Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	day_n	sabbath_n	time_n	25,202	5	5.0710	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A87881	The observator observed, or, Animadversions upon observations on the history of King Charles wherein that history is vindicated, partly illustrated, and severall other things tending to the rectification of some publique mistakes, are inserted : to which is added, at the latter end, the observators rejoinder.	L'Estrange, Hamon, 1605-1660.	1656 (1656)	Wing L1188A; ESTC R179464	41,478	51

calling of it in Page 114. Fol. 129. The Divinity of the Lords day being new Divinity at Court Observator And so it was by its favour in the Countrey too not known in England till the year 1595. So new it is that it cannot prescribe to 60 years for if it could we should have found some mention of it in our Articles or Our Book of Homilies in which we find nothing at all touching the keeping of that day Answer By this and some other passages in the Observator we may suspect the man to be Petrifi'd there 's an hard word as hard as a stone and very conversant with Peter Hielen a Dr. of Cosmography a work very proper for him for none fitter to describe the world then he who all his life hath loved the world none like him but of that Dr. more anon Next to the Observator if that Dr. and he be two First he saith that the Divinity of the Lords day was not known in England till the year 1595. If so I demand of the Observator what did Archbishop Whitgift mean in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition p. 553. where speaking in the present tense he saith the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some did he mean the Jewish Sabbath that cannot be for he subjoynes so is the Church the Creed the Lords Prayer importing it to be a lawful thing abused by superstitious people and soon after he speaks of a Sabbath then commanded by the 4th Precept which could not be the Jewish and if not that must of necessity be the Lords day Now this Archbishop published his Defence Anno. 1574. Next for the book of Homiles surely he spake much without book for certainly there was not any thing more especially taught in those Homiles then the divinity of the Lords day they saying God in that Precept speaking of the fourth commandeth the observation of the Sabbath which is our Sunday What can positively be rendred clearer Here 's the Sabbath interpreted by the Lords day and that commandeth to be observed in the 4th Precept by God himself So that by the Observators leave the Divinity of the Lords day may be found in our book of Homilies Page 115. Fol. Ibid. Which seemed the greater prodigy that men who so eagerly cryed up their own Order and Revenues for Divine should so much deny the Lords day from being such when they had no other Existence then in Relation to this Observator Here 's a Prodigy indeed and a Paradox too that neither the Order nor Revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood have any existence but in Relation to the Divinity of the Lords day If our Author be not out in this I am much mistaken Answer Where hath this Observator been brought up that this Tenet of mine of mine said I yea of all learned men should be so wondred at to be called a Prodigy Good Reader when thou seest him next tell him from me there is scarce a man of note who treateth of the fourth Commandment that owneth not this Prodigious opinion I shall content my self with only one at present but one who I hope will be instar omnium with the Observator as being free from Puritanism The learned Bishop of Winchester who expounding the fourth Commandment saith first because men should not be left at liberty when to perform Religious duties God hath appointed a Day whereon to do them and that more solemnly in a publique meeting or assembly this Day he calleth the Lords Day Secondly Now whereas the solemn duties of this Day cannot be performed in a publique manner without a Place set a part and Persons enabled to perform such sacred actions Therefore both Places Persons sanctify'd to those purposes Maintenance also for those Persons are included in this Precept so here are both the sacred Orders and Revenues constituted in relation to the Lords Day and the duties thereof and emergent both from the fourth Commandment and so I hope the Prodigy is at an end Page 116. Fol. Ibid. But of this elsewhere Observator And indeed of this there hath enough been said elsewhere to satisfie all learned and ingenuous men both in the meaning of the law and in point of practice Answer Never any thing more truly spoken And all I shall superadde is this that whereas I said But of this elsewhere my meaning was that of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Divinity of the Lords day I had treated elsewhere in a book extant of that Argument Anno. 1640. never as yet answered by any To that Treatise I refer all men who shall desire my Judgment in that Subject Only from thence I shall having so fit an opportunity be bold to re-mind Doctor Heilen of an od mistake to say no worse committed by him in vindication whereof he never attempted any thing as yet The mistake this The main question concerning that Day was and I am sorry to find it is whither or not it be of Divine institution That Doctor with his leaders and followers