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
a Body of Devotions according to the Hours of Prayer in neither of which an equall and judicious Reader will find any Popery What saith the Pamphleter to this Why first he doth confesse That in stead of preaching he should have said publishing and this mistake with more then ordinary ingenuity he hath rectified in the last Edition Fol. 98. Secondly as for Dr. Cozens he grants ingenuously enough that in his Book there is no direct Popery though something as he saith which might raise a jealousie of his tendency that way but yet forbears to presse it further and it is well for him that he had so good a colour to forbear the pressing of that which he could not prove Seeing that Doctor hath appeared of late so stout an Advocate for the Reformed Church as he hath been informed by some and assured by others fol. 17. To the Observators defence of Bp. Mountague there is no Reply so that the Action being withdrawn against one of the parties and the other quit by Proclamation we may discharge them of the Court without more adoe Finally as for Bp. Goodman the Observator hath informed you that though he preached something once which might warp towards Popery yet he did not preach it uncontrouled being not only questioned for it but sentenced to a Recantation before the King To this I find no Reply neither and I wonder at it considering the great advantage given by that Bishop at his death to increase the scandall a scandal so unseasonably and untimely given as if the Devil himself had watched an opportunity to despight this Church And though some men have gladly cherished this occasion to draw the rest of the Prelates and Prelatical party into a generall suspicion of being as much inclined to Popery as that Bishop was yet Christian charity should instruct them not to think evil of all for the fault of one or prejudge any one man much lesse the whole Body of a Clergy for the fault of another It rather should be wondred at by all moderate and discerning men that notwithstanding so many provocations of want and scorn which have of late been put upon them there should be found but one of that sacred order and but three more that I have heard of of the Regular Clergy to fall off to Popery though to say truth it was not in this Bishop a late falling off but a pursuance rather of some former inclinations which he had that way that being thought to be the reason why he refused subscription to the Canons of 640. mentioned in our Historian fol. 186. But oportet esse memorem as we know who said and now it will be time to passe from those Anomalous Innovations which seemed to threaten that Tiber would drown the Thames in our Authors language to those designs which tended to the bringing in of Arminianisme if all be true which was brought in to the Committee or by our Author is reported to be brought in to them CHAP. VII Our Author not so little concerned in the controversies of Arminianism as he would be thought The Arminians not called a Faction by the Observator nor said by him to be unsufferable in a Common-wealth The Lawes and Privileges of the Netherlands never more violated than in the proceedings against Barnevelt The Conspiracy of Barnevelts Kinred not to be imputea to the Arminians The moderation of King James on the like occasion The Arminians no way turbulent but as Calvinists only St. Augustine did not think himself infallible though the Pamphleter doth The Observator misreported in delivering the Tenets of some Calvinists The Pamphleters trifling in so great a matter as Eternity The judgement of King James altered in the paints of Arminianism Sir Humphries tale of the two Bishops canvassed and confuted The Bishop of Winchester vindicated Of Dr. More Dr. Marshal and their several grudges against that Bishop The Lambeth Articles confessed by our Author not to be taken for the Doctrine of the Church of England The Observators mistake in the first 3. years of Dr. Baro and the grounds thereof The Observator not disproved concerning that Doctors retiring into France nor in the storie of those Articles With the Pamphleters mistakes in both The Articles of Ireland abrogated by superinducing those of England proved first by the Certificate of the two Subscribers and after by some parallel Cases in Scripture and the Statute-Laws The two Subscribers speak improperly for themselves and deal unjustly with the Observator Of the Differences in the Convocation of Ireland between the Lord Primate and the Bishop of Derry An errour of the Printers charged on the Observator BUt first we must remove a Block which lieth in our way our Author telling us how little he is concerned in these Arminian Controversies which are to be the Subject of this present Chapter Fol. 5. Thus do I hear our Author say but I find the contrary and then quid verba audiam cum facta videam The bitternesse of his Style against those poor men whom he so nick-nameth and all who seem to incline towards their opinions declare plainly of what Spirit he is how very little concerned soever he would seem to be Of this we shall not need to look for any further evidence than the Character he gives both of the men and of the Doctrine Their Doctrin branded by the name of errours and the Contrary opinions honoured with the title of Orthodox Hist Fol. 98. Their tenets joyned with those of the Massilians and Semipelagians Fol. 6. 