The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Part 2 · Book 4

The Appeal of Injured Innocence · Part 2 · Book 4

p. 39THE FOURTH BOOK. From the first preaching of Wickliffe, to the beginning of the Reign of King Henry the eighth.

Dr. Heylin.

OUR Author begins this Book with the Story of Wickliffe, and continueth it in relating the successes of him and his followers, to which he seems so much addicted, as to Christen their Opinions by the name of the Gospel: For, speaking of such incouragements and helps as were given to Wickliffe by the Duke of Lancaster, with other advantages, which the conditions of those times did afford unto him, he addeth, That,

Fol. 129. We must attribute the main to Divine Providence blessing the Gospel.] A name too high to be bestowed upon the Fancies of a private man, many of whose Opinions were so far from truth, so contrary to peace and civil Order, so inconsistent with the Government of the Church of Christ, as make them utterly unworthy to be look'd on as a part of the Gospel. Or if the Doctrines of Wickliffe must be call'd the Gospel, what shall become of the Religion then establisht in the Realm of England, and in most other parts of the Western World? Were all but Wickliffes Followers relaps'd to Heathenism; were they turn'd Jews, or had imbrac'd the Law of Mahomet? If none of these, and that they still continued in the faith of Christ, delivered to them in the Gospels of the four Evangelists and other Apostolicall Writers, Wickliffes new Doctrines could not challenge the name of Gospel, no… ought it to be given to him by the Pen of any. But such is the humor of some men, as to call every separation from the Church of Rome, by the name of Gospel, the greater the separation is, the more pure the Gospel. No name but that of Evangelici would content the Germans when they first separated from that Church, and reformed their own: And Harry Nichols, when he separated from the German Churches, and became the Father of Familists, bestows the name of Evangelium Regni on his Dreams and Dotages. Gospels of this kinde we have had, and may have too many, quot Capita t…t Fides, as many Gospels, in a manner, as Sects and Sectaries, if this world goe on.

Now as Wickliffes Doctrines are advanc'd to the name of Gospel, so his Followers whatsoever they were) must be called Gods servants, the Bishops being said fol. 151. to be busie in persecuting Gods servants; and for what crime soever, they were brought to punishment, it must be thought they suffered onelyonly for the Gospel and the service of God. A pregnant evidence whereof we have in the story of Sir Iohn Oldcastle, accused in the time of King Harry the fifth for a design to kill the King and his Brethren, actually in Arms against that King in the head of 20000 men,Stow in Hen 5. attainted for the same in open Parliament, and condemn'd to die, and executed in St. Giles his Fields accordingly, as both Sir Roger Acton his principal Counsellor, and 37 of his Accomplices had been before. For this we have not onelyonly the Authority of our common Chronicles, Walsingham, Stow, and many p. 40others; but the Records of the Tower, and Acts of Parliament, as is confessed by our Author, fol. 168. Yet coming out of Wickliffes Schools, and the chief Scholar questionlesse which was train'd up in them, he must be Registred for a Martyr in Fox his Calendar. And though our Author dares not quit him, (as he sayes himself) yet such is his tendernesse and respect to Wickliffes Gospel, that he is loath to load his Memory with causlesse Crimes; fol. 167. taxeth the Clergie of that time for their hatred to him, discrediteth the relation of T. Walsingham, and all later Authors, who are affirm'd to follow him, as the Flock their Belweather; and finally leaves it as a special verdict to the last day of the Revelation of the righteous Iudgements of God.

Fuller.

First, I fain would know, whether the Animadvertor would be contented with the Condition of the Church of England, as Wickliffe found it, for Opinions and Practise, and doth not earnestly desire a Reformation thereof.

I am charitably confident, that He doth desire such an Emendation, and therefore being both of us agreed in this Point of the convenience, yea necessity thereof; in the second place I would as fain be satisfied from the Animadvertor, whether He conceived it possible, that such Reformation could be advanced (without Miracle) all on a sodain, so that many grosse Errors would not continue, and some new one be superadded.

The man in the Gospel first saw men walking as trees, before he saw perfectly. Nature hath appointed the Twilight as a Bridge to passe us out of Night into Day. Such false and wild opinions (like the Acts 9.18.Acts 9:18Scales, which fell down from the Eyes of St. Paul, when perfectly restored to his sight) have either vanished or been banished, out of all Protestant Confession.

Far be it from me to account the rest of England relapsed into Atheism, or lapsed in Iudaism, Turcism, &c. whom I behold as Erronious Christians in Doctrine and Practise, and yet still in such a condition, that though so living and dying, if they lead a good life, and being weak, ignorant, and seduced, seriously repented of all their sins of ignorance, they might be saved; closing fully with the moderate Judgement of learned Hooker herein.

I know that the very worst of Hereticks, have assumed to themselves the very best of Names, gilding themselves over with the Title of Gospellers, and the like; but because Thieves often pretend themselves honest men, may not honest men avow themselves to be so, and also be so termed by others?

The words of the Animadvertor of Wickliffs Gospel, might well have been spared, seeing indeed it was Christs Gospel (dawning is part of day) preached by Wickliffe, in a purer manner than in that Age, (thanks to God it was then so good;) impurer than in our Age, thanks be to God it now is better.

As for Sir Iohn Oldcastle L. Cobham, his Case is so perplexed with contrary relations much may be said against him, and little lesse in his behalf; and I have cause to beleeve indeed, that his Innocence wanted not clearnesse but clearing.

Whereas the Animadvertor takes exception at my referring the Decision hereof to the revelation of the righteous judgement of God, it must be Either because

1. That Time will come too soon to decide the Controversie.

2. Or else come too late to decide the Controversie.

3. Or else be insufficient to decide the Controversie.

And having no just cause to suspect any of these, it had been better if my (or rather St. **Rom. 2.5.Rom 2:5Pauls words) had passed without his reprehension.

Dr. Heylin.

