the not promoting of it to compell them to desert their Stations and abandon their livings in which their very vitality and livelihood consisted Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably or untruly said This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict a maculating of his own honour and a sacrilegious robbing of God All which though afterwards left out declare his willingnesse to make both Prince and Prelates and the dependants of those Prelates the poor Doctor of Cosmography among the rest feel the dint of his spirit and pity 't was he was not suffered to go on in so good a purpose Our Author having intimated in the way of a scorn or jâ—ar that the Divinity of the Lords day was new Divinity at the Court was answered by the Observator that so it was by his leave in the Countrey too not known in England till the year 1595. c. The Observator said it then I shal prove it now and having proved it in the Thesis or proposition will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it And first it is to be observed that this new Divinity of the Lords day was unknown to those who suffered for Religion and the testimony of a good conscience under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth who suffered in the year 1533 in a tract by him written about Baptism Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an Ensample of Christian Liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And though they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Next to him followeth Mr. Tyndall famous in those times for his translation of the Bible for which and for many of his Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome condemned unto the flames annâ— 1536. in the same Kings reign who in his Answer to Sir Thomaâ— More hath resolved it thus As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Munday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day holiday only if we see cause why neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it The same Doctrine publickly defended in the writings of Bishop Hooper advanced to the Miter by King Edward and by Queen Mary to the Crown the crown oâ— Martyrdome in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandements anno 1550. who resolves it thus We may not think saith he that God gave any more holinesse to the Sabbath then to the other daies For if ye consider Friday Saturday or Sunday in as much as they be daies and the work of God the one is no more holy then the other but that day is alwaies most holy in the which we most apply and give our selves unto Holy works No notice taken by these Martyrs of this new Divinity The first speaking of the observation of the Lords day no otherwise then as an institution grounded on their forefathers a constitution of the Church the second placing no more Morality in a seventh-day then in a tenth-day Sabbath and the third making all daies wholly alike the Sunday no otherwise then the rest As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs so was it also to those Prelates and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward or afterwards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holydaies no more divine offices performed or diligent attendance required by the old Lawes of this Land upon the one then on the other No notice taken of this new Divinity in the Articles of Religion as they were published anno 1552. or as they were revised and ratified in the tenth year after no order taken for such a strict observation of it as might entitle it unto any Divinity either in the Orders of 1561. or the Advertisements of 1565. or the Canons of 1571. or those which â—ollowed anno 1575. Nothing that doth so much as squint towardâ— this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation Protestant Papist Puritan of what sort soever till broached by Dr. Bound anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author from the mouth of another then from that of the ignorant Observator I would desire him to consult the new Church History writ by a man more sutable to his own affections and so more like to be believed About this time saith he throughout England began the more solemn and strict observation of the Lords Day hereafter both in writing and preaching commonly call'd the Sabbath occasioned by a book this year set forth by P. Bound Dr. in Divinity and enlarged with additions anno 1606. wherein the following opinions are maintained 1. That the Commandement of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is moral and perpetual 2. That whereas all other things in the Jewish Church were taken away Priesthood Sacrifices and Sacraments his Sabbath was so changed as it still remaineth 3. That there is a great reason why we Christians should take our selves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath it being one of the moral Commandements where all are of equall authority lib. 9. sect 20. After this he goeth on to tell us how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture long disused and neglected now seasonably revived for the increase of piety others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottome but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion it was pity to oppose them seeing none have just reason to complain being deceived into their own good But a third sort flatly fell out with these positions as galling mens necks with a Jewish yoke against the Liberty of Christians That Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had removed the rigour thereof and allowed men lawful Recreations that his Doctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday on set purpose to eclipse all other Holy daies to the derogation of the authority of the Church that this strict
