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Member of the Royal Family before I close this present Chapter Of him our Auâ—hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets that he was by Birth-right Duke of York but to avoid the Scilla of that mistake he fals into the Charybdis of another as bad telling us in that leafe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
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
I shall crave leave to say in the Poets words and I hope it may be said without any of the selfe-deceivings of love or flattery Haec mala sunt sed tu non meliora facis Lacies Court in Abingdon June 7 1656. Extraneus Vapulans OR THE OBSERVATOR RESCUED From the vain but violent Assaults of Hammond L' Estrange CHAPT I. The Laws of Historie verified by Josephus but neglected by our Historian His resolution to content himself with saving truths the contrary resolution of the Observator The Observator charged unjustly for writing against King Charles and enveighing against King James King Charles affirms not any where that he did well in excluding the Bishops from the Parliament The Observator justified in the second passage which concerns that King Our Authors intended bitterness against the generall government of King Charles The Observator is no inveigher against King James Our Authors smart unâ—ustifiable censure of King James The Queen abused by our Author for Bishop Lands indulgence towards the Catholick party His advocating for the Fame against the Countess of Buckingham his uningenuous censure of the Duke of Buckingham the Lord Deputy Wentworth the Earl of Portland Mr. Noye and the Courtiers generally not sparing Mr. Prynne and the Presbyterians then censureth Scandalously and uncharitably of the Clergy and Prelates in the generall and in particular the Court-Clergy and the late Arch-Bishop The Bishops Neile Juxton Williams Mountague Manwaring and Wren c. The faint Amends made by him unto two of that number his mischievous intent in an unnecessary Advocating for Bishop Potter THere were two Cautions given anciently to those who undertook the composing of Histories that is to say ne quid falsâ— audeant ne quid veri non audeant that they should neither dare to write any thing which was false nor fear to write any thing which was true To these Josephus addes a third touching the beautifying of the Style and from him take them all together in these following words Nam qui Historiam et rerum propter antiquitatem obscurarum expositionem c. for they saith hee that make profession to write Histories and to recite such things as are observed by antiquity ought not only studiously to conform their style but also to beautifie the same with ornaments of Eloquence to the intent the Reader may converse in their writings with the more delectation But above all things they must have an especiall care so exactly to set down the truth that they who know not how these things came to pass may be the more duly and fitly informed and all this to the end as before he telleth us that we neither omit any thing through ignorance nor bury ought in forgetfulnesse And certainly if History be the great Instructor of succeeding times the concealing of necessary truths will as much conduce to the misunderstanding or not knowing the true State of things as any unnecessary falshoods and I conceive no falshood can be counted necessary are presumed to do But our Author was not of this mind when he writ his History and therefore came resolved as his Preface telleth us to content himself with saving truths the first Historian I dare confidently say it which ever published a profession so contrary to the nature and rules of Historie For he that is resolved to write nothing but saving truths must of necessity conceal much Truth which he ought to write and consequently subduct from the eye of the Reader the greatest part of those instructions which the true representing of affairs would afford unto him And therfore it was well said by Mr. Fuller in his Church-History newly published that though it be dangerous to follow a Truth too neer the the heels yet better it is that the teeth of an Historian be struck out of his head for writhe Truth than that they remain still and rot in his jaws by feeding too much on the sweet-meats of Flattery Lib. 9. fol. 232. The Observator as it seemeth was resolved thus also professing that as he undertook that business with a mind free from love or hatred or any of those other affections which pre-engagements in a party do possess men with so he would carry it all along with such impartiality and considence as might witness for him that he preferred truth before interess without respect to fear self-ends or any particular relation of what sort soever But my Author though he will not be thought to love the world so well as the Observator is said by him to do yet knoweth he much better how to save his stake than twenty such Observators and Church-Historians and therefore is not only content to enjoy himself in writing nothing but Saving truths but falls upon the Observator for writing truths which are not saving How so marry saith he the Title of his Pamphlet might rather have been formed into the Observations against King Charles than Observations upon his History Fol. First What all or altogether against King Charles I presume noâ— so for Fol. the fourth he telleth us of the Observator that he falleth foul upon King James inveighing against and withall detracting from his King-craft and for that sends him to Squire Sanderson to learn wit and manners Squire Sanderson with scorn and contempt enough Squire Sanderson for ought I know may be as good a Gentleman as Squire L ' Estrange there being at this time one Lord and some Knights of that Family which is as much as the Historian or any of his Fathers House can pretend unto Now to the matter of the charge he telleth us that the Observations are not so much upon his Narrative as against King Charles and yet takes notice only of two passages which seem to him to be upon or against that King Had there been more my Auth or was the more to blame to keep the Observators counsell and conceal the crime rendring himself thereby an accessary to the fact and at least parcel-guilty of it if not as guilty altogether as the Observator The first of these two passages is that the Bishops had sate longer in the house of Peers in their Predecessors than any of the Lay Nobility in their noblest Ancestors having as much right of voting there as either the Prerogative Royall or the Laws could give them and therfore it was ill done of our Author to exclude them then and not well done by him that should have kept them in to exclude them afterwards For this the Observator is called Canis Palatinus a Court-cur at the least a Fellow unconcerned in the business and therefore not to snarl at the Kings heels now his back is turned And why all this Fol. 19. Marry because the King hath told us that he did it out of a firm perswasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution in their hights and honour for his sake Our Author herexsupon undertakes for the contentedness of almost all not for all the Bishops in
as it after followeth Of this the Observator is not pleased to inquire any farther nor is there reason why he should only I can assure our Author that Welden another of the same tribe was perswaded otherwise as is apparent in the Pamphlet called the Court of King James Page 130. which I had rather you should look for in the Author than expect from me On from the Mother to the Son from the Countesse to the Duke of Buckingham accused of Luxury and Witchcraft of Witchcraft first telling us in the unpublished and suppressed papers that by the Diabolical practises and fascinations of Dr. Lamb he won and preserved the high esteem he possest in the Affections of both his Soveraigns And next of Luxury affirming that he was a great sensuallist giving his appetite free scope and taking the greater pleasure in repletion because it was subservient to the pleasure of evacuation in venereal excursions a little Rosewater some good Body for my Authors mouth to which excessivly addicted being in that as in all other points a perfect Courtier He telleth us of the Lord Deputy Wentâ—worth that he rather frighted than perswaded the Convocation in Ireland to reâ—eal much against their wills the Syâ—teme or Body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615 and in their place â—o substitute the 39 Articles of the Church of England and that upon no oâ—her design than to advance the Arminian Tenets and to cry down the honour of the Lords day though uniformity of liberty was pretended openly Of the Earl of Portland it is said that being at first of a slender fortune it was thought he did not reflect with so much intention of spirit upon the Kings profit as the advancing of his own estate Of Mr. Noye the famous Atturney General besides those uningenious passages of him which are still left standing he telleth us also that he became so servilely addicted to the Prerogative as by ferretting old penal Statutes and devising new exactions he became for the small time he enjoyed that power the most pestilent vexation to the Subjects that this latter age produced Finally he assureth us of all Courtiers generally that they are to be cleared from all imputation of pretio as being incompatible with Court-qualifications the most part of which tribe resigning themselves to Debauchery and dissolutenesse abandon Religion as too rigid and supercillious a Comptroler over them Nay Mr. Prynne himself cannot scape the hands of our Historian of whom though he borrow the whole Story of the Discovery made by Andreas ab Haberfeild which make up three whole Sheets of his History yet he disdains to be beholding to his Author for it whom he esteems of little credit saying expresly that he inserts it not on the accompt of Mr. Prynnes faith who first made it extant but because he was further assured of the truth of it by a more credible person and one of principal relation to to Sir William Boswell And that Mr. Prynne may have some Company of his own to go along with him he telleth us of the Presbyterians that by their demure formality and supple mildnesse they prevailed dayly on the affections of such who little thought such out side Lambs had claws and asperities so cunningly did they conceal them far more sharp and terrible than the Prelates had whereof they gave some years after sensible Demonstration Our Author cares not much who knoweth it Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine habentur that all men are alike to him when they come before him A man would think our Author were that John Kinsaider mentioned in the Comedy called The Return from Parnassus who lifted up his leg and pissed against all the world as it is there said the Vice in an old English Play or some Turkish Santo whose port and privilege it is to snap at every one he meets and yet no hurt done But he is neither of all these no such matter verily Our Author he doth not care who knows it is a Gent. every inch of him except his tongue A man at armes or lineally descended from the house of knocking so furiously doth he deal his blows on all sides of him that without any trouble to the Herald one may find his Pedigree But for a further proof hereof we will see how he layeth about him when he comes to the Clergy of whom in general he assures us in the unpublished pages before mentioned that there is nothing so sordidly base which will not find Partisans amongst the professors of sacred Orders whose portly pride portly ambition or indiscretion at the best all so mainly conduced to Englands Miseries and their own ruine The like of the Prelates that they were many of them notoriously wicked Blasphemers of Gods sacred name addicted to drunkennesse lasciviousness such enormities some of them also guilty of a turgid swelling Pride and intollerable insolencie all of them charged with obtruding extravagancies and erecting an arbitrarinesse in holy things as others did in civil whose actions and proceedings he calls afterwards prelatical whimzies the Fictions and Chimeraes of their giddy brains Of the Court-Clergy more particularly he assures us this that they were deeply tinctured and stained with the Massilion and Arminian Errours and withall vehemently inclined to superstition But most particularly he telleth us of the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury that he was of a pragmatical and factious spirit a bold Asâ—â—rtor of some dangerous and superstitious Tenets that being by the Kings extraordinary goodneâ—se promoved to that dignity he thought he was now plenipotentiary enough and in full capacity to domineer as he listed and to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his Spirit that impetuously pursuing his over vast and vain desires of rearing a specious Throne agreeable to his projected Models he put both Church and State into combustion he being the man who most eminently moved the King to obtrude upon the Scots that unsavoury Liturgy and to order the dissolution of the Parliament on the fifth of May Finally that he was too undiscreet too full of fire and too pragmatical for so great trust whose acting in things exorbitant and out of the Sphear of his both cognisance calling ruin'd all The most reverend Arch-Bishop Neile he calleth most disgracefully an empty Tub and fathers that phrase upon King James who being a very able discerner of men had questionlesse never raised him to so many Bishopricks Rochester Leichfield Lincoln Durham if he had not found in him some especial merit Thus gives he unto Bishop Williams the title of an insolent and ungratefull person To Mountague and Manwaring Bishops both the scornefull appellation of unworthy wretches Doctor fuxon the Lord Bishop of London censured for none of the best Scholars though he might passe in a throng for one of the worst Bishops and Bishop Wren condemned of turgid swelling Pride and intollerable insolency in which he carried away the Garland from all the rest a simple man