From the Scholar passe we to the Master, of whom it is reported in a late Popish Pamphlet, that he made a recantation of his Errors, and liv'd and dyed conformable to the Church of Rome. This I will behold as a notorious falshood, an p. 41imposture of the Romish party, though the argument used by our Author, be not of strength sufficient to inforce me to it. If, saith he, Wickliffe was sufficiently reconcil'd to the Roman faith, why was not Rome sufficiently reconciled to him? Using such cruelty to him many years after his death, fol. 171. But this, say I, is no reason, of no force at all. Wickliffe might possibly be reconcil'd to the Church of Rome, and yet the Ministers of that Church, to strike a terror into others, might execute that veng…ance on him after his decease, which they had neither power nor opportunity to doe when he was alive. Quam vivo iracundiam debuerant, in corpus mortui contulerunt. And hereof we have a fair example in Marcus Antonius de Dominis Archbishop of Spalato, who comming into England 1616. did manifestly oppose the Doctrines of the Church of Rome in some learned Volumes. But being cunningly wrought on by some Emissaries of the Romish party in the year 1622. he went back to Rome, was reconcil'd to that Church, and writ there most reproachfully of the Church of England; which notwithstanding, he was kept prisoner all the rest of his life, and his body burnt to ashes after his decease. So then it is no such new matter for a dissenting Christian, such as Wickliff and de Dominis were, though branded by the name of Hereticks, to be admitted to a reconciliation with the Church of Rome, and yet that Church to carry a revengefull minde towards them when occasion serves.

Fuller.

I answer first, I am not the first who have discovered strong affections, with a weak Judgement, endeavouring to prove a Truth with a non-cogent, and un-concluding Argument, in case my reason should be disproved.

Secondly, Spalato is no proper parallel of Wickliffe, in this point. Spalato contracted a new **Out of exact intelligence sent from his neer Kindred, to Venice, and thence to Mr. Calendrine, now Minister of the Dutch Church.Guilt, by bragging at the Table of a Cardinal in Rome, that his Book de Repub. Eccles. could be answered by none but himself; and dum calebat, whilest the scent hereof was hot, they burnt his Body when but lately dead: Whereas their despight followed Wickliffe at a distance more than fourty years after his Death, on no pretended new misdemeanor.

Lastly, the Animadvertor cometh up unto me, in allowing Wickliffe his Reconciliation to Rome, a notorious untruth; and therefore we may proceed to what is more material, wherein we two shall apppear two, being, it seems, but one in this difference.

Dr. Heylin.

And all this while we have expected that our Author would have given us a brief Summary of Wickliffes Doctrines, that by seeing the Piety and Orthodoxie of his Opinions, we might have thought more reverently both of him and his Followers. But the…ein our expectation must remain unsatisfied, our Author thinking it more agreeable to his Design to hold the Reader in suspense, and conceal this from him: dealing herein as the old Germans did with those of other Nations, who came to wait upon Valeda a great Queen amongst them; not suffering any to have a sight of her, to keep them in a greater admiration of her Parts and Person.Hist. lib. …. Arcebantur aspectu quò plus venerationis inesset, as it is in Tacitus. The wheat of Wickliffe was so foul, so full of chaff, and intermingled with so many and such dangerous Tares, that to expose it to the view, were to mar the market. And therefore our Author having formerly honoured his Opinions by the name of Gospel, and his followers with the Title of Gods servants, as before was noted; had reason not to shew them all at once, in a lump together, that we might think them better and more Orthodox than indeed they were. But the best is (to save us the trouble of consulting Harpsfield, and others who have written of them) our Author hath given them us at last on another occasion, Lib. 5. fol. 208. many of which the Reader may peruse in these Animadversions, Numb. 113. Thus having laid together so much of this present Book as relates to Wickliffe and his followers, I must behold the rest in fragments, as they lye before me.

p. 42Fuller.

Wickliffes Doctrines, so called, fall under a double notion, being either such as were

1. Charged on Him.

2. Maintained by Him.

For the former, no Fault of Omission can be found in me, having given in (in a full Sheet**Church. Hist. 4. Book, p. 131.) a Catalogue of them, digested under several Heads, as concerning the Pope, Prelats, Priests, Saints, King, Christ, God, with the Tome, Book, Article, Chapter, where they are to be found in T. Waldensis.

Sure I am, they were not so bad in all particulars as he there representeth them. If the Animadvertor a Protestant, living with me in the same suffering Age, **In his Introduction.accuse me for accounting Murdering of Kings for necessary Prudence, as oft as they shall fall into the power of their Subjects, which I abhor in my heart, and no such thing appears in the place cited; no wonder if Waldensis charged on Wickliffe abominable Errors, which he cordially detested.

As for the Doctrines which Wickliffe did maintain, we have some, but want an exact List of them; and I believe it is past the power of any Author alive to present it intire (defecated from the calumniations of his Adversaries;) and therefore impossibilities are not to be expected from me.

Yet am I not such an Admirer of Wickliffe, but that I beleeve he did defend some grosse Errors; and it had been no wonder if it were, but had been a miracle if it had not been so, considering the frailty of flesh, darknesse of the Age he lived in, and difficulty of the Subject he undertook. But because the Animadvertor referres to something following in my fifth Book; I will also reserve my self for his Encounter in time and place appointed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 152. He lies buried in the South Isle of St. Peters Westminster, and since hath got the company of Spencer and Drayton.] Not Draytons company I am sure, whose body was not buried in the South-Isle of that Church, but under the North wall thereof in the main body of it, not far from a little dore which openeth into one of the Prebends houses. This I can say on certain knowledge, being casually invited to his Funeral, when I thought not of it; though since his Statua hath been set up in the other place which our Author speaks of.

Fuller.

I follow the Information in his Epitaph on his Tombe, near the South dore in Westminster Abbey.