said nay and because it would signifie the same thing should it be evinced to be Apostolical the man sweats toyles and somewhat worse to evade it For Part 2. c. 6. S. 7. of his History of the Sabbath he citeth out of Pareus his Com. in Gen. 2. treating of the change of the Sabbath into the Lords Day these words Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in sacris literis non apparet And to make it apparent he was industrious in it because Quomodo alone he thought non vult fac would not do the deed without his Paraphrase he descants on it thus How that is by what Authority this change was made appeareth not in sacred Scripture whereas in very truth Pareus his word in two several Editions one 4o the other folio is Quando not Quomodo for the Authority he in that very place ascribes it Apostolicae Ecclesiae to the Apostolique Church and in Comment upon 1 Cor. 16. v. 2. and upon the Revelation fixeth it positively upon Apostolical Authority Now what it is for a Doctor of Divinity for so great a champion of Antiquity against Novelty not in an idle circumstance but in the grand concernment of a controversie to forge and falsifye a Record so boldly I dare not say so impudently I submit to the judgment of all the world This I write partly to provoke an answer from that Doctor and partly to vindicate him from the groundlesse supposition which renders him the Author of these Observations who as he hath professedly disavowed it so is it scarce credible that he of all men durst be so bold with me as this Observator is knowing how readily I might have returned Quis tulerit Gracchos Page 117. Fol. Ibid. And was after stiled Duke of York Observator Our Author here accomodates his stile to the present times when the weekly Pamphlets gave the Prince no other Title then the Titulary Duke of York It is true

of temporality here acknowledged Page 27. Fol. 7. From Canterbury his Majesty took Coach for Whitehall where the third day after his arival If our Author meaneth by this that their Majesties went in Coach but some part of the way only he should then have said so their Majesties passing no further then Graves end and from thence went by water in their Royal Barges c. Answer What I meant here any ordinary capacity may know which is able to discern the difference between the taking Coach to and for Whitehal Page 28. Fol. 8. For as a man is without a female consort so to a King without his supream councel an half-form'd steril thing Our Author in these words and the rest that follow maintains a Paradox most dangerous to supream Authority in making Parliaments so necessary to all Acts of State as if Kings could do nothing without their consent Answer I hope no man of any ingenuity will interpret me here or elsewhere an enemy to Monarchy or doth so much as question but that my Politique Descondants imply Statute-laws which I am of opinion no King of England hath power to make without common consent in Parliament Page 36. Fol. 17. And who i. e. Sr. Robert Mansel had an unquestionable right to the cheif conduct of this enterprise upon the Dukes default I believe not so Answer The Observators contrary beliefe is no evidence who was never made an Arbitrator in the businesse nor is it to others so strange a thing many men of wisedom and long experience still holding it for a Rule not onely in this particular but in all such as have vicariam potestatem a vicegerency Page 37. Fol. 20. And the first thing resolved upon was his solemn Initiation into Regality c. Observator As solemn as the King esteemed it yet our Author as it seems thinks more poorly of it for he censureth it for a vanity and thinks that kings are idle in it Are not all Christian Kings concerned in this c. Answer Why I call this Inauguration a serious vanity I declare the Reason because it conferreth no one dram of solid grandure to the Throne Kings being perfect Kings and qualifyed fully to all intents of Royality without it Will the Observator deny this if so let him consult the Lord Chancellor Egertons Postnati where he shall find the same asserted Yet lest some such Cavillers should quarrel at my inclination I added serious to it importing there was somewhat in it of solid signification Nor are all Christian Kings concerned in this His Catholick Majesty of Spain is not so much as touched who is not Crowned at all Page 39. Fol. Ibid. The Lord Keeper Williams was displaced and his place disposed of to Sr. Thomas Coventry Observator Our Author is here out again in his Temporalities for the great Seal was taken from him in October three months before The like mistake he proves in his Temporalities touching Bishop Laud whom he make Bishop of Bath and Welles who was then Bishop of St. Davids Answer The fall of Lord Keeper Williams I never say'd or intended to be in that moment of time to which that Paragraph relates but principally purposing to deliver therein his and others exclusion from the Parliament I mentioned also his fall as a thing preceding and no way concurring with the other So I was not out in this Temporality but if I was not I am afraid I know who is in affirming the great Seal was taken from him in October whereas he parted with it in August as Mr. Howel in his familiar letters Sect. 4. l. 23. relates But in making Dr. Laud Bishop of Bath and Welles at that time I confesse