The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Part 2 · Book 3

The Appeal of Injured Innocence · Part 2 · Book 3

p. 25THE THIRD BOOK From the time of the Norman Conquest, to the first preaching of Wickliffe.

Dr. Heylin.

WE are now come unto the times of the Norman Government, when the Church began to settle on a surer bottom, both for power and polity; the Bishops lesse obnoxious to the Kings than formerly, because elected by the Monks and Canons of their own Cathedrals; their Consistories free from the intermixture of Lay-assistance, and their Synods manag'd by themselves. Wherein though they had power of making such Synodicall Constitutions as did ipso facto binde all parties, yet our Author is resolv'd to have it otherwise.

Fuller.

All this is but perfatary, and therefore my Answer not necessary thereunto. The Animadvertor seemeth to congratulate the Condition of the English Church, as better hereafter in the following, than in foregoing Ages.

He instanceth in two particulars POWER and POLITIE, omitting a third worth Both, Piety (to which Purity in Doctrine may be reduced) which now began more and more to be impaired.

Let me add, that after the Kings of England had parted (which indeed was wrested from them) with the Investing of Bishops, Bishops became lesse managable by, and dutiful to their Prince, and more insulting over the People: and being lesse OBNOXIOUS (to use the Animadvertors word) to the Soveraign, were more NOXIOUS to the Subjects.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 19. The Proceedings (saith he) of the Canon Law were never wholly received into practice in the Land; but so as made subject in whatsoever touched temporals, to Secular Lawes, and National Customes. And the Laity as pleasure limited Canons in this behalf.] How false this is, how contrary to the power and practice of the Church before the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the eight; and finally how dangerous a ground is hereby laid to weaken the Authority of Convocations, will best appear by laying down the sum of a Petition presented by the House of Commons to the same King Henry, together with the Answer of the Prelates and inferior Clergy, then being Synodically assembled, to the said Petition.

p. 26The substance of the Petition was as followeth, viz. THat the Clergy of this your Realm, being your Highnesse Subjects, in their Convocation by them holden within this your Realm, have made, and daily make divers Sanctions or Laws concerning Temporal things, and some of them be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of your Realm,Acts of Convoc. Anno 1532. not having ne requiring your most Royal assent to the same Laws so by them made, nother any assent or knowledge of your Lay Subjects, is had to the same, nother to them published and known in their Mother tongue, albeit divers and sundry of the said Laws extend in certain causes to your excellent Person, your Liberty and Prerogative Royal, and to the interdiction of your Laws and Possessions, and so likewise to the Goods and Possessions of your Lay Subjects, declaring the infringers of the same Laws so by them made, not onelyonly to incur the terrible censure of Excommunication, but also to the detestable crime and sin of Heresie, by the which divers of your humble and obedient Lay Subjects be brought into this Ambiguity, whether they may doe and execute your Laws according to your jurisdiction Royal of this Realm, for dread of the same Censures and pains comprised in the same Laws so by them made in their Convocations, to the great trouble and inquietation of your said humble and obedient Lay Subjects, &c. the impeachment of your Jurisdiction and Prerogative Royal. The Answer thereunto was this.

TO this we say, that forasmuch as we repute and take our Authority of making Laws to be grounded upon the Scripture of God, and the determination of holy Church, which must also be a rule and squier to try the justice and righteousnesse of all Laws, as well Spiritual as Temporal; we verily trust, that considering the Laws of this Realm be such as have been made by most Christian, religious, and devout Princes and People, how both these Laws proceeding from one fountain, the same being sincerely interpretrd, and after the good meaning of the makers, there shall be found no repugnancy, nor contrariety, but that the one shall be found as aiding, maintaining, and supporting the other. And if it shall otherwise appear, as it is our duty (whereunto we shall alwayes most diligently apply our selves) to reform our Ordinances to Gods Commission, and to conform our Statutes and Laws, and those of our predecessors, to the determination of Scripture and holy Church; so we hope in God, and shall daily pray for the same, that your Highnesse will, if there appear cause why, with the assent of your People, temper your Graces Laws accordingly. Whereby shall ensue a most happy and perfect conjunction and agreement, as God being Lapis angularis, to agree and conjoyn the same. And as concerning the requiring of your Highnesse Royal assent to the authority of such Laws as have been by our Predecessors, or shall be made by us in such points and Articles as we have by Gods authority to rule and order by such Provisions and Laws; we knowing your Highness wisdome, and vertue, and learning, nothing doubt but the same perceiveth how the granting hereunto dependeth not upon our will and liberty. And that we your most humble Subjects may not submit the execution of our charge and duty certainly prescribed by God, to your Highnesse assent, although in very deed the same is most worthy for your most Noble, Princely, and excellent vertues, not onelyonly to give your Royal assent, but also to devise and command what we should for good order and manners by Statutes and Laws provide in the Church, neverthelesse considering we may not so, ne in such sort refrain the doing of our office in the feeding and ruling of Christs people your Graces Subjects; we most humbly desiring your Grace p. 27as the same hath heretofore, so from henceforth to shew your Graces minde and opinion unto us, what your high Wisdome shall think convenient, which we shall most gladly hear and follow, if it shall please God to inspire us so to doe, with all submission and humility beseech the same, following the steps of of your most Noble Progenitors, and conformably to your our own Acts doe maintain and defend such Laws, and Ordinances, as we according to our calling and by Authority of God, shall for his honour make, to the edification of vertue, and maintaining Christs faith, of which your Highnesse is named Defender, and hath been hitherto indeed a special Protector.

