The Appeal of Injured Innocence, Part 3 · Book 11

The Appeal of Injured Innocence · Part 3 · Book 11

p. 1THE ELEVENTH BOOK, Containing the Reign of K. Charls.

Dr. Heylyn.

THis Book concludes our Authour's History, and my Animadversions. And if the End be sutable unto the Beginning, it is like to finde me work enough; our Authour stumbling at the Threshold, which amongst Superstitious People hath been counted for an ill Presage.

Fuller.

Who I pray stumbled in the beginning of his Animadversions? when he said, That the Brittains worshipped but one God, and that Diana was none of their originall Deity. What if I stumbled, yea, and should fall too? Hath not the Animadvertor read,Mica. 7.8. Rejoyce not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall rise again.

Dr. Heylyn.

Having placed King Charls on the Throne, our Author saith, fol. 117. On the fourteenth day of May following, King James his Funeralls were performed very solemnly, in the Collegiat Church at Westminster.] Not on the fourteenth, but the fourth, saith the Author of the History of the Reign of King Charls; and both true alike. It neither was on the fourth, nor on the fourteenth, but the seventh of May, on which those solemn Obsequies were performed at Westminster. Of which, if he will not take my word, let him consult the Pamphlet, called, The Observator observed, (fol. 6.) and he shall be satisfied. Our Author's Clock must keep time better, or else we shall never know how the day goes with him.

Fuller.

I will take his word without going any further, and this erroneous Date, in my next Edition shall, God-willing, be mended accordingly. That Clock which alwaies strikes true, may well be forfeited to the Lord of the Manour; though mine, I hope, will be found to go false, as seldom as another's.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, As for Dr. Preston, &c. His party would perswade us, that he might have chose his own Mitre.] And some of his party would perswade us, That he had not onelyonly large parts, of sufficient receipt to manage the Broad Seal it self, but that the Seal was proffered to him, fol. 131.] But we are not bound to believe all which is said by that Party, who looked upon the Man with such reverence, as came near Idolatry.

Fuller.

I do not say, they do perswade, but they would perswade us. And here the common expression takes place with me, Non persuadebunt, etiamsi persuaserint. Grant, I do not believe all which is said by his Party, yet I believe it was my duty, as an Historian, to take notice of so remarkable a passage, and to report it to Posterity, charging my Margin (as I have done) with the name and place of the **Mr. B…ll in Dr. Prestons life.Author, wherein I found it related.

p. 2Dr. Heylyn.

His Principles and Engagements were too well known by those, which governed affairs, to venture him unto any such great trust in Church or State; and his activity so suspected, that he would not have been long suffered to continue Preacher at Lincolns-Inne. As for his intimacy with the Duke, (too violent to be long-lasting) it proceeded not from any good opinion which the Duke had of him, but that he found how instrumentall he might be, to manage that prevailing Party to the King's advantage. But when it was found, that he had more of the Serpent in him, than of the Dove; and that he was not tractable in steering the Helm of his own Party by the Court-Compass, he was discountenanced and laid by, as not worth the keeping. He seemed the Court-Meteor for a while, raised to a suddain height of expectation; and having flasht and blaz'd a little, went out again, and was as suddainly forgotten.

Fuller.

This is onelyonly Additionall, and no whit Opposite to what I have written, and therefore I am not obliged to return any answer thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 119. Next day the King comming from Canterbury, met her at Dover, whence with all solemnity she was conducted to Somerset-House in London, where a Chappel was now prepared for her Devotion, with a Covent adjoyning of Capuchin-Fryers, according to the Articles of her marriage.] In all this nothing true, but that the new Queen was conducted with all solemnity from Dover to London. For first, although there was a Chappel prepared, yet was it not prepared, for her; nor, at Somerset-house. The Chappel which was then prepared, was not prepared for her, but the Lady Infanta, built in the Kings house of St. Iames, at such time as the Treaty with Spain stood upon good tearms, and then intended for the Devotions of the Princess of Wales, not the Queen of England. Secondly, the Articles of the Marriage make no mention of the Capuchin-Friers, nor any Covent to be built for them. The Priests who came over with the Queen were by agreement to be all of the Oratorian Order, as less suspected by the English, whom they had never provok'd, as had the Iesuits, (and most other of the Monastick Orders) by their mischievous practises. But these Oratorians being sent back with the rest of the French, Anno, 1626. and not willing to expose themselves to the hazard of a second expulsion, the Capuchins, under Father Ioseph, made good the place. The breach with France, the action at the Isle of Rhee, and the losse of Rochel, did all occur, before the Capuchins were thought of, or admitted hither. And thirdly, some years after the making of the Peace between the Crowns, (which was in the latter end of 1628. and not before) the Queen obtain'd, that these Friers might have leave to come over to her, some lodgings being fitted for them in Somerset-house, and a new Chappel then and there built for her Devotion.

Fuller.

Here, and in the next Note, the Animadvertor habet confitentem reum. And, not to take covert of a Latine expression, in plain English, I confess my mistake, which is no originall, but a derivative errour in me, who can (if so pleased) alledge the printed Author who hath misguided me. Yet, I will patiently bear my proportion of guilt, and will provide, God-willing, for the amendment in the next Edition. Thus, being so supple to confesse my fault, when convinced thereof, I therefore may and will be the more stiff, in standing on the tearms of mine own integrity, when causlesly accused.

But if the Animadvertor be too Insulting over me, let him remember his own short view of the life of King Charls, vvhere he tells us of the three Welch Generals, that they submitted to mercy, which they never tasted, naming **Compare his page 140 with his page 144.Laughern, p. 3Powel, and Poyer: whereas two of them did find mercy, a little male-child being taken up, who did cast Lots at White-hall; and, by Providence ordering Casualty, Laughern and Powel were pardoned, and lately, if not still, alive. But I forgive the Doctor for this errour, being better then a truth, two Gentlemen gaining their lives thereby.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 121. The Bishop of Lincoln, Lord Keeper, was now daily descendant in the Kings favour; who so highly distasted him, that he would not have him, as Dean of Westm. to perform any part of his Coronation.] As little truth in this as in that before. For first, the Bishop of Lincoln was not Lord Keeper at the time of the Coronation. Secondly, if he had been so, and that the King was so distasted with him, as not to suffer him to assist at his Coronation; how came he to be suffered to be present at it in the capacity of Lord Keeper? For that he did so, is affirmed by our Author, saying, That the King took a scrowl of parchment out of his bosome, and gave it to the Lord Keeper Williams, who read it to the Commons four severall times, East, West, North, and South, fol. 123. Thirdly, the Lord Keeper, who read that Scrole, was not the Lord Keeper VVilliams, but the Lord Keeper Coventry; the Seal being taken from the Bishop of Lincoln, and committed to the custody of Sir Thomas Coventry, in October before. And therefore fourthly, our Author is much out, in placing both the Coronation, and the following Parliament, before the change of the Lord Keeper; and sending Sir Iohn Suckling to fetch that Seal, at the end of a Parliament in the Spring, which he had brought away with him before Michaelmas Term. But as our Author was willing to keep the Bishop of Lincoln in the Deanry of Westminster, for no less then five or six years after it was confer'd on another; so is he as desirous to continue him Lord Keeper for as many months, after the Seal had been entrusted to another hand.

Fuller.

This also is an errour, I neither can nor will defend the Lord Keeper Williams, put for the Lord Keeper Coventry, which hath betrayed me to some consequentiall incongruities. I will not plead for my self in such a Suit, where I foresee the Verdict will go against me. OnelyOnly I move as to mitigation of Costs and Dammages, that greater slips have fallen from the Pens of good Historians.

Mr. Speed in his Chronicle, first Edition, page 786. speaking of Henry, eldest son to King Henry the eighth, maketh Arch-Bishop Cranmer (mistaken for Warham) his God-father, twenty four years before Cranmer ever sat in that See. I write not this to accuse him, but in part to excuse my self, by paralleling mine with as evident a mistake. I hope my free confession of my fault, with promise of emendation of It (and the Appendants thereof) in my next Edition, will meet with the Reader's absolution. And let the Animadvertor for the present (if so pleased) make merry, and feast himself on my mistake, assuring him, that he is likely to fast a long time hereafter.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 122. The Earl of Arundel, as Earl Marshal of England; & the Duke of Buckingham, as Lord high Constable of England, for that day went before his Majesty in that great Solemnity.] In this passage, and the next that follows, our Author shewes himself as bad an Herald in marshalling a Royal Show, as in stating the true time of the creation of a noble Peer. Here in this place he placeth the Earl Marshall before the Constable; whereas by the Statute 31 H. 8. c. 10. the Constable is to have precedency before the Marshall. Nor want there precedents to shew, that the Lord High Constable did many times direct his Mandats to the Earl Marshall, as one of the Ministers of his Court, willing and requiring him to perform such and such services, as in the said Precepts were expressed.

p. 4Fuller.

My Heraldry is right both in Place and Time. The Earl of Arundel, as Earl Marshall, went after the Duke of Buckingham, as Lord High Constable, though going before him. For Barons went (in this Royall Procession, at the Kings Coronation) before Bishops, Bishops before Viscounts, Viscounts before Earls, the meaner before the greater Officers of State. Thus the Lord Constable (though the last) was the first, because, of all Subjects, nearest to the person of the Soveraign. It seemeth the dayes were very long when the Animadvertor wrote these causless cavills, which being now grown very short, I cannot afford so much time in confuting them.