I was mistaken and this is grande nefas an horrid crime no doubt But this is not all for rather then he will not find another the Observator fetcheth a running leap to Fol. 96. where speaking of the Articles of Lambeth it is said they were first sent to the Synod of Dort and after that to the Convocation of Ireland a very strange Hysteron Proteron Setting the Convocation of Ireland after the Synod of Dort which preceded it three years and this is somewhat more then superannuating in his Temporalities Answer I write the History of the Reign of King Charles and then what I said of that superannuating was by me intended nor can it be rationally interpreted otherwaies of such things and actions as have reference to the sixteen years whereof I treat in that History not of such things as antecedently occurr'd are taken in by the By for I have oft occasion to mention things of preceding date as in the case of the Scottish Presbytery wherein though I am guided by the best informers I had yet will I not nor did ever so mean to warrant the truth thereof as to every particular year So it fareth in this errour in point of precedency between a Convocation and a Synod whereof to raise a question is only to strive de Lana Caprina and is at worst {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} but a meer laps of memory a thing as obvious so withal excusable in the best Authors in point of circumstance in such an one especially as this wherein as being extravagant and out of the bounds of the Principal Narrative curiosity was lesse concerned And this is I hope enough to keep this errour within the bounds of my confidence of not superannuating were the errour infallibly mine own But if now after all this ranting triumph upon a melius inquirendum and better search the errour should prove none of mine would not the Observator think you Reader be wondrous blank at his Ridiculus Mus. Resort to and Review the place then tell me whither or not in your unbyast sense That Paragraph with the former and three subsequent to it do not or were not so intended to compleat the report of the Committee for Religion If so then my information hath wronged me or I my information Now for my wronging my information for I must walk circumspectly so many snares being laid to entrap me take this ingenuous account As for this report it being very long I thought fit to contract it into a narrow scantling not minding the words so I secured the substance And if I have fail'd in this if I have delivered any thing material which those Journals will not own let me suffer and to speak here to the purpose I appeal to Mr. Pym his speech Jan. the 27. in those Journals where my Coppy though erroneously I grant presents these Articles sent to Dort before Ireland so much in defence of my not superannuating in this particular Now I come to relieve my Preface out of the Observators Purgatory which hath tortured it sufficiently by saying I am confident I stand secure not only from substantial falshoods but from circumstantial also whereas this is his Preface not mine for male dum recitat the property is alter'd saith the

Epigrammatist my words being expresly these Confident I am I stand secure against any substantial falshoods and I hope now that 't is no more then I hope against circumstantial also {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Phy impudent Observator relish it as you please for cum dixeris quod vis audies quod non vis if you will take upon you thus garrire per angulos de mundo ferre sententiam to sneak behind noon and there give judgment upon all the world you must look when you fail and forge so fouly to be told of it to your teeth Page 41. Fol. 21. Who loved the Bishop if fame belies her not better then was fit Observator I think our Author with more prudence might have spared this note especially having Fame onely for the ground thereof which is so infamous an Historian Answer True it is Fame is not alwaies an infallible informer some Rumors being begot by Malice and nursed up by Credulity But yet true it is that she is sometimes a Publique Testimony and the wise Tacitus though he erects no Historical structures upon her bare affidavit yet doth present her in the like concernments for an Author of a second Admission How far she stands guilty of the crime of Defamation in reference to that Lady I list not to enquire Sure I am Mr. Wilsons Eunuchus ab utero was a clearer acquitance of that Ladies Innocence then any Argument by the Observator produced and I must tell him it seemeth not at all ridiculous to any one who had a more inward knowledge of that Prelates condition Mr. Wilson went indeed too far in the extraction of Bishop Williams his impotency which was not ab Utero from the womb but contracted after when he was a boy by falling upon a stake whereof the Observator may be further assured please he to enquire Page 48. Fol. 45. For the Lords found an antient Order that no Lords sedente Parliamento should have voice during that Session c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded Observator I somewhat doubt our Authors intelligence in this particular Answer Matters of fact must not be born down with I believe or I conceive if the Observator can from the records themselves demonstrate my errour I recant Page 51. Fol. 64. But all would