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
power of Kings could do nothing lawfully but what they do with their assistance and by their consent What saith the Pamphleter to this marry he hopes for he still saves himself by hoping that no man of any ingenuity can so much as question but that his politique Descendents imply Statute Laws which no King of England hath power to make without Common consent in Parliament Fol. 7. and that the text may speak agreeably to the words of this comment he hath foisted the word Laws into it where before it was not as may appear to any man who will be pleased to compare the Editions 2ly The Historian had affirmed for certain that Sir Robert Mansell as Vice-Admirall had an unquestionoble right of the chief conduct of that enterprize against the Spaniard upon the Dukes default For which being contradicted by the Observator grounding himself on the authority and common practice of our Kings in granting those commands to any as they see cause for it The Pamphleter stands stil to his former errour upon this ground that many men of wisdome and experience hold it for a Rule not only in this particular but in all such as have vicariam potestatem Fol. 7. But yet to make sure work withall he hath thrust these words as they thought into the text of his History and thereby made his own position that Sir Robert Mansell had an unquestionable right to the chief comduct in that enterprize to be the opinion of those many men of wisdome and long experience whom the comment points too New if we ask what these men were who thought so of it we find them in some lines before to be the Mariners men I confesse of long experience but of no great wisdome and such as better understand the Jurisdiction of their Masters-place than of the Vice-admiral of England and what such men as these may hold touching the Powers and privileges of such as have vicarium potestatem is so inconsiderable that I shall not trouble my self to insist more on it 3ly The Historian had declared that for Armianism the informations were very pregnant c. For which being blamed in many things by the Observator he puts off the odium from himself to Mr. Pym and the Committee for Religion professing that he only recited what that Committee declared as the product of their enquiries and with this answer he conceiveth he might easily avoid no less than 25 pages of the Observation Fol. 15. So he and that it may be thought so by the Reader too he hath thrice foisted in these words they said into that part of his Narrative which concerns this business as Fol. 97. l. 27. for Arminianisn they said informations were very pregnant c. and Fol. 98. l. 12 13. the hazard conceived from Rome c. flowed they said partly from the uncontrouled publishing of severall points tending and working that way and ibidem â—ine 19 20. the greatest danger was from Popery direct and from this the danger they said appeared very great c. Here have we dicnnt ferunt aiunt these words they said no lesse than thrice in half a leaf foisted in the text to make it suitable to the Pamphlet And we had a praedicant in it too that you may see I have still some smattering of my Grammar an accusation of some men for their uncontrouled preaching of several points tending and warping towards Popery though now upon an admonition from the Observator he hath turned preaching into publishing as appears fol. 98 line 14. guided thereto by the illustration of his comment and a desire to do some right to Doctor Cozens which I thank him for whom he had formerly accused for preaching many things which warped towards Popery but now agreeth so far with the Observator as to excuse him from publishing and direct Popery in his Hours of Prayer 4. The Observator had declared that the Primate had conceived a displeasure against the Lord Deputy for abrogating the Articles of Religion established by the Church of Ireland and setling in their place the Articles of the Church of Enggland to which the Pampleter replyeth that the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated though those of England were received and approved by that convocation Fol. 42. For proof whereof he hath produced a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Barnard and one Samuel Pullain whose title and degree I know and therefore am not to be blamed if I give none to him Whether this Superinduction of the Articles of the Church of England amount not to an abrogation of those of Ireland shall be considered of hereafter in that Chapter which concerns Armianism Now I shall only tell you this that whereas our Author had it thus in his first Edition Fol. 132 viz. that in the Synod assembled in Ireland the body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615. were repealed and in their places were substituted the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England Now to conform his text to the former Comment he hath left out the word repealed in his new Edition Fol. 137. and tells us a clean contrary story to that before which shall be looked upon in the place before mentioned as more proper for it And so I close this