This his cavilling mindeth me, of what he hath mistaken in his Geography. For, the younger son of an English Earl comming to Geneva, desired a Carp for his dinner, having read in the Doctor's Geography, that the Lemman Lake had plenty of the Fish, and the best and biggest of that kind. The people wondred at his desire of such a dainty, which that place did not afford; but told him, That they had Trouts as good and great, as any in Europe. Indeed, learned **De Piscibus in …ce Trutta.Gesner doth observe, that the Trouts caught in this Lake, sent to, and sold at Lions, are mistaken for Salmons by strangers, unacquainted with their proportions. It seems the Animadvertor's Pen is so much given to cavilling, that he turned Trouts into Carps though none of them so great, as this his CARP at me, for making the Lord Marshall to go before the Lord Constable, at the King's Coronation.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, Ibid. That the Kings Train being six yards long of Purple V…lvet, was held up by the Lord Compton, and the Lord Viscount Dorcester.] That the Lord Compton was one of them which held up the Kings Train, I shall easily grant; he being then Master of the Robes, and thereby challenging a right to perform this service. But that the Lord Viscount Dorcester was the other of them, I shall never grant, there being no such Viscount at the time of the Coronation. I cannot say, but that Sir Dudley Carlton might be one of those which held up the Train, though I am not sure of it. But sure I am, that Sir Dudley Carlton was not made Baron of Imber-court, till towards the latter end of the following Parliament of Anno 1606. nor created Viscount Dorcester untill some years after.

Fuller.

It is a meer mistake of the Printer; for Viscount Doncaster, son of (and now himself) the Earl of Carlile, whose Father having a great Office in the Wardrobe, this place was proper for him to perform. All will presume me knowing enough in the Orthography of his Title, who was my Patron when I wrote the Book, and whom I shall ever, whilst I live, deservedly honour, for his great bounty unto me.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 122. The Lord Arch-bishop did present his Majesty to the Lords and Commons, East, West, North, South; asking their minds four severall times, if they did consent to the Coronation of King Charls their lawfull Soveraign.] This is a piece of new State-doctrine, never known before, that the Coronation of the King (and consequently his Succession to the Crown of England) should depend on the consent of the Lords and Commons, who were then assembled; the Coronation not proceeding (as he after telleth us) till their consent was given four times by Acclamations.

Fuller.

I exactly follow the Language of my worthy Intelligencer, a Doctor of Divinity, still alive, rich in Learning and Piety, present on the place, and an exact observer of all passages; and see no reason to depart p. 5to depart from it. I am so far from making the Coronation of the Soveraign depend on the consent of his Subjects, that I make not the Kingly power depend on his Coronation, who, before it, and without it, is lawfull and effectuall King to all purposes and intents. This was not a consent like that of the Bride to the Bride-groom, the want whereof doth null the Marriage; but a meer ceremoniall one, in majorem Pompam; which did not make, but manifest; not constitute, but declare his power over his people. So that the King got not one single mite of Title more, than he had before this four-fold Acclamation.

Dr. Heylyn.

And this I call piece of new State-Doctrine, never known before, because I find the contrary in the Coronation of our former Kings. For in the form and manner of the Coronation of King Edward 6. described in the Catalogue of Honour, set forth by Thomas Mills of Canterbury, Anno 1610. we find in thus. The King being carried by certain noble Courtiers in another Chair, unto the four sides of the Stage, was by the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury declared unto the people (standing round about) both by Gods and Mans Lawes, to be the right and lawfull King of England, France, and Ireland, and proclaimed that day to be Crowned, Consecrated, and Annointed: unto whom he demanded, Whether they would obey and serve, or not? By whom it was again with a loud cry answered, God save the King, and, Ever live his Majesty. The same we have in substance, but in fewer words, in the Coronation of King Iames, where it is said, that The King was shewed to the People, and that they were required to make acknowledgement of their allegiance to his Majesty by the Arch-Bishop; which they did by acclamations. Assuredly, the difference is exceeding vast betwixt obeying and consenting; betwixt the Peoples acknowledging their alliegance and promising to obey and serve their lawfull Soveraign, and giving their consent to his Coronation, as if it could not be performed without such consent.

Fuller.

The hinge of the controversie turneth on the criticall difference betwixt these two phrases.

Acknowledging their allegiance to their Soveraigne.

Giving consent to his Coronation.

The Animadvertor endeavours to widen the distance betwixt them, and make the difference vast, yea, exceeding vast, against the will of the words, vvhichwhich are well inclined to an agreement, there being a Vicinity, yea, Affinity, betvvixt them, since such who vvill not acknowledge their Allegiance, will not give-consent to his Coronation; and such vvho will consent thereunto, will acknowledge their allegiance.

I refer my self wholly in this difference to the Arbitration of Mr. Mills, the same Author and Edition cited by the Animadvertor, who speaking of the antient form of the Coronation of the Kings of England, in reference to this passage, thus expresseth himself.

**Mills' Catal. of Honour, pag. 51.After the King hath a little reposed himself in the Chair or Throne, erected upon the Scaffold, then the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall go unto the four squares of the Scaffold, and with a loud voice, Ask the good liking of the people, concerning the Coronation of the King.

Small, I am sure, is the difference betwixt consenting and good-liking. However, the Kings Coronation, though following after, did not depend on such consent, good-liking, or acknowledging of Allegiance; seeing amongst our English Kings, an Vsurper's Title was not the better with, nor a lawfull Prince's the worse without, such ceremonies of State.

Dr. Heylyn. pag. 202.

Nor had the late Arch-Bishop been reproacht so generally by the common p. 6people, (and that reproach publish'd in severall Pamphlets) for altering the King's Oath at his Coronation, to the infringing of the Liberties, and diminution of the Rights of the English Subjects; had he done them such a notable piece of service, as freeing them from all promises to obey and serve, and making the Kings Coronation to depend on their consent. For Bishop Laud being one of that Committee, which was appointed by the King to review the form and order of the Coronation, to the end it might be fitted to some Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, which had not been observ'd before; must bear the greatest blame in this alteration, (if any such alteration had been made as our Author speaks of) because he was the principall man whom the King relied on in that business.

Fuller.

This proceedeth on the former foundation, which being false, and confuted, the superstructure sinketh therewith.

Dr. Heylyn.

But our Author tells us in his Preface, that this last Book, with divers of the rest; were written by him, when the Monarchy was turn'd into a State.] And I dare believe him. He had not else so punctually conform'd his language to the State-doctrin, by which the making (and, consequently, the unmaking) of Kings is wholly vested in the People, according to that Maxim of Buchanan, Populo jus est, imperium cui velit deferat; than which, there is not a more pestilent and seditious passage in his whole Book, De jure Regni apud Scotos, though there be nothing else but treason and sedition in it.

Fuller.

What I wrote in this point, I wrote in my PREFACE, that it might be obvious to every Eye; viz. That the first three Books of my Church History were for the main written in the Reign of the late King; the other nine, since Monarchy was turn'd into a State.

My language in the latter Books forbeareth such personall passages, on the King and his Posterity, which in his life-time were, as consistent with my loyalty, as since inconsistent with my safety. I will instance in one of them.

Church-History, Book 3. Page 52.

Some of whose Offspring [King Iohn's] shall flourish, in free and full power on the English Throne, when the Chair of Pestilence shall be burnt to ashes; and neither Tripple Crown left at Rome to be worn, nor any Head there which shall dare to wear it.

But if the Animadvertor, or any by him employed, can in any my nine last Books discover a syllable, sounding to the disparagement of the Kings person or power, to any impartiall Ear, let me, who so long fed on the King's large diet, be justly famished for my unthankfulnesse.

As for Buchanan, as I admire his Poetry, so I dislike his Divinity, especially in this point; desiring that his Principles may never come South the River Tweed, and, if offering it, may be drowned in their passage.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, f. 123. Then as many Earls and Barons as could conveniently stand about the Throne, did lay their hands on the Crown on his Majesty's head, protesting to spend their bloods to maintain it to him and his lawfull Heirs.] A promise faithfully performed by many of them, some losing their lives for him in the open field, others exhausting their Estates in the defence of his, many more venturing their whole fortunes by adhering to him to a confiscation: A Catalogue of which last we may find subscribed to a Letter, sent from the Lords and Commons of Parliament assembled in Oxford, to those at Westminster, Anno 1643. And by that Catalogue we may also see, what and who they were, who so p. 7ignobly brake faith vvith him: all those whose names we find not in that subscription, or presently superadded to it, being to be reckoned amongst those, who instead of spending their blood to maintain the Crown to Him, and to his lawful Successors, concurred vvith them either in opere, or in voto, who despoiled him of it. And to say truth, they were revvarded as they had deserved, the first thing which was done by the House of Commons (after the King, by their means, had been brought to the fatall Block) being to turn them out of povver, to dissolve their House, and annul their priviledges, reducing them to the same condition vvith the rest of the Subjects.

Fuller.

I behold all this Paragraph as a Letter sent to me vvhichwhich requires no Answer, (onelyonly I bear the Animadvertor witnesse, that it is delivered) seeing I was none of the Lords on either Side. But I am not altogether satisfied in the Adequation of the Animadvertor's Dichotomy to all the English Nobility, That all not subscribing the Catalogue at Oxford, must instantly be concluded on the opsite Party; believing, that upon serious search, some Lords would be found in their Minority, and not necessarily reducible to either of these heads.

Dr. Heylyn.

