Monroe an old experienced Commander with his three thousand old and experienced Scots train'd up for five or six years then last past in the Wars of Ireland By whose assistance it is possible enough that he might not have lost his first Battle not long after his Head which was took from him on the same day with the Earl of Hollands But God owed him and that Nation both shame and punishment for all their â—reacheries and Rebellions against their King and now he doth begin to pay them continuing payment after payment till they had lost the Command of their own Countrey and being reduced unto the form of a Province under the Commonwealth of England live in as great a Vassalage under their new Masters as a conquered Nation could expect or be subject to Fol. 1078. This while the Prince was put aboard the revolted Ships c. and with him his Brother the Duke of York c. the Earls of Brentford and Ruthen the Lord Cuâ—pepper c. In the recital of which names we finde two Earls that is to say the Earls of Brentford and Ruthen which are not to be found in any Records amongst our Heralds in either Kingdom Had he said General Ruthen Earl of Brentford he had hit it right And that both he and his Reader also may the better understand the Risings and Honors of this Man I shall sum them thus Having served some time in the Wars of Gustavus Adolphus King of Sweden he was Knighted by him in his Camp before Darsaw a Town of Pomerella commonly counted part of Prussia and belonging to the King of Poland Anno 1627. at what time the said King received the Order of the Garter with which he was invested by Mr. Peter Yong one of his Majesties Gentlemen Huishers and Mr. Henry St. George one of the Heralds at Arms whom he also Kinghted In the long course of the German Wars this Colonel Sir Patrick Ruthen obtain'd such a Command as gave him the title of a General and by that title he attended in a gallant Equipage on the Earl of Morton then riding in great pomp towards Windsor to be installed Knight of the Garter At the first breaking out of the Scots Rebellion he was made a Baron of that Kingdom and Governor of the Castle of Edinburgh which he defended very bravely till the Springs which fed his Well were broken and diverted by continual Batteries Not long ater he was made Earl of Forth and on the death of the Earl of Lindsey was made Lord General of his Majesties Army and finally created Earl of Brentford by Letters Patents dated the 27 of May Anno 1644. with reference to the good Service which he had done in that Town for the fiâ—st hanselling of his Office So then we have an Earl of Brentford but no Earl of Ruthen either as joyn'd in the same Person or distinct in two Not much unlike is that which follows Ibid. His Commissions to his Commanders were thus stiled Charls Prince of great Britain Duke of Cornwal and Albany Here have we two distinct Titles conferred upon one Person in which I do very much suspect our Authors Intelligence For though the Prince might Legally stile himself Duke of Cornwal yet I cannot easily believe that he took upon himself the Title of Duke of Albany He was Duke of Cornwal from his Birth as all the eldest Sons of the Kings of England have also been since the Reign of King Edward the third who on the death of his Uncle Iohn of Eltham E. of Cornwal invested his eldest Son Edw. the Black Prince into the Dukedom of Cornwal by a Coronet on his head a ring on his finger and a silver Verge in his hand Since which time as our learned Camden hath observed the King of Englands eldest Son is reputed Duke of Cornwal by Birth and by vertue of a special Act the first day of his Nativity is presumed and taken to be of full and perfect age so that on that day he may sue for his Livery of the said Dukedom and ought by right to obtain the same as well as if he had been one and twenty years old And he hath his Royalties in certain Actions and Stannery Matters in Wracks at Sea Customs c. yea and Divers Officers or Ministers assigned unto him for these or such like matters And as for the Title of Duke of albany King Charls as the second Son of Scotland receiv'd it from King Iames his Father and therefore was not like to give it from his second Son the eldest Son of Scotland being Duke of Rothsay from his Birth but none of them Dukes of Albany for ought ever I could understand either by Birth or by Creation Fol. 1094. And so the dignity of Arch-Bishops to fall Episcopal Iurisdiction also Our Author concludes this from the general words of the Kings Answer related to in the words foregoing viz. That whatsoever in Episcopacy did appear not to have clearly proceeded from Divine Institution he gives way to be totally abolished But granting that the Dignity of Arch-Bishops was to fall by this Concession yet the same cannot be affirmed of the Episcopal Iurisdiction which hath as good Authority in the holy Scripture as the calling it self For it appears by holy Scripture that unto Timothy the first Bishop of Ephâ—sus St. Paul committed the power of Ordination where he requires him to lay hands hastily on no man 1 Tim. 5 22 And unto Titus the first Bishop of Crete the like Authority for ordaining Presbyters or Elders as our English reads it in every City Tit. 1. v. 5. Next he commands them to take care for the ordering of Gods publick Service viz. That Supplications Prayers Intercessions and giving of Thanks be made for all men 1 Tim. 2. 