Chapter intended chiefly for the justication of the Observator and the retorting of some Foistings on the Authors head withall confuting many of the Pamphleters Answers which could not be so well considered of in an other place CHAP. III. The affairs of the two Kings considered Of the impowering or not impowering the Earl of Bristol by Letters of Proxie The Proxie granted to the King of Spain and Don Charles his Brother Our Author qualifieth the word ever to make it serve his turn and yet cannot do it The Letter of Philip the 3. to Olivarez nothing contained in it against the restoring of the Palanate but the contrary rather King James communicated not with the Parliament in the Breach with Spain our Author pleadeth a Demonstration but produceth none Our Authors nicety between taking Coach to and for White-hall and the vanity of it Some solid Grandure contributed to the throne of Kings in their Coronations His Catholick Majesty how concerned in our Authors scoffs That heretofore some Kings in Spain have been Crowned and anointed though of late those ceremonies be disused and upon what reasons The Pamphleters weak defences for our Authors mistake about taking the Great Seal from the Bishop of Lincoln and the Observator justified as to that particular Our Authors Annuating and Superannuating in his Temporalities His Superannuating or subtertriennuating rather in the â—ynod of Doâ—t how weakly justified and excused The Observators running leap made good and his Reasons for it A transition to the following Disputes about the Sabbath or Lords day WEE are now come to the main body of the Pamphlet in which we shall begin and good reason for it with such particulars
his own intentions and satisfaction unto others he had exprest himself more fully as to this particular viz. whether the Superiority of such persons over such Presbyters in the Church Apostolique was fixed in them during life or that passed from one to another in their severall turns like the Mâ—deratorship in the generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland or the Chair-man in the Conferences and debates of Councell in the rest of the Calvinian Churches For if he mean in this last sense as I hope he doth not Episcopacy is no more beholding to him then it was to Beza who notwithstanding he maintained a party of Ministers without any fixed Superiority which one may claim above another yet he allows a moveable Presidency to be not unusuall nor unfrequent in the very times of the Apostles And yet that some such secret meaning may be gathered from him by such as have a minde to interpret all things to their own advantage will be made not improbable by his standing to this Proposition That there is no place in Holy Text wherein Presbyters import not Bishops and Bishops Presbyters Considering therefore that he still stands to his former Principle that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are of equivalent import and denote the self same persons without the least distinction and requireth it of the Observator or of any man else 36. to tell him where such persons in Holy Text are distinguished so really that a Bishop doth not import a Presbyter and a Presbyter doth not import a Bishop I think my self as much concerned as the Observator to make answer to it First then say I that though those words may be sometimes though but rarely used promiscuously the word Presbyter denoting a Bishop and the word Bishop importing nothing but a Presbyter yet that more frequently and in other places they are used in a more limited and distinct sense as in times succeeding And 2. I say that the word Episcopus 1 Timothy 3. 2. and the description of a Bishop which is therein made is meant of a Bishop truly and properly so called according as the word was used and appropriated by the Antient writers and not appliable to the Presbyters or inferior Ministers For proof whereof I shall offer some few considerations out of the Text it self leaving them to the judgement of the sober and intelligent Reader And first St. Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singular number but of inferiour Ministers in the Plurall One Church or City though it had many Presbyters had one Bishop only And therefore we may reasonably conceive that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number speaks of him in his proper and true capacity as one distinguished from and above the Presbyters 2. The Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government as being a man that is to take care of the Church of God and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him whether he hath ruled his house well c. A charge of too transcendent and sublime a nature to be entrusted unto every common Presbyter or discharged by him who as our Hooker well observeth though he be somewhat better able to speak is as little able to judge as another man And if not fit to judge no fit man to govern 3. St. Paul requireth in a Bishop that he be given to Hospitality i. e. that he receive the Stranger entertain the Native and in a word admit all Comers Hierom doth so expound it saying that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three Hospitalitatis officium implebit he hath exceeding well complyed with all the Rules of Hospitality Episcopus nist omnes receperit inhumanus est but that the Bâ—shop is accounted a Churle or Niggard if his House be not open unto all Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those