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
day only had it hapned so he is not to expect it in offences of a higher nature wherein he is said to be so shamefully out as never man was out of the Story beyond all measure and out of Charity beyond all Religion Fol. 41. charged thus in general the Pampheter sets upon him with 5 particulars relating to the conference between the King and the Bishops in the businesse of the Earl of Strafford that is to say 1. These Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King but sent for by him 2ly They were five not four 3ly If any of them depended upon the Judgement of the others it was the Bishop of London who at the last meeting and consultation spake not one Syllable 4ly The Lord Primate had no sharp tooth against the Lieutenant And 5ly The Convocation of Ireland was not 1633. as the Observator placeth it To the last of these we have already answer'd in the former Chapter to the three first there are no proofs offered but his ipse dixit and therefore might be passed over without more adoe but being Magisterially delivered and delivered ad appositum to that which had been said by the Observator I will examine them one by one as they lie before me And first he saith that these Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King but sent for by him Fol. 41. And for this we have his own word worth a thousand witnesses without further proof But first I remember very well that on Saturday the 8th of May as soon as the House of Peers was risen I was told of the designation of the four Bishops that is to say the Lord Primate of Armagh the Bishops of Durham Lincoln and Carlâ—le to go the next day unto the King to satisfie and inform his conscience in the Bill of Attainder 2ly The King had before declared the satisfaction which he had in his own conscience publickly in the House of Peers on good and serious deliberation and therefore needed not to send for these Bishops or any of them to inform it now 3ly If any doubt were stirred in him after that Declaration it is not probable that he would send for such men to advise him in it in some of which he could place no confidence in point of judgement and was exceedingly well anured in the disaffections of the other For not to instance any thing in the other two can any man of wisdome think that the King out of so many Bishops as were then in London would put his conscience into the hands of the Bishop of Lincoln a man so many times exasperated by him newly reâ—caâ—ed from a long Imprisonment and a proseâ—ed servant at that time to the opposite party in both Houses and with whose â—requent prevarications he was well acquainted or that he would confide any thing in the judgement of Bishop Potter a man of so much want so many weaknesses that nothing but the Lawen Sleeves could make him venerable and so most like to be the man whose Syllogism the King faulted for having four tearms in it of which the Pamphlet tells us Fol. 42. None but a man of such credulity as onr Authors is can give faith to this and I must have some further proof than his Ipse dixit before I yield my assent unto it He saith next they were five not four Fol. 42. And five there were indeed I must needs grant that but neither sent to him or sent for by him For the truth is that the King hearing of the Designation of the other four sent for the fifth the Bishop of London to come to him in the morning betimes with whom he had sâ—â—e preparatory conference with reference to the grand encounter which he was to look for And from him he received that satisfaction mentioned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 2. that Bishop counselling him not to consent against the vote of his own conscience as is there affirmed So we have here five Bishops in all that is to say four sent to him by the Houses of Parliament and the fifth sent for by the King eiâ—her the diligence or intelligence of ou Author being wanting here as in many other things besides though he will by no means yeâ—ld to have failed in either But thirdly if any of them depended on the judgment of the others it was the Bishop of London Ibid. whether with greater injury to that Bishop to have his judgement thus pinned on another mans Sleeve or to the King in choosing so unfit a Counseller to inform his conscience It is hard to say Our Author in the first Edition had told us of him that he was none of the best Scholars and the Pamphleter brings this argument now in full proof thereof But how is this dependency proved Because saith he at the last meeting and consultation he spake not one syllable A most excellent argument He spake not a syllable at the last meeting Ergo he spake nothing in the first For if it be granred that he declared himself in the first conference though not in the last it is enough accotding to our Authors Logick to save himself from the imputation of depending on another man Or thus admitting it for true that the Bishop spoke nothing in the first conference neither the argument will be as faulty as it was before The Bishop of London spoke nothing not one syllable during the whole time of the consultation Ergo which is in English therefore he depended on the Judgment of the other four For if he spake nothing all the while how can the Pamphleter assure us what his judgment was or upon whom it did depend But the truth is that wise Prelate knew the temper of those present times and how unsafe it would be for him to declare himself against the Sense of the Houses and therefore having declared his judgment in the morning privately and thereby given the King the satisfaction before mentioned he rather chose to hear what the other said than to say any thing himself Whether the Lord Primate had any sharp tooth against the Lord Lieutenant or not I dispute not now the parties being both dead and the displeasures buried in the same Grave with them which for my part I am not wilto revive But as to the occasion of them whatsoever they were in repealing the first Articles of the Church of Ireland and the Debates between the Lord Primate and the Bishop of Derry I have already vindicated the Observator in the former Chapter The rest which doth remain in this redious nothing which taketh up so great a part of rhe Pamphlet consisteth of some offers of proof that there was a more than ordinary dearnesse between the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Primate by consequence no sharp tooth no grudge upon either fide a thing saith he so likely that it is almost Demonstrable And first saith he the Lieutenant did from time to time advise with the
certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ and if designed only then not enjoyned by the Apostles Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Master Calvin and makes the Lords day meetings Apostolicae verae divinae traditionis Apoc. 1. 10. to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition yet being a tradition only although Apostolical it is no commandement And more then that he tels us in another place in Act 20. that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas and from the Text 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi it may be gathered not unfitly that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish But sure the custome of the people makes no divine traditions and such conclusions as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text are not Text it self Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles not to their precept but their practise So Mercer in Gen. Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church or Church in the Apostles times Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris literis expressum non habemus but how by what authority such a change was made is not delivered as he confesseth in the Scripture And John Cuchlinus in Thesib pag. 733. though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custome yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such commandment Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse constanter negamus S. Simler de Festis Chr. p. 24 cals it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum recâ—ptam a custome taken up in the Apostles time And so Hospinian Although saith he it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath even in the times of the Apostles Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos vel alios Lege aliqua Praecepto observationem ejus instituisse yet finde we not that either they or any other did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept but left it free Thus Zanchius in 4. praecept Nullibi legimus Apostolos c. We do not read saith he that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day we only read what they and others did upon it Liberum ergo reliquerunt which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power To those adde Vrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Commandment in Catech. Palat. Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere that it is left unto the Church to make choice of any day and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection and so Aretius in his common places Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day Gomarus and Ryvet in the Tracts before remembred have determined further viz. That in the choosing of this day the Church did exercise as well her wisdome as her freedome her freedome being not obligâ—d to any day by the Law of God her wisdome Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet that by so small an alteration she might the lesse offend the Jewes who were then considerable As for the Lutheran Divines it is affirmed by Dr. Bound That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church in appointing daies for the assembly of the people which is plain confession But for particulars Brentius as Dr. Prideaux tels us cals it Civilem institutionem a civil institutionem and no Commandement of the Gospel which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof then ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium as a fit way to retain order in the Church And sure I am Chemnitius tels us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia but that for orders sake it had been voluntarily used amongst them of their own accord 8 Thus have we proved by the Doctrine of the Protestants of what side soeever and those of greatest credit in their several Churches eighteen by name and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church which proved the last of the three Theses That still the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other will follow of it self on the former grounds the Protestant Doctors before remembred in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day as we see they do confessing tacitely that still the Church hath power to change it Nor do they tacitely confesse it as if they were affraid to speak it out but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth Zuinglius the first reformer of the Switzers hath resolved it so in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis a new Arrian Heretick Tom. 1. p. 254. a. Audi mi Valentine quibus modis rationibus Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur Hearken now Valentine by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed to any time ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a Ceremony Nothing can be more plain then this yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth That he regarded not so much the number of seven ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it Sure I am Doctor Prideaux in Orat. de Sab. reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other And that John Barclaie makes report how once he had a consultation de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday Bucer affirmes as much as touching the Authority And so doth Bullinger and Brentius Vrsine and Chemnitius as Doctor Prideaux hath observed Of Bullinger Bucer Brentius I have nought to say because the places are not cited but take it as I think I may upon his credit But for Chemnitius he saith often that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tyed to daies and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example Singulis diebus vel quocunque die That every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises And
