their yongest Sons some Earldom or other until the time of Edward the third after which time they were invested with the Title of Dukes as appears evidently to any who are studied in their Chronologies But that they or any of them were Earls by Birth is a new piece of learning for which if the Historian can give me any good proof I shall thank him for it Fol. 278. Henry the eight thus cousened into some kindness both by his own power and purse makes Charls Emperor and the French King his Prisoner 1519. Neither so nor so For first though King Henry did contribute both his power and purse to the taking of the French King Prisoner yet to the making of Charls Emperor he contributed neither the one nor the other And secondly though Charls were created Emperor Anno 1519 yet the French King was not taken Prisoner till six years after Anno 1525. Fol. 31â— Oswald united the Crowns of England and Scotland which were 〈◊〉 afterwards for many Ages 3â— That Oswald King of Northumberland here mentioned was a Puiâ—â—ant Prince as being the ninth Monarch of the English I shall easily grant but that he united the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland is not any where found Our Author therefore must be understood of his uniting the two Realms of Deâ—ra and Pernicia part of which last hath for long time been accounted part of Scotland which after his decease were again divided Fol. 317. Whose Results notwithstanding are not to be obtruded on the Sâ—culars to be obsâ—rved with the Authority of Laws until they be allowed by assent of the King and both Houses An error far more pardonable in our present Author to whom the concernments of the Church are not so necessary to be known or studied then in our Church Historian where before we had it and which hath had a full Conâ—utation in our Animadversions to which for brevity sake I shall now refer Fol. 320. Rory Duke of Solia from France Either the Printer or the Author are mistaken here The Ambassador who was sent from France was neither called Rory nor Duke of Solia but Marquess of Rhosney created afterward Duke of Sully and Lord High Treasurer of that Kingdom by King Henry 4. A Protestant and therefore purposely selected for that imployment Of whom it is reported in the conference at Hampton-Court that having observed the order and gravity of our Church Service in the Cathedral Chuâ—ch at Câ—nâ—erbury he was heard to say that if the like had been used in France there would have been many thousands of Protestants more then were at that present Fol. 329. Ceâ—il foâ— his good Service was created Earl of Salisbury That is to say for so it must be understood for his activity and diligence in discovering the Powder-Treason But he was Earl of Salisbury before that Discovery call'd so by the Historian himself in the course of thaâ— Naâ—rative and made so by King Iames in the Mâ—y foregoâ—ng at what time also his Brother Thomas Lord Burley was made Earl of EXCESTER The like mistake I finde in the advancement of Thomas Lord Buckhurst to the Earldom of Dorcet plac'd by the Author fol. 342. in the year 1605. whereas indeed he was created Earl of Dorcet in the first year of King Iames March 13. Anno 1603. Fol. 333. The Earl of Flanders c. being by Storm cast upon our Coast c. was fain to yield to all the Kings demands in delivering up the Countess of Warwick and other Fugitives resident in Flanders This story is well meant but not rightly told there being at that time no Earl of Flanders commonly so called to be cast upon the Coast of England nor any such Woman as a Countess of Warwick whom King Henry the seventh could be afraid of the truth is that the person here meant was Philip King of Castile Duke of Burgundy Earl of Flanders c. who in his return from Spain was driven by Tempest on the Coast of England and being Royally Feasted by King Henry the seventh was detained here till he had delivered into the Kings hands the Earl of Suffolk who had fled into the Nether-lands for protection and began to work new troubles against his Soveraign The story whereof we have at large in the History of King Henry the seventh writ by the Lord Viscount St. Alban from fol. 222. to 225. Fol. 334 The fate of that Family evermore false to the crown This spoken of the Piercies Earls of Northumberland too often false to the Crown though not always so For Henry the second Earl of this Family lost his life fighting for King Henry the sixth in the Battle of St. Albans as Henry his Son and Successor also did at the Battle of â—owton And so did Henry the fifth Earl in the time of King Henry the seventh for his Fidelity to that King in a tumultuous Insurrection of the Common People not to say any thing of his Son and Successor who dyed without any imputation of such disloyalty Fol. 362. Zutphen and Gelders did of right belong to the Dukâ— Arnold who being Prisoner with the last Duke