these mistakes together then if he had took them one by one as they came in his way especially considering that he gives a good reason for it that is to say that he might not trouble himself with the like observation at another time and did I think the Pamphleter would be ruled again by reason I could give him another reason for it that he was now to take his leave of those Observations which personally related to the two Kings in their several and distinct capacities This of King James in sending the Articles of Lambeth to the convocation of Ireland and the Assembly at Dort being the last point in which he was concerned in his own particular without relation to King Charles and not seconded by him It 's true we finde them acting afterward in the same design but in several times King James first setting out the Declaration about lawfull sports and King Charles seconding the same by a more strict command to have it punctually observed throughout the Kingdome Which giving the occasion to some observations and those Observations occasioning a sharp and uncivill Answer in our Authors Pamphlet I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Controversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that followes though the Debates touching the spreading of Arminianism and the supposed growth of Popery according to the course of time and the method of our Authors History do occur before it Only I must crave leave to hoop in here the Duke of York as a considerable Member of the Royal Family before I close this present Chapter Of him our Auâ—hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets that he was by Birth-right Duke of York but to avoid the Scilla of that mistake he fals into the Charybdis of another as bad telling us in that leafe new printed but not new printed only if at all on that occasion that he was after styled Duke of York For which being reprehended by the Observator as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times the Gent. seemeth much distressed and in the agony of those distresses asks these following questions 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash 2. What shall an honest Historian do in such a case Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him and resolve him briefly letting him know that an honest Historian should have said he was after created Duke of York and not styled so only And 2. That if our Author shewed himself an honest Historian the Observator hath no lash for him and so it will be possible enough to scape it Which said we shall go on to that grand concernment in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose CHAP. IV. The Pamphleters mistake in making discontinuance equall to a calling in The uncharitable censure of H. B. and our Historian upon the first and second publishing of their two Majesties Declarations about lawful sports The Divinity of the Lords Day not known to Mr. Fryth or Mr. Tyndall two eminent Martyrs in the time of King Henry 8. nor to Bishop Hooper martyred in the time of Queen Mary The opinions of those men how contrary to this new Divinity This new Divinity not found in the Liturgies Articles or Canons of the Church of England nor in the writings of any private man before Dr. Bound anno 1595. The Observator justified in this particular by the Church Historian The Authors ill luck in choosing Archbishop Whitgift for a Patron of this new Divinity and the argument drawn from his authority answered An Answer to the Pamphleters argument from the Book of Homilies the full scope and Analysis of the Homilie as to this particular The Pamphleters great brag of all learned men on his side reduced to one and that one worth nothing The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrewes neither of his writing nor approved of by him Our Authors new Book in maintenance of this new Divinity The Doctor vindicated from the forgings and falsifyings objected against him by the Pamphleter Proofs from the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches 1 That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement 2 That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand then the authority of the Church And 3 That the Church hath power to change the Day and to translate it to some other WE are now come unto the business of the Lordsday in which our Author sheweth himself a stiffe Sabbatarian taking his rise from the Kings Declaration about Lawful sports first published by King James at Greenwitch May 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westminster Octob. 18. anno 1633. when published first it raised so many impetuous clamours as our Author told us in his first that the Book was soon after called in in which being otherwise informed by the Observator and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in though the execution of it by the remisnesse of that Kings Government was soon discontinued will notwithstanding keep himself to his former error and thinks to save himself by this handsome shift that the discontinuance of the execution of it no matter upon what occasion for he leaves that out was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in Fol. 22. This is a piece of strange State Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution of any Law Ordinance Canon or Act of State should be equivalent unto the calling of them in Our Author hath not found it so in the Act for Knighthood nor have the Subjects found it so in such penal Statutes as having lain dor◠〈◊〉 many years were awakened afterwards nor can it be inferred from hence that any of the Lawes against Priests and Jesuites are at the present or have been formerly suppressed and tacitely call'd in because by the clemency of King James the prudence of King Charles and the temper of the present Government there was and is a discontinuance of such Executions as only are to be commended when they may not then when they may possibly be spared What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration the Observator tels at large from the Books themselves But H. B. in his seditious Sermon most undeservedly entituled For God and the King gives another reason for the publishing of it by King James which being not pertinent to my businesse with our present Author I forbear to mention that being already canvassed in another place But the design of the re-publishing of it in the reign of King Charles was by our Author in the first draught of his History as it was sent unto the Presse and printed though suppressed with others of like nature spoken of before affirmed to be a plot to gall and vex those godly Divines whose consciences would not vail to such impiety as to promote the work and for