not smooth the aspirity of this illegal Tax Observator The money which was then required of the Subject was not imposed in the way of Taxe but a Loan Answer Taxe in common speech is taken for a Compulsory Tribute imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate and such a Taxe this Loan was it being so cumpulsory as the refusers were by special instructions bound over to the Councel-board and imprison'd Page 55. Fol. 71. And a Commission granted by the King to five Bishops B. Laud being of the Quorum to execute Archi-Episcopal Jurisdiction The cause impulsive to it was a supposed irregularity c. Observator In this and the rest which followeth our Author runs himself into many errours First Bishop Laud was not of the Quorum no more then any of the other Secondly the irregularity supposed was not touched upon in the Commission Thirdly it was not his keeper but the Lord Zouches he kill'd in Bramhil Park c Answer What four errours at a clap that 's ill luck yet it was well they proved no more for he that made them four might have made them by the same art of juggling his words into my Text four hundred Let him keep his own suppositicious foystings at home my errours will not multiply so fast Now first where did I say Bishop Laud was of the Quorum more then any other of the Quorum I said he was meaning that of the five he was one Secondly where did I say that the Irregularity was expressed in the Cōmission as the impulsive to it I said it was the declared impulsive to the Commission and if it was not or these had been any other the Observator should have done well to have discover'd * Lastly whereas I said the Archbishop kill'd his Keeper Mr. Prynn in his Brevians of Archbishop Lauds life p. 11. and Aulives Coquinariae p. 130. expresly say it was his Keeper My last errour is the vouching Bishop Andrews for a vindicator of the Archbishops Regularity The Observator yeelds he did the Archbishop great service in this businesse but not for any opinion which he had that no irregularity was incurred by that misadventure Really Bishop Andrews is beholding to the Observator for this note the whole scope of that Commission was to inquire into the matter of fact and to resolve whither the Archbishop notwithstanding that mischance was Regular or not Regular This Bishop with Sir Henry Martin positively maintain'd that he was Regular still now if acting as a Commissioner from the King he would positively maintain one thing and in his own judgement adhere to the contrary as the Observator positively saith he did I say the more too blame he and the much more too blame the Observator if he doth in this particular belye him as 't is an hundred to one he doth But if the Bishop pronounced the Archbishop Regular though he thought otherwaies what was then the plot the Observator tells us it was to keep out Dr. Williams then Bishop of Lincoln and Lord Keeper c. who would have stept into that See So then it seems the question was not whither Regular or Irregular but who Abbot or Williams would make the best Archbishop This is fine stuffe pitty it is there is no more of the remnant Page 58. Fol. 73. They who lately were confind as Prisoners are now not only free but Petty Lords and Masters yea and Petty Kings Observator I cannot chose but marvail what enduced our Author unto this expression of making the Gentlemen assembled in the house of Commons not onely petty Lords but Petty Kings I have heard that King James once said in a time of Parliament but whither in way of jeer or otherwaies I am not able to say that there were now five hundred Kings beside himself Answer King James having said the like before it is no great marvail that a poor Subject should use the same expression considering what the Observators Court-Historian as he and Dr. Heilen usually stiles him saith Non ibi consistant exempla unde so it is not ubi by his favour caeperunt Examples are not restrained to their first Originals Nor did that expression import what these Gentlemen were de jure but what in reputation and what de facto and of this experience hath taught us they lately were not Petty Lords but Lords Paramount not Petty Kings but Superiours to Kings themselves Page 59. Fol. 75. Their Estates modestly estimated were able to buy the house of Peers the King excepted though an hundred and eighteen thrice over Observator Assuredly the Basonage were brought very low when the Gentlemen assembled in the house

the abrogating of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland and settling in their place the Articles of the Church of England Anno 1633. Answer Was ever man so shamefully out as this Observator is here out of the Story beyond all measure and out of charity beyond all Religion First these Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King but sent for by Him Secondly they were five not four Thirdly 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 As for the Bishops of Durham and Carlile they spake as freely as any other insomuch as the King faulted one of their Syllogismes because it had in it four terms Fourthly the Lord Primate had no sharp tooth against the Lieutenant as the Observator or Malice it self suggests a calumny so absurd as nothing but the sin thereof can defend it from being ridiculous not a syllable relating to it being true for