point of Episcopacy is that he makes our Author take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency and thereupon was much agrieved that the Clergy should binde themselves by Oath not to consent to any alteration of it On this occasion the Pamphleter flies out against them with no less violence and fury then Tully against Cataline in the open Senate crying in these great words Quousque abuteris patientia nostra how doth this Observator provoke us Assuredly the Gentleman is extreamly moved his patience much off the hinges Patientia laesa fit furor as the saying is One cannot tell what hurt or mischief he may do us now he is in this rage and fury and therefore Peace for the Lords sake Harry lest he take us And drag us back as Hercules did Cacus T is best to slip a side a while and say nothing till his heat be over and the man in some temper to be dealt with and then we will not fear to tell him that his own words shall be the only evidence we will use against him The introduction which he makes to his discourse against the Oath required by the new Canons instruct us That many asserted in good earnest that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import and denoted the self same persons without the least distinction c. That thereupon the Prelates seeing their deer Palladium so deeply concerned and heaved at did first cause the Press to swarm with Books setting forth the right upon which Episcopacy was founded and finding how little this advantaged them they took measure from their professed Adversaries the Generall Assembly of Scotland and by their example framed the Oath as an Anti-Covenant This is the substance of the Preamble to those objections but that I would not stir the mans patience too much I had called them Cavils which our Author makes against that Oath that some things were expresly to be sworn to which were never thought to have any shew or colour of sacred right but were conceived Arbitrary and at the disposition of the State and to exact an Oath of dissent from Civill establishments in such things of indifferency was an affront to the very fundamentals of Government Now the Oath being made for maintenance of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England the Doctrine being confessed on all sides to be signanter and expresly pointed at and the discourse driving at the Government of the Church by Bishops who can conceive but that his Argument or Objection must tend that way also and that Episcopacy must be reckoned in the number of those things of indifferency for which there was no reason to require the Oath And though the Pamphleter would fain have it that Episcopacy is not in those things of indifferency but excluded rather yet this will do him as small service as the Press when it was said to have swarmed with Books had done the Bishops For first he doth not say that Episcopacy was not pointed at at all in those things of indifferency but not signanter and expresly our Author keeping a reserve or secret intention to himself upon al occasions Nor doth it help him secondly to say that the things there spoken of are such as never had any shew or colour of sacred right whereas Episcopacy in the very account of its adversaries hath some colour and shew of it fol. 39. Where first he pleadeth but very coldly for Episcopacy in giving it only some shew and colour which all Heresies Enthusiasticks and Fanaticall fancies all that have set up any other Government Papall Anarchicall Presbyterian do pretend unto And secondly it is not true hath any such colour or shew in the account of its adversaries Episcopacy as it stood in the Primitive times being by Beza called Humanus and Diabolicus as it stood in these latter ages An Humane invention in the first a Diabolicall institution in the last times of the Church and therefore questionless without any shew or colour of sacred right Nor doth he help himself much by the little Army raised out of the Northampton and Kentish forces under the command of the Lord Digby which is so far from putting the matter out of all dispute in the sense he meaneth that it rather doth conclude against him For if the Northampton-shire and Kent Exceptions limit themselves to Arch-bishops Arch-deacons c. our Author certainly is to blame in these two respects First that he did not limit his things of indifferency as they did before him And secondly that speakin such generall termes as he should think to help himself in the Postfact by their limitations T is true the History rendreth the Lord Digby as friend to Episcopacy when the London Petition came to be considered of in the House of Commons before which time he had begun to look toward the Court but telleth us not that he was so in the very first openings of the Parliament when the Oath required in the Canon was in most agitation And this I hope is fair for a Senior Sophister as you please to call the Obfervator who could have pressed these answers further but that the Gentlemans patience must not be abused nor himself provoked We must take care of that though of nothing else And so much for ouâ— Authors flutterings in the point of Episcopacy we will next see whether the persons be as pretious with him as the calling is CHAP. VI. The light excuse made by the Pamphleter for our Author in pretermitting Bishop Bancroft not bettered much in shewing the differences between the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvin Our Authors learned ignorance in the word Quorum The Observator cleared from foisting any thing into the Text of the History with our Authors blunderings in that point The disagreement between the Comment and the Text in the unfortunate accident of Archbishop Abbot Foisting returned upon the Author no injury done to Bishop Andrewes by the Observator Of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon and whether the Archbishop were sequestred from his Jurisdiction for refusing to license it The Pamphleters nice distinction between most and many in the repairing of St. Pauls and that these many did keep off in reference to the work it self The war against the Scots not to be called the Bishops war not undertaken by the King in defence of their Hierarchy nor occasioned by Archbishop Laud. The Scots Rebellion grounded upon some words of the King touching Abby-Lands in the beginning of his reign hammered and formed and almost ready to break out before the Liturgy was sent to them The Archbishop neither the principal nor sole Agent in revising that Liturgie Good counsels not to be measured by successe On what grounds the Liturgie was first designed to be sent to the Scots Disusing implies not an abrogation Abeiance what it is in the common Law The Communicants by what authority required to come unto the
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
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