of Burgundy who died before Nancy that Duke intruded upon his Possession c. 40. Not so it was not Arnold Duke of Gelders that was Imprisoned by Charls Duke of Burgundy but his Son Adolphus who having most ungratiously Imprison'd his aged Father was vanquished by Duke Charls and by him kept Prisoner and the old Duke restored again to his power and liberty In a grateful acknowledgement of which favor he made a Donation of his Estates to Duke Charls and his Heirs to commence after his decease though it took no effect till Conquered under that pretence by Charls the fifth uniting it unto the rest of his Belgick Provinces Anno 1538. Fol. 423. Sir William Seymour Grandchilde to the third Son and the Heir of the Earl of Hertford created by Henry the eighth whose sister he marryed c. And being thus near the Crown c. In this business of Sir William Seymer now Marquess of Hertford there are two mistakes For first the Earl of Hertford from whom he derived his discent married not any of the Sisters of King Henry the eighth he having but two Wives in all the first the Daughter of Filol of Woodland from whom comes Baronet Seymer of the West the second Anne Daughter of Sir Edward and Sister to Sir Michael Stanhop from whom discends the House of Hertford still in being It s true King Henry married a Sister of Sir Edward Seymer by him created Earl of Hertford but not é contra the Earl of Hertford married not with a sister of his Secondly The nearness of this House to the Crown of England came not from any such Marriage of this first Earl with that Kings Sister but from the Marriage of Edward the second Earl with a Neece of that Kings that is to say with 〈◊〉 Daughter of Henry Duke of Suffolk and of Fâ—aâ—ces his Wife
in this caâ—e came before by whose continual importunity and 〈◊〉 the breach of the Treaties followed after The King lov'd peace â—oo well to lay aside the Treaties and engage in War before he was desperate of success any other way then by that of the Sword and was assur'd both of the hands and hearts of his subjects to assist him in it And therefore ouâ— Author should have said that the King not only called together his great Councel but broke off the Treaty and not have given us here such an Hysteron Proteron as neither doth consist with reason not the truth of story ANIMADVERSIONS ON The Eleventh Book OF The Church History OF BRITAIN Containing the Reign of King Charles THis Book concludes our Authors History and my Animadverâ—â—ons And 〈◊〉 the end be 〈◊〉 unto the beginning it is like to 〈…〉 enough our Author stumbling at the Threshold 〈◊〉 â—moâ—gst superstitious people hath been 〈…〉 presage Having placed King Charles upon 〈…〉 he goes on to tell us that Fol. 117. On the fourtâ—enth 〈…〉 James his Funerals were 〈…〉 Collegiat Church at 〈…〉 but the fourth saith the 〈…〉 Reign of King Charls and 〈…〉 was on the 〈…〉 â—â—venth of May on which those solemn Obsequies were 〈…〉 Westminster Of which if he will not take my word seâ— him consult the Pamphleâ— called the 〈…〉 â—ol 6. and he shall be satisfied Our 〈…〉 muâ—â— keep time better or else we shall neveâ— know how the day goes with him Fol. 119. As for Dr. Preâ—â—on c. His party would 〈◊〉 us that he might have chose his own Mitre And 〈…〉 his party would perswade us That he had not only large parts of suâ—â—icient receipt to manage the broad 〈…〉 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 look'd vpon the man with such a reverence as came near Idolaâ—â—y His Principles and engagements were too well known by those which governed Affairs to ventâ—â—e him â—nto 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 Inn. As for his intimacy with the Duke too violent to be long lasting it proceeded not from any good â—pinion which the Duke had of him but that he found how instrumental he might be to manage that prevailâ—â—g party to the Kings advantage But when it was 〈◊〉 that he had more of the Serpent in him then of the 〈◊〉 and that he was not tractable in steering the 〈◊〉 of his own Party by the Court Compass he was discountenanc'd and â—aid by as not worth the keeping He seemed the Court Mâ—reor for a while 〈◊〉 to a sâ—dden height of expectation and having 〈◊〉 and blaz'd a 〈◊〉 went out again and was as suddâ—â—nly â—oâ—gotten â—ol 119. Next day the King coming from Canterbury 〈…〉 with all solemnity she was 〈…〉 in London where a Chappel 〈…〉 her Devâ—tionâ— with a Covent 〈…〉 to the Articles of her 〈…〉 how â—ame he to be suffered to be present at 〈◊〉 in the capacity of Lord Keeper For that he did so is affirmed by our Author saying That the King took a Sâ—role of Parchment out of his bosom and gave it to the Lâ—rd 〈…〉 who read it to the Commons four sevâ—raâ— times East-West North and South fol. 123. Thirdly the Lord Keeper who read that Scrole was not the 〈◊〉 Keeper Williams but the Lord Keeper Coventry 〈◊〉 Seal being taken from the Bishop of Lincoln