Footsteps of his moderation, content with the enjoying without the enjoyning their private practices and opinions on others.] This comes in as an inference onelyonly on a former passage, in which it is said of Bishop Andrews, that in what place soever he came, he never pressed any other Ceremonies upon them, than such as he found to be used there before his comming. Though othervvise condemned by some for many superstitious Ceremonies and superfluous Ornaments used in his private Chappell. How true this is, I am not able to affirm.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor (if so disposed) might soon have satisfied himself in this point, being Beneficed in Hampshire, the last Diocesse of Bishop Andrews. And though his institution into his Living was since the death of that worthy Prelate, yet his information in this particular had been easie, from the aged Clergy of his Vicinage. Sure I am, he ever was inquisitive enough in matters, vvhi…h might make for his advantage; so that his not denying, tantamounteth to the affirming of the matter in question.

Dr. Heylyn.

I am less able (if it should be true) to commend it in him. It is not certainly the office of a carefull Bishop, onelyonly to leave things as he found them, but to reduce them, if amiss, to those Rules and Canons, from which, by the forwardness of some to innovate, and the connivance of others at the innovations, they had been suffered to decline.

Fuller.

I comply cordially with the Animadvertor in all this last Sentence. Only I add, That it is also the office of a good Bishop, not to endeavour the Alteration of things well setled before. This was the constant practice of Doctor Andrews, successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely, and Winchester, who never urged any other Ceremonies, that what which he found there. Now whereas the Animadvertor saith, that i… this should be true, he is not able to commend it in him; the matter is not much, seeing the actions of Bishop Andrewes are able to commend themselves.

Dr. Heylyn.

And for the Inference it selfe, it is intended chiefly for the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; against whom he had a fling before in the fourth Book of this p. 8History, not noted there, because reserved to another place, of vvhichwhich more hereafter. Condemmed here for his want of moderation, in enjoyning his private practices and opinions on other men. But first, our Author had done well to have spared the man, vvho hath already reckoned for all his errours, both vvith God and the vvorld.

Fuller.

He hath so, and I hope, what he could not satisfie in himself, was done by his Sav…our. But first, the Animadvertor had done wel to have spared his censure on my intentions, except he had better assurance of them. Here I must, Reader, appeal to an higher than thy self, Him vvho can read the secrets of my heart, before whom I protest, That in this passage I did not reflect in any degree on the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. To make this the more probable, knovv, the Articles of his Visitation vvere observed to be as moderate, as any Bishops in England.

Here let me enter this Memorable, and let the Animadvertor confute it, if he can. There was a designe of the thirty six Dissenters (of whom hereafter) in the Convoca…ion, to obtain, that these Articles of his Visitation might be preceden…tall to all the Bishops in England, as being in themselves in offensive, and containing no Innovations. This was by some communicated to Arch-Bishop Laud, who at first seemed to approve thereof; and how it came afterwards to miscarry, I am not bound to discover.

I confess, this my expression did eye another person, related to Bishop Andrewes, whom I forbear to name, except by the Animadvertor's reply unto me I be forced thereunto.

Dr. Heylyn.

And secondly, it had been better if he had told us, what those private practises and opinions were, which the Arch-Bishop, with such want of moderation, did enjoy… on others.

Fuller.

They are reckoned up in my Church-History, Book 11. pag. 174. parag: 47 & 48. This is direction enough, and there one may find more then a good many of such opinions and practises. On the self-same token, that it was discreetly done of the Animadvertor to pass them over in silence, without a word in their defence or excuse. I will not again here repeat them, partly because I will not revive what in some sort is dead and buried; and partly, because I charitably believe, that some engaged therein, and still alive, are since sorry for their over-activity therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

For it is possible enough, that the opinions which he speaks of, might be the publick Doctrines of the Church of England, maintained by him, in opposition to those private opinions, which the Calvinian party had intended to obtrude upon her. A thing complained o… by Spalato, who well observed, that many of the opinions both of Luther and Calvin, were received amongst us, as part of the Doctrine and Confession of the Church of England; which otherwise he acknowledged to be capable of an Orthodox sense. Praeter Anglicanam Confessionem (quam mi … ut mo…estam praedicalant) multa video Lutheri & Calvini dogmata obtinuisse, as he there objects.

Fuller.

I am not bound to stand to the judgment of Spalato, who would not stand to his own judgment; but first in …ear…, then in body, went back into Aegypt. Lay not such unsavoury salt in my dish, but cast it to the Dunghill.

Dr. Heylyn.

He that reads the Gag, and the Appello Caesarem of Bishop Mon…gue, cannot p. 9but see, that those opinions which our Author condemned for private, were the true Doctrine of this Church, professed and held forth in the Book of Articles, the Homilies, and the Common-Prayer-Book.

Fuller.

He that reads the Answers returned by severall Divines to the Books of Bishop Montague, cannot but see, that they were rather private opinions, than the true and professed Doctrine of the Church of England.

Here, Reader, I cannot but remember a passage betwixt two Messengers, sent to carry Defiances from severall Armies, who, meeting in the mid-way, (though naked, and without Swords, yet) to manifest their zeal to their Cause, fought it out with their Trumpets, till, both being well wearied, they went about their businesse, leaving the main successe to be tryed by their Armies.

Historians are beheld in the notion of Heralds. And, seeing the Animadvertor and I have now clashed it with our Trumpets, let us leave the rest to be disputed and decided by those learned and pious persons, who publickly in Print have engaged therein, and who have (or may in due tim…) meet together in bliss and happinesse. In my Fathers house are (though no wall of partition) many **Joh. 14.2…John 14:2mansions; severall receptacles (as some suppose) for Martyrs, Confessors, &c. and vvhy not for such, as, dissenting in the superstructures, concur in holy life, and the fundamentalls of Religion?

Dr. Heylyn.

And it is possible enough, that the practices which he speaks of, were not private neither, but a reviver of those antient and publick usages, which the Canons of the Church enjoyned, and by the remisness of the late Government had been discontinued. But for a justification of the practises (the private practises he speaks of) I shall refer him to an Author of more credit with him. Which Author, first, tells us of the Bishops generally, That being of late years either careless or indulgent, they had not required, within their Diocesses, that strict obedience to Ecclesiasticall Constitutions, which the Law expected; upon which, the Liturgy began totally to be laid aside, and inconformity the uniform practise of the Church. He tells us, secondly, of Arch-Bishop Abbot in particular, That his extraordinary remisness, in not exacting a strict conformity to the prescribed orders of the Church, in point of Ceremony, seemed to dissolve those legall determinations, to their first principle of indifferency, and led in such an habit of inconformity, as the future reduction of those tender conscienced mens too-long-discontinued obedience, was interpreted an innovation. And finally, he tells of Arch-Bishop Laud, who succeeded Abbot in that See, that, being of another mind and mettle, he did not like, that the externall Worship of God should follow the fashion of every private fancy; and what he did not like in that subject, as he was in State, so he thought it was his duty to reform. To which end, in his Metropoliticall Visitation, he calls upon all, both Clergy and Laity, to observe the Rules of the Church. And this is that which our Author calls, the enjoyning of his private practises; private perhaps in the private opinion of some men, who had declared themselves to be professed enemies to all publick Order.

Fuller.

I have cause to give credit unto **H. Le Strange Esa;him, who, to the lustre of his antient and noble extraction, hath added the light of Learning, not as his profession, but accomplishment, whereby he hath presented the Publick with an hansome History, likely to prove as acceptable to Posterity, as it hath done to the present Age. The Gentleman, in that his passage, reflecteth onelyonly on such Ceremonies, is stood in force by Canon, but had been disused; with whom I concur. But the controversie in hand is about additionall Ceremonies, enjoyned by no Cannons, p. 10(save some mens over-imperious commanding, and others over-officious complying) justly deserving the censure of private practises.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 127. A Commission was granted unto five Bishops, (whereof Bishop Laud of the Quorum) to suspend Arch-Bishop Abbot from exercising his au…hority any longer, because un-canonicall for casuall Homicide.] Had our Author said, that Bishop Laud had been one of the number, he had hit it right, the Commission being granted to five Bishops, viz. Dr. Montain, Bishop of London, Dr. Neil Bishop of Durham, Dr. Buckeridge Bishop of Rochester, Dr. Howson Bishop of Oxford, and Dr. Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells; or to any four, three, or two of them, and no more then so. Had Bishop Laud been of the Quorum, his presence and consent had been so necessary to all their Consultations, Conclusions, and dispatch of businesses, that nothing could be done without him; whereas by the words of the Commission, any two of them were impowered, and consequently all of them must be of the Quorum, as well as he; which every Iustice's Clerk cannot chuse but laugh at.

Fuller.

They will soon cease their laughter at the sad story I am about to relate. But be it premised, that here I use the word Quorum not in the legall strictness thereof, but in that passeable sense in common discourse; viz. for one so active in a business, that nothing is (though it may be) done without him therein.

When the Writing for Arch-Bishop Abbot's suspension was to be subscribed by the Bishops aforesaid, the four Seniors, viz. London, Durham, Rochester, and Oxford, all declined to set their hands thereunto, and (seemingly at the least) shewed much reluctance and regrete thereat. Then give me the Pen (said Bishop Laud) and though last in place, first subscribed his name. Encouraged by whose words and example, the rest, after some demur, did the like.

This was attested to me by him who had best cause to know it, the aged and credible Register, still alive, who attended in the place upon them. This I formerly knew, but concealed it; and had not published it now, if not necessitated thereunto in my just defence.

Dr. Heylyn.

Nor is there any such thing as a casuall Homicide mentioned, or so much as glanced at in that Commission, the Commission onelyonly saying, That the said Arch-Bishop could not at that present in his own person attend those services, which were otherwise proper for his Cognizance and Jurisdiction; and which, as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, he might and ought in his own person to have performed and executed. I am loth to rub longer on this sore, the point having been so vext already betwixt the Historian and the Oservator, that I shall not trouble it any further.

