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
brought him back to Westminster there to abide such fortune whether good or ill as that conjunction of ill Planets which seemed destructive to so many should portend to him No sooner was he come but he was advertised that his retreat into the Country was taken by most men for a flight from England and wagers offered to be laid that he should be seen no more while the Parliament lasted The better to cry down this clamour and satisfie all such as conceived so of him He went the next morning in his Gown and Tippet into Westminster Hall shewing himself with no lesse confidence than courage to the eyes of many who would have been much better pleased with his Room than his Company To the Bishop of Lincoln then released from imprisonment he gave no attendance at all in his private lodging or elsewhere till meeting him one day in Jerusalem Chamber where the Prebends were then met together he gave him in as few words as might be the common civility of a complement for his return unto the College The Doctor knew that Mr. Bagshaw and Mr. Prynne had been in private with the Bishop some two days before and he knew too much of that Prelate â—nd his exasperations either to look for aavour from him or rely upon him Summoned to attend before the Committee for the Courts of Justice about the beginning of December on the complaint of Mr. Prynne who had joyned him in a Petition with the Lord Arch-Bishop as the chief Agents and contrivers of all his sufferings he appeared accordingly In what a sorry plight he was or rather how far from being in any such sorry plight how little dijectednesse there appeared in his Spirits with what vivacity of countenance and with what readiness of speech he behaved himself in the several times of his attendance not only Mr. Prynne himself but several Members of that Committee who are still alive are best able to testifie The sequel of the whole was this that though he made his first appearance with all those disadvantages of prejudice and prepossession which commonly obstruct the way to an equal hearing yet got he so much ground of them by his own modest confidence on the one side and want of fit roofs on the other that in the end he was dismissed not only with cheerfull countenance from them all but with expressions also of esteem and favour from divers of them And whereas it was ordered and resolved upon the Question on Tuesday April 20. 1641. That the Sentences against Mr. Prynne in the Star-chamber were illegal and without just ground that he should be released of his imprisâ—nment and fine that reparation should be made him by all those Lords of his Majesties Council whose names were to the warrant for his Commitment It was ordered at the same time that the charge against the Doctor should be transmitted to the Committee for Religion to be considered of with such other charges and complaints as were come against him So Mr. Prynne relates the businesse in the story of his own proceedings Page 142 and 143. After which time the Doctor never heard more of this businesse nor of any other which did or might create any trouble to him from the Houses of Parliament or any of the committees or members of it It hapened in the mean season that the Doctor preaching in the Abby-Church at Westminster on the next Sunday after his first appearance before that Committee was interrupted in his Sermon after a very unusual manner by the Bishop of Lincoln knocking with his Staff upon the Pulpit and saying aloud No more of that point no more of that point with which Alarm the Doctor was so little disturbed that without any haesitance in speech or change of countenance He addressed himself unto his auditors telling them that he had not much to come of the present point but being that he was commanded not to presse it further he would proceed unto the next which he did accordingly No sooner was he brought back to his Stall but the Bishop calling one Doctor Wilson another of the Prebendaries to bear witness of that which passed between them required the Doctor to deliver a Copy of the Sermon by him preached to which the Doctor chearfully yeelded and presently gave his Lordship the whole book of Sermons which he had then with him a thing in which it was much feared by some of his friends that he had been suddenly surprised and giâ—en thereby a great and notable advantage to a dangerous enemy But the Doctor knew well enough on what grounds he went expecting without any trouble the successe of that daies adventure The same day as they came from the evening Service the Bishop sent one of his Gentlemen to desire the Sub-Dean Doctor Wilson and Doctor Heylyn to come to his lodging to which it was answered openly and in a full Cloyster by Doctor Heylyn that he would not go that he would meet his Lordship in either of the Houses of Parliament or any of the Courts in Westminster-Hall or the publique Chapter-House of the Church and would there answer any thing he could charge him with but that he would never shuffle up the business in the Bishops lodging or take a private satisfaction for a publick Baffle Scarce had he put off his Church-vestments when his most honoured friends the Lord Bishop of Peterborough and Sir Robert Filmer who had heard all that passed before came to spend an hour with him and not long after comes the Subdean from the Bishop of Lincoln with the Book of Sermons assuring him that the Bishop meant him nothing but well that he had read none of the Sermons but that which had been preached that morning that he professed himself much beholding to him for committing into his hands so great a trust and finally that since the Doctor would not come to receive the Book he had sent it to him To which the Dr. made reply that the Book was taken from him in the sight of hundreds and that he would not otherwise receive it than either in the same place or a place more publick that therefore he should carry back the Book to him that sent it to the end that he might read over all the rest of the Sermons and pick out of them what he could to the Doctors disadvantage that as he did not court his favours or expect any thing from him so neither did he fear his frown or any further mischief which he could do to him equall to what he had done already And finally that he was more ashamed of the poorness of this prostitution than at the insolencies of the morning which being the best answer that the Sub-dean could at that time obtain from him He threw the Book into the Room and so went his way The cariage of this business on the Drs. part was variously censured the next day as men stood affected Laudatnr ab his culpatur ab illis some thinking
