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
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
the motive to his killing the Duke The Historian seems not unpleased with the Fact or involves a great part of the Nation in the guilt thereof Fame and Reports much built on by our Author in the course of his History and to what intent The History rectified bâ— the Observations in the Case of Knighthood the Subjects summoned to the Coronation were to receive that order in our Authors own confession if tbe King so pleased Sir Edward Cooks opinion in the Case examined The Pamphleters notable Arguments for the Swâ—ord and Surcoat Of the Earl of Newcastles two great Feasts at Welbeck and and Belsover Our Author removes one of his mistakes from Guild-Hall to Cornhill The Pamphleters causeless quarrell with the Observator in reference unto the battel at Rostock no such beleguering of that Town no such battel nor any such ingagement of the Armies before the battel of Lipsique as the History mentioneth The History rectified in the first issuing out of the writs for Ship money And the Observator quarelled for directing in it The Pamphleters grosse errour in pursute of that quarrell together with his equity and ingenuity in the managing of it Young Oxenstern was denied audience by King Charles Of what authority an eye witniss is in point of History The Pamphleters weak defences for his errour in that particular He rectifieth his own discourse of the first differences between the King the Scotish Lords by the Observator His quarrels with him and corrections of him quite besides the Cushion The Observator justified touching the constituting of the Lords Of the Articles in the Scotish Parliaments Our Authors false Arithmetique in Substracting from his own errours and multiplying the supposed mistakes of the Observator His sharp expostulation how unjustly grounded The Close of all THis Chapter will be like that of Champion in his Decem Rationes which he calls testes omnium generum an Aggregate body a collection of incoherencies as commonly it hapneth in the Fag-end of such discourses in which a man hath not the liberty of using his own method otherwise than as the Author whom he deals with shall give way unto it And the first thing we meet with is the absolving of the Duke of Buckingham and Earl of Bristoll from the crime of treason wherewith our Author had reproached them in the first Edition where shewing how passing jocund many good men were at the contest betwixt those great persons hâ— addeth that the Question seemed not in the sense of many which was the Traytor but which the most Hist Fol. 29. Both charged as Traytors in the first and both absolved from being Traytots by leaving out this passage in the second Edition For this he is beholding to the Observator from whom he aâ—so takes a hint of giving us a full Copy of the Dukes charge against that Earl which before we had not Now I would fain learn of him whether this censure thus expunged were true or false whether it seemed so in his own sense or in the sense of others If if be false why was it put in the first if true why is it left oâ—t in the second If so they seemed in his own sense why doth he not declare how and by whom his sense was altered in that point but if it were the sense of others I would know the reason why he should suppresse it in this place where it relates only to a private person and stand unto it in all points concerning Episcopacie the Clergy and the Convocation which still stand under the same tearms of reproach obloquy as before they did How so because saith he he speaks the sense of others and not his own and passing as the words of others they shall remain in evidence to succeding times against all those concerned in it though it be proved how much they are calumniated and abused in those scandalous passages Yet deals he better with these great persons than he doth with Mr. Attorney Noye whom notwithstanding the vindication of him by the Observator which he is not able to refute he leaves still under the defamation of prating and bawling giving him the odious Title of a Projector a subtile Enginier a man of cinicall Rusticity with others of like nature unworthy appellations for so brave a man But kissing goeth by favour as the saying is and our Author loves to write none more with respect of persons and to make History do the drugery of his own despight though his Preface if it could would perswade the contrary The next thing which occurs but not so easily reducible to any of the former heads relates to the sttory of that horrible Paricide coÌ„mitted by John Felton on the person of the Duke of Buckingham Concerning which our Author had told us in his History that the said Felton had stiched a paper in his hat wherin he declared his only motive to the fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke that he could not sacrifice his life in a nobler cause than by delivering his Country from so great an enemy To which the Observator answereth first in the way of position not that there were no papers found stitched in his Hat as the Pamphleter fasly charged on him Fol. 45. but that there were no such papers foundin his hat or elsewhere about him as the Historian mentions And 2ly In the way of explication that the first to whom that particular motive was communicated was one Dr. Hutchenson sent by the King upon the first hearing of the News to sift it out of him Against this last the Pamphleter hath nothing to say For taking it upon his word which we need not do that Captain Harvey signified as much in his Letter dated the same day Fol. 13. yet this concludes not in my Logick nor in no mans else but his that thinks himself an Allsteed that that vile Murtherer did first communicate it unto him before the Doctor by working on his conscience had first got it out of him But this is like the rest of our Authors Arguments viz. Captain Harvy being one of those to whose custody he was committed did signifie it on the same day to his friends at London Ergo it was not first confessed to Doctor Hutchenson But Captain Harveys Letter saith more than this Felton saith he told me he was to be prayed for next day in London therefore for one of these Conclusions must needs follow on it either Felton had acknowledged to him that the late Remonstrance did induce him to kill the Duke or that it was affirmed to be so in the papers which were stitched in his hat Now for the matter of those papers That which they are produced for is to prove this point namely that his only motive to the Fact was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke And if they prove not this as I think they doe not they prove nothing against the Observator nor to the
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
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
as it after followeth Of this the Observator is not pleased to inquire any farther nor is there reason why he should only I can assure our Author that Welden another of the same tribe was perswaded otherwise as is apparent in the Pamphlet called the Court of King James Page 130. which I had rather you should look for in the Author than expect from me On from the Mother to the Son from the Countesse to the Duke of Buckingham accused of Luxury and Witchcraft of Witchcraft first telling us in the unpublished and suppressed papers that by the Diabolical practises and fascinations of Dr. Lamb he won and preserved the high esteem he possest in the Affections of both his Soveraigns And next of Luxury affirming that he was a great sensuallist giving his appetite free scope and taking the greater pleasure in repletion because it was subservient to the pleasure of evacuation in venereal excursions a little Rosewater some good Body for my Authors mouth to which excessivly addicted being in that as in all other points a perfect Courtier He telleth us of the Lord Deputy Wentâ—worth that he rather frighted than perswaded the Convocation in Ireland to reâ—eal much against their wills the Syâ—teme or Body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615 and in their place â—o substitute the 39 Articles of the Church of England and that upon no oâ—her design than to advance the Arminian Tenets and to cry down the honour of the Lords day though uniformity of liberty was pretended openly Of the Earl of Portland it is said that being at first of a slender fortune it was thought he did not reflect with so much intention of spirit upon the Kings profit as the advancing of his own estate Of Mr. Noye the famous Atturney General besides those uningenious passages of him which are still left standing he telleth us also that he became so servilely addicted to the Prerogative as by ferretting old penal Statutes and devising new exactions he became for the small time he enjoyed that power the most pestilent vexation to the Subjects that this latter age produced Finally he assureth us of all Courtiers generally that they are to be cleared from all imputation of pretio as being incompatible with Court-qualifications the most part of which tribe resigning themselves to Debauchery and dissolutenesse abandon Religion as too rigid and supercillious a Comptroler