I shall crave leave to say in the Poets words and I hope it may be said without any of the selfe-deceivings of love or flattery Haec mala sunt sed tu non meliora facis Lacies Court in Abingdon June 7 1656. Extraneus Vapulans OR THE OBSERVATOR RESCUED From the vain but violent Assaults of Hammond L' Estrange CHAPT I. The Laws of Historie verified by Josephus but neglected by our Historian His resolution to content himself with saving truths the contrary resolution of the Observator The Observator charged unjustly for writing against King Charles and enveighing against King James King Charles affirms not any where that he did well in excluding the Bishops from the Parliament The Observator justified in the second passage which concerns that King Our Authors intended bitterness against the generall government of King Charles The Observator is no inveigher against King James Our Authors smart unâ—ustifiable censure of King James The Queen abused by our Author for Bishop Lands indulgence towards the Catholick party His advocating for the Fame against the Countess of Buckingham his uningenuous censure of the Duke of Buckingham the Lord Deputy Wentworth the Earl of Portland Mr. Noye and the Courtiers generally not sparing Mr. Prynne and the Presbyterians then censureth Scandalously and uncharitably of the Clergy and Prelates in the generall and in particular the Court-Clergy and the late Arch-Bishop The Bishops Neile Juxton Williams Mountague Manwaring and Wren c. The faint Amends made by him unto two of that number his mischievous intent in an unnecessary Advocating for Bishop Potter THere were two Cautions given anciently to those who undertook the composing of Histories that is to say ne quid falsâ— audeant ne quid veri non audeant that they should neither dare to write any thing which was false nor fear to write any thing which was true To these Josephus addes a third touching the beautifying of the Style and from him take them all together in these following words Nam qui Historiam et rerum propter antiquitatem obscurarum expositionem c. for they saith hee that make profession to write Histories and to recite such things as are observed by antiquity ought not only studiously to conform their style but also to beautifie the same with ornaments of Eloquence to the intent the Reader may converse in their writings with the more delectation But above all things they must have an especiall care so exactly to set down the truth that they who know not how these things came to pass may be the more duly and fitly informed and all this to the end as before he telleth us that we neither omit any thing through ignorance nor bury ought in forgetfulnesse And certainly if History be the great Instructor of succeeding times the concealing of necessary truths will as much conduce to the misunderstanding or not knowing the true State of things as any unnecessary falshoods and I conceive no falshood can be counted necessary are presumed to do But our Author was not of this mind when he writ his History and therefore came resolved as his Preface telleth us to content himself with saving truths the first Historian I dare confidently say it which ever published a profession so contrary to the nature and rules of Historie For he that is resolved to write nothing but saving truths must of necessity conceal much Truth which he ought to write and consequently subduct from the eye of the Reader the greatest part of those instructions which the true representing of affairs would afford unto him And therfore it was well said by Mr. Fuller in his Church-History newly published that though it be dangerous to follow a Truth too neer the the heels yet better it is that the teeth of an Historian be struck out of his head for writhe Truth than that they remain still and rot in his jaws by feeding too much on the sweet-meats of Flattery Lib. 9. fol. 232. The Observator as it seemeth was resolved thus also professing that as he undertook that business with a mind free from love or hatred or any of those other affections which pre-engagements in a party do possess men with so he would carry it all along with such impartiality and considence as might witness for him that he preferred truth before interess without respect to fear self-ends or any particular relation of what sort soever But my Author though he will not be thought to love the world so well as the Observator is said by him to do yet knoweth he much better how to save his stake than twenty such Observators and Church-Historians and therefore is not only content to enjoy himself in writing nothing but Saving truths but falls upon the Observator for writing truths which are not saving How so marry saith he the Title of his Pamphlet might rather have been formed into the Observations against King Charles than Observations upon his History Fol. First What all or altogether against King Charles I presume noâ— so for Fol. the fourth he telleth us of the Observator that he falleth foul upon King James inveighing against and withall detracting from his King-craft and for that sends him to Squire Sanderson to learn wit and manners Squire Sanderson with scorn and contempt enough Squire Sanderson for ought I know may be as good a Gentleman as Squire L ' Estrange there being at this time one Lord and some Knights of that Family which is as much as the Historian or any of his Fathers House can pretend unto Now to the matter of the charge he telleth us that the Observations are not so much upon his Narrative as against King Charles and yet takes notice only of two passages which seem to him to be upon or against that King Had there been more my Auth or was the more to blame to keep the Observators counsell and conceal the crime rendring himself thereby an accessary to the fact and at least parcel-guilty of it if not as guilty altogether as the Observator The first of these two passages is that the Bishops had sate longer in the house of Peers in their Predecessors than any of the Lay Nobility in their noblest Ancestors having as much right of voting there as either the Prerogative Royall or the Laws could give them and therfore it was ill done of our Author to exclude them then and not well done by him that should have kept them in to exclude them afterwards For this the Observator is called Canis Palatinus a Court-cur at the least a Fellow unconcerned in the business and therefore not to snarl at the Kings heels now his back is turned And why all this Fol. 19. Marry because the King hath told us that he did it out of a firm perswasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution in their hights and honour for his sake Our Author herexsupon undertakes for the contentedness of almost all not for all the Bishops in
suffering that diminution for their Soveraigns sake But what makes this unto the purpose Doth the King say he did well in it or doth he not rather say elsewhere in his Declaration as I take it of the 12 of August that he gave way unto the Bill for excluding the Bishops from sitting in the House of Peers in hope by that means to preserve their Station in the House of God Two evils being laid before him he made choise of that which seemed the least and yet affirms not any where for ought I can find that he did well in choosing either So as the King not saying that he did well in it nor my Author proving that he did my Author hath no reason to deal thus with the Observator but that some men have so much in them of the Curre that they will be alwaies barking though they cannot bite The other passage charged upon the Observator is taxing the King and the Lords of the Scotish councell for Oversights great oversights in not punishing the principal Authors of the tumuls of Edenburgh my Author thereupon infers with disdain and scorn how gallantly all things will he ordered when the Observator comes to be of a 〈◊〉 of State Fol. 30. But Sir The Observator did not only say it but he proved it too and it had shewn more judgement in you to confute his reasons than to fall foul upon his person Errors in conduct of affairs and Effects in councell are not unprofitably noted by the best Historians and that too in the greatest Princes Their successors might be else to seek in the knowledge of some things