antient times to the Condition of a Bishop who had the keeping and disposing of the Churches Treasures yet I can see no possibility how it could be expected from the Presbyters that out of his poor pittance from the sportula he should be able to perform it For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles daily as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oyle Fourthly and lastly it is required by St Paul that his Bishop must not be neophytus a novice as our English reads it and exceeding rightly that is as Chrysostom and out of him Theophylact expound the word one newly Catechized as it were lately instructed in the Faith Now who knoweth not but that in the beginnings of the Church some of these new plants these Neophyti must of necessity be taken into holy orders for the increase and propagation of the Gospel The Presbyters were many but the Bishops few And therefore howsoever there must be found sufficient Standards upon the which to graffe a Bishop yet I can hardly finde a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church with a fit number of Presbyters unless we take them from the Nurserie It then it be demanded whether St. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presbyters I answer no but that we have them in the next Paragraphe Diacones similiter which why it should not comprehend the Presbyters and all inferior Ministers under the degree of Bishops I can see no reason there being no qualification requisite in or to the Presbyter which is not found in the Apostles Character of these Diaconi And though the word in our last translation be rendred Deacons yet in our old translation and in that of Coverdale we read it Ministers according to the generall and native meaning of the same An exposition neither new nor forced Not new for Calvin doth acknowledge alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo inferiores that some referred those words to Presbyters subordinate or inferiour to the Bishop Not forced for if we search the Scriptures we shall there perceive that generally Diaconus is rendred Ministers and that not only in the Gospel before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God but also in St. Pauls Epistles after the planting of the Church when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits Thus Tychicus is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a faithful Minister Eph. 6. 26. and Col. 4. 7. and so is Epaphras entituled Col. 1. 7 c. And hereunto I shall further add that I can see no convincing reason why the Episcopi and Deacons or the Bishops and Deacons mentioned in the first words of St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians may not be understood of the Bishops properly so called of Philippi and the bordering Cities and of the Presbyters or inferiour Ministers under their authority Not to say any thing of the Subscription of the Epistle to Titus and the 2. to Timothy in which the word Bishop is taken in this proper and limited sense because whatsoever opinion I have of them the Pamphleter perhaps may not think them to be authentick
namely that the irregularity or supposed irregularity of the said Archbishop was not touched upon in the Commission as the impulsive cause unto it for which not one alone but many no man knoweth how many supposititious foistings are charged with so much noise and clamour on the Observator Somewhat more modestly in the third but with as little thought of rectifying any thing as in those before Told by the Observator that the person whom this Archbishop so unfortunately killed was not the keeper of his own Game but a keeper of the Lord Zouches in Bramzill Park he acknowledgeth his error in it Fol. 44. and yet not only keeps it in the Text of his new impression as before it was but stands unto the truth of it in the very same Pamphlet Fol. 11. and this he stands to on the authority of Aulicus Câ—quinariae and Mr. Prynne Men elsewhere of no credit with him though here they be but both mistaken in this point on uncertain hearsay Confessed for an error in the Pamphlet because upon a further inquiry he could do no otherwise justified for no error in the very same Pamphlet because he must not yeeld as inconsistent with his credit to be out in any thing And finally retains still in the Text of the History because he loves not to walk single in those paths of error but must have many followers for the greater State The fourth thing noted by the Observator namely that some pioâ—s and learned men being nominated and elected Bishops refused to be consecrated by him in regard that they conceived that there was more incurred by that misadventure then a supposed irregularity only is by the Pamphleter passed over in place whereof he foists in another which he thinks may be more easily answered that is to say his vouching Bishop Andrewes for a vinâ—icator of the Archbishops Regularity Fol. 11. Might I not here fâ—ll foul upon the Pamphleter and pay him home in some of his own Billingsgate language for falsifying so boldly I will not say so impudently as you know who did the plain and manifest words of the Observator who is so far from vouching this amongst the rest of his errors that he affirmes it to be true that the learned Bishop Andrewes as our Author telleth us did do the Archbishop very great service in this businesse Here is no fair dealing in this to begin withall and far more sophistry then ingenuity in the rest