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-seventh-day then in a tenth-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-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
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
as for Vrsine he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath Catech qu. 103. 2. That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without expresse commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of divine worship but for the Christian Church that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holinesse affixt unto them Ecolesia vero Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit Ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis as his words there are To these adde Dietericus a Lutheran Divine who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment yet for that day it may be Dies Sabbati or Dies Solis or Quicunque alius Sunday or Saturday or any other be it one in seven Som. 17. post Trinit And so Hospinian is perswaded Dominicum diem mutare in alium transferre licet c. That if the occasions of the Church do so require the Lords day may be changed unto any other provided it be one of seven and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God Nay by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings to publick prayers Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments For so they gave it up in their confession cap. 2. Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas Evangelii praedicationem nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem And howsoever for their own parts they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses even from the time of the Apostles yet that they conceived it free to keep the Lords day or the Sabbath Sed Dominicum non Sabbatum libera observatione celebramus Some Sectaries since the Reformation have gone further yet and would have had all daies alike as unto their use all equally to be regarded And reckoned that the Lords day as the Church continued it was a Jewish Ordinance thwarting the Doctrine of S. Paul who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies which the Church retained This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Anabaptist taking the hint perhaps from something which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men and after them of the Swinckfieldian and the Familist as in the times before of the Petro-Brusians and if Waldensis wrong him not of Wicklef also By this it will appear that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pareus as the Pamphleter saith he did when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear and sooner had this vindication been made if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears The Pamphleter findes fault with the Observator in that he did not viva voâ—e by conference or by letters hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History as fit considerations for a second impression Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian yea moral principles to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake if it prove such upon the search of all Editions then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversie By this it also will appear 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the 4. 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 transfer it to some other Crack me these nuts my most learned sir and when you have broke your teeth about them as I doubt you will throw me your never-yet-answered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it 't is ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer CHAP. V. Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy and his intention doubted in it Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively drawn 1. From the word there used in the singular number 2. From his fitness for Government 3. From the Hospitality required in him And 4. From his being no Novice but of longer standing in the Church Presbyters there included under the name Diaconi more properly in that place to be rendred Ministers The like acceptions of the word in other places Proofs that the Author speakes his own opinion under that of others 1. From the word Asserted which is here explained 2. From some passages in the published and unpublished sheets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rendred Senior as the Pamphleter would fain have it in all learned Authors The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops and the reason why The reason why King Charles his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator The Pamphleters rage for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency That so he must be understood proved from the History it self and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary An Answer to those Arguments HAving thus vindicated the Declarations of the two Kings about lawfull Sports satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings so maliciously imputed to him and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controversie touching the Lords day out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows and free the Bishops and their Actions from those odious Calumnies which are charged upon them Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy ascribing a Divine Right to it and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scriptures as any thing whatsoever not fundamentall That there was a Prelacy or Superiority of some one over other Presbyters within some certain Walks and Precincts that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apostles to be exemplary and to give law to succeeding times Concerning which and many other good expressions which follow after I may justly say as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case viz. Vtinam sic semper errasset would he had never erred otherwise then he doth in this Only I could have wished that for the better clearing of
