Extraneus Vapulans: OR THE OBSERVATOR RESCUED FROM The violent but vaine Assaults OF Hamon L'Estrange, Esq. AND The Back-blows of Dr. Bernard, an Irish-Deane.

By a Well-willer to the Author of the Observations on the History of the Reign of King Charles.

Amicus Socrates, Amicus Piato, Magis amica veritas.

LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Lowndes at the White Lyon, neere the little North-door of St. Paul's Church. 1656.

To the Reader.


I Am to give thee notice, that in one week of the last Term, I was plun­dered twice, first of my name, and secondly of my good name. First, plundered of my name by one William Leak a Book-seller, who publishing a Discourse of mine, under the title of France painted to the Life, (but publishing it by a false & imperfect Copy) hath father'd it in the Stationers Hall on one Richard Bignall, a fellow to me utterly unknown. Next, plundered of my good name by Mr. Hamon L' Estrange, the Authour of the History of the Reign of King Charles, who taking me to be the Author of the Observati­ons on his History, not long since published, hath loaded me, both in my owne person, and in that of the Observator, to whom I am made the Alter Idem, or the same man with him, with many foule, unworthy, and oppro­brious names, not more unfit for me to take, than for him to give. Reproached in my own person by the name of a Theologaster, called [Page] in the way of scorn a Doctor in Cosmography, impeached for impudent forging and falsify­ing Records, accused for loving the world, none like me, with many things of like odious nature; which with the like titles of Honour, conferred upon me in the person of the Ob­servator (too many and too long to be here repeated) thou shalt find briefly summed toge­ther in c. 2. and p. 40, 41. of this present Book.

I must confesse I was somewhat the more amazed at this strange proceeding, because I had not been of late accustomed to such Bil­lingsgate language. There was indeed a time when my name was in almost every Libell, which exercised the patience of the State for seven years together; & yet I dare confident­ly say, that all of them together did not vo­mit so much filth upon me, as hath proceeded from the mouth of the Pamphleteers, whom I have in hand. But then I must confesse with­all, that I had been much more amazed at this strange alarme, had I not been prepared be­fore-hand to receive the charge. For being informed, that the Historian looked upon me as the Author of the Observations, that he was hammering out an Answer, and that he would not handle me with over [...]much tender­nesse, when once he had me on the Anvill; I used some means, to get into my hands, the printed, but unpublished sheets of his first [Page] Edition, whereof thou shalt heare more in its proper place. I found there, that the Gentle­man had a personall malice, an old grudge against me, and was resolved to make his, Hi­story doe the drudgery of his owne despight; though in the Preface to the Reader, he pro­fesse▪ the contrary. I found my selfe there called, The bold Champion of the Prelates, a Dr. in Cosmography, a Theologaster, accused of Ignorance, and Virulence in a Book bung­led up (for so he words it) against the Bishop of Lincoln, on whom I am after said to fawne, and to cringe to him, no man more, &c. Evi­dent Arguments, that his quarrell is not with the Observator, but with Dr. Heylyn; though I was still to seek (not without some trouble) quid vel in vita, vel in gratia, vel in hac mea mediocritate despicere posset, what there might be in one of my meane parts, and meaner for­tunes, that might provoke the mightiness of his Indignation.