of weight and consequence and such as most nearly do concern their own preservation He that soweth pillows under the Elbows of great Princes when they are alive shall be termed a Flatterer and he that flatters them being dead to the prejudice and wrong of their posterity deserves not to pass for an Historian That wit is alwaies better cheap which is purchased with the price of another mans errors than with the feeling of our own And here I might have left King Charles would my Author let me who though he tell us in his Preface that the very failings of Kings have been in former times accompted like their persons so sacred that to touch them though never so tenderly hath been esteemed petty treason yet at the present he makes bold to touch him and to tax him too For in those printed sheets of his which were not thought fit to goe abroad with the rest of the book he telleth us That he never reflected upon his late Majesty otherwise than upon a man that was within the incidence of fraâ—lty that he miscarried in his regal Ministration by departing to arbitrary power that he and his Father failed extremely in congesting and heaping honours upon so incredible a croud yet not more ill advised in the number than the choice of the men that moâ—â— was the main if not the only Turn-key to promotion and Honours as vendible at Court as Coals at Newcastle that though Kings might by their prerogative make as well leathern Lords as leathern mony yet make such Noble men they could no more than transubstantiate leather into gold His aiding the Rochellers is taxed by him as not sufficiently warranted either by their communication with us in Divine Principles as he words it that is to say in being of the same belief or perswasion with us or by the French Kings breaking his faith with them in the demolishing of Fort Lewis according to the conditions granted at this Kings instance mediation adding withall that he could have no Christian license to draw his sword for those who in his own opinion wanted it for themselves that as there was little Christianity in it in regard of the premises so there was lesse policy in it with reference to Monarchical interess and finally that standing thus a supinâ— and negligent Spectator in the defection of the Subjects of other Princes but much more by abetting and siding with them he could expect nothing but a total desertion of all his friends when he most should need them He renders him inexcusably guilty in advancing such as had been censured in open Parliament which Act saith he could in a literal construction mind nothing else but the defiance of his people as also in his effuse liberal indulgence to Recusants not only convicted but condemned remitting to them the Penalties of their offences notwithstanding the epidemical and general Out-cries against them His Majesties Declaration about Lawfull sports upon the Sunday he calls a Sacrilegious robbing of God a maculating of â—is own honour a Profane Edict And finally â—he telleth us of him that he was wondrous slow no man living more to believe amisse of those he trusted which confidence not only followed but led him to the fatal block that no King setting Solomon aside was ever able to give better or ever followed worse advice that being swayed by supine and implicit faith in the either wisdom or integrity of those who seemed to advise him he was precipitated upon designs which could promise nothing but confusion there being nothing more easie than to impose upon the incuriosity of the Kings Faith All this more than this in the printed but not publish'd sheets of my Authors History a History as 't was intended not so much of as agaitxsst that King the grand concernment of his Annals as the Preface cals him which renders him a most unfit Censurer of that innocent and modest freedom which is taken by the Observator whose observations are entituled Oblique Descants not only upon his Narrative but against King Charles But it is usual with most men Omnia sibi remittere nihil aliis to condemn that in others which they allow in themselves not verified so much in any as my present Author Next for King James he telleth us 〈◊〉 the Observator that he falls foul on him inveighing against and withall detracting from his King-craft This is a general charge and answereth not to any of those particulars in which thaâ— King is thought to have failed in the Actâ— of Government and therefore without more adoe may be remitted by the Observator to the former passage in which he cleareth himself from the like charge or crimination about King Charles Besides our Author cannot chuse but know who tells us that the noble Verulam hath not violated those Laws of History which he gave to all the world by signifying thaâ— one of the wisest of our English Kings had his Empson and Dudly and treated the Earâ— of Oxford most disagreeably It seems by this that even our wisest Kings may fail sometimes in the Arts of King-craft and that those failers may be also signified as Documents to succeeding times without violating the Laws of History or being sent to School to learn wit and manners there being no reason in the world why that should be allowed of in
that he had carried it with too high a hand others that he had done no more than what he was obliged to do for his own justification What think you my most precious Author where is the creeping aud cringing the crawling and crouching which your Pamphlet speaks of where that servility of carriage which made his Lordship merry at the sight thereof though possibly as the case then stood in that very nick of time when the Bishop might either stand his Friend or appear his Foe a little cringing in the Doctor had not been scandalous as the Gentleman makes it Nor did the Doctor only consult his Fame but he took order to provide for his safety also And therefore understanding what reports had been spread abroad upon the accident some saying that the Bishop had interrupted him for preaching against the Scots some of whose oÌ„ nissioners were then present others for preaching in defence of Transubstantiation others for Arminianism and I know not what he gave an accompt thereof to the King and then transcribed a copy of the whole passage which had been and was to have been spoken and sent it in a letter to Mr. John White of the Temple whom he observed to be at the Sermon desiring him to communicate it at the next sitting of the Committee that when he was to appear before them the second time they might be satisfied in all things touching that particular Which addresse took so good effect that Mr. White though most eagerly bent against the Doctor at his first appearance did the businesse for him reading the whole passage to that Committee and testified what he saw and noted when he was at the Sermon and thereupon it was declared by the unanimous voice of all then present that there was nothing in that passage which did not become an honest man to speak and a good Christian to hear and not so only but that the Bishop was transported beyond his bounds and failed in his accustomed prudence And this perhaps both smoothed the way unto the Doctor for his next appearance where he found better entertainment than he did at the first and drew the Bishop unto gentler and more moderate Counsels But to proceed matters continuing between them in this State till aftre Candelmas the Sub-dean findeth the Doctor walking in the Common Orchard perswades him to apply himself to the Bishop as being better able to help or hurt him than any other whatsoever pressing the point with