over them Nay Mr. Prynne himself cannot scape the hands of our Historian of whom though he borrow the whole Story of the Discovery made by Andreas ab Haberfeild which make up three whole Sheets of his History yet he disdains to be beholding to his Author for it whom he esteems of little credit saying expresly that he inserts it not on the accompt of Mr. Prynnes faith who first made it extant but because he was further assured of the truth of it by a more credible person and one of principal relation to to Sir William Boswell And that Mr. Prynne may have some Company of his own to go along with him he telleth us of the Presbyterians that by their demure formality and supple mildnesse they prevailed dayly on the affections of such who little thought such out side Lambs had claws and asperities so cunningly did they conceal them far more sharp and terrible than the Prelates had whereof they gave some years after sensible Demonstration Our Author cares not much who knoweth it Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine habentur that all men are alike to him when they come before him A man would think our Author were that John Kinsaider mentioned in the Comedy called The Return from Parnassus who lifted up his leg and pissed against all the world as it is there said the Vice in an old English Play or some Turkish Santo whose port and privilege it is to snap at every one he meets and yet no hurt done But he is neither of all these no such matter verily Our Author he doth not care who knows it is a Gent. every inch of him except his tongue A man at armes or lineally descended from the house of knocking so furiously doth he deal his blows on all sides of him that without any trouble to the Herald one may find his Pedigree But for a further proof hereof we will see how he layeth about him when he comes to the Clergy of whom in general he assures us in the unpublished pages before mentioned that there is nothing so sordidly base which will not find Partisans amongst the professors of sacred Orders whose portly pride portly ambition or indiscretion at the best all so mainly conduced to Englands Miseries and their own ruine The like of the Prelates that they were many of them notoriously wicked Blasphemers of Gods sacred name addicted to drunkennesse lasciviousness such enormities some of them also guilty of a turgid swelling Pride and intollerable insolencie all of them charged with obtruding extravagancies and erecting an arbitrarinesse in holy things as others did in civil whose actions and proceedings he calls afterwards prelatical whimzies the Fictions and Chimeraes of their giddy brains Of the Court-Clergy more particularly he assures us this that they were deeply tinctured and stained with the Massilion and Arminian Errours and withall vehemently inclined to superstition But most particularly he telleth us of the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury that he was of a pragmatical and factious spirit a bold Asâ—â—rtor of some dangerous and superstitious Tenets that being by the Kings extraordinary goodneâ—se promoved to that dignity he thought he was now plenipotentiary enough and in full capacity to domineer as he listed and to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his Spirit that impetuously pursuing his over vast and vain desires of rearing a specious Throne agreeable to his projected Models he put both Church and State into combustion he being the man who most eminently moved the King to obtrude upon the Scots that unsavoury Liturgy and to order the dissolution of the Parliament on the fifth of May Finally that he was too undiscreet too full of fire and too pragmatical for so great trust whose acting in things exorbitant and out of the Sphear of his both cognisance calling ruin'd all The most reverend Arch-Bishop Neile he calleth most disgracefully an empty Tub and fathers that phrase upon King James who being a very able discerner of men had questionlesse never raised him to so many Bishopricks Rochester Leichfield Lincoln Durham if he had not found in him some especial merit Thus gives he unto Bishop Williams the title of an insolent and ungratefull person To Mountague and Manwaring Bishops both the scornefull appellation of unworthy wretches Doctor fuxon the Lord Bishop of London censured for none of the best Scholars though he might passe in a throng for one of the worst Bishops and Bishop Wren condemned of turgid swelling Pride and intollerable insolency in which he carried away the Garland from all the rest a simple man
said Doâ—olosus versatur in generalibns that frauduâ—ent and deceitfull men keep aloof in generals that being a more saving way to preserve themselves from the danger of a â—tricter examination than if they should â—lescend to particular instances Nor do I â—hink our Author was indeed afraid of â—eing accused of I know not what had he â—mitted this calumniating of some of the Clergy as he seems to be but rather â—hat it had conduced very much to his â—onour either in leaving it quite out of â—he first Edition or suppressing it wholy â—n the second The third in course but first in order â—f these charges which he lays on â—he Dr. the Dr. of Cosmography in his â—aunting language is That Cosmograâ—hy was a work very proper for him there being none fitter to describe the world than he who all his life loved the world none like him None like him that were strange indeed what more Philargurous one of your fine words dear Sir and more addicted unto filâ—hy lucre than the Presbyterians according to your character of them in both Editions If so the Cavaliers will be ashamed of him and send him home to these men with whom you make him to agree in such base affections But good Sir do you speak in earnest hath he lost such a fair Revenue above 800 l. per annum in Ecclesiasticaâ— preferments 1000 l. at the least in Booksâ— Plate moveables for the testimony of a good conscience hath his poor temporaâ— estate been first brought under Sequestration under a Decimation since onlâ— for his adhesion to those sacred verities to which he hath been principled by education and confirmed by study and caâ— he be challenged notwithstanding foâ— loving the world all his life and loving iâ— in such a measure as no man like him theâ— Frange leves calamos scinde Thalia liâ—bellos in the Poets language It will bâ— high time for him to burn his books giâ— over his studies to abandon his formeâ— interess like a right time-server to assert none but saving truths as our Author doth and so to settle and apply himself to the love of the World indeed When the Pampleter shal give as great as many testimonies of his not loving the world as the Dr. can I may perhaps think fit to tell him that I am confident as many men not being Domestiques have eaten of the Doctors Bread and drunk of his Cup during the whole time of his constant House-keeping as ever did of his who objects this to him But being as it is the Doctor though a Doctor of Cosmography only may not unfitly use the words of a modern Poet and one that was a wit every inch of him as you know who said a little being altered in the close to make it fit and suitable to his purpose thus Have I renounc'd my faith or basely sold Salvation or my Loyalty for Gold Have I some former practice undertook By Poyson Shot sharp Knife or sharper look To kill my King Have I betray'd the State To Fire or Fury or some newer Fate If guilty in these kindes I am content To be thus branded for my punishment 4 The 2 charge laid upon the Doctor and the 4th in order is said to be the falsifying of the words of Pareus by changing quando into quomodo in the great businesse of the Sabbath which with the inference thereupon shall be considered of at full in its proper place Let the Reader keep it on account and when we come to that Chapter which relateth to the Sabbatarian Quarrels I shall quit that score 5. The 3 charge laid upon the Doctor and the fifth in course is a matter of fact viz. That having as all the world knoweth most insolently trampled and insulted upon the Bishop when he was down he no sooner heard of his inlargement but instantly he came creeping and cringing and crawling and crouching to him so servilely as made his Lordship merry with the uncouth sight and all this to stand his friend or at least not appear his foe at that time when that Doctor was in a most sorry plight A pretty Tale whether a Winter Tale or the Tale of a Tub â—is no matter now our Author having no ground for it but a trisâ—ing heresay without producing his Tales-master to make it good he only says that he hath been told told it by some credible persons but who those credible persons were is a great State-secret though many times it may so happen that credible persons may be over credulous and being such may be as forward in divulging incredible â—hings and consequently both may and doe mendacium dicere reâ—ort a thing that is not true though they think â—â—t be but since he hath desired the Reader courted him by the name of the Gentle Reader and conjured him if thou lovest me to put the Dr. to the question whether so or not I have accordingly asked the question am answered negatively no not a word true in all