1. which words relate not to the private Devotions of particular persons but to the Divine Service of the Church as it is affirmed not onely by St Chrysostom Theophylact and Oâ—cumenius amongst the Ancients and by Estius for the Church of Rome but also by Calvin for the Protestant or Reformed Churches Next he requires them to take care that such as painfully labor in the Word and Doctrine receive the honor or recompence which is due unto them 1 Tim. 5. 17. as also to censure and put to silence all such Presbyters as preached any strange Doctrine contrary unto that which they had received from the Apostles 1 Tim 1. 3. And if that failed of the effect and that from Preaching Heterodoxies or strange Doctrines they went on to Heresies then to proceed to Admonition and from thence if no amendment followed to a rejection from his place and deprivation from his Function 1 Tit. 3. 10. as both the Fathers and late Writers understand the Text. Finally for correction in point of Manners as well in the Presbyter as the people St. Paul commits it wholly to the care of his Bishop where he adviseth Timothy not to receive an Accusâ—ation against
any till he found it out such wherein he is not like to finde many followers though the way be opened I know it is no unusuall thing for works of different Arguments publisht at severall times and dedicated to severall persons to be drawn together into one Volume and being so drawn together to retain still those particular Titles and Dedications which at first they had But I dare confidently say that our Historian is the first who writing a Book of the same Argument not published by peece-meal as it came from his hand but in a full and intire Volume hath filled his Sheets with so many Title-leaves and Dedications as we have before us For in this one Book taking in the History of Cambridge which is but an Appendix to it there are no fewer then 12 particular Titles beside the generall as many particular Dedications and no fewer then fifty eight or sixty of those By-Inscriptions which are addrest to his particular Friends and Benefactors which make it bigger by fourty Sheets at the least then it had been otherwise Nay so ambitious he is of encreasing the Number of his Patrons that having but four Leaves to come to the end of his History he findes out a particular Benefactress to inscribe it to Which brings into my minde the vanity of Vitellius in bestowing and of Roscius Regulus for accepting the Consular Dignity for that part of the day on which Cecina by Order and Decree of the Senate was degraded from it Of which the Historian gives this Note that it was Magno cum irrisu accipientis tribuentisque a matter of no mean disport amongst the People for a long time after But of this Argument our Author heard so much at the late Act in Oxford that I shall say no more of it at this present time 3. In the next ranck of Impertinencies which are more intrinsecal part of the substance of the work I account his Heraldry Blazons of Arms Dâ—scenis of noble Families with their Atchievements intermingled as they come in his way not pertinent I am sure to a Church-Hâ—storian unless such persons had been Founders of Episcopal Sees or Religious Houses or that the Arms so blazoned did belong to either Our Author tells us lib. 5. fol. 191. that knowledge in the Laws of this Land is neither to be expected or required in one of his profession and yet I trow considering the great influence which the Laws have upon Church-matters the knowledge of the Law cannot be so unnecessary in the way of a Clergy-man as the study of Heraldry But granting Heraldry to be an Ornament in all them that have it yet is it no ingredient requisite to the composition of an Ecclesiastical History The Copies of Battle-Abbey Roll fitter for Stow and Hollingsheâ—d where before we had them can in an History of the Church pretend to no place at all though possibly the names of some may be remembred as their Foundations or Endowments of Churches give occasion for it The Arms of the Knights-Errant billeted in the Isâ—e of Ely by the Norman Conqueror is of like extravagancy Such also is the Catalogue of those noble Adventurers with their Arms Issue and Atchievements who did accompany King Richard the first to the War of Palestine which might have better serv'd as an Appendix to his History of the Holy Warâ— then found a place in the main Body of an History of the Church of England Which three alone besides many intercalatious of that kinde in