« AnteriorContinuar »
513 An Old Tragedy.
And Cic&ar's credulous minde imbibes the
poison Of darke distruste and hatrede, which will
worke The fall of one or both.
It may be so
Bat why of this to me? Have I the power
their malice Would undermine the bolwarke of the state, Woulde work the downfalle of the Roman
champion, And peril Cecsar in his overthrowe, The great all-potent Maxim us (whose will Is more than law in Rome) resortes to me, (A weake andpowerlesse woman) to complaine That such men are—they are bat by thy sufferance.
There was a time when I indeed might boaste
If Aetius enter Rome——he dies
Little, alas! availes the soldier's faulchion
Petronius Maximus, If thou dost speake it unadvisedlie, "thou dost speake it false—
If it be false, 5J "fe snail answere it. In one shorte houre, *se horrors which my wordes have feeblie u&dowed
Will with their palpable and bloodie formes
Thou too wert leagued to slaie him—-0! what
Dare confide in me,
It may not be.
One only way if yon dare
Speake, I dare heare Aetius' noble bloude
Flows in this bieasle, and bids me spurne at
No, your tyrante
Your brothers murderer
Yet still my husbande
He must be spared.
Speake his fate,
Give but the worde, and this good sworde shall
reach him, E'en in his guilty pleasures, and avenge Youre wronges—the wronges of Rome and
These extracts will sufficiently show the style of this " Famouse Historie." It is more declamatory than the geSiege of Manchester, in 1642.
******** f r*r*r**r* rr+* rrrr-r-r*-* rr * r* i* ^r r+ r
nerality of the plays of that period, and rather resembles the pompous poverty of the French school, than the careless richness of the Shaksperian drama. This marked difference I consider as lending an additional interest to the piece, and may warrant a conjecture that the author held no communion with his brother writers, or with the spirit of their works. There is something dry and meagre in his dialogue, while the generality of the Elizabethan poets pour out their bright imaginings with "wasteful," and sometimes " ridiculous excess." To that golden age of English poesy, the public attention cannot be too repeatedly and too fondly directed. Among the labourers in the rich mine of old English literature, the Retrospective Reviewers deserve especial and honourable mention. Uniting the dissimilar character of the bibliographer and the man of taste, they have produced a work in which the utile is delightfully mingled with the dulce. The literary world, I believe, has very generally observed and appreciated the merits of this literary journal, and I feel much gratified in adding
SIEGE OF MANCHESTER, IN 1642.
An account of a regular siege being laid to the town of Manchester, in the months of September and October in the year 1642; taken by an inhabitant, who was an eye-witness of the business, and related it as follows :—
The town of Manchester, at this time, was a rich and populous place, but to add more to its grandeur and reputation in general, it was a very pious and religious one; but as the finest gold has its alloy, so this people were unhappily divided in their judgments, respecting the unnatural contention that at this time subsisted between the king and parliament, part of them declaring for the king, the other for the parliament; amongst the former was Lord Strange, who levied a great body offerees in order to take possession of the town in the king's favour.
Amongst the opposite party were Mr. Holland, of Denton, Mr. Edgerton, of Shagh, and Mr. Erid, of Denton, deputy lieutenants, by the ordinance of parliament, who did advise and consult with the town, what were best to be done in this critical conjuncture, for the safety thereof.
The result of which consultation was, that they should immediately assemble the militia, and seize upon the town, in the name of the parliament, which they did; when numbers of the townsmen joined them, who daily exercised each other, and thereby many of them became very expert musketeers, and active and able pikemen.
They had also amongst them at this time, an able German engineer, to whose skill, industry, faithfulness, and valour, (under God) they owed much of their preservation; he gave directions for the chaining up and fortifying the ends of the town, which was at first begun with great diligence, but found great opposition from the other parly, who threatened to hinder the setting down of the posts.
