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-seventh-day then in a tenth-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
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
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
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
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
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
by the Observator and those solemn Inaugurations being proved to be very ancient directed by the holy Spirit in the Book of God exemplified not only in David and many other Kings of Judah but also in the Son of David the chief King of all our Author standeth unto it still because saith he it conferreth no one dram of solid Grandure to the Throne Kings being perfect Kings and qualified fully to all intent of Royalty without it Fol. 7. Igrant indeed that Kings are perfect Kings without this solemnity The Case of Clark and Watson in the first year of King James and of many Murderers and Felons in the first year of King Charles make this plain enough all of them being indited for their several Felonies and Treasons committed by them against the peace of those several Kings their Crowns and dignities they neither of them crown'd at the time of those trials so that I shall not trouble my self with looking into the case of the Post-nati as to that particular But yet I cannot yeeld unto him that these solemnities confer not so much as a single dram of solid Grandure to the Throne For certainly the Kings entry into a Cognizance or stipulation with his people to govern them according to their several Lawes and their Atturning Subjects to him or acclaiming him to be their King in our Authors language must needs contribute much to the establishment of the Regal Throne Were it not thus King Charles had been very ill advised in putting himself to such immeasurable charges for receiving the poor Crown of Scotland and the Scots not more advised then he in threatning him that if he long deferred the duty of a Coronation they might perhaps be inclined to make choice of another King For which consult our Author Fol. 125. It seems by this that neither of them did esteem it a serious vanity and that the King conceived it to have somewhat in it of a solid Grandure and this our Author saw at last and therefore is compell'd by the light of Reason and the convicting of his judgement whether by the Observator or not shall not now be questioned to conclude thus with him that there is something of a solid signification in those serious vanities But then he adds withall that all Christian Kings are not concerned in it as is affirmed by the Observator his Catholick Majesty not being touched in it because not Crowned Nor doth this inference hold good by the Rules of Logick that because his Catholick Majesty is not crowned at all therefore the Rites of Coronation are not accompted sacred by him or that he is unconcerned in those scoffs and scornes which are put upon it by our Author Betwixt all Kings there is that sacred correspondence that the violating of the Rites or person of one concerns all the rest and though the Catholick King hath not been Crowned in these last ages yet do they still retain a solemn initiation into Regality as our Author calleth it at their first entrance into State Not Crowned I grant in these latter Ages though they were of old that which our Saviour spake in the case of Marriage between man and woman viz. Non fuit sic ab initio that it was not so from the beginning being true in the Political Marriages of these Kings and Kingdomes For in the History of Spain written by Lewis de Mayerne it is said of Inigo Arista the 6. King of Navarre that he was anointed and crowned after the manner of the Kings of France of which he iâ— said to have been a Native that custome being afterwards observed in the following Kings And though it be believed by some that this custome came only into Navarre after they had Kings of the House of Champagn yet that will give it the antiquity of Four hundred years and prove withall that Crowning and Anointing was observed by some Kings in that Continent Nor was it thus only in Navarre but in Castile also Alfonso the third of that name King of Castile and Leon fortunate in his wars against his Neighbours causing himself to be Crowned Emperour of Spain in the Cathedral Church at Leon with the solemnities and ceremonies requisite in so great an Act receiving the holy Unction and the Crown from Don Raymond Archbishop of Toledo performed in Leon anno 1134. and afterwards iterated in Castile as some writers say for the Crown of Toledo as a distinct and different Kingdome The chargeable repetition of which solemn Act in so many Kingdomes as now and of long time have been united in the persons of the Catholick Kings may possibly be the reason of the discontinuance of it in these latter daies each Kingdome in that Continent being apt to think it self neglected as the Scots did here in case the King received not a particular Coronation for it Considedering therefore that one Coronation could not serve for all it was the thriftiest way in respect of charges and the way most like to please the particular Nations not to receive the Crowns of any of them in that solemn way which was and is observed to this day in most Christian Kingdomes The Coronation being past the King prepareth for the Parliament approaching also in the way of preparation he thought it fit that some who in the last had been uncivil towards the Duke should be made examples upon which accompt saith our Historian the Lord Keeper Williams fell and his place was disposed of to Sir Thomas Coventry From which what can be possibly concluded by a knowing man but that the displacing of the Lord Keeper Williams must fall between the Coronation and the following Parliament And then our Author will not yeeld that he was out in this Temporality How so because saith he I never intended it to be in that moment of time to which that Paragraph relates Fol. 8 Is not this like to prove a brave historian think you who professeth openly that he writes one thing and intends another Is not the Reader like to be very well edified by such reservations as the Author keeps unto himself and are not to be found either positively or by way of inference in the Book he reads Our Author certainly is put hard to it when he can finde no other way to evâ—de the errors of his pen but these silly shifts And yet Solamen miseris as the old verse hath it It is some comfort to him that the Observator should be out himself in saying that the Great Seal was taken from him in October whereas it is said by Mr. Howell that he departed from the Seal in August Fol. 8. But what if Mr. Howels intelligence fail him who though a very honest man pretends not to the Spirit of infallibility as our Author doth then certainly the Observator is not out nor my Author in But that we may not spend more time in tossing this debate like a Tenice Ball from one hand to another the Pamphleter may be pleased to