most parts of the Book make up eight sheets more inserted onely for the ostentation of his skill in Heraldry in which notwithstanding he hath fallen on as palpable Errors as he hath committed in his History For besides those which are observed in the course of this work I finde two others of that kinde in his History of Cambridge to be noted here For fol. 146. he telleth us That Alice Countess of Oxford was Daughter and sole Heir of Gilbert Lord Samford which Gilbert was Hereditary Lord Chamberlain of England But by his leave Gilbert Lord Samford was never the Heriditary Chamberlain of the Realm of England but onely Chamberlain in Fee to the Queens of England betwixt which Offices how vast a difference there is let our Authour judge And secondly The Honor of Lord Chamberlain of England came not unto the Earls of Oxford by that Marriage or by any other but was invested in that Family before they had attained the Title and Degree of Earls Conferred by King Henry the first on Aubrey de Vere a right puissant Person and afterwards on Aubrey de Vere his Son together with the Earldom of Oxford by King Henry the second continuing Hereditary in that House till the death of Robert Duke of Ireland the ninth Earl thereof and then bestowed for a time at the Kings discretion and at last setled by King Charls in the House of Lindsey But because being a Cambridge Man he may be better skild in the Earls of that County let as see what he saith of them and we shall finde fol. 162. That Richard Plantagenet Duke of York was the eighth Earl of Cambridge Whereas first Richard Duke of York was not Earl of Cambridge And secondly If he had been such he must have been the seventh Earl and not the eighth For thus those Earls are marshalled in our Catalogues of Honor and Books of Heraldry viz. 1. William de Meschines 2. Iohn de â—amalt 3. William Marquess of Iuliers 4. Edmond of Langley D. of York 5. Edward D. of York 6. Richard de Conisburgh yonger Brother of Edward 7. Iames Marquess Hamilton c. No Richard Duke of York to be found amongst them his Father Richard of Konisburgh having lost that Title by Attainder which never was restored to Richard his Son though most improvidently advanced to the Dukedom of York nor unto any other of that Line and Family 4. Proceed we in the next place to Verses and old ends of Poetry scattered and dispersed in all parts of the History from one end to the other for which he hath no precedent in any Historian Greek or Latine or any of the National Histories of these latter times The Histories of Herodotus Xenophon Thucydides and Plutarch amongst the Greeks of Caesar Livy Salust Taciâ—us and Sueâ—onius amongst the Latines afford him neither warrant nor example for it The like may be affirmed of Eusâ—bius Socrates Sâ—zomen Theodoret Russin and Evagrius Church Historians all though they had all the best choice and the most excellent Poets of the world to befriend them in it And he that shall consult the Histories of succeeding times through all the Ages of the Church to this present day will finde â—hâ—m all as barren of any incouragements in this kinde as the ancients were Nay whereas Bishop Godwin in his Annals gives us an Epitaph of two Verses onely made on Queen Iane Seymour and afterwards a Copy of eighteen verses on the Martyrdom of Arch Bishop Cranmer
some of the 〈◊〉 of those who had possest themselves of the Crown â—ands in his â—athers Minority in which course he might hope to finde good success without noise or dangeâ— And â—f this may be called the adding of fuel to the fiâ—e of 〈…〉 King will finde a safe way to recover his own 〈…〉 from him by power and pride unless he do 〈…〉 strong hand which findes no resistance For which good serâ—ice if he were afterwards Knighted and made second Secretary of Estate the principal being called Lord Secretary in the stile of that Kingdom it was no more then he had worthily deserv'd for his sound Advice â—rom the Title and the Introduction proceed we next unto the History it self in which the first mistake we meet with 〈◊〉 the placing of the â—uneral of King Iames on the 14 of May which Mr. H. L. in his History of the Reign of King Chaâ—ls had 〈…〉 on the fourth in both erronâ—ously alike But the 〈◊〉 of the â—ormer History hath corrected his error by the 〈…〉 and placed it rightly on the seventh which the 〈…〉 Historian might have done also having so thorowly 〈…〉 all the Passages in those Observations 〈…〉 land had nothing but foul weather triste lugubre Coelum when she was at the Sea and the worst of foul weathers from the time of her landing to the very minute of her death The like tempestuous landing is observed to have happened to the Princesse Catharine daughter of Ferdinand and If bellâ— Kings of Spain when she came hither to be married to Prince Arthur eldest Son to King Henry 7 which afterwards was lookt on as a sad presage of those Calaâ—â—ities which hapned to that pious but unfortunate Lady in the last part