Furthermore whereas your said Lay Subjects say, that sundry of the said Laws extend in certain causes to your excellent Person, your Liberty and Prerogative Royal, and to the interdiction of your Land and Possessions: To this your said Orators say, that having submitted the tryal and examining of the Laws made in the Church by us and our Predecessors, to the just and straight Rule of Gods Laws, which giveth measure of Power, Prerogative, and Authority to all Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Potentates, and all other; we have conceiv'd such opinion, and have such estimation of your Majesties goodnesse and vertue, that whatsoever any persons not so well learned as your Grace is, would pretend unto the same, whereby we your most humble Subjects may be brought in your Graces displeasure and indignation, surmising that we should by usurpation and presumption, extend our Laws to your most noble Person, Prerogative and Realm, yet the same your Highnesse being so highly learn'd, will of your own most bounteous goodnesse facilly discharge and deliver us from that envy, when it shall appear that the said Laws are made by us, or out Predecessors, conformable and maintainable by the Scripture of God, and determination of the Church, against which no Laws can stand or take effect.

Somewhat to this purpose had been before endeavoured by the Commons in the last Parliament of King Edw. 3. of which, because they got nothing by it, but only the shewing of their teeth without hurting any body; I shall lay nothing in this place, reserving it to the time of the long Parliament, in the Reign of King Charles, when this point was more hotly followed, and more powerfully prosecuted than ever formerly.

What sayes our Author unto this? Findes he here any such matter, as that the Laity at their pleasure could limit the Canons of the Church? Or that such Canons in whatsoever touched temporals were subject unto secular Laws and National Customes? And here of I desire the Reader to take special notice, as that which is to serve for a Catholicon, or general Antidote against those many venomous insinuations, which he shall meet with up and down in the course of this History. As for the case in which our Author grounds this pestilent Position, it was the Canon made in a Synod at Westminster, in the time of Anselm, Anno 1102. prohibiting the sale of men and women like brute beasts in the open Market. Which Canon not finding presently an universal obedience over all the Kingdome (as certainly ill customes are not easily left, when they are countenanced by profit) occasioned our Author to adventure upon this bold assertion.

Fuller.

I conceived it uncivil to interrupt the Animadvertor in his long discourse until he had ended it, and now professe, I know not how it maketh in opposition to what I said, and heartily wish that the Reader may understand it better than I doe.

It cannot be denyed, but that the Clergy did claim and challenge a power, and sometimes de facto executed it, over the temporal Estates of the La…ty (for I behold the Clergy, more bound, (because binding themselves by their representatives) unto their Canons) yet they never peaceably injoyed their Power, as constantly checkt and controled by the Laws of the Land, in such things, wherein the Temporal Estate, Life and Limb of Persons were concerned.

We have an eminent instance hereof, in the Canon, occasioning this discourse. p. 28Anselme makes a Constitution (and that indeed charitable and Christian) against the sale of men and women like brute beasts in the open market place. Now such persons sold (slaves and Vassals as I understand it) being the Goods and Chattels of their Masters, the proprietaries and owners of their Bodies, they would not part with their right in obedience to the Canon.

Suppose a Convocation some thirty years agoe should have made a Canon, without any confirmation from Parliament, That no Merchant living in England should by his Factors sell any Negroes or Blacks in the Barbadoes, which formerly he had bought in Guinnie, it would not oblige to the observation thereof; because in such matters wherein propertie was concerned, the Canon must say to the Common-Law, By your leave Sir.

I have writen nothing in this point, bu… what I have a good Author for. And seeing the Animadvertor in his Geography hath been pleased to tell a passage betwixt him and his fathers man, let me relate another, wherein my self was concerned, knowing it to be as true, and hoping it to be as well applyed.