Not being Oedypus enough for so dark a Sphinx, he sends me in good time, his Pam­phlet, called, The Observator observed; which when I had perused, I perceived the grounds of his displeasures, and needed not that any body should tell me, where the Shoo did wring him. For finding him to be stiffly prin­cipled in the Puritane Tenets, a Semi Presby­terian at the least, in the forme of Gouern­ment, [Page] a Non con [...]ormist in matter of Ceremo­ny, & a rigid Sabbatarian in the point of Do­ctrine, as ill a looking a Fellow as he makes me, I could easily see, that my known Contrariety in Opinion, had raised this Storme: it being the humour of too many of the Stoicall Sect, neither to treat their Opposites, with that Civility which belongs to them, as men, nor with that Charity and meeknesse which be­comes them as Christians. Parcius Androma­chen vexavit Achaia victrix, in the Poets language. Our Historian was not so uncivilly dealt with by the Observator, and he seemes much displeased at it; the intemperancy of his own pen, being thereby made the more apparent, & the less excusable. If the Observa­tor tell him, that he hath his parts and person in an high Esteem, he is wished to spare that cost of complement, his Bits being as little cared for, as his Knocks. If he give him the commenda­tion (as he doth) of a good Historian, when he proceeds upon the grounds of true intelli­gence, then—Out upon this Observator, shall be all his thanks. If he direct his lines to him, with the tile of worthily esteemed, it shall be sent back againe, as not worth the keeping. What should a poore man doe to get a good word from him, if this will not do it?

Thou maist perhaps expect, Good Reader, that after so many neglects & provocations, [Page] I should cause him to be paid in the same coyn which I have received; and if I should, I have a good example for it, from these words of Cicero, Non tractabo illum ut Consulem, nec ille quidem me ut Consularem; but I have so much power on the hand which writes this Tractate, as to hold it back from any unbe­coming language, considering rather what is fit for me to give way unto, than what he de­serves. And besides, our Author may pretend unto some especial privilege, of which both the Observator & his Alter Idem, may be thought uncapable; there being some creatures mentio­ned by Laertius, in the life of Socrates, which are not to be kick'd again, kick they never so often. Indignation may sometimes transport him beyond his naturall disposition, but ne­ver hurry him beyond the bounds of Wit or Manners, which both the Observator and my self are affirmed to want, and therefore sent to schoole to learn them.

Lastly, I am to let thee know, that though our Author doth pretend to have written Ani­madversions on the Observations, yet he hath done it but in part, more than half of the Observations being left untouch'd. And as for those which he hath pleased to touch upon, they are but touch'd, not cured of any of the evils, of which he hath rendered them suspected. The whole body of the Observations, and every [Page] branch and clause thereof (not above one or two excepted) remaining in the [...]ame conditi­on in which he found them, as the discourse ensuing, will sufficiently evidence. And as for the discourse ensuing, that it may look more like to a methodicall, and well-composed dis­course, I have not bound my self to the tract and method of the Pamphlet, but digested all the scattered limbes thereof under severall heads, to the end thou maist peruse them with the more content and satisfaction. Yet so, that there is not any one Paragraph, or any one part or member of it, which in some place or other, of this following Tractate, is not fully answered. Our Author shall finde no cause of complaint, as to that particular; nor any just reason to give out, that any thing which hath passed his pen (be it great or little) hath not been fully taken into consideration. In that respect more justly and exactly dealt with, than is accustomed in these cases, or that he hath reason to expect by the unque­stionable prescript of his own example. The points in difference by this meanes will be brought more punctually and succinctly un­der thy perusall. Judge thou according to the truth, and God blesse thee in it: So wisheth he, who would not with the losse of Truth buy the greatest Victory;


Peter Heylyn Dr. in Divinity, To Hamon L'Estrange, Esq.


ON Saturday May 17. I received a Pamphlet from you, called The Observator observed, inclosed in a paper superscribed with your own hand, To the worthily E­steemed the Observator, PE­TER HEYLYN No title added of Degree, Profession, or any other mark of discrimination, no, not so much as D. in Cosmography, which out of your abundant bounty you have elsewhere gi­ven me, and that twice for failing. The Strange­nesse of the Present, and the more than ordinary disrespect in the Superscription, put me upon a sudden perusall of it; which having done (and indeed before it was half done) I was both sorry and ashamed, to see so much of the Coat, and so little of the Gentleman in it▪ intituling me un­to the Observations in your Superscripti [...]n, and [Page] [...] from it in your Pam­phlet▪ (where you call it a groundless suspition, by me professedly disavowed) fol. 25. you make your self an Adversary of you know not whom, & then proceed in handling him you care not how. But let them pass for mine this once, because the generall drift of your discourse, will have it so; and the designe will fall to ground, of rai­sing Trophees to your self, on the promised victo­ry, without this concession. But then it seemes, you take me for a man of so dead a courage, that nothing but the sense of Smart can quicken me to accept your Challenge; and therefore lay up­on me the worst kinde of blowes, even reproach­full words, as scurrilous and unbecoming, as Scorn & Envy can suggest, or Impatience utter.

