Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	writ_n	year_n	york_n	19	3	9.2274	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87881	The observator observed, or, Animadversions upon observations on the history of King Charles wherein that history is vindicated, partly illustrated, and severall other things tending to the rectification of some publique mistakes, are inserted : to which is added, at the latter end, the observators rejoinder.	L'Estrange, Hamon, 1605-1660.	1656 (1656)	Wing L1188A; ESTC R179464	41,478	51

indeed the second son of England is not born to the Dukedom of York but receives that Title by creation c. Answer How is it possible to escape the Observators lash Had I said he was then stiled Duke of York I had been out in my Temporalities he being not created Duke of York till afterward to avoy'd which Scylla I inserted after and fell upon the Charybdis of complying with weekly Pamphlets what shall an honest Historian do in such a case Page 122. Fol. 131. The King presently issued out writs to all the Counties within the Realm Observator Our Author is deceived in this as in many things else For in the first year of the Payments of Ship-money the writs were not issued to all the Counties of England but only to the maritine Counties c. Answer This mistake I acknowledge also But did it deserve so much favour as for the Observator to give me two for one for first he saith in the first year of Shipmoney the writs were issued to the Maritine Counties No such matter it was to the maritine to the Port-townes only Secondly he saith that in the next year and not before the like writs were issued out to the Counties in England which is an undoubted truth but whereas he gives us some more certain note of that year to be 1636. he is much out for those general writs were issued in the year 1635. as a consequent of the opinion of the Judges in that November and this is an undoubted truth also Page 125. Fol. 132. But in regard he came without Credential letters from the Queen of Sweaden he denied him audience whereupon he returned in some disgust Observator In this short passage there are more mistakes then lines For first it is not likely that yong Oxonstern came without Credential letters Secondly I am sure he had publique audience my curiosity carrying me to the Court that day not so much to see the formalities of such receptions as to behold the Son of so wise a Father c. Answer Never was any mans hand so out as mine in this Narration what more mistakes then lines that 's sad if not somewhat hyperbolical as is evident because there are many lines and but two mistakes taking the Observators information for currant But be there more mistakes then lines I have a Father for them all The History of the Wars of Christendome The Author whereof though he be an Italian and therefore not so competent a Judge of our affaires yet the Earle of Monmouth who translated him was of our Nation and a person of so much honour and knowledge in this businesse as he would have given us some Marginal caveat had it been so wide of truth as the Observator would make it Page 130. Fol. 137. The King committing the staff of that office to Dr. Juxon Lord Bishop of London who though he was none of the greatest Scholars yet was withal none of the worst Bishops Observator I would fain learn of our Author in what particular parts of either divine or humane learning he reckons this Bishop defective Answer That this Bishop was none of the greatest Schollars I saw then no reason but that I might safely say without disparagement to his Function Schollarship or my Prudence a Bishop may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} able to instruct and Schollar sufficient for his Placo though he be none of the greatest magnitude Nor is it requisite that a Bishop be much more learned then a Presbyter That he be more prudent requisite it is being a quality more pertinent to Government and in this particular I hope I have made him an amends in the latter part of his Character I shall conclude with Hierome Nullus aut rarus est qui omnia habeat quae habere debet Episcopus No Bishop or rarely any hath all vertues belonging to a Bishop and he who wanteth two or three and hath all the rest is more commendable for what he hath then to be blamed for what he wants If this be not satisfaction enough I hope that is that I have ordered a deleatur upon it being loth to abide a misconstruction and finding the Historians note verified Vivorum ut magna admiratio ita censura difficilis est Page 133. Fol. 138. As the Archbishop whilst he so vehemently pursued Order did a little outrun Authority c. Observator The King gave Authority and Approbation to it a year before this Metropolitical Visitation in the case of St. Gregories in London being heard before him sitting in the Privy Councel Anno 1633. Answer The Archbishops out-running Authority I intended not in placing the Communion-Table Altar-wise at the East-end of the Chancel but by enjoyning a wooden traverse of rails to be set before it by commanding all Communicants thither to resort for the Blessed Sacrament These I commend as decent in themselves but account as Innovations I will give you now my reason not quarrelling with Dr. Coal whom the Bishop of Lincoln carbonado'd nor yet with Peter Heylin plainly and sincerely the 82 Canon enjoyneth that the Communion-Table when the holy Communion is to be administred shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants and the Communicants also in more number may communicate with the said Minister Now the Communicants may both best hear in most number communicate when the Table is in the body of the Church or of the Chancel Again it is clear from the word saving mention'd in this Canon that the Table was to stand in one place when there was no Communion and in another when there was one And this is most clearly made out by the Queens Injunctions 1559. from whence this Canon in this particular is almost verbatim taken for after order taken where it shall stand in Communion-time it is further said in those injunctions And after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before Infallibly implying that though it stood Altar-wise before yet at Communion-time it was to be removed and consequently not to be raild in But behold how he defends this from Innovation the King gave Authority and Approbation for it a year before the Metropolitical Visitation I speak of Where 's that in deciding the controversie about the Communion-Table in the case of St. Gregories 1633. This Metropolitical Visitation say I was 1635. His Majesties Declaration sayes the Observator was 1633. a year before sure the man meanes London measure But what did the King declare any thing in that case concerning the setting of railes before the Holy Table or that it should stand there immoveable so as the Communicants were to resort up to those railes to receive Sure I am that Declaration speaks no such matter not a syllable tending that way Oportet esse memorem When these words fell from me it