of her life And certainly such presages are neither to be rejected as superstitious nor too much relied on as infallible such a middle course being to be steeâ—'d in such conjecturals as is advised to be held in Prophetical or presaging dreams not wilfully to be slighted nor too much regarded â—ol 6. The Parliament to be subordinate not coordinate with the Prince c. though King Charles unadvisedly makes himself a member of the house of Peers which the Parliament would never acquit him A passage which the Author likes well enough and hopes the Reader will do the like as it comes from himself but will not let it go uncensured in the Oâ—servator It is noted in the Observations p. 62. that the King having passed away the Bishops votes in Parliament did after by a strange improvidence in a Message or Declaration sent from York the 17. of Iune reckon himself as one of the three Estates which being once slipt from his pen and taken up by some leading men in the Houses of â—â—â—â—ament it never was let fall again in the whole agitatiâ—n of those Controversies which were bandied up and down between them Our Author says the same thing though in fewer words and yet corrects the Observator for taâ—ing notice of the Kings strange impâ—ovidence in a message 〈…〉 Iune 17. where he reckons himself as one of the 〈…〉 member of the House of Peers Fol. 10â— for which he 〈◊〉 to call him to a further account in 〈…〉 and so perhaps he may in a second edition of his History there being no such thing to be found in this 〈◊〉 Councels are privy and publick his Privy Councel by his own 〈…〉 electionâ—â— publick his Parliament Peers and people In these words there are two things to be enquired after first why the Bishops are not named as Members of this publick Councel and secondly why the people are admitted art thereof That the Bishops are to be accounted of as necessaâ—y members of this publick Councel appeareth by the 〈◊〉 writ of Summons by which they are severally and respectively called to attend in Parliament In which it is declared that the King by the advice of his Privy Councel hath called a Parliament unto this end ut cum Pralatis 〈…〉 Regâ—â— Colloquium haâ—eret that he for his part might confer with the Prelatâ— Peers and great men of the Realm and that they for their parts super dictis Negotiis tractarenâ— coâ—â—ilium suum impenderent should debate of all such difficult matters concerning the preservation of the Church and State as the King should recommend unto them and give their faithful Counsel in them accordingly So that the Author dealt not well with the Bishops in excluding them from being a part of the Kings publick Councel and putting the people in their room who never were beheld as members of it till so made by our Author the Commons being called to Parliament to no other purpose but ad consenâ—iendum faciendum to give consent and yield obedience to all such things as by the great Councel of the Kingdom 〈◊〉 communi Concilio Regni nostri shall be then ordained But if our Author say that he includes the Bishops in the name of Peers though I allow his meaning and am able to defend him in it yet I must still except against his expression because not plain and full enough to the vulgar Reader Ibid. But 〈◊〉 Iames altered that course aâ— best able of any his Predecessors to speak for him self It was indeed the common usage of the Kings of England to speak to their people in â—arliament by the mouth of the Chancellors not that they were not able to tell their own tales and express their own meâ—ning but that it was held for a point of State not to descend so much beneath themselves as to play the Orators Yet somtimes as they saw occasion they would speak their own mindes in Parliament and not trouble their Chancellors as appears by that speech of King Henry 7. when he resolved to engage himself in a war with France a copy whereof we have in the History of his Reign writ by the Lord Viscount St. Alban which he thus beginneth My Lords and you the Commons when I purposed to make a war in Britain by my Lieutenant I made declaration thereof to you by my Chancellor But now that I mean to make war upon France in person I will declare it to you myself c. Fol. 96. But King Iames thinking himself an absolute Master in the Art of speaking and desirous that his people should think so too in the opening of all his Parliaments and the beginning of each Session and many occasions on the by used no tongue but his own Which though it might seem necessary at the opening of his first Parliament to let the Lords and Commons see how sensible he was of that Affection wherewith the whole body of the Nation had imbraced his coming to the Crown yet the continual use thereof made him seem cheaper in the eyes of the People then might stand with Majecty Nor was this all the inconvenience which ensued upon it for first it put a necessity upon his son and â—â—â—cessor of doing the like to whom it