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
know first that the committing of the Great Seal to Sir Thomas Coventry is placed by the Continuator of Stowes Chronicle after the 25. of September which makes it very near October if it were not in it Secondly it is affirmed by those who have cause to know it that the Seal was committed to that Gent. precisely on the first or second Sunday of October neither sooner nor later And Thirdly I am very certain that whensoeuer it was given to Sir Thomas Coventry it was taken from the Bishop of Lincoln but a day or two before the newes of taking it from the one and giving it to the other being brought to Oxford in the same Letters But then admitting fourthly that the Bishop parted with the Seal in August yet what makes this to our Authors justification makes it not to his further condemnation rather Who placeth it after Candlemas and makes it one of those things in which the King thought fit to prepare himself the Coronation being ended for the following Parliament Never had writer such ill luck or so little modesty such ill luck in calling after any thing which comes in his way but finding nothing that will keep him up from sinking in his own mistakes so little modesty in yeelding to no evidence which is brought against him our Author being like the bold Wrastler I have somewhere read of who though he had many fals and was often foiled would still perswade the company that he had the better But yet he makes us some amends in the next that followes Confessing that he was mistaken in making Dr. Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells when he officiated at the Coronation But then withall he slights the error calling it scornfully Grande nefas an horrid crime no doubt Ibid. Not noted by the Observator as a crime or a horrid crime but as an error or mistake in his Temporalities concerning which he saith and will be bold to say it in the end of his Preface that no one thing or action is so mislaid as to superannuate and not many to vary from the very day of their prime existence Not from the very day of their prime existence that were brave indeed but braver if it were good in the course of the History Some variations from the very day of their prime existence being seen already We have here a super-semi-annuating a fine word of our Authors new fashion in making Doctor Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells seven moneths at least before his time a superannuating in the great rout given to Tilly by the King of Sweden placed by our Author in the year 1630. whereas that battle was not fought till the year next following a super-triennuating in placing the Synod of Dort before the convocation of Ireland held in the year 1615. that Synod not being holden untill three years after and if I do not finde a super-supe-annuating that is to say a lapse of six years either in the Pamphlet or the History I am content our Author shall enjoy the honour of a publick triumph he must take greater pains then this to relieve his Preface from the purgatory of the Observator of which he telleth us Fol. 9. or otherwise it is like to lie there till the next general Gaol-delivery by a Bull from Rome Now for the superannuating in the businesse of the Councel of Dort a subterannuating call'd in the true sense of the thing our Author hath very much to say though little to the purpose in his own defence for he resolves to act the Wrastler above mentioned and will not yeeld himself foyled fall he never so often And first he flyeth as formerly to his private intentions telling us that he intended his not superannuating of such things and actions as have reference to the sixteen years of King Charles whereof he treateth in that History not of such things as antecedently occurred and were taken in by the By Fol. 8. And this is like an help at Maw kept in his hands to turn the fortune of the game when it seemeth most desperate But besides this subtersuge of his private intentions he not only telleth us that in things taken in by the By he never will nor did ever mean to warrant the truth to every particular year but that this errour being extravagant and out of the bounds of his principal Narrative may come within the confidence of his not superannuating A rule and resolution no lesse saving then the truths he writes and such as ill-becomes the mouth of a good Historian who if he please to walk abroad into forein Countreys or look back into former times must have as great care in the circumstances of time and place his Temporability and localities in our Authors language as in relating the â—ansitions and affairs at home though these hâ—s principal concernment But lest this should not serve the turn he hath a trick to make all sure above all dispute which is by fathering this mistake on the Committee for Religion whose report he there did or at least intended he will be sure that his intentions shall not fail him to compleat But dares he stand to this darâ—s he stand to any thing no we finde the contrary For though he telleth us that the Observator would be wondrous blank at his Ridiculus mus and after such a ranting triumph if the error should be found to be none of his but the infallible Committees yet in the end it will appear that it was infallibly his own himself confessing that thinking fit to contract the Report of that Committee to a narrow scantling not minding the words so he secured the substance he failed in the transcript of his copy which did erroneously he grants present the Articles sent to Dort before those of Ireland which makes it on the whole matter the greater wonder that the man having made this ingenuous accompt as himself entituleth it should reckon as a defence of his not superannuating in this particular which is indâ—â—d a plain confession of the Fact a taking to himself or his own copy of the Report the mistake committed and clearing of the Committee for Religion upon which he had laid it Or granting that the copy was not of his own transcribing but the copy rather of some others the broken fragments and loose notes of that Report wherewith some mercenary pen-man had abuâ—ed his credulity yet how can this be justified before that Committee that such a bold affront should be offered to their infallibility by laying this mistake on them or that Gent. Mr. Pym should be conjured from the Royal Sepulchres like Samuel by the Witch of Eâ—dor to bear witness to it But our Author will not leave it so The Observator must be charged for fetching a running leap to pag. 96. rather then not finde another mistake sor so I think he meaneth in the History which is now before us I thought the Observator had in this deserved a more fair acknowledgement in laying