Some three years since, walking on the Lords day into the Park at Copthall, the third son (a child in coats) of the Earl of Dorset, desired to goe with me, whereof I was unwilling, fearing he should straggle from me whilest I meditated on my Sermon: And when I told him, that if he went with me, he would lose himself, he returned, Then you must lose your self first, for I will goe with you.

This rule I alwayes observe, when medling with matters of Law, because I my self am a child therein, I will ever goe with a man in that faculty, such as is most eminent in his profession, à cujus latere non discedam; so that if he lose me, he shall first lose himself, as hereafter when we grapple together in this Controversie, will appear.

As for this particular case (for I will engage no further for the present) this Canon did not dispossesse Masters of their property in their Vassals, and no meaner than Mr. Selden, is my conductor herein, stiled hereafter by, the Animadvertor**In his Animadversion on my 8. Lib. or reign of Q Mary., foreign, that renowned Humanitian and Philologer.

Yea I entred my Author in the Margin, had the Animadvertor been pleased to take notice thereof) Spiceleg ad Edmerium, page two hundred and eight.

Ne que sane Canon▪ hic, aut alia apud nos lata Lex id juris hactenus adeo refixit; quin in Iurisconsultorum nostratium Commentariis passim Legibus quibus utimur consonum agnoscatur. Neither truly this Canon, or any other Law made amongst us, hath hitherto unfastened this right; but that in the Comments (or Reports), of our Common Lawyers, it is acknowledged consonant to those Laws which we use. And though in processe of Time, first conscientious, then all Masters laudibly submitted themselves to this Canon (forbearing such sales;) yet were they not by the Canon devested of the power of Doing it, such vendition and emption being by the Common-Law preserved unto them, though now, very commendably, long disused.

And whereas the Clergy in their Answer, pretend all their Canons grounded on the Word of God, I would fain be informed where they finde in the New-Testament (which ought to regulate their proceedings) that the power of the Church extendeth to life, limb, or estate. Sure I am her censures appear spiritual on the soul, by those expressions, Binde **Matth. 16, 19Matt 16:19on Earth, Cast **1 Iohn 9.34.out, Deliver **1 Cor. 5.5.1 Cor 5:5to Satan, &c. But because the Reader reserveth a lager prosecution of this point for another time, we will also respit our larger answer hereunto.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 24. Indeed 1. Davids had been Christian some hundred of years, whilest Canterbury was yet Pagan.] Not many hundred years I am sure of that nor yet so many as to make a plural number by the Latin Grammer; Kent being conquered by the Saxons, who brought in Paganism, Anno 455. Converted unto Christianity by the preaching of Austin, Anno 569. Not much more than 140. years betwixt the one and the other.

p. 29Fuller.

The Christian Antiquity of St. David bare a double Date, one native or inherent, the other adopted and Reputative.

1. The Inherent from the time that St. David fixed there, on which account I believe it was no more than 140. years senior to Canterbury.

2. The Reputative from the first founding of a Bishoprick at Carleon by King Lucius, which (indifferently stated) was about the year of our Lord 169▪ which was four hundred years before Canterbury.

Now it is notoriously known, that the antiquity of Carleon (whence the See was removed) in computation of the seniority is adjected to St. Davids, (her adopted Daughter.)

Hence was it that the Abbot of Bancar in his **(A Record lately so priced by the Animadv)Answer unto Austin, acknowledged himself and his Convent under the Government of the Bishop of Carleon upon Uske, (though then no Bishop therein) meaning St. Davids thereby, as Dr.**In his account H S. his Appendix. Hammond and others doe unanimously allow.

Thus grafting St. Davids (as it ought) on the Stock of Carleon, it is senior in Christianity to Canterbury four hundred years, and FOUR, may be termed Some, in the stricktest propriety of Language.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 29. To whose honour he (viz. King Stephen) erected St. Stephens Chappel in Westminster, neer the place where lately the Court of Requests was kept.] Our Author is here mealy mouth'd, and will not parler le tout, as the French men say. For otherwise he might have told us that this Chappel is still standing, and since the surrendry of it to King Edward the sixth, hath been used for a Parliament House, Stowe Survey, p 893.imployed to that purpose by the Commons, as it still continueth. What might induce our Author to be thus reserved, I can hardly tell; unless it be to prevent such inferences and observations, which by some wanton wits might be made upon it.

Fuller.