Walter Earl but ipso facto by a strange kind of Alcumy it was made a truth a most unquestionable truth It was averred thirdly nemine contradicente and very good reason for that too there being none perhaps then present who were admitted to the sight of that Enterlude as Sir Humphry was or otherwise its worth the while to disprove the Fable But here I find something worth the Learning which is that nemine contradicente doth not signifie only as the poor Theologaster might conceive it did no one contradicting but no one contradicting who stood near the Chair A pretty piece of Grammar-learning and I thank him for it the rather in regard it may be gathered from these words that though no man who stood near the Chair did or durst contradict Sir Humpry in this pretty figment yet others who stood farther off and being procul à Jove might be procul à fulmine did presume to do it And this I hope will satisfie the Pamphleter and Sir Humphry too We have now done with Bishop Mountague but we must have another pull about Bishop Neile then Bishop of Winchester by whose and the Bishop of Londons Prevalencie we were told in the History the Orthodox party were depressed and the truth they served scarce able to protect them to impunity Reproved by the Observator for speaking thus at randome and without any proof of those great Prelates both being Counsellors of State the Pamphleter comes in to make good the matter telling us that Sir Daniel Norton and Sir Robert Philips informed the House that Doctor More and Doctor Marshall were chid by the Bishop of VVinchester for preaching against popery both Drs. being ready to bear witness of the truth thereof Fol. 16. Now mark the Justice of the man and his Logick too The Information is brought against the Bishops of London and VVinchester but the proof such as it is against the Bishop of VVinchester only No reparation being made unto the other for so great an injury I trow this is but sorry Justice and yet the Logick of the proof is a great deal worse The information was about the danger of Arminianism the Spreadeâ—s of those errors advanced by the Prevalency of those Bishops to great preferment the Orthodox party in the mean time depressed and under inglorious disdain Hist Fol. 96. How doth he make this good in the Bishop of VVinchester Because for sooth he had chidden Doctor More and Doctor Marshall for preaching against popery This is the Logick we must look for The Premises are of Arminianism The Conclusion of popery Or else it must be argued thus The Bishop of VVinchester chid Doctor More and Doctor Marshall for preaching against popery Ergo which is in English therefore the two Bishops of London and Winchester advanced the Arminian party and depressed the Orthodox Our Author telleth us Fol. 35. of this present Pamphlet that there are some worse disputants than himself but if I know in what place to find them may I burn my Keâ—kerman But if the man were chidden and chidden for preaching against popery it will as much conduce to the dishonor of the Bishop of Winchester as if they had been chidden on the other accompt and therefore we must take some time to inquire into it it being possible enough that they might be chidden by that Bishop not for their preaching against Popery but for some indiscretion in the way of their preaching possibly enough let me adde that too that they might have some private grudges against that Prelate Doctor Marshal claimed some fewell yearly out of that Bishops woods in the right of his Parsonage which that Bishop being an old Courtier but of no great Courtship did refuse to make him This gave him occasion of displeasure and being withall a man of some indiscretion he might possibly not carry the matter so discreetly but that he might be liable to some just reproof But as for Doctor More I shall need no other matter against him than what I find in the unpublished sheets of our Author himself where he tells us of him that â—he was a man of an acute but somewhat an â—aculeated wit Fol. 69. A man it seems of more Sting than Hony and was not sparing of it in his heats of zeal upon all occasions Insomuch that there goeth a story of him that Mr. Hugh May who had commended Archie to the Court not long before obtained a turn for this Doctor before King James in which he shewed so much heat and so little discretion that the King told Hugh May when he saw him next that he thanked him more for his Fool than he did for his Preacher Besides our Author telleth us of him in the place above mentioned that preaching after the Dukes return from the Isle of Rhe he took occasion in his Sermon to speak of the defeat given to the Roman Army under the command of Quintilius Varus by the German Nations adding these words of the Historian that this Army perished propter inscitiam temeritatem ducis In which being thought to have put a scorn upon the Duke and reprehended for it by his Diocesan he was judged fit to be made use of against that Bishop when the teeth of the Informers were edged against him Proceed we next to the Lambeth Articles the great Diana of the Ephesians of our times It was affirmed by the Observator that they were never looked on as the Doctrin of the Church of England nor intended to be so looked upon by them that made them But this the Pamphleter puts off to Mr. Pym and the Committee for Religion but grants withall That it is very probable that the Compilers of the Book of Articles and the Book of Homilies differed from Calvins sense in the point of Predestination and its subordinates Fol. 15. Nor doth he only grant it to be probable but he proves it also It being saith he very rare for two even of the same party to agree exactly in all parcels of these Controversies So then whether it were our Author or the Committee for Religion which declare these Articles of Lambeth to speak the sense of the 39 Articles of the Church of England it comes all to one the Pamphleter leaving them in the plain field and siding with the Observator in this particular In the occasion of these Articles or rather in one circumstance of it the Observator was mistaken affirming Page 74. That on the coming of these Articles to Cambridge Dr. Baro found himself so discouraged discountenanced that at the end of his first 3 years he relinquished his Professorship and retired not long after into France to this the Pamphleter makes answer That Peter Baro relinquished not his professorship at the end of his first three years proved by his Lectures upon Ionah to be Professor there Anno 1574. and confessed to be so by the Observator Anno 1595. 2. That that Professorship is not eligible from 3 years to