131. their persons stigmatized in the Pamphlet as men having a strong tang of the Jesuites in practical or Dogmatical concernments and indeed a Faction a turbulent seditious faction and so found all along by the united Provinces from the first of their spawning there Fol. 46. The Lord Deputy of Ireland stands accused upon this accompt in the unpublished sheets of the History to have frighted rather than perswaded the Convocation of Ireland to repeal the Articles of that Church principally to advance these Arminian Tenets the Court-Clergy generally defamèd as deeply tinctured and stained with the Massilian and Arminian errors and Mr. Mountague afterwards Bishop of Chichester called unworthy wretch because he was supposed to incline that way Strong Arguments that our Author doth not think himself so little concerned in this businesse as he would make the world believe if he had the Art of it But whereas the Pamphleter hath told us that the Observator p. 73. hath very aptly stiled them by the name of a Faction if he consult the place again but with half an eye he will not find them stiled so by the Observator but by Dr. Whitacres Dr. Willet Mr. Chatterton Mr. Perkins and certain others desiring the Archbishops assistance to suppresse that Faction which was like to grow against them in that University And here I think it not amisse to take another running leap from Fol. 5. to Fol. 46. where he inferreth out of
Articles Fol. 43. But tell me Gentle Sir might not the Bishop of Derry be most active in it without a personal controversie betwixt him and the Primate if so then was the Primate more engaged in the quarrel about receiving or not receiving the Articles of the Church of England than you would gladly seem to have him If otherwise your Answer is nothing to the purpose nor confutes any thing affirmed by the Observator Some disagreement he confesseth to have been between them in that Synod about the Canons not the Articles of the Church of England but neither he nor the Observator being present at it they must rely upon the credit of their Authors The Observator as he telleth me had his intelligence from some of the Bishops of that Kingdom men of integrity and great worth present at all debates and conferences amongst those of their own order and so most like to give a just account of all passages there The Pamphleter takes his it seems from two members of the lower House of Convocation who neither were bound to tell more than they knew nor to know more than the advantages of the place they served in could communicate to them Which of the two intelligences have or should have most power in moving the Sphear of any common understanding let the Reader judge The Pampheter is almost spent and now plays with flies quarrelling the Observator for saying that this Convocation was held in Ireland Anno 1633. Whereas Dr. Heylyn whom he makes to be his alter idem hath placed it in his History of the Sabbath Anno 1634. It could not then proceed from ignorance in the Observator you have cleared him very well for that and it will be very hard for you to prove that it proceeded from negligence or from your ordinary excuse a lapse of memory Printers will fall into such errours do we what we can though the calculation be put down in words at length and not in figures more easily and frequently when they meet with figures not words in length And so much for all matters which relate to Arminianism The rest that follows shall be reduced into two Chapters the first for Parliaments and Convocations and the points coincident the second for all such other matters as cannot be contained under those two heads CHAP. VIII A voluntary mistake of the Author charged on the accompt of the Observator The Pamphleter agreeth with the Observator about the sitting and impowering of the Convocation Our Author satisfied in the c. left so unhappily in the Canon of 640. That the Clergy in their Convocation may give away their own money without leave from the Parliament The difference in that Case between a Benevolence and a Subsidie The Impulsives to that Benevolence The King not unacquainted with the differences between the Liturgies The words of distribution in the first Liturgy of King Edward no more favourable to Transubstantiation than those which are retained in the present Liturgy The reason why so many Papists have been gained of late to the Church of England The Convocation of the year 1640 appeared not by their Councel in the House of Commons New Lords created in time of Parliamâ—nt not excluded