Hist. Libr. vol. 1. creatures of the crown. To this I answer, there is a salvo for English the king's honour premised to this remark; and after this due ibid. regard, what crime is it to show, a prince, or rather his minis- Eccles. Hist. ters, may be mistaken in point of history? Who ever heard p. 547. of an infallible king? And where the mistake is not a little unserviceable to the Christian religion, I conceive an historian obliged to discover it; and that his majesty was misinformed about matter of fact, is made good from several instances of undeniable authority. This learned prelate having done with my first volume, passes on to the second. Id. vol. 1. p. 548. Hist. Libr. And here he begins his complaint, that Luther and Calvin, Knox and Fox, are charged with mistakes and misbehaviour; and that Luther is represented as one upon the verge of distraction. But these are bishop Nicholson's words, not mine. English And as for this German divine's "raising civil disturbances in p. 117, 118. the empire, breaking the chains of the canon law, and going too great a length towards the other extreme," there is nothing delivered as my own opinion; I only report what king Henry VIII. and Thomas Muncer lay to his charge. It is Eccles. Hist. vol. 2. p. 21, true, I blamed Luther for great indecencies, and failing extra- 22. vagantly in the regards due to a crowned head; but this was no more than the case required. This reformer afterwards recollected himself, asked the king's pardon, and offered a recantation. And would this reverend prelate have had these Ibid. material passages suppressed? reparation to the king's honour vol. 2. p. 21. unrelated? and Luther's repentance concealed? Eccles. Hist. Calvin, not to mention his outraging our queen Mary, and calling her Proserpine, held a correspondence with that incendiary Knox, caresses his insults of the government, and congratulates his success. Beza closes with Knox in the same Calvin, principle, writes with equal warmth, and pushes the suppressing episcopacy in a bitter strain. It is true queen Elizabeth supported the Scots against their sovereign, and assisted in some of these commotions; but then she was a young princess, and advised to these early hostilities by her council. They told her, the sending troops against the queen of Scots was no more than self-defence; that the landing forces at Leith had made that side the aggressors; that the French designed the conquest of the island; and that our Epist. 285. Beza, Epist. 79. queen had no way to preserve her dominions, but by being Bp. Burnet's aforehand. Hist. Ref. pt. 3. Records, book 6. num. 54. Whether the politics were overstrained in this advice,— whether these precautions were justifiable or not, is more than I shall determine; however, at the worst, they were not without face and colour. But what authority could Knox draw from this foreign precedent? What pretence had this divine to preach up an insurrection? to lead on the people to the last Spotswood. disorders of ravage, plunder, and sacrilege? Those who know the Scottish constitution, and read their acts of parliament, will find such sallies as those plainly unwarrantable. In fine, false principles, short learning, flaming heat, and extravagant assurance, are part of Knox's character; and I am sorry matter of fact will make it no better. As for Fox, his temper is somewhat better governed, and I am willing to believe him a man of probity. What he cites from registers and records, I find no reason to question; but then, as bishop Burnet observes, he might be too credulous in Bp. Burnet's writing such things as were brought him by report. However, pt. 3. Aphe was not a person of the deepest penetration. The rough pend. 394. usage himself and his friends met with under queen Mary, Hist. Ref. seems to have soured his humour, and given him a bias; thus his zeal sometimes gets the better of his judgment, and transports him to indefensible conduct. To sum up this matter in a word or two; upon Luther I shall observe nothing farther, but as to Calvin and the rest, their reputation has not been serviceable in some respects: neither have their writings had any kind effect upon the repose of Christendom. What harm is it then to report their failings, and prevent their doing mischief after they are dead? These reformers being right in many things, and men of a raised character, makes their authority the more dangerous when they miscarry. Why then should their memory be privileged from censure where they deserve it? Why should practical errors and unprimitive conduct lie covered and concealed? No benevolent spirit in the other world will thank an author for such ceremony as this. Unless I am much mistaken, it is the business of an historian to mark popular mistakes, to keep his reader from being surprized with names of credit, and swallowing diet and poison together. Unless the rocks and sands are discovered, the ships which sail that way may possibly strike and be lost. vol. 2. 