such a troublesom importunity that the Doctor asked him at the last whether that Proposition came from himself or the Bishop of Lincoln If from himself it would no otherwise be look'd upon than a fruitles motion if from the Bishop it would require some further time of consideration Being assured that it came from the Bishop and that he should not doubt of a fair reception he took some time to consider of it and to acquaint some friends therewith for removing of all such umbrages and misapprehensions as otherwise that interparlance might have occasioned which having done he signified to the Subdean about 2 days after that he would wait upon his Lordship in the evening following being Saturday night when he conceived his Lordship would be most at leasure from the businesse and affairs of Parliament His Lordship being thus prepared the Dr. went accordingly to perform his visit but finding some company in the room whom he knew to be of the Scotish Nation he recoyled again followed immediatly at the heels by a Gentleman whom the Bishop sent after him to let him know that the Company was upon the parting and that he should find his Lordship all alone at his coming back as indeed he did Being returned he was presently taken by his Lordship into his private Gallery his Servants commanded to withdaw and the Doctor left in private with him where after some previous expostulations on the one side and honest defences on the other they came by little and little unto better terms and at the last into that familiarity and freedom of discourse as seemed to have no token in it of the old displeasures the Bishop in conclusion accompanying the Doctor out of the Gallery commanding one of his Servants to light him home and not to leave him till he brought him to his very door After which time the Doctor never saw him more except at the Church till his second commitment to the Tower whither the Doctor going on some other occasion resolved to pay unto him the homage of a dutifull attendance lâ—st else his Grace for then he was Archbishop of York hearing that he had giâ—en a visit to the rest of the Bishops coÌ„mitted at the same time for the Protestation might think the former breach between them was not well made up And at this time I trow there was no need of creeping and â—ringing and crouching The Doctors affairs being at that time and â—ong before â—n a good condition and that Arch-bishops in as bad as the fury of a popular â—atred could expose him to This is the â—ruth the whole truth and nothing but the â—ruth as to the Doctors carriage in this particular and to the sorry plight which â—he Pamphleter makes him to be in at â—he time of these supposed cringings and â—servile crouchings The Readers pardon being asked if any shall vouchsafe to read it for this long but not unnecessary digression I goe on again The Observator being freed from those failings and forgings those falsifyings and corruptings which the Pamphleter had charged upon him it will be worth our time to see whether our Author be not truly guilty of the self same crime which he falsly lays unto his charge in falsifying and corrupting the Text of his own History by soisting many words into it to make his quarrel with the Observator the more just and rational For as I have some where read of Calvin that having first made his Book of Institutions he did afterwards so translate and expound the Scripture as to make it speak agreeable to the sense and Doctrine which he had published in that Book so I may very safely say that our Author having framed his answer to the observations as much to the disadvantage of the Observator as he possibly could did after change and alter the very sense of his History to make it speak agreeable to the words of his Pamphlet as for example 1. The Observator faulted it in the Historian for saying that as a man without a female consort so a King without his supreme Councel was but a half-formed sterill thing the natural extracts of the one for so it followeth in the Author procreated without a wife being not more spurious than the politique descendents of the other without the Caution of a representative This looked on by the Observator as a Paradox most dangerous to supreme Authority in making Parliaments so necessary to all acts of State as if that Kings or they that have the
these mistakes together then if he had took them one by one as they came in his way especially considering that he gives a good reason for it that is to say that he might not trouble himself with the like observation at another time and did I think the Pamphleter would be ruled again by reason I could give him another reason for it that he was now to take his leave of those Observations which personally related to the two Kings in their several and distinct capacities This of King James in sending the Articles of Lambeth to the convocation of Ireland and the Assembly at Dort being the last point in which he was concerned in his own particular without relation to King Charles and not seconded by him It 's true we finde them acting afterward in the same design but in several times King James first setting out the Declaration about lawfull sports and King Charles seconding the same by a more strict command to have it punctually observed throughout the Kingdome Which giving the occasion to some observations and those Observations occasioning a sharp and uncivill Answer in our Authors Pamphlet I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Controversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that followes though the Debates touching the spreading of Arminianism and the supposed growth of Popery according to the course of time and the method of our Authors History do occur before it Only I must crave leave to hoop in here the Duke of York as a considerable Member of the Royal Family before I close this present Chapter Of him our Auâ—hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets that he was by Birth-right Duke of York but to avoid the Scilla of that mistake he fals into the Charybdis of another as bad telling us in that leafe new printed but not new printed only if at all on that occasion that he was after styled Duke of York For which being reprehended by the Observator as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times the Gent. seemeth much distressed and in the agony of those distresses asks these following questions 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash 2. What shall an honest Historian do in such a case Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him and resolve him briefly letting him know that an honest Historian should have said he was after created Duke of York and not styled so only And 2. That if our Author shewed himself an honest Historian the Observator hath no lash for him and so it will be possible enough to scape it Which said we shall go on to that grand concernment in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose CHAP. IV. The Pamphleters mistake in making discontinuance equall to a calling in The uncharitable censure of H. B. and our Historian upon the first and second publishing of their two Majesties Declarations about lawful sports The Divinity of the Lords Day not known to Mr. Fryth or Mr. Tyndall two eminent Martyrs in the time of King Henry 8. nor to Bishop Hooper martyred in the time of Queen Mary The opinions of those men how contrary to this new Divinity This new Divinity not found in the Liturgies Articles or Canons of the Church of England nor in the writings of any private man before