the â—able so that I might here end with these words of Cicero Quid mâ—nus est non dico Oratoris sed hominis quam id obâ—icere â—adveâ—sarâ—o quod si ille verbo negaver it longè progredi non possis A bare denial is a sufficient Answer to a groundlesse slander But since he layeth it home to the Observator and would gladly know of him whether so or no partly to satisfie in behalf of the Observator and partly to vindicate the Doctor from the scorns of contempt and laughter I shall lay down the whole story from his own mouth not only in reference to that Bishop but to the sorry plight which the Pamphleter telleth us he was in at the time of the supposed crouching and cringing The Reader if he please may passe it over as a thing impertinent being written principally to undeceive and disabuse our present Author who otherwise taking it as he doth many things else on the credit of Hear-say may give it some place in the next Edition of this famous History The most part of it being offered to the world already in the printed but unpublished sheets so often mentioned To him it only is intended and to him thus dedicated Sed tibi quando vacat quando est jucunda relatu Historiam prima repetens ab origint pandam That is to say Your leasure serving and the story fit From the beginning I will open it Know then that the Doctor having done his service to the King at the opening of his last Parliament Novemb. 3. An. 1640. retired himself into the Country that being far off and out of sight he might the lesse provoke the indignation of some turbulent men who were resolved to bear all down that stood before them Not startled with the stones thrown at him in the Speeches of Sir Benjamin Rudyard and some others he continued there till the news that Dr. Bastwick Mr. Burton and Mr. Prynne were sent for from their several Prisons
power of Kings could do nothing lawfully but what they do with their assistance and by their consent What saith the Pamphleter to this marry he hopes for he still saves himself by hoping that no man of any ingenuity can so much as question but that his politique Descendents imply Statute Laws which no King of England hath power to make without Common consent in Parliament Fol. 7. and that the text may speak agreeably to the words of this comment he hath foisted the word Laws into it where before it was not as may appear to any man who will be pleased to compare the Editions 2ly The Historian had affirmed for certain that Sir Robert Mansell as Vice-Admirall had an unquestionoble right of the chief conduct of that enterprize against the Spaniard upon the Dukes default For which being contradicted by the Observator grounding himself on the authority and common practice of our Kings in granting those commands to any as they see cause for it The Pamphleter stands stil to his former errour upon this ground that many men of wisdome and experience hold it for a Rule not only in this particular but in all such as have vicariam potestatem Fol. 7. But yet to make sure work withall he hath thrust these words as they thought into the text of his History and thereby made his own position that Sir Robert Mansell had an unquestionable right to the chief comduct in that enterprize to be the opinion of those many men of wisdome and long experience whom the comment points too New if we ask what these men were who thought so of it we find them in some lines before to be the Mariners men I confesse of long experience but of no great wisdome and such as better understand the Jurisdiction of their Masters-place than of the Vice-admiral of England and what such men as these may hold touching the Powers and privileges of such as have vicarium potestatem is so inconsiderable that I shall not trouble my self to insist more on it 3ly The Historian had declared that for Armianism the informations were very pregnant c. For which being blamed in many things by the Observator he puts off the odium from himself to Mr. Pym and the Committee for Religion professing that he only recited what that Committee declared as the product of their enquiries and with this answer he conceiveth he might easily avoid no less than 25 pages of the Observation Fol. 15. So he and that it may be thought so by the Reader too he hath thrice foisted in these words they said into that part of his Narrative which concerns this business as Fol. 97. l. 27. for Arminianisn they said informations were very pregnant c. and Fol. 98. l. 12 13. the hazard conceived from Rome c. flowed they said partly from the uncontrouled publishing of severall points tending and working that way and ibidem â—ine 19 20. the greatest danger was from Popery direct and from this the danger they said appeared very great c. Here have we dicnnt ferunt aiunt these words they said no lesse than thrice in half a leaf foisted in the text to make it suitable to the Pamphlet And we had a praedicant in it too that you may see I have still some smattering of my Grammar an accusation of some men for their uncontrouled preaching of several points tending and warping towards Popery though now upon an admonition from the Observator he hath turned preaching into publishing as appears fol. 98 line 14. guided thereto by the illustration of his comment and a desire to do some right to Doctor Cozens which I thank him for whom he had formerly accused for preaching many things which warped towards Popery but now agreeth so far with the Observator as to excuse him from publishing and direct Popery in his Hours of Prayer 4. The Observator had declared that the Primate had conceived a displeasure against the Lord Deputy for abrogating the Articles of Religion established by the Church of Ireland and setling in their place the Articles of the Church of Enggland to which the Pampleter replyeth that the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated though those of England were received and approved by that convocation Fol. 42. For proof whereof he hath produced a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Barnard and one Samuel Pullain whose title and degree I know and therefore am not to be blamed if I give none to him Whether this Superinduction of the Articles of the Church of England amount not to an abrogation of those of Ireland shall be considered of hereafter in that Chapter which concerns Armianism Now I shall only tell you this that whereas our Author had it thus in his first Edition Fol. 132 viz. that in the Synod assembled in Ireland the body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615. were repealed and in their places were substituted the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England Now to conform his text to the former Comment he hath left out the word repealed in his new Edition Fol. 137. and tells us a clean contrary story to that before which shall be looked upon in the place before mentioned as more proper for it And so I close this Chapter intended chiefly for the justication of the Observator and the retorting of some Foistings on the Authors head withall confuting many of the Pamphleters Answers which could not be so well considered of in an other place CHAP. III. The affairs of the two Kings considered Of the impowering or not impowering the Earl of Bristol by Letters of Proxie The Proxie granted to the King of Spain and Don Charles his Brother Our Author qualifieth the word ever to make it serve his turn and yet cannot do it The Letter of Philip the 3. to Olivarez nothing contained in it against the restoring of the Palanate but the contrary rather King James communicated not with the Parliament in the Breach with Spain our Author pleadeth a Demonstration but produceth none Our Authors nicety between taking Coach to and for White-hall and the vanity of it Some solid Grandure contributed to the throne of Kings in their Coronations His Catholick Majesty how concerned in our Authors scoffs That heretofore some Kings in Spain have been Crowned and anointed though of late those ceremonies be disused and upon what reasons The Pamphleters weak defences for our Authors mistake about taking the Great Seal from the Bishop of Lincoln and the Observator justified as to that particular Our Authors Annuating and Superannuating in his Temporalities His Superannuating or subtertriennuating rather in the â—ynod of Doâ—t how weakly justified and excused The Observators running leap made good and his Reasons for it A transition to the following Disputes about the Sabbath or Lords day WEE are now come to the main body of the Pamphlet in which we shall begin and good reason for it with such particulars
