text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/182

 and in the same year or the next to have become ‘a shackled, care-worn, and spirit-broken married man of the civilised west.’ His wife was a Miss Julia Addison. Details of his life are entirely wanting until, from his own account in ‘The Last Days of Shelley and Byron,’ we find him in the summer of 1820 in Switzerland. While there he came across Thomas Medwin [q. v.], recently arrived from Italy, where he had resumed acquaintance with his cousin Shelley. Medwin's account of the poet induced Trelawny and a new friend, Edward Elliker Williams [q. v.], to resolve on seeking Shelley out. Williams proceeded to Italy in the spring of 1821; Trelawny, recalled to England by business (resulting apparently from the death of his father), delayed until the end of the year, when he went to Tuscany, provided with dogs, guns, and nets, for hunting in the Maremma. His description of his first meetings with Shelley and Byron is one of the most vivid pieces of writing in the language. He remained for the most part in the society of one or both until 8 July, the day on which Shelley and Williams met their tragic end in a squall off Leghorn. Trelawny was to have accompanied them in Byron's yacht; but an informality detained him in port at Leghorn, and he remained with furled sails, watching the doomed vessel through a spyglass until a sea fog enveloped her and ‘we saw nothing more of her.’

The twelvemonth ensuing is the brightest portion of Trelawny's life. Nothing could surpass his devotion to his dead friends and their widowed survivors; he promoted the recovery of the bodies, superintended their cremation on shore, snatched Shelley's heart from the flames, prepared the tomb in the protestant cemetery at Rome, purchased the ground, added the proverbial lines from the ‘Tempest’ to Leigh Hunt's ‘Cor Cordium,’ and crowned his services by providing Mary Shelley with funds for her journey to England.

On 23 July 1823 Trelawny put to sea from Leghorn with Byron in the Hercules, bound for Greece, to aid in the Hellenic struggle for independence. They reached Cephalonia on 3 Aug. Trelawny, dissatisfied with Byron's tardiness in taking action, crossed to the mainland, and joined the insurgent chief Odysseus, whose sister Tersitza he married as his second wife. While discharging a mission with which he had been entrusted by Colonel Leicester Fitzgerald Charles Stanhope (afterwards Earl of Harrington) [q. v.], who speaks of him with the warmest commendation, he heard of Byron's fatal illness, and hurried to Missolonghi, but arrived too late. His gratification of his curiosity as to the cause of Byron's lameness, and his publication of particulars afterwards admitted to be inaccurate, exposed him to great and deserved censure; his letters to Stanhope on Byron's death, printed in Stanhope's ‘Greece’ in 1823 and 1824, are nevertheless couched in fitting language, and should be read in justice both to himself and Byron. ‘With all his faults,’ he says, ‘I loved him truly; if it gave me pain in witnessing his frailties, he only wanted a little excitement to awaken and put forth virtues that redeemed them all.’ Returning to the camp of Odysseus, Trelawny inevitably became mixed up in the intrigues and dissensions of the Greek chieftains. Odysseus, just before his own arrest and murder, entrusted him with the defence of his stronghold on Mount Parnassus, where, in May 1825, he was shot by two Englishmen—Thomas Fenton, a deliberate assassin, and Whitcombe, his dupe. Fenton was killed on the spot. Trelawny, though in a desperate condition and suffering intense pain, magnanimously spared the life of Whitcombe. After long and cruel suffering, he was at length able to depart for Cephalonia, bringing, as would appear, his Greek bride with him; his daughter Zella was born about June 1826. The frequent mention of this child in his subsequent correspondence with Mrs. Shelley, and even later, refutes the story of her death and the treatment of her remains told by J. G. Cooke (Life and Letters of Joseph Severn, p. 265). ‘She has a soul of fire,’ he says in 1831. She eventually married happily.

In April 1826 Trelawny was at Zante, whence he addressed a letter to the ‘Examiner,’ describing the fall of Missolonghi. He remained in the Ionian Islands until the end of 1827, detained, as he informs Mrs. Shelley, by a succession of fevers and a ‘villainous lawsuit.’ In 1828 he was in England, partly, as it would seem, in Cornwall with his mother. In 1829 he lived in Italy with Charles Armitage Brown [q. v.] and his infant daughter. He wished at this time to write the life of Shelley, and solicited Mrs. Shelley's assistance, but, besides Trelawny's special disqualifications and Mrs. Shelley's aversion to publicity, compliance with his request would have deprived her of the allowance from Sir Timothy Shelley. Disappointed and annoyed, Trelawny turned to another biography which none could prohibit—his own. In March 1829 he tells Mrs. Shelley, ‘I am actually writing my own life.’ It was seen as it progressed, he adds, by Armitage Brown and Landor, the latter of whom had already introduced him and his Greek wife into one of his ‘Ima-


text:
Author:John Matthews Manly

Works

 * (II.)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Author:John Matthews Manly


text:
User talk:68.13.205.156

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! — billinghurst  sDrewth  17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.13.205.156


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/183

 ginary Conversations.’ By August 1830 the first part, forming the book now known as ‘The Adventures of a Younger Son,’ was nearly completed. The manuscript reached Mary Shelley in December, and, notwithstanding the perusal of Brown and Landor, the revision of diction and orthography gave her enough to do. Trelawny's spelling, though by no means so bad as stated by Fanny Kemble, was at no time of his life immaculate. Mrs. Shelley also had to persuade him to omit some passages deemed objectionable on the ground of coarseness, in which, backed by Horace Smith, she ultimately succeeded. The book was published anonymously in the autumn of 1831, and, although the first edition did not bring back the 400l. which Colburn had given for the copyright, it speedily reappeared in a cheaper form, and took rank as a recognised classic (London, 3 vols. 8vo, and in 1 vol. among Bentley's Standard Novels, 1835; New York, 2 vols. 12mo, 1834; German translation, Leipzig, 1832). The American and German issues were followed by a translation by or for Dumas (‘Le Cadet de Famille’) in his journal ‘Le Mousquetaire.’ The book was to have been called ‘A Man's Life,’ and owes its actual and more attractive title to the publisher.

Trelawny came to England in 1832. In January 1833 he went to America, and remained there until June 1835. Among his achievements there were his holding Fanny Kemble in his arms to give her a view of Niagara; his swimming across the river between the rapid and the falls; and his buying the freedom of a man slave, a circumstance which remained unknown until after his death. After 1837 the principal authority for his life ceases with the discontinuance of his affectionate correspondence with Mary Shelley. He had half made her an offer of marriage in 1831; her refusal made no difference in their friendship, but she seems to have bitterly felt his strictures on the omission of portions of ‘Queen Mab’ from her edition of her husband's works.

Trelawny was at this time a conspicuous figure in English society. Handsome and picturesque, of great physical strength with the prestige of known achievements and the fascination of dimly conjectured mystery, nor wholly indisposed to maintain his reputation for romance by romancing, he combined all the qualifications of a London lion. His closest connection appears to have been with Leader, the popular member for Westminster; but Brougham, Landor, Bulwer, D'Orsay, Mrs. Norton, and Mrs. Jameson were also among his intimate friends; nor do any of them appear to have become estranged from him. A few years later, however, an unfortunate affair which resulted in his contracting a third marriage induced him to lead a more secluded life than heretofore. A letter from Seymour Kirkup generously declining an unsolicited offer from Trelawny to advance him money shows that in 1846 Trelawny was living at Putney, and was thinking of buying landed property. It must have been very shortly afterwards that he settled at Usk in Monmouthshire (at first in a house now called Twyn Bell, and afterwards at Cefn Ila), where he abode for ten or eleven years, a great benefactor to the neighbourhood by his judicious employment of labour, and only relinquishing his own property when by building, planting, and good husbandry he had greatly increased its value. Unfortunately his domestic life was irregular, and resulted in a hopeless breach with his wife, who appears to have been a lady of distinguished qualities, in addition to her special claim upon him. He was nevertheless attentive to his children, sending his two sons to Germany for the sake of a thoroughly practical education, but he outlived them both. His youngest daughter Lætitia married in 1882 Lieutenant-colonel Call, R.E.

While at Usk, probably under the impulse of an invitation from Sir Percy Shelley to talk over old times prior to the appearance of Hogg's biography of Shelley (which Trelawny read for the first time nearly twenty years after its publication), he began to write the second part of his autobiography, which appeared in 1858 under the title of ‘Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron,’ subsequently altered to ‘Records of Shelley, Byron, and the Author’ (London, 8vo; Boston, 1858, 8vo; with the altered title and other changes, London, 1878, 8vo, and 1887, 8vo). By this book Trelawny has indissolubly linked his name with those of the two great poets he has depicted. In his portrait of Shelley we have the real Shelley as we have it nowhere else; his portrait of Byron is not only less agreeable, but less truthful, but the fault is not so much in the artist as in the sitter, who pays the penalty of his incessant pose and perpetual mystification, ‘le fanfaron des vices qu'il n'avait pas.’ When Byron is natural, Trelawny is appreciative. His account of his own adventures in Greece is simple and modest.