and brought so much trouble and encumbrance on the English Clergy as gave them neither list nor leisure to answer all impertinent scribbles which by the liberty of that time and the audaciousnesse thereby prompted unto severall men did break out upon them Securi de salute de gloria certemus as you know who said Men have small edge to fight for honour and undertake unprofitable and fruitlesse quarrels when unsecure of life and safety and all things else which are most near and dear unto them But secondly taking it for granted that some men were at leisure to attend those services how may we be assured that there was any thing in the book which was worth the answering or that any credit could be gotten from the work or Author For it is possible enough that every man might not have such opinion of you as you say the Observator had who did therefore if you judge aright of his intentions professe an high esteem of your parts and person only to make the world believe that you were worthy the overcoming And if they did not think so of you they had all the reason in the world to decline a combate ubi vincere inglorium esset atteri sordidum in which to overcome or to be conquered is like inglorious But whatsoever opinion the Observator had of you you have not the like opinion of his Alter idem the Doctor in Cosmography as you please to taunt him whom you accuse for forging and falsifying a Record so boldly the modest Gent. will not say so impudently and that too not in an idle circumstance but in the grand concernment of a controversie with spight and calumny enough And why all this Marry say you in the second book and 6. Chapter of his History of the Sabbath published in the year 1636. he hath misreported the words of Pareus in putting down quomodo for quando adding withall in vindication whereof he never attempted any thing as yet Fol. 24. This I confesse is grave crimen ante hoc tempus inaudiâ—um a grievous câ—ime the like to which was never charged upon him by his greatest enemies In answer whereunto I must tell you for him that being plundred of his Books and keeping no remembrances and collections of his Studies by him he cannot readily resolve what Edition he followed in his consulting with that Author He alwaies thought that Tenure in capite was a nobler and more honourable tenure then to hold by Copy and therefore carelesly neglected to commit any part of his readings unto notes and papers of which he never found such want as in this particular which you so boldly charge upon him Or were it so as you inform us both he and I have cause to wonder why our learned Author did not rather choose to confute that whole History of the Sabbath then spend his time in hammering some petit Tractate of which the world hath took no notice that being a work which might have rendred him considerable and made more noise then all the Geese in the Capitol to the awakening of the dull Doctor and the drowsie Clergie or if he thought this task too great and the burden too heavie for his shoulders why did he let these falsifyings and forgings slâ—p 20 years together and never call to an accompt for it till this present time when it may justly be supposed that not your zeal unto the truth but secret malice to his person did exâ—ort it from you Thirdly I am required to tell you that if there be such a mistake in the citation which he more then doubts it was not willingly and wilfully committed by him and therefore not within the compasse of those forgings and falsifyings which you tax him with For he would fain know cui bono or cui malo rather to what end whether good or bad he should use those forgings or falsifyings in that Author when he was compassed about with a cloud of witnesses attesting positively and plainly to the point in hand or what need there should be of practising on Pareus to appear fair for him when more then a whole Jury of learned and Religious men as learned and as good as he had given up their verdict in the case Now that this may appear to be so indeed and that withall the Reâ—der may understand the true state of the Question I will lay down that Section which the Pamphleter doth refer us to together with the next before it and the next that followes and so submit the whole controverâ—ie to his better judgement This only is to be premised that the 5. section shews that the Reformators found great fault both with the new Doctrine of the Papist about the natural and inherent holinesse which they ascribe to some daies above the rest and the restraints from Labour on the Lords day and the other holy daies upon which it followeth in these words viz. 6 Indeed it is not to be thought that they could otherwise resolve and determine of it considering what their Doctrine is of the day it self how different they make it from a Sabbath day which doctrine that we may perceive with the greater ease we will consider it in three propositions in which most agree 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven is not the Moral part of the fourth Commandement or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature 2. That the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement but only on the authority of the Church And 3. That the Church â—ath still Authority to change the day and to transfer it to some other First for the first it seems that some of Rome considering the restraints before remembred and the new Doctrine thence arising about the natural and inherent holinesse which one day had above another had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen and made the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandement This Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 8. 11. 34. chargeth them withall that they had taught the people in the former times that whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandement which was the keeping of the Jewes seventh day had been long since abrogated Remanere vero quod morale est nempe unius diei observationem in hebdomade but that the moral part thereof which was the keeping of one day in seven did continue still Which what else is it as before was said then in dishonour of the Jewes to change the day and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto as the Jewes ever did As for his own part he proâ—esseth that howsoever he approved of the Lords day meetings Non tamen numerum septenarium ita se morari ut ejus servituti ecclesias astringeret yet stood not he so much for the number of seven as to confine the Church unto it If Calvin elsewhere be of another minde and speak of keeping holy one day in seven as a matter
certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ and if designed only then not enjoyned by the Apostles Yea Beza though herein he differ from his Master Calvin and makes the Lords day meetings Apostolicae verae divinae traditionis Apoc. 1. 10. to be indeed of Apostolical and divine tradition yet being a tradition only although Apostolical it is no commandement And more then that he tels us in another place in Act 20. that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas and from the Text 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi it may be gathered not unfitly that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath beginning by degrees to vanish But sure the custome of the people makes no divine traditions and such conclusions as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text are not Text it self Others there be who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles not to their precept but their practise So Mercer in Gen. Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt the Apostles changed the Sabbath to the Lords day Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae unto the Apostolical Church or Church in the Apostles times Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in Sacris literis expressum non habemus but how by what authority such a change was made is not delivered as he confesseth in the Scripture And John Cuchlinus in Thesib pag. 733. though he call it consuetudinem Apostolicam an Apostolical custome yet he is peremptory that the Apostles gave no such commandment Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse constanter negamus S. Simler de Festis Chr. p. 24 cals it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum recâ—ptam a custome taken up in the Apostles time And so Hospinian Although saith he it be apparent that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath even in the times of the Apostles Non invenitur tamen vel Apostolos vel alios Lege aliqua Praecepto observationem ejus instituisse yet finde we not that either they or any other did institute the keeping of the same by any Law or Precept but left it free Thus Zanchius in 4. praecept Nullibi legimus Apostolos c. We do not read saith he that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day we only read what they and others did upon it Liberum ergo reliquerunt which is an argument that they left it to the Churches power To those adde Vrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Commandment in Catech. Palat. Liberum Ecclesiae reliquit alios dies eligere that it is left unto the Church to make choice of any day and that the Church made choice of this in honour of our Saviours Resurrection and so Aretius in his common places Christiani in Dominicum transtulerunt that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day Gomarus and Ryvet in the Tracts before remembred have determined further viz. That in the choosing of this day the Church did exercise as well her wisdome as her freedome her freedome being not obligâ—d to any day by the Law of God her wisdome Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet that by so small an alteration she might the lesse offend the Jewes who were then considerable As for the Lutheran Divines it is affirmed by Dr. Bound That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church in appointing daies for the assembly of the people which is plain confession But for particulars Brentius as Dr. Prideaux tels us cals it Civilem institutionem a civil institutionem and no Commandement of the Gospel which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin when he accounts no otherwise thereof then ut remedium retinendo ordini necessarium as a fit way to retain order in the Church And sure I am Chemnitius tels us that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people by any Law or Precept whatsoever sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia but that for orders sake it had been voluntarily used amongst them of their own accord 8 Thus have we proved by the Doctrine of the Protestants of what side soeever and those of greatest credit in their several Churches eighteen by name and all the Lutherans in general of the same opinion That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church which proved the last of the three Theses That still the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other will follow of it self on the former grounds the Protestant Doctors before remembred in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day as we see they do confessing tacitely that still the Church hath power to change it Nor do they tacitely confesse it as if they were affraid to speak it out but some of them in plain terms affirm it as a certain truth Zuinglius the first reformer of the Switzers hath resolved it so in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis a new Arrian Heretick Tom. 1. p. 254. a. Audi mi Valentine quibus modis rationibus Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur Hearken now Valentine by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did or think the Lords day so affixed to any time ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre that we conceive it an impiety it should be changed unto another on which as well as upon that we may not rest from labour and hearken to the word of God if perhaps such necessity should be this would indeed make it become a Ceremony Nothing can be more plain then this yet Calvin is as plain when he professeth That he regarded not so much the number of seven ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret as to enthral the Church unto it Sure I am Doctor Prideaux in Orat. de Sab. reckoneth him as one of them who teach us that the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other And that John Barclaie makes report how once he had a consultation de transferenda Dominica in Feriam quintam of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday Bucer affirmes as much as touching the Authority And so doth Bullinger and Brentius Vrsine and Chemnitius as Doctor Prideaux hath observed Of Bullinger Bucer Brentius I have nought to say because the places are not cited but take it as I think I may upon his credit But for Chemnitius he saith often that it is libera observatio a voluntary observation that it is an especial part of our Christian liberty not to be tyed to daies and times in matters which concern Gods service and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example Singulis diebus vel quocunque die That every day or any day may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises And