and 〈◊〉 to the custoâ—y of Sir Thomas Coventry in October before And therefore fourthly our Author is much ouâ— in placing both the Coronation and the following Parliament befoâ—e the change of the Lord Keeper and sending Sir Iohn Suckling to feâ—ch that Seal at the end of a Parliâ—ment 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 Deaâ—â—y 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 Fol. 122. The Earl of Arundel as Earl Marshal of 〈◊〉 and the Duke of Buckingham as Lord High Constâ—ble of England for that day went before his Majesty in that great Solemnity In this passage and the next that follows ouâ— Author shews himself as bad an Herald in marshalling a Royal shew as in stating the true time of the câ—eation of a Noble Peer Here in this place he plaâ—eth the Earl Marshal before the Constable whereas by the 〈◊〉 31 H. 8. c. 10. the Constable is to have 〈◊〉 before the Marshal Not want there Precedents to shew that the Lord High-Constable did many times direct his Mâ—ndats to the Earl Marshal as one of the Miniâ—â—ers of his Court willing and requiring him to perform such and such services as in the said Precepts were expâ—essed In the next place we are informed that Ibid. That the Kings Train being six yards long of Purple Velvet 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 châ—llenging a right to peâ—foâ—m 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 〈◊〉 but that Sir Dâ—dley Carleton might be one of those which held up the Train though I am not sure of it But sure I am that Sir Dudley Carleton was not made Baron of Imber-Court till towards the latter end of the following Parliament of An. 1626 nor created Viscount Dorcester until some years after Fol. 122. The Lord Archbishop did present his Majesty to the Lords and Commons East West North South asking their mindes four several times if they did consent to the Coronation of King Charles their lawful â—overaign 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 â—elleth us till their consent was given four times by â—cclamations And this I call a piece of new State-doctrine never known before because I finde 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 Honor â—et â—orth by Tho. Mills of Canterbury Anno 1610. we finde it thus The King being carried by certain Noble Courtiers in another Chair â—nto the four sides of the Stage was by the Archbishop of Canterbury declared unto the people standing round about both by Gods and mans Laws to be the right and lawâ—ul King of
severally chalenged that Trial against the French King and by Charles of Arragon and Peter de Taâ—â—acone for the 〈◊〉 of Sicilie Either the Author or the Printer is much mistaken here The title to the Realm of Sicilie was once indeed intended to be tried by Combat not between Charles of Arragon and Peter of Tarracone as is here affirmed but between Peter King of Arragon and Charles Earl of Anâ—ou pretending severally to that Kingdom 10. Such another mistake we have Fol. 55. Where it is said that there were some preparations in King James his time intended betwen two Scotch mâ—n the Lord Ree and David Ramsey Whereas indeed those preparations were not made in King Iames but King 〈◊〉 his time Robert Lord Willoughby Earl of 〈◊〉 and Lord great Chamberlain of England being made Lord Constable pro tempore to deside that Controversie Fol. 83. Katherine de Medices Pope Clements Brothers Daughter and Mother of King Charles c. 11 Katheriâ—e de medices was indeed wife to Henry the second and mother to Charles the ninth Frâ—nch Kings but by no means a â—â—â—thers daughter to Pope Clement the seventh For first Pope Clement being the natural son of 〈…〉 who was killed young and unmarried had nâ— brother at all And secondly Katherine de Medeces was Daughter of 〈◊〉 Duke of Vrbin son of Peter de Medeâ—es and Grâ—ndson of Laurence de Medicâ—s the brother of 〈◊〉 before mentioned By which account the father of that Pope and the great Grandfather of that Queen were Brothers and so that Queeu not Broâ—hers Daughter to the Pope Of nearer kiâ— she was to Pope Leo the tenth though not his Brothers Daughter neither Pâ—pe Leo being Brother to Peter de Medices this great Ladies Grand-father Fol. 84. This yâ—â—r took away James Hamilton Earl of Arran and Duke of Castle-herauld at Poictures a Province in France The name of the Province is Poictou of which Poictires is the pâ—â—â—cipal City accounted the third City next to Paris and 〈◊〉 â—ll that Kingdom And such anothâ—r slight mistake we have fol. 96. where we finde mention of the absâ—nce of the Duke of Arran Whereas indeed the chief of the Hamiltons was but Earl of Arrar as he after calls him the Title of Duke being first confâ—â—'d by King Charls upon Iames Marquess of Hâ—milâ—on created Duke Hâ—milâ—on of Arran Anno 1643. The like mâ—â—nomers we have after fol. 139. Where we finde mention of the History of