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
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
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
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
as do relate to the two Kings and such of their personal affairs as our Author treateth of The first exception made by the Observator is the impowering of the Eatâ— of Bristol to celebrate by Proxie in the Princes name the marriage with the Lady Infanta That so it must be understood appeareth by the words foregoing The Spaniard saith he importunately moves his Highnesse theâ— ready to depart for England that bâ— would be pleased to assign in his absence some Proxie to contract with thâ— Infanta after a new Dispensation haâ— from Rome to whom the Prince returned answer that he would impower the Earl of Bristol to give his Majesty all satisfaction in that particular which accordingly he did The Gentleman seems much displeased that any such inference should be made from the former words as the impowering of the Earl by Proxie to proceed to the celebration of the Marriage and cals it An adoe about nothing How so Because saith he the Observator might have found his meaning in the page next following where he speaks of the Earls delivering of the Proxie clearly importing it was only in his custody to consign to another Fol. 3. But gentle Sir men that write Histories must write both properly and plainly and not post off the Reader from one place to another to finde out their meaning or else be forced to put such a sense and understanding on their words as they will not bear whereof we shall speak more anon on another occasion In the mean time he proceeds to tell us first that the Proxie was to be consigned to the King of Spain only not to him and Don Charles as the Observator saith And secondly that he would gladly know who this Don Charles was he being the first Don Charles as he or any body else he thought had ever heard of Ibid. To reply first unto the last he need not be desirous to know who this Don Charles was the Observator having told him positively and plainly enough that he was the King of Spains Brother and though the Gentleman pretending to the Spanish Tongue as his Encuerpoes and Accollados do most plainly fignifie conceives the Observator should have called that Prince by the name of Don Carlo as the Spaniards do yet if he please to look into the general History of that Kingdome written in French by Lewis de Mayerne and translated into English by Grimstone he shall not fail of finding there the name of Don Charles many scores of times But for his confident asseveration that the Proxie was made or consigned only to the King and not unto the King and his Brother or to either of them as the Observator hath enformed him if that prove true I must renounce my knowledge in all other Languages but my natural English For in the instrument of the Proxie it is said expresly that the Prince personam nominaturus magnitudini rei ita praeexcelsae parem quae nomine suo seque ipsum repraesentando qua per est dignitate authoritate actui adeo solenni henorifico sumno possit satisfacere praedictum matâ—imonium celebrare ad exitum perducere serenissimi regis Catholici Philippi 4. majestatem eligit item Carolum Hispaniarum infantâ—m ejus fratrem unicuiqs eorum in solidum vices suas committendo prout de facto cum effectu melioribus via forma commisit dedit utrumquemq eo um facit constituit suum verum legitimum indubitabilem procuratorem concedens unicuique c. ut praedicto serenissimo Carolo Walliae principe ejus nomine propriamque illius personam referendo repraesentando nuptias matrimonium contrahat c. cum praedicta serenissima domina Maria Hispaniarum infante c. Thâ—se are the very words of the publick instrument which if they do not prove and prove most undeniably that the Proxie was made unto the King of Spain aâ—d his Brother Charles or to either of them the Pamphleter must have more knowledge in the Latine Tongue then all men else that ever learn'd it The next thing faulted in our Author is his affirming that England had ever found the Spaniard a worse friend then Enemy The contrary whereof being proved by the Observator the Pamphlet telleth us that any fair mannered man would understand the word ever with reference to the State of Reformation Fol. 3. and then the meaning must be this that the Spaniard hath ever been an ill friend to England that is to say ever since the time of her Reformation This was perhaps the Gent. meaning but we poor men that cannot search into his thoughts must know his meaning by his gaping by what he speaks or writes not by what he thinks and sure I am the words can bear no such Grammatical construction as he puts upon them Nor is his proposition true with that limitation which he gives us of it the Spaniards never troubling our proceedings in the Reformation in the reign of King Edward nor in the first beginnings of Queen Elizabeth of whose life next under God himself he was the principal preserver till first by an underhand fomenting and after by appearing visibly in the broyles of the Netherlands he was in forced to arm against her reasons of State and not the interests of Religion being the motives of the long war which after followed But he goeth on and telleth us that the Observator seemeth to confesse it He doth but seem so them that 's one thing and he doth not seem so that is another the Observator saying only that if upon the provocations given by Queen Elizabeth in supporting the Netherlands the Spaniard took up armes against us he had all the reason in the world for his justification which certainly is not so much as a seeming confession that either Religion or Reformation was any cause of that quarrel on the Spaniards part Next for the businesse of the Palâ—tilate the Observator telleth us from some Letters of the Earl Bristols that the Spaniard really intended the restoring oâ— it Our Author doth oppose to this a Letter of the King of Spain to the Count of Olivarez his especial favourite in which it may be found saith he that neither the match it self nor the restitution of the Palatinate was sincerely intended but delaies meerly sought for by the Spaniard to accomplish his peâ—fidious ends Now how he hath abused this Letter in making it to speak of things which he findeth not in it will best be seen by looking on the Letter it self which is this that followeth Philip the 3. to the Conde of Olivarez The King my Father declared at his death that his intention never was to marry my Sister the Infanta Donna Maria with the Prince of Wales which your Unkle Don Balthaser well understood and so treated this Match ever with an intention to delay it notwithstanding it is now so far advanced that considering withall the aversnesse unto it of