the Infanta as it is high time to seek some means to divert the Treaty which I would have you finde out and I will make it good whatsoever it be but in all other things procure the satisfaction of the King of Great Britain who hath deserved very much and it shall content me so that it be not the match This is that letter in the Cabala to which the Author doth direct us and refer himself in which it is to be observed first that there is not one word in it touching the Palatinate that being a point which the Spaniards would not hear of in that long Treaty and without which the match was finally agreed on as was plainly shewn by the Observator which makes it evident how ill credit is to be given to our present Pamphleter citing this Letter for a proof that the restoring of the Palatinate was never sincerely intended by the Court of Spain This Letter rather seems to prove that the Spaniard would not stick at the Palatinate if he could come off handsomely from the Match it self The King commanding Olivarez in all other things to procure the satisfaction of the King of Great Britain and therefore why not amongst other things in the restitution of the Palatinate to the Prince Elector In the next place we are to know that this Letter was written before the Prince went into Spain where by the gallantry of his carriage and his prudent conduct of the businesse he not only overcame all those difficulties which had before been interposed but conquered the aversnesse of the Lady Infanta who became afterward extremely affectionate to him And for the Rupture which ensued it is most clear and evident that it proceeded from the English not from the fraudulency or delays of the Spanish Counsels After this followes the Negotiation of the Match with France communicated by King James as the Historian would inform us to his Houses of Parliament by whom it was entertained with unanimous consent The improbability of which is proved by the Observator by the aversnesse of that King from parting with such a speciall branch of his Royal Prerogative and the disdain with which he entertained the like proposition from them a few years before To this the Pampletter replieth That it was no more lessening of his Prerogative to communicate with them in the entrance into then in the breach of a treaty of that nature as he did in that of Spain which was the main businesse debated in the Parliament of the 21. of King James But Sir who told you that King James communicated with his Houses of parliament in the Breach with Spain I trow you finde not any such thing in the Journals of either of the Houses with which you seem at other times to be very conversant and doubtlesse would have vouched them now had he found this in them That King had no design or purpose of breaking off his correspondence with his Catholick Majesty and could not communicate those counsels with his Houses of Parliament which he never had In the course of that businesse he was meerly passive forcibly drawn to yeeld unto it at the last by the continual solicitation of the Prince and the Duke of Buckingham and an importunate Petition of the Lords and Commons presented by Dr. Abbot then Archbishop of Canterbury a principal Agent in promoting the intended Breach It followeth by our Authors Logick the King communicated not with his Parliament in the Breach with Spain Ergo which is in English therefore as we know who said he did not communicate with them neither in his Treaty with France Of the Observators not inveighing against King James we have spoke already and of King James his stickling against the Arminians so far forth as the Pamphleter leads me to it I shall speak hereafter The error about the day of that Kings interment and the new Kings marriage is confessed and mended by the Author but so that he would fain have the first error accompted but a stâ—p of his pen Fol. 6. and putteth on some reasons signifying nothing to conclude it for him And for the second error that about the marriage he confesseth that he was mistaken But saith withall he could insallibly demonstrate that it was designed upon the 8. concerning which I would first know whether this demonstration were à Priore or à Posteriore as the Logicians have distinguished or that it was not rather some such sorry Argument drawn from the common Topick of Heresy as he commonly builds on or possibly some fallacy put upon him a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter or some such like Elench But let it be the first for this once and then I shall next ask him why he communicated not the infallible demonstration to us which he saith he had since otherwise we are not bound to believe him in it he being no niggard of his story when there is lesse occasion for it then was given him now And we know the Rule in Logick to be very true viz. non existentium non apparentium eadem est ratio A Demonstration not produced is as good as none In their Majesties goings to Whitehall the Pamphleter still adheres to his first expression and seemeth displeased that the Observator should not have so much ordinary capacity as to discern the difference between the taking Coach to and for Whitehall Fol. 6. But Sir a good Historian amongst which number you would fain count your self for one must write both properly and plainly as before was said and not trouble and torment the Reader in drawing dun out of the mire in a piece of English And he that shall compare those words with the rest that follow will finde no reason to collect any thing out of them but that their Majesties went all the way by Coach till they came to London He that shall say that any Gent. of Grays-Inne takes Coach for Westminster when he alighteth out of the Coach at the Temple-gate walketh on foot to the stairs from thence takes Boat to the Kings Bridge and so walketh on foot again till he come to the Hall must needs be thought to speak improperly at the least that I say not worse no man of ordinary capacity being able to understand him otherwise but that the Gent. went by Coach all the way to Westminster and not the least part of it only But our Author will not yeeld himself to be out in any thing whereof we have had many examples already and have more to come Of restraining the Kings power in Acts of State to the will of Parliaments and the wrong supposed to be done to Sir Robert Mansell with our Authors falsifying his own Text on those occasions we have spoke before The next thing which occurs de novo is the scorn put by our Author on the Coronation of Kings which he plainly cals a serious vanity affirming that they cannot be iâ—le to better purpose Reproved for this
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
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
observance was set up out of Faction to be a character of difference to brand all for Libertines who did not entertain it sect 21. He telleth us finâ—lly that the Book was afterwards called in and commandâ—d to be no more printed The Doctrine opsed by the Archbishop and the maintainers of it punished by Judge Popham though by the diligence and counterworking of the brethren it got ground again This being said we shall proceed unto the answering of the Pamphleters arguments not more remarkable for their paucity then they are for their weaknesse He telleth us first that Archbishop Whitgift in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition saith in the present tense that the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some and speaks soon after of a Sabbath then commanded by the fourth Precept The Pamphleter hereupon inferreth that he could not mean the Jewish Sabbath and if not that it must of necessity be the Lords day Fol. 23. Here is a stout argument indeed able to knock down any man which thinks the contrary for mark the inference thereof Archbishop Whitgift gives unto the Lords day in a Metaphorical and figurative sense the name of Sabbath Ergo which is in English therefore it must be kept with all the rigors and severities which were â—equired unto the observation of the Sabbath by the Law of Moses or therefore which is in Latine Ergo there is as much divinity in the Lords day now by whomsoever it was ordained as had been heretofore ascribed to the sabbath-Sabbath-day of Gods own appointing And then again the Lords day is by him called a Sabbath and said to be there commanded by the fourth precept therefore there is such a Divinity in it as Dr. Bound ascribes to his Lords daies Sabbath according to his Articles and petitions laid down Did ever man so argue in a point which he makes to be of so great concernment or make so ill a choice both of the Medium and the Author which he groundeth upon First of the Medium for may we not conclude by the self-same Logick that there is a Divinity in all the holydaies of the Church because all grounded on and warranted by the fourth commandement as all learned writers say they are and that there is a Divinity in Tithes and Churches because both places set apart for sacred Actions and maintenance also for the persons which officiate in them as the Pamphleter afterwards alledgeth are included also in this precept If there be a Divinity in these let our Author speak out plainly and pleaâ— as strongly for the Divinity or divine Institution of Tithes and Churches as he hath done or endevours to do at least for the Divinity of the Lords dayes Sabbath If none in these and I conceive our Author will not say there is though grounded on the warrant of the fourth Commandement let him not dâ—eam of any such Divinity in the Lords day because now kept by vertue of that precept also But worse luck hath the Gâ—nt in the choice of his Author then in that of his Medium there being no man that more disrelished and opposed this new Divinity of the Sabbath and all the Sabbatarian errors depending on it then this most reverend Prelate did insomuch that he commanded Bounds Book to be called in upon the first discovery of the Doctrines delivered in it which certâ—inly he had not done if he had been of the same Judgement with that Doctor or had meant any such thing in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition which our Pamphleteâ— hath put upon him Assuredly unless the Pamphleter had been bribed to betray the cause and justifie the Observator he would have passed over the debating of this new Divinity or else found more then one man in the space of 36 years so long it was from the first of Queen Elizabeth to the coming out of Bounds Book to have spoken for him and such a man as had not shewed himself so professed an enemy to the newnesse of it by causing the Book to be called in that the Brethren commonly used to say that out of envy to their proceedings he had caused such a pearl to be concealed Let us next see what comfort he can finde from the book of Homilies of which he saith that there was not any thing more especially taught in them then the Divinity of the Lords day This he affirmes but they that look into that Book will finde many points more specially taught and more throughly pressed then this Divinity he talketh of witnesse those long and learned Homilies upon the peril of Idolatry against disobedience and rebellion of these last six at least in number besides many others But if it can be proved at all no matter whether specially or more specially that shall make no difference and that it may be proved he telleth us that they say God in that Precept speaking of the â—ourth commandeth the observation of the Sabbath which is our Sunday Fol. 23. If this be so and to be understood of such a Divinity or such a divine institution of the Lords day as our Author would fain put upon it first then we must have some expresse warrant and command from God himself altering the day from the seventh day of the week on which he commanded it to be kept by the Law of Moses unto the first day of the week on which it is now kept by the Church of Christ But secondly that Homily I mean that Of the time and place of prayer doth inform us thus That the goldly Christian people began to follow the example and commandement of God immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ and began to choose them a standing day of the week to come together yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept but the Lords day the day of the Lords Resurrection the day after the seventh day which is the fiâ—st day of the week c. And thirdly it is said in the same Homily that by this commandement we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest yea from our lawful and needful works c. Which passages being laid together will amount to this first that the Homilie doth not say that by the fourth Commandement we ought to have one day in the week which is plainly peremptory but that we ought to have a time as one day in the week which is plainly Arbitrary Secondly that being Arbitrary in it self and so esteemed of by the Christians in the Primitive times they thought it good immediately after Christs â—scension to choose a standing day of the week to come together in namely the Lords day or the day of the Resurrection Not that they were required so to do by the fourth commandement which limited the Sabbath the ordinary time of worship to the day foregoing nor commanded so to do by Christ this choice of the day not being made till after his ascension and no command of his approving