Trelawny lived in London for the next few years. After a while he bought a town house, No. 7 Pelham Crescent, Brompton, and a country house at Sompting, near Worthing. In the country he devoted himself zealously to horticulture. ‘Hard work in the open


text: Behemoth

title: Behemoth


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/184

 air,’ he declared, ‘is the best physician. A man who has once learned to handle his tools loses the relish for play.’ He was abstemious in food and drink, and never wore a great coat. He rejoiced especially in his crops of figs, equal, he averred, to the growths of Italy. The younger generation sought the acquaintance of a man who had consorted with Shelley and Byron, and who, as the years passed on with little apparent effect on his robust constitution, came little by little to be the sole distinguished survivor of the Byronic age. Miss Mathilde Blind, Mr. W. M. Rossetti and Mr. Edgcumbe have left accurate records of his brilliant, original, riveting, but most censorious conversation. In the main it was authentic as well as picturesque, but sometimes the tendency to romance crept in, not only as regarded his own exploits, but less excusably as regarded the deeds or frailties of others. Some of his statements are demonstrably incorrect, others highly improbable. A certain peevishness also grew upon him, painfully evinced in the second edition of his records of Shelley and Byron, enriched with new documents of importance, but where every alteration in the text is a change for the worse. It missed, in fact, the judicious counsel of Mrs. Trelawny, who had happily influenced the first edition. In loyalty to Shelley, however, he never wavered, and he showed freshness of mind by becoming an admiring reader of Blake and a student of Darwin. At length he took to his bed, and died at Sompting on 13 Aug. 1881 of mere natural decay. In accordance with his wishes, Miss Taylor, who had faithfully watched over his closing years, transported his remains to Gotha, where they were cremated and removed to Rome for interment in the grave which he had long ago prepared for himself by the side of Shelley's.

Trelawny's character presents many points of contact with Landor's. His main fault was an intense wilfulness, the exaggeration of a haughty spirit of independence, which rendered him careless of the rights and claims of others, and sometimes betrayed him into absolute brutality. He himself owned that his worst enemy was his determination ‘to get what he wanted, if he had to go through heaven and hell for it.’ His disposition to romance was a minor failing, which has prejudiced him more in public opinion than it need have done; his embellishments rested upon a genuine basis of achievement. His want of regular education was probably of service to him as a writer, enabling him to set forth with forcible plainness of speech what more cultured persons would have disguised in polished verbiage. He is graphic in his descriptions both of men and things; all his characters, real or fictitious, actually live.

Trelawny sat to Sir John Millais for the old seaman in ‘the North-West Passage,’ and this grand head, now hung in the Tate Gallery, though disapproved by himself, is a striking record of his appearance. Seymour Kirkup's portrait, engraved in the ‘Field’ for August 1881, is a good representation of him at an earlier period of life, and a fine photograph taken in old age is engraved as the frontispiece to Mr. Edward Garnett's edition of ‘The Adventures of a Younger Son.’ The portraits by Severn and D'Orsay (1886) are generally condemned. Mrs. Shelley speaks of his Moorish appearance—‘Oriental, not Asiatic’—and the remark is corroborated by Byron's having marked him out to enact Othello.

[The principal authorities for Trelawny's life are his own writings, with an ample margin for scepticism in the case of ‘The Adventures of a Younger Son,’ and after these his letters to Mary Shelley in the biography of her by Mrs. Julian Marshall. Useful abridged lives have been written by Mr. Richard Edgcumbe (‘Edward Trelawny: a Biographical Sketch,’ Plymouth, 1882, 8vo) and by Mr. Edward Garnett, the latter prefixed to the edition of ‘The Younger Son’ (Adventure Series), 1890. All the biographers of Shelley and Byron in their latter days have noticed him, and graphic records of his conversation have been preserved by W. M. Rossetti in the Athenæum for 1882, R. Edgcumbe in Temple Bar, May 1890, and Miss Mathilde Blind in the Whitehall Review of 10 Jan. 1880. See also Boase and Courtney's Bibliotheca Cornubiensis and Boase's Collectanea Cornubiensia, col. 1036 (with details of Trelawny's will); Athenæum, 3 Aug. 1878, 20 Aug. 1881 (obit. notice), and 21 Aug. 1897 (details of the household at Usk); Sharp's Life and Letters of Joseph Severn; Millingen's Memoirs of the Affairs of Greece, pp. 150–53; Fanny Kemble's Records of a Girlhood and Last Records; and R. Garnett's ‘Shelley's Last Days’ in the Fortnightly Review for July 1878. Lines to the memory of Trelawny by Mr. Swinburne appeared in the Athenæum for 27 Aug. 1881, and were reprinted separately. The ‘Songs of the Springtides’ had been dedicated to Trelawny in the previous year.]  TRELAWNY, JOHN (fl. 1422), knight, who claimed descent of a family settled at Trelawne in Cornwall before the Norman conquest, was son of Sir John Trelawny, knt., by Matilda, daughter of Robert Mynwenick. The father held land in the vill of Trelawne by gift of his father, William, in 1366, was the first of the family to receive


text: Index:Behemoth 1889.djvu

title: Index:Behemoth 1889.djvu


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/7

 BEHEMOTH; OR, THE LONG PARLIAMENT.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/7


text: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/10

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/10


text: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/12

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/12


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/185

 the honour of knighthood, and was alive in 1406–7 (8 Henry IV). The son John succeeded to the family estates in Cornwall and was elected M.P. for that county in 1413–14, and again in 1421. In the latter parliament another John Trelawny, possibly his son, sat for Liskeard. Sir John fought at Agincourt, and received from Henry V at Gisors a pension of 20l. a year, which was confirmed by Henry VI. He added to his arms three oak or laurel leaves. Under the figure of Henry V which was formerly over the great gate at Launceston was the inscription:

Sir John was alive in 1423–4 (2 Henry VI). He married Agnes, daughter of Robert Tregodeck, and left two sons, Richard and John. Richard was M.P. for Liskeard in 1421–2 and 1423–4, and died in 1449, leaving daughters only. Sir Hugh Courtenay, ancestor of Henry, marquis of Exeter, who was attainted under Henry VIII, made a grant of lands, 6 Oct. 1437, to one John Trelawny and his heirs, at a yearly rent of twelve pence and suit to his court twice a year. The beneficiary seems to have been Sir John Trelawny's second son, John, who succeeded to the estates on the death of his elder brother without male issue; he was M.P. for Truro in 1448–9, and was sheriff of Cornwall in 1461–2. He was direct ancestor of Sir [q. v.]

TRELAWNY, JONATHAN (1650–1721), third Baronet, bishop successively of Bristol, Exeter, and Winchester, third son of Sir Jonathan, second baronet, by Mary, daughter of Sir Edward Seymour, second baronet, of Berry Pomeroy, Devonshire, was born at Pelynt, Cornwall, on 24 March 1650 (, Lives of the Bishops of Winchester, ii. 196). His grandfather, Sir John Trelawny (1592–1665), first baronet, opposed the election of Sir John Eliot to parliament for Cornwall in 1627–8, and was, on that ground, committed to the Tower of London by order of the House of Commons on 13 May 1628. He was released by the king on 26 June, and created a baronet on 1 July. Sir Jonathan's father (1624–1685) was sequestered, imprisoned, and ruined for loyalty, during the civil war. The bishop's younger brother, [q. v.], is separately noticed.

In 1663 Jonathan went to Westminster school, was elected to Oxford, and matriculated from Christ Church on 11 Dec. 1668. He became student the following year, graduated B.A. on 22 June 1672, and M.A. on 29 April 1675. Ordained deacon on 4 Sept. 1673, he took priest's orders on 24 Dec. 1676, and obtained from his relatives the livings of St. Ive (12 Dec. 1677 to 1689) and Southill (4 Oct. 1677). The death of his elder brother in 1680 left him heir to the baronetcy, ‘yet he stuck to his holy orders and continued in his function’. He was resident at Oxford during that autumn (1681), but the Cornish baronet there, who was described as likely to be soon in Bedlam, was apparently Trelawny's father, if 1685 be accepted as the date at which Jonathan succeeded to the baronetcy (, Letters, ed. Thompson, Camd. Soc. p. 94 n.; Bibliotheca Cornubiensis). He was one of the benefactors by whom Wren's Tom tower at Christ Church was mainly built (June 1681–November 1682), and his arms were carved among the rest on the stone roof of the gatehouse (, History and Antiquities, 1786, pp. 449–51). On the discovery of the Rye House plot in 1683, Trelawny drew up an address in the name of the corporation of East Looe congratulating the king and the Duke of York on their escape (Trelawne MSS.; Trelawny Papers, Camd. Soc. ed. Cooper, 1853).

In the expectation that Monmouth would land in the west, James, in June 1685, sent Sir Jonathan down to Cornwall, where he arrived after the duke had landed. Finding the deputy-lieutenants, with one exception (Rashleigh), unwilling to call out the militia, he signed all commissions, and despatched Rashleigh to inspect each regiment and to station them at the most important points. He held himself ready to follow Monmouth's march (Trelawny Papers, Camd. Soc. document No. 4). In the ‘Tribe of Levi,’ a doggerel against the seven bishops, Trelawny figures as fighting Joshua, the son of Nun:

(London, 1691, in Lives of the Seven Bishops).

‘Trelawny will be a bishop somewhere,’ wrote his college friend, Humphrey Prideaux, from Oxford on 9 July 1685, three days after Sedgemoor, ‘it's supposed at Bristol’ (Letters, p. 142). Trelawny begged Lord-treasurer Rochester to contrive the substitution of Exeter for Bristol, on the ground that the see of Bristol was too unremunerative to enable


text: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/18

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/18


text: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/20

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/20


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/19

 CONTENTS.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/19


text: Behemoth/Dialogue I

title: Behemoth/Dialogue I


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/21

A. in time, as in place, there were degrees of high and low, I verily believe that the highest of time would be that which passed between the years of 1640 and 1660. For he that thence, as from the Devil’s Mountain, should have looked upon the world and observed the actions of men, especially in England, might have had a prospect of all kinds of injustice, and of all kinds of folly, that the world could afford, and how they were produced by their *dams* hypocrisy and self-conceit, whereof the one is double iniquity, and the other double folly.

B. I should be glad to behold that prospect. You that have lived in that time and in that part of your age, wherein men used to see best into good and evil, I pray you to set me (that could not then see so well) upon the same mountain, by the relation of the actions you then saw, and of their causes, pretensions, justice, order, artifice, and event.