the not promoting of it to compell them to desert their Stations and abandon their livings in which their very vitality and livelihood consisted Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably or untruly said This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict a maculating of his own honour and a sacrilegious robbing of God All which though afterwards left out declare his willingnesse to make both Prince and Prelates and the dependants of those Prelates the poor Doctor of Cosmography among the rest feel the dint of his spirit and pity 't was he was not suffered to go on in so good a purpose Our Author having intimated in the way of a scorn or jâ—ar that the Divinity of the Lords day was new Divinity at the Court was answered by the Observator that so it was by his leave in the Countrey too not known in England till the year 1595. c. The Observator said it then I shal prove it now and having proved it in the Thesis or proposition will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it And first it is to be observed that this new Divinity of the Lords day was unknown to those who suffered for Religion and the testimony of a good conscience under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth who suffered in the year 1533 in a tract by him written about Baptism Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an Ensample of Christian Liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And though they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Next to him followeth Mr. Tyndall famous in those times for his translation of the Bible for which and for many of his Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome condemned unto the flames annâ— 1536. in the same Kings reign who in his Answer to Sir Thomaâ— More hath resolved it thus As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Munday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day holiday only if we see cause why neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it The same Doctrine publickly defended in the writings of Bishop Hooper advanced to the Miter by King Edward and by Queen Mary to the Crown the crown oâ— Martyrdome in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandements anno 1550. who resolves it thus We may not think saith he that God gave any more holinesse to the Sabbath then to the other daies For if ye consider Friday Saturday or Sunday in as much as they be daies and the work of God the one is no more holy then the other but that day is alwaies most holy in the which we most apply and give our selves unto Holy works No notice taken by these Martyrs of this new Divinity The first speaking of the observation of the Lords day no otherwise then as an institution grounded on their forefathers a constitution of the Church the second placing no more Morality in a seventh-day then in a tenth-day Sabbath and the third making all daies wholly alike the Sunday no otherwise then the rest As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs so was it also to those Prelates and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward or afterwards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holydaies no more divine offices performed or diligent attendance required by the old Lawes of this Land upon the one then on the other No notice taken of this new Divinity in the Articles of Religion as they were published anno 1552. or as they were revised and ratified in the tenth year after no order taken for such a strict observation of it as might entitle it unto any Divinity either in the Orders of 1561. or the Advertisements of 1565. or the Canons of 1571. or those which â—ollowed anno 1575. Nothing that doth so much as squint towardâ— this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation Protestant Papist Puritan of what sort soever till broached by Dr. Bound anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author from the mouth of another then from that of the ignorant Observator I would desire him to consult the new Church History writ by a man more sutable to his own affections and so more like to be believed About this time saith he throughout England began the more solemn and strict observation of the Lords Day hereafter both in writing and preaching commonly call'd the Sabbath occasioned by a book this year set forth by P. Bound Dr. in Divinity and enlarged with additions anno 1606. wherein the following opinions are maintained 1. That the Commandement of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is moral and perpetual 2. That whereas all other things in the Jewish Church were taken away Priesthood Sacrifices and Sacraments his Sabbath was so changed as it still remaineth 3. That there is a great reason why we Christians should take our selves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath it being one of the moral Commandements where all are of equall authority lib. 9. sect 20. After this he goeth on to tell us how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture long disused and neglected now seasonably revived for the increase of piety others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottome but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion it was pity to oppose them seeing none have just reason to complain being deceived into their own good But a third sort flatly fell out with these positions as galling mens necks with a Jewish yoke against the Liberty of Christians That Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had removed the rigour thereof and allowed men lawful Recreations that his Doctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday on set purpose to eclipse all other Holy daies to the derogation of the authority of the Church that this strict
