as do relate to the two Kings and such of their personal affairs as our Author treateth of The first exception made by the Observator is the impowering of the Eatâ— of Bristol to celebrate by Proxie in the Princes name the marriage with the Lady Infanta That so it must be understood appeareth by the words foregoing The Spaniard saith he importunately moves his Highnesse theâ— ready to depart for England that bâ— would be pleased to assign in his absence some Proxie to contract with thâ— Infanta after a new Dispensation haâ— from Rome to whom the Prince returned answer that he would impower the Earl of Bristol to give his Majesty all satisfaction in that particular which accordingly he did The Gentleman seems much displeased that any such inference should be made from the former words as the impowering of the Earl by Proxie to proceed to the celebration of the Marriage and cals it An adoe about nothing How so Because saith he the Observator might have found his meaning in the page next following where he speaks of the Earls delivering of the Proxie clearly importing it was only in his custody to consign to another Fol. 3. But gentle Sir men that write Histories must write both properly and plainly and not post off the Reader from one place to another to finde out their meaning or else be forced to put such a sense and understanding on their words as they will not bear whereof we shall speak more anon on another occasion In the mean time he proceeds to tell us first that the Proxie was to be consigned to the King of Spain only not to him and Don Charles as the Observator saith And secondly that he would gladly know who this Don Charles was he being the first Don Charles as he or any body else he thought had ever heard of Ibid. To reply first unto the last he need not be desirous to know who this Don Charles was the Observator having told him positively and plainly enough that he was the King of Spains Brother and though the Gentleman pretending to the Spanish Tongue as his Encuerpoes and Accollados do most plainly fignifie conceives the Observator should have called that Prince by the name of Don Carlo as the Spaniards do yet if he please to look into the general History of that Kingdome written in French by Lewis de Mayerne and translated into English by Grimstone he shall not fail of finding there the name of Don Charles many scores of times But for his confident asseveration that the Proxie was made or consigned only to the King and not unto the King and his Brother or to either of them as the Observator hath enformed him if that prove true I must renounce my knowledge in all other Languages but my natural English For in the instrument of the Proxie it is said expresly that the Prince personam nominaturus magnitudini rei ita praeexcelsae parem quae nomine suo seque ipsum repraesentando qua per est dignitate authoritate actui adeo solenni henorifico sumno possit satisfacere praedictum matâ—imonium celebrare ad exitum perducere serenissimi regis Catholici Philippi 4. majestatem eligit item Carolum Hispaniarum infantâ—m ejus fratrem unicuiqs eorum in solidum vices suas committendo prout de facto cum effectu melioribus via forma commisit dedit utrumquemq eo um facit constituit suum verum legitimum indubitabilem procuratorem concedens unicuique c. ut praedicto serenissimo Carolo Walliae principe ejus nomine propriamque illius personam referendo repraesentando nuptias matrimonium contrahat c. cum praedicta serenissima domina Maria Hispaniarum infante c. Thâ—se are the very words of the publick instrument which if they do not prove and prove most undeniably that the Proxie was made unto the King of Spain aâ—d his Brother Charles or to either of them the Pamphleter must have more knowledge in the Latine Tongue then all men else that ever learn'd it The next thing faulted in our Author is his affirming that England had ever found the Spaniard a worse friend then Enemy The contrary whereof being proved by the Observator the Pamphlet telleth us that any fair mannered man would understand the word ever with reference to the State of Reformation Fol. 3. and then the meaning must be this that the Spaniard hath ever been an ill friend to England that is to say ever since the time of her Reformation This was perhaps the Gent. meaning but we poor men that cannot search into his thoughts must know his meaning by his gaping by what he speaks or writes not by what he thinks and sure I am the words can bear no such Grammatical construction as he puts upon them Nor is his proposition true with that limitation which he gives us of it the Spaniards never troubling our proceedings in the Reformation in the reign of King Edward nor in the first beginnings of Queen Elizabeth of whose life next under God himself he was the principal preserver till first by an underhand fomenting and after by appearing visibly in the broyles of the Netherlands he was in forced to arm against her reasons of State and not the interests