by the Observator and those solemn Inaugurations being proved to be very ancient directed by the holy Spirit in the Book of God exemplified not only in David and many other Kings of Judah but also in the Son of David the chief King of all our Author standeth unto it still because saith he it conferreth no one dram of solid Grandure to the Throne Kings being perfect Kings and qualified fully to all intent of Royalty without it Fol. 7. Igrant indeed that Kings are perfect Kings without this solemnity The Case of Clark and Watson in the first year of King James and of many Murderers and Felons in the first year of King Charles make this plain enough all of them being indited for their several Felonies and Treasons committed by them against the peace of those several Kings their Crowns and dignities they neither of them crown'd at the time of those trials so that I shall not trouble my self with looking into the case of the Post-nati as to that particular But yet I cannot yeeld unto him that these solemnities confer not so much as a single dram of solid Grandure to the Throne For certainly the Kings entry into a Cognizance or stipulation with his people to govern them according to their several Lawes and their Atturning Subjects to him or acclaiming him to be their King in our Authors language must needs contribute much to the establishment of the Regal Throne Were it not thus King Charles had been very ill advised in putting himself to such immeasurable charges for receiving the poor Crown of Scotland and the Scots not more advised then he in threatning him that if he long deferred the duty of a Coronation they might perhaps be inclined to make choice of another King For which consult our Author Fol. 125. It seems by this that neither of them did esteem it a serious vanity and that the King conceived it to have somewhat in it of a solid Grandure and this our Author saw at last and therefore is compell'd by the light of Reason and the convicting of his judgement whether by the Observator or not shall not now be questioned to conclude thus with him that there is something of a solid signification in those serious vanities But then he adds withall that all Christian Kings are not concerned in it as is affirmed by the Observator his Catholick Majesty not being touched in it because not Crowned Nor doth this inference hold good by the Rules of Logick that because his Catholick Majesty is not crowned at all therefore the Rites of Coronation are not accompted sacred by him or that he is unconcerned in those scoffs and scornes which are put upon it by our Author Betwixt all Kings there is that sacred correspondence that the violating of the Rites or person of one concerns all the rest and though the Catholick King hath not been Crowned in these last ages yet do they still retain a solemn initiation into Regality as our Author calleth it at their first entrance into State Not Crowned I grant in these latter Ages though they were of old that which our Saviour spake in the case of Marriage between man and woman viz. Non fuit sic ab initio that it was not so from the beginning being true in the Political Marriages of these Kings and Kingdomes For in the History of Spain written by Lewis de Mayerne it is said of Inigo Arista the 6. King of Navarre that he was anointed and crowned after the manner of the Kings of France of which he iâ— said to have been a Native that custome being afterwards observed in the following Kings And though it be believed by some that this custome came only into Navarre after they had Kings of the House of Champagn yet that will give it the antiquity of Four hundred years and prove withall that Crowning and Anointing was observed by some Kings in that Continent Nor was it thus only in Navarre but in Castile also Alfonso the third of that name King of Castile and Leon fortunate in his wars against his Neighbours causing himself to be Crowned Emperour of Spain in the Cathedral Church at Leon with the solemnities and ceremonies requisite in so great an Act receiving the holy Unction and the Crown from Don Raymond Archbishop of Toledo performed in Leon anno 1134. and afterwards iterated in Castile as some writers say for the Crown of Toledo as a distinct and different Kingdome The chargeable repetition of which solemn Act in so many Kingdomes as now and of long time have been united in the persons of the Catholick Kings may possibly be the reason of the discontinuance of it in these latter daies each Kingdome in that Continent being apt to think it self neglected as the Scots did here in case the King received not a particular Coronation for it Considedering therefore that one Coronation could not serve for all it was the thriftiest way in respect of charges and the way most like to please the particular Nations not to receive the Crowns of any of them in that solemn way which was and is observed to this day in most Christian Kingdomes The Coronation being past the King prepareth for the Parliament approaching also in the way of preparation he thought it fit that some who in the last had been uncivil towards the Duke should be made examples upon which accompt saith our Historian the Lord Keeper Williams fell and his place was disposed of to Sir Thomas Coventry From which what can be possibly concluded by a knowing man but that the displacing of the Lord Keeper Williams must fall between the Coronation and the following Parliament And then our Author will not yeeld that he was out in this Temporality How so because saith he I never intended it to be in that moment of time to which that Paragraph relates Fol. 8 Is not this like to prove a brave historian think you who professeth openly that he writes one thing and intends another Is not the Reader like to be very well edified by such reservations as the Author keeps unto himself and are not to be found either positively or by way of inference in the Book he reads Our Author certainly is put hard to it when he can finde no other way to evâ—de the errors of his pen but these silly shifts And yet Solamen miseris as the old verse hath it It is some comfort to him that the Observator should be out himself in saying that the Great Seal was taken from him in October whereas it is said by Mr. Howell that he departed from the Seal in August Fol. 8. But what if Mr. Howels intelligence fail him who though a very honest man pretends not to the Spirit of infallibility as our Author doth then certainly the Observator is not out nor my Author in But that we may not spend more time in tossing this debate like a Tenice Ball from one hand to another the Pamphleter may be pleased to
know first that the committing of the Great Seal to Sir Thomas Coventry is placed by the Continuator of Stowes Chronicle after the 25. of September which makes it very near October if it were not in it Secondly it is affirmed by those who have cause to know it that the Seal was committed to that Gent. precisely on the first or second Sunday of October neither sooner nor later And Thirdly I am very certain that whensoeuer it was given to Sir Thomas Coventry it was taken from the Bishop of Lincoln but a day or two before the newes of taking it from the one and giving it to the other being brought to Oxford in the same Letters But then admitting fourthly that the Bishop parted with the Seal in August yet what makes this to our Authors justification makes it not to his further condemnation rather Who placeth it after Candlemas and makes it one of those things in which the King thought fit to prepare himself the Coronation being ended for the following Parliament Never had writer such ill luck or so little modesty such ill luck in calling after any thing which comes in his way but finding nothing that will keep him up from sinking in his own mistakes so little modesty in yeelding to no evidence which is brought against him our Author being like the bold Wrastler I have somewhere read of who though he had many fals and was often foiled would still perswade the company that he had the better But yet he makes us some amends in the next that followes Confessing that he was mistaken in making Dr. Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells when he officiated at the Coronation But then withall he slights the error calling it scornfully Grande nefas an horrid crime no doubt Ibid. Not noted by the Observator as a crime or a horrid crime but as an error or mistake in his Temporalities concerning which he saith and will be bold to say it in the end of his Preface that no one thing or action is so mislaid as to superannuate and not many to vary from the very day of their prime existence Not from the very day of their prime existence that were brave indeed but braver if it were good in the course of the History Some variations from the very day of their prime existence being seen already We have here a super-semi-annuating a fine word of our Authors new fashion in making Doctor Laud Bishop of Bathe and Wells seven moneths at least before his time a superannuating in the great rout given to Tilly by the King of Sweden placed by our Author in the year 1630. whereas that battle was not fought till the year next following a super-triennuating in placing the Synod of Dort before the convocation of Ireland held in the year 1615. that Synod not being holden untill three years after and if I do not finde a super-supe-annuating that is to say a lapse of six years either in the Pamphlet or the History I am content our Author shall enjoy the honour of a publick triumph he must take greater pains then this to relieve his Preface from the purgatory of the Observator of which he telleth us Fol. 9. or otherwise it is like to lie there till the next general Gaol-delivery by a Bull from Rome Now for the superannuating in the businesse of the Councel of Dort a