observance was set up out of Faction to be a character of difference to brand all for Libertines who did not entertain it sect 21. He telleth us finâ—lly that the Book was afterwards called in and commandâ—d to be no more printed The Doctrine opsed by the Archbishop and the maintainers of it punished by Judge Popham though by the diligence and counterworking of the brethren it got ground again This being said we shall proceed unto the answering of the Pamphleters arguments not more remarkable for their paucity then they are for their weaknesse He telleth us first that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition saith in the present tense that the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some and speaks soon after of a Sabbath then commanded by the fourth Precept The Pamphleter hereupon inferreth that he could not mean the Jewish Sabbath and if not that it must of necessity be the Lords day Fol. 23. Here is a stout argument indeed able to knock down any man which thinks the contrary for mark the inference thereof Archbishop Whitgift gives unto the Lords day in a Metaphorical and figurative sense the name of Sabbath Ergo which is in English therefore it must be kept with all the rigors and severities which were â—equired unto the observation of the Sabbath by the Law of Moses or therefore which is in Latine Ergo there is as much divinity in the Lords day now by whomsoever it was ordained as had been heretofore ascribed to the Sabbath-day of Gods own appointing And then again the Lords day is by him called a Sabbath and said to be there commanded by the fourth precept therefore there is such a Divinity in it as Dr. Bound ascribes to his Lords daies Sabbath according to his Articles and petitions laid down Did ever man so argue in a point which he makes to be of so great concernment or make so ill a choice both of the Medium and the Author which he groundeth upon First of the Medium for may we not conclude by the self-same Logick that there is a Divinity in all the holydaies of the Church because all grounded on and warranted by the fourth commandement as all learned writers say they are and that there is a Divinity in Tithes and Churches because both places set apart for sacred Actions and maintenance also for the persons which officiate in them as the Pamphleter afterwards alledgeth are included also in this precept If there be a Divinity in these let our Author speak out plainly and pleaâ— as strongly for the Divinity or divine Institution of Tithes and Churches as he hath done or endevours to do at least for the Divinity of the Lords dayes Sabbath If none in these and I conceive our Author will not say there is though grounded on the warrant of the fourth Commandement let him not dâ—eam of any such Divinity in the Lords day because now kept by vertue of that precept also But worse luck hath the Gâ—nt in the choice of his Author then in that of his Medium there being no man that more disrelished and opposed this new Divinity of the Sabbath and all the Sabbatarian errors depending on it then this most reverend Prelate did insomuch that he commanded Bounds Book to be called in upon the first discovery of the Doctrines delivered in it which certâ—inly he had not done if he had been of the same Judgement with that Doctor or had meant any such thing in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition which our Pamphleteâ— hath put upon him Assuredly unless the Pamphleter had been bribed to betray the cause and justifie the Observator he would have passed over the debating of this new Divinity or else found more then one man in the space of 36 years so long it was from the first of Queen Elizabeth to the coming out of Bounds Book to have spoken for him and such a man as had not shewed himself so professed an enemy to the newnesse of it by causing the Book to be called in that the Brethren commonly used to say that out of envy to their proceedings he had caused such a pearl to be concealed Let us next see what comfort he can finde from the book of Homilies of which he saith that there was not any thing more especially taught in them then the Divinity of the Lords day This he affirmes but they that look into that Book will finde many points more specially taught and more throughly pressed then this Divinity he talketh of witnesse those long and learned Homilies upon the peril of Idolatry against disobedience and rebellion of these last six at least in number besides many others But if it can be proved at all no matter whether specially or more specially that shall make no difference and that it may be proved he telleth us that they say God in that Precept speaking of the â—ourth commandeth the observation of the Sabbath which is our Sunday Fol. 23. If this be so and to be understood of such a Divinity or such a divine institution of the Lords day as our Author would fain put upon it first then we must have some expresse warrant and command from God himself altering the day from the seventh day of the week on which he commanded it to be kept by the Law of Moses unto the first day of the week on which it is now kept by the Church of Christ But secondly that Homily I mean that Of the time and place of prayer doth inform us thus That the goldly Christian people began to follow the example and commandement of God immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ and began to choose them a standing day of the week to come together yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept but the Lords day the day of the Lords Resurrection the day after the seventh day which is the fiâ—st day of the week c. And thirdly it is said in the same Homily that by this commandement we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest yea from our lawful and needful works c. Which passages being laid together will amount to this first that the Homilie doth not say that by the fourth Commandement we ought to have one day in the week which is plainly peremptory but that we ought to have a time as one day in the week which is plainly Arbitrary Secondly that being Arbitrary in it self and so esteemed of by the Christians in the Primitive times they thought it good immediately after Christs â—scension to choose a standing day of the week to come together in namely the Lords day or the day of the Resurrection Not that they were required so to do by the fourth commandement which limited the Sabbath the ordinary time of worship to the day foregoing nor commanded so to do by Christ this choice of the day not being made till after his ascension and no command of his approving