Q. Elizabeth writ by 〈◊〉 whereas 〈◊〉 writ no further then King Henry 8. the rest which follows being clapt to by the publisher of it and possibly may be no other then Camdeâ—s Annals of that Queen in the English Tongue The like I frequently observe in the name of Metallan Metellanus he is called by their Latine Writers whom afterward he rightly calleth by the name of 〈◊〉 fol. 149. Fol. 156. The Leagures with some iustice in Rebellion elect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a degree nearer to the Crown then Navar. Not so but one degree at the least further off the Cardinal of 〈◊〉 called â—harls being the yongest Son of â—harls Duke of 〈◊〉 whereas Henry King of Navar was the onely Son and Heir of Anâ—hoâ—y the eldest Brother So that not oâ—ely the King of Navar but the Princes of the Hâ—use of 〈◊〉 deriv'd from Francis Duke of Anghein the second Brother had the precedency in Title before this 〈◊〉 But being of the Catholick party and of the Royal Hâ—use of Bourbon in which the Rights of the Crown remained and withal a man of great Age and small Abilities he was set up to serve the turn and screen'd the main Plot of the Lâ—aguers from the eyes of the people Fol. 161. Sir Thomas Randolph bred a Civilian was taken from Pembroke Colledge in Oxford Not otherwise to be made good in case he were of that House in Oxford which is now called Pembroke Colledge but by Anticipation Lavinaqueveâ—t Littora as in the like case the Poet has it that which is now called Pembroke Colledge was in those times call'd Broadgates Hâ—ll not changed into a Colledge till the latter end of the Reign of King Iames and then in Honor of William Earl of Pembroke Chancellor of that University and in hope of some endowment from him called Pembroke Colledge Fol. 189. The other Title was of the Iâ—â—ant of Spain In laying down whose several Titles the Author leaves out that which is most material that is to say the direct and lineal Succession of the Kings of Spain from the Lady Katherine Daughter of Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster marryed to Henry the third King of Castile and Mother to King Iohn the second from whom descend the Kings of Castile to this very day Fol. 191. Hawkins Drake Baskervile c. Fiâ—e sâ—ne Towns in the Isle Dominica in the West Indies They fired indeed some Towns in Hispanâ—olâ— and amongst others that of Dominica or St. Domâ—ngo But they attempted nothing on the Isle of Dominica which is one of the Châ—rybes and they had no reason that Island being governed by a King of its own at deadly enmity with the 〈◊〉 anâ— conseqâ—ently more likely to be aydâ—d then annâ—yed by those Sea Adventurers A like mistake we had before in the name of Câ—â—mâ—rdin fol. 157. That party who discovered unto Queen Elizabeth the Estate of the Customs not being named 〈◊〉 but Carwâ—rdin Fol. 229. Sr. Thomas Erskin created Earl of Kelly and by degrees Knight of the Garter Not so Knight of the Garter first by the name of Thomas Viscount Fenton as appeares by the Registers of the Order and then Earl of Kelly Thus afterwards we finde Sr. Iohn Danvers for Sr. Charles Dâ—nvers fol. 238. And Iohn Lord Norris for Sr. Iohn Norris fol. 243. And some mistakes of this nature we finde in the short story of the Earle of Essex in which it is said first that Fol. 233. He was eldest son to Waltar Devereux c. created by Queen Elizabeth Earl of Essex and Ewe Not so but Earl of Essex onely as appears by Camden in his Britannia fol 454. If either he or any of his Descendants have taken to themselves the Tittle of Earl's of Ewe they take it not by vertue of this last Creation but in right of their descent from William Boâ—rchier created Earl of Ewe in Normandy by King Henry the fift and father of Henry Bourchier created Earl of Essex by King Edward the fourth Secondly it is said of Robert Earl of Essex the son of this Walâ—er that in 89. he went Commander in chief in the expedition into Portugal Fol. 233. whereas indeed he went but as a Voluntier in that expedition and had no command And so much our Author hath acknowledged in another place saying that Ambitious of common fame he put himself to Sea and got aboard the Fleet conceiting that their respect to his biâ—th and quâ—liâ—y would receive him their chief but was mistaken in that honouâ— Fol. 155. Thirdly it is said of this
