English Protestant did so call it also Fol. 30. Some English Protestants I beleeve not so The English Protestants were otherwise perswaded of it though the Puritans were not and 't was the English Puritan not the English Protestant who joyned with the Covenanters in Scotland in the main design and gave it consequently the name of the Bishops War He asketh us secondly If it were not a war undertaken at first for defence of their Hierarchy Which question being equivalent to an affirmation doth amount to this that the war was first undertaken in the Bishops quarrel and in defence of their Order This is well said indeed if it were well proved but this the Pamphleter doth not prove I am sure he cannot the King who best knew the reasons of his taking Armes and published a large Declaration of the proceedings of the Scots imputes the causes of the war to their continuing the Assembly at Glascow when by him dissolved ejecting such of the Clergy as had refused to subscribe to the Acts thereof then commanded to do suspended and repealed Lawes without his Authority putting the Subjects into Armes seizing upon his Forts and Castles and intercepting his Revenues All which or any one of which might have moved the King to undertake a war against them without consulting with our Author how to bring the poor Bishops into that engagement and make it rather seem their quarrell then the Kings own interesse which inforced him to it But he saith thirdly That one of that Order he means the late Archbishop of Canterbury was the main cause of that war by introducing the Liturgie amongst them and thereupon he doth conclude that the war which the Archbishop occasioned and which was entred into for maintaining that Hierarchy may he hopes without offence be called the Bishops war And now we are come to that we looked for a very pretty tale indeed and one of the finest he hath told us none of the Hundred merry Tales nor such a tale as made his Lordship wondrous merry which we had before but a new Canterbury Tale and the Esquires tale too Our Author a more modederate and sober Gent. then the Pamphleter is hath told us that the Kings demand of the Abby Lands in Scotland in the first year of his reign made by the Observator was the true cause of the war and the bug-words spoke by the Scottish Lords on that occasion first generated a mutuall and immortal distance between them which being in the unpublished sheets Fol. 18. is seconded in the Book now extant where we are told that those discontents upon which the war was after grounded did break out in Scotland anno 1633. four years before the Liturgie was commended to them that the next year after these discontents began to contract a little more confidence in his absence and to attempt his patience by a most malicious plot against his Fame as preambulatory to another against his person That the first work and operation in the method of Sedition being to leaven the masse of the peoples mindes with mischievous impressions they first whispered and instilled into them close intelligence of some terrible plot against their liberties and after sent abroad a venemous libel in which amongst other things they suggested formidable fictions of his tendency to the Romish Belief Fol. 133. And finally that for the Liturgie it self there was a purpose in King James to settle such an one amongst them as might hold conformity with that of England and that King Charles in pursuance of his Fathers purpose gave directions to the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Ely and to divers Bishops of that Kingdome to revise correct alter and change as they pleased the Liturgie compiled in his Fathers time and finally that the Book so altered was by the King sent by the Counsel of that Kingdome with order to proclaim the Reading of it upon next Easter day Fol. By this we see that sacriledge and rapine was the first ground of these discontents these discontents brake out into sedition and that sedition ended in an open war to which the introducing of the Liturgie could not be a cause though it might be made use of by those factious and rebellious spirits for a present occasion and so much is confessed by the Pamphleter himself in that there was no doubt but many of them had other then Religious designs as hoping to obtain that honour and wealth in a troubled State which they were confident they should never arrive at in a calm Fol. 31. Adeo veritas ab invitis etiam pectoribus erumpit said Lactantius truly By this it also doth appear that the Arch-bishop had not the sole hand in the Scotish Liturgie the Book being revised by many by the Kings directions and sent by him to the Lords of his Councell in that kingdome with order and command to see it executed accordingly But the best is that the Pamphleter hath not only his tale ready but his Tales master too fathering it on the ingenious Author of the Elenchus motuum in which he findes the Arch-bishop named for the main cause of introducing that Liturgie among the Scots and that he did it spe quidem laudabili eventu vero pessimo with a good intent but exceeding ill success fol. 30. I have as great an esteem for the Author of that Book whosoever he was as any Pamphleter can have of him but yet could tell him of some things in which he was as much mistaken as in this particular but since the Pamphleter hath made that Authors words his own and seems to approve of the intent though the success proved not answerable I shall only put him in mind of a saying in Ovid viz. Careat successibus opto Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat That is to say Ill may he prosper in his best intents That measures Counsels by their sad events But to satisfie both the Pamphleter and the ingenuous Author by him alleadged I shall say somewhat here of the business of the Scotish Liturgie which is not commonly observed and tends both to the justification of the King himself and of those whom he intrusted in it Know then that when the Scots required aid of Queen Elizabeth in the beginning of their Reformation to expell the French they bound themselves by the Subscription of their hands to embrace the form of worship other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England Religionis cultui ritibus cum Anglis communibus subscripserunt as Buchannan their own Historian and no friend unto the Anglican Church informs us of them But being cleared of the French Forces and able to stand on their own legs they broke their faith t is hard to say they ever kept it in this particular and fell on those extemporary undigested prayers which their own Fancies had directed or were thought most agreeable to Knoxes humour The confusion inconveniencies and sad effects whereof being well known to
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
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 stâ—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 iâ—le to better purpose Reproved for this
by the Observator and those solemn Inaugurations being proved to be very ancient directed by the holy Spirit in the Book of God exemplified not only in David and many other Kings of Judah but also in the Son of David the chief King of all our Author standeth unto it still because saith he it conferreth no one dram of solid Grandure to the Throne Kings being perfect Kings and qualified fully to all intent of Royalty without it Fol. 7. Igrant indeed that Kings are perfect Kings without this solemnity The Case of Clark and Watson in the first year of King James and of many Murderers and Felons in the first year of King Charles make this plain enough all of them being indited for their several Felonies and Treasons committed by them against the peace of those several Kings their Crowns and dignities they neither of them crown'd at the time of those trials so that I shall not trouble my self with looking into the case of the Post-nati as to that particular But yet I cannot yeeld unto him that these solemnities confer not so much as a single dram of solid Grandure to the Throne For certainly the Kings entry into a Cognizance or stipulation with his people to govern them according to their several Lawes and their Atturning Subjects to him or acclaiming him to be their King in our Authors language must needs contribute much to the establishment of the Regal Throne