A. In the year 1640, the government of England was monarchical; and the King that reigned, Charles, the first of that name, holding the sovereignty, by right of a descent continued above six hundred years, and from a much longer descent King of Scotland, and from the time of his ancestor

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/21


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/186

 him to meet his father's debts (Correspondence of Clarendon and Rochester, ed. Singer, 1828, i. 146). Nevertheless Bristol was offered him. On 17 Oct. the intimation of the congé d'élire was conveyed to him by Sunderland; on the 26th his university conferred the degree of D.D.; and on 8 Nov. he was consecrated at Lambeth by both archbishops and six bishops. Three days later, he and Ken took their seats in the lords.

To the active loyalty inherited from his ancestors and from his cavalier father, Trelawny united as bishop the passive obedience of his order. He accepted the papistry of the king until it became aggressive. While at Dorchester, on his first visitation, he severely reprimanded a preacher who made insinuations in a sermon against the king's good faith. By 1 June 1686 Trelawny had finished his visitation, and laid before the archbishop the results which pointed to gross neglect by the clergy of their duties (Tanner MSS. xxx. 50).

The appearance of the first declaration of indulgence on 4 April 1687 changed Trelawny's views of the king and converted him into a resolute foe (Tanner MSS. xxix. 42). Upon Sunderland's invitation to him to sign an address in favour of the declaration, and to obtain the signatures of his clergy, Trelawny, first letting it be known that he would not sign himself, called his clergy together and debated with them. They refused to sign to a man. Reporting his action to the archbishop, he asserted: ‘I have given God thanks for this opportunity … of declaring … that I am firmly of the church of England, and not to be forced from her interest by the terrors of displeasure or death itself.’ He did all he could in 1687 for the French protestant refugees at Bristol, settled 20l. upon their two ministers, and drew up a form of subscription for their benefit (Tanner MSS. xxix. 147 or 149, xxx. 191, xxix. 32). When the king attempted to pack a parliament pledged to support his attack upon the church, the Earl of Bath undertook to manage the Cornish elections, but Trelawny successfully opposed him (Tanner MSS. xxviii. 139, in Lives).

On 27 April 1688 James issued his second declaration of indulgence, and on 12 May Sancroft summoned his suffragans to consider it. Trelawny arrived at Lambeth with his friend Ken on the evening of the 17th. On the following morning he assisted in drawing up the bishops' petition against the declaration, and in the evening repaired with the rest to Whitehall. When the king mentioned the word ‘rebellion,’ Trelawny fell on his knees and warmly repudiated the suggestion that he and his brethren could be guilty of such an offence. ‘We will do,’ he concluded, ‘our duty to your majesty to the utmost in everything that does not interfere with our duty to God’ (, Bishops of Exeter, p. 157 n. 2). After the interview Trelawny went down to his diocese, and was served at Bath on 30 May with a warrant from Sunderland, dated 27 May, to appear with the archbishop and five fellow bishops before the council on 8 June at five in the afternoon to answer a charge of seditious libel. Trelawny obeyed the summons, and on the same evening he, Sancroft, and five other bishops were sent to the Tower (8 June). Four lords—Worcester, Devonshire, Scarsdale, and Lumley—were ready to give bail for Trelawny. Released in a week on their own recognisances, the seven bishops came up on 29 June for trial on the charge of seditious libel. A verdict of ‘not guilty’ was returned at ten o'clock of the morning of the next day. The anniversary of 30 June 1688 was ever afterwards a festival with Trelawny. The Cornishmen meanwhile identified themselves with Trelawny in his struggle with the king, and, according to a local tradition reported by Robert Stephen Hawker [q. v.], they raised a song of which the refrain ran: And shall Trelawny die? Then twenty thousand Cornishmen will know the reason why. Hawker's testimony is not quite conclusive. There is some ground for believing that the cry was first raised in 1628, owing to the fears of Cornishmen for the life of Sir John Trelawny, first baronet, at the hands of the House of Commons (cf. Bristol Journal, 25 July 1772). ‘The Song of the Western Men,’ a ballad said to have been suggested by the ancient refrain, was composed by Hawker in 1825, and long passed for an original song dating from 1688. While Bristol was still ablaze with bonfires, in celebration of the bishop's acquittal, the king by quo warranto struck Trelawny's name from the burgess roll of Liskeard (The Epistolary Correspondence &c. of Francis Atterbury, ed. Nichols, 1789–1799;, Bishop Trelawny, 1882).

Burnet states precisely that Trelawny joined Compton in signing the invitation to William (Own Time, Oxford, 1833, iii. 159). Burnet adds that the bishop's brother, Colonel Charles Trelawny, drew him into the plan of invasion (ib. iii. 279). Burnet has been followed by Macaulay and Miss Strickland. But Trelawny steadily denied the allegation (Trelawne MSS. in Hist. MSS. Comm. 1st Rep. p. 52). In a draft letter


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/22

 Henry II., King of Ireland; a man that wanted no virtue, either of body or mind, nor endeavoured anything more than to discharge his duty towards God, in the well governing of his subjects.

B. How could he then miscarry, having in every county so many trained soldiers, as would, put together, have made an army of 60,000 men, and divers magazines of ammunition in places fortified?

A. If those soldiers had been, as they and all other of his subjects ought to have been, at his Majesty’s command, the peace and happiness of the three kingdoms had continued as it was left by King James. But the people were corrupted generally, and disobedient persons esteemed the best patriots.

B. But sure there were men enough, besides those that were ill-affected, to have made an army sufficient to have kept the people from uniting into a body able to oppose him.

A. Truly, I think, if the King had had money, he might have had soldiers enough in England. For there were very few of the common people that cared much for either of the causes, but would have taken any side for pay or plunder. But the King’s treasury was very low, and his enemies, that pretended the people’s ease from taxes, and other specious things, had the command of the purses of the city of London, and of most cities and corporate towns in England, and of many particular persons besides.

B. But how came the people to be so corrupted? And what kind of people were they that could so seduce them?

A. The seducers were of divers sorts. One sort were ministers; ministers, as they called themselves, of Christ; and sometimes, in their sermons to the people, God’s ambassadors; pretending to have a right from God to govern every one his parish and their assembly the whole nation.

Secondly, there were a very great number, though not

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/22


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/23

 comparable to the other, which, notwithstanding that the Pope’s power in England, both temporal and ecclesiastical, had been by Act of Parliament abolished, did still retain a belief that we ought to be governed by the Pope, whom they pretended to be the vicar of Christ, and, in the right of Christ, to be the governor of all Christian people. And these were known by the name of Papists; as the ministers I mentioned before, were commonly called Presbyterians.

Thirdly, there were not a few, who in the beginning of the troubles were not discovered, but shortly after declared themselves for a liberty in religion, and those of different opinions one from another. Some of them, because they would have all congregations free and independent upon one another, were called Independents. Others that held baptism to infants, and such as understood not into what they are baptized, to be ineffectual, were called therefore Anabaptists. Others that held that Christ’s kingdom was at this time to begin upon the earth, were called Fifth-monarchy-men; besides divers other sects, as Quakers, Adamites, &c., whose names and peculiar doctrines I do not well remember. And these were the enemies which arose against his Majesty from the private interpretation of the Scripture, exposed to every man’s scanning in his mother-tongue.

Fourthly, there were an exceeding great number of men of the better sort, that had been so educated, as that in their youth having read the books written by famous men of the ancient Grecian and Roman commonwealths concerning their polity and great actions; in which books the popular government was extolled by the glorious name of liberty, and monarchy disgraced by the name of tyranny; they became thereby in love with their forms of government. And out of these men were chosen the greatest part of the House of Commons, or if they were not the greatest part, yet, by advantage of their eloquence, were always able to sway the rest.

Fifthly, the city of London and other great towns of

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/23


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/24

 trade, having in admiration the great prosperity of the Low Countries after they had revolted from their monarch, the King of Spain, were inclined to think that the like change of government here, would to them produce the like prosperity.

Sixthly, there were a very great number that had either wasted their fortunes, or thought them too mean for the good parts which they thought were in themselves; and more there were, that had able bodies, but saw no means how honestly to get their bread. These longed for a war, and hoped to maintain themselves hereafter by the lucky choosing of a party to side with, and consequently did for the most part serve under them that had greatest plenty of money.

Lastly, the people in general were so ignorant of their duty, as that not one perhaps of ten thousand knew what right any man had to command him, or what necessity there was of King or Commonwealth, for which he was to part with his money against his will; but thought himself to be so much master of whatsoever he possessed, that it could not be taken from him upon any pretence of common safety without his own consent. King, they thought, was but a title of the highest honour, which gentleman, knight, baron, earl, duke, were but steps to ascend to, with the help of riches; they had no rule of equity, but precedents and custom; and he was thought wisest and fittest to be chosen for a Parliament that was most averse to the granting of subsidies or other public payments.

B. In such a constitution of people, methinks, the King is already ousted of his government, so as they needed not have taken arms for it. For I cannot imagine how the King should come by any means to resist them.

A. There was indeed very great difficulty in the business. But of that point you will be better informed in the pursuit of this narration.

B. But I desire to know first, the several grounds of the pretences, both of the Pope and of the Presbyterians, by

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/24


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/25

 which they claim a right to govern us, as they do, in chief: and after that, from whence, and when, crept in the pretences of that Long Parliament, for a democracy.