I hope rather some gracious hearts will make pious improvement thereupon, praying to God, that seeing so many signal persons are now assembled therein, the very place once dedicated as a Chappel to St. Stephen, may be their more effectual Remembrancer, to imitate the purity and piety of that renowned Saint: That so God may be invited graciously to be present amongst them, to over-rule all their consultations to his Glory, the Good of the Church and State, and the true honour of the Nation: And to this let every good man say, Amen.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 40. By the same title from his Father Jeffery Plantagenet, be possessed fair lands in Anjou and Maine.] I had thought he had possessed somewhat more in Anjou and Maine, than some fair Lands onelyonly, his Father Ieffrey Plantagenet being the Proprietary Earl of Anjou, Maine, and Toureine, not a titular onelyonly, succeeded in the same by this King Henry and his two sons, Richard and Iohn, till lost unhappily by the last, with the rest of our Estates on that side of the Sea. From this Ieffery descended fourteen Kings of the name of Plantagenet, the name not yet extinguished, though it be improverished: Our Author speaking of one of them, who was found not long since at the Plow, Lib. 2. p. 170. Another of that name publishing a Book about the Plantation of New-Albion, Anno 1646. or not long before.

p. 30Fuller.

The frequent and familiar figure of MOISIS will rectifie all, wherby lesse is said than meant, and therefore more must be understood than is said. Besides, it made me mince my expression, (being loath to exceed) because this Ieffery did not to me appear (though the Earl,) so intire in those Dominions, but that the Kings of France and England had Cities and Castles interposed therein.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 53. King John sent a base, degenerous, and unchristian Embassage to Admitalius Mutmelius a Mahometan King of Morocco, then very puissant, and possessing a great part of Spain.] This Admiralius Murmelius, as our Author and the old Monks call him, was by his own name called Mahomet Enaser, the Miramomoline of Morocco; to whom if King Iohn sent any such Message, it was as base, unchristian ▪ and degenerate as our Author makes it.

Fuller.

I will ingenuously confesse, that the first time I found this Story, was in the Doctors Mi…ro-cosm (the novelty making me take the more notice thereof.) Though since I have met with it in M. Paris (the fountain) and other Authors, the channels thereof, I conceive it was as lawfull for me to relate it, as for the Animadvertor, who epitheis this Embassy BASE **His description of Barbary., DEGENEROUS, and UNCHRISTIAN, the words which in me he reproveth.

Dr. Heylin.

But being the credit of the Tale depends upon the credit of the Monkish Authors, to which brood of men that King was known to be a prosessed Enemy (hating and hated by one another) it is not to be esteemed so highly as a piece of Apocrypha, and much lesse to be held for Gospel.

Fuller.

Here he rather speaks aliter than alia, from what I had written on the same Subject, who thus concluded the Character of King Iohn.

Church-Hist. Book 3. pag. 54.

We onelyonly behold him Him thorough such a Light as the Friers his foes shew him in; who so hold the candle, that with the Shadow thereof they darken his virtues, and present onelyonly his Vices; yea, and as if they had also poysoned his memory, they cause his faults to swell to a prodigious greatnesse, making him with their pens more black in conditions, than the Morocco King (whose aid he requested) could be in complexion.

Here I desire to give the Reader a …aste of what doth frequently occur in this Book, and of what I justly did complain, viz. the Animadvertor **Vide supra, part. 1 chap. 11sometimes not liking my language, (as not proper and expressive enough) substituteth his own, with little or no variation of matter.

I confesse he is not bound to use my words, and such variations simply in it self, is no wrong unto me; but it becometh an Injury when they must passe for necessary Animadversions on my Book, to the defaming thereof, as if it were defective without them, which were there (though perchance not so finely) as fully and clearly before.

Dr. Heylin.

Possible it is, that being overlaid by his own Subjects, and distressed by the French, he might send unto that King for aid in his great extremities. And doing this (if this were all) he did no more than Nature, and indignation, and the necessity of his affairs did provoke him to; not half so much as was done afterwards upon far weaker grounds by King Francis the first, employing the Turks Forces both p. 31by Sea and Land against Charles the fifth. But the Monks coming to the knowledge of this secret practise, and construing his actions to the worst, improv'd the Molehill to a Mountain, rendring him thereby as odious to posterity, as he was to themselves.

Fuller.

How much is this different from what I have written before, but that the Animadvertor will not wear words at the second hand of my using, but will have them spick and span new of his own making.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 63. I question whether the Bishop of Rochester (whose Country house at Bromley is so nigh) had ever a House in the City.] There is no question but he had, Stow finding it in Southwark by the name of Rochester house, adjoyning on the South side to the Bishop of Winchesters, ruinous and out of reparation in his time (as possibly not much frequented since the building of Bromley House) and since converted into Tenements for private persons.