Fuller.

I confess, casuall Homicide not expresly mentioned, but implyed in the Commission. Otherwise what did those words import COULD NOT in his person attend? It was not any indisposition of body, being then, and some years after, in health; not impotency in his Intellect, (caused from the influence of age) who afterwards, when older, discharged this place, (as the Animadvertor confeseth). Though therefore the hilt of Homicide was onelyonly shown, the blade was shaked in the sheath. Sure I am, that some, the nearest about the Arch-Bishop, have informed me, that he interpreted, that UN-COULDING him, solely to relate to his canonicall Irregula…ity on the Accident aforesaid, and was dejected accordingly.

p. 11Dr. Heylyn.

OnelyOnly I must crave leave to rectifie our Author in another passage, relating to that sad accident.

Fuller.

To rectifie is to make that streight which was crooked before; and it is an act of no less charity, than skill and cunning well to perform it. OnelyOnly fools, can be fond of their own deformity. I do not onelyonly desire, but delight, to have the crookedness of my knowledge streightned, provided alwaies, it be done in the spirit of meekness. But I understand, such as streighten crooked persons beyond the Seas, put them to much torture. I likewise fear, that the Animadvertor will lay so much weight of ill words upon me, that the profit I shall reap, will not countervail the pain I must endure in my rectification.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author saith, Ibid. It would be of dangerous consequence to condemn him by the Canons of forrain Councils, which were never allowed any Legislative power in this Land.] Which words are very ignorantly spoken, or else very improperly.

Fuller.

Did I not foretell aright, that my rectification would cost me dear? even the burden of bad words. Here I have a dolefull Dilemma presented unto me, to confesse my self speaking, either very ignorantly, or very improperly. But might not one of these two VERY's have very well been spared? Well, è malis minimum, if it must be so, that my choice must be of one of these, let it be rather but Impropriety, than Ignorance.

But, Reader, I see no necessity of acknowledging either, but that my words are both knowingly and properly spoken; and now to the triall.

Dr. Heylyn.

For if by Legislative power, he means a power of making Lawes, as the word doth intimate, then it is true, That the Canons of forrain Councells had never any such power within this Land: But if by Legislative power he means, a Power or Capability of passing for Lawes within this Kingdom; then (though he use the word improperly) it is very fals) that no such Canons were in force in the Realm of England. The Canons of many forrain Councells, Generall, Nationall, and Provinciall, had been received in this Church, and incorporated into the body of the Canon-Law, by which the Church proceeded in the exercise of her Jurisdiction, till the submission of the Clergy to King Henry the Eighth. And, in the Act confirmative of that submission, it is said expresly, That all Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances, and Synodals Provinciall, as were made before the said Submission, which be not contrary or repugnant to the Laws, Statutes, and Customs of this Realm, nor to the dammage or hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royall, were to be used and executed as in former times, 25 H. 8. c. 19. So that unlesse it can be proved, that the proceedings in this case, by the Canons of forrain Councels was either contrary or repugnant to the Laws and Customs of the Realm, or to the dammage of the Kings prerogative Royall, There is no dangerous consequence at all to be found therein.

Fuller.

By Legislative power of the Canons of forrain Councels, I understand their power to subject the People of our Nation to Guiltiness, and consequently to Penalties, if found infringing them. Now I say again, such forrain Canons, though not against, but onelyonly besides our Common Law; and containing no repugnancy, but disparateness to the Lawes of our Land; either never had such p. 12power in England since the Reformation, or else disuse long since hath antiquated it, as to the rigid exercise thereof.

For instance, a Bishop I am sure, and I think a Priest too, is, in the old Canons, rendred irregular, for playing a game at Tables, Dice being forbidden by the Canons. Yet I conceive, it would be hard measure, and a thing, de facto, never done, that such irregularity should be charged on him, on that account.

We know it was the project of the Pope and Papall party, to multiply Canons in Councels, meerly to make the more men, and men the more obnoxious unto him, that they might re-purchase their innocence at the price of the Court of Rome. I believe, the Animadvertor himself would be loth to have his canonicalness tried by the Test of all old Canons, made in rigorem disciplinae, yet not contrariant to our Laws and Customs, seeing they are so nice and numerous, that Cautiousnesse it self may be found an offendor therein. I resume my words, That it would be of dangerous consequence to condemn the Arch-Bishop by Canons of forrain Councels, which never obtained power here, either quoad reatum, or poenam, of such as did not observe them.

Dr. Heylyn.

But whereas our Author adds in some following words, That eversince (he means ever since the unhappy accident) he had executed his jurisdiction without any interruption:] I must needs add, That he is very much mistaken in this particular. Dr. Williams, Lord Elect of Lincoln; Dr. Carew, Lord Elect of Exeter; and Dr. Laud, Lord Elect of St. Davids, and, I think, some others, refusing to receive Episcopall Consecration from him on that account.

Fuller.

Must the Animadvertor needs add this? I humbly conceive no such necessity, being but just the same which I my self had written before.

Church-History, Book 10. Pag. 88.

Though some squemish and nice-conscienced Elects scrupled to be consecrated by him.

But I beheld this as no effectuall interrupting of his Jurisdiction, because other Bishops, more in number, (no whit their inferiour) received Consecration, Dr. Davenant, Dr. Hall, and King Charls himself his Coronation from him.

Dr. Heylyn.

Far more mistaken is our Author in the next, when he tells us, fol. 128. Though this Arch-bishop survived some years after, yet hence-forward he was buried to the world.] No such matter neither: For, though for a while he stood confined to his house at Ford, yet neither this Confinement, nor that Commission, were of long continuance; for about Christmas, in the year 1628. he was restored both to his Liberty and Jurisdiction, sent for to come unto the Court, received as he came out of his Barge by the Arch-Bishop of York, and the Earl of Dorset, and by them conducted to the King; who giving him his hand to kiss, enjoyned him not to fail the Councill-Table twice a vveek. After which time we find him sitting as Arch-Bishop in Parliament, and in the full exercise of his Iurisdiction till the day of his death, which happened on Sunday, August the 4th. 1633. And so much of him.

Fuller.

An Historian may make this exception, but not a Divine; my words being spoken in the language of the **Gal. 6.14.Gal 6:14Apostle, The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. I had said formerly, that the Keeper's death was this Arch-Bishop's mortification. But from this his Suspension (from the exercise of his Iurisdiction) he was in his own thoughts buried, it reviving his obnoxiousness for his former casuall Homicide; so that never he was seen hartily (if at all) to laugh hereafter, though I deny not, Much Court-savour was afterwards (on designe) conferred on him.

p. 13Here I hope it will be no offence to insert this innocent story, partly to shew how quickly tender guiltiness is dejected, partly to make folk cautious, how they cast out gaulling speeches in this kind. This Archbishop returning to Croidon, (after his late absence thence a long time) many people, most women, (whereof some of good quality for good will) for novelty and curiosity crouded about his Coach. The Archbishop being unwilling to be gazed at, and never fond of Females, said, somewhat churlishly, What make these women here? You had best, (said one of them) to shoot an arrow at us. I need not tell the Reader how neare this second arrow went to his heart.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author goeth on. Fol. 137. My pen passing by them at present, may safely Salute them with a God-Speed as neither seeing nor suspecting any danger in the Designe] Our Author speakes this of the Feoffees, appointed by themselves, for buying…in such Impropriations, as were then in the hands of Lay-persons. I say, appointed by themselves; because not otherwise authorised, either by Charter from the King, Decree in Chancery, or by Act of Parliament; but only by a secret combination of the Brother-hood.

But secondly, this will further appear by their proceedings in the businesse, not laying the Impropriations, by them purchased, to the Church or Chappelry to which they had antiently belonged, nor setling them on the Incumbent of the place, as many hoped they would. That had been utterly destructive to their main design, which was not to advantage the Regular and established Clergy, but to set up a new body of Lecturers in convenient places, for the promoting of the Cause. And therefore having bought an Impropriation, they parcelled it out into annual Pensions of 40 or 50 l. per annum, and therewith salared some Lecturers in such Market-Towns, where the people had commonly lesse to do, and consequently were more apt to Faction and Innovation, than in other places. Our Author notes it of their Predecessors, in Cartwrights dayes, that they preached most diligently in populous places; it being observed in England, that those who hold the Helm of the Pulpit, alwayes steer peoples hearts as they please, Lib. 9. fol. 195. And he notes it also of these Feoffees, that in conformity hereunto, they set up a Preaching Ministry in places of greatest need; not in such Parish-Churches, to which the Tithes properly belonged, but where they thought the Word was most wanting, that is to say, most wanting to advance their project.

Thirdly, if we behold the men whom they made choice of, and employed in preaching in such Market-Towns as they had an eye on, either because most populous, or because capable of electing Burgesses to serve in Parliament, they were for the most part Non-conformists, and sometime such as had been silenced by their Ordinary, or the High-commission, for their Factious carriage. And such an one was placed by Geering, one of the Citizen-Feoffees, in a Town of Glocestershire; a fellow which had been outed of a Lecture neer Sandwich by the Archbishop of Canterbury, out of another in Middlesex by the Bishop of London, out of a third in Yorkshire by the Archbishop of York, out of a fourth in Hartfordshire by the Bishop of Lincoln, and finally suspended from his Ministry by the High-Commission; yet thought the fittest man by Geering (as indeed he was) to begin this Lecture.

