THE

HISTORY

OF

ENGLAND.

Written in FRENCH by

M. RAPIN DE THOYRAS.

Tranflated into ENGLISH, with Additional Notes, by
N. TINDA L, M. A.
Rector of ALVERSTOKE, in HAMPSHIRE, and
Chaplain of the Royal Hofpital at GREENWICH.

ILLUSTRATED WITH

MAPS, GENEALOGICAL TABLES, and the HEADS
and MONUMENTS of the KINGS.

The FOURTH EDITIO N, corrected.

VOL. IX.

LONDON:

Printed, by Affignment from Mr. KNAPTON, for

T. OSBORNE and J. SHIPTON, J. HODGES, J. ROBINSON,
H. WOODFALL, W. STRAHAN, J. RIVINGTON, J. WARD,
R. BALDWIN, W. OWEN, W. JOHNSTON, J. RICHARDSON,
P. DAVEY and B. LAW, T. LONGMAN, T. CASLON, S. CROW
DER and H. WOODGATE, M. COOPER, and C, WARE,

MDCCLVII,

Continuation of the Reign of CHARLES I. from 1636 to 1640. with the proceedings against the earl of BRISTOL.

W

1636.

HILST endeavours were ufing in England to CharlesI. carry the prerogative-royal higher than ever, the king refolved to execute at laft the project he had formed with regard to Scotland, namely, to re- The king's duce the kirk to a perfect conformity with the church of Eng- defigns with land. This project was formed by king James at his accef- refpect to fion to the crown of England: nay, he had found means be- Scotland. fore he left Scotland to restore epifcopacy, as will presently appear. From that time the bifhops were always protected and countenanced by James I. and Charles I. who gained the parliaments to their interefts, and moreover exerted their prerogative in favour of the prelates, for with them the execu tion of their defign was to begin. As the troubles this affair occafioned in Scotland were the principal cause of the misfortunes and ruin of Charles I. I think it indispensably neceffary

A 2

CharlesI. to trace them to their origin, and the rather as they had 1636. great influence upon the affairs of England. Befides, though many foreign authors have spoken of the differences between Charles I. and his fubjects of Scotland, I do not know any one that has undertaken to explain this matter clearly, or spoken of it impartially.

The ftate of The reformation was received in Scotland by public autho-
epifcopacy
Scotland rity in the reign of queen Mary, 1560, juft before the death of
from the re- Francis II. and whilft the queen his widow was yet in France.
formation to The first that embraced the reformed religion in Scotland,
ჯ637.

under the former reigns, were much perfecuted, even to the
time I have been speaking of, and yet their number did not fail
daily to increase. The bishops thought themselves bound in
confcience to perfecute the reformed: they were at once their
adversaries and judges, and confequently it was almost impof-
fible but this conduct should draw on them the enmity of the
fufferers; accordingly, the decree of the ftates to admit the
reformation was no fooner made, than the bishops loft all their
credit and authority. It is certain the plan on which the govern-
ment of the new church was at firft fettled, was not favourable
to epifcopacy, but it was refolved to conform to the difci-
pline of the churches of Switzerland. The reformed had too
great an averfion for the bifhops to remain under their yoke,
especially as there were but very few prelates that agreed to the
late change in religion. All that was done in their favour
was, that the council ordered fuch as would embrace the re-
formation fhould enjoy their revenues, on condition they
would maintain minifters. This plainly fhows, that though
their revenues were left them, there was no intention to con-
tinue the government of the church in their hands.
It was
not the fame in England, when the reformation was receiv-
ed in the reign of Edward VI. Far for being prejudiced
against the bishops, the English on the contrary could not
but own it was by means of the principal prelates that the re-
formation was established. There was therefore no motive
either of hatred or policy to incline the English to throw off
epifcopal government, though they should be fuppofed to con-
fider it as a thing indifferent. But in Scotland, paffions, po
licy, and reafon itself required a deliverance from the yoke of
the bishops, who, for the most part, apposed the reformation
to the utmost of their power: fo prefbyteries, national fy-
rods, or general affemblies, were established, to whofe care
the fettling of the difcipline was committed.

Thefe general affemblies at firft had, or perhaps ufurped,
A very great authority; it was even neceffary their power

fhould

fhould be great, to enable them to defend the reformation CharlesI. against the perpetual attacks of its enemies. Queen Mary, 1636. who arrived foon after in Scotland, was a zealous catholic, and many of the principal lords were in the fame fentiments: fo the popish party were ftill very ftrong, and in condition to obftruct the progress of the reformation. On the other hand, the general affembly, which then confifted wholly of ministers, vigoroufly supported the new religion, notwithstanding the efforts of the catholic party. Mean while, though they ardently laboured to abolish epifcopacy by public authority, they could not obtain of the parliament an exprefs act for that purpose. At laft, in 1566, the general áffembly folemnly approved of the difcipline of the church of Switzerland, and of a parity among the minifters. This was fufficient to overthrow at once the fpiritual power of the bishops, but not to deprive them of their temporal privileges: fo, from the year 1561, to the depofing of queen Mary in 1567, the state of the bishops was very uncertain. They enjoyed their revenues, fat in parliaments, but their fpiritual jurisdiction was acknowledged by few, though they ftrove to preserve it. The general affembly had declared for the prefbyterian government, but the parliament had not yet made any decifion. Mean while the bishops were in a very melancholy fituation, fince the people, who had a great veneration for the general affembly, could not, after they had been condemned there, acknowledge them for paftors. So, though their spiritual authority was not exprefly abrogated by the parliament, it was, as I may say, reduced to nothing, fince they could not exercise it, the general affembly directing all the affairs of the church. This has occafioned warm difputes concerning epifcopacy; fome affirming it was entirely abolished in Scotland, and others, that it was always continued. One cannot but wonder at a Nalfon, difpute about a fact of this nature, and it is no lefs furprifing tom. i. that the parliament of Scotland fhould delay above thirty P. 140, years to fettle the government of the church by their authority; wherefore it is abfolutely neceffary to explain the reasons, otherwise it would be difficult to understand the causes of the troubles of Scotland, of which we muft neceffarily fpeak. But before I descend to particulars, it will be requifite to obferve, that we must carefully diftinguish the Benefice from the Office of a bishop: by the Benefice I mean the revenues, lands, honours, privileges, in a word, all the temporalities annexed to the quality of bifhop; by the Office I understand the fpiritual jurifdiction and functions of the bishops. If this distinction

A 3