his own intentions and satisfaction unto others he had exprest himself more fully as to this particular viz. whether the Superiority of such persons over such Presbyters in the Church Apostolique was fixed in them during life or that passed from one to another in their severall turns like the Mâ—deratorship in the generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland or the Chair-man in the Conferences and debates of Councell in the rest of the Calvinian Churches For if he mean in this last sense as I hope he doth not Episcopacy is no more beholding to him then it was to Beza who notwithstanding he maintained a party of Ministers without any fixed Superiority which one may claim above another yet he allows a moveable Presidency to be not unusuall nor unfrequent in the very times of the Apostles And yet that some such secret meaning may be gathered from him by such as have a minde to interpret all things to their own advantage will be made not improbable by his standing to this Proposition That there is no place in Holy Text wherein Presbyters import not Bishops and Bishops Presbyters Considering therefore that he still stands to his former Principle that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are of equivalent import and denote the self same persons without the least distinction and requireth it of the Observator or of any man else 36. to tell him where such persons in Holy Text are distinguished so really that a Bishop doth not import a Presbyter and a Presbyter doth not import a Bishop I think my self as much concerned as the Observator to make answer to it First then say I that though those words may be sometimes though but rarely used promiscuously the word Presbyter denoting a Bishop and the word Bishop importing nothing but a Presbyter yet that more frequently and in other places they are used in a more limited and distinct sense as in times succeeding And 2. I say that the word Episcopus 1 Timothy 3. 2. and the description of a Bishop which is therein made is meant of a Bishop truly and properly so called according as the word was used and appropriated by the Antient writers and not appliable to the Presbyters or inferior Ministers For proof whereof I shall offer some few considerations out of the Text it self leaving them to the judgement of the sober and intelligent Reader And first St. Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singular number but of inferiour Ministers in the Plurall One Church or City though it had many Presbyters had one Bishop only And therefore we may reasonably conceive that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number speaks of him in his proper and true capacity as one distinguished from and above the Presbyters 2. The Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government as being a man that is to take care of the Church of God and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him whether he hath ruled his house well c. A charge of too transcendent and sublime a nature to be entrusted unto every common Presbyter or discharged by him who as our Hooker well observeth though he be somewhat better able to speak is as little able to judge as another man And if not fit to judge no fit man to govern 3. St. Paul requireth in a Bishop that he be given to Hospitality i. e. that he receive the Stranger entertain the Native and in a word admit all Comers Hierom doth so expound it saying that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three Hospitalitatis officium implebit he hath exceeding well complyed with all the Rules of Hospitality Episcopus nist omnes receperit inhumanus est but that the Bâ—shop is accounted a Churle or Niggard if his House be not open unto all Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those antient times to the Condition of a Bishop who had the keeping and disposing of the Churches Treasures yet I can see no possibility how it could be expected from the Presbyters that out of his poor pittance from the sportula he should be able to perform it For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles daily as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oyle Fourthly and lastly it is required by St Paul that his Bishop must not be neophytus a novice as our English reads it and exceeding rightly that is as Chrysostom and out of him Theophylact expound the word one newly Catechized as it were lately instructed in the Faith Now who knoweth not but that in the beginnings of the Church some of these new plants these Neophyti must of necessity be taken into holy orders for the increase and propagation of the Gospel The Presbyters were many but the Bishops few And therefore howsoever there must be found sufficient Standards upon the which to graffe a Bishop yet I can hardly finde a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church with a fit number of Presbyters unless we take them from the Nurserie It then it be demanded whether St. