Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	day_n	sabbath_n	sanctify_v	3,539	5	10.6237	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86287	Extraneus vapulans: or The observator rescued from the violent but vaine assaults of Hamon L'Estrange, Esq. and the back-blows of Dr. Bernard, an Irish-deane. By a well willer to the author of the Observations on the history of the reign of King Charles.	Heylyn, Peter, 1600-1662.	1656 (1656)	Wing H1708; Thomason E1641_1; ESTC R202420	142,490	359

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 j●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 ann● 1536. in the same Kings reign who in his Answer to Sir Thoma● 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 o● 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 ●ollowed anno 1575. Nothing that doth so much as squint toward● 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

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 ●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 ●ynod of Do●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

the Infanta as it is high time to seek some means to divert the Treaty which I would have you finde out and I will make it good whatsoever it be but in all other things procure the satisfaction of the King of Great Britain who hath deserved very much and it shall content me so that it be not the match This is that letter in the Cabala to which the Author doth direct us and refer himself in which it is to be observed first that there is not one word in it touching the Palatinate that being a point which the Spaniards would not hear of in that long Treaty and without which the match was finally agreed on as was plainly shewn by the Observator which makes it evident how ill credit is to be given to our present Pamphleter citing this Letter for a proof that the restoring of the Palatinate was never sincerely intended by the Court of Spain This Letter rather seems to prove that the Spaniard would not stick at the Palatinate if he could come off handsomely from the Match it self The King commanding Olivarez in all other things to procure the satisfaction of the King of Great Britain and therefore why not amongst other things in the restitution of the Palatinate to the Prince Elector In the next place we are to know that this Letter was written before the Prince went into Spain where by the gallantry of his carriage and his prudent conduct of the businesse he not only overcame all those difficulties which had before been interposed but conquered the aversnesse of the Lady Infanta who became afterward extremely affectionate to him And for the Rupture which ensued it is most clear and evident that it proceeded from the English not from the fraudulency or delays of the Spanish Counsels After this followes the Negotiation of the Match with France communicated by King James as the Historian would inform us to his Houses of Parliament by whom it was entertained with unanimous consent The improbability of which is proved by the Observator by the aversnesse of that King from parting with such a speciall branch of his Royal Prerogative and the disdain with which he entertained the like proposition from them a few years before To this the Pampletter replieth That it was no more lessening of his Prerogative to communicate with them in the entrance into then in the breach of a treaty of that nature as he did in that of Spain which was the main businesse debated in the Parliament of the 21. of King James But Sir who told you that King James communicated with his Houses of parliament in the Breach with Spain I trow you finde not any such thing in the Journals of either of the Houses with which you seem at other times to be very conversant and doubtlesse would have vouched them now had he found this in them That King had no design or purpose of breaking off his correspondence with his Catholick Majesty and could not communicate those counsels with his Houses of Parliament which he never had In the course of that businesse he was meerly passive forcibly drawn to yeeld unto it at the last by the continual solicitation of the Prince and the Duke of Buckingham and an importunate Petition of the Lords and Commons presented by Dr. Abbot then Archbishop of Canterbury a principal Agent in promoting the intended Breach It followeth by our Authors Logick the King communicated not with his Parliament in the Breach with Spain Ergo which is in English therefore as we know who said he did not communicate with them neither in his Treaty with France Of the Observators not inveighing against King James we have spoke already and of King James his stickling against the Arminians so far forth as the Pamphleter leads me to it I shall speak hereafter The error about the day of that Kings interment and the new Kings marriage is confessed and mended by the Author but so that he would fain have the first error accompted but a st●p of his pen Fol. 6. and putteth on some reasons signifying nothing to conclude it for him And for the second error that about the marriage he confesseth that he was mistaken But saith withall he could insallibly demonstrate that it was designed upon the 8. concerning which I would first know whether this demonstration were à Priore or à Posteriore as the Logicians have distinguished or that it was not rather some such sorry Argument drawn from the common Topick of Heresy as he commonly builds on or possibly some fallacy put upon him a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter or some such like Elench But let it be the first for this once and then I shall next ask him why he communicated not the infallible demonstration to us which he saith he had since otherwise we are not bound to believe him in it he being no niggard of his story when there is lesse occasion for it then was given him now And we know the Rule in Logick to be very true viz. non existentium non apparentium eadem est ratio A Demonstration not produced is as good as none In their Majesties goings to Whitehall the Pamphleter still adheres to his first expression and seemeth displeased that the Observator should not have so much ordinary capacity as to discern the difference between the taking Coach to and for Whitehall Fol. 6. But Sir a good Historian amongst which number you would fain count your self for one must write both properly and plainly as before was said and not trouble and torment the Reader in drawing dun out of the mire in a piece of English And he that shall compare those words with the rest that follow will finde no reason to collect any thing out of them but that their Majesties went all the way by Coach till they came to London He that shall say that any Gent. of Grays-Inne takes Coach for Westminster when he alighteth out of the Coach at the Temple-gate walketh on foot to the stairs from thence takes Boat to the Kings Bridge and so walketh on foot again till he come to the Hall must needs be thought to speak improperly at the least that I say not worse no man of ordinary capacity being able to understand him otherwise but that the Gent. went by Coach all the way to Westminster and not the least part of it only But our Author will not yeeld himself to be out in any thing whereof we have had many examples already and have more to come Of restraining the Kings power in Acts of State to the will of Parliaments and the wrong supposed to be done to Sir Robert Mansell with our Authors falsifying his own Text on those occasions we have spoke before The next thing which occurs de novo is the scorn put by our Author on the Coronation of Kings which he plainly cals a serious vanity affirming that they cannot be i●le to better purpose Reproved for this