Were it not thus King Charles had been very ill advised in putting himself to such immeasurable charges for receiving the poor Crown of Scotland and the Scots not more advised then he in threatning him that if he long deferred the duty of a Coronation they might perhaps be inclined to make choice of another King For which consult our Author Fol. 125. It seems by this that neither of them did esteem it a serious vanity and that the King conceived it to have somewhat in it of a solid Grandure and this our Author saw at last and therefore is compell'd by the light of Reason and the convicting of his judgement whether by the Observator or not shall not now be questioned to conclude thus with him that there is something of a solid signification in those serious vanities But then he adds withall that all Christian Kings are not concerned in it as is affirmed by the Observator his Catholick Majesty not being touched in it because not Crowned Nor doth this inference hold good by the Rules of Logick that because his Catholick Majesty is not crowned at all therefore the Rites of Coronation are not accompted sacred by him or that he is unconcerned in those scoffs and scornes which are put upon it by our Author Betwixt all Kings there is that sacred correspondence that the violating of the Rites or person of one concerns all the rest and though the Catholick King hath not been Crowned in these last ages yet do they still retain a solemn initiation into Regality as our Author calleth it at their first entrance into State Not Crowned I grant in these latter Ages though they were of old that which our Saviour spake in the case of Marriage between man and woman viz. Non fuit sic ab initio that it was not so from the beginning being true in the Political Marriages of these Kings and Kingdomes For in the History of Spain written by Lewis de Mayerne it is said of Inigo Arista the 6. King of Navarre that he was anointed and crowned after the manner of the Kings of France of which he iâ— said to have been a Native that custome being afterwards observed in the following Kings And though it be believed by some that this custome came only into Navarre after they had Kings of the House of Champagn yet that will give it the antiquity of Four hundred years and prove withall that Crowning and Anointing was observed by some Kings in that Continent Nor was it thus only in Navarre but in Castile also Alfonso the third of that name King of Castile and Leon fortunate in his wars against his Neighbours causing himself to be Crowned Emperour of Spain in the Cathedral Church at Leon with the solemnities and ceremonies requisite in so great an Act receiving the holy Unction and the Crown from Don Raymond Archbishop of Toledo performed in Leon anno 1134. and afterwards iterated in Castile as some writers say for the Crown of Toledo as a distinct and different Kingdome The chargeable repetition of which solemn Act in so many Kingdomes as now and of long time have been united in the persons of the Catholick Kings may possibly be the reason of the discontinuance of it in these latter daies each Kingdome in that Continent being apt to think it self neglected as the Scots did here in case the King received not a particular Coronation for it Considedering therefore that one Coronation could not serve for all it was the thriftiest way in respect of charges and the way most like to please the particular Nations not to receive the Crowns of any of them in that solemn way which was and is observed to this day in most Christian Kingdomes The Coronation being past the King prepareth for the Parliament approaching also in the way of preparation he thought it fit that some who in the last had been uncivil towards the Duke should be made examples upon which accompt saith our Historian the Lord Keeper Williams fell and his place was disposed of to Sir Thomas Coventry From which what can be possibly concluded by a knowing man but that the displacing of the Lord Keeper Williams must fall between the Coronation and the following Parliament And then our Author will not yeeld that he was out in this Temporality How so because saith he I never intended it to be in that moment of time to which that Paragraph relates Fol. 8 Is not this like to prove a brave historian think you who professeth openly that he writes one thing and intends another Is not the Reader like to be very well edified by such reservations as the Author keeps unto himself and are not to be found either positively or by way of inference in the Book he reads Our Author certainly is put hard to it when he can finde no other way to evâ—de the errors of his pen but these silly shifts And yet Solamen miseris as the old verse hath it It is some comfort to him that the Observator should be out himself in saying that the Great Seal was taken from him in October whereas it is said by Mr. Howell that he departed from the Seal in August Fol. 8. But what if Mr. Howels intelligence fail him who though a very honest man pretends not to the Spirit of infallibility as our Author doth then certainly the Observator is not out nor my Author in But that we may not spend more time in tossing this debate like a Tenice Ball from one hand to another the Pamphleter may be pleased to
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
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
King James he thought himself concerned I will not say obliged to bring them back again to that first subscription or to commend such a Liturgie to them as might hold some conformity with that of the Church of England To this end having restored the Bishops and setled the five Articles of Perth as necessarie introductions to it he gave order to the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy then assembled to compose a Liturgie for that Church desiring it might be as near the English forms as they could conveniently Wherin as he did little doubt of their ready obedience so questionless it had been finished by the sitting of the next Assembly if the long and dubious expectation of the match with Spain and the Kings death not long after had not layed it by So that King Char. had not only the general subscription of the nation never yet lawfully reversed but the order of King James registred in the Acts of the General Assembly to proceed upon and he proceeded on it accordingly as soon as by the Coronation and the ensuing Parliament he had given contentment to that people And therefore they who can conclude that the Liturgie first grounded on their own subscription designed by their own generall Assembly revised by their own Bishops and confirmed by their own naturall and native King was or could be the ground of their taking Armes for I must not say the Scots rebelled though the Irish did may by the same Logick conclude as well that the Doctrine of Luther was the cause of the Insurrections of the Boors in Germany or that Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwins sands We left the late Arch-bishop acquitted as we hope from being a principal occasion of the Scotch war we must next free him and the rest of the Bishops from introducing Innovations Popery Arminianisme and I know not what And first our Author told us of him that be tampered to introduce some Ceremonies bordering up on superstition disused by us and abused by them that is to say by those of Rome And being told by the Observator that if they were disused only they were still in force as appeared by the case of Knighthood the Pamphleter answered thereunto the word disused doth not at all imply that those Ceremonies were in force but rather layed aside by the Reformators observing how much they were abused by the Church of Rome and therefore not fit to be retained fol. 33. A piece of Law like this we had in the former Chapter where the Pamphleter had broached this Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution that is to say of the Declaration of King James about lawfull sports was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in To that we referre the Reader for an Answer to this I adde now only by the way and ex abundanti that many things may be in abejance as your Lawyers phrase it which are not utterly lost and irrecoverable but carry with them a hope or longing expectance that though for the present they