Fourthly and finally, these Pensions neither were so setled, nor these Lecturers so well establisht in their severall places, but that the one might be withdrawn, and the other removed, at the will and pleasure of their Patrons, if they grew slack and negligent in the holy cause, or abated any thing at all of that fire and fury they first brought with them. Examples of which I know some, and have heard of more. And now I would fain know of our Author, whether there be no danger to be seen or suspected in this design; whether these Feoffees in short time would not have had more Chaplains to depend upon them, than all the Bishops in the Kingdom; and finally, whether such needy fellowes depending p. 14on the will and pleasure of their gracious Masters, must not be forced to Preach such Doctrines onelyonly as best please their Humours. And though I shall say nothing here of their giving under-hand private Pensions, not onelyonly unto such as had been silenced or suspended in the Ecclesiasticall Courts, but many times also to their wives and Children after their decease, all issuing from this common-stock: yet others have beheld it as the greatest piece of Wit and Artifice both to encourage and encrease their Emissaries, which could be possibly devised. If, as our Author tels us, fol. 143. The Design was generally approved, and that both discreet and devout men were doleful at the ruine of so pious a Project; it was because they neither did suspect the danger, nor foresee the mischiefs, which unavoidably must have followed, if not crusht in time.

Fuller.

The Feoffees being now all Dead, save **I am informed C. Offspring is still alive.one, I may say that in this Suit all the Councell is for the Plantiffe, and none allowed the De…enda…t. Were any number of them still alive, probably they might plead something in defence of their Proceedings.

However I believe, this Narrative of the Animadvertor, hath very much of Truth therein, and seeing it is not Opposite but Additional to what I have written, my Answer is not required thereunto. OnelyOnly the close thereof treadeth on the Toes of my History and that but lightly too; the Animadvertor not denying that, discreet and Devout men were dolefull at the ruine of so pious a Project. And seeing he went so far with my words, would he had gon a little farther, and added, that such Good men were desirous of a Regulation of this Designe; it being pitty that so fair a Tree, should be rent up Root and Branch, for bearing bad, which might and would have born better fruit, with a little good digging about it, and well husbanding thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds, fol. 148. However, there was no Express in this Declaration, that the Ministers of the Parish should be pressed to the publishing.] Our Author doth here change his style. He had before told us, That on the first publishing of the Declaration about lawfull Sports on the Lords Day, no Minister was, de facto, enjoyned to read it in his Parish, lib. 10. fol. 76. and here he tells us, that there was no express order in the Declaration, (when reviv'd by King Charls) that the Minister of the Parish should be prest to the publishing of it; adding …ithall, that many thought it a more proper work for the Constable or Tithing-man, than it was for the Minister. But if our Author mark it well, he may easily find, that the Declaration of King Iames was commanded to be published by order from the Bishop of the Diocess, through all the Parish-Churches of his Jurisdiction. And the Declaration of King Charls to be published with like order from the severall Bishops, through all the Parish-Churches of their severall Diocesses respectively. The Bishop of the Diocess in the singular number, in the Declaration of King Iames, because it principally related to the County of Lancaster The Bishops in the plurall number, in that of King Charls, because the benefit of it was to be extended over all the Realm. In both, the Bishops are commanded to take order for the publishing of them in their severall Parishes; and whom could they require to publish them in the Parish Churches, but the Ministers onelyonly? The Constable is a Lay-Officer, meerly bound by his place to execute the Warrants and Commands of the Iustices, but not of the Bishop. And though the Tithing-man have some relation to Church-matters, and consequently to the Bishop, in the way of presentments; yet was he no… bound to execute any such Commands, because not tyed by an Oath of Canonicall Obedience, as the Ministers were. So that the Bishops did no more than they were commanded, in laying the Publication of these Declarations on the backs of the Ministers▪ and the Ministers by doing less than they were required, infring'd the Oath which they had taken, rendring themselves thereby obnoxious to all p. 15such Ecclesiasticall Censures, as the Bishops should inflict upon them.

Fuller.

I said, That there was no Express order in the Declaration, that the Minister of the Parish should be pressed to the publishing of it.

Now the Animadvertor hath done me the favour, to prove my words to be true, acknowledging the Declaration onelyonly enjoyned, That the Bishop of the Diocess should order the publishing thereof, through all the Parishes in his Iurisdiction: And so consequently (as the Animadvertor inferreth) the Ministers must do it. Hereby the truth of my words do appear, that there was no express command, seeing an EXPRESS, and an INFERENCE are two things of a different nature.

Whereas I said, That many thought it a more proper work for the Constable or Tithing-man, then for the Minister. There are thousands now alive which will justifie the truth thereof. Yea, their thoughts (which otherwise I confess came not under my cognizance) expressed themselves in their words, wherewith they affirmed and professed the same.

Dr. Heylyn.

It seems that in our Authors judgment, it was well done by the Judges for the County of Somerset, to impose upon the Ministers of that County (over whom they could challenge no authority) to publish their own Declarations against Wakes and Feasts; and that it was well done of the Ministers to obey the same, for which see fol. 147.] These Bishops are beholden to him, for giving greater power to the Iudges and Iustices over his brethren of the Clergy, then he yields to them; and as much beholden are the Clergy, for putting so many Masters over them instead of a Father. The difference of the case will not serve the turn, the King having a greater power to indulge such freedom to his Subjects, then the others could pretend unto, to restrain them from it. If he object, that the Ministers are most unfit to hold the Candle, to lighten and let in licentiousness, as he seems to do; he must first prove, that all, or any of the sports allowed of, in those Declarations, may be brought within the compass of licentiousness, which neither the Word of God, nor the Canons of the Christian Church, nor any Statutes of the Realm had before forbidden. Lastly, whereas he tells us, That because the Iudges had enjoyned the Ministers to read their Order in the Church, the Kings Declaration was enforced by the Bishops to be published by them in the same place.] There is no such matter. The Declaration of King Iames appointed to be read, and read by order of the Bishop in the Parish Churches, doth evince the contrary.

Fuller.

I did not say, The Judges did well, or did ill therein; but I said, The Judges did order, that the Ministers should publish their Declaration against Wakes and Feasts. I have not (nor can quickly procure) a copy of their order, whether it were mandatory or, by way of advice, did desire Ministers to do that, which might be advantagious to Religion. But I vvill not judge the Iudges, but leave them (as best skilled in their own faculty) to make good their own acts.

If such Grandees in the Law exceeded their bounds in this their injunction to Ministers, (over whom they had no command) how many mistakes should I run into, if once offering to meddle with this matter, being out of my profession? And therefore no more thereof.

Dr. Heylyn.

Now for our Authors better satisfaction in the present point, I shall lay down the judgment of one so high in his esteem, (and once in the esteem of that party too) that I conceive he will not offer to gainsay him. It is the Author of the Book, called the Holy Table, Name, and Thing, vvho resolves it thus: p. 16All the commands of the King (saith he) that are not upon the first inference and illation (without any Prosyllogisms) contrary to a clear passage in the Word of God, or to an evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature, are precisely to be obeyed. Nor is it enough to find a remote and possible inconvenience that may ensue therefrom; (which is the ordinary objection against the Book of Recreations) for every good subject is bound in conscience to believe and rest assured, that his Prince (envi…oned with such a Councell) will be more able to discover, and as ready to prevent any ill sequel, that may come of it, as himself possibly can be. And therefore I must not by disobeying my Prince commit a certain sin, in preventing a probable but contingent inconveniency. This if it were good Doctrine then, when both the Author and the Book were cryed up even to admiration, is not to be rejected as false Doctrine now; truth being constant to it selfe, not varying nor altering with the change of times.

Fuller.

I want no satisfaction, I thank God, in the point; and therefore the Animadvertor might have spared his pains. As an Historian, I have truly related, de facto, what vvas done; and though the Animadvertor may conjecture at my judgment in this controversie, he cannot be confident thereof by any thing I have vvritten.

All I will add is this, Because I may write the more, I will write the lesse of this subject. I have good povver to back me for the present in this controversie, and might securely express my self therein.

When my Text shall lead me in my Vocation to treat of the Observation of the Lords Day, I shall not be sparing to express my opinion therein, and will endeavour (God-vvilling) to justifie it. Mean time, I vvill not go out of mine own house, which is my castle; I mean, I will not be drawn out into the open field of a controversie, but keep my self under this COVER, That matters of fact in this difference have been truly related by me: and let the Animadvertor disprove it if he can.

Dr. Heylyn.

But our Author will not stop here, he goes on and saith,

Ibid. Many moderate men are of opinion, that this abuse of the Lords-day was a principal procurer of Gods anger, since poured out on this Land, in a long and bloudy Civill war.] And moderate perhaps they may be in apparell, diet, and the like civil acts of life and conversation; but sure, immoderate enough in this Observation: For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath …een his Counsellor, saith the great Apostle? But it is as common with some men of the newest Religions, to adscribe Gods secret judgements to some speciall Reasons, as if they had the Key which opens into his Cabinet at their severall Girdles; as if they were admitted to all Consultations in the Court of Heaven, before that dreadfull Judge could inflict any temporall Punishment upon Men on Earth. Otherwise they might find the Nation guilty of too many sins, which drew down this vengeance, to adscribe it unto any one sin, (if a sin it were;) and rather wonder at Gods mercy, patience, and long-suffering, in deferring his punishments long, then that he inflicted them at last.

Fuller.