Fuller.

It was a Question to me, though none to the Animadvertor; now it is a question neither to him nor to me, who by him am informed. I see that men may learn by what boyes learn in their Qui mihi,

Sed qui nil dubitat, nil capit inde boni.

Had I not questioned this once publickly, probably I had questioned it ever privately, and gone in my self without satisfaction.

Dr. Heylin.

But since our Author hath desired others to recover the rest from oblivion, I shall help him to the knowledge of two more, and shall thank any man to finde out the third. The first of these two is the Bishop of Lincolns House, situate neer the old Temple in Holborn, first built by Robert de Chesney, Bishop of Lincoln, Anno 1147. since alien'd from that See to the Earls of Southampton, and passing by the name of Southampton House. The second is the Bishop of Bangors, a fair House situate in Shoe-lane neer St. Andrews Church, of late time leased out by the Bishops, and not since, the dwelling of Dr. Smith Doctor in Physick, a right honest and ingenuous person, and my very good friend. Of all the old Bishops which were founded before King Harry the eight, there is none whose House we have not found, but the Bishop of Asaph; to the finding whereof, if our Author, or any other will hold forth the Candle, I shall follow the light the best I can, and be thankfull for it.

Fuller.

I faithfully promise so to doe, as soon as I arrive at any good intelligence thereof.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 67. And though some high Royalists look on it as the product of Subjects animosities improving themselves on their Princes extremities, &c.] Our Author telleth us in his Epistle to the Reader, that the three first Books of this Volume were for the main written in the reign of the late King, and that it would appear so by some passages which were then proper for the Government. But certainly if these words were written in the time of the late King, they were written in the time of his distresse, when his affairs were desperate, and his Party ruin'd; the name of Royalists had not else been used here in the way of reproach, nor any new matter charg'd upon them, which might render them more obnoxious to fine and ransome than the crime of Loyalty.

p. 32Fuller.

My Loyaltie did rise and fall with his Majesties successe, as a Rock in the Sea doth with the ebbing and flowing of the Tyde. I had more pitty but not lesse honour for him in his deepest distresse.

God knows my heart, I use not the word High-Royalist here as by way of reproach, and the unpartial Reader niether will nor can so understand it.

Some there are who maintain, that a King is no way confined with his own Laws, but that without any fault, he may by his own l…st limit his Demands on his Subjects, taking from them, without any wrong, what they refuse to pay unto him. There the Animadvertor will call Royalists, and I dare call them High-Royalists, beholding (as I have said) the Grand-Charter as the product of Subjects animosities improving themselves on their Princes extremities.

Dr. Heylin.

But whatsoever our Author thinks, it cannot but appear to any who consults the story of former times, that the original of this Charter, was first writ in blood, obtain'd by working on the necessities of some Princes, extorted in the minority of another, and finally confirm'd by him who had not power to justifie his denial of it.

Fuller.

I could heartily have wished, that the Animadvertor had expressed the names of these Kings. Who now onelyonly hope that I conjecture them aright.

1. King Iohn, on the working of whose necessities it was first obtainned.

2. Henry the third, whose consent thereto was extorted in his minoritie.

3. Edward the first, confirming it when not in power to justifie his denial, during his durance as a Prisoner taken in Battail.

Here I confesse, are three sad conditions, necessity of the first, minority of the second, captivity of the third. But know, that the last of these when at liberty, and not onelyonly endued with freedome, but impowered with force, and being as wise and successefull a Prince, as ever sate on the English Throne; found it advantagious for his Interest, to observe what formerly when a Prisoner he had confirmed.

Otherwise his Sword was so long, reaching as farre as Palastine it self, and so sharp, hewing his conquering way through Wales and Scotland; that therewith (enforced with his arm) he might have rescinded the Seals of the Grand-Charter, and put himself into the condition of an absolute command.

But he preferred the strict observation thereof, partly out of Piety, because solemnly sworn thereunto; partly out of Policy, as sensible that therein the Rights of Sovereigns and Subjects, were indifferently contempered to their mutual happinesse, it being Fetters to neither, but Girdles to both to be strengthned by such restraints.

Dr. Heylin.

And if our Author be so certain, that those Kings flourihed most both at home and abroad, who tyed themselves most conscientiously to the observation thereof: I would fain know how some of our Kings, who have most conscientiously tied themselves to that observation, became so unprosperous; or how some others came to flourish both at home and abroad, who have made it their great work to infringe the same in almost all the principal Articles and main branches of it.

Fuller.

It is an hard question, and yet perchance more dangerous than difficult to answer, but the reason I dare alledge is this, Even so Father, because it pleased thee.