ordinary temper And so much was the King startled when he heard of the giving up of that City with the Fort and Castle and that too in so short a time that he posted away a Messenger to the Lords at Oxford to displace Col. Legg a well known Creature of Prince Ruperts from the Government of that City and Garison and to put it into the hands of Sir Thomas Glenham which was accordingly done and done unto the great contentment of all the Kings party except that Prince and his Dependents But Legg was sweetned not long after by being made one of the Grooms of his Majesties Bed-chamber a place of less command but of greater trust Fol. 891. And now the Parliament consider of a Term or Titleâ— to be given to the Commissioners intrusted with their Great Seal and are to be called Conservators of the Common-wealth of England Not so with reference either to the time or the thing it self For first The Commissioners of the Great Seal were never called the Conservators fo the Common-wealth of England And Secondly If they ever had been called so it was not now that is to say when the Kings Seals were broken in the House of Peers which was not long after Midsummer in the year 1646. But the truth is that on the 30 of Ianuary 1648. being the day of the Kings most deplorable death the Commons caused an Act or Order to be printed in which it was declared that from thenceforth in stead of the Kings Name in all Commissions Decrees Processes and Indictments the â—â—tle of Custodes Libertatis Angliae or the Keepers of the Liberties of England as it was afterwards englished when all Legall Instruments were ordered to be made up in the English-Tongue should be alwaies used But who these Keepers of the Liberties were was a thing much questioned some thought the Commissioners for the great Seal were intended by it whom our Authour by a mistake of the Title cals here the Conservators of the Common-wealth others conceiv'd that it related to the Councel of State but neither rightly For the truth is that there were never any such men to whom this Title was appliable in one sense or other it being onely a Second Notion like Genus and Species in the Schools a new devised term of State-craft to express that trust which never was invested in the persons of any men either more or fewer Fol. 892. â—o then the eldest Son and the yongest Daughter are with the Quâ—â—n in France the two Dukes of York and Glocester with the Princess Elizabeth at St. James 's The Prince in the Weâ—t with his Army â— This is more strange then all the rest that the Kings eldest Son should be with his Mother in France and yet that the Prince at the same time should be with his Army in the West of England I always thought till I saw so good Authority to the contrary that the Prince and the Kings eldest Son had been but one person But finding it otherwise resolved I would fain know which of the Kings Sonâ— is the Prince if the eldest be not It cannot be the second or third for they are here called both onely by the name of Dukes and made distinct persons from the Prince And therefore we must needs believe that the Kings eldest Son Christned by the name of Charls-Iames who dyed at Greâ—nwich almost as soon as he was born Anno 1629. was raised up from the dead by some honest French Conjurer to keep company with the yong Princess Henrietta who might converse with hâ—m as a Play-Fellow without any terror as not being able to distinguish him from a Baby of Clouts That he and all that did adhere unto him should be safe in their Persons Honors andâ—â—onsciences in the Scotish Army and that they would really and effectually joyn with him and with such as would come in unto him and joyn with them for his preservation and should employ their Armies and Forces to assist him to his Kingdomâ— in the recovery of his â—ust Rights But on the contrary these jugling and perfidious 〈◊〉 declare in a Letter to their Commissioners at London by them to be communicated to the Houses of Parliament that there had been no Treaty nor apitulation betwixt his Mâ—â—esty and them nor any in their names c. On the receit of which Letters the Houses Order him to be sent to Warwick Castle But Lesâ—ly who had been us'd to buying and selling in the time of his Pedlâ—ry was loth to lose the benefit of so rich a Commodity and thereupon removes him in such post-haste that on the eighth of May we finde him at Southwel and at Newcastle on the tenth places above an hundred Miles distant from one another and he resolv'd before-hand how to dispose of him when he had him there â—o Scotland he never meant to carry him though some hopes were given of it at the first for not onely Lesly himself but the rest of the Covenanters in the Army were loth to admit of any Competitor in the Government of that Kingdom which they had ingrossed whoâ—y to themselves but the 〈◊〉 in an Assembly of theirs declare expresly against his coming to live amongst them as appears fol 〈◊〉 So that there was