I behold them as Moderate men in all Respects. The Animadvertor hath used my words,2 Sam. 10.4.2 Sam 10:4 as the King of Ammon dealt with the cloaths of David's Embassadours, even cutting them off at the middle. Otherwise, might they have but hung down to the ground, no nakednesse had appeared in what I have written, proceeding as followeth;

Church History, Book 11. page 148.

Such Moderate Men observe that our sights of chief Concernment, [Edge Hill &c.] p. 17were often sought on the Lords-Day, as pointing at the punishing of the Profanation thereof.

See here the Reason assigned of their Opinion, as I received it from their mouths. Since, they say, It is one thing with the Beth-shemites to pry into the Ark, and another thing, to look on. God Secrets, in some sort un-secreted, when by the Proportion of his Judgments, he sayeth Come and see. These also alledge for themselves, that the Patriarks, sensible of their hard usage from the Governour of Egypt, did not pry into Gods Mysticall Pleasure, when concluding it inflicted on them, for their Cruelty to their Brother Ioseph; Therefore is this distresse come upon us. However I wholly concurre with the Animadvertor in his last Sentence, as truly and savourly written. OnelyOnly I dissent from Him, in that Passage,

(if a Sin it were;)

Surely, He meaneth not, if the Profanation of the Lords-Day were a Sin, which is above all Iff…s. Rather his sense is, If the using of such Sports were a Profanation of the Lords Day.

But mens Corruption is more prone to acquit themselves when guilty, than to suspect themselves when guiltless.

Parce precor Stimulis, & fortiùs utere Loris.

Spurs I pray refrain;

Rather use the Reine.

I need not mind the Animadvertor, how penal it is by the late Act, for any to write any thing against the strict Observation of the Lords Day; and believe, he Intended nothing Prejudiciall to the same: yet Profaness probably too soon (besides his intention) may improve it selfe on his words, alter his Si into Non; and by the next Return, turn his note of Dubitation into an absolute Negation, on which account the Parenthesis had been better forborn, in my Opinion.

Dr. Heylyn.

And though our Author doth object against this Opinion of those Moderate men, that to pick a solemn Providence out of a common Casualty, savours more of curiosity then conscience, yet he dares not stand to it; confessing within few lines after, that there may be more in the Observation than what many are willing to acknowledge.] If so, there may be as much conscience as curiosity in the Moderate Men.

Fuller.

As I stand not wholly to it, so I run not any whit away from it, but dubiously propound it, hoping the Reader will account me not the lesse constant in my Judgement, but the more cautious in my language, in not being positive in an Observation of this nature.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceeds Folio 151. If moderate men had had the managing of these matters about the Posture of the Lords Board (call it Table or Altar) the Accommodation had been easie with a little Condescention on both sides.] Why then did not these moderate men interpose themselves for taking off those needless Animosities, and putting an end unto the Quarrell? The Presse was open on both sides; Iohn, Lincoln, Deane of Westminister, who appear'd so strongly in the Cause, thinking himselfe as well able and well qualified to license a Book unto the Presse, as either the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Bishop of London.

Fuller.

I said it, and say it again, and any who have Honesty and Learning (the Animadvertor only excepted) will say so too; that those differences were easily capable of Accommodations with a little Condescention on both sides. It will not belong before the Animadvertor will tell us, that the Controversies betwixt us p. 18and the Church of Rome, (consisting most, as he saith, in Superstructures) may be comprimised: and if (to use his owne Words) the Petulancy of the Puritans on the one side, and the Pragmaticalness of the Iesuites on the other side were charmed a while, moderate men might possibly have agreed on equall tearmes.

Now this seemeth a strange thing to me, that moderation may make Protestants agree with Papists in matters Doctrinall; and cannot make Protestants agree with Protestants in matters Ceremoniall. Being the same plaister, why hath it not equall vertue; especially, the latter being the lesser wound? Can the difference of Transubstantiation be taken up betwixt us and the Papists, and not the setting of the Communion-Table betwixt our selves? Can a crack be closed in a Iewell, and a rent not mended in the Case? These things I confess transcend my apprehension.

Now that no moderate man stood up in the gap to make up this breach, I can assigne no other cause, save, That God, justly offended with our Nation, had not so great a favour for it, but suffered a Pustle to fester into an Ulcer; not from any insanability in the soar, but want of seasonable Surgery; and let the guilt thereof (that the burden may be the better born) be equally divided, betwixt both parties engaged therein.

Dr. Heylyn.

If all else failed, why did not our Author undertake, and make himself the Moderator in that trifling controversie, which seems to have been so easie to be brought to an accommodation?

Fuller.

The jeer shall go for nothing. The reason why the Author undertook not to be Moderator in the Difference, was, because he was **Eph. 3.8.Eph 3:8foreign, (and if there be a more subter-superlative) the least of the least of his brethren. However, herein the Author comforteth himself, That as it was above his power to cure, so it was against his will to widen the wound; and being quiet in his calling, concurred not to the inflaming of the mutuall Animosities.

Dr. Heylyn.

Make himself Moderator in that [trifling controversie.]

Fuller.

The Animadvertor his unfair dealing with me, minds me of a passage in Cambridge. One made a [pretended] extemporary Confutation, of his Position against whom he disputed, which indeed was onelyonly premeditately made against the Question, confuting many things which the Answerer never spake. And when the Answerer, causlesly charged, pleaded for himself, Nihil tale occurrebat in Positione meâ; the other replyed, Debuit occurrere tamen. I never said, that the controversie about placing of the Communion-Table, was a trifling controversie; but it seems I should have said so, that the Animadvertor might have had an advantage against me. This I said, That the controversie might easily have been reconciled with mutuall moderation; but trifling, I never termed it. And therefore the Animadvertor, fighting with his own shaddow, it is all one to me whether he beat or be beaten.

Yet I doubt not, but there are many in this Nation, my betters in all respects, who will be bold to call it a Trifling controversie, if not …solutely, yet comparatively, to many Doctrinall differences of higher concernment; and, in respect of the great troubles caused thereby, far above the considerablenesse of the thing which was in contest.

Dr. Heylyn.

The question was about the placing of the Communion-Table, whether it ought to stand in the middle of the Church, or Chancel, with one end towards p. 19the East great Window, like a common Table; or close up to the Eastern-wall, with ends North and South, according as the Altars had been placed in the former times. They that maintained the last opinion, had Authority for it, that is to say, the Injunctions of the Queen, Anno 1599. the Orders and Advertisements of the year 1562. and 1565. the constant practice of the Chappels in his Majestie's Houses, most of the Cathedrall, and some of the Parochiall Churches; and finally, a Declaration of the King, Anno 1633. commending a conformity in the Parish-Churches to their own Cathedralls. They on the other side stood chiefly upon discontinuance, but urged withall, that some Rubricks in the Common-Prayer-Book seemed to make for them. So that the question being reduced to a matter of fact, that is to say, The Table must stand this way, or it must stand that way; I would fain know, how any Condescention might be made on either side, tending to an accommodation, or what our Moderator would have done to atone the differences.

Fuller.

The Dr. hath clearly, briefty, and truly stated the Controversie, whose pen was formerly conversant therein, and by his owne acknowledgment both sides had much to say for themselves.

OnelyOnly I wonder that though the Question was reduced to matter of Fact, it should be made by him of so high Importance; That either no condiscention could be made on either side, or such Condiscention (if made) must prove ineffectuall as to an accommodation.

Is there no balme in Gilead? Hath not the spirit of God endowed his servants with such discretion, but they may comprimise a difference of greater Moment?

Dr. Heylyn.

Suppose him sitting in the Chair, the Arguments on both sides urged, and all the Audience full of expectation which side would carry it. The Moderator Fuller of old merry Tales then ordinary, thus resolves the businesse, That he had heard it commended for a great piece of wisdom in Bishop Andrews, That wheresoever he was a Parson, a Dean, or a Bishop, he never troubled Parish, Colledge, or Diocesse, with pressing of other Ceremonies upon them, than such which he found used there before his comming thither. That King Iames finding the Archbishop of Spalato in a resolution of questioning all such Leases, as had been made by his Predecessors in the Savoy, gave him this wise counsell, Relinque res sicut eas invenisti; That he should leave things as he found them. That the said King being told by a great Person, of the inverted scituation of a Chappel in Cambridge, made answer, That it did not matter how the Chappell stood, so their hearts who go thither were set aright in Gods service. But for his part, he liked better of the resolution of Dr. Prideaux, (his brother in the Chair at Oxford) who being troubled with his neighbours of Kidlington, about the setting up of a May-pole, some being for it, and some against it, thus resolved the case; You, saith he, that will have a May-pole, shall have a May-pole; And you that will have none, shall have none. And that according to that pattern, he thought best to accommodate the present Controversie to the same effect, viz. You that will have an Altar, shall set up your Altar; and you that will have a Table, shall have but a Table. Which sentence, whether it would have pleased all parties, I do somewhat doubt; but sure I am, it had not tended to the advancement of that uniformity, which was then designed.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor here makes a Professor's Chaire; and, having solemnly set me down therein, puts words into my mouth, and makes an Oration for me, as Moderator in the present Controversie, with a jeer to boot on the memory of the Reverend Doctor Prideaux.

p. 20Psal. 1.1.Ps 1:1But know, there is another Chaire, which David calls the Chaire of the scornfull; and it is to be feared, that the Animadvertor in this point is too neare sitting down therein.

If I should retaliate, and accordingly place the Animadvertor in a Chair, and fit him with a Speech personating him proportionable to his principles, possibly I might render him as Ridiculous, but most of all should abuse my self and my owne profession therein.

