Page images
PDF
EPUB

was

very weak and hasty pamphlet), and a second Fair Warning in reply, by the Rev. Richard Watson; and the three were again published together in London in 1662', and Bramhall's tract separately also about the same time, and it had likewise been translated into Dutch in 1649". It is here reprinted from the two original editions, which serve to correct one another. The second Discourse, Serpent-Salve, is of earlier date, being Bramhall's first publication. It was originally printed either at York or Newcastle (for there is no place named in the title-page), in 1643', anonymously, whilst Bramhall was with the Marquis (then Earl) of Newcastle and his army, about a year previously to the unfortunate battle of Marston Moor); upon the publication of a Parliamentarian tract, which excited considerable attention at the time, although it was in truth little more than a rechauffée of the more extreme topics of the Parliamentary Declarations and Remonstrances up to the date of its appearance; viz., Observations upon some of His Majesty's late Papers and Expresses (by Henry Parker, but anonymous), printed in 1642 (see below

e This tract written imme- (of the present volume), of which I diately upon the publication of Bail- suppose there must be an earlier edi. lie's, but its publication was delayed tion; unless the date is an anticipation. until 1651, through the influence of That Bramhall had certainly published the Prince of Orange. See the Life of his book before March 20, 1643-4, see Baillie in the new edition of his Let- above in vol. i. p. xxxi. note c; the ters, &c., p. lxii.; and the Append. text to which must be corrected by the num. II., pp. xcvi. xcvii.

present note. So says White Kennett, Register, į July 2, 1644. Bramhall quit

ted Ireland before Aug. 1642, at which & See above in vol. i. p. xxx. note a.

time motion was made by the h See the letter of Baillie to Voetius Irish House of Lords to the Commons quoted in note b above.

for the withdrawal of the charge of The date in the title-page of the treason against him, but in vain original edition is 1643 ; and as (Carte, Life of the Duke of Ormonde, rather long discussion occurs in the vol. i. p. 372); and joined the Earl of latter part of the book (below pp. 436- Newcastle before January 1642-3, as 454) concerning Sir John Hotham's he preached a funeral sermon in York conduct in shutting the king out of Cathedral for Mr. Slingsby, Lord Hull in April, 1642, in which there Stratford's secretary, who was slain in occurs no allusion whatever to the de- a skirmish in the civil war at Giscapitation of that unhappy politician borough on the 15th of that month by the Parliament, or even his arrest, (Rushw., vol. v. p. 774 ; and see which last occurred June 29, 1643, the Whitelocke's Memor., p. 63). greater part of the book must have been Feb. 2, also, of the same year, there at least written, if not printed, before the appeared a Declaration of the Right last-named date. The same conclusion Honble. the Earle of Newcastle his would follow from the fact, that in the Excellency,” &c., “in answer to six same part of the book (helow p. 451) groundless aspersions cast upon him some dates in July 1642 are given by the Lord Fairefax in his late warwith the day of the month only. A rant” (in Rushw., vol. vi. pp. 133— book bearing the date of 1644 in its 141), which is manifestly Bramhall's title-page is quoted in p. 473, note k composition.

p. 571.

а

a

On

p. 313, note a). This tract has been also reprinted from the original edition, that of 1643. Of the third Discourse, the Vindication of (Bramhall) himself and the Episcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian charge of Popery, against Baxter, reprinted here from the first and only separate) edition of it in 1672 (after the author's death), an account will be found below in p. 503, note b, and in vol. i. p. xxxi. A very foolish and violent preface was prefixed to it by Dr. Samuel Parker (by whom it was published), which called forth the satirical powers of the celebrated Andrew Marvell*; who, however, treats the author with due respect, notwithstanding his contemptuous indignation against the Prefacer.