Earl of Essex that he went Deputy into Ireland Fol. 234. Whereas indeed he was not sent over into Ireland with the Title of Deputy but by the more honourable Title of Lord Leviâ—enant having power to create a Lord Deputy under him when his occasions or the the necessities of the state should require his absence Fol. 2â—1 The 26. of February 1â—00 was born the Kings third son and Christnâ—â— Charles at Dunferling The Kings third son and afterwards his Successor in the Crown of England was not born on the 26. of February but on the 19. of Noveâ—â—er as is averred by all others who have written of it and publickly attested by the annual ringing of Bells upon that day in the City of London during the whole time of his pâ—wer and prosperity The like mistake we finde in the tiâ—e and day of the Birth of Queen Elizabeth of whom it is â—â—id Fol. 261. 25. That she gave up the Ghost to Gâ—d oâ— that day of her Birth from whom she had it intimating thaâ— she died on the Eve of the same Lady-day on which she was born But the truth is that she was born on the Eve of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary being the seventh day of September and died on the Eve of the Annuntiation being the 24. of March And so much for the History of the Reign of Queen Mary and King Iames her Son as to the Realm of Scotland onely both of them Crowned as Iames the fift had also been in their tenderest infancy But whereas our Author tells us Fol. 8. that Q Mary 〈◊〉 the kingdom to her son who was born a King I can by no means yeild to that I finde indeed that our Saâ—iour Christ was born King of the Iews and so proclaimed to be by the Angel Gabriel at the very time of his Conception And I have read that Sapores one of the Kings of Persia was not onely born a King but crowned King too before his birth for his Father dying withouâ—â—â—ue as the story saith left his wife with child which child the Magi having signified by their Art to be a Male the Persian Princes caused the Crown and Royal Ornaments to be set upon his Mothers Belly acknowledging him there by for their King and Sovaraign But so it was not with King Iames who was born on the 19 of Iune Anno. 1566. and Crowned King on the 24. of Iuly being the 5. day after his Mothers resignation of the Crown and Government Anno. 1567. ADVERTISEMENTS ON THE REIGN DEATH OF KING IAMES Of GREAT BRITAIN FRANCE and IRELAND the first WE are now come unto the Reign of King Iames as King of England or rather as King of England and Scotland under the notion of Great Britain of whose reception as he passed through Godmanchestâ—r the Historian telleth us that Fol. 270. At Godmanchester in the Counâ—y of Notthamptonshire they presented him with 70 Teem of Horses c. beâ—â—g his Tenants and holding their Land by that Tenure But first Godâ—aâ—chester is not in Northampton but in Huntiâ—gtonshire And secondly Though it be a custom for those in Godmanchâ—ster to shew their Bravery to the Kings of England in that rustical Pomp yet I conceive it not to be the Tenure which they hold their Lands by For Camden who is very punctual in observing Tenures mentions not this as a Tenure but a Custom onely adding withal that they make their boast That they have in former time received the Kings of England as they passed in their progress this way with ninescore Ploughs brought forth in a rustical kinde of Pomp for a gallant shew If onely for a gallant shew or a rustical Pomp then not observed by them as their Tenure or if a Tenure not 〈◊〉 from ninescore to 70. all Tenures being â—ixt not variable at the will of the Tenants Fol. 273. This most honorable Order of the Garter was instituted by King Edward the third c. So far our Author right enough as unto the â—ounder and rigâ—â— enough as to the time of the institution which he placeth in the year 1350. But whereas he telleth us withal that this Order was founded by King Edward the third 〈◊〉 John of France and King James of Scotland being then Prisâ—ners in the Tower of London and King Henry of Castile the Bastard expulst and Don Pedro restored by the Prince of Wales called the Black Prince in that he is very much mistaken For first It was David King of the Scots not Iames who had been taken Prisoner by this Kings Forces there being no Iames King of the Scots in above fifty years after Secondly Iohn of France was not taken Prisoner till the year 1356. nor Henry of Castile expulsed by the Prince of Wales till ten years after Anno 1366. By consequence neither of those two great Actions could precede the Order But worse is he mistaken in the Patron Saint of whom he tells us that Fol. 273. Among sundry men of valor in ancient days was Geo. born at Coventry in England c. This with the rest that follows touching the Actions and Atchievements of Sir George of Coventry is borrowed from no better Author then the doughty History of the Seven Châ—mpions of Christendom of all that trade in Knighthood-errant the most empty Bable â—But had our Author look'd so high as the Records of the Order the titles of Honor writ by Selden the Catalogue of Honor publisht by Mills of Canterbury Camdens Britannia or any other less knowing Antiquary he might have found that this most noble Order was not dedicated to that fabulous Knight Sâ—â— George of Coventry but to the famous Saint and Soldier of Christ Jesus St. George of Cappadocia A Saint so universally received in all parts of Christendom so generally