First the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated as is evidenced by this Certificate We who were present at and Members of the Convocation holden at Dublin Anno Domini 1634. doe hereby certifie that upon the proposal of the first Canon wherein for the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Christian faith and doctrine of the Sacraments as was then expressed we did receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562. One of the Assembly stood up and desired that the other Book of Articles agreed upon in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year 1615. should be joyned therewith Vnto whom it was then answered that this addition was altogether needless that Book having Been already sufficiently ratified by the Decree of the former Synod But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland hath no truth all in it And 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 March 18. 1655. Wil. Bernard Samuel Pullein Now the Foundation failing the superstructed grudge must needs fall also Again that there was not between the Lord Primate and the Earl any the least umbrage of discontent that all was most amicable most friendly between them is further so likely as it is almost demonstrable For before his final Sentence the Lieutenant did from time to time both at the Black-Red and in the Tower advise with the Primate concerning his Answer to his Charge For 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 he cheerfully entertained his spiritual instructions he prayed with him sent Messages to the King by him took him by the hand and led him along with him to the Scaffold All which sure he would never have done had he taken notice or but suspected such a grudge levant and couchant in the Primates breast Fifthly whereas this Trifler deriveth this forged grudge from this occasion because saith he Dr. Bramhil once the Lieutenants Chaplain and then Bishop of Derry had appeared most in Abrogation of those Articles I must tell the man that there was never any controversie in that Synod between the Lord Primate and that Bishop concerning those Articles About the Reception of the English Ecclesiastical Canons some disagreement there was indeed the Bishop of Derry moving they might be there admitted intirely which the Lord Primate opposed as prejudicial to the liberty of the Irish Church and prevailed that only some selected Canons of the English Church should be received with the addition of others of that Synods framing which was done accordingly Sixthly whereas the Observator placeth the Synod of Ireland in Anno 1633. his alter idem Dr. Heylins History of the Sabbath part 2d page 259. could have told him it was in 1634. Lastly whereas this Observator demands an account of our thoughts whether the King was likely to be well informed in his Conscience when men so interessed were designed to the managing and preparing of it I can assure him that the Bishops only sent him to the resolution of his own judgement for matter of fact and to the opinions of the Judges for matter of Law and that the restless and insatiable scruple which so discomposed his Majesties Conscience was this That notwithstanding he most earnestly pressed the Judges to declare the particular Article of the Earls charge which if proved was Treason by an expresse Law of the Land he could not extort from them one single instance nor any thing else but that the Earl was guilty upon the whole matter which he thought was too confused a general upon which to shed the blood of one of the basest much more of the Noblest Orb. Thus have I finished my Animadversions upon the Observators Matter I should next proceed to his Alphabetical Table or Vocabulary of my uncouth words which really is the Comical part of his Tragedies against me and it were pity to lose so much mirth I shall therefore in liew of that Alphabet present thee Reader with a Catalogue first of mine own and then of his mistakes with some things of remark resulting from them both and first for mine own Fol. 6. In King James his interment May the 4th is put for the 7th Ibid. Concerning the Marriage of the Queen May the 8th for the first Fol. 20. Dr. Laud Bishop of Bath and Wells for Bishop of St. Davids Fol. 71. Archbishop Abbot his Keeper for the Lord Zouch his Fol. 129. Guild-Hall for Alderman Freemans house Fol. 131. All Counties for all Port Towns within the Realm Fol. 136. Earl of Norhumberland for the Earl of Lindsey Fol. 184. Arch-Bishop Whitgift mistaken one remove Other things as errors there are I confesse charged upon me by the Observator but some are dubious and no constat they are errors Some are infallibly demonstrated to be no errors and the rest that are errors are none of mine Of mine these are a true and perfect account and how far these comply for quality and number with what I pretend to in my Preface I shall now examine My words in that Preface are Confident I am I stand secure against substantial falshoods Dares the Observator though he as daring as another say any one of these falshoods are substantial so as their rectification will destroy the frame of the Narrative to which they relate I presume he will not Circumstantial they are every one and against circumstantial though I durst not assume confidence yet I hoped I stood secure also And now