Dr. Bound anno 1595. The Observator justified in this particular by the Church Historian The Authors ill luck in choosing Archbishop Whitgift for a Patron of this new Divinity and the argument drawn from his authority answered An Answer to the Pamphleters argument from the Book of Homilies the full scope and Analysis of the Homilie as to this particular The Pamphleters great brag of all learned men on his side reduced to one and that one worth nothing The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrewes neither of his writing nor approved of by him Our Authors new Book in maintenance of this new Divinity The Doctor vindicated from the forgings and falsifyings objected against him by the Pamphleter Proofs from the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches 1 That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines the sanctifying one day in seven is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement 2 That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand then the authority of the Church And 3 That the Church hath power to change the Day and to translate it to some other WE are now come unto the business of the Lordsday in which our Author sheweth himself a stiffe Sabbatarian taking his rise from the Kings Declaration about Lawful sports first published by King James at Greenwitch May 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westminster Octob. 18. anno 1633. when published first it raised so many impetuous clamours as our Author told us in his first that the Book was soon after called in in which being otherwise informed by the Observator and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in though the execution of it by the remisnesse of that Kings Government was soon discontinued will notwithstanding keep himself to his former error and thinks to save himself by this handsome shift that the discontinuance of the execution of it no matter upon what occasion for he leaves that out was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in Fol. 22. This is a piece of strange State Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution of any Law Ordinance Canon or Act of State should be equivalent unto the calling of them in Our Author hath not found it so in the Act for Knighthood nor have the Subjects found it so in such penal Statutes as having lain dor◠〈◊〉 many years were awakened afterwards nor can it be inferred from hence that any of the Lawes against Priests and Jesuites are at the present or have been formerly suppressed and tacitely call'd in because by the clemency of King James the prudence of King Charles and the temper of the present Government there was and is a discontinuance of such Executions as only are to be commended when they may not then when they may possibly be spared What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration the Observator tels at large from the Books themselves But H. B. in his seditious Sermon most undeservedly entituled For God and the King gives another reason for the publishing of it by King James which being not pertinent to my businesse with our present Author I forbear to mention that being already canvassed in another place But the design of the re-publishing of it in the reign of King Charles was by our Author in the first draught of his History as it was sent unto the Presse and printed though suppressed with others of like nature spoken of before affirmed to be a plot to gall and vex those godly Divines whose consciences would not vail to such impiety as to promote the work and for
I know not what words in the Observations that reason of State and King craft will not tolerate the Arminians in a Commonwealth But no such thing occurs there I am sure of that all that the Observator saith being only this that King James tendring the safety of the Prince of Orange and the peace of those Provinces thought it no small piece of King-craft to contribute toward the Suppression of the weaker party blasting them not only with Reproachfull names but sending such of his Divines to the Assembly at Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation Can any man inferre from hence by the Rules of Logick that reason of State and King-craft will not tolerate the Arminiaus in a Commonwealth because as the Case then stood in the Belgique Provinces betwixt Barnevelt and the Prince of Orange King James thought fit to Countenance the partie of the Prince of Orange and suppresse the other Next as for Barnevelt himself one of the wisest men that ever those Countries bred he saw and feared that the great power to which the Prince of Orange had attained if not evenly ballanced might end at last in the Suppression of the Publique Libertie and make those Provinces Unius quasi familiae haereditas the Patrimonie and Inheritance of the Nassovian Familie Hereupon finding that the Prince had made himself the head of the rigid Calvinists he joyned himself to those whom our Author calls Arminians but passed in their own Country by the name of Remonstrants and thereby brought the Prince into such a streight that to preserve his power and make sure of Barnevelt he violated all the privileges of those several States for which they had first took up Armes against the Spaniards For first drawing out such Forces as were most at his Devotion he passeth from one Town to another displaceth the Magistrates changeth the Garrisons and removes the Governours putting none into the Rooms but such as were of the other party and assured unto him And 2ly having thus altered the whole Face of the Common-wealth Barnevelt by these new Magistrats is seized upon and contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Holland whereof he was a native put over to certain Delegats appointed by the States Gen. men utterly uncapable of dealing in matters of that nature to hear his process by whoÌ„ he was condemned and accordingly executed And this is that wicked Conspiracy for which he suffered so condignly as our Author telleth us but whether it were so or no the moderate and unconcerned Reader but some what lesse concerned than the Pamphleter is will be better able to discern if he peruse the Apologie of the Remonstrants in which are many things of note which concern this businesse As for that Damnable and Hellish Plot about three years after wherein the States sitting in Councel at the Hague and after them all other Anti-Arminian Magistrates were destin'd to slaughter as the Pamphleter hath it Fol. 46. If all be true that is reported and the design as damnable and hellish as the Pampleter makes it yet doth not this concern the Arminian partie but only the Children and Kinred of Barnevelt whose design it was who to revenge his death so unworthily and unjustly contrived and as they thought so undeservedly and against their Lawes might fall upon some desperate counsels and most unjustifiable courses in pursuance of it But what makes this to the Arminian and Remonstrant partie Barnevelts Children were convicted of a Damnable and Hellish plot against the State Ergo the Arminians or Remonstrants are a turbulent seditious Faction and conseqâ—ently not to be suffered in a Commonwealth King James approved not of this Logick when it was moved by some hot-headed Members of the Lower House to seize upon the persons and Confiscate the Fistates of all English Papists as guilty of the Gunpowder Treason because some discontented turbulent and ambitious spirits had designed the Plot I know saith he in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament Anno 1605. that your