This so alarmed the country-people ronnd Manchester, that they assembled themselves together in one large body, and marched immediately into the town, and joined the militia and townsmen there, which also gave a fit opportunity to facilitate the setting down of the posts, and perfecting the fortifications, which were before opposed, and not finished.
OnSaturday, September 24th, in the night, certain intelligence was brought to the town, that great forces were coming from Warrington against it, conducted by Lord Strange, Lord Molineux, and many other gentlemen, who all assisted with men and money.
At this time there were in the town about 150 of Mr. Ashton of Middleton's tenants, in complete arms, commanded by Captain Bradshaw, together with the town's forces, under the command of Captain Ratcliff, who cheerfully and courageously, upon the beating of a drum, repaired to the end of the town, resolving (by God's assistance) to maintain their liberty and prosperity with the utmost hazard of their lives.
Hereupon the bells were rung, and posts sent to every part of the country about, to give notice of their danger.
Whereupon Mr. Holland of Denton, Captain Booth, son to Sir George Booth of Dunham, and other worthy gentlemen, with their tenants and others their neighbours, came in cheerfully.
Part of Lord Strange's forces came through Cheshire, and part on the other side of the river Irwell; the breaking of a wheel which carried their ordnance, retarded the forces, that they came not in view till about nine o'clock on the Lord's day in the morning, and at that time sundry companies appeared in open view.
Then two gentlemen were sent to know the reason of their coming in such a hostile manner: his lordship stayed one of them as an hostage, and sent Captain Windebank to require entrance, and that he might march with his army into the town; which was unanimously denied him.
On Monday, September 26th, 1642, Lord Strange, afterwards Earl of Derby, sent another messenger to the same purpose as before, promising to use the town kindly, otherwise fearful destruction might ensue; but his requests were not granted, nor his threats regarded; whereupon about twelve o'clock of the same day, he began to play with his cannon upon Deansgate and Salford Bridge; the bullets that were taken up weighed between four and six pounds apiece: and this afternoon the battle was hot on both sides, most of the townsmen constantly charged and discharged most resolutely, to the great admiration and terror of the enemy.
The fight was first begun by the Earl and his forces, which were in and about a house of Sir Edward Mosley's, called the Lodge, where they planted some of their ordnance, and at the same time was seconded by an assault which they made from Salford Bridge; they having possessed themselves of the town of Salford, which joined to Manchester, save only a water betwixt them.
Yet this town joined not with Manchester in a common defence; but it Pleased God that their cannon played Jn vain upon the town, and therefore Jbey assayed to enter the town by beating the defendants out of their *orks, which they not being able to *>, they sent some of their soldiers to j e JTM0 barns and eight or ten dwell'"S-oouses, about twelve rods from
the outworks, which they effected; the enemy with great shouting cried out, " The town is ours, the town is ours," and renewed the assault; but by the valour and courage of Captain Bradshaw and his band of soldiers, they were beaten back, and many of them slain in the assault.
The wind at first blew the flames and smoke into the faces of our soldiers, to their great annoyance and endangering of the town; but God, who rides upon the wings of the wind, suddenly turned it, till the rage of the fire was abated.
Those forces which were in Salford, endeavoured to enter the Bridge, where they found such hot entertainment at the hands of Captain Roseworm (the German engineer beforementioned) and his soldiers, that they were there also forced to retreat with the loss of some of their men; but having possessed themselves of a house at the foot of the bridge, they continued all night shooting at those noble defendants.
In this day's fight, the town lost not one man : on Tuesday morning a soldier of the enemies was taken, being mortally wounded, who confessed that he was one of the seven who set the barn on fire, and lived but a day after he was apprehended.
This same day there was an assault made at the other ends of the town, especially at the Market-street-laneend, but they were repulsed by Captain Ratcliff and his company; the townsmen likewise sallied out, took divers prisoners, slew and put to flight others that were straggling in the fields.