as for Vrsine he makes this difference between the Lords day and the Sabbath Catech qu. 103. 2. That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes either to neglect or change the Sabbath without expresse commandment from God himself as being a ceremonial part of divine worship but for the Christian Church that may design the first or second or any other day to Gods publick service so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed or any opinion of necessity or holinesse affixt unto them Ecolesia vero Christiana primum vel alium diem tribuit Ministerio salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis as his words there are To these adde Dietericus a Lutheran Divine who though he makes the keeping of one day in seven to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment yet for that day it may be Dies Sabbati or Dies Solis or Quicunque alius Sunday or Saturday or any other be it one in seven Som. 17. post Trinit And so Hospinian is perswaded Dominicum diem mutare in alium transferre licet c. That if the occasions of the Church do so require the Lords day may be changed unto any other provided it be one of seven and that the change be so transacted that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God Nay by the Doctrine of the Helvetian Churches every particular Church may destinate what day they please to Religious Meetings to publick prayers Preaching the Word and Ministring the Sacraments For so they gave it up in their confession cap. 2. Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad preces publicas Evangelii praedicationem nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem And howsoever for their own parts they kept that day which had been set apart for those holy uses even from the time of the Apostles yet that they conceived it free to keep the Lords day or the Sabbath Sed Dominicum non Sabbatum libera observatione celebramus Some Sectaries since the Reformation have gone further yet and would have had all daies alike as unto their use all equally to be regarded And reckoned that the Lords day as the Church continued it was a Jewish Ordinance thwarting the Doctrine of S. Paul who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies which the Church retained This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Anabaptist taking the hint perhaps from something which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men and after them of the Swinckfieldian and the Familist as in the times before of the Petro-Brusians and if Waldensis wrong him not of Wicklef also By this it will appear that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pareus as the Pamphleter saith he did when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear and sooner had this vindication been made if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears The Pamphleter findes fault with the Observator in that he did not viva voâ—e by conference or by letters hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History as fit considerations for a second impression Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian yea moral principles to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake if it prove such upon the search of all Editions then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversie By this it also will appear 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the 4. Commandement 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand then the Authority of the Church And 3. That the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other Crack me these nuts my most learned sir and when you have broke your teeth about them as I doubt you will throw me your never-yet-answered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it 't is ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer CHAP. V. Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy and his intention doubted in it Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively drawn 1. From the word there used in the singular number 2. From his fitness for Government 3. From the Hospitality required in him And 4. From his being no Novice but of longer standing in the Church Presbyters there included under the name Diaconi more properly in that place to be rendred Ministers The like acceptions of the word in other places Proofs that the Author speakes his own opinion under that of others 1. From the word Asserted which is here explained 2. From some passages in the published and unpublished sheets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not rendred Senior as the Pamphleter would fain have it in all learned Authors The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops and the reason why The reason why King Charles his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator The Pamphleters rage for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency That so he must be understood proved from the History it self and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary An Answer to those Arguments HAving thus vindicated the Declarations of the two Kings about lawfull Sports satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings so maliciously imputed to him and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controversie touching the Lords day out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows and free the Bishops and their Actions from those odious Calumnies which are charged upon them Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy ascribing a Divine Right to it and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scriptures as any thing whatsoever not fundamentall That there was a Prelacy or Superiority of some one over other Presbyters within some certain Walks and Precincts that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apostles to be exemplary and to give law to succeeding times Concerning which and many other good expressions which follow after I may justly say as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case viz. Vtinam sic semper errasset would he had never erred otherwise then he doth in this Only I could have wished that for the better clearing of
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