from their suffrage in it The difference between the Loan and the Tax made reconcileable the Commons in the Parliament 1621. not to be called petty Kings Our Authors weak excuses for it and the damages of it The Pamphleters great libertie in calculating the Estates of the Peers and Commons to make good his estimate The Bishops purposely left out in the valuation The true stating of the time of the charge against the late Arch-Bishop The Bishops not excluded by the Canon-Laws from being present at the intermediate proceedings in the businesse of the Earl of Strafford Our Authors resolution not to warrant Circumstances but the Things themselves of what not able advantage to him The Observator justified in the day of taking the Protestation The four Bishops sent to the King and not sent for by him The Bishop of London supernumerary The Pamphleters weak argument upon his silence in that meeting The Primate of Armagh not made use of by the Lord Leiutenant in framing the Answer to his charge why chosen to be with him as his Ghostly Father before and at the time of his death A fair and friendly expostulation with Dr. Bernard FRom the Convocation held in Ireland proceed we now to that in England both yeelding matter of Observation and both alike unpleasing to the Presbiterian or Puritan party And the first thing the Pamphleter layeth hold on is a mistake occasioned chiefly by himself He told us of a new Synod made of an old Convocation and Fathers the conceit such as it is on a witty Gentleman But now the witty Gentleman proves to be a Lord and therefore the Observators descant on Sir Edward Deering must be out of Doors Fol. 34. Had the Historian spoke properly and told us of a witty Lord who had said so of that Convocation the Observator would have took more pains in inquiring after him but speaking of him in the notion of a Gent. only though a witty Gentleman the Observator had some reason to conceive it spoken by Sir Edward Deering one of whose witty Speeches was made chiefly upon that occasion But as this Lord is here presented to us in the name of a Gentleman so Mr. Secretary Vâ—ne is given unto us in the unpublished Sheets by the name of a Lord. Had he corrected himself in this expression as he did in the other he might have eas'd himself of some work excused the Observator from some part of his trouble and freed Sir Edward Deering from the Descant as he calls it of the Observator The Historian had affirmed that the Convocation was impowered to sit still by a new Commission To this the Observator answereth no such matter verily the new CoÌ„mission which he speaks off gave them no such power the writ by which they were first called and made to be a Convocation gave them power to sit and by that writ they were to sit as a Convocation till by another writ proceeding from the same authority they were dissolved Doth the Pamphleter deny any part of this no he grants it all and takes great pains to prove himself a most serious Trifeler Confessing that though the Convocation were not dissolved by the dissolutiof the Parliament yet that it had so little life in it as the King thought fit to reanimate it with a new Commission Fol. 34. not one word in this impertinent nothing of above 30 lines till the close of all where the light-fingered Observator is said to have pocketed up the Break-neck of the businesse in suppressing what the Lawyers sent along with their opinions viz. that they would advise the Convocation in making Canons to be very sparing And this he saith he is informed by a member of that Convocation and one as knowing and
a day prefix'd provide Ships of so many Tun c. To this the Observator answereth That in the first year of the payment of Shipmoney the Writs were not issued to all the Counties in England as our Author tells us but only to the Maritime Counties c. and that in the next year not before the like writs issued out to all the Counties in England that is to say Anno 1636. What saith the Pamphleter to this First he acknowledgeth his error and hath rectified it in the last Edition but adds withall that the Observator gives him two for one in saying first that the Ship writs were directed in the first year to the Mariâ—ime Counties whereas it was to the Port towns only and 2ly in saying that the Ship writs were directed to all the Counties Anno 1636. whereas saith he it was 1635. Fol. 25. For the first of these he offereth no proof but his Ipse dixit and of what authority that is we have seen already He telleth us positively in his Preface that for matter of Record he hath not consulted the very Originals but hath conformed himself to Copies and having been so often cozened in the false Copies of Journals and Repâ—rts I can see no armour of proof about him to keep his credulity from the wounds made by false Records But 2ly taking it for true as perhaps it is that the first Writs were directed to the Maritime or Port towns only yet being the Maritime or Port towns stand in