be in no man yet be in the hope and expectation of him who is next to enjoy them For as the Civilians say of Haereditas jacens that goods and lands do Jacere whilst they want a possessor and yet not simply because they lately had one and may shortly have another so the common Lawyers do say that things in like estate are in Abejance Thus Dr. Cowell hath defined that word in his Interpreter And this I take to be the case of those antient Ceremonies which were reduced into the Church by the Arch-bish though a while disused and this may serve for answer to the last Objection of this Pamphleter in the present point viz. that things abused may be lawfully restored to the Primitive use but then it must be saith he by lawfull authority and in a lawfull manner Which Rule of his I hold to be undoubtedly true in the Proposition but of no use at all in the application the Arch-bishop having in himself a lawfull power of restoring such antient Rites and Ceremonies as had been formerly disused only and not also abrogated and what he had not in himself was made up by the Kings authority of which more anon But next our Author tells us of this Arch-bishop that he commanded in his metropoliticall visitation that the Communion-table which formerly stood in the midst of the Church or Chancell should be placed at the East end upon a graduated advance of ground with the ends inverted and a wooden traverse of Railes before it To which the Observator answereth that the King had given sufficient authority to it a year before the visitation which our Author speaks of in the determination of the case of St. Gregory Church November 3. 1633. The Pamphleter hereunto replyeth that by the Arch-bishops out-running Authority he intended not his placing the Communion Table Altar-wise at the East of the Chancell so then we have gained that point if nothing else but by enjoyning a wooden Traverse of Railes to be set before it and commanding all the Communicants to come to it to receive the Sacrament fol. 27. which said he makes a long discourse to prove that by the Queens Injunctions and the 82. Canon the Table is to be placed within the Church or Chancell that the Communicants may in greater numbers receive the Sacrament which is best done saith he when the Table is in the Body of the Church or Chancell And against this or in defence of setting Railes before the Table so as the Communicant should come up to those Railes to receive He is sure that there is no such thing in the Declaration not a syllable that tends that way These Colworts have been boyled already served in and set by the Bishop of Lincolne on his Holy Table so that there needs no other Answer then what we finde in the Antidotum Lincolniense Chap. 7. and therefore I referre him thither for his satisfaction But since he hath appealed to the Declaration to the Declaration he shall go In which it is expresly said That for asmuch as concerns the liberty given by the said Common Book or Canons for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniency that liberty is not so to be understood as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person but to the Judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point both for the thing it self and for the time when and how long as he may find cause So that his Majesties Declaration leaves it to the power of the Ordinary and the Archbishop as chief Ordinary enjoyneth the Table to be placed at the East end of the Chancell and the Communicants to come up to it to receive the Sacrament to which the adding of a Rail as a matter of decency and for keeping off disorders and profanations is
already sufficiently ratified by the dcerâ—e of the former Synod With this all parties seem contented and the Canon passed So easily may the weak Brethren be out-witted by more able heads To make this matter plainer to their severall capacities I will look upon the two Subscribers as upon Divines and on the Pamphleter our Author as a Man of law Of the Subscribers I would ask whether Saint Paul were out in the Rules of Logick when he proved the Abrogating of the old Covenant by the superinducing of the new Dicendo autem novum veteravit prius c. that is to say as our English reads it in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old Heb. 8. 13. and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the Abolishment of its use and practice Nor find they any other Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath than by the super-inducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lesned in authority and reputation by little and little in short time was absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the 4th CoÌ„mandement by which it was at first ordained being stil in force So then according to these grounds the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally Abbrogatad by the super-inducing of the Articles of the Church of England which is as much as need be said for the satisfaction of the two Subscribers taking them in the capacity of Divines as before is said Now for my Man of law I would have him know that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth was confirmed in Parliament with severall penalties to those who should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it 2 3. Edw. 6th c. 1. But because divers doubts had arisen in the use and exercise of the said Book as is declared in the Statute of 5 6. Edward 6. c. 1. for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same rather by the curiosity of the Ministers and mistakers than of any other worthy cause therefore as well for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof as for the more perfection of the said order of Common service in some places where it is necessary to make the same prayer and fashion of Service more earnest and fit to stir Christian People to the true honouring of Almighty God The Kings most Excellent Majesty with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament aâ—embled and by the authority of the same hath caused the foresaid Order of Common service entituled The Book of Common Prayer to be faithfully and Godly perused explaned and made fully perfect Which Book being thus fitted and explaned approved by the King and confirmed in the Parliament in the 5 6 years of his reign was forthwith generally received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in than by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing un-repealed in full force and vertue and many clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second But fearing to be censured by both parties for reading a Lecture of the wars to Annibal I knock off again Now forasmuch as the Observator is concerned in this certificate being said to have abused the said Convocation with such a grosse mistake so manifest an untruth I would fain know in what that grosse mistaking and the manifest untruth which these men speak of is to be discerned The Premises which usher in this conclusion are these viz. But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland hath no truth at all in it The Conclusion this therefore the Observator and whosoever else hath or doth averr that the said Articles either were abolished or any motion made for the suppressing or abolishing of them are grosly mistaken and have abused the said Convocation in delivering so manifest an untruth But first the Observator speaks not of any motion made there for the suppressing of those Articles The Proposition for approving and receiving the Confession of the Church of England might be made effectually and so it seems it was without any such motion And therefore if the Observator stand accused in that particular the manifest untruth and grosse mistake which those men dream of must be returned upon themselves And on the other side if he be charged with this grosse mistake and man fest untruth for no other reason but that he saith those Articles were abolished as they charge it on him they should have first shewed where he saith it before they fell so rudely and uncivilly on a man they know not The Observator never said it never meant it he understands himself too well to speak so improperly The word he used was abrogated and not abolished The first word intimating that those Articles were repealed or disannulled of no force in Law