Next that the word Presbyter is used sometimes in the same strict and limited sense as it denotes a person inferiour to the Bishop and subject unto his authority aud jurisdiction appeareth plainly by that Text in the first of Timothy c. 5. v. 19 20. where it is said Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli recipere c. Against a Presbyter and Elder as our English reads it receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses But if they be convicted them that sin rebuke before all that others also may fear In the declaring of which power I take for granted that the Apostle here by Elder doth mean a Presbyter according to the Ecclesiastical notion of that word though I know that Chrysostom and aâ—ter him Theopbylact and Oecumenius do take it only â—or a man well grown in years And then the meaning of St. Paul will be briefly this that partly in regard of the Devils malice apt to calumniate men of that holy â—unction and partly to avoid the scandal which may thence arise Timothy and in him all other Bishops should be very cautious in their proceedings against men of that Profession But if they finde them guilty on examination then not to smother or conceal the matter but censure and rebuke them openly that others may take heed of the like offences The Commentaries under the name of Ambrose do expound it so Quoniam non facile credi debet Presbytero crimen c. because a crime or accusation is not to be credited against a Presbyter yet if the same prove manifest and undeniable St. Paul commandeth that in regard of his irregular conversation he be rebuked and censured publiquely that others may be thereby terrified And saith he non solum ordinatis sed plebi proficit will not be only profitable unto men in Orders but to Lay people alâ—o Herewith agreeth as to the making of these Elders to be men in Orders the Comment upon that Epistle aâ—cribed to Jerome Presbyters then are subject unto censure but to whose censure are they subject not unto one another surely that would breed conâ—usion but to the censure of their Bishop See to the same purpose also Epiphanius adversus Haeres 75. n. 5. and Theophylact upon the place not to say any thing of Lyra and some others of a later standing And in this limited sense I understand those Presbyters ordained by St. Paul in many of the Churches of his Plantations whom we finde mentioned in the Acts some of which he afterwards made Bishops and over other placed such Bishops as he thought most fit Thus having satisfied our Author in telling him where Presbyters import not Bishops and Bishops Presbyters we next proceed to answer those objections which are made against the Observator And first it is objected that our Author doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this particular but what many did then assert fol. 35. To which I answer First that our Author puts the opinion down so savourly and with such advantages as any man would easily take it for his own or at the least that he himself was also of the same opinion This not improbably to be gathered from the word assered which plainly intimates that those many whom he speaks of did not only affirm or say that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import c. but had proved it too For thus be understands the word in another place where speaking of the Bishop of Lincolne he telleth us that he published a Book asserting positively that the holy Table was to stand in Gremio or Nave of the Quire fol. 137. By which if he means only a bare affirming of the thing it then signifies nothing and concludes as little to his purpose For the word Assero if he be critick enough to understand the true meaning of it not only signifieth simply to affirm or say but to confirm that affirmation and make good that saying Once for all take this out of Ovid in his Metamor lib. 1. At tu si modo sum coelesti stirpe creatus Ede notam tanti generis meque assere Coele That is to say But if I be descended from above By some known signe make good my birth from Jove 2. Though he tells us that if the Observator had not been an ill looking fellow he might with half an eye have discerned that he doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this particular But I have a bird in a corner which singeth the contrary For fol. 137. of the printed but unpublished papers it is said expresly that the truth contended for touching the right on which the Hierarchy was founded was as his late Majesty hath no man better sufficiently demonstrated to be awarded to the Prelates which speaks more plainly for Episcopacy then the reservedness of your last expressions which in your Pamphlet you have given us for your full sense in this Controversie enough you say to satisfie Spirits of the most modest and sober temper Fol. 37. But in the Book as it comes published to our hands these words are totally left out which shews as plainly that you have either altered your opinion if you ever were of that opinion or else for fear of offending the weak Brethren dare not own it now What meaneth else this bleating of the Sheep in mine ears and the lowing of the Oxe which I hear as you know who said that is to say your placing Episcopacy amongst those things of indifferency for the establishing whereof to exact an Oath was as you say Hist fol. 185. an affâ—ont to the very fundamentals of Government your positive declration that the truth contended for between the Bishops and those of the Puritans party lay then so deep as few had perspicacity enough to discern ti f. 185. adding in your unpublished sheets that in the generality of votes the Bishops were much worsted in that Contest which layes a greater prejudice upon them then you found them in your quarrels with the Observator for disproving the Identity or sameness of Name of Ordination of Office c. which is affirmed to be in Presbyters and Bishops without any distinction telling him that his Arguments are nothing ad rem and clear besides the cushion fol. 36. which layed together make up a clearer and fuller evidence that you are but half Episcopall and the worst half too then all the fine flourishes you have given us in the present Pamphlet can perswade to the contrary Your next quarrel with the Observator is a meer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strife and quarrell about words because forsooth he doth not like that the word Presbyter when it signifieth one in Holy Orders should be rendred Elder To which the Pamphleter objects that all Latine Expositors and Greek Lexicons translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Senior fol. 25. What all Expositors all without exception so I hear you say and so you must be thought to mean too