hearts are so burnt up with zeal in this errant and your tongues so ready to utter your dutifull Affections and your hands and feet so bent to concurre in the execution thereof for which as I need not to spurre you so can I not but praise you for the same As it may very well be possible that the zeal of your hearts shall make some of you in your speeches rashly to blame such as may be innocent of this Attempt But upon the other part I wish you to consider that I would be sorry that any being innocent of this practice either Domestical or Foreign should receive blame or harm for the same For although it cannot be denied that it was the only blind Superstition of their errours in Religion that led them to this desperate device yet doth it not follow that all professing the Romish Religion were guilty of the same So he And how far different this is from the Pamphleters Logick though that the best Logick of these times is left to the Consideration of all equal and Indifferent men And 2ly admitting that the whole Arminian partie were engaged in these Treasons either in voto or in Re yet doth it not follow hereupon with reference to other Countries that they are none of the best subjects be their Doctrine as Orthodox as they pretend Which is the Corollary which the Pamphleter hath inferred upon it My reason is because Arminianism it self as it relates to the five points in difference which in our Authors Style is called Arminianism disposeth not the Professors of it to any such practices And therefore if the Arminians should prove to be as turbulent and seditious as the Pamphleter makes them yet must we not impute it to them as they are Arminians that is to say as men following the Melancthonian way and differing in those five points from the rest of the Calvinists but as they are a branch of the Sect of Calvin to whose Discipline in all particulars they conformed themselves and to his Doctrine in the most as was declared by the Observator And we know well what Dangerous Practices and Positions have been set on foot within this Island by such as have pursued the one and embrace the other This said I must turn back again where I find the Observator put to an unnecessary but invidious task The Observator had affirmed that St. Augustines zeal against the Pelagians transported him into such inconvenient expressions as the wisest men may fall into on the like occasions To this the Pamphleter replieth That it were a work very proper for the Observator to instance in those inconvenient expressions and to undertake the confutation of them Fol. 5. And this I call both an unnecessary and invidious task unnecessary as being no way pertinent to the present businesse invidious in regard of that high esteem which that great Father hath attained to in the Christian world And yet I shall crave
leave to say that if he had not run himself into some Inconvenient expressions in condemning Infants unbaptized to the pains of Hell he never had incurred the name of Infanto-Mastix A more particular accompt whereof I had rather the Reader should take pains to collect from his writings than expect from me All I shall further add is this that St Augustine when he was alive did neither think himself infallible or exempt from errours Nor was displeased with St. Hierome for canvassing or confuting any point of Doctrine by him delivered This liberty they mutually indulged on one another and good reason for it Non tam Stultus sum ut diversitate explanationum tuarum me laedi putem quia nec tu laederis si nos contraria senserimus This was St. Hieromes resolution to St. Augustine in a point between them equally full of piety and Christian courage The next thing required of the Observator is To produce the men of the Calvinian party who say that a man is forcibly drawn and irresistibly with the Cords of Grace in the work of conversion Fol 5. He grants indeed that they take away an actual resistance of the will as inconsistent simul semel with efficacious Grace and I grant that too Grace not being efficacious or deserving so to be accompted when all mans actual resistance is not took away But such an irresistibility as the Observator mentioneth he thinks that none of them assert But he doth but think it and he is able to think more then the most subtle disputant of that party is able to prove But the Calvinists or contra-Remonstrants have thought otherwise of it who in the conference at Hague maintained an irresistibility no lesse evident in the workings of Grace then in those of the natural generation or supernatural resurrection from the dead man being no more able in their opinion to resist the operations of Grace then he is able either to hinder his own begetting or his last raising from the grave Quemadmodum non est humani arbitrii nasci aut non nasci excitari ex mortuis aut non excitari ita neque ex nostro arbitrio pendet ullo modo nostra conversio So they Collat. Hague pag. 27. A more particular accompt together with the names of those who maintain this Tenet the Observator will produce when required of him But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation of this Metaphysical whim-wham viz. How Eternity for so saith he the Observator saith not Salvation can recipere majus minus receive either augmentation or diminution from man â—ol 5. But Sir without any of your whim-whams where find you any such thing or any thing that looks that way in the Observator Cannot the Observator say that by the doctrine of some Calvinists and Rigid Lutherans a man contributes nothing to his own Eternity but presently you must cry out of I know not what Metaphysical whimwhams as if he had affirmed that Eternity might recipere majus minus For though Eternity cannot recipere majus minus as indeed it cannot yet I hope the Pamphleter or our Author will not stick at this that some men do contribute more or less to their own Eternity or towards the attaining of their own Eternity if that will better please the man than some other do But had the observator used the word Salvation as the Pamphleter sayeth he should have done had he spoken properly then this great quarrel had been saved Salvation being susceptible of a majus et minus what else can be inferred from the Pamphleters words though Eternity be not which indeed I will not say is such a Metaphysical Whimwham but such a fine piece of Norfolk Drapery that t is pitty we should have no more of the Remnant as well and wisely said the Gentleman on another occasion Next for King James the Pamphleter seems much displeased that having been inclinable unto the Calvinian Tenets as well by the course of his Education as by the insinuations of Dr. James Mountague first Dean of the Chapell and afterwards Bishop of Bathe and Wells and at last of Winchester he should be thought to change his Judgements in those points on Reading of Mr. Richard Mountagues Book against the Gagger and this saith he is most unlikely It being well known that in Theological controversies King James was able enough to go alone and needed not like a Child be led up and down by the hanging Sleeves from one opinion to the other Fol. 5. But then it is but unlikely only though most unlikely that it should be so And being but unlikely though most unlikely there is no such impossibility in it but that it may be certified without any injury to the abilities of that King in Theological controversies it being no unusuall thing in the greatest Scholars not only to alter their opinions in matters of opinion only and not fundamentll as the Pamphleter makes these not to be