Nor stay you here. The challenge of your Su­perscription, being sent in private, no body being able to testifie the delivery of it, might have been pocketed up in silence, without any engage­ment on my part, or satisfaction on yours. You have therefore added to the first a more publick and more bold defiance, to provoke an Answer. Proclaiming in the Pamphlet, fol. 25. how scarce credible it seemed unto you, that this Doctor of all men durst be so bold, as to meddle with you: that is to say, so bold as to finde fault with any thing, which had passed your Pen, or to pre­sume to rectifie the Story in such particulars, wherein either your intelligence or diligence [Page] failed you. I was not wont to sit down tamely un­der such, and so many provocations; nor find I any thing to affright me, from taking up the Bucklers against such an Enemy, whose tongue hath pro­ [...]ed his sharpest weapon. Yet were it otherwise, I durst have said with Cicero in another case, Catilinae gladios contempsi, non pertimescam tuos; I have not feared the swords of more dan­gerous enemies, and therfore shall not now shrink back at the sight of yours; nor needed you to have given me so much Gall and Vinegar, to quicken me to an encounter; had you conceived I might have gotten any thing from such an Ad­versary, whom nothing but a few hard words, could render formidable.

And therefore if I have withdrawne my self from the present action, put out the worke to some bold Champion, as you know who phra­sed it, and left the quarrel to be managed by a quicker hand; I would not have it charged up­on me, as a tergiversation, a turning back (as those of Ephraim did of old) in the day of bat­taile. There are so many interessed in your bold defiances, that I could neither want hands to fight this combat, nor you be disappointed of the satisfaction which you chiefly aime at.

Onely, I feare, you will be somewhat disapoin­ted of your expectation, and not of your own one­ly, but of that which you have raised in others, by promising a Rejoynder, added at the latter [...]nd [Page] of your Volume; and that, both in the Title of your History, and the Pamphlet too. Great men love nothing more than to be attended, and are commonly better knowne by their train of follow­ers, than by any other outward bravery. But in this you have made your self too large a promise, and presume more upon your greatness, than you have just ground for. The Rejoynder, whosoe­ver writes it, will not march in the reare of your ragged Regiment, or fill up the list of your At­tendants, or be dragged after your triumphant Chariot, like a conquered Captive, and much lesse serve as an Apocrypha, to your pure Cano­nical. We poor Cavies have all somwhat in us of the Independent, and love to stand and go alone, without such weak Crutches, as either the coun­tenance of your Name, or the fag end of your Reply, can afford unto us.

I hope you will not find here any such reproach­full language, as you stand justly charged with­all; not onely in the whole course of your Pam­phlet, but in much of the History it selfe, as it was first printed, and intended for the publique view A good Cause need not be so managed, though by interdicting all civil addresses to you by the name of Complement, there be lesse cost bestowed in Holy-water, than may possibly stand with your contentment. I deny not, but that the writer hereof may now and then incur the guilt of some Luxuriances (you shall call them Fol­lies, [Page] if you please) and sport himself with grea­ter liberty, than the gravity of a severe Judge­ment can dispense withall. But I desire, you would impute it, rather to an honest zeal unto his friend, than to a purpose of detracting any thing from you, when either the solidity of your dis­course, or the weight of your arguments, might have required a more solid manner of procee­dings, than such serious vanities. How my Ad­venturer will come off, must neither be left to your opinion nor to mine, both of us being too much interressed to determine in it. The Reader is made Judge between us, and to him I leave it. Only 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.