point of Episcopacy is that he makes our Author take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency and thereupon was much agrieved that the Clergy should binde themselves by Oath not to consent to any alteration of it On this occasion the Pamphleter flies out against them with no less violence and fury then Tully against Cataline in the open Senate crying in these great words Quousque abuteris patientia nostra how doth this Observator provoke us Assuredly the Gentleman is extreamly moved his patience much off the hinges Patientia laesa fit furor as the saying is One cannot tell what hurt or mischief he may do us now he is in this rage and fury and therefore Peace for the Lords sake Harry lest he take us And drag us back as Hercules did Cacus T is best to slip a side a while and say nothing till his heat be over and the man in some temper to be dealt with and then we will not fear to tell him that his own words shall be the only evidence we will use against him The introduction which he makes to his discourse against the Oath required by the new Canons instruct us That many asserted in good earnest that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import and denoted the self same persons without the least distinction c. That thereupon the Prelates seeing their deer Palladium so deeply concerned and heaved at did first cause the Press to swarm with Books setting forth the right upon which Episcopacy was founded and finding how little this advantaged them they took measure from their professed Adversaries the Generall Assembly of Scotland and by their example framed the Oath as an Anti-Covenant This is the substance of the Preamble to those objections but that I would not stir the mans patience too much I had called them Cavils which our Author makes against that Oath that some things were expresly to be sworn to which were never thought to have any shew or colour of sacred right but were conceived Arbitrary and at the disposition of the State and to exact an Oath of dissent from Civill establishments in such things of indifferency was an affront to the very fundamentals of Government Now the Oath being made for maintenance of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England the Doctrine being confessed on all sides to be signanter and expresly pointed at and the discourse driving at the Government of the Church by Bishops who can conceive but that his Argument or Objection must tend that way also and that Episcopacy must be reckoned in the number of those things of indifferency for which there was no reason to require the Oath And though the Pamphleter would fain have it that Episcopacy is not in those things of indifferency but excluded rather yet this will do him as small service as the Press when it was said to have swarmed with Books had done the Bishops For first he doth not say that Episcopacy was not pointed at at all in those things of indifferency but not signanter and expresly our Author keeping a reserve or secret intention to himself upon al occasions Nor doth it help him secondly to say that the things there spoken of are such as never had any shew or colour of sacred right whereas Episcopacy in the very account of its adversaries hath some colour and shew of it fol. 39. Where first he pleadeth but very coldly for Episcopacy in giving it only some shew and colour which all Heresies Enthusiasticks and Fanaticall fancies all that have set up any other Government Papall Anarchicall Presbyterian do pretend unto And secondly it is not true hath any such colour or shew in the account of its adversaries Episcopacy as it stood in the Primitive times being by Beza called Humanus and Diabolicus as it stood in these latter ages An Humane invention in the first a Diabolicall institution in the last times of the Church and therefore questionless without any shew or colour of sacred right Nor doth he help himself much by the little Army raised out of the Northampton and Kentish forces under the command of the Lord Digby which is so far from putting the matter out of all dispute in the sense he meaneth that it rather doth conclude against him For if the Northampton-shire and Kent Exceptions limit themselves to Arch-bishops Arch-deacons c. our Author certainly is to blame in these two respects First that he did not limit his things of indifferency as they did before him And secondly that speakin such generall termes as he should think to help himself in the Postfact by their limitations T is true the History rendreth the Lord Digby as friend to Episcopacy when the London Petition came to be considered of in the House of Commons before which time he had begun to look toward the Court but telleth us not that he was so in the very first openings of the Parliament when the Oath required in the Canon was in most agitation And this I hope is fair for a Senior Sophister as you please to call the Obfervator who could have pressed these answers further but that the Gentlemans patience must not be abused nor himself provoked We must take care of that though of nothing else And so much for ouâ— Authors flutterings in the point of Episcopacy we will next see whether the persons be as pretious with him as the calling is CHAP. VI. The light excuse made by the Pamphleter for our Author in pretermitting Bishop Bancroft not bettered much in shewing the differences between the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvin Our Authors learned ignorance in the word Quorum The Observator cleared from foisting any thing into the Text of the History with our Authors blunderings in that point The disagreement between the Comment and the Text in the unfortunate accident of Archbishop Abbot Foisting returned upon the Author no injury done to Bishop Andrewes by the Observator Of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon and whether the Archbishop were sequestred from his Jurisdiction for refusing to license it The Pamphleters nice distinction between most and many in the repairing of St. Pauls and that these many did keep off in reference to the work it self The war against the Scots not to be called the Bishops war not undertaken by the King in defence of their Hierarchy nor occasioned by Archbishop Laud. The Scots Rebellion grounded upon some words of the King touching Abby-Lands in the beginning of his reign hammered and formed and almost ready to break out before the Liturgy was sent to them The Archbishop neither the principal nor sole Agent in revising that Liturgie Good counsels not to be measured by successe On what grounds the Liturgie was first designed to be sent to the Scots Disusing implies not an abrogation Abeiance what it is in the common Law The Communicants by what authority required to come unto the