in the holy Scripture nor finally by any Precept or Injunction of the holy Apostles of which as the Scriptures are quite silent so the Homilie ascribes it wholly to the voluntary choice of godly Christian people without any mention made at all of their authority So the then meaning of those words produced by our Author for the ground of this new Divinity will be only this that as God rested on the seventh day and commanded it to be kept wholly by the Jewes so the godly Christian people after Christs Ascension following his example and warranting themselves by his Authority did choose a seventh day of the week though not the same which had been kept holy by the Jewes for the day of worship And this is all we are to trust to for the Divinity or Divine institution of the Lords day Sabbath from the Book of Homilies neither so positively nor so clearly rendred as to lay a fit or sure foundation for so great a building In the next place the Pamphleter quarrels with the Observator for making it a prodigie and a paradox too that neither the order nor revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood should have any existence but in relation to the Divinity of the Lords day But Sir the Observator doth not only say it but he proves it too and proves it by the authority of the holy Scriptures mentioning the calling of the Apostles of the seventy Disciples of S. Paul and others to the work of the Ministery and pleading strongly in behalf of an Evangelical maintenance as belonging to them at such time as the Lords day no such existence no such Divinity of existence as our Author speaks of In stead of answering to these proofs the Pamphleter telleth us that there is not a man of note who treateth of the 4. Commandement himself especially for one and the chief one too that owneth not this prodigious opinion and therefore askeâ—h where this Observator haâ—h been brought up that this Tenet of his yeâ— of all learned men should be so wondred at to be called a prodigie Fol. 23. But the reply to this will be very easie For first all the men of note which write upon the 4. Commandement all learned men our Author too into the bargain are no fit ballance for S. Paul nor able to counterpoise the expresse and clear Authority of the holy Scriptures And secondly the Pamphleter after his great brag that all learned men almost all men of note which write upon the 4 Commandement are of his opinion is fain to content himself at the present with only one and such an one who though he be instaâ— omnium with the Pamphleter is not so with me nor with the Observator neither Not that we fail in any part of due honour to that Reverend Prelate whose name he useth to make good the point which is in question but that we think the work imputed to him by the Pamphleter to be none of his never owned by him in his life nor justified for his by any of relation or nearnesse to him therefore to undeceive so many as shall read these papers they may please to know that in the year 1583. Mr. Andrewes was made the Catechist of Pembrook-hall for the instruction of the younger students of that house in the grounds of Divinity that though he was then but a young man yet his abilities were so well known that not only those of the same foundation but many of other Colledges in that University and some out of the Countrey also came to be his Auditors that some of them taking notes of his Lectures as well as they could were said to have copies of his Catechizing though for most part very imperfect and in many points of consequence very much mistaken that after his coming to be Bishop he gave a special warrant unto one of his Chaplains not to own any thing for his that was said to have been taken by notes from his mouth And finally that hearing of the coming out of that Catechism as in discourse with those about him he would never own it nor liked to have it mentioned to him so he abolished as it seemeth his own original Copy which they that had command to search and sort his papers could not finde in his study and though this Catechism came out since in a larger volume yet not being published according to his own papers although under his name it can no more be said to be his then many false and supposititious writings foisted into the works of Ambrose Augustine and almost all the ancient Fatheâ—â— may be counted theirs Of all this I am punctually advertised by an eminâ—nt person of near admission to that Prelate when he was alive and a great honourer of him since his death and have thought fit to signifie as much upon this occasion to disabuse all such whom the name of this most reverend Prelate might else work upon which said there needs no Answer to this doughty argument which being built upon a ruinous and false foundation fals to the ground without more â—doe as not worth the answering We see by this that all the learned men which our Author brags of are reduced to one which one upon examination proves as good as none if not worse then nothing But the Pamphleter may be pardoned for coming short in this present project in regard of the great pains he had taken in writing a Book of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Divinity of the Lords day published in the year 1640. unto which Treatise he refers all men who shall desire his judgement in that subject that Book being never yet answered by any as he gallantly braves it Fol. 24. In this there are many things to be considered For first it is probable enough that this Treatise to which we are referred for our satisfaction was either so short lived or made so little noise abroad that it was not heard of For had it either moved so strongly or cryed so loud that it intituled our Author the dear Father of it to any Estate of Reputation for term of life as Tenant by the courtesie of the gentle Reader it is not possible but that we should have had some tale or tidings of it in so long a time and therefore I conceive that it was still-born and obscurely buried and perhaps buried by the Man-midwife I mean the Bookseller or Printer who gave it birth before the Godfathers and Godmothers and the rest of the good Gossips could be drawn together to give a name unto the Inâ—ant or at the best like the solstitial herb in Plautus quae repentino orta est repentino occidit withered as soon as it sprang up and so came to nothing Secondly if it were not answered I would not have the Gent think that it was therefore not answered because unanswerable though he were apt enough to think so without this Praecaution but for other reasons For first the year 1640. was a busie year
and brought so much trouble and encumbrance on the English Clergy as gave them neither list nor leisure to answer all impertinent scribbles which by the liberty of that time and the audaciousnesse thereby prompted unto severall men did break out upon them Securi de salute de gloria certemus as you know who said Men have small edge to fight for honour and undertake unprofitable and fruitlesse quarrels when unsecure of life and safety and all things else which are most near and dear unto them But secondly taking it for granted that some men were at leisure to attend those services how may we be assured that there was any thing in the book which was worth the answering or that any credit could be gotten from the work or Author For it is possible enough that every man might not have such opinion of you as you say the Observator had who did therefore if you judge aright of his intentions professe an high esteem of your parts and person only to make the world believe that you were worthy the overcoming And if they did not think so of you they had all the reason in the world to decline a combate ubi vincere inglorium esset atteri sordidum in which to overcome or to be conquered is like inglorious But whatsoever opinion the Observator had of you you have not the like opinion of his Alter idem the Doctor in Cosmography as you please to taunt him whom you accuse for forging and falsifying a Record so boldly the modest Gent. will not say so impudently and that too not in an idle circumstance but in the grand concernment of a controversie with spight and calumny enough And why all this Marry say you in the second book and 6. Chapter of his History of the Sabbath published in the year 1636. he hath misreported the words of Pareus in putting down quomodo for quando adding withall in vindication whereof he never attempted any thing as yet Fol. 24. This I confesse is grave crimen ante hoc tempus inaudiâ—um a grievous câ—ime the like to which was never charged upon him by his greatest enemies In answer whereunto I must tell you for him that being plundred of his Books and keeping no remembrances and collections of his Studies by him he cannot readily resolve what Edition he followed in his consulting with that Author He alwaies thought that Tenure in capite was a nobler and more honourable tenure then to hold by Copy and therefore carelesly neglected to commit any part of his readings unto notes and papers of which he never found such want as in this particular which you so boldly charge upon him Or were it so as you inform us both he and I have cause to wonder why our learned Author did not rather choose to confute that whole History of the Sabbath then spend his time in hammering some petit Tractate of which the world hath took no notice that being a work which might have rendred him considerable and made more noise then all the Geese in the Capitol to the awakening of the dull Doctor and the drowsie Clergie or if he thought this task too great and the burden too heavie for his shoulders why did he let these falsifyings and forgings slâ—p 20 years together and never call to an accompt for it till this present time when it may justly be supposed that not your zeal unto the truth but secret malice to his person did exâ—ort it from you Thirdly I am required to tell you that if there be such a mistake in the citation which he more then doubts it was not willingly and wilfully committed by him and therefore not within the compasse of those forgings and falsifyings which you tax him with For he would fain know cui bono or cui malo rather to what end whether good or bad he should use those forgings or falsifyings in that Author when he was compassed about with a cloud of witnesses attesting positively and plainly to the point in hand or what need there should be of practising on Pareus to appear fair for him when more then a whole Jury of learned and Religious men as learned and as good as he had given up their verdict in the case Now that this may appear to be so indeed and that withall the Reâ—der may understand the true state of the Question I will lay down that Section which the Pamphleter doth refer us to together with the next before it and the next that followes and so submit the whole controverâ—ie to his better judgement This only is to be premised that the 5. section shews that the Reformators found great fault both with the new Doctrine of the Papist about the natural and inherent holinesse which they ascribe to some daies above the rest and the restraints from Labour on the Lords day and the other holy daies upon which it followeth in these words viz. 6 Indeed it is not to be thought that they could otherwise resolve and determine of it considering what their Doctrine is of the day it self how different they make it from a Sabbath day which doctrine that we may perceive with the greater ease we will consider it in three propositions in which most agree 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandement or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature 2. That the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but only on the authority of the Church And 3. That the Church â—ath still Authority to change the day and to transfer it to some other First for the first it seems that some of Rome considering the restraints before remembred and the new Doctrine thence arising about the natural and inherent holinesse which one day had above another had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen and made the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandement This Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 8. 11. 34. chargeth them withall that they had taught the people in the former times that whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandement which was the keeping of the Jewes seventh day had been long since abrogated Remanere vero quod morale est nempe unius diei observationem in hebdomade but that the moral part thereof which was the keeping of one day in seven did continue still Which what else is it as before was said then in dishonour of the Jewes to change the day and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto as the Jewes ever did As for his own part he proâ—esseth that howsoever he approved of the Lords day meetings Non tamen numerum septenarium ita se morari ut ejus servituti ecclesias astringeret yet stood not he so much for the number of seven as to confine the Church unto it If Calvin elsewhere be of another minde and speak of keeping holy one day in seven as a matter
certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ and if designed only then not enjoyned by the Apostles Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Master Calvin and makes the Lords day meetings Apostolicae verae divinae traditionis Apoc. 1. 10. to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition yet being a tradition only although Apostolical it is no commandement And more then that he tels us in another place in Act 20. that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas and from the Text 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi it may be gathered not unfitly that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish But sure the custome of the people makes no divine traditions and such conclusions as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text are not Text it self Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles not to their precept but their practise So Mercer in Gen. Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church or Church in the Apostles times Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris literis expressum non habemus but how by what authority such a change was made is not delivered as he confesseth in the Scripture And John Cuchlinus in Thesib pag. 733. though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custome yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such commandment Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse constanter negamus S. Simler de Festis Chr. p. 24 cals it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum recâ—ptam a custome taken up in the Apostles time And so Hospinian Although saith he it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath even in the times of the Apostles Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos vel alios Lege aliqua Praecepto observationem ejus instituisse yet finde we not that either they or any other did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept but left it free Thus Zanchius in 4. praecept Nullibi legimus Apostolos c. We do not read saith he that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day we only read what they and others did upon it Liberum ergo reliquerunt which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power To those adde Vrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Commandment in Catech. Palat. Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere that it is left unto the Church to make choice of any day and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection and so Aretius in his common places Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day Gomarus and Ryvet in the Tracts before remembred have determined further viz. That in the choosing of this day the Church did exercise as well her wisdome as her freedome her freedome being not obligâ—d to any day by the Law of God her wisdome Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet that by so small an alteration she might the lesse offend the Jewes who were then considerable As for the Lutheran Divines it is affirmed by Dr. Bound That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church in appointing daies for the assembly of the people which is plain confession But for particulars Brentius as Dr. Prideaux tels us cals it Civilem institutionem a civil institutionem and no Commandement of the Gospel which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof then ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium as a fit way to retain order in the Church And sure I am Chemnitius tels us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia but that for orders sake it had been voluntarily used amongst them of their own accord 8 Thus have we proved by the Doctrine of the Protestants of what side soeever and those of greatest credit in their several Churches eighteen by name and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church which proved the last of the three Theses That still the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other will follow of it self on the former grounds the Protestant Doctors before remembred in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day as we see they do confessing tacitely that still the Church hath power to change it Nor do they tacitely confesse it as if they were affraid to speak it out but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth Zuinglius the first reformer of the Switzers hath resolved it so in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis a new Arrian Heretick Tom. 1. p. 254. a. Audi mi Valentine quibus modis rationibus Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur Hearken now Valentine by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed to any time ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a Ceremony Nothing can be more plain then this yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth That he regarded not so much the number of seven ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it Sure I am Doctor Prideaux in Orat. de Sab. reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other And that John Barclaie makes report how once he had a consultation de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday Bucer affirmes as much as touching the Authority And so doth Bullinger and Brentius Vrsine and Chemnitius as Doctor Prideaux hath observed Of Bullinger Bucer Brentius I have nought to say because the places are not cited but take it as I think I may upon his credit But for Chemnitius he saith often that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tyed to daies and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example Singulis diebus vel quocunque die That every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises And
as for Vrsine he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath Catech qu. 103. 2. That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without expresse commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of divine worship but for the Christian Church that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holinesse affixt unto them Ecolesia vero Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit Ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis as his words there are To these adde Dietericus a Lutheran Divine who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment yet for that day it may be Dies Sabbati or Dies Solis or Quicunque alius Sunday or Saturday or any other be it one in seven Som. 17. post Trinit And so Hospinian is perswaded Dominicum diem mutare in alium transferre licet c. That if the occasions of the Church do so require the Lords day may be changed unto any other provided it be one of seven and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God Nay by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings to publick prayers Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments For so they gave it up in their confession cap. 2. Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas Evangelii praedicationem nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem And howsoever for their own parts they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses even from the time of the Apostles yet that they conceived it free to keep the Lords day or the Sabbath Sed Dominicum non Sabbatum libera observatione celebramus Some Sectaries since the Reformation have gone further yet and would have had all daies alike as unto their use all equally to be regarded And reckoned that the Lords day as the Church continued it was a Jewish Ordinance thwarting the Doctrine of S. Paul who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies which the Church retained This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Anabaptist taking the hint perhaps from something which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men and after them of the Swinckfieldian and the Familist as in the times before of the Petro-Brusians and if Waldensis wrong him not of Wicklef also By this it will appear that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pareus as the Pamphleter saith he did when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear and sooner had this vindication been made if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears The Pamphleter findes fault with the Observator in that he did not viva voâ—e by conference or by letters hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History as fit considerations for a second impression Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian yea moral principles to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake if it prove such upon the search of all Editions then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversie By this it also will appear 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the 4. Commandement 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand then the Authority of the Church And 3. That the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other Crack me these nuts my most learned sir and when you have broke your teeth about them as I doubt you will throw me your never-yet-answered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it 't is ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer CHAP. V. Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy and his intention doubted in it Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively drawn 1. From the word there used in the singular number 2. From his fitness for Government 3. From the Hospitality required in him And 4. From his being no Novice but of longer standing in the Church Presbyters there included under the name Diaconi more properly in that place to be rendred Ministers The like acceptions of the word in other places Proofs that the Author speakes his own opinion under that of others 1. From the word Asserted which is here explained 2. From some passages in the published and unpublished sheets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rendred Senior as the Pamphleter would fain have it in all learned Authors The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops and the reason why The reason why King Charles his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator The Pamphleters rage for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency That so he must be understood proved from the History it self and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary An Answer to those Arguments HAving thus vindicated the Declarations of the two Kings about lawfull Sports satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings so maliciously imputed to him and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controversie touching the Lords day out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows and free the Bishops and their Actions from those odious Calumnies which are charged upon them Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy ascribing a Divine Right to it and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scriptures as any thing whatsoever not fundamentall That there was a Prelacy or Superiority of some one over other Presbyters within some certain Walks and Precincts that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apostles to be exemplary and to give law to succeeding times Concerning which and many other good expressions which follow after I may justly say as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case viz. Vtinam sic semper errasset would he had never erred otherwise then he doth in this Only I could have wished that for the better clearing of
already sufficiently ratified by the dcerâ—e of the former Synod With this all parties seem contented and the Canon passed So easily may the weak Brethren be out-witted by more able heads To make this matter plainer to their severall capacities I will look upon the two Subscribers as upon Divines and on the Pamphleter our Author as a Man of law Of the Subscribers I would ask whether Saint Paul were out in the Rules of Logick when he proved the Abrogating of the old Covenant by the superinducing of the new Dicendo autem novum veteravit prius c. that is to say as our English reads it in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old Heb. 8. 13. and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the Abolishment of its use and practice Nor find they any other Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath than by the super-inducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lesned in authority and reputation by little and little in short time was absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the 4th CoÌ„mandement by which it was at first ordained being stil in force So then according to these grounds the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally Abbrogatad by the super-inducing of the Articles of the Church of England which is as much as need be said for the satisfaction of the two Subscribers taking them in the capacity of Divines as before is said Now for my Man of law I would have him know that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth was confirmed in Parliament with severall penalties to those who should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it 2 3. Edw. 6th c. 1. But because divers doubts had arisen in the use and exercise of the said Book as is declared in the Statute of 5 6. Edward 6. c. 1. for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same rather by the curiosity of the Ministers and mistakers than of any other worthy cause therefore as well for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof as for the more perfection of the said order of Common service in some places where it is necessary to make the same prayer and fashion of Service more earnest and fit to stir Christian People to the true honouring of Almighty God The Kings most Excellent Majesty with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament aâ—embled and by the authority of the same hath caused the foresaid Order of Common service entituled The Book of Common Prayer to be faithfully and Godly perused explaned and made fully perfect Which Book being thus fitted and explaned approved by the King and confirmed in the Parliament in the 5 6 years of his reign was forthwith generally received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in than by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing un-repealed in full force and vertue and many clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second But fearing to be censured by both parties for reading a Lecture of the wars to Annibal I knock off again Now forasmuch as the Observator is concerned in this certificate being said to have abused the said Convocation with such a grosse mistake so manifest an untruth I would fain know in what that grosse mistaking and the manifest untruth which these men speak of is to be discerned The Premises which usher in this conclusion are these viz. But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland hath no truth at all in it The Conclusion this therefore the Observator and whosoever else hath or doth averr that the said Articles either were abolished or any motion made for the suppressing or abolishing