but Retract and Recognize as Bellarmine and Saint Augustiue did what they said before And that the King had either altered his opinion in those points or abated much of his rigor in it appeareth by the countenance which he gave to Mountagues Book and the incouragements which the Author had from him to vindicate both his Fame and Doctrine against Ward aud Yates the two Informers a full accompt whereof we have in the observations Fol. 33. But the Pamphleter will not have done with Master Montague telling us a very pretty tale that in the year 1628 this Mr. Mountague then Bishop together with Doctor Neile Bishop of Winchester being remonstrated to the King as Abettors of those Tenets professed with Tears in their eyes that they hated those opinions and before his Majesty and his Counsell renounced them Fol. 6. Here is indeed a dolefull ditty the Lamentation of a sinner to the Tune of Lachrymae a tale like this wee had before but that it was the Squires tale then and the Knights Tale now For if we ask what authority what Proof he hath to make good the story Marry saith he it was so averred by Sir Humphrey Mildmay in open Parliament nemine contradicente no one near the Chair contradicting Never was story better proved nor proved by more particulars of such waight and moment It was averred by Sir Humphrey Mildmay whether mistaken in the name or man I regard not and therefore most infalliblly true for if Sir Humphrey said the word it must needs be so and yet I do not think that Sir Humphry or Sir What you will was any of the Kings Councell or called into the Conncell Chamber to behold the Comaedie It was averred secondly in the open Parliament thereâ—ore there can be nothing truer nothing being told within the Walls whether the tales of Dutch Skippers or of Danish Fleeâ—s or the Plague-Plaster sent to Mr. Pym or saying mass daily in the Streets at Oxford and all the rest of the discoveries of Sir
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
day only had it hapned so he is not to expect it in offences of a higher nature wherein he is said to be so shamefully out as never man was out of the Story beyond all measure and out of Charity beyond all Religion Fol. 41. charged thus in general the Pampheter sets upon him with 5 particulars relating to the conference between the King and the Bishops in the businesse of the Earl of Strafford that is to say 1. These Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King but sent for by him 2ly They were five not four 3ly If any of them depended upon the Judgement of the others it was the Bishop of London who at the last meeting and consultation spake not one Syllable 4ly The Lord Primate had no sharp tooth against the Lieutenant And 5ly The Convocation of Ireland was not 1633. as the Observator placeth it To the last of these we have already answer'd in the former Chapter to the three first there are no proofs offered but his ipse dixit and therefore might be passed over without more adoe but being Magisterially delivered and delivered ad appositum to that which had been said by the Observator I will examine them one by one as they lie before me And first he saith that these Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King but sent for by him Fol. 41. And for this we have his own word worth a thousand witnesses without further proof But first I remember very well that on Saturday the 8th of May as soon as the House of Peers was risen I was told of the designation of the four Bishops that is to say the Lord Primate of Armagh the Bishops of Durham Lincoln and Carlâ—le to go the next day unto the King to satisfie and inform his conscience in the Bill of Attainder 2ly The King had before declared the satisfaction which he had in his own conscience publickly in the House of Peers on good and serious deliberation and therefore needed not to send for these Bishops or any of them to inform it now 3ly If any doubt were stirred in him after that Declaration it is not probable that he would send for such men to advise him in it in some of which he could place no confidence in point of judgement and was exceedingly well anured in the disaffections of the other For not to instance any thing in the other two can any man of wisdome think that the King out of so many Bishops as were then in London would put his conscience into the hands of the Bishop of Lincoln a man so many times exasperated by him newly reâ—caâ—ed from a long Imprisonment and a proseâ—ed servant at that time to the opposite party in both Houses and with whose â—requent prevarications he was well acquainted or that he would confide any thing in the judgement of Bishop Potter a man of so much want so many weaknesses that nothing but the Lawen Sleeves could make him venerable and so most like to be the man whose Syllogism the King faulted for having four tearms in it of which the Pamphlet tells us Fol. 42. None but a man of such credulity as onr Authors is can give faith to this and I must have some further proof than his Ipse dixit before I yield my assent unto it He saith next they were five not four Fol. 42. And five there were indeed I must needs grant that but neither sent to him or sent for by him For the truth is that the King hearing of the Designation of the other four sent for the fifth the Bishop of London to come to him in the morning betimes with whom he had sâ—â—e preparatory conference with reference to the grand encounter which he was to look for And from him he received that satisfaction mentioned in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chap. 2. that Bishop counselling him not to consent against the vote of his own conscience as is there affirmed So we have here five Bishops in all that is to say four sent to him by the Houses of Parliament and the fifth sent for by the King eiâ—her the diligence or intelligence of ou Author being wanting here as in many other things besides though he will by no means yeâ—ld to have failed in either But thirdly if any of them depended on the judgment of the others it was the Bishop of London Ibid. whether with greater injury to that Bishop to have his judgement thus pinned on another mans Sleeve or to the King in choosing so unfit a Counseller to inform his conscience It is hard to say Our Author in the first Edition had told us of him that he was none of the best Scholars and the Pamphleter brings this argument now in full proof thereof But how is this dependency proved Because saith he at the last meeting and consultation he spake not one syllable A most excellent argument He spake not a syllable at the last meeting Ergo he spake nothing in the first For if it be granred that he declared himself in the first conference though not in the last it is enough accotding to our Authors Logick to save himself from the imputation of depending on another man Or thus admitting it for true that the Bishop spoke nothing in the first conference neither the argument will be as faulty as it was before The Bishop of London spoke nothing not one syllable during the whole time of the consultation Ergo which is in English therefore he depended on the Judgment of the other four For if he spake nothing all the while how can the Pamphleter assure us what his judgment was or upon whom it did depend But the truth is that wise Prelate knew the temper of those present times and how unsafe it would be for him to declare himself against the Sense of the Houses and therefore having declared his judgment in the morning privately and thereby given the King the satisfaction before mentioned he rather chose to hear what the other said than to say any thing himself Whether the Lord Primate had any sharp tooth against the Lord Lieutenant or not I dispute not now the parties being both dead and the displeasures buried in the same Grave with them which for my part I am not wilto revive But as to the occasion of them whatsoever they were in repealing the first Articles of the Church of Ireland and the Debates between the Lord Primate and the Bishop of Derry I have already vindicated the Observator in the former Chapter The rest which doth remain in this redious nothing which taketh up so great a part of rhe Pamphlet consisteth of some offers of proof that there was a more than ordinary dearnesse between the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Primate by consequence no sharp tooth no grudge upon either fide a thing saith he so likely that it is almost Demonstrable And first saith he the Lieutenant did from time to time advise with the