in the holy Scripture nor finally by any Precept or Injunction of the holy Apostles of which as the Scriptures are quite silent so the Homilie ascribes it wholly to the voluntary choice of godly Christian people without any mention made at all of their authority So the then meaning of those words produced by our Author for the ground of this new Divinity will be only this that as God rested on the seventh day and commanded it to be kept wholly by the Jewes so the godly Christian people after Christs Ascension following his example and warranting themselves by his Authority did choose a seventh day of the week though not the same which had been kept holy by the Jewes for the day of worship And this is all we are to trust to for the Divinity or Divine institution of the Lords day Sabbath from the Book of Homilies neither so positively nor so clearly rendred as to lay a fit or sure foundation for so great a building In the next place the Pamphleter quarrels with the Observator for making it a prodigie and a paradox too that neither the order nor revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood should have any existence but in relation to the Divinity of the Lords day But Sir the Observator doth not only say it but he proves it too and proves it by the authority of the holy Scriptures mentioning the calling of the Apostles of the seventy Disciples of S. Paul and others to the work of the Ministery and pleading strongly in behalf of an Evangelical maintenance as belonging to them at such time as the Lords day no such existence no such Divinity of existence as our Author speaks of In stead of answering to these proofs the Pamphleter telleth us that there is not a man of note who treateth of the 4. Commandement himself especially for one and the chief one too that owneth not this prodigious opinion and therefore askeâ—h where this Observator haâ—h been brought up that this Tenet of his yeâ— of all learned men should be so wondred at to be called a prodigie Fol. 23. But the reply to this will be very easie For first all the men of note which write upon the 4. Commandement all learned men our Author too into the bargain are no fit ballance for S. Paul nor able to counterpoise the expresse and clear Authority of the holy Scriptures And secondly the Pamphleter after his great brag that all learned men almost all men of note which write upon the 4 Commandement are of his opinion is fain to content himself at the present with only one and such an one who though he be instaâ— omnium with the Pamphleter is not so with me nor with the Observator neither Not that we fail in any part of due honour to that Reverend Prelate whose name he useth to make good the point which is in question but that we think the work imputed to him by the Pamphleter to be none of his never owned by him in his life nor justified for his by any of relation or nearnesse to him therefore to undeceive so many as shall read these papers they may please to know that in the year 1583. Mr. Andrewes was made the Catechist of Pembrook-hall for the instruction of the younger students of that house in the grounds of Divinity that though he was then but a young man yet his abilities were so well known that not only those of the same foundation but many of other Colledges in that University and some out of the Countrey also came to be his Auditors that some of them taking notes of his Lectures as well as they could were said to have copies of his Catechizing though for most part very imperfect and in many points of consequence very much mistaken that after his coming to be Bishop he gave a special warrant unto one of his Chaplains not to own any thing for his that was said to have been taken by notes from his mouth And finally that hearing of the coming out of that Catechism as in discourse with those about him he would never own it nor liked to have it mentioned to him so he abolished as it seemeth his own original Copy which they that had command to search and sort his papers could not finde in his study and though this Catechism came out since in a larger volume yet not being published according to his own papers although under his name it can no more be said to be his then many false and supposititious writings foisted into the works of Ambrose Augustine and almost all the ancient Fatheâ—â— may be counted theirs Of all this I am punctually advertised by an eminâ—nt person of near admission to that Prelate when he was alive and a great honourer of him since his death and have thought fit to signifie as much upon this occasion to disabuse all such whom the name of this most reverend Prelate might else work upon which said there needs no Answer to this doughty argument which being built upon a ruinous and false foundation fals to the ground without more â—doe as not worth the answering We see by this that all the learned men which our Author brags of are reduced to one which one upon examination proves as good as none if not worse then nothing But the Pamphleter may be pardoned for coming short in this present project in regard of the great pains he had taken in writing a Book of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Divinity of the Lords day published in the year 1640. unto which Treatise he refers all men who shall desire his judgement in that subject that Book being never yet answered by any as he gallantly braves it Fol. 24. In this there are many things to be considered For first it is probable enough that this Treatise to which we are referred for our satisfaction was either so short lived or made so little noise abroad that it was not heard of For had it either moved so strongly or cryed so loud that it intituled our Author the dear Father of it to any Estate of Reputation for term of life as Tenant by the courtesie of the gentle Reader it is not possible but that we should have had some tale or tidings of it in so long a time and therefore I conceive that it was still-born and obscurely buried and perhaps buried by the Man-midwife I mean the Bookseller or Printer who gave it birth before the Godfathers and Godmothers and the rest of the good Gossips could be drawn together to give a name unto the Inâ—ant or at the best like the solstitial herb in Plautus quae repentino orta est repentino occidit withered as soon as it sprang up and so came to nothing Secondly if it were not answered I would not have the Gent think that it was therefore not answered because unanswerable though he were apt enough to think so without this Praecaution but for other reasons For first the year 1640. was a busie year