the Maritime Counties it is not very much out of the way to say that the first Writâ— were directed to the Maritime Counties Not so much I am sure as to say they were directed to the Mediterraneans or Highlanders in our Authors canting unlesse by such a Fictio Juris as our common Lawyers call an action of Trover a Port Town may be said to be in the Midland Countries For the second he offereth us some proof telling us those writs were issued out Anno 1635. as a consequent of the opinion of the Judges in that Novemb. But will the Pamphleter stand to this will he stand to any thing If so then certainly he is gone again The Opinion delivered by the Judges was grounded on a letter sent unto them from the King with the Case inclosed which letter bears date the 2d of February in the 12th year of his Majesties reign Anno 1636. and is so dated by our Author Fol. 143. Considering therefore that this Letter led the way unto their Opinion it is impossible to any common apprehension that the Judges should deliver their Opinions 14 moneths before the letter came to them that is to say in the moneth of Novemb. Anno 1635. and this I take to be a Subter or a Super-annuating in his Temporalties and that too in such things and Actions as relate to the History of King Charles and not in things extrinsecal as the Battel of Rostock or in things taken in on the By as the Synod of Dort But for the ingenuitie of the man and his equitie too The Observator had informed him of some other mistakes about this business as first his making the Earl of Northumberland Admiral of the first years Fleet whereas it was the Earl of Lindsey And 2ly in affirming that the King upon the Archbishops intreaty had granted the Clergy an exemption from that general payment whereas inâ—â—â—â— there was no such matter The first of these he hath rectifyed in the History and confessed in the Pamphlet the second he hath rectifyed without any Acknowledgement either of the Observators information or his own mistake And finally so indulgent is he to his own dear self ranking it amongst the errors ascribed by him to the Observator for making the first writ to be directed to the Maritime Counties whereas saith he it was to the Maritime or Port Towns only he reckoneth it not amongst his own in saying that they were directed to all the Counties of the Kingdom the Mediterraneans and Highlanders amongst the rest Rather than so Ships shall be sayling on the Mountains and cast Anchor there Whales shall be taken up in Cotswold and Shelfish crawl in shoals on the top of the Chilterne as they did once in the dayes of Pythagoras whom our Author hath so often followed in his Ipse dixiâ— that he will credit him in this also Of which thus the Poet vidi factas ex aequore terras Et procul a Pelago Conchae jacuere Marinae Et vetus inventa est in montibas Anchora summis That is to say Oft have I seen that Earth which once I knew Part of the Sea so that a man might view Huge Shels of Fishes on the up-land ground And on the Mountains top old Anchors found In the Embassage of young Oxenstern to the Court of England it is said by our Author that he was denied audience by the King The contrary affirmed and proved by the Autoplie one of our Authors own words of the Observator whose curiosity had carried him to behold that ceremony I have heard it for a Rule amongst some good women that a man ought to believe his own wife before his own eyes but I never heard it for a good Rule in Law or History Not in the Practice of the Law in which it is a noted Maxim plus valet occulatus testis unus quam auriti decem that is to say that one eye-witnesse speaking to a matter of Fact is of greater credit than ten that take it up on hear-say Much lesse in History the word being anciently derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to see Intimating the relation of such remakable accidents at the performance of which the Author himself was present Apud veteres enim saith Isidore in his origines nemo scribebat Historiam nisi is qui interfuisset et ea quae scribenda essent vidisset And though the customary use of the word hath now taught it a more ample signification yet an eye-witnesse in point of story is more to be believed than any of those which take up matter upon trust Which notwithstanding against this Ocular observation as he calls it in another place of the Observator he opposeth the Authority of an Italian Author in his History of the wars of Christendom he confesseth in the Pamphlet to be no competent Judge of our affairs and yet because the Earl of Monmouth doth translate it so it can be no otherwise How so because saith he that Earl is 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 Fol. 26. Here is a non sequâ—tur with a witnesse The History of Galiazzo was translated by the Earl of Monmouth Ergo his Testimony taken upon hear-say to be believed before that of the Observator though speaking as an eye-witnesse to the thing or thus The Earl of Monmouth is a