12. To proceed. King Charles II. has a short commendation, though not without some alloy. But even this is disrelished by Eccles. Hist. the reverend prelate. He seems unwilling a good word should p. 904. be given this prince's memory; and yet it cannot be denied, Hist. Libr. English the three nations flourished through his reign, and were left in p. 118. peace and plenty. But he takes check at my saying, “this king died with the faction at his feet." With submission, a discontented party, that gave broad signs of arresting the government, and rising upon the laws, may fairly be called a faction: and these were the people his majesty had reduced at his death; but how long they lay afterwards in this disabled posture, and whether they recovered or not, was beyond my period to examine. This reverend prelate's last observation is surprizing beyond the rest. "What views soever," says he, "the author might have at his first setting out, it is manifest that in this second volume his business is to compromise differences between the Churches of England and Rome, and to establish (on the authority of our two universities) a fundamental hereditary right of succession to the crown, supported by passive obedience and non-resistance." English In answer to compromising differences between the Churches p. 118. of England and Rome, I need add nothing more than what has been already offered on this head. vol. 2. As for passive obedience, as the constitution stood then, I think there is somewhat more produced than the authority of the universities. But as to hereditary right, &c. there is Eccles. Hist. nothing established, nor any opinion interposed. And though p. 903. I thought it the business of an historian to give the reader Marg. what passed upon critical occasions, and report the judgment of others, I have endeavoured to stand clear of politics myself: and thus I have omitted a detail of some occurrences, on purpose to decline state-controversy, and prevent misconstruction. Besides, non-resistance is no incommunicable privilege, not proprium quarto modo to hereditary title: elective monarchies, and commonwealths, may bind the subject as close as this comes to. The Roman empire was elective, and yet the lex regia made the prince absolute; neither do we find any reservations for the people to redress their grievances by force. And Thuan. Count Teck Math. Paris. I believe it would be some difficulty to produce a legal warrant in the government of Venice or Holland, for the subjects to levy an army, and call the magistracy to an account. I confess I never heard of any express liberty, and public provision, made for this purpose, unless in the charters of Andrew II. king of Hungary, and John king of England. And in this ley's Life. latter instrument there was a clause of security for the crown 1st. The barons were not to hurt the king's person, or any of his children. And, 2dly. When they had made themselves reparation for what had been suffered, they were to return to their allegiance as before. Thus we see passive obedience may be claimed by every species of government, and therefore can be no peculiar support to hereditary right. And why the first should be charged as a principle to establish the latter, is not easily accounted for. I cannot forbear saying, the tacking these two together for such significant service, is extraordinary justice! And that the force and friendliness of all his observations are equally remarkable. POSTSCRIPT. April 2, 1715. By the favour of a gentleman uncommonly well furnished with curiosities of the press, I have at last gotten a sight of the Ordinal, printed anno 1549. Upon perusal, I find the Bible laid on the bishop's neck, the pastoral staff put in his hand, and the chalice with bread in it, for the priest, some of the consecrating and ordaining ceremonies. ANOTHER General Church History of England is lately published by Mr. Collier, in two volumes, and in both these the critical reader will be apt to observe some special respects occasionally paid to the bishops and see of Rome. In the former Fol. Lond. * 1708. of them, W. Prynne's voluminous proofs of the supremacy of our kings, are shown to have no strength, and that his own records demonstrate that those princes acknowledged that all their power in spirituals was derived from papal concessions. We are indeed desired to take notice, that this dispute is only with Mr. Prynne, and therefore we must (in this place) so understand the author, as if he had not any design to state the extent of the regale in the following parts of the work. There are several passages which can hardly admit of so fair an apology. He insinuates that most of the modern erroneous doctrines of the Roman Church (even that of purgatory) were maintained here in the Saxon times; that archbishop Anselm's behaviour to W. Rufus, in the case of pope Urban, was on the right side of the question, and becoming a prelate of his fervent zeal and invincible courage; that Becket's conduct towards Henry II. was also innocent, as to any practice against the crown, the man having acted all along upon a principle of sincerity; that Edward III.'s letter to the pope (concerning provisions) misrepresents matter of fact, since, under the Saxon heptarchy, the English bishops were not (as is there asserted) creatures of the crown, &c. This volume ends with the death of Henry VII. The second begins with the reign of Henry + Fol.Lond. VIII., and ends with the death of king Charles II. The Reformation, he observes, wrought so great a change in the faith 1714. |