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presbyters I answer no but that we have them in the next Paragraphe Diacones similiter which why it should not comprehend the Presbyters and all inferior Ministers under the degree of Bishops I can see no reason there being no qualification requisite in or to the Presbyter which is not found in the Apostles Character of these Diaconi And though the word in our last translation be rendred Deacons yet in our old translation and in that of Coverdale we read it Ministers according to the generall and native meaning of the same An exposition neither new nor forced Not new for Calvin doth acknowledge alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo inferiores that some referred those words to Presbyters subordinate or inferiour to the Bishop Not forced for if we search the Scriptures we shall there perceive that generally Diaconus is rendred Ministers and that not only in the Gospel before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God but also in St. Pauls Epistles after the planting of the Church when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits Thus Tychicus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a faithful Minister Eph. 6. 26. and Col. 4. 7. and so is Epaphras entituled Col. 1. 7 c. And hereunto I shall further add that I can see no convincing reason why the Episcopi and Deacons or the Bishops and Deacons mentioned in the first words of St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians may not be understood of the Bishops properly so called of Philippi and the bordering Cities and of the Presbyters or inferiour Ministers under their authority Not to say any thing of the Subscription of the Epistle to Titus and the 2. to Timothy in which the word Bishop is taken in this proper and limited sense because whatsoever opinion I have of them the Pamphleter perhaps may not think them to be authentick
these mistakes together then if he had took them one by one as they came in his way especially considering that he gives a good reason for it that is to say that he might not trouble himself with the like observation at another time and did I think the Pamphleter would be ruled again by reason I could give him another reason for it that he was now to take his leave of those Observations which personally related to the two Kings in their several and distinct capacities This of King James in sending the Articles of Lambeth to the convocation of Ireland and the Assembly at Dort being the last point in which he was concerned in his own particular without relation to King Charles and not seconded by him It 's true we finde them acting afterward in the same design but in several times King James first setting out the Declaration about lawfull sports and King Charles seconding the same by a more strict command to have it punctually observed throughout the Kingdome Which giving the occasion to some observations and those Observations occasioning a sharp and uncivill Answer in our Authors Pamphlet I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Controversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that followes though the Debates touching the spreading of Arminianism and the supposed growth of Popery according to the course of time and the method of our Authors History do occur before it Only I must crave leave to hoop in here the Duke of York as a considerable Member of the Royal Family before I close this present Chapter Of him our Auâ—hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets that he was by Birth-right Duke of York but to avoid the Scilla of that mistake he fals into the Charybdis of another as bad telling us in that leafe new printed but not new printed only if at all on that occasion that he was after styled Duke of York For which being reprehended by the Observator as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times the Gent. seemeth much distressed and in the agony of those distresses asks these following questions 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash 2. What shall an honest Historian do in such a case Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him and resolve him briefly letting him know that an honest Historian should have said he was after created Duke of York and not styled so only And 2. That if our Author shewed himself an honest Historian the Observator hath no lash for him and so it will be possible enough to scape it Which said we shall go on to that grand concernment in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose CHAP. IV. The Pamphleters mistake in making discontinuance equall to a calling in The uncharitable censure of H. B. and our Historian upon the first and second publishing of their two Majesties Declarations about lawful sports The Divinity of the Lords Day not known to Mr. Fryth or Mr. Tyndall two eminent Martyrs in the time of King Henry 8. nor to Bishop Hooper martyred in the time of Queen Mary The opinions of those men how contrary to this new Divinity This new Divinity not found in the Liturgies Articles or Canons of the Church of England nor in the writings of any private man before Dr. Bound anno 1595. The Observator justified in this particular by the Church Historian The Authors ill luck in choosing Archbishop Whitgift for a Patron of this new Divinity and the argument drawn from his authority answered An Answer to the Pamphleters argument from the Book of Homilies the full scope and Analysis of the Homilie as to this particular The Pamphleters great brag of all learned men on his side reduced to one and that one worth nothing The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrewes neither of his writing nor approved of by him Our Authors new Book in maintenance of this new Divinity The Doctor vindicated from the forgings and falsifyings objected against him by the Pamphleter Proofs from the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches 1 That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement 2 That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand then the authority of the Church And 3 That the Church hath power to change the Day and to translate it to some other WE are now come unto the business of the Lordsday in which our Author sheweth himself a stiffe Sabbatarian taking his rise from the Kings Declaration about Lawful sports first published by King James at Greenwitch May 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westminster Octob. 