It remains to say a few words upon the subject of the first tract in the volume, on which considerable pains have been bestowed, in collecting such evidence as exists relative to the points therein treated. The principal purpose of this tract is to establish the fact of the consecration of Archbishop Parker, and the other English Bishops, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, A.D. 1559—1561, according to King Edward's Ordinal, in opposition to the absurd fiction of their mock consecration at the Nag's Head in 1559; a subject, it is true, admitting of so little doubt, that it might seem superfluous to add a word to the treatise itself, and to those of Courayer' and others upon the same subject, did it not appear from the publications mentioned below”, that some Romanists are still willing to burden their cause by adopting or defending an exploded fable. As the case stands, I may be permitted to say, that the result of a tolerably minute examination of the evidence upon the subject, is in few words this :--that if any one is disposed to question the truth of the account given in the Lambeth Register, he must be prepared to assert the forgery, not only of that Register itself,—and the first volume of Archbishop Parker's Register, which is the volume in question, consists of 411 pages, containing a mass of circumstantial entries upon a great variety of subjects",—but of the Registers also of the several

The Rehearsal Transprosed, or, employed it. That he was misled or Animadversions on a late Book en- mistaken in some though very few intitled a Preface, &c., &c., printed by stances (see e. g. below p. 35, note d), A. B, for the Assigns of John Calvin is not to be wondered at, but I have and Theodore Beza, &c., Lond. 1672. noticed but one instance in which he -in Marvell's Works, vol. ii. pp. 15– has (although obviously without in30. 4to. Lond. 1777,- Baxter does not tending it) misrepresented an authostand alone in his accusation of Bram- rity ; viz. where, in printing extracts hall. In a letter of Baillie to James from the endorsements upon two writs Sharp, April 16, 1660 (Letters &c., of summons, to the Parliaments of vol. iii. p. 400), it is observed, that 1536 and 1541, in Rymer from the “the leaders of the Episcopal party," Rolls, in which “T. Menev." has been and among others “ Dr. Bramble," are erroneously written for “W. Menev.," “most expresse and bitter for all Ar- he in his original treatise omitted the minianisme, for the farre most of Popery, erroneous letter altogether; see below as much as Grotius maintains."

at the end of this Preface, note t, and 1 I have had occasion to go over the p. 142, note 0, and Couray., Diss. same ground as Courayer, so far as Pr. Just. art. vii. 9 3, 4, Déf. de la the question of fact is concerned, and Diss., Pr. Justif. art. xvii. num. 2; to consult a large portion (although and I have failed in tracing only one not the whole) of the original docu- document quoted by him ; viz. one ments from which he has quoted; and which he describes as, I am able to vouch for the extent and tum Veterum Statutorum et Ordinageneral accuracy of his information, tionum Curiæ Metrop. Cantuar. de and for the honesty with which he has Archubus London, una cum rescriptis

“ Transsump

In re

et constitutionibus plurium Archiepi. he repeated his assertion of Parker's scoporum Cantuar. super contingentibus actual consecration as recorded in the in eâdem curiâ, &c., from Abp. Win- Register, and proved it at length by chelsea in 1294, to Abp. Parker. See very indisputable arguments. below p. 85, note f, $ 8, and Couray., Déf. ference to the subject of the same note, de la Diss., liv. iii. c. 1. $ 4.-It would and to the question generally, how far have been astonishing, indeed, with Anglican ordinations have been acsuch resources at his disposal as Abp. knowledged or condemned by RomanWake could command (and among ists (see below p. 114. noteg), another authose who aided him through the thority has been kindly pointed out to me Archbishop was the antiquary Thos. in addition to those quoted in the notes Baker, as appears by a MS. note in the just cited ; that of Cardinal de Noailles, latter's handwriting at the end of vol. ii. who expressly waved the point of the of his copy of Courayer's book, now in validity or invalidity of our orders, St. John's Coll. library at Cambridge), when passing sentence upon Courayer if his information had not been both in 1727: see the quotations from the accurate and extensive.