Rayâ—e to receive the Sacrament The 82. Canon explained and regulated by the Kings Declaration anno 1633. The Pamphleters Ipse dixit no sufficient ground for his London measure Our Author satisfied in placing the Communion Table Altar-wise and adoration toward the East the liberty granted by the Church in the last particular The Bishops charged with the undiscreet practise of some private persons The Gloria patri an Epitome of the Apostles Creed Why kneeling is required at the saying of Gloria in excelsis The Pamphleters c. Our Author miserably out in the meaning of the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 2. That Statute opened and expounded in the case alledged The Pamphleter in danger of the Statute by out-running Authority His excellent proof that standing at the Gloria patri had been obtruded by the Bishops anno 1628. because inquired into in Bishop Wrens visitation anno 1636. The Pamphleter confuted by our Author and our Authors Panegyrick by himself The Clergie freed from Doctrinal Popery by our Author himself The scandal since given unto the Church by Bishop Goodman FRom Episcopacy passe we to the Bishops where the first thing we meet with is the rectifying of a mistake about Archbishop Whitgift whom our Author had made the predecessor penultime or next predecessor but one to Archbishop Laud. This he confesseth for an error but puts it off not as a want of diligence he will by no means yeeld to that but a lapse of memory Fol. 35. A priviledge which if all other writers of History should pretend unto as frequently as our Author doth we should finde little truth among them and not much assurance of any thing upon which to rest This not being the first time in which our Author hath been forced to use this remedy as in these words as is beforesaid is here acknowledged We had the same excuse before in the mistake about Marriage of the one King and Funeral of the other as also in that Hysteron proteron in placing the Synod of Dort before that of Ireland so that by this time this defence must needs be worn as threed bare as the Observators coat Fol. 37. Of Dr. Abbot the immediate predecessor to Archbishop Laud the Historian telleth us that he was stifly disciplined in the Doctrine of St Augustine which they who understand it not call Calvinism Charged for this by the Observator and some points produced in which Calvinism and the Doctrine of St. Augustine do extremely differ he answereth that he makes them not to be all one in all concernments but only in opposition to the Massilian and Arminian Tenets Fol. 23. And this I look on as another of our Authors priviledges who when he hath given us any things in general termes thinks all is well if he can make it hold good in a few particulars Whereas if he had limited his proposition to those points alone and told us that he was stifly principled in that part of St. Augustines Doctrine which was in opposition to the tenets before remembred there had been no occasion given to the Observator to except against him But the best is that seeming to make a question of that which is out of Question viz. Whether St. Augustine and Calvin differ in the point of Episcopacy he telleth us that they differ in the point of the Sabbath or Lords day which is more then the Observator had observed and for which we thank him In the story of the Sequestration of Archbishop Abbot there are four mistakes noted by the Observator 1. That in the Commission granted to the 5 Bishops Bishop Laud is said to be of the Quorum 2. That the declared impulsive cause of it was a supposed irregularity 3. That this supposed irregularity was incurred upon the casual killing of the keeper of his the Archbishops game And 4. That the irregularity is said to be but supposed only and no more then so To this the Pamphleter first answereth in his usual way that he should keep his own supposititioâ—s foistings at home and that by the same art of jugling his own words into the Text he that made them four might have made them four hundred Fol. 10. Why so because saith he I never said that Bishop Laud was of the Quorum more then any other but only that he was of the Quorum meaning thereby that he was one of the five Auditum admisse risum teneatis amici Can any man hear this fine stuffe and abstain from laughter Such a ridiculous piece of intelligent non-sense as might make Heraclitus grin and put Democritus into tears producing contrary operations on their several humours I thought before I read this passage our Gent. had been one of the right Worshipful of the Bench in comission for the Peace at least if not one of the Quorum but I see now that he is not so well skilled at it as a Justices Clerk Did the man ever hear of any Commission in which five or more persons were nominated of which one or two are named to be of the Quorum and by that word understand with such an abundant want of understanding that nothing more was meant in it but that the said one or two were to be of the number Confident I am and I think may confidently say it that we have not had such a learned piece of ignorance since Jack Maior of Brackley being by his place a Justice of the Peace and one of the Quorum by the publick charter of that Town threatned to binde a poor countrey fellow who had carried himself somewhat sawcily to him not only to the Peace but to the Quorum too Passe we on to the next that followes And there or no where we shall finde one of those many supposititious Foistings which are charged upon the Observator The Historian having said that the Archbishop was sequestred from his Function and a Commission granted by the King to five Bishops Bishop Laud being of the Quorum to execute Episcopal jurisdiction within his Province addes presently in the very next words that the declared impulsive to it was a supposed irregularity in him by reason of a Homicide committed by him per infortunium c. Can any intelligent Reader understand otherwise by these woâ—ds but that the impulsive to this Sequestâ—ation whatsoever it was was declared or supposed to be declared in that Commission For who but the King that granted the Commission should declare the impulsive causes to it or whâ—râ— else should they be declared but in that Commission Yes saith the Pamphleter the King granted the Commission and common Fame our Author or I know not who declared the Impulsives to it What pity 't is our Author had not served seven years to the Clerk of the Crown before he undertook the History of a King of England that so being better versed in all kinde of Commissions he might the better have avoided these ridiculous errors which he falleth into And yet this is the only thing