whereas to be abolished signifieth to be defaced or raced out that so the very memory of the thing might perish The word abrogated rightly and properly so taken is Terminus forensis or a term of Law derived from the custom of the Romans who if they did impose a Law to be made by the people were said Rogare Legem because of asking moving or perswading to enact the same velitis Iubeatisne Quirites c. from whence came prorogare Legem to continue a Law which was in being for a longer time and abrogare to repeal or abrogate it for the time to come unlesse upon some further consideration it were thought fit to be restored But giving these men the benefit and advantage of their own Expression and let the two words Abrogated and Abolished signifie the same one thing where is their equity the while for charging that as a grosse mistake and manifest nntruth in the Observator which must be looked on only as a failing or an easie slip within the incidence of frailty as we know who said in their friend our Author the Systeme the Body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615 were repealed saith the Historian Fol. 132. for abrogating the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland saith the Observator pag. 240 241. both right or both wrong I am sure of that a grosse mistake a manifest untruth in both or neither And so farewell good Mr. Pullein wiâ—h Doctor Bernard I shall meet in another place In the next place whereas the Observator said that the abrogating of the Articles of Ireland was put on the Lieutenants score because Doctor Bramhall once his Chaplain and then Bishop of Derry had appeared most in it The Pamphleter answereth that there was never any Controversie in that Synod between the Lord Primate and that Bishop concerning those
Articles Fol. 43. But tell me Gentle Sir might not the Bishop of Derry be most active in it without a personal controversie betwixt him and the Primate if so then was the Primate more engaged in the quarrel about receiving or not receiving the Articles of the Church of England than you would gladly seem to have him If otherwise your Answer is nothing to the purpose nor confutes any thing affirmed by the Observator Some disagreement he confesseth to have been between them in that Synod about the Canons not the Articles of the Church of England but neither he nor the Observator being present at it they must rely upon the credit of their Authors The Observator as he telleth me had his intelligence from some of the Bishops of that Kingdom men of integrity and great worth present at all debates and conferences amongst those of their own order and so most like to give a just account of all passages there The Pamphleter takes his it seems from two members of the lower House of Convocation who neither were bound to tell more than they knew nor to know more than the advantages of the place they served in could communicate to them Which of the two intelligences have or should have most power in moving the Sphear of any common understanding let the Reader judge The Pampheter is almost spent and now plays with flies quarrelling the Observator for saying that this Convocation was held in Ireland Anno 1633. Whereas Dr. Heylyn whom he makes to be his alter idem hath placed it in his History of the Sabbath Anno 1634. It could not then proceed from ignorance in the Observator you have cleared him very well for that and it will be very hard for you to prove that it proceeded from negligence or from your ordinary excuse a lapse of memory Printers will fall into such errours do we what we can though the calculation be put down in words at length and not in figures more easily and frequently when they meet with figures not words in length And so much for all matters which relate to Arminianism The rest that follows shall be reduced into two Chapters the first for Parliaments and Convocations and the points coincident the second for all such other matters as cannot be contained under those two heads CHAP. VIII A voluntary mistake of the Author charged on the accompt of the Observator The Pamphleter agreeth with the Observator about the sitting and impowering of the Convocation Our Author satisfied in the c. left so unhappily in the Canon of 640. That the Clergy in their Convocation may give away their own money without leave from the Parliament The difference in that Case between a Benevolence and a Subsidie The Impulsives to that Benevolence The King not unacquainted with the differences between the Liturgies The words of distribution in the first Liturgy of King Edward no more favourable to Transubstantiation than those which are retained in the present Liturgy The reason why so many Papists have been gained of late to the Church of England The Convocation of the year 1640 appeared not by their Councel in the House of Commons New Lords created in time of Parliamâ—nt not excluded from their suffrage in it The difference between the Loan and the Tax made reconcileable the Commons in the Parliament 1621. not to be called petty Kings Our Authors weak excuses for it and the damages of it The Pamphleters great libertie in calculating the Estates of the Peers and Commons to make good his estimate The Bishops purposely left out in the valuation The true stating of the time of the charge against the late Arch-Bishop The Bishops not excluded by the Canon-Laws from being present at the intermediate proceedings in the businesse of the Earl of Strafford Our Authors resolution not to warrant Circumstances but the Things themselves of what not able advantage to him The Observator justified in the day of taking the Protestation The four Bishops sent to the King and not sent for by him The Bishop of London supernumerary The Pamphleters weak argument upon his silence in that meeting The Primate of Armagh not made use of by the Lord Leiutenant in framing the Answer to his charge why chosen to be with him as his Ghostly Father before and at the time of his death A fair and friendly expostulation with Dr. Bernard FRom the Convocation held in Ireland proceed we now to that in England both yeelding matter of Observation and both alike unpleasing to the Presbiterian or Puritan party And the first thing the Pamphleter layeth hold on is a mistake occasioned chiefly by himself He told us of a new Synod made of an old Convocation and Fathers the conceit such as it is on a witty Gentleman But now the witty Gentleman proves to be a Lord and therefore the Observators descant on Sir Edward Deering must be out of Doors Fol. 34. Had the Historian spoke properly and told us of a witty Lord who had said so of that Convocation the Observator would have took more pains in inquiring after him but speaking of him in the notion of a Gent. only though a witty Gentleman the Observator had some reason to conceive it spoken by Sir Edward Deering one of whose witty Speeches was made chiefly upon that occasion But as this Lord is here presented to us in the name of a Gentleman so Mr. Secretary Vâ—ne is given unto us in the unpublished Sheets by the name of a Lord. Had he corrected himself in this expression as he did in the other he might have eas'd himself of some work excused the Observator from some part of his trouble and freed Sir Edward Deering from the Descant as he calls it of the Observator The Historian had affirmed that the Convocation was impowered to sit still by a new Commission To this the Observator answereth no such matter verily the new CoÌ„mission which he speaks off gave them no such power the writ by which they were first called and made to be a Convocation gave them power to sit and by that writ they were to sit as a Convocation till by another writ proceeding from the same authority they were dissolved Doth the Pamphleter deny any part of this no he grants it all and takes great pains to prove himself a most serious Trifeler Confessing that though the Convocation were not dissolved by the dissolutiof the Parliament yet that it had so little life in it as the King thought fit to reanimate it with a new Commission Fol. 34. not one word in this impertinent nothing of above 30 lines till the close of all where the light-fingered Observator is said to have pocketed up the Break-neck of the businesse in suppressing what the Lawyers sent along with their opinions viz. that they would advise the Convocation in making Canons to be very sparing And this he saith he is informed by a member of that Convocation and one as knowing and