attested to by the Ecclesiastical Writers of all Ages from the time of his Martyrdom till this day that no one Saint in all the Calender those mentioned in the holy Scriptures excepted onely can be better evidenced Nor doth he finde in Matthew Parts that St. George fought in the air at Antioch in behalf of the English the English having at that time no such iâ—â—eress in him but that he was thought to have been seen figâ—ting in behalf of the Christians Fol. 275. Earldoms without any place are likewise of two kindes either in respect of Office as Earl-Morshal of England or by Birth and so are all the Kings Sons In the Authority and truth of this I am much unsatisfied as never having met with any such thing in the course of my reading and I behold it as a diminution to the Sons of Kings to be born but Earls whereby they are put in an equal rank with the eldest sons of Dukes in England who commonly have the Title of their Fathers Earldoms since it is plain they are born Princes which is the highest civil Dignity next to that of Kings It was indeed usual with the Kings of England to bestow upon
King as our Authour words is it gave the King occasion to consider of the generall tendency of the Puritan doctrine in this point unto downright Iudâ—â—sme and thereupon to quicken the reviving of his Fathers Declaration about Lawfull sports in which the signification of his pleasure beareth date the 18. of October in the 9. year of his Reign Anno 1633. A remedy which had been prescribed unseasonably to prevent and perhaps too late to cure the disease if Bradburns Book had been publisht six years before as our Authour makes 〈◊〉 Our Authour secondly relating this very businesse of Bradburnes Book or rather of Barbarous Books as he cals them there fol. 196. must either be confest to speak Vngrammatically or else the coming out of these Barbarous Books must be one chief motive for setting out that Declaration by King Iames Anno. 1618. Thirdly This Bradbuâ—u was not made a Convert by the High Commission Couâ—t bâ—t by a private conference with some Learned Divines to which he had submitted himself and which by Gods blessing so far prevailed with him that he became a Converts and freely conformed himself to the Orthodoxall Doctrine of the Church of England both concerning the Sabbath day and likewise concerning the Lords day So Bishop White relates the Story in his Epistle Dedicatory before his Book to the Aâ—ch-Bishop of Canterbury Anno 1635. Fourthly Whereas our Authour tels us fol. 175. That the Declaration was not 〈◊〉 on the Ministers to publish more proper for a Lay-Officer or a Constable I must needs grant that the publishing of this Declaration was not prest on the Minister by any expresse command of the King But then I would fain know withall how the Bishops could take Order that publication thereof be made in all the Parish Churches of their severall Diocesses according to his 〈◊〉 will and pleasure but by the mouth of the Ministers The Constable and other Lay-Officers whom our Authour thinks more proper for that Employment were not under the Bishopâ— command as to that particular and therefore as he â—ad nâ— Authority so he had no reason to require any such duty from them And as for the Church-Wardens which are more liable to the power and command of the Oâ—dinary it happeneth many times especially in Countrey-Villages that they cannot reade and theâ—efore no such publication of the Kings pleasure to be laid on them The Ministers who had takeâ— an Oath oâ— Canonicall Oâ—edience to their severall and respective Bishops must consequently bâ— the fittest men for that Employment implicitly intended though not explicitly named in the Declaration As many mistakes there are concerning the decay and repair of S. Pauls Church in London For first the high Spire was not burnt down by accident of Lightning in the time of Queen Elizâ—beth as our Authour tels us fol. 176. That vulgar Errour hath been confuted long agoe and no such thing as the burning of Pauls Steeple by Lightning hath for these twenty years and more occurred in the Chronologies of our common Almanacks that dreadfull accident not happening by the hand of Hâ—aven but by the negligence of a Plumber who leaving his pan of Coals there when he went to Dinner was the sole occasion of that mischief Secondly The Commission for the Repair of this Church issued in the time of King Charles came not out in the year 1632. where our Authour placeth it but had past the Seal and was published in Print the year before Anno 1631. Thirdly The Reparation of the Church began not at the West end as our Authour tels us fol. 177. the Quire or Eastern part of the Church being fully finisht before the Western part or the main body of the Chuâ—ch had been undertaken Fourthly The little Church called S. Gregories was not willingly taken down to the ground the Parishioners