Doe Pious Marble, let the Readers know

What they, and what their Children owe

To DRAITONS name, whose sacred Dust

We recommend unto thy trust.

Preserve his Memory, and protect his Story,

Remain a lasting Monument of his Glory.

And When thy Ruine shall disclaim

To be the Treasurer of his name,

His name, which cannot dye, shall be

An Everlasting Monument to thee.

Have Stones learnt to Lye, and abuse posterity? Must there needs be a Fiction in the Epitaph of a Poet? If this be a meer Cenotaph, that Marble hath nothing to doe with Draitons Dust: but let us proceed.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 153. The right to the Crown lay not in this Henry, p. 43but in Edmund Mortimer Earl of March, descended by his Mother Philippa, from Lionel Duke of Clarence, elder son to Edward the third.] I shall not now dispute the Title of the House of Lancaster, though I think it no hard matter to defend it.

Fuller.

I think it is not onelyonly difficult, but impossible, except the Animadvertor can challenge the Priviledge of the Patriarch **Gen. 48.14.Gen 48:14Iacob, to crosse his Hands, and prefer the younger before the Elder Child, in succession.

Again, the Title of Lancaster may be considered, either

1. As it was when Henry the fourth first found it.

2. As it was when Henry the sixth last left it.

The latter of these was countenanced with many Laws, corroborated with three descents, and almost threescore years possession.

Know Reader, my words are of the right, where it was when Henry the fourth first seized the Crown, and then he had not a Rag of Right to cover his Usurpation. Instead of justifying whereof, let us admire Gods free Pleasure, in permitting the House of Lancaster to last so long; his Iustice, in assisting York afterwards to recover their Right; and his Mercy at last, in uniting them both, for the happinesse of our Nation.

Dr. Heylin.

And much lesse shall I venture on the other controversie, viz. whether a King may Legally be depos'd? as is insinuated by our Author in the words foregoing.

Fuller.

If seems the Animadvertor finds little in my Book above ground for his purpose to cavil at, because fain to Mine for my insinuations. But let the Reader judge, whether any man alive can from those my words, the right lay not in this Henry, but in Mortimer Earl of March, infer an INSINUATION, that Kings may legally be deposed. This Insinuation must be in Sinu, in the Bosom of the Animadvertor, which never was in the breast of the Author. More perspicacitie must be in the Organ, than perspicuity in the Object, to perceive such an Insinuation.

Dr. Heylin.

But I dare grapple with him in a point of Heraldry, though I finde him better studied in it, than in matter of History. And certainly our Author is here out, in his own dear Element:Camden in Radnor 624▪ Edmund Mortimer Earl of March not being the Son, but Husband of the Lady Philippa Daughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence, and Mother of Roger Mortimer Earl of March, whom Richard the second (to despite the house of Lancaster) declared Heir apparent to the Kingdome of England. 'Tis true, this Edmund was the Son of another Philippa, that is to say, of Philip Montacute, wife of a former Roger Earl of March, one of the founders of the Garter. So that in whomsoever the best Title lay, it lay not in this Edmond Mortimer as our Author makes it.

Fuller.

It is a meer casual slip of my Pen, Edmund for Roger, and this is the first time I crave the Benefit of this Plea in my defence.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 154. This is one of the clearest distinguishing Characters betwixt the Temporal and Spiritual Lords; that the former are to be tryed per Pares, by their Peers, being Barons of the Realm.] Not shall I here dispute the point, whether a Bishop may not challenge to be tryed by his Peers, but whether the Bishops were not Barons and Peers of the Realm. Our Author intimates that they were not, but I think they were.

p. 44Fuller.

From a late Insinuation, the Animadvertor now proceeds to a new Intimation of mine, utterly unextractable from my words. But know, it never came into my minde to think that Bishops were not Peers, who to my power will defend it against any who shall oppose it.

Dr. Heylin.

Selden. Tit. Hon. part. 2. c. 5.And this I think on the authority of the learned Selden, in whom we finde, that at a Parliament at Northampton under Henry the second the Bishops thus challenge their own Peerage, viz. Non sedemus hic Episcopi, sed Barones; Nos Barones, vos Barones; Pares hic sumus: that is to say, We sit not here as Bishops onelyonly, but as Barons; We are Barons, and you are Barons; here we sit as Peers. Which last is also verified in terminis, Stat. 25. Edw. Antiquit. Britan. in Stratf.by the words of a Statute or Act of Parliament, wherein the Bishops are acknowledged to be Peers of the Land. And for further proof hereof, Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury (if I remember it aright) being fallen into the displeasure of King Edward the third, and denyed entrance into the House of Peers, made his Protest, that he was Primus par Regni, the first Peer of the Realm, and therefore not to be excluded from his place and Suffrage.

Fuller.

This indeed is one of the most ancient and pregnant Evidence of our Bishops sitting as Peers in Parliament. But I suspect it may be mis-improved by the Back-friends to Bishops, that they sate there onelyonly in the Capacity of Peers, and not a THIRD ESTATE.

Dr. Heylin.

But of this Argument enough, if not too much, as the case now stands; it being an unhappy thing, to consider what they have been formerly, and what they are at this present.

Fuller.

It is a sad Truth which the Animadvertor sayeth. And here I cannot but remember David **2 Sam. 15.25.2 Sam 15:25his expression, when flying from Absalom, If I shall find favour in the Eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again: But if he say, I have no delight in thee, behold, here I am, &c. If it be co…sistent with the good will and pleasure of God, in due time he will Boy up again the sunk credit of the Clergy; if not, all must submit to him, whose wayes are often above reason, never against right.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 156. Yea this very Statute which gave power to a Bishop in his Diocess to condemn an Heretick, plainly proveth that the King by consent of Parliament, directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in Cases of Heresie.] The Bishops and Clergy in their Convocations had anciently the power of declaring Heresie, the Bishops singly in their Consistories to proceed against them, by injoyning penance and recantation, or otherwise to subject them to Excommunication. The Statute which our Author speaks of, being 2 H. 4. c. 15. proceedeth further, and ordain'd in favour of the Church, that the Ordinary might not onelyonly convent, but imprison the party suspected of Heresie, and that the party so convented and convicted of Heresie, and continuing obstinate in the same, should upon a certificate thereof made and delivered to the Secular Judge, be publickly burned before the People. In order whereunto, as in a matter which concern'd the life of a Subject, the King with the advice of his Parliament, might lay down some rules for the regulating the proceedings of the Bishops and other Ordinaries.

p. 45Fuller.