subterannuating call'd in the true sense of the thing our Author hath very much to say though little to the purpose in his own defence for he resolves to act the Wrastler above mentioned and will not yeeld himself foyled fall he never so often And first he flyeth as formerly to his private intentions telling us that he intended his not superannuating of such things and actions as have reference to the sixteen years of King Charles whereof he treateth in that History not of such things as antecedently occurred and were taken in by the By Fol. 8. And this is like an help at Maw kept in his hands to turn the fortune of the game when it seemeth most desperate But besides this subtersuge of his private intentions he not only telleth us that in things taken in by the By he never will nor did ever mean to warrant the truth to every particular year but that this errour being extravagant and out of the bounds of his principal Narrative may come within the confidence of his not superannuating A rule and resolution no lesse saving then the truths he writes and such as ill-becomes the mouth of a good Historian who if he please to walk abroad into forein Countreys or look back into former times must have as great care in the circumstances of time and place his Temporability and localities in our Authors language as in relating the â—ansitions and affairs at home though these hâ—s principal concernment But lest this should not serve the turn he hath a trick to make all sure above all dispute which is by fathering this mistake on the Committee for Religion whose report he there did or at least intended he will be sure that his intentions shall not fail him to compleat But dares he stand to this darâ—s he stand to any thing no we finde the contrary For though he telleth us that the Observator would be wondrous blank at his Ridiculus mus and after such a ranting triumph if the error should be found to be none of his but the infallible Committees yet in the end it will appear that it was infallibly his own himself confessing that thinking fit to contract the Report of that Committee to a narrow scantling not minding the words so he secured the substance he failed in the transcript of his copy which did erroneously he grants present the Articles sent to Dort before those of Ireland which makes it on the whole matter the greater wonder that the man having made this ingenuous accompt as himself entituleth it should reckon as a defence of his not superannuating in this particular which is indâ—â—d a plain confession of the Fact a taking to himself or his own copy of the Report the mistake committed and clearing of the Committee for Religion upon which he had laid it Or granting that the copy was not of his own transcribing but the copy rather of some others the broken fragments and loose notes of that Report wherewith some mercenary pen-man had abuâ—ed his credulity yet how can this be justified before that Committee that such a bold affront should be offered to their infallibility by laying this mistake on them or that Gent. Mr. Pym should be conjured from the Royal Sepulchres like Samuel by the Witch of Eâ—dor to bear witness to it But our Author will not leave it so The Observator must be charged for fetching a running leap to pag. 96. rather then not finde another mistake sor so I think he meaneth in the History which is now before us I thought the Observator had in this deserved a more fair acknowledgement in laying
King James he thought himself concerned I will not say obliged to bring them back again to that first subscription or to commend such a Liturgie to them as might hold some conformity with that of the Church of England To this end having restored the Bishops and setled the five Articles of Perth as necessarie introductions to it he gave order to the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy then assembled to compose a Liturgie for that Church desiring it might be as near the English forms as they could conveniently Wherin as he did little doubt of their ready obedience so questionless it had been finished by the sitting of the next Assembly if the long and dubious expectation of the match with Spain and the Kings death not long after had not layed it by So that King Char. had not only the general subscription of the nation never yet lawfully reversed but the order of King James registred in the Acts of the General Assembly to proceed upon and he proceeded on it accordingly as soon as by the Coronation and the ensuing Parliament he had given contentment to that people And therefore they who can conclude that the Liturgie first grounded on their own subscription designed by their own generall Assembly revised by their own Bishops and confirmed by their own naturall and native King was or could be the ground of their taking Armes for I must not say the Scots rebelled though the Irish did may by the same Logick conclude as well that the Doctrine of Luther was the cause of the Insurrections of the Boors in Germany or that Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwins sands We left the late Arch-bishop acquitted as we hope from being a principal occasion of the Scotch war we must next free him and the rest of the Bishops from introducing Innovations Popery Arminianisme and I know not what And first our Author told us of him that be tampered to introduce some Ceremonies bordering up on superstition disused by us and abused by them that is to say by those of Rome And being told by the Observator that if they were disused only they were still in force as appeared by the case of Knighthood the Pamphleter answered thereunto the word disused doth not at all imply that those Ceremonies were in force but rather layed aside by the Reformators observing how much they were abused by the Church of Rome and therefore not fit to be retained fol. 33. A piece of Law like this we had in the former Chapter where the Pamphleter had broached this Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution that is to say of the Declaration of King James about lawfull sports was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in To that we referre the Reader for an Answer to this I adde now only by the way and ex abundanti that many things may be in abejance as your Lawyers phrase it which are not utterly lost and irrecoverable but carry with them a hope or longing expectance that though for the present they be in no man yet be in the hope and expectation of him who is next to enjoy them For as the Civilians say of Haereditas jacens that goods and lands do Jacere whilst they want a possessor and yet not simply because they lately had one and may shortly have another so the common Lawyers do say that things in like estate are in Abejance Thus Dr. Cowell hath defined that word in his Interpreter And this I take to be the case of those antient Ceremonies which were reduced into the Church by the Arch-bish though a while disused and this may serve for answer to the last Objection of this Pamphleter in the present point viz. that things abused may be lawfully restored to the Primitive use but then it must be saith he by lawfull authority and in a lawfull manner Which Rule of his I hold to be undoubtedly true in the Proposition but of no use at all in the application the Arch-bishop having in himself a lawfull power of restoring such antient Rites and Ceremonies as had been formerly disused only and not also abrogated and what he had not in himself was made up by the Kings authority of which more anon But next our Author tells us of this Arch-bishop that he commanded in his metropoliticall visitation that the Communion-table which formerly stood in the midst of the Church or Chancell should be placed at the East end upon a graduated advance of ground with the ends inverted and a wooden traverse of Railes before it To which the Observator answereth that the King had given sufficient authority to it a year before the visitation which our Author speaks of in the determination of the case of St. Gregory Church November 3. 1633. The Pamphleter hereunto replyeth that by the Arch-bishops out-running Authority he intended not his placing the Communion Table Altar-wise at the East of the Chancell so then we have gained that point if nothing else but by enjoyning a wooden Traverse of Railes to be set before it and commanding all the Communicants to come to it to receive the Sacrament fol. 27. which said he makes a long discourse to prove that by the Queens Injunctions and the 82. Canon the Table is to be placed within the Church or Chancell that the Communicants may in greater numbers receive the Sacrament which is best done saith he when the Table is in the Body of the Church or Chancell And against this or in defence of setting Railes before the Table so as the Communicant should come up to those Railes to receive He is sure that there is no such thing in the Declaration not a syllable that tends that way These Colworts have been boyled already served in and set by the Bishop of Lincolne on his Holy Table so that there needs no other Answer then what we finde in the Antidotum Lincolniense Chap. 7. and therefore I referre him thither for his satisfaction But since he hath appealed to the Declaration to the Declaration he shall go In which it is expresly said That for asmuch as concerns the liberty given by the said Common Book or Canons for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniency that liberty is not so to be understood as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person but to the Judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point both for the thing it self and for the time when and how long as he may find cause So that his Majesties Declaration leaves it to the power of the Ordinary and the Archbishop as chief Ordinary enjoyneth the Table to be placed at the East end of the Chancell and the Communicants to come up to it to receive the Sacrament to which the adding of a Rail as a matter of decency and for keeping off disorders and profanations is