Let me add, that such conscientious observers thereof, which have proved unsuccessefull, may esteem their losses as Sweet-Bryar and Holy-Thistle, and more p. 33cordially comfort themselves in such sanctified afflictions, than the Infringers of their Charter could content themselves in their successefull oppression.

I cannot part from this point, till I have inserted that Sir Robert Cotton, (one who had in him as much of the Gentleman, Antiquarie, Lawyer, good Subject, and good Patriot, as any in England) was the Author, [in his short view of the long reign of King Henry the third] who made the observation of those most successefull Kings, by whom the Grand-Charter was most conscienciously observed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 88. The poor Jews durst not goe into France (whence lately they had been solemnly banished) but generally disposed themselves in Germany and Italy.] The poor Iews are more beholding to our Author for his commiseration than the high Royalists, (as he cals them) in the former passage. But poor or rich, they might have passed safely into France, had they been so minded. For though he tell us, that they had been solemnly banished out of France before this time; yet either such banishment was repealed, or temporary only, or (as I rather think) not so much as sentenced. Certain I am, our learned Brerewood upon a diligent enquiry hath found it otherwise than our Author doth; letting us know,Brerewoods Enq. cap. 13. That the first Countrey in Christendome, whence the Jews were expelled without hope of return, was our Countrey of England, whence they were banished, Anno 1290. by King Edward the first; and not long after out of France, Anno 1307. by Philippus Pulcher. Not out of France first, out of England afterwards, as our Author would have it.

Fuller.

I wonder any good Christians would be offended with me, for pittying them by the name poor Iews. If any High royalist, (as I fear there is too many) be in low Estate, would it were as well in my power to relieve as to pitty them. Till when they shall have my prayers, that God would give them patience, and support them in their deepest distresse.

The Author will find, that though the Great, General, and Final banishment of the Jews out of France, was Anno 1307. under Philip the Fair, yet formely there had been Edicts for their Exile thence.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 100. Thus men of yesterday have pride too much to remember what they were the day before.] An observation true enough, but not well applyed. The two Spencers whom he speaks this off, were not men of yesterday, or raised out of the dirt or dunghill to so great an height; but of as old and known Nobility as the best in England: Camden in Monmout…h.insomuch that when a question grew in Parliament, whether the Baronesse de Spencer, or the Lord of Aburgaveny were to have precedency, it was adjudg'd unto de Spencer, thereby declar'd the ancientest Barony of the Kingdome at that time then being. These two Spencers, Hugh …he Father was created Earl of Winchester for term of life; and Hugh the Son by marrying one of the Daughters and co-heirs of Gilbert de Clare, became Earl of Glocester. Men more to be commended for their Loyalty, than accused for their pride, but that the King was now declining, and therefore it was held fit by the prevalent faction to take his two supporters from him, as they after did.

Fuller.

The two Spencers fall under a double consideration, and are beheld in History for their extraction, either, as

Absolutely in themselves.

Comparatively with others.

Absolutely they were of honourable parentage, and I believe the Elder might be born a Baron, whose Baronry (by the Heir general is still extant in Mildmay p. 34Fane, Earl of Westmorland, and from the younger House of a Male Heir, the Lord Spencer of Wormelayton (now Earl of Sunderland) doth, as I have seen in his Pedigree, derive himself.

Comparatively, So were they far inferiour to most of those great persons over whom they insulted, being originally Earls, and some of them of Royall extraction.

Again, the Two Spencers may and ought by an Historian to be considered, as to be

1. Commended for their Loyalty,

2. Condemned for their Insolency.

On the first account, they deserve just praise; and it is probable enough, that they finde the lesse Favour from some Pens, for being so Faithfull to so unfortunate a Soveraigne.

The latter cannot be excused, appearing too plain in all our Histories.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds, Fol. 113. The Lord Chancellor was ever a Bishop.] If our Author by this word ever understands foreign, most commonly, or for the most part, he is right enough; but then it will not stand with the following words viz. as if it had been against equity to imploy any other therein. And on the other side, if he take the word ever in its proper and more natural sense, as if none but Bishops had ever been advanced unto that office, he doth not onelyonly misinform the Reader, but confute himself, he having told us fol. 31. of this present book, that Thomas Becket being then but Archdeacon of Canterbury, was made Lord Chancellor, and that as soon as he was made Archbishop, he resign'd that office. But the truth is, that not onelyonly men in holy Orders, but many of the Laity also had attained that dignity, as will appear to any who will take the pains to consult the Catalogue of the Chancellors and Keepers of the Great Seal, in the Glossary of Sir Henry Spelman: in which appear not onelyonly some of inferior dignity, as Deans, Archdeacons, House-hold Chaplains; but many also not dignified with any Ecclesiastical Title, or Notification, and therefore in all probability to be looked on as meer Lay-men, Counsellors, and Servants to the Kings in whose times they lived, or otherwise studied in the Laws, and of good affections, and consequently capable of the place of such trust and power.