purpose of our Author Now the first paper had these words as the Pamphleter telleth us viz. I would have no man commend me for doing it but rather discommend themselves for if God had not taken away their hearâ—s for their sins he had not gone so long unpunished The second Paper had these words viz. The man is cowardly base in mine opinion and deserves neither the fame of a Gentleman or Souldier that is unwilling to sacrifice his life for the honour of God his King and Country To both these he subscribes his name and Copies of both these were sent the same day by Captain Harvy to his friends in London but neither of them do declare that his only motive to the fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke The man might possibly be set on and his discontents made use of to this barbarous murder by some of those who wished well to this Remonstrance I deny not that and it may be believed the rather because the Pictures of the wretch being cut in brasse and exposed to sale were caught up greedily by that party and being the Copies of these Letters were printed in the bottom of it it is more probable that our Author might have them thence than from the Letters of the Captain but that he was induced to it by the Remonstrance is more than any man of common sense can collect from those papers and therefore very ill brought in with so much confidence and ostentation to prove that positively which by no Logical Inference can be gathered from them If ever man were Animal Rationale Risibile that is to say a Creature ridiculous for his reasoning it must needs be this But certainly our Author could not possibly be so much out in his rational and discursive faculties had he not wished well unto the man and approved the Fact He had not else accounted it an exploit of glory or put that glosse upon the meaning of the Wretch that he had stitched those Papers into the lining of his Hat for fear lest the Supposition of private revenge would infame and blemish the glory of the exploit nor had he told us that it pleased the Common man too well and that in vulgar sense it rather passed for an Execution of a Malefactor and an administration of that Justice dispensed from Heaved which they thought was denied on earth Fol. 91. Never did man so advocate for a willfull murder or render a whole Nation so obnoxious to it and so guilty of it there being little difference if any between the rejoycing at such facts when done and consenting to them Cicero speaking of the Murder of Julius Caesar hath resolved it so viz. Quid interest utrum velim fieri an gaudeam factum He that applaudes a Murder acted rendreth himself an Accessary to it before the fact We have not done with Felton yet for our Author told us that His bodie was from thence conveyed to Portsmouth and there hung in chains but by some stole and conveyed away Gibbet and all The contrary being proved by the Observator and the thing too plain to be denied he hath since rectified his History as to this parricular not on the credit of the Observator no take heed oâ— that but because told so by his betters Yet still he must be standing on his justification and as long as he hath any common Fame or confident Report be it never so erroneous to pretend unto he conceives that sufficient for him Fol. 14. Upon this ground the honour of the Countess of Buckingham shall be called in question and an affront falsly reported to be done to publique Justice shall passe into his Annals as a matter of truth He could not else instruct Posterity or the present age how to defame the honour of Ladies or commit the like Rapes upon the Law without fear of impunitie if either such superfaetations of Fame in his Canting Language should not passe for truths or otherwise be wondred at as no grounds for History If no such consequent follow on it we must not thank the History but the Observations In the next place our Author had told us in his History That there was an old sculking Statute long since out of use though not out of force which enjoyned all Subjects who had not some special privilege to appear at the Coronation of every King ad Arma Gerenda to bear Armes not to be made Knights as was vulgarly supposed In this passage there are two things chiefly faulted by the Observator first his reproaching of that Law by the name of an old Skulking Statute which lay not under the Rubbish of Antiquity but was printed and exposed to open view and therefore needed no such progging and bolting out as is elsewhere spoken of And 2ly his Glosse upon it as if it only signified the hearing of Arms and not receiving the Order of Knighthood as had been vulgarly supposed the contrary whereof was undeniably and convincingly proved by the Observator He hath now fully rectified the first expression but seems to stand still upon his last The first expression rectified thus viz. By the common Law there was vested in the Kings of this Realm a power to Summon by their Writs out of the Chancery all persons possessing a Knights Fee and who had no special privilege to the contrary to appear at their Coronation c. Fol. 115. So then the antient Common Law explained and moderated for the ease of the Subject by the Statute of King Edward 2. is freed from the reproachfull name of an old Skulking Statute we have got that by it The Observator being justified in our Authors Pamphlet for so much of his discourse as concerns that point And to the rest of that Discourse proving that all those who were masters of such an estate as the Statute mentioneth were by the same bound to be made Knights or to receive the Order of Knighthood and not simply to bear Arms or to receive a Sword and Surcoat out of the Kings wardrobe as the Author would have had it in his first Edition he comes up so close as could be scarce expected from him For first he telleth us in the Text of his new Edition that such as appeared at the Coronation were to receive a sword and Surcoat he still stands to that as the Ensignes of Knighthood and therefore questionless to receive the Order of Knighthood also if the King so pleased And 2ly he confesseth in his Comment on it out of Matthew Paris that King Henry the 3. fined all the Sheriffs of England five Marks a man for not distraining every one having 15 l. per annum to be made Knights as he had commanded adding withall that he had read of the like Precept of King Edward the First Fol. 20. So then the Subjects were not called together to the Coronation ad militiae aâ—ma gerenda to bear Arms only but to receive the Order of Knighthood we have