A. As for the Papists, they challenge this right from a text in Deut. xvii. 12, and other like texts, according to the old Latin translation in these words: And he that out of pride shall refuse to obey the commandment of that priest, which shall at that time minister before the Lord thy God, that man shall by the sentence of the judge be put to death. And because, as the Jews were the people of God then, so is all Christendom the people of God now, they infer from thence, that the Pope, whom they pretend to be the high-priest of all Christian people, ought also to be obeyed in all his decrees by all Christians, upon pain of death. Again, whereas in the New Testament (Matt. xxviii. 18-20) Christ saith: All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth; go therefore and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them to observe all these things which I have commanded you: from thence they infer, that the command of the apostles was to be obeyed, and by consequence the nations were bound to be governed by them, and especially by the prince of the apostles, St. Peter, and by his successors, the Popes of Rome.

B. For the text in the Old Testament, I do not see how the commandment of God to the Jews, to obey their priests, can be interpreted to have the like force in the case of other nations Christian, more than upon nations unchristian (for all the world are God’s people); unless we also grant, that a king cannot of an infidel be made Christian, without making himself subject to the laws of that apostle, or priest, or minister, that shall convert him. The Jews were a peculiar people of God, a sacerdotal kingdom, and bound to no other law but what first Moses, and afterwards every high-priest, did go and receive immediately from the mouth of God in Mount Sinai, in the tabernacle of the ark, and in the sanctum sanctorum of the temple. And for the text in

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/25


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/26

 St. Matthew, I know the words in the Gospel are not go teach, but go, make disciples; and that there is a great difference between a subject and a disciple, and between teaching and commanding. And if such texts as these must be so interpreted, why do not Christian kings lay down their titles of majesty and sovereignty, and call themselves the Pope’s lieutenants? But the doctors of the Romish Church seem to decline that title of absolute power in their distinction of power spiritual and temporal; but this distinction I do not very well understand.

A. By spiritual power they mean the power to determine points of faith, and to be judges, in the inner court of conscience, of moral duties, and a power to punish those men, that obey not their precepts, by ecclesiastical censure, that is, by excommunication. And this power, they say, the Pope hath immediately from Christ, without dependence on any king or sovereign assembly, whose subjects they be that stand excommunicate. But for the power temporal, which consists in judging and punishing those actions that are done against the civil laws, they say, they do not pretend to it directly, but only indirectly, that is to say, so far forth as such actions tend to the hindrance or advancement of religion and good manners, which they mean when they say in ordine ad spiritualia.

B. What power then is left to Kings and other civil sovereigns, which the Pope may not pretend to be his in ordine ad spiritualia?

A. None, or very little. [And this power not only the Pope pretends to in all Christendom; but most bishops also, in their several dioceses, jure divino, that is, immediately from Christ, without deriving it from the Pope.]

B. But what if a man refuse obedience to this pretended power of the Pope and his bishops? What harm can

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/26


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/27

 do him, especially if he be the subject of another sovereign?

A. Very great harm. For by the Pope’s or bishop’s signification of it to the civil power, he shall be punished sufficiently.

B. He were in an ill case then, that adventured to write or speak in defence of the civil power, that must be punished by him whose rights he defended, like Uzza, that was slain because he would needs, unbidden, put forth his hand to keep the ark from falling. But if a whole nation should revolt from the Pope at once, what effect could excommunication have upon the nation?

A. Why, they should have no more mass said, at least by any of the Pope’s priests. Besides, the Pope would have no more to do with them, but cast them off, and so they would be in the same case as if a nation should be cast off by their king, and left to be governed by themselves, or whom they would.

B. This would not be taken so much for a punishment to the people, as to the King; and therefore when a Pope excommunicates a whole nation, methinks he rather excommunicates himself than them. But I pray you tell me, what were the rights the Pope pretended to in the kingdoms of other princes?

A. First, an exemption of all priests, friars, and monks, in criminal causes, from the cognizance of civil judges. Secondly, collation of benefices on whom he pleased, native or stranger, and exaction of tenths, first fruits, and other payments. Thirdly, appeals to Rome in all causes where the Church could pretend to be concerned. Fourthly, to be the supreme judge concerning lawfulness of marriage, that is, concerning the hereditary succession of Kings, and to have the cognizance of all causes concerning adultery and fornication.

B. Good! A monopoly of women.

A. Fifthly, a power of absolving subjects of their duties, and of their oaths of fidelity to their lawful sovereigns, when the Pope should think fit for the extirpation of heresy.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/27


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/28

 B. This power of absolving subjects of their obedience, as also that other of being judge of manners and doctrine, is as absolute a sovereignty as is possible to be; and consequently there must be two kingdoms in one and the same nation, and no man be able to know which of his masters he must obey.

A. For my part, I should rather obey that master that had the right of making laws and of inflicting punishments, than him that pretendeth only to a right of making canons (that is to say rules) and no right of co-action, or otherwise punishing, but by excommunication.

B. But the Pope pretends also that his canons are laws; and for punishing, can there be greater than excommunication; supposing it true, as the Pope saith it is, that he that dies excommunicate is damned? Which supposition, it seems, you believe not; else you would rather have chosen to obey the Pope, that would cast your body and soul into hell, than the King, that can only kill the body.

A. You say true. For it were very uncharitable in me to believe that all Englishmen, except a few Papists, that have been born and called heretics ever since the Reformation of Religion in England, should be damned.

B. But for those that die excommunicate in the Church of England at this day, do you not think them also damned?

A. Doubtless, he that dies in sin without repentance is damned, and he that is excommunicate for disobedience to the King’s laws, either spiritual or temporal, is excommunicate for sin; and therefore, if he die excommunicate and without desire of reconciliation, he dies impenitent. You see what follows. But to die in disobedience to the precepts and doctrines of those men that have no authority or jurisdiction over us, is quite another case, and bringeth no such danger with it.

B. But what is this heresy, which the Church of Rome so cruelly persecutes, as to depose Kings that do not, when they are bidden, turn all heretics out of their dominions?

A. Heresy is a word which, when it is used without

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/28


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/29

 passion, signifies a private opinion. So the different sects of the old philosophers, Academians, Peripatetics, Epicureans, Stoics, &c., were called heresies. But in the Christian Church, there was in the signification of that word, comprehended a sinful opposition to him, that was chief judge of doctrines in order to the salvation of men’s souls; and consequently heresy may be said to bear the same relation to the power spiritual, that rebellion doth to the power temporal, and is suitable to be persecuted by him that will preserve a power spiritual and dominion of men’s consciences.

B. It would be very well (because we are all of us permitted to read the Holy Scriptures, and bound to make them the rule of our actions, both public and private) that heresy were by some law defined, and the particular opinions set forth, for which a man were to be condemned and punished as a heretic; for else, not only men of mean capacity, but even the wisest and devoutest Christian, may fall into heresy without any will to oppose the Church; for the Scriptures are hard, and the interpretations different of different men.

A. The meaning of the word heresy is by law declared in an Act of Parliament in the first year of Queen Elizabeth; wherein it is ordained, that the persons who had by the Queen’s letters-patent the authority spiritual, meaning the High Commission, shall not have authority to adjudge any matter or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore have been adjudged to be heresy by the authority of the canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils, or by any other general Council, where the same was declared heresy by the express and plain words of the said canonical Scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be adjudged heresy by the high court of Parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in their convocation.

B. It seems therefore, if there arise any new error that hath not yet been declared heresy (and many such may arise), it cannot be judged heresy without a Parliament. For how foul soever the error be, it cannot have been

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/29


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/30

 declared heresy neither in the Scriptures nor in the Councils; because it was never before heard of. And consequently there can be no error, unless it fall within the compass of blasphemy against God or treason against the King, for which a man can in equity be punished. Besides, who can tell what is declared by the Scripture, which every man is allowed to read and interpret to himself? Nay more, what Protestant, either of the laity or clergy, if every general Council can be a competent judge of heresy, is not already condemned? For divers Councils have declared a great many of our doctrines to be heresy, and that, as they pretend, upon the authority of the Scriptures.

A. What are those points, that the first four general Councils have declared heresy?

B. The first general Council, held at Nicæa, declared all to be heresy which was contrary to the Nicene Creed, upon occasion of the heresy of Arius, which was the denying the divinity of Christ. The second general Council, held at Constantinople, declared heresy the doctrine of Macedonius; which was that the Holy Ghost was created. The third Council, assembled at Ephesus, condemned the doctrine of Nestorius, that there were two persons in Christ. The fourth, held at Chalcedon, condemned the error of Eutyches, that there was but one nature in Christ. I know of no other points condemned in these four Councils, but such as concern church-government, or the same doctrines taught by other men in other words. And these Councils were all called by the Emperors, and by them their decrees confirmed at the petition of the Councils themselves.

A. I see by this, that both the calling of the Council, and the confirmation of their doctrine and church-government, had no obligatory force but from the authority of the Emperor. How comes it then to pass, that they take upon them now a legislative power, and say their canons are laws? That text, all power is given to me in heaven and earth, had the same force then as it hath now, and conferred a legislative power on the Councils, not only over Christian men, but *also* over all nations in the world.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/30


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/187

 to the bishop of Worcester, Trelawny wrote: ‘I never put my hand to any letter, knew of or joined in any message … to invite him [i.e. William] … and … we had no other view by our petition than to shew our king … we could not distribute … his … declaration … which … was founded on such a dispensing power as … would quickly set aside all laws … and leave our church on no other establishment than the will and pleasure of a prince who … to extirpate it … seemed in haste’ (Trelawny to the bishop of Worcester, 25 Jan. 1716, Trelawne MSS., transcribed by the present baronet). Trelawny throughout the crisis was a passive well-wisher of the Revolution. Along with Compton of London, he failed to obey James II's summons despatched on 24 Sept. to the archbishops and eight bishops to attend him on the 28th. But James's power was nearly exhausted, and Trelawny threw his influence into the scale of the Prince of Orange. William landed on 5 Nov. Ten days later James sought to conciliate Trelawny by announcing his translation to the see of Exeter, which had previously been refused him (, Brief Relation, i. 476). It was too late; Trelawny welcomed to Bristol the prince's troops under Shrewsbury, and wrote thence to William, on 5 Dec., to express his satisfaction at having borne some part in the work for the preservation of the protestant religion, the laws and liberties of this kingdom (, Memoirs, ii. 252).