no other way left to dispose of his person but to â—ell him to the Houses of Parliament though at the first they made 〈◊〉 of it and would be thought to stand upon Terms or Honor The Eaâ—l of Lowdon who lov'd to hear himsâ—lf speak more â—hen â—ny man living in some Speâ—ches made beâ—ore â—he Houses protested strongly against the dâ—livery of their Kings Person into their Power 〈◊〉 what in 〈◊〉 â—â—amy would lie upon them and the whole Nation â—f 〈◊〉 â—hould to 〈◊〉 But this was but a coâ—y of their Countenance onely 〈◊〉 â—â—vice to raise the Marâ—eâ— and make is â—uch money 〈…〉 as they could At last they came to this Agreement that for the sum of Two hundred thousand pounds they should deliver him to such Commissioners as the Houses should Authorize to receive him of them which was done accordingly For Fol. 939. The Commissioners for receiving the Person of the King came to Newcastle Iune 22. c. Not on the 22 of Iune I am sure of that the Commodity to be bought and sold was of greater value and the Scots too cunning to part with it till they had raised the price of it as high as they could The driving of this Bargain took up all the time betwixt the Kings being carried to Newcastle and the middle of the Winter then next following so that the King might be delivered to these Commissioners that is to say from Prison to Prison on the 22 day of Ianuary but of Iune he could not And here it will not be amiss to consider what loss or benefit redounded to those Merchants which traded in the buying and selling of this precious Commodity And first The Scots not long before their breaking out
Lindsey Lord High Constable â— Our Author borrows this Error as he does some others from the former History and makes it worse by an addition of his own For first The Earl of Lindsey was not made High Constable upon this occasion nor did he act there in that capacityâ—â— He had been made High Constable to decide the difference between the Lord Rey and David Ramsey which being an extraordinary case was likely to be tried by battle But in this case there was no need of any such Officer the Triall being to be made by proofs and Evidences the verdict to be given by the Lords of Parliament and sentence to be pronounced by the Lord High Steward all â— things being to be carried and transacted in due form of Law Secondly The Court being broken up which was before the passing of the Bill of Attainder in the end of April the Office of Lord High Steward expired also with it And therefore when our Authour speaks of a Request which was made unto the King in Parliament that the Earl of Pembroke should be made Lord High Steward in the place of the Earl of Arundel then absent fol. 430. he either speaks of a Request which was never made or else mistakes the Lord Steward of the Kings houshold which place might possibly be desired for the Earl of Pembroke not long before turn'd out of the Office of Lord Chamberlain for the Lord High Steward of the Kingdome And now we are fallen on his mistakes touching these great Officers I shall adde another It being said in our Authours unfigured Sheets that the King having signed the Bill of Attainder sent Sir Dudly Carlton Secretary of State to acquaint him what he had finished An errour too grosse and palpable for our Authour to be guilty of considering his Acquaintances in the Court and relations to it which may perswade me to beleeve that these unfigured Sheets patcht in I know not how between fol. 408. and 409. should be none of his But whether they be his or not certain I am that there was no Secretary at this time but Sir Henry Vane Windebank being then in France and his place not filled with the Lord Falkland till the Christmas after Sir Dudly Carlton Lord Imbercourt and Vicount Dorchester was indeed Secretary for a while but he died upon Ashwednesday in the year 1631. which was more then nine years before the sending of this message and I perswade my self the King did not raise him from the grave as Samuel was once raised at the instance of Saul to go on that unpleasing errand Sir Dudly Carlton whom he means being Brothers son unto the former was at that time one â—f the Clerks of the Councel but never attained unto the place and honour of a principall Secretary Our Authour having brought the businesse of the Earl of Strafford toward a Conclusion diverts upon the Authour of the Observations on the former History to whom he had been so much beholden for many of the most materiall and judicious Notes in the former part of his Book and he chargeth thus Fol. 406. I conceive it convenient in more particular to clear two mistakes of our Authours concerning the Articles of Irâ—land and the death of the Earl of Strafford reflecting upon the late most Reverend Prelate the Archbishop of Armagh Primate of all Ireland whilest he was liuing and worse pursued since his decease somewhat too sharp also upon D. Bernard What Fee or Salary our Authour hath for this undertaking