being made and shewed to the King he approved well of them in regard that comming nearer to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the administration of the Lords Supper and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms it might be a means to gain the Papists to the Church who liked far better of the first than the second Liturgy In this the Pamphleter very cunningly that I say no worse leaves out these words and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms fastning the hopes of gaining Papists to the Church on the nearness of the Scotish Liturgie to the first of King Edwards without relating to the Forms of more elder times to which the Papists stand affected Fol. 29. This is no fair dealing by the way But let that pass he grants it is a matter beyond dispute that the Papists liked the first Liturgy of King Edward better than the second Why so Because the words of Distribution of the Elements are so framed as they may consist with transubstantiation Fol. 30. If that be all the Papists have as good reason to like the Liturgy of the Church of England now by Law established as they had or have to like the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth The words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy being still retained in the present together with the words of Participation take and eat take and drink c. which only did occur in the second Liturgy No more consistency with transubstantiation in the words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy of King Edward nor consequently in that for Scotland than in that continued in the first year of Queen Elizabeth But then the Pamphleter subjoyns that the gaining of Papists to our Church was indeed the great pretended project of forty years continuance and yet in all that time not so much as one taken with that Bait. In answer unto which I desire to know where the fault was that for the space of forty years the intended project of gaining Papists to the Church took no more effect The Project certainly was pious and intended really and where the fault was we shall hear from our Author himself the Bishops of late yeares saith he supinely either careless or indulgent had not required within their Dioceses that strict obedience to Ecclesiastical constitutions which the Law expected upon which the Liturgy began to be totally laid aside and inconformity the uniform practice of the Church Hist Fol. 137. The Papists loving comlinesse and order in Gods publique service will not be taken with the hatefull Bait of Inconformity and forty years of generall conformity will be hardly found in which we might have gained upon them Had Bishop Laud succeeded Bancroft and the intended Project been followed without interruption there is little question to be made but that our Jerusalem by this time might have been a City at unity in it self Besides the Pamphleter might have observed had he been so minded that the Observator speaks these words of gaining Papists to the Church as a thing hoped for by the King of the Scotish Liturgy and the nearnesse which it had to the first of King Edward which they liked better than the second If the pamphleter can prevail so far with my Lord Protector as to settle the Scotish Liturgy in Scotland and the first of King Edward in this Kingdom we may in lesse than forty years give him a better accompt of the Papists gained unto the Church than can be made for the reasons above mentioned for the like space of time now past If any true Protestants have been lost hereby as here is affirmed when he hath told me who and how many they are he shall find me very ready to grieve with him for it In the mean time I shall grieve for him who so vainly speaks it We have one only thing to adde relating to this Convocation the Observator saying that he had some reason to believe that the Clergy of that Convocation did not appear in the Parliament by their Councel learned sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them To this the Pamphleter replyeth by halves professing that he will not determine 't is because he cannot how the Councel for the Clergy were instructed by them but withall confidently averring that by their Councell they did appear first by Mr. Chadwell of Lincolns Inne Novemb. 26. then again by Mr. Holburn the 15 day of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them Fol. 40. That these two Gentlemen appeared in this businesse for the Clergy I shall easily grant that is to say that they appeared in it out of a voluntary piety and an honest zeal to doe them the best offices they could in their great extremities If the Pampleter mean no otherwise than thus he shall take me with him But there he takes the word equivocally and not according to the legal acception of it and there can be no legal appearance but by men authorized and instructed by the parties whom it doth concern and that these Gentlemen were so the Pamphleter can neither say nor will determine And certainly if the Members of that Convocation had been so ill-advised as to submit their persons Cause and Jurisdiction which I am very well assured they did not and would never doe to the Iudgement of the House of Commons it had been more proper for them to have made this appearance by his Majesties Attourney and Solliciter and others of his Councell learned the Kings interesse and theirs being so complicated and involved as the case then stood that the one could not fall without the other Being thus entered on this Parliament I will look back to those before and take them in their course and order And the first thing we meet with is an ancient Order said in the History to be found by the Lords that is to say the Lords which were of the popular party against the Duke that no Lords created sedente Parliamento should have voice during that Session c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded The vanity and improbability of which Report is proved by the Observator by these two Arguments First that the Lords Seymore Littleton Capel c. created sedente Parliamento Anno 1640. were admitted to their suffrages without any dispute though in a time when a strong party was preparing against the King And 2ly That when a Proposition of this nature was made unto the King at York he denied it absolutely though then in such a low condition that it was hardly safe for him to deny them any thing which they could reasonably desire which Arguments the Pamphleter not being able to answer requireth a Demonstration of his Errous from the Records themseves or otherwise no recantation to be looked for from him Fol. 10. Whereas indeed it doth belong unto our Author according to the ordinary rules of Disputation both to produce a Copy of that ancient Order and to make proof out of
the Journals of that House that the new Lords were excluded from their suffrage accordingly And this since he hath failed to doe the Observators Arguments remain un-answered and the pretended Order must be thought no Order or of no authority In the businesse of the Levy made upon the Subject Anno 1626. there is little difference the Observator calling it a Loan because required under that name in relation to the Subsidies intended and passed by the Commons in the former Parliament our Author calling it a Tax as being a compulsory tribute imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate and such is this affirmed to be in the following words Fol. 10. And this is no great difference nor much worth our trouble Only the Pamphleter is mistaken in making this Loan or Tax to be imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate Whereas the Commissioners if I remember it aright imposed not any certain rate upon the Subject but scrued them up as high as they could with reference to their Abilities in Estate and Charge of Familie Our Author calling the Members of the House of Commons Anno 1627. not only Petty Lords and Masters but even Petty Kings and finding that the Observator marvelled at this strange expression fitst puts it off upon King James who having said the like before but rather in the way of Jear than otherwise he thinks it no great marvell that a poor Subject