of Religion being the motives of the long war which after followed But he goeth on and telleth us that the Observator seemeth to confesse it He doth but seem so them that 's one thing and he doth not seem so that is another the Observator saying only that if upon the provocations given by Queen Elizabeth in supporting the Netherlands the Spaniard took up armes against us he had all the reason in the world for his justification which certainly is not so much as a seeming confession that either Religion or Reformation was any cause of that quarrel on the Spaniards part Next for the businesse of the Palâ—tilate the Observator telleth us from some Letters of the Earl Bristols that the Spaniard really intended the restoring oâ— it Our Author doth oppose to this a Letter of the King of Spain to the Count of Olivarez his especial favourite in which it may be found saith he that neither the match it self nor the restitution of the Palatinate was sincerely intended but delaies meerly sought for by the Spaniard to accomplish his peâ—fidious ends Now how he hath abused this Letter in making it to speak of things which he findeth not in it will best be seen by looking on the Letter it self which is this that followeth Philip the 3. to the Conde of Olivarez The King my Father declared at his death that his intention never was to marry my Sister the Infanta Donna Maria with the Prince of Wales which your Unkle Don Balthaser well understood and so treated this Match ever with an intention to delay it notwithstanding it is now so far advanced that considering withall the aversnesse unto it of
by the Observator and those solemn Inaugurations being proved to be very ancient directed by the holy Spirit in the Book of God exemplified not only in David and many other Kings of Judah but also in the Son of David the chief King of all our Author standeth unto it still because saith he it conferreth no one dram of solid Grandure to the Throne Kings being perfect Kings and qualified fully to all intent of Royalty without it Fol. 7. Igrant indeed that Kings are perfect Kings without this solemnity The Case of Clark and Watson in the first year of King James and of many Murderers and Felons in the first year of King Charles make this plain enough all of them being indited for their several Felonies and Treasons committed by them against the peace of those several Kings their Crowns and dignities they neither of them crown'd at the time of those trials so that I shall not trouble my self with looking into the case of the Post-nati as to that particular But yet I cannot yeeld unto him that these solemnities confer not so much as a single dram of solid Grandure to the Throne For certainly the Kings entry into a Cognizance or stipulation with his people to govern them according to their several Lawes and their Atturning Subjects to him or acclaiming him to be their King in our Authors language must needs contribute much to the establishment of the Regal Throne Were it not thus King Charles had been very ill advised in putting himself to such immeasurable charges for receiving the poor Crown of Scotland and the Scots not more advised then he in threatning him that if he long deferred the duty of a Coronation they might perhaps be inclined to make choice of another King For which consult our Author Fol. 125. It seems by this that neither of them did esteem it a serious vanity and that the King conceived it to have somewhat in it of a solid Grandure and this our Author saw at last and therefore is compell'd by the light of Reason and the convicting of his judgement whether by the Observator or not shall not now be questioned to conclude thus with him that there is something of a solid signification in those serious vanities But then he adds withall that all Christian Kings are not concerned in it as is affirmed by the Observator his Catholick Majesty not being touched in it because not Crowned Nor doth this inference hold good by the Rules of Logick that because his Catholick Majesty is not crowned at all therefore the Rites of Coronation are not accompted sacred by him or that he is unconcerned in those scoffs and scornes which are put upon it by our Author Betwixt all Kings there is that sacred correspondence that the violating of the Rites or person of one concerns all the rest and though the Catholick King hath not been Crowned in these last ages yet do they still retain a solemn initiation into Regality as our Author calleth it at their first entrance into State Not Crowned I grant in these latter Ages though they were of old that which our Saviour spake in the case of Marriage between man and woman viz. Non fuit sic ab initio that it was not so from the beginning being true in the Political Marriages of these Kings and Kingdomes For in the History of Spain written by Lewis de Mayerne it is said of Inigo Arista the 6. King of Navarre that he was anointed and crowned after the manner of the Kings of France of which he