, earl of Lindsey, and lord high chamberlain of England in the reign
, earl of Lindsey, and lord high chamberlain of England in the reign of Charles I. was the eldest son of Peregrine lord Willoughby, of Eresby, by Mary, daughter to John Vere earl of Oxford, and grandson of Richard Bertie, esq. by Catherine, duchess of Suffolk. He was born in 1582, and in 1601, upon the death of his father, succeeded to his title and estate. In the first year of the reign of James I. he made his claim to the earldom of Oxford, and to the titles of lord Bulbech, Sandford, and Badlesmere, and to the office of lord high chamberlain of England, as son and heir to Mary, the sole heir female of that great family; and, after a considerable dispute, had judgment given in his favour for the office of lord high chamberlain, and the same year took his seat in the house of lords above all the barons. On the 22d of November, 1626, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Lindsey; and four years after made knight of the garter; and the next year constable of England for the trial of the lord Rea and David Ramsey in the court military. In 1635 he was constituted lord high admiral of England; and a fleet of forty ships of war was sent out under him. In 1639, upon the Scots taking arms, he was made governor of Berwick. The year following he was appointed lord high constable of England at the trial of the earl of Strafford. In 1642, he was constituted general of the king’s forces and on the 23d of October the same year received his death’s wound in his majesty’s service at the battle of Edgehill in the county of Warwick.
ege, but at that time attended on Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who voted for Mr. Minshull, was
, a learned divine in the seventeenth century, was educated in Trinity-college, in the
university of Cambridge, of which he was fellow. In 1638
he was proctor of that university. In July 1642 he was admitted to the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire and,
upon the death of Dr. Samuel Ward, in September 1643,
he was elected master of Sidney-college in Cambridge,
from which, Dr. Walker says, he was kept out “by the
oppressions of the times;
” but there was also somewhat of
court-intrigue in this affair, as related in Walter Pope’s
life of bishop Ward. He tells us, that upon the death of
the latter, the fellows of the college assembled to choose
a new master. “Mr. Seth Ward, with nine of them, gave
their suffrages for Mr. Thorndike of Trinity-college; for
Mr. Minshull there were eight votes including his own.
But while they were at the election, a band of soldiers
rushed in upon them, and forcibly carried away Mr. Parsons, one of those fellows who voted for Mr. Thorndike,
so that the number of suffrages for Mr. Minshull, his own
being accounted for one, was equal to those Mr. Thorndike
had. Upon which Mr. Minshull was admitted master, the
other eight only protesting against it, being ill-advised,
for they should have adhered to their votes. Two of them,
whereof Mr. Ward was one, went to Oxford, and brought
thence a mandamus from the king, commanding Mr. Minshull, and the fellows of Sidney-college, to repair thither,
and give an account of their proceedings as to that election. This mandamus, or peremptory summons, was fixed
upon the chapel-door by Mr. Linnet, who was afterwards
a fellow of Trinity-college, but at that time attended on
Mr. Thorndike. On the other side, one Mr. Bertie, a
kinsman of the earl of Lindsey, being one of those who
voted for Mr. Minshull, was also sent to Oxford on his
behalf. This gentleman, by the assistance and mediation
of my lord of Lindsey, procured an order from the king to
confirm Mr. Minshull’s election; but he, not thinking this
title sufficient, did corroborate it with the broad seal, to
which Mr. Thorndike consented, Mr. Minshull paying him
and the rest of the fellows the charges they had been at
in the management of that affair,amounting to about an
hundred pounds.
” This was therefore evidently a matter
in which “the oppressions of the times
” (which are usually understood to mean those which arose from the usurpation)
were not concerned. He was, however, afterwards, to
experience the latter also, and was ejected from his living
of Barley, which was given to the rev. Nath. Ball of King’s
college, Cambridge, who, Calamy informs us, punctually
paid a fifth part of the income to Mr. Thorndike. At the
restoration he was replaced in this living, but resigned it
on being made a prebendary of Westminster. He very
much assisted Dr. Walton in the edition of the Polyglot
Bible, particularly in marking the variations in the Syriac
version of the Old Testament; and wrote several treatises:
“A Discourse concerning the primitive Forme of the
Government of Churches,
” Cambridge, A
Discourse of Religious Assemblies and the Publike Service
of God,
” Cambridge, A Discourse of the
Right of the Church in a Christian State, with a Review
by way of Appendix,
” London, Just Weights
and Measures; that is, the present State of Religion
weighed in the Balance, and measured by the Standard of
the Sanctuary,
” London, A Discourse of the
Forbearance of the Penalties, which a due Reformation requires,
” London, Origines Ecclesiae, seu
de ratione ac jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesise,
” Lond.
An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, in three
books, viz. 1. Of the Principles of Christian Truth. 2. Of
the Covenant of Grace. 3. Of the Laws of the Church.
”
By a letter from chancellor Hyde, in the appendix to Dr.
Barwick’s Life, it would appear that this work had given
offence, as being unseasonable and injudicious. Hyde says,
“Pray tell me, what melancholy hath possessed poor Mr.
Thorndike? And what do our friends think of his book?
And is it possible that he would publish it, without ever
imparting it, or communicating with them? His name and
reputation in learning is too much made use of, to the discountenance of the poor church; and though it might not
be in his power to be without some doubts and scruples, I
do not know what impulsion of conscience there could be
to publish those doubts to the world, in a time when he
might reasonably believe the worst use would be made,
and the greatest scandal proceed from them.
” This seems
to allude to some opinions he held that were unfavourable
to the measures of the court: and we find that there was
some difficulty in admitting him into the convocation in
1661, “on account of his speaking much of the Bohemian
churches, called Unitas Fratrum.
” He was a member of
the Savoy conference, and in the little he said completely
undeceived the non-conformists, who, from his early publications, had supposed he was of their side. There was
also a suspicion that he had a little too much leaning to
the church of Rome, so that his character has not descended to us with all the evidences of consistency; but
that he was a man of great learning, and an able oriental
scholar, seems indisputable.