After James II's abdication Trelawny and Compton were the only two bishops in the House of Lords (29 Jan. 1689) in the majority of 51 against 49 by whom Sancroft's plan of a regency was rejected (, Own Time, iii. 399). Trelawny was one of the eleven bishops who drew up a form of prayers for the day of thanksgiving, 31 Jan., and he and Lloyd of St. Asaph alone of the seven bishops took the oaths to William and Mary. Immediately after William and Mary's coronation, Trelawny's nomination to Exeter was confirmed, 13 April 1689 ({sc|Godwin}}, De Præsulibus;, vi. 182; , Athenæ).

Trelawny sat in October on the ecclesiastical commission appointed to prepare a scheme of comprehension for the convocation of November–December. The following summer (1690) he set out for his new diocese, halting at Oxford. Forcing his way into the hall of Exeter College, he deprived, as visitor, the rector, Dr. Bury, for contumacy in nailing up the gates and denying his power, for corruption in selling the office of butler and others of the buttery, and for heresy as author of the ‘Naked Gospel.’ Ten of the fellows he suspended for three months (26 July). An appeal by the rector to the king's bench went against the visitor. Upon the privy council taking up the matter, Trelawny told them plainly that they were no court of judicature, and that he would be determined only by Westminster Hall (Trelawny Papers, ed. Cooper). The judgment of the king's bench was reversed in the lords on 7 Dec. 1694 (, iii. 409, 411). Thereby was ‘fixed,’ wrote Atterbury, ‘the power of visitors (not till then acknowledged final) upon the secure foundation of a judgment in parliament.’ By another parliamentary decision, obtained while still bishop of Exeter, in the case against Sampson Hele, Trelawny established a bishop's sole right to judge the qualifications of persons applying for institution to a benefice (Notes and Queries, 1st ser. iv. 481, x. 202).

In the late summer of 1691 he made his first visitation of his diocese; he was at Plymouth in September (, Hist. of Plymouth, p. 269). He had already provided for the defence of Exeter against a landing from the French fleet which swept the Channel in that year. Subsequently Trelawny declared himself in sympathy with Anne and the Churchills in their open breach with the king in 1691 and 1692, and for the next ten years he held aloof from court. Visiting his diocese with vigour, he retired often to his seat at Trelawne, where he rebuilt and reconsecrated the family chapel on 23 Nov. 1701.

He emerged from his retirement in the same year to give active support to the movement led by Atterbury, whose friend and patron he was, for the revival of convocation and the execution of the Præmunientes clause. When the convocation met (10 Feb. 1701–2) and its proceedings resolved themselves into a struggle of the lower house against the right of the primate to prorogue them, Trelawny, ‘the avowed patron and defender of the synodical rights of the clergy’, entered his protest, along with Compton and Sprat, against the resolutions of the bishops (, Continuation of Rapin, iii. 529). From this point until his death Trelawny possessed in Atterbury an unwearied correspondent. Trelawny gave him in January 1701 the archdeaconry of Totnes, and much other preferment. On 6 July 1704 he thanked his patron, to whom all the happiness of his life was due, for having obtained for him from the queen the deanery of Carlisle.

After the accession of Anne, Trelawny, at the queen's desire, preached before her in St. Paul's the thanksgiving sermon for the suc-


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/31

 B. They say no; for the power they pretend to is derived from this, that when a king was converted from Gentilism to Christianism, he did by that very submission to the bishop that converted him, submit to the bishop’s government and became one of his sheep; which right therefore he could not have over any nation that was not Christian.

A. Did Sylvester (which was Pope of Rome in the time of Constantine the Great, converted by him) tell the Emperor, his new disciple, beforehand, that if he became a Christian he must be the Pope’s subject?

B. I believe not. For it is likely enough, if he had told him so plainly, or but made him suspect it, he would either have been no Christian at all, or but a counterfeit one.

A. But if he did not tell him so, and that plainly, it was foul play, not only in a priest, but in any Christian. And for this derivation of their right from the Emperor’s consent, it proceeds only from this, that they dare not challenge a legislative power, nor call their canons laws in any kingdom in Christendom, further than the kings make them so. But in Peru, when Atabalipa was King, the friar told him, that Christ being King of all the world, had given the disposing of all the kingdoms therein to the Pope, and that the Pope had given Peru to the Roman Emperor Charles the Fifth, and required Atabalipa to resign it; and for refusing it, seized upon his person by the Spanish army there present, and murdered him. You see by this how much they claim, when they have power to make it good.

B. When began the Popes to take this authority upon them first?

A. After the inundation of the northern people had overflowed the western parts of the empire, and possessed themselves of Italy, the people of the city of Rome submitted themselves, as well in temporals as spirituals, to their bishop; and then first was the Pope a temporal prince, and stood no more in so great fear of the Emperors, which lived far off at Constantinople. In this time it was that the Pope began, by pretence of his power spiritual, to encroach upon

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/31


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/32

 the temporal rights of all other princes of the west; and so continued gaining upon them, till his power was at the highest in that three hundred years, or thereabout, which passed between the eighth and eleventh century, that is, between Pope Leo the Third and Pope Innocent the Third. For in this time Pope Zachary the First deposed Chilperic, then King of France, and gave the kingdom to one of his subjects, Pepin; and Pepin took from the Lombards a great part of their territory and gave it to the Church. Shortly after, the Lombards having recovered their estate, Charles the Great retook it, and gave it to the Church again; and Pope Leo the Third made Charles Emperor.

B. But what right did the Pope then pretend for the creating of an Emperor?

A. He pretended the right of being Christ’s vicar; and what Christ could give, his vicar might give; and you know that Christ was King of all the world.

B. Yes, as God; and so he gives all the kingdoms of the world, which nevertheless proceed from the consent of people, either for fear or hope.

A. But this gift of the empire was in a more special manner, in such a manner as Moses had the government of Israel given him; or rather as Joshua had it given him, to go in and out before the people as the high-priest should direct him. And so the empire was understood to be given him, on condition to be directed by the Pope. For when the Pope invested him with the regal ornaments, the people all cried out Deus dat, that is to say, it is God that gives it; and the Emperor was contented so to take it. And from that time, all or most of the Christian Kings do put into their titles the words Dei gratia, that is, by the gift of God; and their successors use still to receive the crown and sceptre from a bishop.

B. It is certainly a very good custom, for Kings to be put in mind by whose gift they reign; but it cannot from that custom be inferred that they receive the kingdom by mediation of the Pope, or by any other clergy; for

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/32


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/33

 the Popes themselves received the Papacy from the Emperor. The first that ever was elected Bishop of Rome after Emperors were Christians, and without the Emperor’s consent, excused himself by letters to the Emperor with this: that the people and clergy of Rome forced him to take it upon him, and prayed the Emperor to confirm it, which the Emperor did; but with reprehension of their proceedings, and the prohibition of the like for the time to come. The Emperor was Lotharius, and the Pope Calixtus the First.

A. You see by this the Emperor never acknowledged this gift of God was the gift of the Pope, but maintained that the Popedom was the gift of the Emperor. But in process of time, by the negligence of the Emperors (for the greatness of Kings makes them that they cannot easily descend into the obscure and narrow mines of an ambitious clergy), they found means to make the people believe, there was a power in the Pope and clergy, which they ought to submit unto, rather than to the commands of their own Kings, whensoever it should come into controversy: and to that end devised and decreed many new articles of faith, to the diminution of the authority of Kings, and to the disjunction of them and their subjects, and to a closer adherence of their subjects to the Church of Rome; articles either not at all found in, or not well founded upon the Scriptures; as first, that it should not be lawful for a priest to marry.

B. What influence could that have upon the power of Kings?

A. Do you not see, that by this the King must of necessity either want the priesthood, and therewith a great part of the reverence due to him from the most religious part of his subjects, or else want lawful heirs to succeed him? by which means, being not taken for the head of the Church, he was sure, in any controversy between him and the Pope, that his people would be against him.

B. Is not a Christian King as much a bishop now, as the heathen Kings were of old? for among them episcopus

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/33


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/34

 was a name common to all Kings. Is not he a bishop now, to whom God hath committed the charge of all the souls of his subjects, both of the laity and the clergy? And though he be in relation to our Saviour, who is the chief pastor, but a sheep, yet, compared to his own subjects, they are all sheep, both laic and cleric, and he only shepherd. And seeing a Christian bishop is but a Christian endued with power to govern the clergy, it follows that every Christian king is not only a bishop, but an arch-bishop, and his whole dominion his diocese. And though it were granted, that imposition of hands is necessary from a priest; yet, seeing Kings have the government of the clergy, that are his subjects even before baptism; the baptism itself, wherein he is received as a Christian, is a sufficient imposition of hands, so that whereas before he was a bishop, now he is a Christian bishop.

A. For my part I agree with you: this prohibition of marriage to priests came in about the time of Pope Gregory the Seventh, and William the First, King of England; by which means the Pope had in England, what with secular and what with regular priests, a great many lusty bachelors at his service.

Secondly, that auricular confession to a priest was necessary to salvation. It is true that, before that time, confession to a priest was usual, and performed for the most part by him that confessed, in writing. But that use was taken away about the time of King Edward III., and priests commanded to take confessions from the mouth of the confitent: and men did generally believe, that without confession and absolution before their departure out of the world, they could not be saved; and having absolution from a priest, that they could not be damned. You understand by this, how much every man would stand in awe of the Pope and clergy, more than they would of the King; and what inconvenience it is to a state for their subjects to confess their secret thoughts to spies.