opposing it very strongly and declaring as much unwillingnesse as they could or durst in that particular and fiftly the Lord Mayor for the time then being was not named Sir Robert 〈◊〉 as our Authour makes it but Sir Robert Ducy advanc'd by â—is â—ajesty to the dâ—gree of a Baronet as by the Commission doth appear so many mistakes in so few linâ—â— are not easily met with in any Author but our present Histâ—â—rian But we proceed Fol. 179. â—he Turkâ— hâ—ve Auxiliâ—ry friendâ—hip of the 〈◊〉 Tartar Chrim from whose Ancestors Tamberlain proceeded â— A Proposition strangely mixt of truth and falshood it being most true that the Turks have Auxiliary Forces from the Tartar Chrim and no less false that Tamberlain dâ—â—cended from him All who have written of that great Prince make him the son of Og or Zain-Cham the Cham of Zagathey a Province some thousands of miles distant from the dwellings of the Tartar-Chrim which Og or Zâ—in-Châ—m was the Grand-childe of another Zâ—in-Cham the third great Cham of the Tartars and he the Grand-childe of Cingis the first great Cham who laid the foundation of that mighty and for a time most terrible Empire Whereas the Chrim-Tartar or the Tartar-Chrim as our Authâ—r calls him derives 〈◊〉 from Lochtan-Cham descended from one Bathu or Roydo a great Commander of the Tartars who during the Reign of Hoccata the second great Cham subdued these Countries But this mistake I shall more easily pardon in our Author then another of like nature touching Vladislaus King of Poland of whom he tells us that being the fâ—urth of that name he succeeded his Brother Sigismund in that Kingdom Vladislaus the fâ—â—rth saith he was after the death of his Brother Sigismund by the consent of the States preferred to the â—hroâ—e fol. 182. In which few words there are two things to be corrected For first Vlâ—dislâ—us who succeeded Sigâ—smund was not his Brother but his Son And secondly he succeeded not by the name of Vladislaus the fourth but of Vladâ—slâ—us the sevenâ—h Adde herein his making of Smolensko a Town of Pâ—land ibâ—d which most of our Geograpâ—ers have placed in Râ—ssia A Town whâ—ch sometime by the chance of War or otherwise hâ—th been in possession of the Pole though properly belonging to the great Duke of Muscovy which can no more entitle it to the name of a Polish Town then Calice may be now said to be an English Colony because once a Colony of the English Nor does our Author speâ—k more properly I will not say more understandingly of the Affairs of Ireland then of those of Poland For first He tells us fol. 185. That the Conquest of it was never perfected till its subjection to King Charls whereas there was no other subjection tendred by that People to King Charls then by those of his other two Kingdoms of England and Scotland Secondly Forgetting what he had said before he tells us fol. 186. That Mountâ—oy made an end of that War in the Reign of King James and yet he says not true in that neither â—or the War was ended by Mountjoy at the Battle of Kingsale by which that great Rebel the Earl
men set on John Scot Director of the Chancery a busie person to inform against his Descent In the story of this Earl not only as to his Original and descent but as to his being Earl of Menteith our Authour is not to be faulted but on the other side not to be justified in making him to be Earl of Strathern by the power of Buckingham that Duke being dead some years before though by his power made Lord President of the Council for the Realm of Scotland Therefore to set this matter right and to adde something to our Authour that may not be unworthy of the Readers knowledge I am to let him understand that after the death of David Earl of Strathern second Son to King Robert the third this Title lay dormant in the Crown and was denied to the Lord Dromond created afterwards Earl of Perth when a Suitor for it But this Gentleman Sir William Graham Earl of Menteith descended from an Heir General of that David a man of sound abilities and approved affections was by the King made Lord President of the Councill of Scotland as before is said In which place he so behaved himself and stood so stoutly in behalf of the King his Master upon all occasions that nothing could be done for advance of Hamiltons designs till he was removed from that place In order whereunto it was put into his head by some of that Faction that he should sue unto the King to be created Earl of Strathern as the first and most honourable Title which belonged to his House that his merits were so great as to assure him not to meet with a deniall and that the King could do no lesse then to give him some nominall reward for his reall services On these suggestions he repaired unto the Court of England where without any great difficulty he obtained his Suit and waited on the King the most part of his Summers progresse no man being so openly