Page images

setting up the Scotch Presbytery just as among
them. But the Assembly could not be brought
to assent to it in those terms.' Being so worded
as, To Preserve the Government of the Church
of Scotland ; and, to Reform that of England;
and so to Reduce it to the nearest Uniformity.
But, before the" Assembly could agree to it; it
was thus mollified, To Préserve that of Scotland
(not absolutely, but) against the common Enemy;
And to Reform that of England (not, so as it is
in Scotland, but) according to the word of God,
and the example of the best reformed Churches; And.
to endeavor the nearest Uniformity (which might
be as well by Reforming that of Scotland, as
that of England, or of both.')

And whereas the Covenant, as first brought
to them, was against Popery, Prelacie, Heresie,
Schism, Prophaness, &c. They would by no means
be persuaded to admit the word Prelacy, as thus
standing absolute. For though they thought
the English Episcopacy, as it then stood, capable
of Reformation, for the better in divers things;
yet to Engage indefinitely against all Prelacy,'
they would not agree.

After many days debate on this point (as I understood from those who were then present) some of the Parliament (who then pressed it) suggested this Expedient; that by Prelacy, they did not understand all. manner of Episcopacy

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


or Superiority, but only the present Episcopacy, as it now stood in England, consisting of Arch-Bishops, Bishops and their several Courts, and subordinate Officers, &c.:+And that if any considerable alteration were made in any part of this whole frame, it was an Abolition of the present Prelacy, and as much as was here intended in these words; and that no more was. intended but a Reformation of the present Episcopacy in England. And in pursuance of this, it was agreed to be Expressed with this Interpretation, Prelacy; that is, Church Government by Arch-Bishops, Bishops, their Chancellors and Commissaries, Deans, Deans and Chapters, Arch-Deacons, and all other Ecclesiastical Officers depending on that Hierarchy. And with this Interpretation at length it passed. And the Scotch Commissioners, in behalf of their Church, agreed to those Amendments.

I know some have been apt to put another sense upon that Interpretation ; but this was the true intendment of the Assembly, and upon this occasion.

During my attendance on the Assembly; I was a Minister in London; first in Fan-church street; and afterwards in Iron-monger Lane; where I so continued till niy Remove to Osförd.

About the beginning of our Civil Wars, in the year 1642, a Chaplain of Sr. Will. IValler's,


(one evening as we were sitting down to Supper at the Lady Vere's in London, with whom I then dwelt,) shewed me an intercepted Letter written in Ciplier. He shewed it me as a Curiosity (and it was indeed the first thing I had ever seen written in Cipher.) And asked me between jeast and earnest, whether I could make any thing of it. And he was surprised when I said (upon the first view) perhaps I might, if it proved no more but a new Alphabet.

It was about ten a clock when we rose from Supper. I then withdrew to my chamber to consider of it. And by the number of different · Characters therein, (not above 22 or 23:') I judged that it could not be more than a new Alphabet, and in about 2 hours time (before I went to bed) I had deciphered it; and I sent a Copy of it (so deciphered) the next morning to him from whom I had it. And this was my first attempt at Deciphering.

This unexpected success, on an easy Cipher, was then looked upon as a great matter; and I was somewhile after pressed to attempt one of another Nature; which was a Letter of Mr. Secretary Windebank, then in France, to his Son in England, in a Cipher hard enough, and not unbecoming a Secretary of State. It was in Numeral Figures, extending in number to above seaven hundred, with many other Characters

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

intermixed. But not so hard as many that I have since met with. I was backward at first to attempt it, and after. I had spent some time upon it, threw it by as desperate: But, after some months, resumed it again, and had the good hap to master it.

Being encouraged by this success, beyond expectation; I afterwards ventured on many others (some of more, some of less difficulty) and scarce missed of any, that I undertook, for many years, during our civil Wars, and afterwards. But of late years, the French Methods of Cipher are grown so intricate beyond what it was wont to be, that I have failed of many; tho’ I have master'd divers of them. Of such deciphered Letters, there be copies of divers remaining in the Archives of the Bodleyan Library in Oxford; and many more in my own Custody, and with the Secretaries of State.

On March 4. 1644, 5. I married Susanna daughter of John and Rachel Glyde of Northjam in Sussex; born there about the end of Januaту

1621, 2. and baptised Feb. 3. following. By whom I have (beside other children who died young) a Son and two Daughters now surviving; John born Dec. 26. 1650. Anne born June 4. 1656, and Elizabeth born Sept. 23, 1658.

My Son John, sometime of Trinity College in Oxford, afterwards of the Inner Temple Lon


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

don, Barrister at Law, Feb. 1. 1681, 2. married Elizubeth daughter of John and Mary Harris of Soundėls by Nettlebed in the County of Oxford; and afterward Heiress to her Brother Taverner Harris, to a fair estate, at Soundels. She died Aug. 8. 1693, leaving three children now surviving, John, Mary and Elizabeth.

My daughter Anne married Dec. 23. 1675, to John Blencow, son of Thomas and Mary Blencow of an antient family at Marston St. Laurence, in Northamptonshire, then Barrister at Law, now one of the Barons of the Exchequer, by whom she hath sea ven children, all now surviving, John, Mary, Anne, Thmoas, William, Elizabeth and Susanna.

My Daughter Elizabeth, married Feb. 21. 1681,2. to William Benson son of George and Mary Benson of Towcester in Northamptonshire; and is now a Widdow. He died Nov. 5. 1691. leaving no child surviving.

My Wife died at Oxford Mar. 17. 1686, 7. after we had been married more than 42

years. About the year 1645, while I lived in London (at a time, when, by our Civil Wars, Academical Studies were much interrupted in both our Universities :) beside the Conversation of divers eminent Divines, as to matters Theological ; I had the opportunity of being acquainted with divers worthy Persons, inquisitive into




« PreviousContinue »