B. Yes, as much as eternal torture is more terrible than

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/34


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/35

 death, so much they would fear the clergy more than the King.

A. And though perhaps the Roman clergy will not maintain that a priest hath power to remit sins absolutely, but only with a condition of repentance, yet the people were never so instructed by them; but were left to believe, that whensoever they had absolution, their precedent sins were all discharged, when their penance, which they took for repentance, was performed. Within the same time began the article of transubstantiation. For it had been disputed a long time before, in what manner a man did eat the body of our Saviour Jesus Christ, as being a point very difficult for a man to conceive and imagine clearly; but now it was made very clear, namely, that the bread was transubstantiated into Christ’s body, and so was become no more bread, but flesh.

B. It seems then that Christ had many bodies, and was in as many places at once, as there were communicants. I think the priests then were so wanton, as to insult upon the dulness, not only of common people, but also of kings and their councillors.

A. I am now in a narration, not in a disputation; and therefore I would have you to consider at this time nothing else, but what effect this doctrine would work upon kings and their subjects, in relation to the clergy, who only were able of a piece of bread to make our Saviour’s body, and thereby at the hour of death to save their souls.

B. For my part, it would have an effect on me, to make me think them gods, and to stand in awe of them as of God himself, if he were visibly present.

A. Besides these, and other articles tending to the upholding of the Pope’s authority, they had many fine points in their ecclesiastical polity, conducing to the same end; of which I will mention only such as were established within the same time. For then it was the order came up of preaching friars, that wandered up and down, with power to preach in what congregation they pleased, and were sure enough to instil into the people nothing that might lessen

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/35


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/36

 the obedience to the Church of Rome; but, on the contrary, whatsoever might give advantage to it against the civil power. Besides, they privately insinuated themselves with women and men of weak judgment, confirming their adherence to the Pope, and urging them, in the time of their sickness, to be beneficial to the Church by contribution of money, or building religious houses, or pious works and necessary for the remission of their sins.

B. I do not remember that I have read of any kingdom or state in the world, where liberty was given to any private man to call the people together, and make orations to them frequently, or at all, without first making the state acquainted, except only in Christendom. I believe the heathen Kings foresaw, that a few such orators would be able to make a great sedition. Moses did indeed command to read the Scriptures and expound them in the Synagogues every Sabbath-day. But the Scriptures then were nothing else but the laws of the nation, delivered unto them by Moses himself. And I believe it would do no hurt, if the laws of England also were often read and expounded in the several congregations of Englishmen, at times appointed, that they may know what to do; for they know already what to believe.

A. I think that neither the preaching of friars nor monks, nor of parochial priests, tended to teach men what, but whom to believe. For the power of the mighty hath no foundation but in the opinion and belief of the people. And the end which the Pope had in multiplying sermons, was no other but to prop and enlarge his own authority over all Christian Kings and States.

Within the same time, that is, between the time of the Emperor Charles the Great and of King Edward the Third of England, began their second polity; which was, to bring religion into an art, and thereby to maintain all the decrees of the Roman Church, by disputation, not only from the Scriptures, but also from the philosophy of Aristotle, both

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/36


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/37

 moral and natural. And to that end the Pope exhorted the said Emperor by letter, to erect schools of all kinds of literature; and from thence began the institution of universities; for not long after, the universities began in Paris and in Oxford. It is true, that there were schools in England before that time, in several places, for the instruction of children in the Latin tongue, that is to say, in the tongue of the Church. But for an university of learning, there was none erected till that time; though it be not unlikely there might be then some that taught philosophy, logic, and other arts, in divers monasteries, the monks having little else to do but to study. After some colleges were built to that purpose, it was not long time before many more were added to them, by the devotion of princes and bishops, and other wealthy men: and the discipline therein was confirmed by the Popes that then were; and abundance of scholars sent thither by their friends to study, as to a place from whence the way was open and easy to preferment both in Church and Commonwealth. The profit that the Church of Rome expected from them, and in effect received, was the maintenance of the Pope’s doctrine, and of his authority over kings and their subjects, by school-divines; who, striving to make good many points of faith incomprehensible, and calling in the philosophy of Aristotle to their assistance, wrote great books of school-divinity, which no man else, nor they themselves, are able to understand; as any man may perceive that shall consider the writings of Peter Lombard, or Scotus that wrote commentaries upon him, or of Suarez, or any other school-divine of later times. Which kind of learning nevertheless hath been much admired by two sorts of men, otherwise prudent enough; the one of which sorts were those that were already devoted and really affectionate to the Roman Church; for they believed the doctrine before, but admired the arguments because they understood them not, and yet found the conclusions to their mind. The other sort were negligent men, that had rather admire with others, than

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/37


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/38

 take the pains to examine. So that all sorts of people were fully resolved, that both the doctrine was true, and the Pope’s authority no more than was due to him.

B. I see that a Christian king, or state, how well soever provided he be of money and arms, where the Church of Rome hath such authority, will have but a hard match of it, for want of men. For their subjects will hardly be drawn into the field and fight with courage against their consciences.

A. It is true that great rebellions have been raised by Church-men in the Pope’s quarrel against kings, as in England against King John, and in France against King Henry IV. Wherein the Kings had a more considerable part on their sides, than the Pope had on his; and shall always have so, if they have money. For there are but few whose consciences are so tender as to refuse money when they want it. But the great mischief done to kings upon pretence of religion is, when the Pope gives power to one king to invade another.

B. I wonder how King Henry the Eighth could then so utterly extinguish the authority of the Pope in England, and that without any rebellion at home, or any invasion from abroad.

A. First, the priests, monks, and friars, being in the height of their power, were now for the most part grown insolent and licentious; and thereby the force of their arguments was now taken away by the scandal of their lives, which the gentry and men of good education easily perceived: and the Parliament consisting of such persons, was therefore willing to take away their power: and generally the common people, which from a long custom had been in love with Parliaments, were not displeased therewith. Secondly, the doctrine of Luther beginning a little before, was now by a great many men of the greatest judgment so well received, as that there was no hope to restore the Pope to his power by rebellion. Thirdly, the revenue of abbeys and all other religious houses, falling thereby into the King’s

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/38


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/39

 hands, and by him being disposed of to the most eminent gentlemen in every county, could not but make them do their best to confirm themselves in the possession of them. Fourthly, King Henry was of a nature quick and severe in the punishing of such as should be the first to oppose his designs. Lastly, as to invasion from abroad, in case the Pope had given the kingdom to another prince, it had been in vain; for England is another manner of kingdom than Navarre. Besides, the French and Spanish forces were employed at that time one against another: and though they had been at leisure, they would have found perhaps no better success than the Spaniards found afterwards in 1588. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the insolence, avarice, and hypocrisy of the then clergy, and notwithstanding the doctrine of Luther, if the Pope had not provoked the King by endeavouring to cross his marriage with his second wife, his authority might have remained in England till there had risen some other quarrel.

B. Did not the bishops, that then were, and had taken an oath, wherein was, amongst other things, that they should defend and maintain the Regal Rights of St. Peter (the words are, Regalia Sancti Petri, which nevertheless some have said are regulas Sancti Petri, that is to say, St. Peter’s Rules or Doctrine; and that the clergy afterward did read it, being perhaps written in short-hand, by a mistake to the Pope’s advantage regalia): did not, I say, the bishops oppose that Act of Parliament against the Pope, and against the taking of the oath of supremacy?

A. No, I do not find the bishops did many of them oppose the King; for having no power without him, it had been great imprudence to provoke his anger. There was besides a controversy in those times between the Pope and the bishops, most of which did maintain that they exercised their jurisdiction episcopal in the right of God, as immediately as the Pope himself did exercise the same over the whole Church. And because they saw that by this Act of the King’s in Parliament they were to hold their power no

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/39


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/40

 more of the Pope, and never thought of holding it of the King, they were perhaps better content to let that Act of Parliament pass. In the reign of King Edward VI. the doctrine of Luther had taken so great root in England, that they threw out also a great many of the Pope’s new articles of faith; which Queen Mary succeeding him restored again, together with all that had been abolished by Henry VIII., saving (that which could not be restored) the religious houses; and the bishops and clergy of King Edward were partly burnt for heretics, partly fled, and partly recanted. And they that fled betook themselves to those places beyond sea, where the reformed religion was either protected or not persecuted; who, after the decease of Queen Mary, returned again to favour and preferment under Queen Elizabeth, that restored the religion of her brother King Edward. And so it hath continued till this day, excepting the interruption made in this late rebellion of the presbyterians and other democratical men. But though the Romish religion were now cast out by the law, yet there were abundance of people, and many of them of the nobility, that still retained the religion of their ancestors, who as they were not much molested in points of conscience, so they were not by their own inclination very troublesome to the civil government; but by the secret practice of the Jesuits and other emissaries of the Roman Church, they were made less quiet than they ought to have been; and some of them to venture on the most horrid act that ever had been heard of before, I mean the Gunpowder Treason. And upon that account, the Papists of England have been looked upon as men that would not be sorry for any disorders here that might possibly make way to the restoring of the Pope’s authority. And therefore I named them for one of the distempers of the state of England in the time of our late King Charles.

B. I see that Monsieur Mornay du Plessis, and Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham, writing of the progress of the Pope’s power, and intituling their books, one of them, “The Mystery of Iniquity,” the other, “The Grand

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/40


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/41

 ,” were both in the right. For I believe there was never such another cheat in the world, and I wonder that the Kings and States of Christendom never perceived it.

A. It is manifest they did perceive it. How else durst they make war, *as they have done*, against the Pope, and some of them take him out of Rome itself and carry him away prisoner? But if they would have freed themselves from his tyranny, they should have agreed together, and made themselves every one, as Henry VIII. did, head of the Church within their own respective dominions. But not agreeing, they let his power continue, every one hoping to make use of it, when there should be cause, against his neighbour.