of them are grosly mistaken and have abused the said Convocation in delivering so manifest an untruth But first the Observator speaks not of any motion made there for the suppressing of those Articles The Proposition for approving and receiving the Confession of the Church of England might be made effectually and so it seems it was without any such motion And therefore if the Observator stand accused in that particular the manifest untruth and grosse mistake which those men dream of must be returned upon themselves And on the other side if he be charged with this grosse mistake and man fest untruth for no other reason but that he saith those Articles were abolished as they charge it on him they should have first shewed where he saith it before they fell so rudely and uncivilly on a man they know not The Observator never said it never meant it he understands himself too well to speak so improperly The word he used was abrogated and not abolished The first word intimating that those Articles were repealed or disannulled of no force in Law whereas to be abolished signifieth to be defaced or raced out that so the very memory of the thing might perish The word abrogated rightly and properly so taken is Terminus forensis or a term of Law derived from the custom of the Romans who if they did impose a Law to be made by the people were said Rogare Legem because of asking moving or perswading to enact the same velitis Iubeatisne Quirites c. from whence came prorogare Legem to continue a Law which was in being for a longer time and abrogare to repeal or abrogate it for the time to come unlesse upon some further consideration it were thought fit to be restored But giving these men the benefit and advantage of their own Expression and let the two words Abrogated and Abolished signifie the same one thing where is their equity the while for charging that as a grosse mistake and manifest nntruth in the Observator which must be looked on only as a failing or an easie slip within the incidence of frailty as we know who said in their friend our Author the Systeme the Body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615 were repealed saith the Historian Fol. 132. for abrogating the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland saith the Observator pag. 240 241. both right or both wrong I am sure of that a grosse mistake a manifest untruth in both or neither And so farewell good Mr. Pullein wiâ—h Doctor Bernard I shall meet in another place In the next place whereas the Observator said that the abrogating of the Articles of Ireland was put on the Lieutenants score because Doctor Bramhall once his Chaplain and then Bishop of Derry had appeared most in it The Pamphleter answereth that there was never any Controversie in that Synod between the Lord Primate and that Bishop concerning those
being made and shewed to the King he approved well of them in regard that comming nearer to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the administration of the Lords Supper and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms it might be a means to gain the Papists to the Church who liked far better of the first than the second Liturgy In this the Pamphleter very cunningly that I say no worse leaves out these words and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms fastning the hopes of gaining Papists to the Church on the nearness of the Scotish Liturgie to the first of King Edwards without relating to the Forms of more elder times to which the Papists stand affected Fol. 29. This is no fair dealing by the way But let that pass he grants it is a matter beyond dispute that the Papists liked the first Liturgy of King Edward better than the second Why so Because the words of Distribution of the Elements are so framed as they may consist with transubstantiation Fol. 30. If that be all the Papists have as good reason to like the Liturgy of the Church of England now by Law established as they had or have to like the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth The words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy being still retained in the present together with the words of Participation take and eat take and drink c. which only did occur in the second Liturgy No more consistency with transubstantiation in the words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy of King Edward nor consequently in that for Scotland than in that continued in the first year of Queen Elizabeth But then the Pamphleter subjoyns that the gaining of Papists to our Church was indeed the great pretended project of forty years continuance and yet in all that time not so much as one taken with that Bait. In answer unto which I desire to know where the fault was that for the space of forty years the intended project of gaining Papists to the Church took no more effect The Project certainly was pious and intended really and where the fault was we shall hear from our Author himself the Bishops of late yeares saith he supinely either careless or indulgent had not required within their Dioceses that strict obedience to Ecclesiastical constitutions which the Law expected upon which the Liturgy began to be totally laid aside and inconformity the uniform practice of the Church Hist Fol. 137. The Papists loving comlinesse and order in Gods publique service will not be taken with the hatefull Bait of Inconformity and forty years of generall conformity will be hardly found in which we might have gained upon them Had Bishop Laud succeeded Bancroft and the intended Project been followed without interruption there is little question to be made but that our Jerusalem by this time might have been a City at unity in it self Besides the Pamphleter might have observed had he been so minded that the Observator speaks these words of gaining Papists to the Church as a thing hoped for by the King of the Scotish Liturgy and the nearnesse which it had to the first of King Edward which they liked better than the second If the pamphleter can prevail so far with my Lord Protector as to settle the Scotish Liturgy in Scotland and the first of King Edward in this Kingdom we may in lesse than forty years give him a better accompt of the Papists gained unto the Church than can be made for the reasons above mentioned for the like space of time now past If any true Protestants have been lost hereby as here is affirmed when he hath told me who and how many they are he shall find me very ready to grieve with him for it In the mean time I shall grieve for him who so vainly speaks it We have one only thing to adde relating to this Convocation the Observator saying that he had some reason to believe that the Clergy of that Convocation did not appear in the Parliament by their Councel learned sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them To this the Pamphleter replyeth by halves professing that he will not determine 't is because he cannot how the Councel for the Clergy were instructed by them but withall confidently averring that by their Councell they did appear first by Mr. Chadwell of Lincolns Inne Novemb. 26. then again by Mr. Holburn the 15 day of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them Fol. 40. That these two Gentlemen appeared in this businesse for the Clergy I shall easily grant that is to say that they appeared in it out of a voluntary piety and an honest zeal to doe them the best offices they could in their great extremities If the Pampleter mean no otherwise than thus he shall take me with him But there he takes the word equivocally and not according to the legal acception of it and there can be no legal appearance but by men authorized and instructed by the parties whom it doth concern and that these Gentlemen were so the Pamphleter can neither say nor will determine And certainly if the Members of that Convocation had been so ill-advised as to submit their persons Cause and Jurisdiction which I am very well assured they did not and would never doe to the Iudgement of the House of Commons it had been more proper for them to have made this appearance by his Majesties Attourney and Solliciter and others of his Councell learned the Kings interesse and theirs being so complicated and involved as the case then stood that the one could not fall without the other Being thus entered on this Parliament I will look back to those before and take them in their course and order And the first thing we meet with is an ancient Order said in the History to be found by the Lords that is to say the Lords which were of the popular party against the Duke that no Lords created sedente Parliamento should have voice during that Session c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded The vanity and improbability of which Report is proved by the Observator by these two Arguments First that the Lords Seymore Littleton Capel c. created sedente Parliamento Anno 1640. were admitted to their suffrages without any dispute though in a time when a strong party was preparing against the King And 2ly That when a Proposition of this nature was made unto the King at York he denied it absolutely though then in such a low condition that it was hardly safe for him to deny them any thing which they could reasonably desire which Arguments the Pamphleter not being able to answer requireth a Demonstration of his Errous from the Records themseves or otherwise no recantation to be looked for from him Fol. 10. Whereas indeed it doth belong unto our Author according to the ordinary rules of Disputation both to produce a Copy of that ancient Order and to make proof out of
the Journals of that House that the new Lords were excluded from their suffrage accordingly And this since he hath failed to doe the Observators Arguments remain un-answered and the pretended Order must be thought no Order or of no authority In the businesse of the Levy made upon the Subject Anno 1626. there is little difference the Observator calling it a Loan because required under that name in relation to the Subsidies intended and passed by the Commons in the former Parliament our Author calling it a Tax as being a compulsory tribute imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate and such is this affirmed to be in the following words Fol. 10. And this is no great difference nor much worth our trouble Only the Pamphleter is mistaken in making this Loan or Tax to be imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate Whereas the Commissioners if I remember it aright imposed not any certain rate upon the Subject but scrued them up as high as they could with reference to their Abilities in Estate and Charge of Familie Our Author calling the Members of the House of Commons Anno 1627. not only Petty Lords and Masters but even Petty Kings and finding that the Observator marvelled at this strange expression fitst puts it off upon King James who having said the like before but rather in the way of Jear than otherwise he thinks it no great marvell that a poor Subject should use the same expression also Fol. 11. The difference is that the Pamphleter speaks that in earnest which the King most probably spoke in Jest and proves it by the power which the Commons assumed unto themselves in the late long Parliament of whom he telleth us that they were not Petty Lords but Lords Paramount not Petty Kings but Superiours to Kings themselves Ibid. T is true he hath a kind of Plaister to salve this sore for he would willingly write nothing but saving truths advertising that the Expression above mentioned doth not import what these Gentlemen were de jure but what de facto and what in reputation but then withall he leaves it standing in the Text as a plain Position to serve as a President to the Commons of arrogating the like powers unto themselves in succeeding Parliaments And in this he may be thought the rather to have some design because he makes no Answer to that part of the Observation which declareth out of the very Writs of Summons that they are called only to consent and submit such resolutions and Conclusions as should be then and there agreed on by the Kings great Councill or the great Council of the Kingdom that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assisted by the Reverend Judges and others learned in the Laws To make this position the more probable our Author telleth us that the House of Commons was then able to buy the House of Peers though 118 thrice over that is to say although there were 354 Lords in the House of Peers For this being called to an accompt by the Observator in regard of the low value which was put upon the Peerage by it he thus proceeds to make it good valuing the estates of each L. in the House of Peers ato more than 3000 l. per annum and each Member in the House of Commons at no lesse than 2124l per annum one with another Whereas unlesse he make the Baronage of England to be very despicable there were but few whose estates could be valued at so mean a rate as on the other side there were not very many members in the House of Commons whose Estates exceeded the proportion which he puts upon them some of them being of mean estates and some of very little or none at all But give him leave to set the members of each House at what rate he pleaseth then he may as well enable the House of Commons to buy the House of peers ten times over as to buy it thrice The Observator having entred into a a Consideration why the Bishops or spiritual Lords should be left out by the Author in this valuation as if they were no members of the House of Peers is answered that if the Bishops were members of the House of Peers then these words of his were turn-key enough to let them in if the Observator say not their exclusion is his own manufacture Fol. 12. Well applyed John Ellis and possibly intelligible enough in a place of manufactures but nothing proper to the true meaniug of the word in the vulgar Idiome But let us take his meaning whatsoever it be and in what Country Dialect