honoured and courted by the Scottish Nation as he seemed to be But no sooner was he gone for Scotland but the Hamiltonians terrified the King with the dangers which he had run into by that Creation whereby he had revived in that proud and ambitious person the Rights which his Ancestors pretended to the Crown of Scotland as being derived from David Earl of Strathern before mentioned the second Son of Robert the Second by his lawfull Wife that the King could not chuse but see how generally the Scots slockt about him after this Creation when he was at the Court and would do so much more when he was in Scotland And finally that the proud man had already so farre declared himself as to give it ouâ— that the King held the Crown of him Hereupon a Commission was speedily posted into Scotland in which those of Hamiltons Faction made the greatest Number to enquire into his life and actions and to consider of the inconveniences which might redound unto the King by his affecting this New Title On the Return whereof the poor Gentleman is removed from his Office from being one of the Privy Council and not only deprived of the Title of Earl of Strathern but of that also of Menteith which for a long time had remained in his Ancestors And though he was not long after made Earl of Airth yet this great fall did so discourage him from all publike businesses that he retired to his own house and left the way open to the Hamiltonians to play their own game as they listed Faithfull for all this to the King in all changes of Fortune neither adhering to the Covenanters nor giving the least countenance to them when he might not only have done it with safety but with many personal advantages which were tendered to him Fol. 238. The Marquesse now findes this place too hot for him and removes to Dalkieth without any adventuring upon the English Divine Service formerly continuâ—lly used there for twenty years in audience of the Council Nobility and Iudges Compare this passage with another and we shall finde that our Authour hath mis-reckoned no lesse then fifteen years in twenty For in the year 1633. he puts this down after the Kings return from Scotland agreeable to the truth of story in that particular What care saith he King Iames took heretofore to rectifie Religious worship in Scotland when he returned from his last visiting of them the like does King Charles so soon as he came home The â—oul undecent Discipline he seeks to reform into sacred worship and sends Articles of order to be observed only by the Dean of his private Chappell there as in England That Prayers be performed twice a day in the English manner A monethly Communion to be received on their knees He that officiates on Sunday and Holydaies to do his duty in his Surplice No publick reading of the English Liturgy in Scotland since the year 1562. but only during the short time of King Iames his being there Anno 1617. therefore not read continually twenty years together as our Authour states it But twenty years is nothing in our Authours Arithmetick For telling us that the sufferers viz. Dr. Bastwick Mr. Prinne and M. Burton obtained an order for satisfaction to be made them out of the Estates of those who imposed their punishments that none of those Judges being left but Sir Henry Vane the Elder it was ordered that satisfaction should be given by him to one of their Widows and thereupon it was observed for a blessed time when a single Counsellour of State after twenty years opinion should be sentenced by Parliament to give satisâ—action for a mis-judgement acted by a body of Counsell fol. 867. But the punishment inflicted on those sufferers was in the year 1637. and this order made about eight years after Anno 1645. being but twelve years short of our Authours twenty which is no great matter Fol. 282. As for Sir John Finch Chief Iustice of the Common Pleas who succeeded him in the place of the Lord Keeper he could not hold out so many moneths as he did years from being in hazard to have forfeited his head But first this Gentleman was somewhat more then Sir Iohn Finch he being created Lord Finch of Forditch in the beginning of the April before Secondly If he were in any hazard it was not for any thing he had done in the place of Lord Keeper but only for his zeal to the Kings service in the case of Ship money or to his actings under the Earl of Holland in Forrest businesses before he came unâ—o that place neither of which could have extended to the losse of his head though he thought not fit to trust that head to such mercilesse Judges With like prudence did Sir Francis Windebank principal Secretary of Estate withdraw into France of whom our Author telleth us That he remained there to his death a profest Roman Catholick fol. 338. But first Sir Francis Windebank remained not there until his death for he came
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