There be two distinct things which in this Point must be severally considered,

1. To declare and define, what shall be accounted Heresie.

2. To condemne to Death a declared Heretick.

The Power of the former was in this Age fixed in the Bishops (without any competition) and is so clear none can question it. Yea by the same Power, they might proceed against a declared Heretick (without any leave or liceence from King or Parliament,) so far as Church-Censures, Suspensions, Excommunications, &c. could extend.

But as for the latter, to condemn them to Death, herein the Common-Law began, where the Cannon Law ended, and regulated their proceedings accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

But certainly it is a sorry piece of Logick to conclude from hence, that generally in all cases of Heresie, the King with advice of his Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts. A piece of Logick shall I call it, or a Fallacy rather, a Fallacy à d…cto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, committed commonly, when from a proposition which is true onelyonly in some respect, with reference to time, place, and other circumstances, the Sophister inferreth something, as if simply true, though in it self it be most absolutely false. As for example, The Pope even in matters of spiritual cognisance (for so it followeth in our Author) had no power over the lifes of the English Subjects; and therefore had then no power to proceed against them in point of Heresie.

Fuller.

I intended not, nor have I abused the Reader with any fallacious argumentation. It is true foreign, the King and Parliament directed the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court in cases of Heresie: I mean not to decide which were Heresies, but to order the Power of the Bishop over declared Hereticks, without the direction of the Statute, not to proceed to Limb and Life: And I believe my words will be found transcribed out of Sir Edward Coke his most elaborate Report of the Kings power in Ecclesiastical matters.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 161. Henry the seventh (born in the Bowels of Wales at Pembroke, &c.) some years after plucked down the Partition Wall betwixt them.] Neither so, nor so. For first Pembroke doth not stand in the Bowels of Wales, but almost on the outside of it; as being situate on one of the Creeks of Milford-Haven.

Fuller.

Pembroke (though verging to the Sea) may properly be called in the Bowels of Wales, beholding the Marches [next England] as the outward Skin thereof. Bowels are known to the Latines by the name of Penetralia, à penetrando; one must pierce and passe so farre from the outward skin, before one can come at them. So is Pembroke placed in the very Penetrals of Wales, seeing the Travailer must goe six-score miles from England, before he can come thither.

Dr. Heylin.

And secondly King Henry the seventh did not break down the Partition Wall between Wales and England. That was a work reserved for King Harry the eighth, in the 27. of whose Reign there past an Act of Parliament, by which it was enacted, That the Country of Wales should be, stand, and continue for ever, from thenceforth incorporated, united, and annexed to, and with this Realm of England. And that all and singular person and persons born and to be born in the p. 46said Principality, Country, or Dominion of Wales shall have, enjoy, and inherit all and singular Freedoms,27 H. 8 c. 26. Liberties, Rights, Priviledges, and Laws within this Realm and other the Kings Dominions, as other the Kings Subjects naturally born within the same, have, and injoy, and inherit. And thirdly, between the time which our Author speaks of, being the 14 year of King Henry the fourth, and the making of this Act by King Henry the eighth, there passed above an hundred and twenty years, which intimates a longer time than some years after, as our Author words it.

Fuller.

Far be it from me to set variance betwixt Father and Son, and to make a Partition Wall betwixt them, which of them first did break down the Partition Wall betwixt Wales and England. The intentions of King Henry the seventh, were executed by King Henry the eighth; and all shall be reformed in my Book accordingly.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 168. I will not complain of the dearnesse of this Universitie, where seventeen weeks cost me more than seventeen years in Cambridge, even all that I had.] The ordinary and unwary Reader might collect from hence, that Oxford is a chargeable place, and that all commodities there are exceeding dear, but that our Author lets him know, that it was on some occasion of disturbance.

Fuller.

He must be a very Ordinary and unwary Reader indeed; or an Extraordinary one (if you please) of no common weakness or willfulnesse so to understand my words, which plainly expound themselves.

Dr. Heylin.

By which it seems our Author doth relate to the time of the War, when men from all parts did repair to Oxford, not as a University, but a place of safety, and the seat Royal of the King; at which time notwithstanding all provisions were so plentifull and at such cheap rates, as no man had reason to complain of the dearnesse of them. No better argument of the fertility of the soil and richnesse of the Country in which Oxford standeth, than that the Markets were not raised on the accession of such infinite multitudes as resorted to it at that time, and on that occasion. Our Author therefore must be thought to relate unto somewhat else than is here expressed, and possibly may be, that his being at Oxford at that time, brought him within the compass of Delinquency, and consequently of Sequestration.

Fuller.

I commend the carefulnesse of the Animadvertor, tender of the honour of Oxford and Oxfordshire his native Country, as I have heard from his own mouth. But herein his jealousie had no… just cause, nothing derogatory thereunto being by me intended herein. Oxfordshire hath in it as much of Rachel aud Leah, fairnesse and fruitfulnesse, as in any County in England, and so God willing in my description of the English Worthies I shall make to appear.

Dr. Heylin.

And were it so, he hath no reason to complain of the University, or the dearnesse of it; but rather of himself, for coming to a place so chargeable and destructive to him. He might have tarried where he was (for I never heard that he was sent for) and then this great complaint against the dearness of that University would have found no place.

Fuller.