soever we may trade the word and yet all will not serve the turn to save our Author from the purpose of excluding the Bishops from the valuation and consequently from being members of the House of Peers my reason is because it is affirmed by the Observator that there were at that time about an hundred and eighteen Temporall Lords in the Upper House and therefore that the Bishops were not reckoned in the calculation This is so plain that the Pamphleters turn-key will not serve to let them in and I have reason to believe that he had as great a mind as any to thrust them out it being one of his positions in the sheets unpublished that the Root of Episcopacie had not sap enough to maintain so spreading and so proud a top as was contended for Fol. 185. Whether the King did well or not in passing a way the Bishops Votes in the late long Parliament hath been considered of already and therefore we shall need to say nothing here as to that particular No Parliament after this till those of the year 1640. Where the first thing that offers it self is the stating of the true time of the charge brought in against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Commitment thereupon The Observator following the accompt of that prelates Diary abbreviated and published by Mr. Prynne Anno 1644. doth state it thus viz. That on Wednesday the 16th day of December a Committy was appointed to draw up a charge against him that on the same day he was named an Incendiary by the Scotch Commissioners who promised to bring in their Complaint on the morrow after and that on Friday morning December 18. Mr. Hollis was sent up with the impeachment and presently came in the charge of the Scotch Commissioners The pamphleter tells us from the Journals if we may believe them that on Thursday December 17. there was a conference between the two Houses at which time the Lord Paget read the Scotch charge against the Archbishop in which charge he was named an Incendiarie Fol. 40. A man would think that the Arch-Bishops own Diary written with his own hand and in a matter which so nearly concerned his life should find as much credit in the world as any thing which the Pamphleter pretends to have found in the Journals especially considering how easie a thing it was as was proved before
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
Primate concerning his Answer to his change Fol. 42. A thing so far from being almost Demonstrable that it is not likely For let me ask for I hope it will be no abusing of your patience my most eloquent Cicero to ask one question whether he advised with the Primate in point of matter or of form in framing his answer to the charge I know you do not think the Primate so great a Lawyer as to be counselled and advised with for putting the Answer into Form The Lord Lieutenant being furnished with more learned Counsell as to that particular And I think also that you know how able the Lord Lieutenant was how well studied in his own affairs how well provided of all advantages in Order to the following tryal and consequently how unusefull the Lord Primate must needs be to him as to the matter of his Answer And whereas it is secondly said that after sentence he desired and obtained of the Parliament that the Primate might be sent to him to serve him with his ministerial office in his last and fatal extremity Fol. 43. There was good reason for this too though it make nothing at all to our Authors purpose For first the English Bishops were engaged in a dayly attendance both in Parliament and Convocation not to be taken off had he desired it upon his concernments especially considering that the Lieutenant had desired the Lord Primates company not only from the time of his sentence as the Pamphleter saith but from the very time that the Bill of Attainder was formed against him And 2ly had he made it his request to have some or any one of the English Bishops to assist him and advise with him in that last necessity It is most probable the Fears and Jelousies of the time considered that the sute had absolutely been rejected As for his taking him by the hand and leading him along with him to the Scaffold there wanted not very good reasons to induce him to it 1. To declare to all the world the reality and sincerity of their Reconciliaty the utter abolition of all former differences And 2ly That the Christianity and Piety of his last Deportment reported from the mouth of one who was known to be none of his greatest friends might find the greater credit amongst his Enemies I see my man of Law is a sorry Advocate though he may be good for Chamber-Councel for never was good cause more betrayed nor ill worse managed Having thus done with the Pamphleter as to this particular I should proceed to my next and last Chapter but that I must needs meet with Doctor Bornard whom I left but now upon that promise Not thinking he had Edified sufficiently by the general Doctrine of the Certificate without a particular application he makes a use of Admonition and Reproof to the Observator and fearing that might not be enough to confound the man for it appeareth not that â—e aimed at his Conversion he must needs have a fling at him in his Sermon preached at the Lord Primates Funeral in which he had some words to this or the like effect as I am credibly informed viz. There is one thing which I cannot forbear and am wished by others also to it and that is to vindicate him from the unjust aâ—persions of a late Observator as though he had advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death and afforded some distinction between his peâ—sonal and politique Conscience A matter altogether false as the Lord Primate himself had declared in his life time adding that there was something in the Presses to justifie him against that presumptuous Observator This is the substance of the charge in the delivery whereof I think the Preacher might have made a better Panegyrick had he been quite silent and not awakened those inquiries which are so little advantagious to the memory of that learned Prelate Howsoever if his zeal had not eaten up his understanding he should have gone upon good grounds and not have charged that on the Observator which he finds not in him Where finds he in the Observator that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death Nowhere I dare be bold to say it and if hâ— can find no body else upon whom to Father it the Calumny if such it were must rest at his own dores as the Broacher of it The Observator only saith that he was one of those four Bishops sent to the King by the Parliament to inform his Conscience and bring him to yeeld unto the Bill That the Primate had couceived a displeasure against him for abrogating of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. and that the Kings conscience was not like to be well informed when men so interessed were designed unto the managing and preparing of it All this might be and yet for all this it might not be that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill So that in brief the Preacher first raised this Calmny against the Primate and then Calumniates the Observator to make it good audacter calumniare necesse est ut aliquid haereat charge but the Observator home the presumptuous Observator so the Preacher called him and that will be sufficient proof to make good the Calumny Lesse reason is there in the next the second part of the charge though none in this there being no such thing in the Observator as the distinction between the Kings personal and politique Conscience The Preacher must look for that elsewhere if he mean to find it The Presumptuous Obsertator was not so presumptuous as to write things which till that time he never heard of and possibly had never heard of them at all if as well he as others had not been awakened by the Preacher to a further search And now upon a further search I can tell the Preacher where he may easily satisfie himself if his stomack serve him Let him but rake a Walk in the second part of Dodonas Grove he shall find it there And if not satisfied with that I shall direct him to some persons of worth and honour from whom he may inform himself more fully in all particulars But as it had been better for him had he not startled this inquiry in a publique audience for which he could not find just grounds in the Observations so I conceive that he will do that reverend person and himself some right if he suffer it to die with the party most concerned in it without reviving it again by his double diligence Non amo â—inium diligeâ—tes is a good old Rule but causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit is a great deal better CHAP. IX The Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Bristol absolved from treason by our Author Of the papers found sticking in Feltons Hat and that they prove not that the late Remonstrance of the House of Commons was
got that too But all this while the King is like to get nothing by it if our Author might be suffered to expound the Law against which he opposeth only the Authoritie of Sir Edward Coke A learned Lawyer I confess but not to be put in equal Ballance with the Law it self Well what saith he Now saith he tempora mutantur the times are changed and many a Yeoman purchaseth lands in Knights Service and yet non debet ought not for want of Gentry to be a Knight and a little after the Fine to the mark which is chiefly aimed at Fol. 20. And in these words taking the Citation as I find it I observe these things 1. That Sir Edward Cokes Non debet cannot bind the King who may as well make Leathern Knights as Leathern Lords as our Author phraseth it elsewhere the Sword of Knighthood taking away the blemishes of Vulgar birth and stating the receiver of it in the rank and capacitie of Gentry Were it not thus the Door of Preferment would be shut against well deservers and neither honour gained in War nor eminencies in Learning nor fidelity in Service nor any other Consideration in the way of merit would render any person capable of the Order of Knighthood for want of Gentry or being descended only from a House of Yeomanrie 2ly I observe that though he would not have such petsons honoured with the title of Knighthood lest else perhaps that honourable Order might grow Despicable were it made too common yet he confesseth that they were to Fine for it if I understand his meaning rightly at the Kings pleasure 3ly I observe how lamely and imperfectly the Pamphleter hath delivered the last words of his Author which makes me apt enough to think that he intended to say somewhat to the Kings advantage if he had been suffered to speak out And 4ly if Sir Edward Coke should resolve the Contrary and give sentence in this Case against the King yet I conceive it would have been reversible by a Writ of error that learned Lawyer having been a principal Stickler for the Petition of Right in the former Parliament and therfore not unwilling to lay such grounds whereby the King might be forced to cast himself on the Alms of his people As for the Sword and Surcoat affirmed to be delivered by the Lord High Chamberlain out of the Kings Wardrobe to such as were summoned to appear he still stands to that not thinking it agreeable to his Condition to yield the cause if not found against him by the Jury the point to be made good is this that such as were summoned to the Coronation were to have every man of them a Sword and a Surcoat delivered to him out of the Kings Wardrobe by the Lord High Chamberlain if the Kings service so required which he proves by these Infallible witnesses Gent. of the Jury stand together hear your evidence The first witness is an eminent Antiquary than whom none can be fitter to give Testimony to the point in hand but he alas is long since dead and it were pity to raise him from the Dust of the Grave as we have done the Clâ—ricus Parliamentorum and Mr. John Pym in another case for fear he put the Coutt into a greater fright than when the solemn Assizes was at Oxford Such a witness we had once before in the Case of the late Convocation a credible and a knowing person as the Pamphletet told us but nameless he for blameless he shall be quoth the gallant Sydney and here we have an eminent Antiquary but the man is dead dead as a door-nail quoth the Pamphleter in another place A nameless witness there a dead witness here let them go together The next witness is old Matthew of Westminster who though dead yet speaketh who tells us That King Edward the 1. sent forth a proclamation that all such persons who had possessions valued at a Knights Fee should appear at Westminster c. what to do he tells you presently admissuri singuli ornatum militarem ex Regia Garderoba to receive military accoutrements out of the Kings Wardrobe Fol. 20. This witness speaks indeed but he speaks not home The point in Issue is particularly of a Sword and a Surcoat the witness speaks in general of ornatus militaris only but whether it were a Sword a Surcoat or a pair of Spurs or whatsoever else it was that he telleth us not So the first witness speaking nothing and the second nothing to the purpose the Pamphleter desires to be Non-suited and so let him be He tels the Observator Fol. 36. that his Arguments are nothing ad rem and besides the Cushion But whatsoever his arguments were I hope these Answers are not only ad rem but ad Rhombum and Rhomboidem also and so I hope the Pamphleter will find them upon examination In the great Feast at Welbeck there is no such difference but may be easily reconciled That the Earl of Newcastle entertained the King at VVelbeck is granted by the Observator and that it was the most magnificent entertainment which had been given the King in his way toward Scotland shall be granted also Which notwithstanding it was truly said by the Observator that the Magnificent Feast so much talked of was not made at VVelbeck but at Balsover Castle nor this year but the year next after and not made to the King only but to the King and Queen In the first of which two entertainments the Earl had far exceeded all the rest of the Lords but in the second exceeded himself the first Feast estimated at 6000 l. to our Author at York but estimated on the unwarrantable Superfaetations of Fame which like a Snow-ball groweth by rowling crescit eundo saith the Poet or like the Lapwing makes most noise when it is farthest from the nest where the Birds are hatched The Observator took it on the place it self when the moâ—ths of men were filled with the talk and their stomacks not well cleared from the Surquedries of that Mighty Feast by whom it was generally affirmed that the last years entertainment though both magnificent and August in our Authors language held no Comparison with this So that the one Feast being great and the other greater the Observator is in the right and our Author was not much in the wrong More in the wrong he doth confess in the great entertainment given to the City by the King affirmed before to have been made at the Guild-hall but now acknowledged upon the reading of the Observations to have been made at Alderman Freemans Fol. 22. This he hath rectified in part in the new Edition and it is but in part neither For whereas he was told by the Observator that the entertainment which the City gave at that time to the King was at the House of Alderman Freeman then Lord Mayor situate in Cornhill near the Royall Exchange and the entertainment which the King gave unto the City by