necessary which some say he doth either they must accuse him of much inconstancy and forgetfulnesse or else interpret him with Rivet In Decalog as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custome not to be neglected non de necessitate legis divinae and not of any obligation layed upon us by the Law of God Neither is he the only one that hath so determined Simler in Exod. 20. hath said it more expresly Quod dies una cultui divino consecratur ex lege naturae est quod autem haec sit septima non octava nona aut decima juris est divini sed ceremonialis That one day should be set apart for Gods publick worship is the Law of nature but that this day should be the seventh and not the eighth ninth or tenth was not of divine appointment but ceremonial Aretius Loc. 55 also in his common places distinguished between the substance of the Sabbath and the time thereof The substance of it which was rest and the works of piety being in all times to continue tempus autem ut septimo die observetur hoc non fuit necessarium in Ecclesia Christi but for the time to keep it on the seventh day alwaies that was not necessary in the Church of Christ So also Francisc Gomarus that great undertaker against Arminius in a book written purposely De origine institutione Sabbati affirms for certain that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature or Text of Scripture or any solid argument drawn from thence unum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum that by the fourth Commandement one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service And Rivet as profest an enemy of the Remonstrants though for the antiquity of the Sabbath he differeth from the said Gomarus yet he agreeth with him in this not only making the observance of one day in seven to be meerly positive as in our first part we observed but laies it down for the received opinion of most of the reformed Divines Vnum ex septem diebus non esse necessario eligendum ex vi praecâ—pti ad sacros conventus celebrandos in Exod. 20. p. 190. the very same with what Gomarus affirmed before So lastly for the Lutheran Churches Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian Liberty quod nec sint allegati nec debeant alligari ad certorum vel dierum vel temporum observationes opinione necessitatis in Novo Testamento c. That men are neither bound nor ought to be unto the observation of any daies or times as matters necessary under the Gospel of our Saviour Though otherwise he account it for a barbarous folly not to observe that day with all due solemnity which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God Therefore in his opinion also the keeping of one day in seven is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandement or parcel of the Law of Nature As for the subtle shift of Amesius Medull Theolog l. 2. 15. finding that keeping holy one day in seven is positive indeed sed immutabilis plane institutionis but such a positive Law as is absolutely immutable doth as much oblige as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral it may then serve when there is nothing else to help us For that a positive Law should be immutable in it self and in its own nature be as universally binding as the moral Law is such a piece of learning and of contradiction as never was put up to shew in these latter times But he had learnt his lirry in England here and durst not broach it but by halves amongst the Hollanders 7 For the next Thesis that the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but the Authority of the Church it is a point so universally resolved on as no one thing more And first we will begin with Calvin who tels us Institut l. 2. c. 8. n. 3. how it was not without good reason that those of old appointed the Lords day as we call â—it to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath Non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt as his words there are Where none I hope will think that he would give our Saviour Christ or his Apostles such a short come off as to include them in the name of Veteres only which makes it plain that he conceived it not to be their appointment Bucer resolves the point more clearly in Mat. 12. Communi Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac requieti publicae dicatum esse ipso statim Apostolorum tempore viz. That in the Apostles times the Lords day by the common consent of Christian people was dedicated unto publick rest and the Assemblies of the Church And Peter Martyr upon a question asked why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church makes answer That upon that day and on all the rest we ought to rest from our own works the works of sin Sed quod is magis quam ille eligatur ad externum Dei cultum liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret nec illa pessime judicavit c. in Gen. 2. That this was rather chose then that for Gods publick service that saith he Christ left totally unto the liberty of the Church to do therein what should seem most expedient and that the Church did very well in that she did prefer the memory of the Resurrection before the memory of the Creation These two I have the rather thus joyned together as being sent for into England in King Edwards time and placed by the Protector in the Universities the better to establish Reformation at that time begun and doubt we not but that they taught the self-same Doctrine if at the least they touched at all upon that point with that now extant in their writings At the same time with them lived Bullinger and Gualter two great learned men Of these the first informs us Hunc diem loco Sabbaâ—i in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias in Apoc. 1. That in memorial of our Saviours Resurrection the Church set apart this day in the Sabbaths stead whereon to hold their solemn and religious meetings And after Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae illam diem non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam That of their own accord and by their own authority the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid it being no where to be found that it was commanded Gualter in Act. Apost Hom. 13 more generally that the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath day as being then most famous and so most in use But when the Churches were augmented Proximus à Sabbato dies rebus sacris destinatus the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses If not before then