I was once sent up thither from London, being one of the Six, who was chosen to p. 47carry a Petition for Peace to his Majesty, from the City of Westminster and the Liberties thereof, though in the way remanded by the Parliament.

As for my being sent for to Oxford, the Animadvertor I see hath not heard of all that was done. I thought that as St. **Acts 26.29.Acts 26:29Paul wished all altogether such as he was, except these bonds; so the Animadvertor would have wished all Englishmen like himself, save in his sequestration, and rather welcomed than jeered such as went to Oxford. But let him say and doe as he pleaseth.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 175. Surely what Charles the fifth is said to have said of the City of Florence, that it is pity it should be seen save onelyonly on holydayes, &c.] Our Author is somewhat out in this, in fathering that saying on Charles the fifth, Emperor and King of Spain, which Boterus and all other Authors ascribe to Charles Archduke of Austria; that is to say, to Charles of Inspruch, one of the younger Sons of the Emperor Ferdinand the first, and consequently Nephew to Charles the fifth.

Fuller.

Nihil dictum, quod non dictum prius: And it is very probable that the one first made, the other used the same expression.

Dr. Heylin.

Nor is our Author very right in taking Aquensis for Aix in Provence: Fol. 178. Especially (saith he) if, as I take it, by Provensis Aix be meant, sited in the farthermost parts of Provence, though even now the English power in France was waning.] For first, the English never had any power in Provence, no interest at all therein, nor pretentions to it; as neither had the French Kings in the times our Author speaks of. Provence in those dayes was independent of that Crown, an absolute Estate, and held immediatly of the Empire, as being a part and member of the Realm of Burgundy, and in the actual possession of the Dukes of Anjou; on the expiring of which House, by the last Will and Testament of Duke Rene the second, it was bequeathed to Lewis the eleventh of France, by him & his Successors to be enjoyed upon the death of Charles Earl of Maine, as it was accordingly. And secondly, that Bernard, whom the Latine calls Episcopus Aquensis is very ill taken by our Author to be Bishop of Aix. He was indeed Bishop of Acqus or Aux in Guinne called anciently Aquae Augustae from whence those parts of France had the name of Aquitain; and not of Aix (which the ancient Writers called Aquae Sextiae) in the Country of Provence. Now Guinne was at that time in the power of the Kings of England, which was the reason why this Bernard was sent with the rest of the Commissioners to the Councel of Basil; and being there, amongst the rest, maintained the rights and preheminences of the English Kings.

Fuller.

There is nothing more destructive to Truth, than when Writers are peremptory in affirming what seems doubtfull unto them. Errant Hypocrisie for the Hand to be positive in a Point, when the Head is (as I may say) but suppositive, as not sufficiently satisfied therein. Such men, because they scorn to doubt, lead others quite out of the way.

To prevent this mischief, I onelyonly said, if, as I take it by Aquensis, Aix be meant ▪ for it seemed to me too long a stride, (or straddle rather) for the legs of our English Armies to have any power in Provence. And now seeing it was but hal… a fault in me, it doth not deserve the Animadvertors whole reproof.

Dr. Heylin.

In agitating of which controversie, as it stands in our Author, I finde mention of one Iohannes de Voragine, a worthlesse Author, fol. 181. Mistook both in the name of the man, and his quality also. For first the Author of the Book called p. 48Legenda aurea related to in their former passage, was not Iohannes, but Iacobus de Voragine. In which book, though there are many idle and unwarrantable …ictions; yet secondly was the man of more esteem, than to passe under the Character of a worthlesse Author, as being learned for the times in which he lived, Archbishop of Genoa a chief City of Italy, & moribus & dignitate magno precio, as Philippus Bergomensis telleth us of him, Anno 1290. at what time he liv'd; most eminent for his translation of the Bible into the Italian tongue (as we read Vossius) a work of great both difficulty and danger,Vossig. de Lat. Hist. as the times then were, sufficient (were there nothing else) to free him from the ignominious name of a worthlesse Author

Fuller.

I here enter my publique thanks to the Animadvertor, Iacobus de Voragine (so it seems was his name) was a better Author than I took him for, indeed having read that Melchior Canus called the author of some Legends, a man ferrei oris et plumbei cordis, one of an Iron face and leaden heart, I conceived him incended therein.

But if he did translate the Bible into Italian, (as I have cause to believe, knowing nothing to the contrary,) it was, as the Animadvertor saith well, a work of great both difficulty, and danger, as the times then were.

I confesse I have formerly in the Table of my Esteeme, placed this Voragine as the very lag at the lowest end thereof; But hereafter I shall say to him, come up hither, and provide a higher place for him in my Reputation.

Dr. Heylin.

A greater mistake than this, as to the person of the man, is that which follows viz. Fol. 185. Humphry Duke of Gloster son to King Henry the fifth.] This though I cannot look on as a fault of the Presse, yet I can easily consider it as a slip of the Pen; it being impossible that our Author should be so farre mistaken in Duke Humphry of Gloster, who was not son but brother to King Henry the fifth.

Fuller.

This being allowed (as indeed it is) but a Pen-slip, who is more faulty, the Author in the cursorily committing, or the Animadvertor in the deliberate censuring thereof?

Dr. Heylin.

But I cannot think so charitably of som other errors of this kind, which I finde in his History of Cambridge, fol. 67. Where amongst the English Dukes which carried the title of Earl of Cambridge, he reckoneth Edmond of Langly fift son to Edward the third, Edward his son, Richard Duke of York his brother, father to King Edward the fourth. But first this Richard whom he speaks of, though he were Earl of Cambridge by the consent of Edward his elder brother, yet was he never Duke o… York; Richard being executed at South-hampton for treason against King Harry the fifth, before that Kings going into France, and Edward his elder brother slain not long after in the Battail of Agincourt. And secondly, this Richard was not the Father, but Grandfather of King Edward the fourth. For being married unto Anne, sister and heir unto Edmond Mortimer Earl of March, he had by her a sonne called Richard, improvidently restored in blood, and advanced unto the Title of Duke of York, by King Henry the sixth, Anno 1426. Who by the Lady Cecely his wife, one of the many D…ughters of Ralph Earl of Westmerland, was father of King Edward the fourth, George Duke of Clarence, and King Richard the third. Thirdly, as Richard E…rl of Cambridge was not Duke of York, so Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge; though by our Author made the last Earle thereof (Hist. of Cam. 162.) before the restoring of that title on the House of the Hamiltons.

p. 49Fuller.