person of honour Ergo he must confute his Author by some Marginal note in a matter which he never heard of or thus the Earl is a person of great knowledge Ergo he knoweth all things which are done in Court though not present there The Premises I grant for truths most undoubted truths But the Conclusion follows as unluckily as it doth in this Enthymeme Homo est animal implume bipes Ergo Gallus Gallinaceus non vertit stercorarium As sweet a conclusion in the one as there is in the other In laying down the true occasion of the Scotist broils the Pamphleter seems willing to contribute something to the Observator but in effect adds nothing pertinent which he finds not there Only I shall observe two things in the course of his Narrative For first whereas he undertakes to illustrate and rectifie the Story as he finds it in the Observator he hath indeed rectified his own errour by it In the unpublished sheets where this narration was to passe as a part of the History we find it said that when the Lord Maxwell came and entrâ—d the Councel of Scotland the Lords refuseâ— to admit him as many ways uncapable of such Authority Fol. 18. But in the Story as it lyeth before us in the present Pamphlet be hath rectified this passage by the Observator â—elling us that he went no further than Barwick where being informeâ— that his person was so generaly haâ—ed as even to the very undoing of his glorious Coach he dust goe no further but poâ—â—ed back again unto the Court Fol. 32. But 2ly finds he nothing faulty in the Story of the Observator Yes He first finds fault with him for saying that the King intending a Parliament in that Kingdom appointed the Earl of Niddisdale to preside therein and furnished him with instructions for passing of an Act of Revocation of Abby-lands and lands of Bishopricks whereas saith he he was commissionated with the Earl of Anandale for summoning a Parliament not for revoking of Church and other lands formerly invested in the Crown but for contribution of monies and Ships against the Dunkirkers Fol. 31. But this assuredly thwarts with nothing delivered by the Observator the Observator no where saying that the Parliament was to be summoned for revoking of Church and other lands formerly invested in the Crown but that the Lord Maxwell or Earl of Nidisdale call him which you will was furnished with instructions for passing an Act to the purpose above mentioned And furnished he might be with such secret Instructions though there was nothing to that purpose in the Writ of Summons by which that Parliament was called or in the Commission it self by which he was appointed and authorized to preside therein Much lesse doth that thwart any thing in the Observator which the Pamphleter gives us in the close when the Scotch Lords and Maxwell were brought Face to Face before the King and when upon some Bugwords spoken by the Scots his Majestie told them and not before he would make them restore all to the crown which they had taken from it in his Fathers Minority Fol. 32. which whether it be true or not is neither ad rem nor ad Rhombum as to this particular It being no where said by the Observator that the King had told him so beofre So that this long impertinency might have well been spared but that the Pamphleter had a mind to say something in it though he knew not what Concerning the election of the Lords of the Articles for the Parliament in Scotland there appeareth some difference between the Observator and the Historian to justifie himself the Historian telleth us in his answer that his Informer being a person of such eminency of that Nation and so versed in the affairs of that Kingdome is as he thinks more credible in this particular than a foreiner Fol. 32. this is another namelesse witnesse given to us under the Nation of a person of eminency one of that nation and versed in the affairs of that Kingdome though where to find him out and how to speak with him about it we may seek elsewhere But of these nameless and dead witnesses we may speak so lovely that wee need not put our selves unto the trouble of a repetition nor the Observator want a witnesse of unquestioned credit that is to say the famous Camden Clarentius King of Arms a man so well versed iu the affairs of that Kingdome as few Natives better The rest that follows in the Pamphlet confisteth first in an Enumeration of the Observators and his own mistakes and sâ—â—condly In a sharp and severe expostulation with him for the close of all His own mistakes with great indulgence to himself he restrains to 8. Which yet for quietness sake and out of his superabundant goodness he is willing to allow for ten whether they be but few or not and whether the mistakes charged upon him by the Observator are of such a nature wherein the fame of no one man the interest of no one caâ—se is either damnified or advantaged as he fain would have it and on the contrary whether all and every of the points which lie in debate between us be they great or little besides which the Pamphleter hath pretermitted in the course of his answer prove not so many errours and mistakes on the Authors side is left unto the judgment of the equall and indifferent Reader The errours of the Observator he hath raised to no fewer than 18 which is more than one for every sheet one of which as he saith tends to the very destruction of sacred worship as that of the Sabbath another to the Defamation of one of the most glorious lights of our Church besides his the Observators most notorious corrupting and falfying his Preface and such like odious imputations not to be pardoned in a man pretending either to learning or ingenuity How far the Observator is excusable in these three last charges and with what folly he is taxed with so many mistakes the Reader hath seen before this time if he hath seriously considered all the points and circuâ—stances in dispute between us And that we may the better see it I shall present him with a Catalogue of those 18 Eâ—rours which being perused will need no other refutation but to read them only Now the eighteen are these that follow 1. Denying the papers found in Feltons Hat 2 3 4. concerning Peter Baro and the Marguaret Professorship 5. saying standing at Gloria Patri was never obtruded 6 7. Concerning the Sabbath 8 9. Concerning the setting forth of Ships 10. Sir Edward Deering for the Lord Digby 11. ArchBishop of Canterbnry voted an Incendiary Decemb. 16. for the 17. 12. concerning the protestation 13 14 15 16 17 18. Concerning the Bishops sent to the King the Primate and the Irish Articles This is the Pamphleters Bill of Lading wherewith he fraughts the small Bark of the Observator consisting more in tale than it
esse magisque obesse quam prodesse ante fidem Spiritum renovationis But I am weary with raking in these dead mens Graves whose Heterodoxies and unsound expressions should for me have lien buried in the same Grave with them if the Pamphleter had not put me to this troublesome and thanklesse office But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation c. Addend ad Pag. 249. l. 3. At the time of his Funeral But whereas the Pamphleter addeth that of this he hopes he is credibly informed by his the said Doctor Baroes own Son who is still alive The certain falsity of this may very well seem to disprove all the rest of the Story For Doctor Baroes Son died above twenty years since and therefore is not still alive nor could our Author consuâ—t with him about it by a saving hope on which he grounds the credibility of his information It must be a strong faith not a saving hope which can raise the dead though newly gathered to their Fathers and therefore how our Author could receive this credible information from the Son of Baro without pretending to a greater power of working miracles than ever was granted to any of the Sons of Men is beyond my reach The Pamphleter must find out some other Author for this his credible Information or else it might remain as a thing incredible for any proof that he hath brought us But this is not the first time that our Author hath endeavoured to raise the dead to bear witness for him and I think it will not be the last As for the story of these Articles c. Addend ad Pag. 298. l. ult non bona pejor erit is a great deal better T is true indeed the words of the Doctors Sermon as it came out yesterday in print viz. Monday June 16. seems at first sight to differ somewhat from the passage before recited as it was sent to me in writing But first the Reader is to know that the Sermon comes not to our Hands as it came from his Mouth it being confessed in the Title that it hath not only been revized but enlarged also of which Enlargements that of Dodonas Grove may perhaps be one 2ly If if be not so yet the Observator as well as the Rainger of that Forrest stands charged with this viz. That the Lord Primate had coined a distinction between the Kings personal and political Conscience For having eased his Stomach on the Rainger of the vocal Forrest upon that occasion he addeth that there was a presumpâ—uous Observator who had of late more ridicâ—lously and malitiously abused him in it Out of which Premises it cannot otherwise be concluded but that the distinction of a personal and political Conscience must be found in the Observations also and so found there as to be charged on the Lord Primate by the Observator And if the Preacher can find this in the Observations the Observator was too blame and the Preacher hath made the alteration to a very good purpose But if it be not so as indeed it is not where lieth the malice or ridiculousnesse which the Pulpit rang of Not in imposing on the Lord Primate the pretended distinction above mentioned for that hath found another Father and was perhaps begotten under some shady Oake in Dodonas Grove in which the Observator is not so much as verderer and hardly hunteth in the Pourlieus but for conceiving that the L. Primate gave this pretended distinction for let it be but pretended still I dispute not that as if the root of it was in revenge for the Earls suppressing the Articles of Ireland Serm. Pag. 95. Admit it to be so conceived and said by the Observator how doth the Preacher goe about to prove the contrary Why certainly by a most unavoidable Argument declaring thus that both are of like falshood as hath been already apparent in an Answer to him Ibid. This is just Mulus Mulum fricat one galled Horse rubbeth another in the ancient Proverb The Pamphleter justifieth himself on the Certificate of Doctor Bernard and his Brother Pullein Doctor Bernard justifieth himself on the answer of the learned Pamphleter which is now before us The falshood of that one thing which is touched on by the Observator not being made apparent in the Pamphleters Answer and to the other thing the pretended distinction which he wots of the Pamphleter makes no Answeâ— at all as finding no ground for it in the Observations But Bernardus non vidit omnia as the saying is And though he be not such an ill-looking fellow as the Observator is made to be by his friend the Pamphleter yet having lost himself in a Voâ—al Forrest he may sometimes mistake wood for trees as well as another Only I could have wished he had forborn that passage in the close of all where he relates That when upon a rumour of the Lord Primates death this businesse of the Earl of Strafford was objected against him the King with an Oath protested the innocency of the Lord Primate in it or else that he had given us the name of that person of quality which was an Earwitnesse to the words for I can tell him and will tell him if he put me to it that there are persons of another manner of quality than those whom he pretends unto who heard the contrary from the Kings own mouth and will not spare to give testimony to the truth in that particular when required of them But I forbear to presse it further and could have wished the Preacher had permitted me not to say so much I leave him at this time with non tali auxilio c. and so fare him well FINIS ERRATA PAge 8. for Effects read Defects pag. 18. for impudence r. imprudence p. 20. for liberty r. belief p. 29. for office r. of his p. 34. for seem r. serve p. 42. l. 16. for one r. none p. 44. for est r. Et. p. 45. for 1619 r. 1618. p. 68. for Masters place r. Masters Mate p. 102. for super superannuating r. super sexannuating Ibid for called r. rather p. 103. for transitions r. transactions p. 102. for Petitions r. positions before p. 196. l. 19. del not p. 153. for party r. parity p. 157 for must r. might p. 162. l. 24. for but r. yet p. 164. l. 22. for hath r. that it hath p. 187. for hath pleased r. displeased p. 191. l. 3. del was p. 192. for sent by r. sent to p. 211. for 1646. r. 1640. p. 112. l. 1. ad and they that use it not condemn not those who use it p. 231. for when it was moved r. when it was signified to him that it would be moved p. 240. for the walls r. these walls Ibid. for its r. thought it p. 250. for a been r. have been Ibid. l. 26. del whole p. 256. for impose r. propose p. 260. for so many r. no more p. 300. for was denied r. was not denied p. 303. for prating and bawling r. progging and bolting