18. anno 1633. when published first it raised so many impetuous clamours as our Author told us in his first that the Book was soon after called in in which being otherwise informed by the Observator and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in though the execution of it by the remisnesse of that Kings Government was soon discontinued will notwithstanding keep himself to his former error and thinks to save himself by this handsome shift that the discontinuance of the execution of it no matter upon what occasion for he leaves that out was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in Fol. 22. This is a piece of strange State Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution of any Law Ordinance Canon or Act of State should be equivalent unto the calling of them in Our Author hath not found it so in the Act for Knighthood nor have the Subjects found it so in such penal Statutes as having lain dor◠〈◊〉 many years were awakened afterwards nor can it be inferred from hence that any of the Lawes against Priests and Jesuites are at the present or have been formerly suppressed and tacitely call'd in because by the clemency of King James the prudence of King Charles and the temper of the present Government there was and is a discontinuance of such Executions as only are to be commended when they may not then when they may possibly be spared What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration the Observator tels at large from the Books themselves But H. B. in his seditious Sermon most undeservedly entituled For God and the King gives another reason for the publishing of it by King James which being not pertinent to my businesse with our present Author I forbear to mention that being already canvassed in another place But the design of the re-publishing of it in the reign of King Charles was by our Author in the first draught of his History as it was sent unto the Presse and printed though suppressed with others of like nature spoken of before affirmed to be a plot to gall and vex those godly Divines whose consciences would not vail to such impiety as to promote the work and for
in case you have not here as elsewhere your most secret intentions What think you of the Author of the vulgar Latine a man as learned I believe as any of those whom you have consulted in the point Yet he translateth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when it is used to signifie a man in Orders by that of Senior but by that of Presbyter as Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias Presbyteros c. Act. 14. 23. qui beâ—e praesunt Presbyteri c. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli admittere 5. 19. as on the other side when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signifie a man in years and not in orders he rendreth it by Senior and not by Presbyter-Seniorem increpaveris sed obsecra ut patrem 1 Tim. 5. 1. and this is that which the Observator faulted in our English Translators viz. that they did not keep the word Presbyter as the Latines did which in short time would have been as familiar to an English ear in the Ecclesiasticall notion of it as those of Bishop or of Deacon being both of them Greek of the same Originall whereas the word Elder being of ambiguous sense hath given occasion to the factiousness of the troublers of Israel to grub up by the roots those goodly Cdars of the Church the Bishops and plant their stinking Elders in the place thereof But you go on and say that you believe it will puzzle the Observator to finde any one who ever interpreted Senior by Priest fol. 35. But Gentle Sir the Observator never told you that it was so rendred so that you need not trouble him to prove what he never said or charge him with any vast difference in this particular from Dr. Heylyn unless you can finde in him that the antients did not call the Minister of the Sacrament of the Altar sometimes Presbyter Elder and sometimes Sacerdos Priest as I think you cannot If you come off no better in your other criticismes then you do in this your best way were to keep your self to plain Grammar learning leave my Lady Philology to more learned Mercurists to whom contracted by Martianus Capella before you made love to her You quarrel next with the Observator first for bringing in Mr. Selden amongst his Lay Champions for Episcopacy who as the Pamphleter saith seems clear of another minde in his Book De Synedriis where he extols Salmasius and Walâ— Massalinus both enemies to the Episcopal order a note above Ela for their pains in this Argument c fol. 37. But had the Observator been observed here as he should have been he might have found that the learned Mr. Selden is not brought in