documents themselves in Courayer's m The Validity of Anglican Ordina- Relation des Sentimens et de la Contions Examined, or, a Review of certain duite du P. le Courayer, c. xiv. pp. Facts regarding the Consecration of 269, 270. 8vo. Amst. 1729. Matthew Parker, first Protestant Arch- That the introductory pages of the bishop of Canterbury, by the Very Register, containing the entry of ParRev. Peter Richard Kenrick, V. G., ker's Consecration (and still more the Philadelph. 1841, 8vo. ;-a very poor following pages to page 92, containing prod

tion, whether for facts or argu- those of the other Bishops involved in ments, but far superior to a miserable the Nag's Head story), are necessarily pamphlet, borrowed in part from it, by an original portion of the entire volume, the Rev. H. Smith, entitled, The Or- so that the two must stand or fall todination of the Ministers of the Esta- gether, see below pp. 173, 174, note a. I blished Church exainined upon Pro- may here add to the circumstantial evitestant principles and Protestant testi- dence, corroborative of the genuineness monies, and found to be merely a Com- of these pages in themselves, which mission from the Crown without any is given in the notes below to pp. 173 right or title to Apostolical succession, -210,-i. that Anthony Huse (p. 175, published in London, 1841. It appears note c), therein mentioned as the Archfrom the former (c. ix, pp. 114-118), bishop's Registrar, and therefore prothat Dr. Lingard was called upon by bably a civil lawyer, was “ President a correspondent of the “ Birmingham of the King's Majesty's principal Catholic Magazine” to prove his state- Court of the Admiralty," temp. Edw. ment relative to the Nag's Head fable VI. (he died in 1560), as appears by (see below p. 40, note f); upon which two letters in the State Paper Office he addressed a letter to that Magazine (Lord Lisle to the Council, Aug. 1, in 1834, reprinted in Kenrick, wherein 1545, on soine bus ness relative to that

Sees and Chapters throughout the kingdom for the period referred to (so far as they are preserved or as it has been found possible to consult them)°,—of many pages of entries in the Registers of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury,-of thirty or forty documents in the Rollsp—of a mass of concourt, and Anthony Huse himself to indulgence for errors, many of which I Sir W. Paget and Sir W. Petre, the fear must have escaped notice among two Secretaries of State, Aug. 4, 1545), such a number of figures and petty de-ii. that Dean Wotton (for whom tails as are requisite to make out a case see Dugdale's Baronage, vol. iii. p. like the present; and of adding, that 413) dates two letters to Cecil, Aug. wherever a discrepancy has been de18 and 19, 1559, from London and tected between printed authorities Hampton Court respectively (also in among themselves or as compared with State Paper Office), which, with the original documents, I have always inevidence in p. 187. note m below, prove tended and I believe generally rememhim (after having returned to England bered to notice it. The following have from France in June only) to have been omitted :p. 222. num. xii. col. certainly been so near as London in the iii. ; for Dec. 27, the date in Rymer and interval between his two appearances in Parker's Register, Browne Willis at Canterbury (accord. to the Register), gives Dec. 26 ;-p. 227. num. xxii. col. Aug. (below p. 182, 1, 3), and Aug. iv.; according to Drake, Ebor., p. 454, 31 (below p. 186, 1. 7, from the bottom Young was elected to the see of York of the page).—1 may mention also, Feb. 3, 1560 ;-p. 232. See of Bristol ; that Browne in his sermon (see p. 210, for Dec. 8, 1558, the date in the orinote a), p. 57. margin, speaks of the ginal Register, Wharton (Specimen, “ originale Inthronizationis instrumen p. 156) gives Dec. 18. It may seem over tum” of Abp. Parker (see below pp. minute to notice obvious mistakes or 210, note c, and 216), as then (in 1687) misprints; but the truth is, that ninepreserved “in Bibliothecâ Coll. C.C., tenths of the reasoning (so to call it) a tergo inscriptam habens hanc vocem of Le Quien and others in defence of INSTALLATION Archiepiscopi ip their case, relies upon nothing else but sius manu." I could not however find the misprints and mistakes of Stow, it there, nor is it mentioned in Nas Godwin, and others. mith's Catalogue of Parker's MSS. in p With reference to these documents, C. C. C. library.