About five of the clock that evening, the Earl of Derby sounded for a parley, and sent a message in writing into the town, offering them honourable terms, if they would surrender. The gentlemen in the town referred it to the soldiers what answer to make thereunto; who all resolutely said they would not give him a yard of match, but would maintain their cause and arms to the last drop of their blood.
After the return of this message, his lordship being enraged therewith, caused his ordnance to play again upon the town; but all his shots, by God's providence, did no harm, save only that they killed a lad who stood gazing upon the top of a stile, and
■*•+*>■+ ** +*+++++++* ** *■*•**-** *■*** ****** *<
was shot through the side with a cannon bullet, but no other harm done thereby.
Thursday following, one Captain Standish, in Salford, was slain by a bullet from the town, who (as was reported) was then reproaching his soldiers, because they would not fall on, upon whose death the soldiers fled away; and other soldiers also fled by scores, yea, also by hundreds daily, from Lord Strange.
There were slain on his side (as we credibly heard) about 200, and some commanders of note, three whereof •were buried at Didsbury; and the town lost bnt four men, whereof two by accident, and two by the enemy, but no more at all.
Upon the Friday following, little was done, only the Earl continued playing upon the town with his ordnance and musket shot from Salford and the Lodge, and they cast up a trench before the end of Deansgate, as if the Earl intended to make a long siege; his ordnance made holes in divers houses, and battered down a piece of a chimney, but did little harm else.
The same night his cannons were removed, and on Saturday he desired that prisoners might be exchanged, and that plundering might cease on both sides. This motion was agreed to, and about noon the same day, the Earl (it seemed being already tired with the siege) removed his forces from before the town.
It was even admirable and wonderful, and might be thought a thing almost impossible, that so many bullets from the cannon and muskets should be shot at the town, and yet so few hurt; for there could not be less (on probable conjecture) than four thousand bullets shot from the enemy, small and great, and very near as many from the town, and yet, as was said before, not above four men killed, and as many wounded.
The soldiers in the town, from first to last, had prayers and singing of psalms daily at the ends of the streets, most of them being religious men, and most resolute and courageous, and the gentlemen of the town made bullets night and day. The Earl's forces consisted, at first, of 4000 foot, seven pieces of ordnance, 200 dragoons, and 100 horsemen.
FABULOUS FOUNDATION OF THE
That we have fixed the year of Peter's imprisonment right, appears from Carion, who places it in the fourth of Claudius, the year in which occurred the famine mentioned in Acts xi. 28. in which year Herod, who imprisoned Peter, died. It was to avoid the contradiction arising from chronology, that Onuphrius suggested the idea that Peter held both the sees of Rome and Antioch at the same period; and that the time of his presiding over both was but twentyfive years. Eusebius affirms, that the apostles were commanded by the Lord not to depart from Jerusalem until the end of twelve years, which reach to the fourth of Claudius, the year of Peter's imprisonment; before which no author speaks of Peter's going to Rome; so that the time fix'd on by Popish writers for his going to Rome, is false, take it which way you will.
But further: when Peter was delivered out of prison, and Paul and Barnabas were returned again to Antioch, Acts xii. 25, Peter went neither to Antioch nor to Rome. That he went not to Antioch, appears from the enumeration of eminent menthatwere there, as given by Luke, Acts xiii. 1., in which no mention is made of Peter; and that he could not have been at Rome, we conclude from its being said that he retired to a secret place, Acts xii. 17. Papists will indeed contend, that this secret place was Rome; but the terms in which this circumstance is mentioned, must be forced a great deal in order to draw such a conclusion from them; for it is plain that he went for concealment, not to preside as bishop; nor will the designation of the place suit such a city as Rome; and Papists must be very hard pressed, if they can consent to bring the head of their church to the seat of his power in such a manner as this; more especially as this event was to be the foundation of their faith, and the belief of it to be a distinguishing mark between them and those they denominate heretics.