purpose of our Author Now the first paper had these words as the Pamphleter telleth us viz. I would have no man commend me for doing it but rather discommend themselves for if God had not taken away their hearâ—s for their sins he had not gone so long unpunished The second Paper had these words viz. The man is cowardly base in mine opinion and deserves neither the fame of a Gentleman or Souldier that is unwilling to sacrifice his life for the honour of God his King and Country To both these he subscribes his name and Copies of both these were sent the same day by Captain Harvy to his friends in London but neither of them do declare that his only motive to the fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke The man might possibly be set on and his discontents made use of to this barbarous murder by some of those who wished well to this Remonstrance I deny not that and it may be believed the rather because the Pictures of the wretch being cut in brasse and exposed to sale were caught up greedily by that party and being the Copies of these Letters were printed in the bottom of it it is more probable that our Author might have them thence than from the Letters of the Captain but that he was induced to it by the Remonstrance is more than any man of common sense can collect from those papers and therefore very ill brought in with so much confidence and ostentation to prove that positively which by no Logical Inference can be gathered from them If ever man were Animal Rationale Risibile that is to say a Creature ridiculous for his reasoning it must needs be this But certainly our Author could not possibly be so much out in his rational and discursive faculties had he not wished well unto the man and approved the Fact He had not else accounted it an exploit of glory or put that glosse upon the meaning of the Wretch that he had stitched those Papers into the lining of his Hat for fear lest the Supposition of private revenge would infame and blemish the glory of the exploit nor had he told us that it pleased the Common man too well and that in vulgar sense it rather passed for an Execution of a Malefactor and an administration of that Justice dispensed from Heaved which they thought was denied on earth Fol. 91. Never did man so advocate for a willfull murder or render a whole Nation so obnoxious to it and so guilty of it there being little difference if any between the rejoycing at such facts when done and consenting to them Cicero speaking of the Murder of Julius Caesar hath resolved it so viz. Quid interest utrum velim fieri an gaudeam factum He that applaudes a Murder acted rendreth himself an Accessary to it before the fact We have not done with Felton yet for our Author told us that His bodie was from thence conveyed to Portsmouth and there hung in chains but by some stole and conveyed away Gibbet and all The contrary being proved by the Observator and the thing too plain to be denied he hath since rectified his History as to this parricular not on the credit of the Observator no take heed oâ— that but because told so by his betters Yet still he must be standing on his justification and as long as he hath any common Fame or confident Report be it never so erroneous to pretend unto he conceives that sufficient for him Fol. 14. Upon this ground the honour of the Countess of Buckingham shall be called in question and an affront falsly reported to be done to publique Justice shall passe into his Annals as a matter of truth He could not else instruct Posterity or the present age how to defame the honour of Ladies or commit the like Rapes upon the Law without fear of impunitie if either such superfaetations of Fame in his Canting Language should not passe for truths or otherwise be wondred at as no grounds for History If no such consequent follow on it we must not thank the History but the Observations In the next place our Author had told us in his History That there was an old sculking Statute long since out of use though not out of force which enjoyned all Subjects who had not some special privilege to appear at the Coronation of every King ad Arma Gerenda to bear Armes not to be made Knights as was vulgarly supposed In this passage there are two things chiefly faulted by the Observator first his reproaching of that Law by the name of an old Skulking Statute which lay not under the Rubbish of Antiquity but was printed and exposed to open view and therefore needed no such progging and bolting out as is elsewhere spoken of And 2ly his Glosse upon it as if it only signified the hearing of Arms and not receiving the Order of Knighthood as had been vulgarly supposed the contrary whereof was undeniably and convincingly proved by the Observator He hath now fully rectified the first expression but seems to stand still upon his last The first expression rectified thus viz. By the common Law there was vested in the Kings of this Realm a power to Summon by their Writs out of the Chancery all persons possessing a Knights Fee and who had no special privilege to the contrary to appear at their Coronation c. Fol. 115. So then the antient Common Law explained and moderated for the ease of the Subject by the Statute of King Edward 2. is freed from the reproachfull name of an old Skulking Statute we have got that by it The Observator being justified in our Authors Pamphlet for so much of his discourse as concerns that point And to the rest of that Discourse proving that all those who were masters of such an estate as the Statute mentioneth were by the same bound to be made Knights or to receive the Order of Knighthood and not simply to bear Arms or to receive a Sword and Surcoat out of the Kings wardrobe as the Author would have had it in his first Edition he comes up so close as could be scarce expected from him For first he telleth us in the Text of his new Edition that such as appeared at the Coronation were to receive a sword and Surcoat he still stands to that as the Ensignes of Knighthood and therefore questionless to receive the Order of Knighthood also if the King so pleased And 2ly he confesseth in his Comment on it out of Matthew Paris that King Henry the 3. fined all the Sheriffs of England five Marks a man for not distraining every one having 15 l. per annum to be made Knights as he had commanded adding withall that he had read of the like Precept of King Edward the First Fol. 20. So then the Subjects were not called together to the Coronation ad militiae aâ—ma gerenda to bear Arms only but to receive the Order of Knighthood we have
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