power of Kings could do nothing lawfully but what they do with their assistance and by their consent What saith the Pamphleter to this marry he hopes for he still saves himself by hoping that no man of any ingenuity can so much as question but that his politique Descendents imply Statute Laws which no King of England hath power to make without Common consent in Parliament Fol. 7. and that the text may speak agreeably to the words of this comment he hath foisted the word Laws into it where before it was not as may appear to any man who will be pleased to compare the Editions 2ly The Historian had affirmed for certain that Sir Robert Mansell as Vice-Admirall had an unquestionoble right of the chief conduct of that enterprize against the Spaniard upon the Dukes default For which being contradicted by the Observator grounding himself on the authority and common practice of our Kings in granting those commands to any as they see cause for it The Pamphleter stands stil to his former errour upon this ground that many men of wisdome and experience hold it for a Rule not only in this particular but in all such as have vicariam potestatem Fol. 7. But yet to make sure work withall he hath thrust these words as they thought into the text of his History and thereby made his own position that Sir Robert Mansell had an unquestionable right to the chief comduct in that enterprize to be the opinion of those many men of wisdome and long experience whom the comment points too New if we ask what these men were who thought so of it we find them in some lines before to be the Mariners men I confesse of long experience but of no great wisdome and such as better understand the Jurisdiction of their Masters-place than of the Vice-admiral of England and what such men as these may hold touching the Powers and privileges of such as have vicarium potestatem is so inconsiderable that I shall not trouble my self to insist more on it 3ly The Historian had declared that for Armianism the informations were very pregnant c. For which being blamed in many things by the Observator he puts off the odium from himself to Mr. Pym and the Committee for Religion professing that he only recited what that Committee declared as the product of their enquiries and with this answer he conceiveth he might easily avoid no less than 25 pages of the Observation Fol. 15. So he and that it may be thought so by the Reader too he hath thrice foisted in these words they said into that part of his Narrative which concerns this business as Fol. 97. l. 27. for Arminianisn they said informations were very pregnant c. and Fol. 98. l. 12 13. the hazard conceived from Rome c. flowed they said partly from the uncontrouled publishing of severall points tending and working that way and ibidem â—ine 19 20. the greatest danger was from Popery direct and from this the danger they said appeared very great c. Here have we dicnnt ferunt aiunt these words they said no lesse than thrice in half a leaf foisted in the text to make it suitable to the Pamphlet And we had a praedicant in it too that you may see I have still some smattering of my Grammar an accusation of some men for their uncontrouled preaching of several points tending and warping towards Popery though now upon an admonition from the Observator he hath turned preaching into publishing as appears fol. 98 line 14. guided thereto by the illustration of his comment and a desire to do some right to Doctor Cozens which I thank him for whom he had formerly accused for preaching many things which warped towards Popery but now agreeth so far with the Observator as to excuse him from publishing and direct Popery in his Hours of Prayer 4. The Observator had declared that the Primate had conceived a displeasure against the Lord Deputy for abrogating the Articles of Religion established by the Church of Ireland and setling in their place the Articles of the Church of Enggland to which the Pampleter replyeth that the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated though those of England were received and approved by that convocation Fol. 42. For proof whereof he hath produced a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Barnard and one Samuel Pullain whose title and degree I know and therefore am not to be blamed if I give none to him Whether this Superinduction of the Articles of the Church of England amount not to an abrogation of those of Ireland shall be considered of hereafter in that Chapter which concerns Armianism Now I shall only tell you this that whereas our Author had it thus in his first Edition Fol. 132 viz. that in the Synod assembled in Ireland the body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615. were repealed and in their places were substituted the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England Now to conform his text to the former Comment he hath left out the word repealed in his new Edition Fol. 137. and tells us a clean contrary story to that before which shall be looked upon in the place before mentioned as more proper for it And so I close this Chapter intended chiefly for the justication of the Observator and the retorting of some Foistings on the Authors head withall confuting many of the Pamphleters Answers which could not be so well considered of in an other place CHAP. III. The affairs of the two Kings considered Of the impowering or not impowering the Earl of Bristol by Letters of Proxie The Proxie granted to the King of Spain and Don Charles his Brother Our Author qualifieth the word ever to make it serve his turn and yet cannot do it The Letter of Philip the 3. to Olivarez nothing contained in it against the restoring of the Palanate but the contrary rather King James communicated not with the Parliament in the Breach with Spain our Author pleadeth a Demonstration but produceth none Our Authors nicety between taking Coach to and for White-hall and the vanity of it Some solid Grandure contributed to the throne of Kings in their Coronations His Catholick Majesty how concerned in our Authors scoffs That heretofore some Kings in Spain have been Crowned and anointed though of late those ceremonies be disused and upon what reasons The Pamphleters weak defences for our Authors mistake about taking the Great Seal from the Bishop of Lincoln and the Observator justified as to that particular Our Authors Annuating and Superannuating in his Temporalities His Superannuating or subtertriennuating rather in the â—ynod of Doâ—t how weakly justified and excused The Observators running leap made good and his Reasons for it A transition to the following Disputes about the Sabbath or Lords day WEE are now come to the main body of the Pamphlet in which we shall begin and good reason for it with such particulars
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
necessary which some say he doth either they must accuse him of much inconstancy and forgetfulnesse or else interpret him with Rivet In Decalog as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custome not to be neglected non de necessitate legis divinae and not of any obligation layed upon us by the Law of God Neither is he the only one that hath so determined Simler in Exod. 20. hath said it more expresly Quod dies una cultui divino consecratur ex lege naturae est quod autem haec sit septima non octava nona aut decima juris est divini sed ceremonialis That one day should be set apart for Gods publick worship is the Law of nature but that this day should be the seventh and not the eighth ninth or tenth was not of divine appointment but ceremonial Aretius Loc. 55 also in his common places distinguished between the substance of the Sabbath and the time thereof The substance of it which was rest and the works of piety being in all times to continue tempus autem ut septimo die observetur hoc non fuit necessarium in Ecclesia Christi but for the time to keep it on the seventh day alwaies that was not necessary in the Church of Christ So also Francisc Gomarus that great undertaker against Arminius in a book written purposely De origine institutione Sabbati affirms for certain that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature or Text of Scripture or any solid argument drawn from thence unum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum that by the fourth Commandement one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to Gods service And Rivet as profest an enemy of the Remonstrants though for the antiquity of the Sabbath he differeth from the said Gomarus yet he agreeth with him in this not only making the observance of one day in seven to be meerly positive as in our first part we observed but laies it down for the received opinion of most of the reformed Divines Vnum ex septem diebus non esse necessario eligendum ex vi praecâ—pti ad sacros conventus celebrandos in Exod. 20. p. 190. the very same with what Gomarus affirmed before So lastly for the Lutheran Churches Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian Liberty quod nec sint allegati nec debeant alligari ad certorum vel dierum vel temporum observationes opinione necessitatis in Novo Testamento c. That men are neither bound nor ought to be unto the observation of any daies or times as matters necessary under the Gospel of our Saviour Though otherwise he account it for a barbarous folly not to observe that day with all due solemnity which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God Therefore in his opinion also the keeping of one day in seven is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandement or parcel of the Law of Nature As for the subtle shift of Amesius Medull Theolog l. 2. 15. finding that keeping holy one day in seven is positive indeed sed immutabilis plane institutionis but such a positive Law as is absolutely immutable doth as much oblige as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral it may then serve when there is nothing else to help us For that a positive Law should be immutable in it self and in its own nature be as universally binding as the moral Law is such a piece of learning and of contradiction as never was put up to shew in these latter times But he had learnt his lirry in England here and durst not broach it but by halves amongst the Hollanders 7 For the next Thesis that the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but the Authority of the Church it is a point so universally resolved on as no one thing more And first we will begin with Calvin who tels us Institut l. 2. c. 8. n. 3. how it was not without good reason that those of old appointed the Lords day as we call â—it to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath Non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem veteres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt as his words there are Where none I hope will think that he would give our Saviour Christ or his Apostles such a short come off as to include them in the name of Veteres only which makes it plain that he conceived it not to be their appointment Bucer resolves the point more clearly in Mat. 12. Communi Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac requieti publicae dicatum esse ipso statim Apostolorum tempore viz. That in the Apostles times the Lords day by the common consent of Christian people was dedicated unto publick rest and the Assemblies of the Church And Peter Martyr upon a question asked why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church makes answer That upon that day and on all the rest we ought to rest from our own works the works of sin Sed quod is magis quam ille eligatur ad externum Dei cultum liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret nec illa pessime judicavit c. in Gen. 2. That this was rather chose then that for Gods publick service that saith he Christ left totally unto the liberty of the Church to do therein what should seem most expedient and that the Church did very well in that she did prefer the memory of the Resurrection before the memory of the Creation These two I have the rather thus joyned together as being sent for into England in King Edwards time and placed by the Protector in the Universities the better to establish Reformation at that time begun and doubt we not but that they taught the self-same Doctrine if at the least they touched at all upon that point with that now extant in their writings At the same time with them lived Bullinger and Gualter two great learned men Of these the first informs us Hunc diem loco Sabbaâ—i in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias in Apoc. 1. That in memorial of our Saviours Resurrection the Church set apart this day in the Sabbaths stead whereon to hold their solemn and religious meetings And after Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae illam diem non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam That of their own accord and by their own authority the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid it being no where to be found that it was commanded Gualter in Act. Apost Hom. 13 more generally that the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath day as being then most famous and so most in use But when the Churches were augmented Proximus à Sabbato dies rebus sacris destinatus the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses If not before then