This hath formerly been answered at large in the Introduction, wherein it plainly appeares, that the last Richard was Duke of York and Earle of Cambridge: though I confesse it is questionable, whether his Father were Duke of York.

However it doth my work, viz. That the Earldome of Cambridge was alwayes (the first alone excepted) conferred on either a forreign Prince, or an English Peer of the Blood-royall, an honour not communicated to any other Peere in England.

Dr. Heylin.

If our Author be no better at a pedegree in private Families, then he is in those of Kings and Princes, I shall not give him much for his Art of memory, for his History lesse, and for his Heraldry just nothing.

Fuller.

When I intend to expose them to sale, I know where to meet with a francker Chapman. None alive ever heard me pretend to the Art of memory, who in my booke have decried it as a Trick, Holy State, title Memory.no Art; and indeed is more of fancy than memory. I confesse some ten years since, when I came out of the Pulpit of St. Dunstons-East; One (who since wrote a book thereof,) told me in the Vestry, before credible people▪ That he in Sydney Colledge, had taught me the Art of memory. I returned unto him, that it was not so; for I could not remember that I had ever seen his face; which I conceive, was a reall Refutation. However, seeing that a natural memory is the best flower in mine, and not the worst in the Animadvertors garden, Let us turn our competitions herein, unto mutuall thinkfulnesse to the God of heaven.

Dr. Heylin.

But I see our Author is as good at the succession of Bishops, as in that of Princes. For saith he, speaking of Cardinal Beaufort, Fol. 185. He built the fair Hospital of St. Cross neere Winchester; and although Chancellor of the Univesity of Oxford, was no grand benefactor thereunto, as were his Predecessors Wickam and Wainfleet.] Wickham and Wainfleet are here made the Predecessors of Cardinal Beaufort in the See of Winchester; whereas in very deed, though he succeeded Wickham in that Bishoprick, he preceded Wainfleet. For in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Winchester they are marshulled thus, viz. 1365. 50. William of Wickham, 1405. 51. Henry Beaufort, 1447. 52. William de Wainfleet, which last continued Bishop till the year 1485 the See being kept by these three Bishops above 120. years, and thereby giving them great Advantages of doing those excellent works, and founding those famous Colleges, which our Author rightly hath ascribed to the first and last. But whereas our Author …elleth us also of this Cardinal Beaufort, that he built the Hospital of St. Crosse, he is as much out in that,Camb. in Ham. fol 267. as he was in the other; that Hospital being first built by Henry of Blais, Brother of King Stephen and Bishop of Winchester, Auno 1129. augmented onelyonly, and perhaps more liberally endowed by this Potent Cardinal. From these Foundations made and enlarged by these three great Bishops of Winchester successively, proceed we to two others raised by King Henry the sixth, of which our Author telleth us.

Fuller.

What a peice of DON QUIXOTISME is this, for the Animadvertor to fight in confutation of that which was formerly confessed? These words being thus fairly entred in the Table of Errataes.

read it thus, of his Predecessor Wickham, or Successor Wainfleet.

p. 50Faults thus fairly confessed, are presumed fully forgiven; and faults thus fully forgiven, have their guilt returning no more. In the Court Christian, such might have been sued, who upbraided their Neighbours for incontinence, after they formerly had performed publique penance for the same. And I hope the Reader will allow me Reparation from the Animadvertor, for a fault so causlesly taxed, after it was so clearly acknowledged, and amended.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 183. This good precedent of the Archbishops bounty (that is to say, the foundation of All-souls Colledge by Archbishop Chicheley) may be presumed a spur to the speed of the Kings liberality; who soon after founded Eaton Colledge, &c. to be a Nursery to Kings Colledge in Cambridge, fol. 184.] Of Eaton Colledge, and the condition of the same, our Author hath spoken here at large, but we must look for the foundation of Kings Colledge, in the History of Cambridge, fol. 77. where I finde something which requireth an Animadversion. Our Author there chargeth Dr. Heylin for avowing something which he cannot justifie, that is to say, for saying, That when William of Wainfleet Bishop of Winchester (afterwards founder of Magdalen Colledge) perswaded King Henry the Sixth, to erect some Monument for Learning in Oxford, the King returned, Imo potius Cantabrigiae, ut duas (si fieri possit) in Anglia Academias habeam. Yea rather (said he) at Cambridge, that (if it be possible) I may have two Universities in England. As if Cambridge were not reputed one before the founding of Kings Colledge therein. But here the premisses onelyonly are the Doctors, the inference or conclusion is our Authors own. The Doctor infers not thereupon, that Cambridge was not reputed an University till the founding of Kings Colledge by King Henry the sixth; and indeed he could not: for he acknowledged before out of Robert de Renington, that it was made an University in the time of King Edward the second. All that the Doctor sayes, is this, that as the University of Cambridge was of a later foundation then Oxford was, so it was long before it grew into esteem, that is to say, to such a measure of esteem at home or abroad (before the building of Kings Colledge, and the rest that followed) but that the King might use those words in his discourse with the Bishop of Winchester. And for the Narrative, the Doctor (whom I have talked with in this businesse) doth not shame to say, that he borrowed it, from that great Treasury of Academical Antiquities Mr. Brian Twine, whose learned Works stand good against all Opponents; and that he found the passage justified by Sir Isaack Wake in his Rex Platonicus. Two Persons of too great wit and judgement, to relate a matter of this nature on no better ground than common Table-talk, and that too spoke in merriment by Sir Henry Savil. Assuredly Sir Henry Savil was too great a Zealot for that University, and too much a friend to Mr. Wake, who was Fellow of the same Colledge with him, to have his Table-talk and discourses of merriment to be put upon Record as grounds and arguments for such men to build on in that weighty Controversie. And therefore when our Author tells us, what he was told by Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Hubbard by Mr. Barlow, Mr. Barlow by Mr. Bust, and Mr. Bust by Sir Henry Savil. It brings into my minde the like Pedegree of as true a Story, even that of Mother Miso in Sir Philip Sidney, telling the young Ladies an old Tale, which a good old woman told her, which an old wise man told her, which a great learned Clerk told him, and gave it him in writing; and there she had it in her Prayer-book; as here our Author hath found this on the end of his Creed. Not much unlike to which, is that which I finde in the Poet;