I thank God I can, though plainly, yet pertinently enough to my purpose, speak to expresse the notions of my mind. And when God shall take speech from me, (if my reason still remain) I shall rather with Zacharias make signes for writing-tables to write in, than to have words put into my mouth, forced and seigned on me by the Animadvertor. Let him thank God that he can speak so well for himselfe. And I will be content as well as I can, to utter my owne conceptions.

It would never have come into my Mind to have compared the Table of the Lord to a May-pole; the Wood of the one grew in Paradise, not so the other, being a light, and Ludicrous, and too often profane, stock of wood. I hope that the principles of my Education will restraine me from prophanesse in such unfitting parallels.

Whereas the Animadvertor sayes that an Expedient would not have tended to that Uniformity, that was designed herein, before God and Man, I will speak out my thoughts. That multiformity with mutuall Charity advanceth Gods Glory as much as Uniformity it selfe in matters meerly indifferent; which as the Pipes of an Organ may be of severall length and bignesse, yet all tuned into good harmony together.

I will instance in the Observation of Easter, the great Controversie betwixt the Easterne and Westerne Church in the Observation thereof; betwixt that which I may call Style Orientall, and Style Occidentall for the Date thereof. And I verily believe that God was equally honoured by both, by such as Religiously observed it.

Dr Heylyn.

But from these moderate men, which were so in contemplation onelyonly, let us proceed to one who was such in practise, (the Lord Bishop of London) of whom he saith; fol. 150. He had a perfect command of his passion, an happiness not granted all Clergy-men in that Age, though Privy-Counsellors.] So perfect a man of his own passion and affections, that he will not think himself honoured with a commendation, which comes accompanied with the disparagement of his chiefest friend; (for that this lash was made for the Arch-bishop of Canterbury, no wise man can doubt.) Our Author might have spared the dead, without any wrong to the living; but that he thinks no Topick so usefull in his Logick, as the rule of Contraries. Contraria juxta se posi a magis elucescunt. Upon which ground, the better to set off Bishop Andrews, this poor Archbishop must be charged with want of moderation, in enjoyning his own private practises and opinions upon other men. And here, that Bishop Iuxon might appear with the greater lustre, the said Arch-bishop with all his passions and infirmities, must stand by for a foil. He had indeed no such command upon his passions, as to be at all times of equall temper, especially when wearied with the businesse of the Councill-Table, and the High-Commission. But as he was soon hot, so he was soon cool'd; and so much is observed by Sir Edward Dering, though his greatest adversary, and the first that threw dirt in his face in the late long Parliament; who telleth us of him, that the roughness of his uncourtly nature sent most men discontented from him; but so, that he would often (of himself) find waies and means to sweeten ma…y of them again, when they least looked for it. In this, more modest then our Author; who gives us nothing of this Prelate but his vvants and vveaknesses. But of this reverend Prela…, he vvill give cause to speak more hereafter.

p. 21Fuller.

There were other Clergy men Privy-Counsellors beside Arch-Bishop Laud: Dr. Abbots, Neil, Harsnet, Williams, &c. And therefore the Animadvertors Collection of my words cannot be conclusive in Reference to Arch-Bishop Laud:

I confesse else where I do reckon Anger amongst his personall imperfections, which a Historian may do without any wrong at all, (The spirit of God saying, **Jam. 5.17.Jas 5:17Elias was subject to like passions as we are); I am confident as angry as Arch-Bishop Laud was, He would not have bin angry with me for writing of it, as sensible of and sorrowfull for his owne imperfection therein.

I am much of the mind of Sr. Edward Dering, that the roughnesse of his un-court-like nature, sweetned many men when they least looked for it, surprizing some of them, (and my selfe for one) with unexpected Courtesies. But whereas I am accused for giving in nothing of this Prelate, but his wants and vveaknesses, it vvill not be long before my innocence herein vvill appeare.

Dr. Heylyn.

Let us now on unto another of a different judgment, his profest enemy, Mr. Prin; of whom, thus our Author, [fol. 157.] Mr. William Prin was born about Bath in Glostershire, &c. and began with the writing of some Orthodox Books.] In this story of Mr. Prin and his sufferings, our Author runs into many errors, which either his love to the man, or zeal to the good cause, or carelesnesse of what he writes, have brought upon him.

Fuller.

If I have run into so many errours, it will be charity in the Animadvertor fairly to lead me back again a foot-pace into the truth, and then he shall have thanks for his pains: alwaies provided, he doth not pinch me by the arm as he conducteth me, which will turn my thanks into anger. But seeing the Animadvertor careth for both alike from my hands, let him do as he pleaseth.

Next we have his tripartite History of my errors, which he will have to proceed from one of these three causes.

1. Love to the person of Mr. Prin. To whom I professe I have no fondnesse, but likeing the Motto of Luther, In quo aliquid Christi video, illum diligo, I must on that account have a kindness for him.

2. Zeal to their good cause; which I behold as a jeer, and treading on the toes of Scripture, Galatians 4.18. It is good to be zealously affected alwaies in a good thing.

3. Carelesnesse of what I write.

But seeing now the Animadvertor's hand is in his Arithmetick, in counting of causes of my mistakes, his charity might have found a …ourth, (worth all the other three) and imputed my errors to that infirmity, which alwaies attendeth human nature. However, let us proceed.

Dr. Heylyn.

Whereas our Author telleth us, that Mr. William Prin was born about Bath in Glocester-shire, Bath is not in Glocester-shire, but a chief City in the County of Somerse….

Fuller.

These are ANI-MAD-VERSIONS indeed, when a Writer's words are madly verted, inverted, perverted, against his true intent, and their Grammaticall sense.

My words run thus, Mr. William Prin was born (about Bath) in Glocester-shire; where Bath is walled about with a Parenthesis, not essentiall to the Sentence, thus perfect without it, Mr. William Prin was born in Glocester-shire. These walls the Animadvertor hath most dis-ingenuously dismantled, to lay Bath open; and, if possible, p. 22to bring it into Glocester-shire, that so he may have something to cavil at me.

Indeed Bath is not in, but within three miles of Glocester-shire; and the next eminent place to— the Village of Mr. Prin's nativity. When Towns stand in the confines of two Counties, is it not proper enough to say, Such a one was born (about London) in Surrey, though London be in Middlesex; or (about Windsor) in Buckingham-shire, though Windsor be in Bark-shire?

Mr. Fox writing in his own defence, against such as traduced him; Some, saith he, do not cavill, because they have found fault; but do find faults, because they may cavill: And be it reported to the Reader, whether the Animadvertor may be accounted one of them. And now the Animadvertor having a little refreshed himself in my Crosse-Bath, and somewhat pleased his spirit of opposition, he thus proceedeth.

Dr. Heylyn.

Secondly, whereas he saith, that he began with the writing of some Orthodox Books] Though I look on Mr. Prin, (so far forth as I am able to judge, by some Books of his not long since published) as a man of a far more moderate spirit, than I have done formerly; yet can I not think his first Books to have been so Orthodox as our Author makes them. For not to say any thing of his Perpetuity, &c.

Fuller.

But I must and will say something of his Perpetuity of the Regenerate Man his Estate, as being that which is particularly named in my Margin, and chiefly intended by me. A Book, wherein an usefull, necessary, and comfortable Truth is learnedly defended. A Book, which will perpetuate the memory of the Writer; who, had he proceeded, and continued, as he began, none could have took just exception at, or got just advantage against him.

Dr. Heylyn.

As for the Books of Mr. Prin, entituled, Lame Giles his Haltings, Cozen's cozening Devotions, and his Appendix to another, they have many things repugnant to the Rules and Canons of the Church of England. No greater enemy against howing at the Name of Iesus, nor greater enemy to some Ceremonies, here by Law established. In which particulars if our Author think him to be Orthodox, he declares himself to be no true son of the Church of England.

Fuller.

I confess, in this his numerous offspring, his younger children were nor so vigorous as his first born, termed in the **Gen. 49.3.Gen 49:3Scripture the might and beginning of their fathers streng…h; they were of a weaker and sicker constitution, and some passages in them I do not approve. I hope to acquit my self so dutifull a son to the Church of England, that, when in a reverent posture I shall crave her blessing, she will give it me in as full and free a manner and measure, as to the Animadvertor himself.

Dr. Heylyn.

Thirdly, the Book called Histrio-Mastix, was not writ by Mr.Prin about three years before his last sufferings, as our Author telleth us, for then it must be writ or published Anno 1634. whereas indeed that Book was published in Print about the latter end of 1632. and the Author Censur'd in Star-Chamber for some passages in it about the latter end of the year 1633. Otherwise, had it been as our Author tells us, the punishment must have preceded the offence; and he must suffer for a Book, which was not publisht at that time, and perhaps not written. But our Author hath a speciall faculty in this kind, which few Writers have.

Fuller.

The Animadvertor hath a speciall faculty in cavilling without cause. My Clock of time strikes true enough, but that he is minded not to tell it aright. My p. 23words are, Some three years since; which word SOME, soundeth an interpretative plùs minus to all ingenuous Ears. Besides, this is our opposite marginall Note, (containing the contents of that Paragraph) Mr. Prin accused for Libelling against Bishops; which accusation was about two years before this his last Censure, (during which time he was imprisoned). And my SOME three years are to bear date (in the construction of any impartiall Reader) from that his accusation; and then nothing is mis-timed, but falleth out in due season.

And now, Reader, judge, where the many errors be into which I have run, in the story of Mr. Prin and his sufferings, seeing no one mistake can be produced and proved against me. And seeing the first Book of Mr. Prin was …ound in it self, in my opinion; and his last Books more moderate, even in the judgment of the Animadvertor; and his midling Books (how faulty soever) such for which he hath severally suffered; let us even take a fair farewell of Mr. Prin and his Books, and so proceed.