iâ— said to have been a Native that custome being afterwards observed in the following Kings And though it be believed by some that this custome came only into Navarre after they had Kings of the House of Champagn yet that will give it the antiquity of Four hundred years and prove withall that Crowning and Anointing was observed by some Kings in that Continent Nor was it thus only in Navarre but in Castile also Alfonso the third of that name King of Castile and Leon fortunate in his wars against his Neighbours causing himself to be Crowned Emperour of Spain in the Cathedral Church at Leon with the solemnities and ceremonies requisite in so great an Act receiving the holy Unction and the Crown from Don Raymond Archbishop of Toledo performed in Leon anno 1134. and afterwards iterated in Castile as some writers say for the Crown of Toledo as a distinct and different Kingdome The chargeable repetition of which solemn Act in so many Kingdomes as now and of long time have been united in the persons of the Catholick Kings may possibly be the reason of the discontinuance of it in these latter daies each Kingdome in that Continent being apt to think it self neglected as the Scots did here in case the King received not a particular Coronation for it Considedering therefore that one Coronation could not serve for all it was the thriftiest way in respect of charges and the way most like to please the particular Nations not to receive the Crowns of any of them in that solemn way which was and is observed to this day in most Christian Kingdomes The Coronation being past the King prepareth for the Parliament approaching also in the way of preparation he thought it fit that some who in the last had been uncivil towards the Duke should be made examples upon which accompt saith our Historian the Lord Keeper Williams fell and his place was disposed of to Sir Thomas Coventry From which what can be possibly concluded by a knowing man but that the displacing of the Lord Keeper Williams must fall between the Coronation and the following Parliament And then our Author will not yeeld that he was out in this Temporality How so because saith he I never intended it to be in that moment of time to which that Paragraph relates Fol. 8 Is not this like to prove a brave historian think you who professeth openly that he writes one thing and intends another Is not the Reader like to be very well edified by such reservations as the Author keeps unto himself and are not to be found either positively or by way of inference in the Book he reads Our Author certainly is put hard to it when he can finde no other way to evâ—de the errors of his pen but these silly shifts And yet Solamen miseris as the old verse hath it It is some comfort to him that the Observator should be out himself in saying that the Great Seal was taken from him in October whereas it is said by Mr. Howell that he departed from the Seal in August Fol. 8. But what if Mr. Howels intelligence fail him who though a very honest man pretends not to the Spirit of infallibility as our Author doth then certainly the Observator is not out nor my Author in But that we may not spend more time in tossing this debate like a Tenice Ball from one hand to another the Pamphleter may be pleased to
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
English Protestant did so call it also Fol. 30. Some English Protestants I beleeve not so The English Protestants were otherwise perswaded of it though the Puritans were not and 't was the English Puritan not the English Protestant who joyned with the Covenanters in Scotland in the main design and gave it consequently the name of the Bishops War He asketh us secondly If it were not a war undertaken at first for defence of their Hierarchy Which question being equivalent to an affirmation doth amount to this that the war was first undertaken in the Bishops quarrel and in defence of their Order This is well said indeed if it were well proved but this the Pamphleter doth not prove I am sure he cannot the King who best knew the reasons of his taking Armes and published a large Declaration of the proceedings of the Scots imputes the causes of the war to their continuing the Assembly at Glascow when by him dissolved ejecting such of the Clergy as had refused to subscribe to the Acts thereof then commanded to do suspended and repealed Lawes without his Authority putting the Subjects into Armes seizing upon his Forts and Castles and intercepting his Revenues All which or any one of which might have moved the King to undertake a war against them without consulting with our Author how to bring the poor Bishops into that engagement and make it rather seem their quarrell then the Kings own interesse which inforced him to it But he saith thirdly That one of that Order he means the late Archbishop of Canterbury was the main cause of that war by introducing the Liturgie amongst them and thereupon he doth conclude that the war which the Archbishop occasioned