in case you have not here as elsewhere your most secret intentions What think you of the Author of the vulgar Latine a man as learned I believe as any of those whom you have consulted in the point Yet he translateth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is used to signifie a man in Orders by that of Senior but by that of Presbyter as Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias Presbyteros c. Act. 14. 23. qui beâ—e praesunt Presbyteri c. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli admittere 5. 19. as on the other side when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie a man in years and not in orders he rendreth it by Senior and not by Presbyter-Seniorem increpaveris sed obsecra ut patrem 1 Tim. 5. 1. and this is that which the Observator faulted in our English Translators viz. that they did not keep the word Presbyter as the Latines did which in short time would have been as familiar to an English ear in the Ecclesiasticall notion of it as those of Bishop or of Deacon being both of them Greek of the same Originall whereas the word Elder being of ambiguous sense hath given occasion to the factiousness of the troublers of Israel to grub up by the roots those goodly Cdars of the Church the Bishops and plant their stinking Elders in the place thereof But you go on and say that you believe it will puzzle the Observator to finde any one who ever interpreted Senior by Priest fol. 35. But Gentle Sir the Observator never told you that it was so rendred so that you need not trouble him to prove what he never said or charge him with any vast difference in this particular from Dr. Heylyn unless you can finde in him that the antients did not call the Minister of the Sacrament of the Altar sometimes Presbyter Elder and sometimes Sacerdos Priest as I think you cannot If you come off no better in your other criticismes then you do in this your best way were to keep your self to plain Grammar learning leave my Lady Philology to more learned Mercurists to whom contracted by Martianus Capella before you made love to her You quarrel next with the Observator first for bringing in Mr. Selden amongst his Lay Champions for Episcopacy who as the Pamphleter saith seems clear of another minde in his Book De Synedriis where he extols Salmasius and Walâ— Massalinus both enemies to the Episcopal order a note above Ela for their pains in this Argument c fol. 37. But had the Observator been observed here as he should have been he might have found that the learned Mr. Selden is not brought in by him as a Champion â—or Bishops but as not totally against them And this he proves by the Retortion made to Mr. Grimstons double argument in the House of Commons The Observator knew as well as the Pamphleter that Mr. Selden was no friend to Bishops as constituted and established in the Church of England and he knew too which perhaps the Pamphleter doth not what moved him to appear against them when by the Complexion of affairs he might safely do it For being called before the High Commission and forced to make a publique acknowledgement of his error and offence given unto the Church in publishing a Book entituled The Historie of Tithes it sunk so deep into his stomack that he did never after affect the men or cordially approve the calling though many wayes were tryed to gain him to the Churches interest The Pamphleters quarrels against Church-men perhaps as good a man as himself or I am sure as true I shall defer unto a time and place more proper keeping my self here to those he hath with the Observator And the next quarrel is that he findes not King Charles amongst his Assertors for Episcopacy Of whose performance in that Argument he makes indeed a very fair and ingenuous declaration fol. 38. though all that he hath said can add nothing to him But Sir if you will look but with half an eye on the Observations you will finde there that in the naming of his Lay Champions as you call them he made choice of such only as were not likely to be suspected of partiality men no wayes interessed but onely by their good affections in the Churches quarrels According to which choice he could not make use of that Royall pen which gave the deaths wound to Henderson in the town of New-castle and foyled the Presbyterians in the Isle of Wight It was the interess of King Charles to maintain Episcopacy as one of the chief Supporters of the Regall Throne No Bishop no King the known old maxime of King James in the sad events thereof hath been found Propheticall And therefore if the Observator had produced his testimony the Pamphleter might have objected as perhaps he would that the Kings judgement was corrupted by Partiality and swayed with interess which rendred him no fit witness in the present Tryall And to say truth if all be Oracle which comâ—s from the deserts of Cyrene there is good reason for saving all advantages of exception against the Testimony of that King had it been produced The Pamphleter telling us that he did not only employ the Pen but took up the Bucklers in good earnest to defend Episcopacy fol. 38. But Sir who told you in good earnest that his Majesty either drew the sword or took up the Bucklers in that quarrell or on that occasion His Majesty in all his messages and declarations professed solemnly that he was forced to take up Armes to preserve himself His Forts Castles Royall Navy and the Militia of the Kingdome being taken from him His Negative voice denyed his Magazine at Hull employed against him his faithfull Servants threatned under the name of evill Counsellors and nothing left unto him but the name of a King Episcopacy not so much as touched on for a ground of that quarrel nor was there reason why it should The King by former Acts had yielded up their place and vote in the House of Peers and abrogated the Coercive power of their Jurisdiction that which remained being then thought so inconsiderable that in the 19. Propositions containing the whole demand of both Houses the Abolition of Episcopacy was not touched upon So that there is not any thing more fals then that the King took up the Bucklers to defend Episcopacy But I know well enough what the Author aims at The wars designed by this King against the Scots is by our Pamphleter in his Historie called the Bishops wars and he hath layed some grounds here to have the long wars raised in England called by that name also the Bishops war no doubt of that if he should fortune to go on with the rest of the story Of which the Reader may take notice and our Author too His last quarrel with the Observator with reference to the