When, after Peter's deliverance. Paul and Barnabas were returned to Antioch; from thence they were again sent by the Holy Spirit into W»1
countries, Acts xiii. and xiv. which journey must have occupied considerable time; they then returned to Antioch, and abode there a long time, aud from thence proceeded to Jerusalem to the council; during all this space, Peter had not been at Rome, as we conclude from these considerations: Before the journey was begun, Peter was at Jerusalem, or in the "other place," an expression which, as we have already shewn, is not likely to have meant Rome, particularly as no ancient author so interprets it; and when they returned to Jerusalem, Peter was there, Acts xv. 7. of whom Luke does not speak as of one come from a far country; but rather as of one who had continued there, or in the neighbourhood, with the apostles and elders. Jerome says, that this council was held in the ninth of Claudius; which was in the eighteenth of Paul's conversion, as we conclude from the words of Paul himself; for he speaks of three years, Gal. ii. 1. and then of fourteen, Gal. ii. 1. spent when he went with Barnabas and Titus to Jerusalem, to the council.
There is reason to believe, that Peter did not quit Jerusalem for a year or two after this, (CaWn, Inst.b.4.) which will leave but thirteen or fourteen years of his life for his travels, and his twenty-five years in his bishopric beside.
From Jerusalem Peter went to Antioch, where he was reproved by Paul, Gal. ii. 11. and the idea that this event took place after the council at Jerusalem, and not before, is supported by Sibrandus, Polanus, Pareus, and other authors, as well as by the reason of the thing itself: for we have seen before, that Peter had not been out of Judea and its neighbourhood; and St. Paul, speaking of their two meetings at Antioch, tells first of their covenant, which is generally believed to have been entered into at Jerusalem, with the approbation of the council, respecting the division of their labours.
Moreover, when St. Peter came to Antioch, Barnabas was there also: out before the council, Peter could not be there with these two holy men; for Paul is mentioned but three times as having been at Antioch with Barnabas, before the council. The first was, when Barnabas brought him from Tarsus, Acts xi. and then Peter was No. 28—Vol. III.
at Jerusalem, Acts viii. 1. & xi. 7. The second was, when he and Barnabas went back from Jerusalem, after they had fulfilled their ministry, Acts xii. 25. & xiii. 1.; and then was Peter newly delivered from prison, and gone into that other place, Acts xii. 17. which place could not be Antioch, as the principal persons of the church there are mentioned by name, as before noted, but Peter's name is not among them. The third time was, when he and Barnabas were returned out of the regions mentioned, Acts xiii. & xiv. to Antioch, Acts xiv. 26.; and then Peter was at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 27. And that Peter did not come during Paul's long stay at Antioch, appears from this, that when certain brethren raised a contention there, only Paul and Barnabas opposed them; if he had been there, Peter's name must have been mentioned, either on one side or the other. But that he was not there, appears from the conduct of the people of that city, who, to end the dispute, deputed brethren with Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to the body of Apostles; and then Peter is mentioned as being found there, Acts xv. 2—7. And as it thus appears that Peter was not at Antioch before the council, so we gather that this meeting took place very shortly after; for Paul and Barnabas, in a short time, had a misunderstanding, and separated; before which event, must have occurred Peter's visit to Antioch. When Paul departed from Barnabas at Antioch, and took with him Silas, proceeding through many places till he came to Corinth, Peter was not at Rome; for at that time Claudius bad commanded all Jews to depart from Rome; and Bellarmine, though he assumes that he had been there before, admits his absence at that period.
From these circumstances, it is not only proved that he could not be at Rome, but, from the evidence of Scripture, we are able to discover the countries in which he was now labouring. Peter being come to Antioch, was in the way to those countries which he mentions in his first epistle; and as he had agreed to go abroad among the Jews, this seems the time in which he was most likely to proceed into Asia aud Bithynia, and the neighbouring nations; and this is probable, not only because Peter was so far on his