that followes For though the whole scope of that Commission was to inquire into the matter of Fact and to resolve whether the Archbishop notwithstanding that mischance was regular or not regular as the Pamphleter tels us fol. 11. Yet Bishop Andrewes in the executing of that Commission might proceed with favour and was not bound to presse the point to the utmost extremity when he saw what further inconveniencies might ensue upon it That learned Bishop might do this and did really do it without drawing blame upon himself or being belied in it by the Observator as in the ordinary eloquence of the Pamphleter he is said to be But stay a while we have another impulsive found out for this irregularity and found out chiefly as it seems because the Observator so dislikes the other fol. 46. And yet I trow the Observator never manifested any such dislike as to the cause impulsive of his the Archbishops irregularity no such matter verily but only shewed that the unfortunate accident which our Author speaks of was not the declared impulsive cause in the commission for sequestring him from his Jurisdiction and granting it to the five Bishops which are therein named as indeed it was not The impulsive cause it might be though not there declared the Commission only saying in the general That the said Archbishop could not at that present in his own person attend those services which were otherwise proper for his Cognizance and Jurisdiction not rendring any certain impulsive cause whereby he was conceived uncapable of performing his office And now what new impulsive will he give us in exchange for the other marry he telleth us that though it was not publickly declared yet it was by knowing men in those affairs beheld as the reall and genuine cause of this commission that the Arch-Bishop had refused to license Dr. Sibthorps Book Fol. 47. The Book here meant was a Sermon preached at Noâ—thampton by that Doctâ—r before the Judges of Assize anno 1627 and after printed with the name of Apostolical obedience A Sermon made of such a temper that if our Author be in the right and Mr. Prynne be not in the wrong it hath pleased all parties Refused to be licensed by Archbishop Abbet as our Author telleth us though he doth not tell the reasons of it but if it were refused to be licensed by him it was because it had too much of the Court as tending partly to the justification of the generall Lâ—an which was then required of the the Subjects Not suffered to be licensed by Bishop Laud because it had too little of the Court till some passages which seemed offensive in it touching the profanation of the Sabbath and toleration of Popery as we are told by Mr. Prynne had been first expunged But whatsoever the Sermon was the Archbishops refusal to license it if it were brought to him to be licensed could be no such crime as to draw after it both his removing from the Court and sequestring from his Jurisdiction if other things of greater moment had not then concurred Passe we unto the next Archbishop of whom being then Bishop of London our Author telleth us that many had no fancy to the work the repairing of St. Pauls Church meerly because he was the promoter of it But the contrary being proved by the Observator most of the Clergy Nobility and Gentry contributing very largely to it because he promoted it he only answereth that many and most may be consistent and that many may be opposite to the major vote Fol. 21. but proveth not that any of those many did dislike it in respect of the the Bishop or that it was not rather disliked by them in regard of the work which was there proved from a base and scurrilous passage in Bastwicks Letany And to this last our very Author himself hath hinted somewhat in his History Fol. 124. where he affirmes that some did not forbear to cry what needs this cost to decore a superstitious Relique This the chief cause why the work went so slowly forward that at length the distempers of the State spoiled the temper of the mortar as our Author there Next look upon him as Archbishop in which capacity we shall finde him made by our Historian a principal occasion of the Scottish war Reproved by the Observator for calling the war against the Scots the Bishops war he now stands to it that it was and might be so called for these reasons following First because not the Covenanters only but many an
Primate concerning his Answer to his change Fol. 42. A thing so far from being almost Demonstrable that it is not likely For let me ask for I hope it will be no abusing of your patience my most eloquent Cicero to ask one question whether he advised with the Primate in point of matter or of form in framing his answer to the charge I know you do not think the Primate so great a Lawyer as to be counselled and advised with for putting the Answer into Form The Lord Lieutenant being furnished with more learned Counsell as to that particular And I think also that you know how able the Lord Lieutenant was how well studied in his own affairs how well provided of all advantages in Order to the following tryal and consequently how unusefull the Lord Primate must needs be to him as to the matter of his Answer And whereas it is secondly said that after sentence he desired and obtained of the Parliament that the Primate might be sent to him to serve him with his ministerial office in his last and fatal extremity Fol. 43. There was good reason for this too though it make nothing at all to our Authors