B. Now, as to that other distemper by Presbyterians, how came their power to be so great, being of themselves, for the most part, but so many poor scholars?

A. This controversy between the Papist and the Reformed Churches could not choose but make every man, to the best of his power, examine by the Scriptures, which of them was in the right; and to that end they were translated into vulgar languages; whereas before, the translation of them was not allowed, nor any man to read them but such as had express license so to do. For the Pope did concerning the Scriptures the same that Moses did concerning Mount Sinai. Moses suffered no man to go up to it to hear God speak or gaze upon him, but such as he himself took with him; and the Pope suffered none to speak with God in the Scriptures, that had not some part of the Pope’s spirit in him, for which he might be trusted.

B. Certainly Moses did therein very wisely, and according to God’s own commandment.

A. No doubt of it, and the event itself hath made it appear so. For after the Bible was translated into English, every man, nay, every boy and wench, that could read English, thought they spoke with God Almighty, and understood what he said, when by a certain number of chapters a day they had read the Scriptures once or twice over. *And so* the reverence and obedience due to the

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/41


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/42

 Reformed Church here, and to the bishops and pastors therein, was cast off; and every man became a judge of religion, and an interpreter of the Scriptures to himself.

B. Did not the Church of England intend it should be so? What other end could they have in recommending the Bible to me, if they did not mean I should make it the rule of my actions? Else they might have kept it, though open to themselves, to me sealed up in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and fed me out of it in such measure as had been requisite for the salvation of my soul and the Church’s peace.

A. I confess this licence of interpreting the Scripture was the cause of so many several sects, as having lain hid till the beginning of the late King’s reign, did then appear to the disturbance of the commonwealth. But to return to the story. Those persons that fled for religion in the time of Queen Mary, resided, for the most part, in places where the Reformed religion was professed and governed by an assembly of ministers; who also were not a little made use of (for want of better statesmen), in points of civil government. Which pleased so much the English and Scotch Protestants that lived amongst them, that at their return they wished there were the same honour and reverence given to the ministry in their own countries. *And* in Scotland (King James being then young) soon (with the help of some of the powerful nobility) they brought it to pass. Also they that returned into England in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, endeavoured the same here, but could never effect it till this last rebellion, nor without the aid of the Scots. And it was no sooner effected, but they were defeated again by the other sects, which, by the preaching of the Presbyterians and private interpretation of Scripture, were grown numerous.

B. I know indeed that in the beginning of the late war, the power of the Presbyterians was so very great, that, not only the citizens of London were almost all of them at their devotion, but also the greatest part of all other cities and

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/42


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/43

 market-towns of England. But you have not yet told me by what art and what degrees they became so strong.

A. It was not their own art alone that did it, but they had the concurrence of a great many gentlemen, that did no less desire a popular government in the civil state than these ministers did in the Church. And as these did in the pulpit draw the people to their opinions, and to a dislike of the Church-government, Canons, and Common-prayerbook, so did the other make them in love with democracy by their harangues in the Parliament, and by their discourses and communication with people in the country, continually extolling liberty and inveighing against tyranny, leaving the people to collect of themselves that this tyranny was the present government of the state. And as the Presbyterians brought with them into their churches their divinity from the universities, so did many of the gentlemen bring their politics from thence into the Parliament; but neither of them did this very boldly during the time of Queen Elizabeth. And though it be not likely that all of them did it out of malice, but many of them out of error, yet certainly the chief leaders were ambitious ministers and ambitious gentlemen; the ministers envying the authority of bishops, whom they thought less learned; and the gentlemen envying the privy-council and principal courtiers, whom they thought less wise than themselves. For it is a hard matter for men, who do all think highly of their own wits, when they have also acquired the learning of the university, to be persuaded that they want any ability requisite for the government of a commonwealth, especially having read the glorious histories and the sententious politics of the ancient popular governments of the Greeks and Romans, amongst whom kings were hated and branded with the name of tyrants, and popular government (though no tyrant was ever so cruel as a popular assembly) passed by the name of liberty. The Presbyterian ministers, in the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, did not (because they durst not) publicly *and plainly* preach against the discipline of the Church. But

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/43


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/44

 not long after, by the favour perhaps of some great courtier, they went abroad preaching in most of the market-towns of England, as the preaching friars had formerly done, upon working-days in the morning; in which sermons, these and others of the same tenets, that had charge of souls, both by the manner and matter of their preaching, applied themselves wholly to the winning of the people to a liking of their doctrines and good opinion of their persons.

And first, for the manner of their preaching; they so framed their countenance and gesture at their entrance into the pulpit, and their pronunciation both in their prayer and sermon, and used the Scripture phrase (whether understood by the people or not), as that no tragedian in the world could have acted the part of a right godly man better than these did; insomuch as a man unacquainted with such art, could never suspect any ambitious plot in them to raise sedition against the state, as they then had designed; or doubt that the vehemence of their voice (for the same words with the usual pronunciation had been of little force) and forcedness of their gesture and looks, could arise from anything else but zeal to the service of God. And by this art they came into such credit, that numbers of men used to go forth of their own parishes and towns on working-days, leaving their calling, and on Sundays leaving their own churches, to hear them preach in other places, and to despise their own and all other preachers that acted not so well as they. And as for those ministers that did not usually preach, but instead of sermons did read to the people such homilies as the Church had appointed, they esteemed and called them dumb dogs.

Secondly, for the matter of their sermons, because the anger of the people in the late Roman usurpation was then fresh, they saw there could be nothing more gracious with them than to preach against such other points of the Romish religion as the bishops had not yet condemned; that so receding further from popery than they did, they might with glory to themselves leave a suspicion on the bishops, as men not yet well purged from idolatry.

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/44


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/45

 Thirdly, before their sermons, their prayer was or seemed to be extempore, which they pretended to be dictated by the spirit of God within them, and many of the people believed or seemed to believe it. For any man might see, that had judgment, that they did not take care beforehand what they should say in their prayers. And from hence came a dislike of the common-prayer-book, which is a set form, premeditated, that men might see to what they were to say Amen.

Fourthly, they did never in their sermons, or but lightly, inveigh against the lucrative vices of men of trade or handicraft; such as are feigning, lying, cozening, hypocrisy, or other uncharitableness, except want of charity to their pastors and to the faithful: which was a great ease to the generality of citizens and the inhabitants of market-towns, and no little profit to themselves.

Fifthly, by preaching up an opinion that men were to be assured of their salvation by the testimony of their own private spirit, meaning the Holy Ghost dwelling within them. And from this opinion the people that found in themselves a sufficient hatred towards the Papists, and an ability to repeat the sermons of these men at their coming home, made no doubt but that they had all that was necessary, how fraudulently and spitefully soever they behaved themselves to their neighbours that were not reckoned amongst the Saints, and sometimes to those also.

Sixthly, they did, indeed, with great earnestness and severity, inveigh often against two sins, carnal lusts and vain swearing; which, without question, was very well done. But the common people were thereby inclined to believe, that nothing else was sin, but that which was forbidden in the third and seventh commandments (for few men do understand by the name of lust any other concupiscence, than that which is forbidden in that seventh commandment; for men are not ordinarily said to lust after another man’s cattle, or other goods or possessions): and therefore never made much scruple of the acts of fraud and malice, but

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/45


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/46

 endeavoured to keep themselves from uncleanness only, or at least from the scandal of it. And, whereas they did, both in their sermons and writings, maintain and inculcate, that the very first motions of the mind, that is to say, the delight men and women took in the sight of one another’s form, though they checked the proceeding thereof so that it never grew up to be a design, was nevertheless a sin, they brought young men into desperation and to think themselves damned, because they could not (which no man can, and is contrary to the constitution of nature) behold a delightful object without delight. And by this means they became confessors to such as were thus troubled in conscience, and were obeyed by them as their spiritual doctors in all cases of conscience.

B. Yet divers of them did preach frequently against oppression.

A. It is true, I had forgot that; but it was before such as were free enough from it; I mean the common people, who would easily believe themselves oppressed, but never oppressors. And therefore you may reckon this among their artifices, to make the people believe they were oppressed by the King, or perhaps by the bishops, or both; and incline the meaner sort to their party afterwards, when there should be occasion. But this was but sparingly done in the time of Queen Elizabeth, whose fear and jealousy they were afraid of. Nor had they as yet any great power in the Parliament-house, whereby to call in question her prerogative by petitions of right and other devices, as they did afterwards, when democratical gentlemen had received them into their counsels for the design of changing the government from monarchical to popular, which they called liberty.

B. Who would think that such horrible designs as these could so easily and so long remain covered with the cloak of godliness? For that they were most impious hypocrites, is manifest enough by the war their proceedings ended in, and by the impious acts in that war committed. But when

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/46


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/47

 began first to appear in Parliament the attempt of popular government, and by whom?

A. As to the time of attempting the change of government from monarchical to democratical, we must distinguish. They did not challenge the sovereignty in plain terms, and by that name, till they had slain the King; nor the rights thereof altogether by particular heads, till the King was driven from London by tumults raised in that city against him, and retired for the security of his person to York; where he had not been many days, when they sent unto him nineteen propositions, whereof above a dozen were demands of several powers, essential parts of the power sovereign. But before that time they had demanded some of them in a petition which they called a Petition of Right; which nevertheless the King had granted them in a former Parliament, though he deprived himself thereby, not only of the power to levy money without their consent, but also of his ordinary revenue by custom of tonnage and poundage, and of the liberty to put into custody such men as he thought likely to disturb the peace and raise sedition in the kingdom. As for the men that did this, it is enough to say they were members of the last Parliament, and of some other Parliaments in the beginning of King Charles and the end of King James his reign; to name them all is not necessary, further than the story shall require. Most of them were members of the House of Commons; some few also, of the Lords; but all, such as had a great opinion of their sufficiency in politics, which they thought was not sufficiently taken notice of by the King.