Quae Phaebo Pater omnipotens, mihi Phoebus Apollo

Praedix…t, vobis Furiarum ego maxima pando.

That is so say,

What Iove told Phoebus, Phoebus told to me,

And I the chief of Furies tell to thee.

p. 51Fuller.

The controversie betwixt us consists about a pretended Speech of King Henry the sixth, to Bishop Wainfleet, perswading him to found a Colledge at Oxford. To whom the King is said to return, Yea rather at Cambridge, that (if it be possible) I may have two Universities in England.

A passage pregnant with an Inference, which delivereth it self without any Midwifry to help it, viz. that till the time of King Henry the sixth, Cambridge was no, or but an obs…ure University, both being equally untrue.

The Animadvertor will have the speech grounded on good Authority, whilest I more than suspect to have been the frolick of the fancie of S. Isaack Wake, citing my Author for my beliefe, which because removed four descents, is, I confesse, of the lesse validity: Yet is it better to take a Truth from the tenth, than a Falshood from the first hand.

Both our Relations ultimately terminate in Sir Isaack Wake, by the Animadvertor confessed the first printed Reporter thereof. I confess S. I. Wake needed none but Sr. Isaack Wake, to attest the truth of such thing, which he had heard or seen himself. In such Case his bare Name commandeth credit with Posterity. But relating a passage done at distance, some years before his great Grandfather was rockt in his Cradle, we may and must doe that right to our own Iudgement, as civily to require of him security for what he affirmeth, especially seeing it is so clog'd with such palpable improbabilitie. Wherefore, till this Knights invisible Author be brought forth into light, I shall remain the more confirmed in my former Opinion, Rex Platonicus alone sounding to me in this point no more than Plato's Commonwealth; I mean, a meer Wit work, or Brain-Being, without any other real existence in Nature.

Dr. Heylin.

But to proceed, Fol. 190. This was that Nevil, who for Extraction, Estate, Alliance, Dependents, Wisdome, Valour, Success, and Popularity, was superiour to any English Subject since the Conquest.] Our Author speaks this of that Richard Nevil who was first Earl of Warwick, in right of Anne his Wife, Sister & Heir of Henry Beauchamp, the last of that Family, and after Earl of Salisbury by discent from his Father; a potent and popular man indeed, but yet not in all or in any of those respects to be match'd with Henry of Bullenbrook, son to Iohn of Gaunt, whom our Author must needs grant to have lived since the time of the Conquest. Which Henry after the death of his Father was Duke of Lancaster and Hereford, Earl of Leicester, Lincoln, and Darby, &c. and Lord High Steward of England: Possessed by the donation of King Henry the third, of the County Palatine of Lancaster, the forfeited Estates of Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester, Robert de Ferrars Earl of Darby, and Iohn Lord of Monmouth; By the compact made between Thomas Earl of Lancaster, and Alice his Wife, of the Honor of Pomfret, the whole Estate of the Earl of Lincoln, and a great part of the Estates of the Earl of Salisbury; of the goodly Territories of Ogmore and Kidwelly in Wales, in right of his descent from the Chaworths; of the Honor and Castle of Hartford by the grant of King Edward the third; and of the Honor of Tickhill in Yorkshire, by the donation of King Richard the second; and finally of a Moity of the vast Estate of Humphry de Bohun Earl of Hereford, Essex, and Northampton in right of his Wife. So royal in his Extraction, that he was Grandchilde unto one King, Cousin-german to another, Father and Grand-father to two more. So popular when a private person, and that too in the life of his Father, that he was able to raise and head an Army against Richard the Second, with which he discomfited the Kings Forces, under the command of the Duke of Ireland. So fortunate in his Successes, that he not onelyonly had the better in the Battail mentioned, but came off with Honor and Renown in the War of Africk, and finally obtained the Crown of England. And this I trow, renders him much Superior to our Authors Nevil, whom he exceeded also in this particular, that he dyed in his bed, and left his Estates unto his Son. p. 52But having got the Crown by the murther of his Predecessor, it stai'd but two descents in his Line, being unfortunately lost by King Henry the sixth: of whom, being taken and imprisoned by those of the Yorkish Faction, our Author telleth us.

Fuller.

It never came into my thoughts, to extend the Parallel beyond the line of Subjection, confining it to such as moved only in that Sphere, living and dying in the Station of a Subject; and thus far I am sure I am …ight, that this our Nevil was not equal'd, much lesse exceeded, by any English-man since the Conquest.

As for Henry Duke of Lancaster, his Coronet was afterwards turned into a Crown, and I never intended comparison with one who became a Soveraign, having learnt, primum in unoquo que Genere, est excipiendum.