should use the same expression also Fol. 11. The difference is that the Pamphleter speaks that in earnest which the King most probably spoke in Jest and proves it by the power which the Commons assumed unto themselves in the late long Parliament of whom he telleth us that they were not Petty Lords but Lords Paramount not Petty Kings but Superiours to Kings themselves Ibid. T is true he hath a kind of Plaister to salve this sore for he would willingly write nothing but saving truths advertising that the Expression above mentioned doth not import what these Gentlemen were de jure but what de facto and what in reputation but then withall he leaves it standing in the Text as a plain Position to serve as a President to the Commons of arrogating the like powers unto themselves in succeeding Parliaments And in this he may be thought the rather to have some design because he makes no Answer to that part of the Observation which declareth out of the very Writs of Summons that they are called only to consent and submit such resolutions and Conclusions as should be then and there agreed on by the Kings great Councill or the great Council of the Kingdom that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assisted by the Reverend Judges and others learned in the Laws To make this position the more probable our Author telleth us that the House of Commons was then able to buy the House of Peers though 118 thrice over that is to say although there were 354 Lords in the House of Peers For this being called to an accompt by the Observator in regard of the low value which was put upon the Peerage by it he thus proceeds to make it good valuing the estates of each L. in the House of Peers ato more than 3000 l. per annum and each Member in the House of Commons at no lesse than 2124l per annum one with another Whereas unlesse he make the Baronage of England to be very despicable there were but few whose estates could be valued at so mean a rate as on the other side there were not very many members in the House of Commons whose Estates exceeded the proportion which he puts upon them some of them being of mean estates and some of very little or none at all But give him leave to set the members of each House at what rate he pleaseth then he may as well enable the House of Commons to buy the House of peers ten times over as to buy it thrice The Observator having entred into a a Consideration why the Bishops or spiritual Lords should be left out by the Author in this valuation as if they were no members of the House of Peers is answered that if the Bishops were members of the House of Peers then these words of his were turn-key enough to let them in if the Observator say not their exclusion is his own manufacture Fol. 12. Well applyed John Ellis and possibly intelligible enough in a place of manufactures but nothing proper to the true meaniug of the word in the vulgar Idiome But let us take his meaning whatsoever it be and in what Country Dialect soever we may trade the word and yet all will not serve the turn to save our Author from the purpose of excluding the Bishops from the valuation and consequently from being members of the House of Peers my reason is because it is affirmed by the Observator that there were at that time about an hundred and eighteen Temporall Lords in the Upper House and therefore that the Bishops were not reckoned in the calculation This is so plain that the Pamphleters turn-key will not serve to let them in and I have reason to believe that he had as great a mind as any to thrust them out it being one of his positions in the sheets unpublished that the Root of Episcopacie had not sap enough to maintain so spreading and so proud a top as was contended for Fol. 185. Whether the King did well or not in passing a way the Bishops Votes in the late long Parliament hath been considered of already and therefore we shall need to say nothing here as to that particular No Parliament after this till those of the year 1640. Where the first thing that offers it self is the stating of the true time of the charge brought in against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Commitment thereupon The Observator following the accompt of that prelates Diary abbreviated and published by Mr. Prynne Anno 1644. doth state it thus viz. That on Wednesday the 16th day of December a Committy was appointed to draw up a charge against him that on the same day he was named an Incendiary by the Scotch Commissioners who promised to bring in their Complaint on the morrow after and that on Friday morning December 18. Mr. Hollis was sent up with the impeachment and presently came in the charge of the Scotch Commissioners The pamphleter tells us from the Journals if we may believe them that on Thursday December 17. there was a conference between the two Houses at which time the Lord Paget read the Scotch charge against the Archbishop in which charge he was named an Incendiarie Fol. 40. A man would think that the Arch-Bishops own Diary written with his own hand and in a matter which so nearly concerned his life should find as much credit in the world as any thing which the Pamphleter pretends to have found in the Journals especially considering how easie a thing it was as was proved before
got that too But all this while the King is like to get nothing by it if our Author might be suffered to expound the Law against which he opposeth only the Authoritie of Sir Edward Coke A learned Lawyer I confess but not to be put in equal Ballance with the Law it self Well what saith he Now saith he tempora mutantur the times are changed and many a Yeoman purchaseth lands in Knights Service and yet non debet ought not for want of Gentry to be a Knight and a little after the Fine to the mark which is chiefly aimed at Fol. 20. And in these words taking the Citation as I find it I observe these things 1. That Sir Edward Cokes Non debet cannot bind the King who may as well make Leathern Knights as Leathern Lords as our Author phraseth it elsewhere the Sword of Knighthood taking away the blemishes of Vulgar birth and stating the receiver of it in the rank and capacitie of Gentry Were it not thus the Door of Preferment would be shut against well deservers and neither honour gained in War nor eminencies in Learning nor fidelity in Service nor any other Consideration in the way of merit would render any person capable of the Order of Knighthood for want of Gentry or being descended only from a House of Yeomanrie 2ly I observe that though he would not have such petsons honoured with the title of Knighthood lest else perhaps that honourable Order might grow Despicable were it made too common yet he confesseth that they were to Fine for it if I understand his meaning rightly at the Kings pleasure 3ly I observe how lamely and imperfectly the Pamphleter hath delivered the last words of his Author which makes me apt enough to think that he intended to say somewhat to the Kings advantage if he had been suffered to speak out And 4ly if Sir Edward Coke should resolve the Contrary and give sentence in this Case against the King yet I conceive it would have been reversible by a Writ of error that learned Lawyer having been a principal Stickler for the Petition of Right in the former Parliament and therfore not unwilling to lay such grounds whereby the King might be forced to cast himself on the Alms of his people As for the Sword and Surcoat affirmed to be delivered by the Lord High Chamberlain out of the Kings Wardrobe to such as were summoned to appear he still stands to that not thinking it agreeable to his Condition to yield the cause if not found against him by the Jury the point to be made good is this that such as were summoned to the Coronation were to have every man of them a Sword and a Surcoat delivered to him out of the Kings Wardrobe by the Lord High Chamberlain if the Kings service so required which he proves by these Infallible witnesses Gent. of the Jury stand together hear your evidence The first witness is an eminent Antiquary than whom none can be fitter to give Testimony to the point in hand but he alas is long since dead and it were pity to raise him from the Dust of the Grave as we have done the Clâ—ricus Parliamentorum and Mr. John Pym in another case for fear he put the Coutt into a greater fright than when