I am noâ— able to determine but if he be not well paid by them I am sure he hath been well paid by another who in his Answer to D. Bernards Book entituled The â—udgement of the late Primate of Ireland Ac. hath fully justified the Observator against all the exceptions which either our Authour or D. Bernard or the Lord Primate himself have made against him in these two points Which being extrinsecall as to the matter of this History shall not be repeated the Reader being desired if he want any further satisfaction to look for it there All I shall here observe is this that our Authour grounds himself in his whole Discourse of that businesse upon somewhat which he had in writing under the hand of the said Lord Primate and more which he hath took verbatim out of the said Book of D. Bernards who being both parties to the Suit ought not to be admitted for Witnesses in their own behalf And yet our Authour having driven the matter to as good a conclusion as he could from such faulty Premises conceives an hope that by the â—ight of those Testimonies he will be of more moderation notwithstanding he hath there shewn much disaffection to the Primate in endeavouring to his utmost to evade divers of those particulars either in giving the worst sense of them or turning them to other ends But as I can sufficiently clear the Observator from bearing any disaffection to the Lord Primates person and the equal Reader may defend him from the imputation of giving the worst sense of any thing which he found in the Pamphlet called The Observator observed or turning it to other ends then was there intended so am I no more satisfied by this tedious nothing touching the Articles of Ireland or the death of the Earl of Strafford as they reflect upon the Archbishop of Armagh then I was before As little am I satisfied with the following passage in the last Folio of the unfigured Sheets viz. That D. Iuxon Bishop of London resigned his Office of Treasurer of England into the hands of five Commissioners more sufficient then he could be Our Authour might have spared these last words of disparagement and diminution and yet have left his Proposition full and perfect But taking them as they come before me I must first tell him that the Lord Bishop of London resigned not his Office of Treasurer into the hands of any Commissioners but only into the hands of the King who not knowing at the present how to dispose of it for his best advantage appointed some Commissioners under the great Seal of England to discharge the same And next I would have him tell me what great sufficiency he found in those Commissioners which was not to be found in the Bishop of London how many of his debts they paid what improvement they made of his Revenue what stock of money they put him into toward the maintaining of the Warre which not long after followed In all which particulars the Bishop of London had very faithfully performed his part though not as to the Warre of England to the great honour of the King and content of the Subject But to look back upon some passages in the businesâ—e of the Earl of Strafford which are not toucht at by the Observator or his alteridâ—m the first we meet with is a very pretty devise of the Bishop of Lincoln to cheat the poor Gentleman of his head by getting a return of the
promise which the King is said to have made him of not consenting to his death The sum of the story is briefly this viz. That the King had promised the Earl of Strafford under his hand that his prerogative should savâ— him that he would never passe the Bill nor consent to the acting of any thing to take away his life that being satisfied in all other scruples he rested in this only affirming that in regard of this promise he could not passe the Bill though the Earl were guilty the Bishop of Lincoln finding him harping on that string assured him that he thought that the Earl was so great a Lover of his Majâ—sties peace so tender of his conscience and the Kingdoms safety that he would willingly acquit the King of that promise that though the King received this intimation with a brow of anger yet the said Bishop in pursuance of the Earls destruction sends a Message to him to that purpose by the Lieutenant of the Tower or some other person whom he found attending near the place that as the devil and he would have it the Earl received that intimation with great disdain saying that if that were all which bound the King he would soon release him and thereupon opening his Cabinet drew out that Paper in which the Kings promise was contained and gave it to the said Lieutenant or that other person but whether sealed or unsealed that he cannot tell by whom it was delivered to the Bishop of Lincoln and finally that the Bishop of Lincoln finding no other scruple to remain in the Kings Conscience but the respect he had to that promise he put the fatall paper into the Kings hands which as it seems gave a full end to the conference and