Dr. Heylyn.

Now as our Author post-dateth his Histrio-M…stix, by making it come into the world two years after it did; so he ante-dates a Book of Dr. White, then Lord Bishop of Ely, which he makes to be publisht two years sooner then indeed it was. That Book of his, entituled, A Treatise of the Sabbath, came not out till Michaelmas, Anno 1635. though placed by our Author as then written, Anno 1633. for which, see fol. 144.

Fuller.

In answer hereunto, May the Reader be pleased to take notice of these particulars.

1. The revived controversie, Lords-Day, lasted ten years, bandied with books from 1628. till 1638.

2. I was loath to scatter my Book with it, but resolved on one intire Narrative thereof.

3. I fixed on the yeare 1633. therein to insert the same, because the middle Number, from the rising to the sinking of the difference, then came to the very heat and height thereof.

4. Hence my Narrative retreated some years back to 1628. when Bradborn began the difference.

5. Hence also it sallied forth to the year 1635. (when Bishop White's book was set forth) and beyond it.

6. The date of the yeare 1633. stands still unmoveable on my Margin; the whole Relation, being for the reasons aforesaid entered under it. So that nothing is offered to the Reader unjoynted in Time, if I be but rightly understood.

Dr. Heylyn.

Next unto Mr. Prinne, in the course of his Censure, comes the Bishop of Li…coln, the cause whereof we have in our Author, who having left a blank, fol. 156. for somewhat which he thinks not fit to make known to all, gives some occasion to suspect that the matter was far worse on the Bishops side than perhaps it was. And therefore to prevent all further misconstructions in this businesse, I will lay down the story as I find it thus, viz. The Bishop's purgation depending chiefly upon the testimony of one Prideon, it happened, that the February after, one Elizabeth Hodson was delivered of a base child, and laid to this Prideon. The Bishop finding his great Witness charged with such a load of filth and infamy, conceived it would invalidate all his testimony, and, that once rendred invalid, the Bishop could easily prognosticate his own ruine; therefore he bestirs himself amain. And though by order of the Justices at the publick Sessions at Lincoln, Prideon was charged as the reputed father, the Bishop by his two Agents, Powel and Owen, procured that Order to be suppressed; and by subornation and menacing p. 24of, and tampering with, Witnesses; at length in May, 10 Car. procured the child to be fathered upon one Boon, and Prideon acquit. Which lewd practises, for the supportation of his favourite's credit, cost the Bishop, as he confest to Sir Iohn Munson and others, twelve hundred pounds; so much directly, and by consequence much more.

Fuller.

I have concealed nothing herein of Moment, (the Blank being insignificant, and the mere mistake of the **Before his Time, he was about to begin a new Section and Dedication as appeares by the TO in Text.Printer) and expect no considerable addition from the Animadvertor, having in my Book truly and clearly stated the Bishops Cause, from the best Records.

I appeal to the unpartiall Perusers of what I wrote, whether by this Note, any thing of moment is added to the matter in hand, except the naming of a light houswife, (which I conceived beneath my History) the rest being truly by me related before.

Dr. Heylyn.

But to proceed: the cause being brought unto a censure, fol. 157. Secretary Windebank motioned to degrade him; which (saith he) was lustily pronounced by a Knight and a Lay-man, having no precedent for the same in former Ages.] But first, it is not very certain that any such thing was moved by Sir Francis Windebank. A manuscript of that daies proceedings I have often seen, containing the Decree and Sentence, with the substance of every Speech then made; and amongst others, that of Sir Francis Windebank, in which I find no motion tending to a Degradation, nor any other punishment inflicted on him, than Fine, Suspension, and Imprisonment; in which the residue of the Lords concurred, as we find in our Author.

Fuller.

It is very certain, he moved it, and I avow it from honourable Eyes and Ears. The Animadvertor misguides the reference of those my words, [having no precedent for the same in former Ages,] making them relate to the Bishop's Degradation, (whereof one precedent since the Reformation, Unus homo nobis) which indeed refer to the Knight's and Lay-man's first mentioning thereof, which is unprecedented I am sure, that such a person should FIRST make such a motion against a Bishop.

I confess, at B^p. Midleton's Degradation, some of the Lay-Privy-Counsellors were present, but acted little therein, (so, far from FIRST mentioning of it) onelyonly concurring with the Court, the matter being chiefly managed by Arch-bishop Whitgift, and some other Bishops and Deans the Commissioners, as most proper persons to pass such a censure on one of their own profession.

Dr. Heylyn.

Secondly, it had been more strange if the Knight had not been a Lay-man, the Church of England not acknowledging any Order of Spirituall Knighthood. Knights in Divinity are greater strangers in this Land, then Lay-Divines; these last being multiplied of late, even ad infinitum; the first, never heard of.

Fuller.

The Pleonasm of the addition of Lay-man to Knight, is not so culpable in it self, but that it might have passed without censure; and let not the Animadvertor be over-confident herein.

I have been credibly informed, that Sir Miles Sandys, (third son to Edwin Arch-bishop of York) Fellow of Peter-house in Cambridge, and Proctor of the University, Anno 1588. was made a Deacon, (and so no meer Lay-man) and in his younger years a Prebendary of York. Within this twenty years there was one p. 25Mr. Seaton beneficed in Hartfordshire, a Scotish-man, and at this day a Knight. But the matter being of no more moment, let us proceed.

Dr. Heylyn.

And thirdly, had it been so mov'd, and so lustily mov'd, as our Author makes it, the Knight and Lay-man might have found a precedent for it in former ages.

Which last clause is to be understood (as I suppose) with reference to the times since the Reformation: For in the former times, many precedents of like nature might be easily found. And being understood of the times since the Reformation, it is not so infallibly true, but that one precedent of it, at the least, may be found amongst us. Marmaduke Middleton advanced to the Bishoprick of Sr. Davids, Anno 1567. after he had sat in that See three and twenty years, was finally condemned (for many notable misdemeanors) not onelyonly to be deprived of his Bishoprick, but degraded from all holy Orders. Which sentence was accordingly executed by and before the High-Commissioners at Lambeth-house, not only by reading of it in Scriptis, but by a formal divesting of him of his Episcopall Robes, and Priestly Vestments, as I have heard by a person of good credit, who was present at it. And somewhat there is further in the story of this Marmaduke Middleton, which concerns the Bishop now before us; of whom our Author telleth us further, That being prest by two Bishops, and three Doctors, to answer upon Oath to certain Articles, which were tendred to him in the Tower, he utterly refused to do it, claiming the priviledge of a Peer, fol. 159. Which plea was also made by the said Bishop of St. Davids, offering to give in his Answer to such Articles, as were fram'd against him, on his Honour onelyonly, but refusing to do it on his Oath. Which case being brought before the Lords, then sitting in Parliament, was ruled against him; it being ordered, that he should answer upon Oath, as in fine he did. To this Bishop let us joyn his Chaplain, Mr. Osbolstone, who being engag'd in the same Bark with his Patron, suffered shipwrack also, though not at the same time, nor on the same occasion; Censured in Star-Chamber not onelyonly to lose his Ecclesiasticall Promotions, but to corporall punishments.

Fuller.

In my weak judgment, the Animadvertor had better have omitted this passage (of this Bishop's Degradation) in this juncture of time, where in the repute of that Function runs very low, and their adversaries too ready to take all advantage to disgrace it. The rather, because Bishop Godwin taketh no notice at all thereof, but beginneth, continueth, and concludeth the life and death of this Bishop in lesse then two lines. Marmaduke Middleton translated from Ireland, died Novemb. 30th. 1592.

Dr. Heylyn.

Our Author proceedeth, fol. 166. But this last personall penalty he escaped, by going beyond Canterbury, conceived seasonably gone beyond the Seas, whilst he secretly concealed himself in London.] And he had scap't the last penalty, had he staid at home. For though Mr. Osbolston at that time conceived the Archbishop to be his greatest enemy, yet the Archbishop was resolved to shew himselfe his greatest friend, assuring the Author of these Papers (before any thing was known of Mr. Osbolstons supposed flight) that he would cast himselfe at the Kings feet for obtaining a discharge of that corporal punishment unto which he was sentenced. Which may obtain the greater credit; First, in regard that no course was taken to stop his flight, no search made after him, nor any thing done in Order to his apprehension. And secondly, by Mr. Osbolstons readinesse to do the Archbishop all good Offices in the time of his troubles, upon the knowledge which was given him (at his coming back) of p. 26such good Intentions. But of these private men enough; passe we now to the publick.

Fuller.

Whether or no he was sought after, I know not; this I know, he was not taken: and more do commend his warinesse in his flight, than would have praised his valour for staying, in hope his Punishment should be remitted. It had been most Mercy to stop the denouncing, but was a good after-game of pitty to stay the inflicting of so cruell a censure on a Clergyman. As the Animadvertor, then, had the Credit to know; so the Author, now, hath the Charity to believe, the Arch-Bishops good resolution.

However I cannot forget, that when the Sentence in the Star-Chamber, passed on Bishop Williams, (where he concurred with the highest in his Fine) He publickly professed, that He had fallen five times down on his knees before the King in the Bishop's behalf, but to no purpose. It might be therefore suspected that his intention to do it once for Mr. Osbolston might not have taken effect. And therefore, had the Arch-Bishop's good resolution been known unto him, Mr. Osbolston might most advisedly conceale himselfe.