these mistakes together then if he had took them one by one as they came in his way especially considering that he gives a good reason for it that is to say that he might not trouble himself with the like observation at another time and did I think the Pamphleter would be ruled again by reason I could give him another reason for it that he was now to take his leave of those Observations which personally related to the two Kings in their several and distinct capacities This of King James in sending the Articles of Lambeth to the convocation of Ireland and the Assembly at Dort being the last point in which he was concerned in his own particular without relation to King Charles and not seconded by him It 's true we finde them acting afterward in the same design but in several times King James first setting out the Declaration about lawfull sports and King Charles seconding the same by a more strict command to have it punctually observed throughout the Kingdome Which giving the occasion to some observations and those Observations occasioning a sharp and uncivill Answer in our Authors Pamphlet I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Controversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that followes though the Debates touching the spreading of Arminianism and the supposed growth of Popery according to the course of time and the method of our Authors History do occur before it Only I must crave leave to hoop in here the Duke of York as a considerable Member of the Royal Family before I close this present Chapter Of him our Auâ—hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets that he was by Birth-right Duke of York but to avoid the Scilla of that mistake he fals into the Charybdis of another as bad telling us in that leafe new printed but not new printed only if at all on that occasion that he was after styled Duke of York For which being reprehended by the Observator as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times the Gent. seemeth much distressed and in the agony of those distresses asks these following questions 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash 2. What shall an honest Historian do in such a case Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him and resolve him briefly letting him know that an honest Historian should have said he was after created Duke of York and not styled so only And 2. That if our Author shewed himself an honest Historian the Observator hath no lash for him and so it will be possible enough to scape it Which said we shall go on to that grand concernment in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose CHAP. IV. The Pamphleters mistake in making discontinuance equall to a calling in The uncharitable censure of H. B. and our Historian upon the first and second publishing of their two Majesties Declarations about lawful sports The Divinity of the Lords Day not known to Mr. Fryth or Mr. Tyndall two eminent Martyrs in the time of King Henry 8. nor to Bishop Hooper martyred in the time of Queen Mary The opinions of those men how contrary to this new Divinity This new Divinity not found in the Liturgies Articles or Canons of the Church of England nor in the writings of any private man before Dr. Bound anno 1595. The Observator justified in this particular by the Church Historian The Authors ill luck in choosing Archbishop Whitgift for a Patron of this new Divinity and the argument drawn from his authority answered An Answer to the Pamphleters argument from the Book of Homilies the full scope and Analysis of the Homilie as to this particular The Pamphleters great brag of all learned men on his side reduced to one and that one worth nothing The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrewes neither of his writing nor approved of by him Our Authors new Book in maintenance of this new Divinity The Doctor vindicated from the forgings and falsifyings objected against him by the Pamphleter Proofs from the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches 1 That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement 2 That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand then the authority of the Church And 3 That the Church hath power to change the Day and to translate it to some other WE are now come unto the business of the Lordsday in which our Author sheweth himself a stiffe Sabbatarian taking his rise from the Kings Declaration about Lawful sports first published by King James at Greenwitch May 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westminster Octob. 18. anno 1633. when published first it raised so many impetuous clamours as our Author told us in his first that the Book was soon after called in in which being otherwise informed by the Observator and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in though the execution of it by the remisnesse of that Kings Government was soon discontinued will notwithstanding keep himself to his former error and thinks to save himself by this handsome shift that the discontinuance of the execution of it no matter upon what occasion for he leaves that out was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in Fol. 22. This is a piece of strange State Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution of any Law Ordinance Canon or Act of State should be equivalent unto the calling of them in Our Author hath not found it so in the Act for Knighthood nor have the Subjects found it so in such penal Statutes as having lain dor◠〈◊〉 many years were awakened afterwards nor can it be inferred from hence that any of the Lawes against Priests and Jesuites are at the present or have been formerly suppressed and tacitely call'd in because by the clemency of King James the prudence of King Charles and the temper of the present Government there was and is a discontinuance of such Executions as only are to be commended when they may not then when they may possibly be spared What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration the Observator tels at large from the Books themselves But H. B. in his seditious Sermon most undeservedly entituled For God and the King gives another reason for the publishing of it by King James which being not pertinent to my businesse with our present Author I forbear to mention that being already canvassed in another place But the design of the re-publishing of it in the reign of King Charles was by our Author in the first draught of his History as it was sent unto the Presse and printed though suppressed with others of like nature spoken of before affirmed to be a plot to gall and vex those godly Divines whose consciences would not vail to such impiety as to promote the work and for
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
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