the solemn Assizes was at Oxford Such a witness we had once before in the Case of the late Convocation a credible and a knowing person as the Pamphletet told us but nameless he for blameless he shall be quoth the gallant Sydney and here we have an eminent Antiquary but the man is dead dead as a door-nail quoth the Pamphleter in another place A nameless witness there a dead witness here let them go together The next witness is old Matthew of Westminster who though dead yet speaketh who tells us That King Edward the 1. sent forth a proclamation that all such persons who had possessions valued at a Knights Fee should appear at Westminster c. what to do he tells you presently admissuri singuli ornatum militarem ex Regia Garderoba to receive military accoutrements out of the Kings Wardrobe Fol. 20. This witness speaks indeed but he speaks not home The point in Issue is particularly of a Sword and a Surcoat the witness speaks in general of ornatus militaris only but whether it were a Sword a Surcoat or a pair of Spurs or whatsoever else it was that he telleth us not So the first witness speaking nothing and the second nothing to the purpose the Pamphleter desires to be Non-suited and so let him be He tels the Observator Fol. 36. that his Arguments are nothing ad rem and besides the Cushion But whatsoever his arguments were I hope these Answers are not only ad rem but ad Rhombum and Rhomboidem also and so I hope the Pamphleter will find them upon examination In the great Feast at Welbeck there is no such difference but may be easily reconciled That the Earl of Newcastle entertained the King at VVelbeck is granted by the Observator and that it was the most magnificent entertainment which had been given the King in his way toward Scotland shall be granted also Which notwithstanding it was truly said by the Observator that the Magnificent Feast so much talked of was not made at VVelbeck but at Balsover Castle nor this year but the year next after and not made to the King only but to the King and Queen In the first of which two entertainments the Earl had far exceeded all the rest of the Lords but in the second exceeded himself the first Feast estimated at 6000 l. to our Author at York but estimated on the unwarrantable Superfaetations of Fame which like a Snow-ball groweth by rowling crescit eundo saith the Poet or like the Lapwing makes most noise when it is farthest from the nest where the Birds are hatched The Observator took it on the place it self when the moâ—ths of men were filled with the talk and their stomacks not well cleared from the Surquedries of that Mighty Feast by whom it was generally affirmed that the last years entertainment though both magnificent and August in our Authors language held no Comparison with this So that the one Feast being great and the other greater the Observator is in the right and our Author was not much in the wrong More in the wrong he doth confess in the great entertainment given to the City by the King affirmed before to have been made at the Guild-hall but now acknowledged upon the reading of the Observations to have been made at Alderman Freemans Fol. 22. This he hath rectified in part in the new Edition and it is but in part neither For whereas he was told by the Observator that the entertainment which the City gave at that time to the King was at the House of Alderman Freeman then Lord Mayor situate in Cornhill near the Royall Exchange and the entertainment which the King gave unto the City by
shewing them that glorious Masque was at the Merchant-Tailors Hall in Thread-needle street on the backside of the Lord Mayors House an open passage being then made from the one to the other Our Author placeth both of them in the Aldermans house Theiâ— Majesties saith he with their train oâ— Court-Grandees and Gentleman Revellers were solemnly by Alderman Freeman then Lord Mayor invited to a most sumptuous Banquet at his House where that resplendent shew was iterated and reâ— exhibitted Hist Fol. 134. This by his leave is but a Tinker-like kind of reformation they mend one hole and make another that gallant shew not being â—terated and exhibited in the Lord Mayors House but in the Merchant-Taylors Hall as more capable of it It is an old saying and a true that it is better coming to the end of a Feast than the beginning of a Fray Which notwithstanding I must needs goe where the Pamphleter drives me that is to say to a great and terrible fight near Rostock which I can find in no place but my Authors brains He tells us in his History That Tilly condacted a numerous Army of thirty three thousand foot and seven hundred Horse for the relief of Rostock then besieged by the King of Sweden That the King alarmed herewith drawes out of his Trenches to entertain him seventeen thousand foot and six hundred horse that in conclusion of the battle Tilly was put unto the worst and his Army routed and that finally upon this Victory he immediately stormed the Town and carried it Hist. Fol. 112. The Observator finding no such rout given to Tilly near Rostock Anno 1630. where our Author placeth it conceived it might be meant of the battell near Lipsique Anno 1631. and made his observations accordingly And upon this he might have rested had the Pamphleter pleased who in his introduction to the Feast at Welbeck advertiseâ—h that the Observator mentioneth a Battel at Lipsique spoken of before but where he knows not only conjectures that he had a good will to take him to task for a misplacing a battel he supposes at Rostock but upon better consideration he found his errour to be his own and not the Authors and therefore cut out the Leafe containing the 101 102 pages wherin his mistake lay leaving that Paragraph tyed head and heels together Fol. 21. Did ever man so lay about him in a matter of nothing for such is both his fight near Rostock and this long prattle which he makes of the Observator For first the Lease which contained the 101 and 102 pages was never cut out 2ly there is no such incoherence in any of the Paragraphs there as if head and heels were laid together 3ly the Leaf which was cut out contained 107 and 108 pages and was cut out not in regard of any thing there spoken of our Authors battel but the misplacing the train of Captives and the rear of the triumphant masque occasioned by the negligence of the Printers only 4ly That in the leaf containing pages 101 102. The Author might have found mention of the battell of Lipsique which he saith he knows not where to find saying that he the Observator mentioneth a battel at Lipsique spoken of before but where he knows not one evident argument that either he looked but carelesly after it or was not very willing to find it And to say truth it had been better for him to have passed it by for then he had been only chargeable with some prudent omissions as we know who was whereas by speaking in his History of a battel of Rostock and seeming offended to be taxed for misplacing of it he layeth himself open to the assaults of his adversaries I have consulted diligently the History of the Sweedish war in Germany till the death of that King writen in Latin by Cluverut together with that translated out of Italian by the Earl of Moâ—mouth on whose authority the Pamphleter relieth in another place but can find nothing in either of them either of any such seige or of any such battell or of any such storming of that Town as my Author speaks of All that I find concerning Rostock shall be summed up thus namely that having sollicited and practised the people of Rostock to declare for him in that War he was peaceably received into it that having left no Garison in it it was surprized by the Imperials and strongly fortified that the King having recovered all the Dukedom of Mecklenburg except the Towns of Rostock and Wismer and not willing to waste time in besieging either he fortified Anclam to bridle the Garisons of those Towns and secure the Country and finally that after the great Battel of Lipsique the Duke of Mecklenburg and Marshal Tod a Commander in the Swedish Army laid siege to Rostock and reduced it the Town not being otherwise stormed than by want of victuals Next for the engagement of the Armies I find that Tilly having mustered up his united forces and finding them to consist of 34000. fighting men drew thrice toward the King