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
credible a person as that Assembly had any Fol. 35. For this we are to take his word fot either he hath no witness to it or else his witnesse is ashamed to own the testimony there being otherwise no danger or inconvenience likely to fall upon him for giving evidence in the Cause And thetefore I would fain know of this nameless witness how and by whom the Lawyers sent this Advice to the Convocation whether in the same paper in which they had subscribed to their opinions or by some message sent along with it by word of month Not in the Paper I am sure there was no such matter I having opportunity both to see and transcribe the same as it came from their hands And if by message I would know who it was that brought it Not the Archbishop I am sure by whom the paper was communicated containing their opinions with their names subscribed The Lawyers durst not be so bold as to send him upon their errant or if they were he lost his errant by the way or betrayed the trust reposed in him for he delivered no such message or advice when he acquainted both Houses with their Subscription And if by any body else I must know by whom when where and in whose presence whether to one or both the Houses of Convocation or only to this credible and knowing person whose name must be concealed like an Arcanum Imperii fit only for the knowledge of he Councill of State When I am satisfied in these particulars he shall hear more of me till then I look upon a nameless witnesse sa no wirness at all In the Declaration of the meaning of that unhappy c. left so improvidently in the Oath the Pamphleter seems to be very well satisfied objecting not one word against it Only he finds himself aggrieved that these faults imputed to the Canon and contrived by others should be said or thought to be delivered as of his own suggestion the exceptions being taken by the Kentish and Northamptonshire men but especially by those of Devonshire presented Septemb. 16. to the Lords of the Councel and touched at in the Lord Digbiâ—s Speech Novemb. 12. Fol. 38. if so and be it so this once I doubt not but all the said parties or so many of them as are living will be satisfied also in the plain meaning of that Canon which seemed to carry such a mysterious import with it in our Authors language Concerning the Benevolence granted by that Convocation Our Author told us that it was beheld as an act of very high presumption and an usurpation upon the preheminence of Parliament No Convocation having power to grant any Subsidies or aid without confirmation from the Lay Senate To which the Observator saith that never was any rule more false or more weakly grounded nor doth he only say it but he proves it too He proves it first by the powers granted to the Procurators or Clerks of the Convocation from the several and respective Diocesses for which they serve next by a President of the like in Queen Elizabeths time Anno 1585. exemplified and followed word for word by this Convocation Against this the Pamphleter makes these two Objections The first drawn from the most infallible judgement of the House of Commons in which so many wise and learned men had declared it so Fol. 39. To which there needs no other Answer but that many things passed in that House rather to pursue their own interest and carry on the design which they had in hand than that they should be urged in suceeding times as a Rule to others The next drawn from the practice of Convocations constantly praying and desiring their Grants and Subsidies may be confirmed and ratified by the High Court of Parliament Ibid. A practice taken up in the latter times of King Henry the 8th when the censures of the Church were grown invalid and held on in the reign of King Edward 6th when the authority of the Clergy was under foot and though continued afterwards in the times of Queen Elizabeth and the Kings succeeding as the shorter and most expedite way yet not so binding but that they did and might proceed by their own sole power as is apparent by the President in the Observator The Parliaments ratification when desired by the Clergy signifies all but when the Clergy have a mind to proceed without it then it signifieth nothing This said I shall ex abundantia let the Pamphleter know that the Convocation had in this particular the advice of the Kings Counsell learned in the Laws who at first were of opinion that the Clergy could not make this grant but by way of Parliament but when they had perused the Instrument and found that the Grant passed not by the name of a Subsidie but of a Benevolence or extraordinary contribution according to the president before mentioned they then changed their minds and gave their Counsell and encouragement to go on accordingly So then according to this Criticism of the Councel learned the Convocation may be delivered of a Benevolence without the help and Midwifry of an Act of Parliament but of a Subsidie it cannot Now the Impulsives to this grant were not only the consideration of their duty owing to his Majestie for his constant defence of the Faith and protection of Christs holy Church by the maintenance of the happy government c. but also of those great expences whereat he was then like to be as well for the honourable sustentation of his Royal Estate at home and the necessary defence of this his Realm as also for the effectual furtherance of his Majesties most Royal and extraordinary designs abroad This gives me some occasion to look toward the Scots and to consider so far of the Liturgie recommended to them as it lyeth before me in my Author of this Liturgy he telleth us how unhappily the King had been perswaded that it little differed from the English to which the Observator answered that the King needed no perswasion in this point The difference between the two Liturgies whether great or little being known unto him before he caused that to be published the Pamphleter replyeth that though the King was shewed the Alteration of the Scotish Liturgy yet might he so apprehend or be perswaded that the differences were small and yet might they be great for all that and perhaps not discovered by him But might be and perhaps are but forry Mediums on which to huild a Conclusion of such weight and consequence 1. For if they might be great for all that they might for all that not be great the one as probable as the other if perhaps discovered by him it is but a perhaps they were not and perhaps they were So that his argument concludeth nothing to the contrary but that the difference between the two Liturgies whether great or little were not only shewn but made known unto him The Observator noted next that the alterations in the Liturgy
being made and shewed to the King he approved well of them in regard that comming nearer to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the administration of the Lords Supper and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms it might be a means to gain the Papists to the Church who liked far better of the first than the second Liturgy In this the Pamphleter very cunningly that I say no worse leaves out these words and consequently being more agreeable to the ancient Forms fastning the hopes of gaining Papists to the Church on the nearness of the Scotish Liturgie to the first of King Edwards without relating to the Forms of more elder times to which the Papists stand affected Fol. 29. This is no fair dealing by the way But let that pass he grants it is a matter beyond dispute that the Papists liked the first Liturgy of King Edward better than the second Why so Because the words of Distribution of the Elements are so framed as they may consist with transubstantiation Fol. 30. If that be all the Papists have as good reason to like the Liturgy of the Church of England now by Law established as they had or have to like the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth The words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy being still retained in the present together with the words of Participation take and eat take and drink c. which only did occur in the second Liturgy No more consistency with transubstantiation in the words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy of King Edward nor consequently in that for Scotland than in that continued in the first year of Queen Elizabeth But then the