purpose For first the English Bishops were engaged in a dayly attendance both in Parliament and Convocation not to be taken off had he desired it upon his concernments especially considering that the Lieutenant had desired the Lord Primates company not only from the time of his sentence as the Pamphleter saith but from the very time that the Bill of Attainder was formed against him And 2ly had he made it his request to have some or any one of the English Bishops to assist him and advise with him in that last necessity It is most probable the Fears and Jelousies of the time considered that the sute had absolutely been rejected As for his taking him by the hand and leading him along with him to the Scaffold there wanted not very good reasons to induce him to it 1. To declare to all the world the reality and sincerity of their Reconciliaty the utter abolition of all former differences And 2ly That the Christianity and Piety of his last Deportment reported from the mouth of one who was known to be none of his greatest friends might find the greater credit amongst his Enemies I see my man of Law is a sorry Advocate though he may be good for Chamber-Councel for never was good cause more betrayed nor ill worse managed Having thus done with the Pamphleter as to this particular I should proceed to my next and last Chapter but that I must needs meet with Doctor Bornard whom I left but now upon that promise Not thinking he had Edified sufficiently by the general Doctrine of the Certificate without a particular application he makes a use of Admonition and Reproof to the Observator and fearing that might not be enough to confound the man for it appeareth not that â—e aimed at his Conversion he must needs have a fling at him in his Sermon preached at the Lord Primates Funeral in which he had some words to this or the like effect as I am credibly informed viz. There is one thing which I cannot forbear and am wished by others also to it and that is to vindicate him from the unjust aâ—persions of a late Observator as though he had advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death and afforded some distinction between his peâ—sonal and politique Conscience A matter altogether false as the Lord Primate himself had declared in his life time adding that there was something in the Presses to justifie him against that presumptuous Observator This is the substance of the charge in the delivery whereof I think the Preacher might have made a better Panegyrick had he been quite silent and not awakened those inquiries which are so little advantagious to the memory of that learned Prelate Howsoever if his zeal had not eaten up his understanding he should have gone upon good grounds and not have charged that on the Observator which he finds not in him Where finds he in the Observator that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death Nowhere I dare be bold to say it and if hâ— can find no body else upon whom to Father it the Calumny if such it were must rest at his own dores as the Broacher of it The Observator only saith that he was one of those four Bishops sent to the King by the Parliament to inform his Conscience and bring him to yeeld unto the Bill That the Primate had couceived a displeasure against him for abrogating of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. and that the Kings conscience was not like to be well informed when men so interessed were designed unto the managing and preparing of it All this might be and yet for all this it might not be that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill So that in brief the Preacher first raised this Calmny against the Primate and then Calumniates the Observator to make it good audacter calumniare necesse est ut aliquid haereat charge but the Observator home the presumptuous Observator so the Preacher called him and that will be sufficient proof to make good the Calumny Lesse reason is there in the next the second part of the charge though none in this there being no such thing in the Observator as the distinction between the Kings personal and politique Conscience The Preacher must look for that elsewhere if he mean to find it The Presumptuous Obsertator was not so presumptuous as to write things which till that time he never heard of and possibly had never heard of them at all if as well he as others had not been awakened by the Preacher to a further search And now upon a further search I can tell the Preacher where he may easily satisfie himself if his stomack serve him Let him but rake a Walk in the second part of Dodonas Grove he shall find it there And if not satisfied with that I shall direct him to some persons of worth and honour from whom he may inform himself more fully in all particulars But as it had been better for him had he not startled this inquiry in a publique audience for which he could not find just grounds in the Observations so I conceive that he will do that reverend person and himself some right if he suffer it to die with the party most concerned in it without reviving it again by his double diligence Non amo â—inium diligeâ—tes is a good old Rule but causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit is a great deal better CHAP. IX The Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Bristol absolved from treason by our Author Of the papers found sticking in Feltons Hat and that they prove not that the late Remonstrance of the House of Commons was