first as he lay intrenched between Landsperge and Franckford on the Oder in the Marches of Brandenburg 2ly as he lay intrenched near Werben not far from the Territory of Magdeburg And 3dly in his Retreat by Tangermond to his faster Holds that there was no ingagement between the Armies at all in the two first times and only some light Skirmishes in the third without considerable disadvantage unto either side the Armies never engaging till the Battel of Lipsique in which Tilly received that dismal rout which opened the Kings passage into Franconia and the rest of Germany Besides which it is more than certain that if Tilly had received any such rout as our Author speaks of he could not have proceeded as he did to the sack of Magdeburg nor would he King have suffered him to recruit again after such a rout wherein he had taken 16. Canons 30 Ensigns and 32 Cornets of Horse and scattered the whole Imperial Army opening thereby a way to relieve that City which Tilly had besieged for declaring in his Behalf without any other provocation So that I must behold this Siege this Battel and the sâ—orming the Town upon it as matters to be found only in the Pamphleters dreams not otherwise to be excused but that our Author writing the History of the reign of King Charles intends only to justifie such Things and Actions as have reference to the 16 years whereof he treateth in that History and that he neaver meant it of such things as were taken in by the By as he declares himself Fol. 8. A very Saving Declaration and of as great advantage to him as the Parliament Journals or any of his witnesses either Dead or Namelesse Our Author had told us in his History that presently on the Discovery of Mr. Atturney Noyes Design he issued writs to all the Counties in the Realm requiring that every County should for defence of the Kingdom against
a day prefix'd provide Ships of so many Tun c. To this the Observator answereth That in the first year of the payment of Shipmoney the Writs were not issued to all the Counties in England as our Author tells us but only to the Maritime Counties c. and that in the next year not before the like writs issued out to all the Counties in England that is to say Anno 1636. What saith the Pamphleter to this First he acknowledgeth his error and hath rectified it in the last Edition but adds withall that the Observator gives him two for one in saying first that the Ship writs were directed in the first year to the Mariâ—ime Counties whereas it was to the Port towns only and 2ly in saying that the Ship writs were directed to all the Counties Anno 1636. whereas saith he it was 1635. Fol. 25. For the first of these he offereth no proof but his Ipse dixit and of what authority that is we have seen already He telleth us positively in his Preface that for matter of Record he hath not consulted the very Originals but hath conformed himself to Copies and having been so often cozened in the false Copies of Journals and Repâ—rts I can see no armour of proof about him to keep his credulity from the wounds made by false Records But 2ly taking it for true as perhaps it is that the first Writs were directed to the Maritime or Port towns only yet being the Maritime or Port towns stand in the Maritime Counties it is not very much out of the way to say that the first Writâ— were directed to the Maritime Counties Not so much I am sure as to say they were directed to the Mediterraneans or Highlanders in our Authors canting unlesse by such a Fictio Juris as our common Lawyers call an action of Trover a Port Town may be said to be in the Midland Countries For the second he offereth us some proof telling us those writs were issued out Anno 1635. as a consequent of the opinion of the Judges in that Novemb. But will the Pamphleter stand to this will he stand to any thing If so then certainly he is gone again The Opinion delivered by the Judges was grounded on a letter sent unto them from the King with the Case inclosed which letter bears date the 2d of February in the 12th year of his Majesties reign Anno 1636. and is so dated by our Author Fol. 143. Considering therefore that this Letter led the way unto their Opinion it is impossible to any common apprehension that the Judges should deliver their Opinions 14 moneths before the letter came to them that is to say in the moneth of Novemb. Anno 1635. and this I take to be a Subter or a Super-annuating in his Temporalties and that too in such things and Actions as relate to the History of King Charles and not in things extrinsecal as the Battel of Rostock or in things taken in on the By as the Synod of Dort But for the ingenuitie of the man and his equitie too The Observator had informed him of some other mistakes about this business as first his making the Earl of Northumberland Admiral of the first years Fleet whereas it was the Earl of Lindsey And 2ly in affirming that the King upon the Archbishops intreaty had granted the Clergy an exemption from that general payment whereas inâ—â—â—â— there was no such matter The first of these he hath rectifyed in the History and confessed in the Pamphlet the second he hath rectifyed without any Acknowledgement either of the Observators information or his own mistake And finally so indulgent is he to his own dear self ranking it amongst the errors ascribed by him to the Observator for making the first writ to be directed to the Maritime Counties whereas saith he it was to the Maritime or Port Towns only he reckoneth it not amongst his own in saying that they were directed to all the Counties of the Kingdom the Mediterraneans and Highlanders amongst the rest Rather than so Ships shall be sayling on the Mountains and cast Anchor there Whales shall be taken up in Cotswold and Shelfish crawl in shoals on the top of the Chilterne as they did once in the dayes of Pythagoras whom our Author hath so often followed in his Ipse dixiâ— that he will credit him in this also Of which thus the Poet vidi factas ex aequore terras Et procul a Pelago Conchae jacuere Marinae Et vetus inventa est in montibas Anchora summis That is to say Oft have I seen that Earth which once I knew Part of the Sea so that a man might view Huge Shels of Fishes on the up-land ground And on the Mountains top old Anchors found In the Embassage of young Oxenstern to the Court of England it is said by our Author that he was denied audience by the King The contrary affirmed and proved by the Autoplie one of our Authors own words of the Observator whose curiosity had carried him to behold that ceremony I have heard it for a Rule amongst some good women that a man ought to believe his own wife before his own eyes but I never heard it for a good Rule in Law or History Not in the Practice of the Law in which it is a noted Maxim plus valet occulatus testis unus quam auriti decem that is to say that one eye-witnesse speaking to a matter of Fact is of greater credit than ten that take it up on hear-say Much lesse in History the word being anciently derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifieth to see Intimating the relation of such remakable accidents at the performance of which the Author himself was present Apud veteres enim saith Isidore in his origines nemo scribebat Historiam nisi is qui interfuisset et ea quae scribenda essent vidisset And though the customary use of the word hath now taught it a more ample signification yet an eye-witnesse in point of story is more to be believed than any of those which take up matter upon trust Which notwithstanding against this Ocular observation as he calls it in another place of the Observator he opposeth the Authority of an Italian Author in his History of the wars of Christendom he confesseth in the Pamphlet to be no competent Judge of our affairs and yet because the Earl of Monmouth doth translate it so it can be no otherwise How so because saith he that Earl is a person of so much honour and knowledge in this businesse as he would have given us some Marginal Caveat had it been so wide of truth as the Observator would make it Fol. 26. Here is a non sequâ—tur with a witnesse The History of Galiazzo was translated by the Earl of Monmouth Ergo his Testimony taken upon hear-say to be believed before that of the Observator though speaking as an eye-witnesse to the thing or thus The Earl of Monmouth is a