Pamphleter subjoyns that the gaining of Papists to our Church was indeed the great pretended project of forty years continuance and yet in all that time not so much as one taken with that Bait. In answer unto which I desire to know where the fault was that for the space of forty years the intended project of gaining Papists to the Church took no more effect The Project certainly was pious and intended really and where the fault was we shall hear from our Author himself the Bishops of late yeares saith he supinely either careless or indulgent had not required within their Dioceses that strict obedience to Ecclesiastical constitutions which the Law expected upon which the Liturgy began to be totally laid aside and inconformity the uniform practice of the Church Hist Fol. 137. The Papists loving comlinesse and order in Gods publique service will not be taken with the hatefull Bait of Inconformity and forty years of generall conformity will be hardly found in which we might have gained upon them Had Bishop Laud succeeded Bancroft and the intended Project been followed without interruption there is little question to be made but that our Jerusalem by this time might have been a City at unity in it self Besides the Pamphleter might have observed had he been so minded that the Observator speaks these words of gaining Papists to the Church as a thing hoped for by the King of the Scotish Liturgy and the nearnesse which it had to the first of King Edward which they liked better than the second If the pamphleter can prevail so far with my Lord Protector as to settle the Scotish Liturgy in Scotland and the first of King Edward in this Kingdom we may in lesse than forty years give him a better accompt of the Papists gained unto the Church than can be made for the reasons above mentioned for the like space of time now past If any true Protestants have been lost hereby as here is affirmed when he hath told me who and how many they are he shall find me very ready to grieve with him for it In the mean time I shall grieve for him who so vainly speaks it We have one only thing to adde relating to this Convocation the Observator saying that he had some reason to believe that the Clergy of that Convocation did not appear in the Parliament by their Councel learned sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them To this the Pamphleter replyeth by halves professing that he will not determine 't is because he cannot how the Councel for the Clergy were instructed by them but withall confidently averring that by their Councell they did appear first by Mr. Chadwell of Lincolns Inne Novemb. 26. then again by Mr. Holburn the 15 day of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them Fol. 40. That these two Gentlemen appeared in this businesse for the Clergy I shall easily grant that is to say that they appeared in it out of a voluntary piety and an honest zeal to doe them the best offices they could in their great extremities If the Pampleter mean no otherwise than thus he shall take me with him But there he takes the word equivocally and not according to the legal acception of it and there can be no legal appearance but by men authorized and instructed by the parties whom it doth concern and that these Gentlemen were so the Pamphleter can neither say nor will determine And certainly if the Members of that Convocation had been so ill-advised as to submit their persons Cause and Jurisdiction which I am very well assured they did not and would never doe to the Iudgement of the House of Commons it had been more proper for them to have made this appearance by his Majesties Attourney and Solliciter and others of his Councell learned the Kings interesse and theirs being so complicated and involved as the case then stood that the one could not fall without the other Being thus entered on this Parliament I will look back to those before and take them in their course and order And the first thing we meet with is an ancient Order said in the History to be found by the Lords that is to say the Lords which were of the popular party against the Duke that no Lords created sedente Parliamento should have voice during that Session c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded The vanity and improbability of which Report is proved by the Observator by these two Arguments First that the Lords Seymore Littleton Capel c. created sedente Parliamento Anno 1640. were admitted to their suffrages without any dispute though in a time when a strong party was preparing against the King And 2ly That when a Proposition of this nature was made unto the King at York he denied it absolutely though then in such a low condition that it was hardly safe for him to deny them any thing which they could reasonably desire which Arguments the Pamphleter not being able to answer requireth a Demonstration of his Errous from the Records themseves or otherwise no recantation to be looked for from him Fol. 10. Whereas indeed it doth belong unto our Author according to the ordinary rules of Disputation both to produce a Copy of that ancient Order and to make proof out of
the Journals of that House that the new Lords were excluded from their suffrage accordingly And this since he hath failed to doe the Observators Arguments remain un-answered and the pretended Order must be thought no Order or of no authority In the businesse of the Levy made upon the Subject Anno 1626. there is little difference the Observator calling it a Loan because required under that name in relation to the Subsidies intended and passed by the Commons in the former Parliament our Author calling it a Tax as being a compulsory tribute imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate and such is this affirmed to be in the following words Fol. 10. And this is no great difference nor much worth our trouble Only the Pamphleter is mistaken in making this Loan or Tax to be imposed upon the Subject at a certain rate Whereas the Commissioners if I remember it aright imposed not any certain rate upon the Subject but scrued them up as high as they could with reference to their Abilities in Estate and Charge of Familie Our Author calling the Members of the House of Commons Anno 1627. not only Petty Lords and Masters but even Petty Kings and finding that the Observator marvelled at this strange expression fitst puts it off upon King James who having said the like before but rather in the way of Jear than otherwise he thinks it no great marvell that a poor Subject should use the same expression also Fol. 11. The difference is that the Pamphleter speaks that in earnest which the King most probably spoke in Jest and proves it by the power which the Commons assumed unto themselves in the late long Parliament of whom he telleth us that they were not Petty Lords but Lords Paramount not Petty Kings but Superiours to Kings themselves Ibid. T is true he hath a kind of Plaister to salve this sore for he would willingly write nothing but saving truths advertising that the Expression above mentioned doth not import what these Gentlemen were de jure but what de facto and what in reputation but then withall he leaves it standing in the Text as a plain Position to serve as a President to the Commons of arrogating the like powers unto themselves in succeeding Parliaments And in this he may be thought the rather to have some design because he makes no Answer to that part of the Observation which declareth out of the very Writs of Summons that they are called only to consent and submit such resolutions and Conclusions as should be then and there agreed on by the Kings great Councill or the great Council of the Kingdom that is to say the Lords Spiritual and Temporal assisted by the Reverend Judges and others learned in the Laws To make this position the more probable our Author telleth us that the House of Commons was then able to buy the House of Peers though 118 thrice over that is to say although there were 354 Lords in the House of Peers For this being called to an accompt by the Observator in regard of the low value which was put upon the Peerage by it he thus proceeds to make it good valuing the estates of each L. in the House of Peers ato more than 3000 l. per annum and each Member in the House of Commons at no lesse than 2124l per annum one with another Whereas unlesse he make the Baronage of England to be very despicable there were but few whose estates could be valued at so mean a rate as on the other side there were not very many members in the House of Commons whose Estates exceeded the proportion which he puts upon them some of them being of mean estates and some of very little or none at all But give him leave to set the members of each House at what rate he pleaseth then he may as well enable the House of Commons to buy the House of peers ten times over as to buy it thrice The Observator having entred into a a Consideration why the Bishops or spiritual Lords should be left out by the Author in this valuation as if they were no members of the House of Peers is answered that if the Bishops were members of the House of Peers then these words of his were turn-key enough to let them in if the Observator say not their exclusion is his own