the Kings perplexities This is the substance of the Legend and in all this there is nothing true but the names of the parties mentioned in it And first I would fain know from what Authour he received this fiction unlesse it were from say I and say some as his own words are that is to say either from himself or from some body else but he knew not whom Most certainly he had it not from any of the Bishops then present the Lord Primate affirming in the end of his first Narrative that neither he nor the rest of his Brethren knew what was contained in that Paper and no lesse certain it is that the Bishop of Lincoln was too wise to accuse himself of such a practise if he had been really guilty of it And then as for the thing it self no man of reason can imagine that the King would either make such a proviso to the Earl or that the Earl would so far distrust his own integrity as to take it of him If the Kings knowledge of his innocence of his signal merits and the declaration which he made in Parliament to the Lords and Commons that he could not passe the Bill with a good Conscience were not sufficient to preserve him there was no help to be expected from such Paper-promises Such a Romance as this we finde in Ibrahim the Illustrious Bassa who is said to have obtained the like promise from Solyman the Magnificent which notwithstanding the Mufti or Chief Priests of the Turks devised a way to discharge the Emperour of that promise and to obtain from him an unwilling consent to the Bassa's death as the Bishop of Lincoln is said to do for the Earl of Straffords Secondly There was no such scruple of conscience propounded to the Bishops in the morning conference as the obligation which that promise laid upon him there being no other question propounded at that time but whether he might in justice passe the Bill of Attainder against the Earl To which the Bishops gave their Answer when it was again renewed in the Evening as appears by the Lord Primates first Narrative that if upon the Allegations on either â—ide at the hearing whereof the King was present he did not conceive him guilty of the crime wherewith he was charged he could not in justice condemn him and by this answer it appears that no such scruple as the obligation of that Paper-promise had been before tendred to the Bishops Thirdly Admitting that the Bishop of Lincoln might be so bold as to make that overture to the King forgetting a release of that promise from the Earl of Strafford yet was he too carefull of himself too fearfull of the Kings everlasting displeasure to pursue that fatall project when he perceived his Majesty to entertain it with a brow of anger Fourthly Admitting this also that the Bishop was so thirsty of the Earls bloud as to neglect his own safety in pursuance of it yet cannot our Historian tell us whether that intimation were sent by the Lieutenant of the Tower or some other person And certainly as the Lieutenant of the Tower was not so obscure a person but that he might easily be known from another man so is it most improbable that he should go on such an errand without speciall order from the King or that the Earl should admit of such an intimation from any other who was like to run on the Bishops bidding but only from the Lieutenant himself Fifthly It cannot be beleeved that the Earl should fall into such a passion when the Tale was told him considering that he knew that by a Letter sent unto the King on the Tuesday before he had set the Kings Conscience at liberty most humbly beseeching him for the prevention of such mischief as might happen by his refusall to passe the Bill So that the passing of the Bill could be no News to him which he had reason to expect because it was a thing so much prest by his enemies and so humbly and affectionatelyâ— desired by himselfe Sixthly and finally Though our Historian make it doubtfull whether that Paper-promise were sent back sealed or unsealed yet no man can suspect the Earl to be so imprudent in his actions so carelesse of his own honour and so untrusty to the King in so great a secret as to send it open by which it must needs come first to the eyes of others before it came unto the Kings And if it were not sent unsealed how came our Authour to the knowledge that that paper contained the Kings promise as he saies it did But nothing more betrays the vanity and impossibility of this fiction then the circumstance in point of time in which this promise must be made which must needs fall between the passing of the Bill of Attainder and the Kings conference with the Bishops sent to him for the satisfaction of his Conscience by the Houses of Parliament Our Authour tels us that at the conference with the Bisâ—ops the King being satisfied in all other scruples started his last doubt If in his Conscience he could not passe the Bill although the Earl were guilty having promised under his hand that his prerogative should save him never to passe that Bill nor to