B. How could the Parliament, when the King had a great navy, and a great number of trained soldiers, and all the magazines of ammunition in his power, be able to begin the war?

A. The King had these things indeed in his right; but that signifies little, when they that had the custody of the navy and magazines, and with them all the trained soldiers, and in a manner all his subjects, were by the preaching of

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/47


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/48

 Presbyterian ministers, and the seditious whisperings of false and ignorant politicians, made his enemies; and when the King could have no money but what the Parliament should give him, which you may be sure should not be enough to maintain his regal power, which they intended to take from him. And yet, I think, they never would have ventured into the field, but for that unlucky business of imposing upon the Scots, who were all Presbyterians, our book of Common-prayer. For I believe the English would never have taken well that the Parliament should make war upon the King, upon any provocation, unless it were in their own defence, in case the King should first make war upon them; and, therefore, it behoved them to provoke the King, that he might do something that might look like hostility.

It happened in the year 1637, that the King, by the advice, as it was thought, of the Archbishop of Canterbury, sent down a book of Common-prayer into Scotland, not differing in substance from ours, nor much in words besides the putting of the word Presbyter for that of Minister, commanding it to be used (for conformity with this kingdom) by the ministers there, for an ordinary form of Divine service. This being read in the church at Edinburgh, caused such a tumult there, that he that read it had much ado to escape with his life; and gave occasion to the greatest part of the nobility and others to enter, by their own authority, into a Covenant amongst themselves, which impudently they called a Covenant with God, to put down episcopacy, without consulting with the King: which they presently did, animated thereto by their own confidence, or by assurance from some of the democratical Englishmen that in former Parliaments had been the greatest opposers of the King’s interests, that the King would not be able to raise an army to chastise them without calling a Parliament, which would be sure to favour them. For the thing which those democraticals chiefly then aimed at, was to force the King to call a Parliament, which he had not done for ten years

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/48


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/49

 before, as having found no help, but hindrance to his designs in the Parliaments he had formerly called. Howsoever, contrary to their expectation, by the help of his better-affected subjects of the nobility and gentry, he made a shift to raise a sufficient army to have reduced the Scots to their former obedience, if it had proceeded to battle. And with this army he marched himself into Scotland; where the Scotch army was also brought into the field against him, as if they meant to fight. But then the Scotch sent to the King for leave to treat by commissioners on both sides; and the King, willing to avoid the destruction of his own subjects, condescended to it. The issue was peace; and the King thereupon went to Edinburgh, and passed an Act of Parliament there to their satisfaction.

B. Did he not then confirm episcopacy?

A. No, but yielded to the abolishing of it: but by this means the English were crossed in their hope of a Parliament. But the said democraticals, formerly opposers of the King’s interest, ceased not to endeavour still to put the two nations into a war; to the end the King might buy the Parliament’s help at no less a price than sovereignty itself.

B. But what was the cause that the gentry and nobility of Scotland were so averse from the episcopacy? For I can hardly believe that their consciences were extraordinarily tender, nor that they were so very great divines, as to know what was the true Church-discipline established by our Saviour and his Apostles; nor yet so much in love with their ministers, as to be over-ruled by them in the government either ecclesiastical or civil. For in their lives they were just as other men are, pursuers of their own interests and preferments, wherein they were not more opposed by the bishops than by their Presbyterian ministers.

A. Truly I do not know; I cannot enter into other men’s thoughts, farther than I am led by the consideration of human nature in general. But upon this consideration I see first, that men of ancient wealth and nobility are not apt to brook, that poor scholars should (as they must, when

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/49


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 57.djvu/188

  in the Low Countries and at Vigo (Postman, 14 Nov. 1702). But he still resisted the royal wishes whenever he deemed the rights of his episcopal office impugned. When in 1703 [q. v.] was translated from St. Asaph to Bath and Wells, the see of their common friend Ken, the queen expressed her willingness to allow Hooper to retain in commendam his chantership of Exeter Cathedral and to assign its value (200l. a year) to Ken. But Trelawny objected and would not yield. In like manner he refused 7,000l. for the reversion of the manor of Cuddenbeck, as he thought it worth 2,000l. more, and would not prejudice his successor (, Bishops of Exeter, pp. 157–60).

In 1707 Trelawny was translated to Winchester, one of his last official acts as bishop of Exeter being to furnish a return, pursuant to an order in council dated 4 April 1707, of papists and reputed papists in Devon. His promotion disgusted many, Burnet complained, he being considerable for nothing but his birth and his election interest in Cornwall (, Own Time, v. 337). He succeeded Peter Mews [q. v.], and was enthroned on 21 June, and on the 23rd invested prelate of the Garter at Windsor. In his charge to the clergy of the diocese of Winchester (privately printed), Trelawny announced his devotion to protestantism and his church, and declared equal hostility to papists and the ‘furious sorts of dissenters’ (cf. Trelawne MSS. 12 Aug. 1708). In Winchester Cathedral Trelawny erected an enormous throne in the taste of his age (, Cathedral Church of Winchester, London, 1715;, Lives of the Bishops of Winchester, i. 12). Since demolished, parts of it survive at Trelawne. He finished the rebuilding of the palace of Wolvesey begun by Bishop Morley, residing there and in the other two palaces of the see, at Chelsea and at Farnham Castle. One of his last acts was to place a statue of Wolsey over the gateway leading to the hall of Christ Church, Oxford, in 1719 (, History and Antiquities, 1786, pp. 452–3, gives the inscription). He was a governor of the Charterhouse, and Busby trustee of Westminster school. On 1 July 1720 he gave a handsome entertainment at Chelsea to commemorate his deliverance from the Tower (Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. x. 370); and there the next year, 19 July 1721, he died. He was buried in Pelynt church on 10 Aug..

Trelawny married, in 1684, Rebecca, daughter and heiress of Thomas Hele of Bascombe, Devonshire. Many letters to ‘Dear Bekkie’ are preserved at Trelawne. She died on 11 Feb. 1710 (, vi. 545). Their six sons and six daughters were: John, fourth baronet (d. 1756); Henry, drowned with Sir Clowdisley Shovell; Charles, prebendary of Winchester; [q. v.], governor of Jamaica; Hele (d. 1740), rector of Southill and Landreath; Jonathan, died in infancy; Charlotte, Lætitia, Rebecca, Elizabeth, Mary, Anne.

Trelawny was through life of a convivial temper, and scandals were spread, notably by Burnet, that at times he drank wine too freely. He had a stiff temper (cf., Brief Relation, iii. 47), and was a stern parent (cf. and , Bristol Past and Present, ii. 75). In the charming ‘Love-letters of Myrtilla and Philander’ is recounted the ten years' courtship of the bishop's fourth daughter, Lætitia, by her first cousin, Captain Harry Trelawny (d. 1762), afterwards fifth baronet, whom she ultimately married; the bishop denounced his daughter's suitor as ‘one pretending boldly and wickedly, too, to rob me of my daughter so dear to me … to be treated with the deepest and justest resentments’ (cf. Trelawny Correspondence, Letters between Myrtilla and Philander, 1706–1736, privately printed, London, 1884).

The best known portrait of Trelawny, by Kneller, in the hall of Christ Church, represents him seated and wearing the robes of the Garter. Another portrait by Kneller is at Trelawne, where there is also a portrait of the bishop's wife by the same artist. In both portraits he is depicted with a strong, ruddy, clean-shaven face, and firm mouth. He was included with the rest of the seven bishops in the engraved group by D. Loggan.

Trelawny's extant writings—in the style of a ‘spiritual dragoon’—consist of a few sermons and many letters, for the most part unedited, at Trelawne. His sermon in 1702 was printed by the queen's command. His charge to the clergy of the diocese of Winchester was printed privately, with his sermon, in 1877. In Bishop Gibson's edition of Camden's ‘Britannia’ (1695) the additions for Cornwall and Devon were chiefly due to Trelawny.


text:
Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/50

 they are made bishops) be their fellows. Secondly, that from the emulation of glory between the nations, they might be willing to see this nation afflicted by civil war, and might hope, by aiding the rebels here, to acquire some power over the English, at least so far as to establish here the Presbyterian discipline; which was also one of the points they afterwards openly demanded. Lastly, they might hope for, in the war, some great sum of money, as a reward of their assistance, besides great booty, which they afterwards obtained. But whatsoever was the cause of their hatred to bishops, the pulling of them down was not all they aimed at: if it had, now that episcopacy was abolished by act of Parliament, they would have rested satisfied, which they did not. For after the King was returned to London, the English Presbyterians and democraticals, by whose favour they had put down bishops in Scotland, thought it reason to have the assistance of the Scotch for the pulling down of bishops in England. And in order thereunto, they might perhaps deal with the Scots secretly, to rest unsatisfied with that pacification, which they were before contented with. Howsoever it was, not long after the King was returned to London, they sent up to some of their friends at court a certain paper, containing, as they pretended, the articles of the said pacification; a false and scandalous paper, which was by the King’s command burnt, as I have heard, publicly. And so both parties returned to the same condition they were in, when the King went down with his army.

B. And so there was a great deal of money cast away to no purpose. But you have not told me who was general of that army.

A. I told you the King was there in person. He that commanded under him was the Earl of Arundel, a man that wanted not either valour or judgment. But to proceed to battle or to treaty, was not in his power, but in the King’s.

B. He was a man of a most noble and loyal family, and whose ancestor had formerly given a great overthrow to the

title: Page:Behemoth 1889.djvu/50