Fuller.

May the Reader take notice, that this complaint was made by the Commons in the 11^th of Edward the 3^d Anno 1336. Now Ever I here restrain to the oldest man alive, then present in Parliament, who could not distinctly remember the contrary, from the first of King Edward the first, who began his Reign 1272. so that for full 64. years, an uninterrupted series of Bishops (except possibly one put in pro tempore, for a monethmonth or two) possessed the place of Chancellors.

This complaint of the Commons occasioned that the King some three years after. viz. in the fifteenth year of his reign, conferred the Chancellors place on a Layman. But it was not long before things returned to the old channel of Clergy-men, and so generally for many years continued, with some few and short interpositions of Lay-men.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 116. This year, viz. 1350. as Authors generally agree, King Edward instituted the Order of the Garter.] Right enough as unto the time, but much mistaken in some things which relate unto that ancient and most noble Order; our Author taking up his Commodities at the second hand, neither consulting the Records, nor dealing in this businesse with men of credit.

Fuller.

I am now come under the Roof of the Animadvertor, who (by the Laws of Hospitality) is bound to treat me the more courteously; I mean, I am entred into p. 35a Subject, wherein he is well seen, and therefore might favourably connive at my small slips, being therein best studied.

It is severely said, that in this businesse I dealt with no men of credit. The highest person (next the Son of the King) wearing a blew Ribbon was pleased so far to favour me, as that from his own mouth I wrote the last sheet of my History, his Grace endeavouring to be very exact in all particulars.

Dr. Heylin.

For first there are not fourteen Canons resident in the Church of Windsor, but thirteen onelyonly with the Dean; it being King Edwards purpose when he founded that Order, consisting of twenty six Knights, himself being one, to institute as many greater and lesser Canons, and as many old Soldiers (commonly called poor Knights) to be pensioned there: Though in this last, the number was not made up to his first intention.

Fuller.

The mistake (such an one as it is) shall be amended in my next Edition.

Dr. Heylin.

He tells us secondly, that if he be not mistaken (as indeed he is) Sir Thomas Row was the last Chanoellor of the Order. Whereas Sir Iames Palmer one of the Gentlemen Huishers of the Privy Chamber succeeded him in the place of Chancellor after his decease, Anno 1644.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor is very discourteous to deny me the benefit of the Parenthesis, If I be not mistaken. The best Authors have their Ni fallor, Si quid video, Si bene intelligo, and the like: These are Grains allowed to all Pieces currant in payment.

Sir Thomas Roe was the last Chancellor who effectually officiated in his place. Winsor before the year 1644. being a chief Garrison of the Parliament.

Tully calls a Consul, chosen in the morning and put out before night, a Vigilant Consul, who never slept in all his Co…sulship. But (on another occasion) one may say of Sir Iames Palmer (otherwise a worthy Gentleman, well deserving that and a better place) that He was a very watchfull Chancellor, who never slept in Winsor whilst invested in his Office.

Dr. Heylin.

He tels us thirdly, That there belongs unto it one Register, being alwayes the Dean of Winsor: which is nothing so. For though the Deans of late times have been Registers also, yet ab initio non fuit sic, it was not so from the beginning; The first Dean was also Register, being Iohn Boxul, Anno 1557. Before which time, beginning at the year 1414. there had been nine Registers which were not Deans; but how many more before that time, I am not able to say, their names not being on Record.

Fuller.

I say not that the Register alwaies Was the Dean, but being alwaies the Dean; which relating to our and our fathers memories, is right enough: but it shall be reformed.

Dr. Heylin.