and which was entred into for maintaining that Hierarchy may he hopes without offence be called the Bishops war And now we are come to that we looked for a very pretty tale indeed and one of the finest he hath told us none of the Hundred merry Tales nor such a tale as made his Lordship wondrous merry which we had before but a new Canterbury Tale and the Esquires tale too Our Author a more modederate and sober Gent. then the Pamphleter is hath told us that the Kings demand of the Abby Lands in Scotland in the first year of his reign made by the Observator was the true cause of the war and the bug-words spoke by the Scottish Lords on that occasion first generated a mutuall and immortal distance between them which being in the unpublished sheets Fol. 18. is seconded in the Book now extant where we are told that those discontents upon which the war was after grounded did break out in Scotland anno 1633. four years before the Liturgie was commended to them that the next year after these discontents began to contract a little more confidence in his absence and to attempt his patience by a most malicious plot against his Fame as preambulatory to another against his person That the first work and operation in the method of Sedition being to leaven the masse of the peoples mindes with mischievous impressions they first whispered and instilled into them close intelligence of some terrible plot against their liberties and after sent abroad a venemous libel in which amongst other things they suggested formidable fictions of his tendency to the Romish Belief Fol. 133. And finally that for the Liturgie it self there was a purpose in King James to settle such an one amongst them as might hold conformity with that of England and that King Charles in pursuance of his Fathers purpose gave directions to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Ely and to divers Bishops of that Kingdome to revise correct alter and change as they pleased the Liturgie compiled in his Fathers time and finally that the Book so altered was by the King sent by the Counsel of that Kingdome with order to proclaim the Reading of it upon next Easter day Fol. By this we see that sacriledge and rapine was the first ground of these discontents these discontents brake out into sedition and that sedition ended in an open war to which the introducing of the Liturgie could not be a cause though it might be made use of by those factious and rebellious spirits for a present occasion and so much is confessed by the Pamphleter himself in that there was no doubt but many of them had other then Religious designs as hoping to obtain that honour and wealth in a troubled State which they were confident they should never arrive at in a calm Fol. 31. Adeo veritas ab invitis etiam pectoribus erumpit said Lactantius truly By this it also doth appear that the Arch-bishop had not the sole hand in the Scotish Liturgie the Book being revised by many by the Kings directions and sent by him to the Lords of his Councell in that kingdome with order and command to see it executed accordingly But the best is that the Pamphleter hath not only his tale ready but his Tales master too fathering it on the ingenious Author of the Elenchus motuum in which he findes the Arch-bishop named for the main cause of introducing that Liturgie among the Scots and that he did it spe quidem laudabili eventu vero pessimo with a good intent but exceeding ill success fol. 30. I have as great an esteem for the Author of that Book whosoever he was as any Pamphleter can have of him but yet could tell him of some things in which he was as much mistaken as in this particular but since the Pamphleter hath made that Authors words his own and seems to approve of the intent though the success proved not answerable I shall only put him in mind of a saying in Ovid viz. Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat That is to say Ill may he prosper in his best intents That measures Counsels by their sad events But to satisfie both the Pamphleter and the ingenuous Author by him alleadged I shall say somewhat here of the business of the Scotish Liturgie which is not commonly observed and tends both to the justification of the King himself and of those whom he intrusted in it Know then that when the Scots required aid of Queen Elizabeth in the beginning of their Reformation to expell the French they bound themselves by the Subscription of their hands to embrace the form of worship other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt as Buchannan their own Historian and no friend unto the Anglican Church informs us of them But being cleared of the French Forces and able to stand on their own legs they broke their faith t is hard to say they ever kept it in this particular and fell on those extemporary undigested prayers which their own Fancies had directed or were thought most agreeable to Knoxes humour The confusion inconveniencies and sad effects whereof being well known to