I am assured upon the highest authority The Registers, both of the Bishop on the subject, Sir Francis Palgrave's, and of the Chapter, at Winchester, Ex that the circumstance of the words "per eter, and Lincoln, and the Episcopal ipsam Reginam," &c., being added or Registers at London, have been con not to a document as entered upon the sulted for me ;--those of Ely, Bangor, Rolls (a point upon which halt of Mr. St. Asaph, St. David's (and I believe Kenrick's arguments are built) is a York, Durham, Chester, and Carlisle), mere matter of official form, which are no longer in existence for the pre makes no manner of difference in the cise period required ;--those of Salis validity of the document;" and consebury, Chichester, Hereford, and Wor quently is no evidence for or against cester, were consulted for Courayer, its genuineness.— The letter of Sir N. from whom I have taken my informa Bacon to Abp. Parker, in reference to tion respecting them; and a few iso one of these writs, viz. the first siglated facts relating to the other sees, have nificavit for the latter's confirmation been borrowed from different printed and consecration to the see of Cantersources, county histories, and books of bury, which is referred to in p. 179. the kind. The information from the note p, and preserved in C.C.C. library, Norwich Registers for the period, Cambridge, is verbatim et literatim as which do not now exist, is supplied by follows: "I send y' grace ye Royall Blomefield in his Hist. of Norfolk : Assent sealyd and delyveryd wiin” and other facts have been gathered (within] “to howrs afir ye reseypt from Wharton, Browne Willis, God theroff wysshyng unto you as good win (in Richardson's edition), New success therin as eu' happyd to eny ye court, and Le Neve. I must take this have receyvyd ye lyke and as to ye opportunity of requesting the reader's p’longyng of my retn y' fares by me as

temporary letters and other documents preserved in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, with the existence of which Mason, an Oxonian (who is the person accused, most absurdly, of forging the Register in 1613), was unacquainted, -of other also contemporary documents preserved in the State Paper Office, likewise unknown to Mason, -of others (which are by themselves enough to prove the case) preserved at Zurich, and unknown in England until 1685, seventy-two years after Mason's book was published, --of Archbishop Parker's book De Antiquitate Britannicæ Ecclesiæ as privately printed by him in 1572, a work, of which twenty-two copies were known to exist (out of fifty originally printed) in 17249,-of a Puritan translation of a Life of Parker (the original of which is in C.C.C. library, Cambridge), containing a table of the consecrations in question, according mainly with the Register", and printed in 1574, of which several copies exist,-of pp. 1490, 1491, in the middle of vol. iii. of Holinshead's Chronicle as first published in 1586,-and, lastly, of at least three other printed authorities, prior to 1613 (see below pp. 97-101. notes k, m, u);-all of which evidences are independent of each other, bear no signs whatever of want of genuineness, and tally to a very minute degree of accuracy :—and he must be prepared to do this, upon the testimony of two, or at the most three, obscure controversialists, the earliest forty-four years after the event, writing in foreign countries, and avowedly upon mere hearsay, whose evidence is in itself rendered absolutely unworthy of credit by the undisguised virulence and palpable ignorance of the writings in which it

it doothe by ye byrd ye hathe skapyd period of twenty days, without the out of ye cage, whch tastyng ye sweit. possibility of cavil, as granted by the nes of lyberte neu' returnes unforcyd. statute (25 Hen. VIII. c. 20), for the Thus we thanks for yo? lett' I leaue eny Bishops to whom the writ was addressed further to tro’le yo" fro. Redgre 7th to comply with it. Septembre 1559 by-yo' graces as- See below p. 11. note c; and a surydly N. Bacon.” in C.C.C.C. MS. note in the handwriting of Thomas MSS. vol. 114. p. 125. The writ itself Baker, the Antiquary, at the foot of p. also is dated from Redgrave (see be- cxix. tom. iv. of his copy of Courayer's low pp. 72, 73), where Queen Elizabeth Déf. de la Diss. (now in St. John's appears to have been paying a visit to Coll. library, Cambridge), as an addi. Bacon, and on Sept. 9, i. e. two days tion to Drake's list of owners of copies after the above letter; it was therefore of the De Ant. B. E. ed. 1572 ; thuspost-dated by that period; which was not “ 22. Sir Tho. Coke, noted thus in marg : at all an improbable step under the cir- ex dono Joh: Parker Militis. Edw. Coke." cumstances, in order to allow the full r See below p. 229. note f.

« PreviousContinue »