3 years but at the end of each second year proved by the Statutes of the Lady Margaret Countesse of Richmond and Derby the foundresse of it 3. That Peter Baro never went or retired into France after the resignation of his Professorship but lived and dyed in Crutched Friers as may be proved by the Testimony of a Son of his who is still alive In the two first of these we have Confitentem reum the Observator crying peccavi and confessing guilty but so that he had good authority for his errour in it For first the Pamphleter hath told us That very many were of the contrary belief that is to say to the election of that Professor every second year so the wonder is the lesse if the Observator should be one of those very many 2. He had found in the History of the Lambeth Articles printed at London 1641. that Baro at the third years end for so long he was to hold that Lecture by their antient Ordinances relinquished his Professorship and betook himself to his private studies Baro saith he elapso triâ—nnii spatio Nam vetere instituto in illius lectura triennalis est professio professione abiit in privata se studia recondidit 3. He had read in a book called Responsio necessaria published by the Remonstrants Anno 1615. That notwithstanding the coming of those Articles he continued in his Professorship Donec exacto suo triennio professio utique il a qua in Collegio fungebatur in triennium solum prorogabatur professione se abdicavit tranquillam ut viveret vitam privatis se studiis totum dedit that is to say that his three years being expired that Professorship being continued in that University but for three years only he left the place retired unto a private life and gave himself wholly to his studies 4. He hath found also in the History of Cambridge writ by Mr. Fuller a Cambridge man and one that should have known the Customs and Statutes of that University that the end of Doctor Peter Baro the Marguaret Professor his Triennial Lectures began to draw near c. Sect. 21. which layed together I would fain know of the equal and impartial Reader First whether the Observator may not be excused for making that Lecture to continue from three years to three years And secondly whether the exacto suo Triennio in the Book called Responsio necessaria and the end of his Triennial Lectures in Fullers History might not induce him to conceive that Dr. Baro gave over the Professorship at the end of his first three years In the last point the cause is not so clear on the Pamphleters side nay it will rather go against him Mr. Prynne a man diligent enough in the search of any thing which concerns his Argument hath told us positively in his Auli-Armianism pag. 268. that being convented before the heads of that University he was not only forced to forsake the University but the Kingdom too For which he citeth Dr. Ward in his Concio ad Clerum Anno 1626. and Thytius in his Preface ad Fratres Belgas Nor do the Pamphleters proofs come home to conclude the contrary unlesse the Argument be good that Baro lived and died in London and was buried there in St. Olaves Church Ergo he retired not into France upon his first relinquishing of the University And if it be true which the Pamphleter telleth us That the Bishop of London ordered the most Divines in that City to be present at his interment it is a good Argument that both the Bishop and most eminent Divines of London were either inclinable to his opinions or not so much averse from them as not to give a solemn attendance at the time of his Funeral As for the Story of these Articles as layed down in the Observator he tellerh us it was never heard off till the year 1641. which sheweth how little he is versed in his own concernments the same story let him call it a Tale if he will being published in the Responsio necessaâ—ia Anno Dom. 1615. which was 26 years before and but the 20th year from the meeting at Lambeth And though the Kentish man he speaks of whosoever he were might be unborn at the time of the making of the Articles as he saith he was yet the Remonstrants who published the Responsio necessaria must be born before and probably might have the whole Story from Baro himself with whom they coresponded in these points of controversie Adeo absurda argumenta ineptos habent exitus as Lactantius hath it On what accompt these Articles were made a part of the confession of the Church of Ireland hath been shewen elsewhere we must next come unto the abrogating or repealing of them for saying which the Observator stands accused although repealing be the word of our Author himself in the first Edition Fol. 132. yet now he singeth a new Song and telleth us many things quite different from the common opinion and from his own amongst the rest assuring us that the Articles established in the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. were never abrogated and proving it by a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Bernard and one Mr. Pullein if he be not of a higher degree both of them convocation men and present at the conclusion of it Anno 1634. But this Certificate will prove upon examination to conclude nothing to the purpose It is acknowledged both in the Certificate and Canon That they did not only approve which might a been a sufficient manifestation of their agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Christian faith but that they also did receive the Book of Articles of religion agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops and the whole Clergy in the whole convocation holden at London Anno Dom. 1562. Now the Receiving or superinducing of a new confession will prove equivalent in the Fact and I think in Law to the repealing of the old for otherwise there must be two confessions in the same Church differing in many points from one another Which would have been so far from creating a uniformity of belief between the Churches and taking away thereby the matter of Derision which was given the Papists in two distinct and in some points contrary confessions yet both pretending unto one and the same Religion that it would rather have increased their Scorn and made a greater disagreement in Ireland it self than was before between the Churches of both Kingdomes And this the Certificate it self doth seem to intimate In which we find That one of the Assembly some rigid Calvinist belike stood up and desired that the other Book of Articles that is to say in the year 1615 should be be joyned with it which proposition being it might have made some rub in the business if it had been absolutely denied was put off by this cleanly and handsome Temperament that this would be needless that Book having been