged their Peerage, viz. Non sedemus hîc Episcopi, sed Barones: Nos Barones, vos Barones, Pares hîc sumus. We sit not here as Bishops, but as Barons, We are Barons, You are Barons, here we are peers, which is much inforced by Anti-Episcopists. And whereas the Animadvertor translated it not as Bishops onelyonly, it is more then questionable, that this interpolation ONLY will not be admitted by such who have a mind curiously to examine the matter.