by him as a Champion â—or Bishops but as not totally against them And this he proves by the Retortion made to Mr. Grimstons double argument in the House of Commons The Observator knew as well as the Pamphleter that Mr. Selden was no friend to Bishops as constituted and established in the Church of England and he knew too which perhaps the Pamphleter doth not what moved him to appear against them when by the Complexion of affairs he might safely do it For being called before the High Commission and forced to make a publique acknowledgement of his error and offence given unto the Church in publishing a Book entituled The Historie of Tithes it sunk so deep into his stomack that he did never after affect the men or cordially approve the calling though many wayes were tryed to gain him to the Churches interest The Pamphleters quarrels against Church-men perhaps as good a man as himself or I am sure as true I shall defer unto a time and place more proper keeping my self here to those he hath with the Observator And the next quarrel is that he findes not King Charles amongst his Assertors for Episcopacy Of whose performance in that Argument he makes indeed a very fair and ingenuous declaration fol. 38. though all that he hath said can add nothing to him But Sir if you will look but with half an eye on the Observations you will finde there that in the naming of his Lay Champions as you call them he made choice of such only as were not likely to be suspected of partiality men no wayes interessed but onely by their good affections in the Churches quarrels According to which choice he could not make use of that Royall pen which gave the deaths wound to Henderson in the town of New-castle and foyled the Presbyterians in the Isle of Wight It was the interess of King Charles to maintain Episcopacy as one of the chief Supporters of the Regall Throne No Bishop no King the known old maxime of King James in the sad events thereof hath been found Propheticall And therefore if the Observator had produced his testimony the Pamphleter might have objected as perhaps he would that the Kings judgement was corrupted by Partiality and swayed with interess which rendred him no fit witness in the present Tryall And to say truth if all be Oracle which comâ—s from the deserts of Cyrene there is good reason for saving all advantages of exception against the Testimony of that King had it been produced The Pamphleter telling us that he did not only employ the Pen but took up the Bucklers in good earnest to defend Episcopacy fol. 38. But Sir who told you in good earnest that his Majesty either drew the sword or took up the Bucklers in that quarrell or on that occasion His Majesty in all his messages and declarations professed solemnly that he was forced to take up Armes to preserve himself His Forts Castles Royall Navy and the Militia of the Kingdome being taken from him His Negative voice denyed his Magazine at Hull employed against him his faithfull Servants threatned under the name of evill Counsellors and nothing left unto him but the name of a King Episcopacy not so much as touched on for a ground of that quarrel nor was there reason why it should The King by former Acts had yielded up their place and vote in the House of Peers and abrogated the Coercive power of their Jurisdiction that which remained being then thought so inconsiderable that in the 19. Propositions containing the whole demand of both Houses the Abolition of Episcopacy was not touched upon So that there is not any thing more fals then that the King took up the Bucklers to defend Episcopacy But I know well enough what the Author aims at The wars designed by this King against the Scots is by our Pamphleter in his Historie called the Bishops wars and he hath layed some grounds here to have the long wars raised in England called by that name also the Bishops war no doubt of that if he should fortune to go on with the rest of the story Of which the Reader may take notice and our Author too His last quarrel with the Observator with reference to the
leave to say that if he had not run himself into some Inconvenient expressions in condemning Infants unbaptized to the pains of Hell he never had incurred the name of Infanto-Mastix A more particular accompt whereof I had rather the Reader should take pains to collect from his writings than expect from me All I shall further add is this that St Augustine when he was alive did neither think himself infallible or exempt from errours Nor was displeased with St. Hierome for canvassing or confuting any point of Doctrine by him delivered This liberty they mutually indulged on one another and good reason for it Non tam Stultus sum ut diversitate explanationum tuarum me laedi putem quia nec tu laederis si nos contraria senserimus This was St. Hieromes resolution to St. Augustine in a point between them equally full of piety and Christian courage The next thing required of the Observator is To produce the men of the Calvinian party who say that a man is forcibly drawn and irresistibly with the Cords of Grace in the work of conversion Fol 5. He grants indeed that they take away an actual resistance of the will as inconsistent simul semel with efficacious Grace and I grant that too Grace not being efficacious or deserving so to be accompted when all mans actual resistance is not took away But such an irresistibility as the