The Animadvertor hath here taken occasion to write much, but thereof nothing to confute me, and little to informe others. He deserved to be this King Henry's Chaplain (if living in that Age) for his exactnesse in the distinct enumeration of all his Dignities and Estate, before he came to the Crown.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds Fol. 190. That States-men do admire how blinde the Policy of that Age was, in keeping King Henry alive, there being no such sure Prison as a Grave for a Cap…ive King, whose life (though in restraint) is a fair mark for the full Aim of mal-contents to practise his enlargement.] Our Author might have spar'd this Doctrine so frequently in practise amongst the worldly Politicians of all times and ages,Ovid Met. Lib. 2. that there is more need of a Bridle to holde them in, than a Spur to quicken them. Parce precor stimulis, & fortiùs utere loris, had been a wholesome caveat there, had any friend of his been by to have advis'd him of it. The murthering of depos'd and Captive Princes, though too often practised, never found Advocates to plead for it, and much lesse Preachers to preach for it,History of Florence. untill these latter times. First made a Maxim of State in the School of Machiavel, who layes it down for an Aphorisme in point of policy, viz. that great Persons must not at all be touched, or if they be, must be made sure from taking Revenge; inculcated afterwards by the Lord Gray, who being sent by King Iames to intercede for the life of his Mother, did underhand solicite her death, and whispered nothing so much in Queen Elizabeths eares,Camdens Annals. An. 1656. as Mortua non mordet, if the Scots Queen were once dead, she would never bite. But never prest so home, never so punctually appli'd to the case of Kings, as here I finde it by our Author; of whom it cannot be affirm'd, that he speaks in this case the sense of others, but positively and plainly doth declare his own. No such divinity preach'd in the Schools of Ignatius, though fitter for the Pen of a Mariana, than of a Divine or Minister of the Church of England. Which whether it passed from him, before or since the last sad accident of this nature, it comes all to one; this being like a two-hand-sword made to strike on both sides, and if it come too late for instruction, will serve abundantly howsoever for the justification. Another note we have within two leaves after as derogatory to the Honour of the late Archbishop, as this is dangerous to the Estate of all Soveraign Princes, if once they chance to happen into the hands of their Enemies. But of this our Author will give me an occasion to speake more in another place, and then he shall heare further from me.

Fuller.

My words, as by me laid down, are so far from being a two-handed sword they have neither hilt nor blade in them, only they hold out an Handle for me, thereby to defend my self; I say, States-men did admire at the preserving King Henry alive, and render their reason, If the Animadvertor takes me for a Statesman (whose generall Judgement in this point I did barely relate) he is much mistaken in me.

p. 53Reason of State and Reason of Religion, are Stars of so different an Horison, that the elevation of the One, is the depression of the other. Not that God hath placed Religion and Right Reason diametrically opposite in themselves, (so that whereever they meet, they must fall out and fight,) but Reason bowed by Politicians, o their present Interest (that is Achitophelesme) is Enmity to Religion. But the lesse we touch this harsh string the better musick.

Dr. Heylin.

Now to goe on. Fol. 197. The Duke requested of King Richard the Earldome of Hereford, and Hereditary Constableship of England.] Not so, it was not the Earldom, that is to say, the Title of Earl of Hereford, which the Duke requested; but so much of the Lands of those Earls, as had been formerly enjoy'd by the House of Lancaster. Concerning which we are to know, that Humphry de Bohun the last Earl of Hereford, left behinde him two Daughters onelyonly, of which the eldest called Eleanor was married to Thomas of Woods…ock, Duke of Gloster; Mary, the other, married unto Henry of Bullenbrook, Earl of Darby. Betwixt these two the Estate was parted; the one moity, which drew after it the Title of Hereford, falling to Henry Earl of Darby; the other, which drew after it the Office o… Constable, to the Duke of Glo…ester. But the Duke of Glocester being dead, and his estate coming in fine unto his Daughter, who was not able to contend, Henry the fifth forced her unto a sub-division, laying one half of her just partage to the other moity. But the issue of Henry of Bullenbrook being quite extinct in the Person of Edward Prince of Wales Son of Henry the sixth, these three parts of the Lands of the Earls of Hereford having been formerly incorporated into the Duchy of Lancaster, remained in possession of the Crown, but were conceiv'd by this Duke to belong to him, as being the direct Heir of Anne Daughter of Thomas Duke of Glocester, and consequently the direct Heir also of the House of Hereford. This was the sum of his demand. Nor doe I finde that he made any suit for the Office of Constable, or that he needed so to doe, he being then Constable of England, as his Son Edward the last Duke of Buckingham of that Family, was after him.

Fuller.

The cause of their variance is given in differently by several Authors. Some say, that at once this Duke requested three things of King Richard, 1. Power. 2. Honor, 3. Wealth: First, Power, to be Hereditary Constable of England, not to hold it as he did pro arbitrio Regis, but in the right of his descent. Secondly, Honor, the Earldome of Hereford. Thirdly, Wealth, that partage of Land mentioned by the Animadvertor. I instanced onelyonly in the first, the pride of this Duke, being notoriously known to be more than his covetousnesse, not d…nying but that the Kings denyal of the Land he requested, had an effectual influence on his discontent.

Dr. Heylin.

Our Author proceeds. Fol. 169. At last the coming in of the Lord Stanley with three thousand fresh men decided the controversie on the Earls side.] Our Author is out in this also. It was not the Lord Stanley, but his Brother Sir William Stanley, who came in so seasonably, and thereby turn'd the Scale, and chang'd the fortune of the day. For which service he was afterward made Lord Chamberlain of the new Kings Houshold, and advanc'd to great Riches and Estates, but finally beheaded by that very King for whom, and to whom he had done the same. But the King look'd upon this action with another eye. And therefore when the merit of his service was interposed to mitigate the Kings displeasure, and preserve the ma…, the King remembred very shrewdly, that as he came soon enough to win the Victory, so he staid long enough to have lost it.

Fuller.

Though a courteous Prolepsis might salve all the matter, yet (to prevent exceptions) in my next Edition, the Lord shall be degraded into Sir William Stanley.