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
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
person of honour Ergo he must confute his Author by some Marginal note in a matter which he never heard of or thus the Earl is a person of great knowledge Ergo he knoweth all things which are done in Court though not present there The Premises I grant for truths most undoubted truths But the Conclusion follows as unluckily as it doth in this Enthymeme Homo est animal implume bipes Ergo Gallus Gallinaceus non vertit stercorarium As sweet a conclusion in the one as there is in the other In laying down the true occasion of the Scotist broils the Pamphleter seems willing to contribute something to the Observator but in effect adds nothing pertinent which he finds not there Only I shall observe two things in the course of his Narrative For first whereas he undertakes to illustrate and rectifie the Story as he finds it in the Observator he hath indeed rectified his own errour by it In the unpublished sheets where this narration was to passe as a part of the History we find it said that when the Lord Maxwell came and entrâ—d the Councel of Scotland the Lords refuseâ— to admit him as many ways uncapable of such Authority Fol. 18. But in the Story as it lyeth before us in the present Pamphlet be hath rectified this passage by the Observator â—elling us that he went no further than Barwick where being informeâ— that his person was so generaly haâ—ed as even to the very undoing of his glorious Coach he dust goe no further but poâ—â—ed back again unto the Court Fol. 32. But 2ly finds he nothing faulty in the Story of the Observator Yes He first finds fault with him for saying that the King intending a Parliament in that Kingdom appointed the Earl of Niddisdale to preside therein and furnished him with instructions for passing of an Act of Revocation of Abby-lands and lands of Bishopricks whereas saith he he was commissionated with the Earl of Anandale for summoning a Parliament not for revoking of Church and other lands formerly invested in the Crown but for contribution of monies and Ships against the Dunkirkers Fol. 31. But this assuredly thwarts with nothing delivered by the Observator the Observator no where saying that the Parliament was to be summoned for revoking of Church and other lands formerly invested in the Crown but that the Lord Maxwell or Earl of Nidisdale call him which you will was furnished with instructions for passing an Act to the purpose above mentioned And furnished he might be with such secret Instructions though there was nothing to that purpose in the Writ of Summons by which that Parliament was called or in the Commission it self by which he was appointed and authorized to preside therein Much lesse doth that thwart any thing in the Observator which the Pamphleter gives us in the close when the Scotch Lords and Maxwell were brought Face to Face before the King and when upon some Bugwords spoken by the Scots his Majestie told them and not before he would make them restore all to the crown which they had taken from it in his Fathers Minority Fol. 32. which whether it be true or not is neither ad rem nor ad Rhombum as to this particular It being no where said by the Observator that the King had told him so beofre So that this long impertinency might have well been spared but that the Pamphleter had a mind to say something in it though he knew not what Concerning the election of the Lords of the Articles for the Parliament in Scotland there appeareth some difference between the Observator and the Historian to justifie himself the Historian telleth us in his answer that his Informer being a person of such eminency of that Nation and so versed in the affairs of that Kingdome is as he thinks more credible in this particular than a foreiner Fol. 32. this is another namelesse witnesse given to us under the Nation of a person of eminency one of that nation and versed in the affairs of that Kingdome though where to find him out and how to speak with him about it we may seek elsewhere But of these nameless and dead witnesses we may speak so lovely that wee need not put our selves unto the trouble of a repetition nor the Observator want a witnesse of unquestioned credit that is to say the famous Camden Clarentius King of Arms a man so well versed iu the affairs of that Kingdome as few Natives better The rest that follows in the Pamphlet confisteth first in an Enumeration of the Observators and his own mistakes and sâ—â—condly In a sharp and severe expostulation with him for the close of all His own mistakes with great indulgence to himself he restrains to 8. Which yet for quietness sake and out of his superabundant goodness he is willing to allow for ten whether they be but few or not and whether the mistakes charged upon him by the Observator are of such a nature wherein the fame of no one man the interest of no one caâ—se is either damnified or advantaged as he fain would have it and on the contrary whether all and every of the points which lie in debate between us be they great or little besides which the Pamphleter hath pretermitted in the course of his answer prove not so many errours and mistakes on the Authors side is left unto the judgment of the equall and indifferent Reader The errours of the Observator he hath raised to no fewer than 18 which is more than one for every sheet one of which as he saith tends to the very destruction of sacred worship as that of the Sabbath another to the Defamation of one of the most glorious lights of our Church besides his the Observators most notorious corrupting and falfying his Preface and such like odious imputations not to be pardoned in a man pretending either to learning or ingenuity How far the Observator is excusable in these three last charges and with what folly he is taxed with so many mistakes the Reader hath seen before this time if he hath seriously considered all the points and circuâ—stances in dispute between us And that we may the better see it I shall present him with a Catalogue of those 18 Eâ—rours which being perused will need no other refutation but to read them only Now the eighteen are these that follow 1. Denying the papers found in Feltons Hat 2 3 4. concerning Peter Baro and the Marguaret Professorship 5. saying standing at Gloria Patri was never obtruded 6 7. Concerning the Sabbath 8 9. Concerning the setting forth of Ships 10. Sir Edward Deering for the Lord Digby 11. ArchBishop of Canterbnry voted an Incendiary Decemb. 16. for the 17. 12. concerning the protestation 13 14 15 16 17 18. Concerning the Bishops sent to the King the Primate and the Irish Articles This is the Pamphleters Bill of Lading wherewith he fraughts the small Bark of the Observator consisting more in tale than it