Observator mentioneth he thinks that none of them assert But he doth but think it and he is able to think more then the most subtle disputant of that party is able to prove But the Calvinists or contra-Remonstrants have thought otherwise of it who in the conference at Hague maintained an irresistibility no lesse evident in the workings of Grace then in those of the natural generation or supernatural resurrection from the dead man being no more able in their opinion to resist the operations of Grace then he is able either to hinder his own begetting or his last raising from the grave Quemadmodum non est humani arbitrii nasci aut non nasci excitari ex mortuis aut non excitari ita neque ex nostro arbitrio pendet ullo modo nostra conversio So they Collat. Hague pag. 27. A more particular accompt together with the names of those who maintain this Tenet the Observator will produce when required of him But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation of this Metaphysical whim-wham viz. How Eternity for so saith he the Observator saith not Salvation can recipere majus minus receive either augmentation or diminution from man â—ol 5. But Sir without any of your whim-whams where find you any such thing or any thing that looks that way in the Observator Cannot the Observator say that by the doctrine of some Calvinists and Rigid Lutherans a man contributes nothing to his own Eternity but presently you must cry out of I know not what Metaphysical whimwhams as if he had affirmed that Eternity might recipere majus minus For though Eternity cannot recipere majus minus as indeed it cannot yet I hope the Pamphleter or our Author will not stick at this that some men do contribute more or less to their own Eternity or towards the attaining of their own Eternity if that will better please the man than some other do But had the observator used the word Salvation as the Pamphleter sayeth he should have done had he spoken properly then this great quarrel had been saved Salvation being susceptible of a majus et minus what else can be inferred from the Pamphleters words though Eternity be not which indeed I will not say is such a Metaphysical Whimwham but such a fine piece of Norfolk Drapery that t is pitty we should have no more of the Remnant as well and wisely said the Gentleman on another occasion Next for King James the Pamphleter seems much displeased that having been inclinable unto the Calvinian Tenets as well by the course of his Education as by the insinuations of Dr. James Mountague first Dean of the Chapell and afterwards Bishop of Bathe and Wells and at last of Winchester he should be thought to change his Judgements in those points on Reading of Mr. Richard Mountagues Book against the Gagger and this saith he is most unlikely It being well known that in Theological controversies King James was able enough to go alone and needed not like a Child be led up and down by the hanging Sleeves from one opinion to the other Fol. 5. But then it is but unlikely only though most unlikely that it should be so And being but unlikely though most unlikely there is no such impossibility in it but that it may be certified without any injury to the abilities of that King in Theological controversies it being no unusuall thing in the greatest Scholars not only to alter their opinions in matters of opinion only and not fundamentll as the Pamphleter makes these not to be but Retract and Recognize as Bellarmine and Saint Augustiue did what they said before And that the King had either altered his opinion in those points or abated much of his rigor in it appeareth by the countenance which he gave to Mountagues Book and the incouragements which the Author had from him to vindicate both his Fame and Doctrine against Ward aud Yates the two Informers a full accompt whereof we have in the observations Fol. 33. But the Pamphleter will not have done with Master Montague telling us a very pretty tale that in the year 1628 this Mr. Mountague then Bishop together with Doctor Neile Bishop of Winchester being remonstrated to the King as Abettors of those Tenets professed with Tears in their eyes that they hated those opinions and before his Majesty and his Counsell renounced them Fol. 6. Here is indeed a dolefull ditty the Lamentation of a sinner to the Tune of Lachrymae a tale like this wee had before but that it was the Squires tale then and the Knights Tale now For if we ask what authority what Proof he hath to make good the story Marry saith he it was so averred by Sir Humphrey Mildmay in open Parliament nemine contradicente no one near the Chair contradicting Never was story better proved nor proved by more particulars of such waight and moment It was averred by Sir Humphrey Mildmay whether mistaken in the name or man I regard not and therefore most infalliblly true for if Sir Humphrey said the word it must needs be so and yet I do not think that Sir Humphry or Sir What you will was any of the Kings Councell or called into the Conncell Chamber to behold the Comaedie It was averred secondly in the open Parliament thereâ—ore there can be nothing truer nothing being told within the Walls whether the tales of Dutch Skippers or of Danish Fleeâ—s or the Plague-Plaster sent to Mr. Pym or saying mass daily in the Streets at Oxford and all the rest of the discoveries of Sir
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