And fourthly he tels us, That the Garter is one of the extraordinary Habiliments of the Knights of this Order, their ordinary being onelyonly the blew Ribbon about their necks, with the Picture of St. George appendant, and the Sun in his glory on the left shoulder of their Cloak; whereas indeed the Garter is of common wearing, and of such necessary use, that the Knights are not to be seen abroad without it, upon pain p. 36of paying two Crowns to any Officer of the Order, who shall first claim it, unlesse they be to take a journey;Hist. of St. George lib. 3. cap. 3.8. in which case it is sufficient to wear a blew Ribbon under their Boots to denote the Garter. Lastly, whereas our Author tells us, that the Knights hereof doe weare on the left shoulder of their Cloaks a Sun in his glory, and attributes this wearing, as some say, to King Charles. I will first put him out of doubt, that this addition was King Charles his; then shew him his mistake in the matter it self. And first, in the first year of that King, Apr. 26. 1626. it was thus enacted at a publick Chapter of the Order, viz. That all Knights and Companions of the Order, shall wear upon the left part of their Cloaks, Coats, and riding Cassocks at all times when they shall not wear their Roabs, and in all places of Assembly, an Escocheon of the Armes of St. George, id est, a Crosse within a Garter, not enriched with Pearls or Stones: in token of the honour which they hold from the said most noble Order, instituted and ordained for persons of the highest worth and honour. Our Author, secondly, may perceive by this Act of the Kings, that St. Georges Crosse within the Garter, is the main device injoyned to be worn by all the Knights of that noble Order; to which the adding of the Sun in his glory served but for ornament and imbellishing, and might be either used or not used (but onelyonly for conformities sake) as they would themselves.

Fuller.

This Sun in Glory affords me small light, so that I can see but very little (if any thing at all) which I have to alter.

Dr. Heylin.

So many Errors in so few lines one shall hardly meet with.

Fuller.

Yea, with more in fewer lines, even in the Animadvertor himself, in laying down the Root and Branches of the noble family of the Montagues: Mistakes the more remarkable, because done in correction of Mr. Sanderson, and making more faults that He mendeth; Or rather all is but one mistake, resulting from a continued complication of omissions, confusions, and transpositions.

Advertisements on the History of the Reign of King Iames, pag. 21, 22.

Fol. 490. Sir Edward Montague had three sonnes, Edward the eldest Knight of the Bath, &c.] The Author here is much mistaken in the House of the Montagues.

For first, that Edward Montague who was Knight of the Bath, &c. was not Brother to Iames Bishop of Winchester, and Henry Earl of Manchester, but their Brothers Son, that is to say, the Son of another Edward their eldest Brother.

Secondly, besides that, Edward, Iames, and Henry, there was another Brother whom the Author names not, though he could not chuse but know the man, viz. Sir Sidney Montague, one of the Masters of the Requests to the late King Charles. Therefore to set this matter right, I am to let both him and his Readers know, that Sir Edward Montague chief Justice in the time of King Edward the sixth, was father of another Edward who lived peaceably and nobly in his own Country. To whom succeeded a third Edward, who sought for honour in the Wars, and gained the reputation of a good Commander▪ the elder Brother of Iames, Henry, and Sidney before mentioned, and the father of a fourth Edward who was made Knight of the Bath, at the Coronation of King Iames, Anno 1603. and afterwards created Lord Montague of Boughton in the nineteenth year of that King, Anno 1621. which honourable Title is now enjoyed by his Son (another Edward) Anno 1658.

And thirdly, though I grant that Dr. Iames Montague Bishop of Winchester (the second Brother of the four) was of great power and favour in the time of King Iames.

p. 37Thus far Dr. Heylin, out of his Advertisements, written in correction of Mr. Sandersons History of the Reign of King Iames.

To rectifie this heap of Errors, not to be paralleled in any Author (pretending to the emendation of another) I have here plainly set down the Male-pedegree of this Noble, Numerous, and successfull Family.

1 Sir Edward Montague, Lord Chief Justice in the Reign of King Henry the eighth.

2 Sir Edward Montague, a worthy Patriot, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Sir Walter Montague Knight, second Son, died without Issue.

Sir Henry Montague third Son, Earl of Manchester, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Treasurer, &c.

Edw. Montague now Earl of Manchester, besides other Sons.

3 Sir Edward Montague, made Knight of the Bath at the Coronation of King Iames (never a Martialist,) and created by Him Baron Montague of Boughton, dying in the beginning of the Civill Warres.

William Mountague Esq of the Middle-Temple, second Son.

4 Edward now Lord Montague of Boughton.

Ralfe Montague Esq second Son.

Edward Montague Esq eldest Son.

Christopher Montague third Son, died before his Father, being a most hopefull Gentleman.

Sir Charles Montague fourth Son, who did good service in Ireland; and left three Daughters and Co-heirs.

Iames Montague fifth Son, Bishop of Winchester, died unmarried.

Sir Sidney Montague sixth Son, Master of the Requests.

Edward Montague now Admirall, and one of the Lords of the Councel.

I presume the Animadvertor will allow me exact in this Family, which hath reflected so fauourably upon me, that I desire (and indeed deserve) to live no longer, than whilest I acknowledg the same.