manufacture Fol. 12. Well applyed John Ellis and possibly intelligible enough in a place of manufactures but nothing proper to the true meaniug of the word in the vulgar Idiome But let us take his meaning whatsoever it be and in what Country Dialect soever we may trade the word and yet all will not serve the turn to save our Author from the purpose of excluding the Bishops from the valuation and consequently from being members of the House of Peers my reason is because it is affirmed by the Observator that there were at that time about an hundred and eighteen Temporall Lords in the Upper House and therefore that the Bishops were not reckoned in the calculation This is so plain that the Pamphleters turn-key will not serve to let them in and I have reason to believe that he had as great a mind as any to thrust them out it being one of his positions in the sheets unpublished that the Root of Episcopacie had not sap enough to maintain so spreading and so proud a top as was contended for Fol. 185. Whether the King did well or not in passing a way the Bishops Votes in the late long Parliament hath been considered of already and therefore we shall need to say nothing here as to that particular No Parliament after this till those of the year 1640. Where the first thing that offers it self is the stating of the true time of the charge brought in against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and his Commitment thereupon The Observator following the accompt of that prelates Diary abbreviated and published by Mr. Prynne Anno 1644. doth state it thus viz. That on Wednesday the 16th day of December a Committy was appointed to draw up a charge against him that on the same day he was named an Incendiary by the Scotch Commissioners who promised to bring in their Complaint on the morrow after and that on Friday morning December 18. Mr. Hollis was sent up with the impeachment and presently came in the charge of the Scotch Commissioners The pamphleter tells us from the Journals if we may believe them that on Thursday December 17. there was a conference between the two Houses at which time the Lord Paget read the Scotch charge against the Archbishop in which charge he was named an Incendiarie Fol. 40. A man would think that the Arch-Bishops own Diary written with his own hand and in a matter which so nearly concerned his life should find as much credit in the world as any thing which the Pamphleter pretends to have found in the Journals especially considering how easie a thing it was as was proved before
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
Primate concerning his Answer to his change Fol. 42. A thing so far from being almost Demonstrable that it is not likely For let me ask for I hope it will be no abusing of your patience my most eloquent Cicero to ask one question whether he advised with the Primate in point of matter or of form in framing his answer to the charge I know you do not think the Primate so great a Lawyer as to be counselled and advised with for putting the Answer into Form The Lord Lieutenant being furnished with more learned Counsell as to that particular And I think also that you know how able the Lord Lieutenant was how well studied in his own affairs how well provided of all advantages in Order to the following tryal and consequently how unusefull the Lord Primate must needs be to him as to the matter of his Answer And whereas it is secondly said that after sentence he desired and obtained of the Parliament that the Primate might be sent to him to serve him with his ministerial office in his last and fatal extremity Fol. 43. There was good reason for this too though it make nothing at all to our Authors purpose For first the English Bishops were engaged in a dayly attendance both in Parliament and Convocation not to be taken off had he desired it upon his concernments especially considering that the Lieutenant had desired the Lord Primates company not only from the time of his sentence as the Pamphleter saith but from the very time that the Bill of Attainder was formed against him And 2ly had he made it his request to have some or any one of the English Bishops to assist him and advise with him in that last necessity It is most probable the Fears and Jelousies of the time considered that the sute had absolutely been rejected As for his taking him by the hand and leading him along with him to the Scaffold there wanted not very good reasons to induce him to it 1. To declare to all the world the reality and sincerity of their Reconciliaty the utter abolition of all former differences And 2ly That the Christianity and Piety of his last Deportment reported from the mouth of one who was known to be none of his greatest friends might find the greater credit amongst his Enemies I see my man of Law is a sorry Advocate though he may be good for Chamber-Councel for never was good cause more betrayed nor ill worse managed Having thus done with the Pamphleter as to this particular I should proceed to my next and last Chapter but that I must needs meet with Doctor Bornard whom I left but now upon that promise Not thinking he had Edified sufficiently by the general Doctrine of the Certificate without a particular application he makes a use of Admonition and Reproof to the Observator and fearing that might not be enough to confound the man for it appeareth not that â—e aimed at his Conversion he must needs have a fling at him in his Sermon preached at the Lord Primates Funeral in which he had some words to this or the like effect as I am credibly informed viz. There is one thing which I cannot forbear and am wished by others also to it and that is to vindicate him from the unjust aâ—persions of a late Observator as though he had advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death and afforded some distinction between his peâ—sonal and politique Conscience A matter altogether false as the Lord Primate himself had declared in his life time adding that there was something in the Presses to justifie him against that presumptuous Observator This is the substance of the charge in the delivery whereof I think the Preacher might have made a better Panegyrick had he been quite silent and not awakened those inquiries which are so little advantagious to the memory of that learned Prelate Howsoever if his zeal had not eaten up his understanding he should have gone upon good grounds and not have charged that on the Observator which he finds not in him Where finds he in the Observator that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of Straffords death Nowhere I dare be bold to say it and if hâ— can find no body else upon whom to Father it the Calumny if such it were must rest at his own dores as the Broacher of it The Observator only saith that he was one of those four Bishops sent to the King by the Parliament to inform his Conscience and bring him to yeeld unto the Bill That the Primate had couceived a displeasure against him for abrogating of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. and that the Kings conscience was not like to be well informed when men so interessed were designed unto the managing and preparing of it All this might be and yet for all this it might not be that the Lord Primate advised the King to sign the Bill So that in brief the Preacher first raised this Calmny against the Primate and then Calumniates the Observator to make it good audacter calumniare necesse est ut aliquid haereat charge but the Observator home the presumptuous Observator so the Preacher called him and that will be sufficient proof to make good the Calumny Lesse reason is there in the next the second part of the charge though none in this there being no such thing in the Observator as the distinction between the Kings personal and politique Conscience The Preacher must look for that elsewhere if he mean to find it The Presumptuous Obsertator was not so presumptuous as to write things which till that time he never heard of and possibly had never heard of them at all if as well he as others had not been awakened by the Preacher to a further search And now upon a further search I can tell the Preacher where he may easily satisfie himself if his stomack serve him Let him but rake a Walk in the second part of Dodonas Grove he shall find it there And if not satisfied with that I shall direct him to some persons of worth and honour from whom he may inform himself more fully in all particulars But as it had been better for him had he not startled this inquiry in a publique audience for which he could not find just grounds in the Observations so I conceive that he will do that reverend person and himself some right if he suffer it to die with the party most concerned in it without reviving it again by his double diligence Non amo â—inium diligeâ—tes is a good old Rule but causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit is a great deal better CHAP. IX The Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Bristol absolved from treason by our Author Of the papers found sticking in Feltons Hat and that they prove not that the late Remonstrance of the House of Commons was
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