the motive to his killing the Duke The Historian seems not unpleased with the Fact or involves a great part of the Nation in the guilt thereof Fame and Reports much built on by our Author in the course of his History and to what intent The History rectified bâ— the Observations in the Case of Knighthood the Subjects summoned to the Coronation were to receive that order in our Authors own confession if tbe King so pleased Sir Edward Cooks opinion in the Case examined The Pamphleters notable Arguments for the Swâ—ord and Surcoat Of the Earl of Newcastles two great Feasts at Welbeck and and Belsover Our Author removes one of his mistakes from Guild-Hall to Cornhill The Pamphleters causeless quarrell with the Observator in reference unto the battel at Rostock no such beleguering of that Town no such battel nor any such ingagement of the Armies before the battel of Lipsique as the History mentioneth The History rectified in the first issuing out of the writs for Ship money And the Observator quarelled for directing in it The Pamphleters grosse errour in pursute of that quarrell together with his equity and ingenuity in the managing of it Young Oxenstern was denied audience by King Charles Of what authority an eye witniss is in point of History The Pamphleters weak defences for his errour in that particular He rectifieth his own discourse of the first differences between the King the Scotish Lords by the Observator His quarrels with him and corrections of him quite besides the Cushion The Observator justified touching the constituting of the Lords Of the Articles in the Scotish Parliaments Our Authors false Arithmetique in Substracting from his own errours and multiplying the supposed mistakes of the Observator His sharp expostulation how unjustly grounded The Close of all THis Chapter will be like that of Champion in his Decem Rationes which he calls testes omnium generum an Aggregate body a collection of incoherencies as commonly it hapneth in the Fag-end of such discourses in which a man hath not the liberty of using his own method otherwise than as the Author whom he deals with shall give way unto it And the first thing we meet with is the absolving of the Duke of Buckingham and Earl of Bristoll from the crime of treason wherewith our Author had reproached them in the first Edition where shewing how passing jocund many good men were at the contest betwixt those great persons hâ— addeth that the Question seemed not in the sense of many which was the Traytor but which the most Hist Fol. 29. Both charged as Traytors in the first and both absolved from being Traytots by leaving out this passage in the second Edition For this he is beholding to the Observator from whom he aâ—so takes a hint of giving us a full Copy of the Dukes charge against that Earl which before we had not Now I would fain learn of him whether this censure thus expunged were true or false whether it seemed so in his own sense or in the sense of others If if be false why was it put in the first if true why is it left oâ—t in the second If so they seemed in his own sense why doth he not declare how and by whom his sense was altered in that point but if it were the sense of others I would know the reason why he should suppresse it in this place where it relates only to a private person and stand unto it in all points concerning Episcopacie the Clergy and the Convocation which still stand under the same tearms of reproach obloquy as before they did How so because saith he he speaks the sense of others and not his own and passing as the words of others they shall remain in evidence to succeding times against all those concerned in it though it be proved how much they are calumniated and abused in those scandalous passages Yet deals he better with these great persons than he doth with Mr. Attorney Noye whom notwithstanding the vindication of him by the Observator which he is not able to refute he leaves still under the defamation of prating and bawling giving him the odious Title of a Projector a subtile Enginier a man of cinicall Rusticity with others of like nature unworthy appellations for so brave a man But kissing goeth by favour as the saying is and our Author loves to write none more with respect of persons and to make History do the drugery of his own despight though his Preface if it could would perswade the contrary The next thing which occurs but not so easily reducible to any of the former heads relates to the sttory of that horrible Paricide coÌ„mitted by John Felton on the person of the Duke of Buckingham Concerning which our Author had told us in his History that the said Felton had stiched a paper in his hat wherin he declared his only motive to the fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke that he could not sacrifice his life in a nobler cause than by delivering his Country from so great an enemy To which the Observator answereth first in the way of position not that there were no papers found stitched in his Hat as the Pamphleter fasly charged on him Fol. 45. but that there were no such papers foundin his hat or elsewhere about him as the Historian mentions And 2ly In the way of explication that the first to whom that particular motive was communicated was one Dr. Hutchenson sent by the King upon the first hearing of the News to sift it out of him Against this last the Pamphleter hath nothing to say For taking it upon his word which we need not do that Captain Harvey signified as much in his Letter dated the same day Fol. 13. yet this concludes not in my Logick nor in no mans else but his that thinks himself an Allsteed that that vile Murtherer did first communicate it unto him before the Doctor by working on his conscience had first got it out of him But this is like the rest of our Authors Arguments viz. Captain Harvy being one of those to whose custody he was committed did signifie it on the same day to his friends at London Ergo it was not first confessed to Doctor Hutchenson But Captain Harveys Letter saith more than this Felton saith he told me he was to be prayed for next day in London therefore for one of these Conclusions must needs follow on it either Felton had acknowledged to him that the late Remonstrance did induce him to kill the Duke or that it was affirmed to be so in the papers which were stitched in his hat Now for the matter of those papers That which they are produced for is to prove this point namely that his only motive to the Fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke And if they prove not this as I think they doe not they prove nothing against the Observator nor to the