Extraneus Ʋapulans, OR, THE OBSERVATOR RESCUED From the vain (but violent) As­saults of Hammond L' Estrange.

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 & un [...]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.

[Page] THere were two Cautions given anciently to those who undertook the com­posing of Histories, that is to say, ne quid fals [...] audeant, ne quid veri non [Page] 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 [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] with such impartiality and considence, as might witness for him that he preferred truth before interess: without respect to fear, self­ends, 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 no [...] 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 [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] he did it out of a firm perswasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution in their hights, and honour, for his sake. Our Author herexsupon undertakes for the con­tentedness of almost all (not for all) the Bishops in suffering that diminution for their Soveraigns sake. But what makes this unto the purpose? Doth the King say he did well in it, or doth he not ra­ther say elsewhere, (in his Declaration, as I take it, of the 12 of August) that he gave way unto the Bill for excluding the Bi­shops from sitting in the House of Peers, in hope by that means to preserve their Sta­tion in the House of God. Two evils being laid before him, he made choise of that which seemed the least, and yet affirms not any where (for ought I can find) that he did well in choosing either. So as the King not saying that he did well in it, nor my Author proving that he did, my Au­thor hath no reason to deal thus with the Observator, but that some men have so much in them of the Curre, that they will be alwaies barking though they cannot bite.

The other passage charged upon the Observator, is taxing the King and the Lords of the Scotish councell for Oversights, great oversights, in not punishing the principal [Page 8] Authors of the tumuls of Edenburgh, my Author thereupon infers with disdain and scorn, how gallantly all things will he ordered, when the Observator comes to be of a [...] of State, Fol. 30. But Sir, The Observator did not only say it, but he proved it too, and it had shewn more judgement in you to confute his reasons, than to fall foul upon his person. Errors in conduct of affairs, and Effects in coun­cell are not unprofitably noted by the best Historians, and that too in the grea­test Princes. Their successors might be else to seek in the knowledge of some things of weight and consequence, and such as most nearly do concern their own preservation. He that soweth pillows un­der the Elbows of great Princes, when they are alive, shall be termed a Flatterer; and he that flatters them being dead, to the prejudice and wrong of their posterity, deserves not to pass for an Historian. That wit is alwaies better cheap, which is purchased with the price of another mans errors, than with the feeling of our own.

And here I might have left King Charles, would my Author let me, who though he tell us in his Preface, that the very fai­lings of Kings have been in former times ac­compted, [Page 9] like their persons, so sacred, that to touch them, though never so tenderly, hath been esteemed petty treason; yet at the pre­sent he makes bold to touch him, and to tax him too. For in those printed sheets of his, which were not thought fit to goe abroad with the rest of the book, he tel­leth us, That he never reflected upon his late Majesty, otherwise than upon a man that was within the incidence of fra [...]lty; that he miscarried in his regal Ministration, by departing to arbitrary power; that he and his Father failed extremely, in congesting and heaping honours upon so incredible a croud, yet not more ill advised in the number than the choice of the men; that mo [...] was the main, if not the only Turn-key to promotion, and Honours as vendible at Court, as Coals at Newcastle; that though Kings might by their prerogative make as well leathern Lords, as leathern mony, yet make such Noble men they could no more, than transubstantiate leather into gold. His aiding the Rochellers is taxed by him as not sufficiently warran­ted, either by their communication with us, in Divine Principles (as he words it) that is to say in being of the same belief or perswasion with us, or [Page 10] by the French Kings breaking his faith with them in the demolishing of Fort Lewis, according to the conditions gran­ted at this Kings instance, & mediation, adding withall, that he could have no Christian license to draw his sword for those, who in his own opinion wanted it for themselves; that as there was little Christianity in it, in regard of the premises, so there was lesse policy in it, with reference to Monarchical interess: and finally, that standing thus a supin [...] and negligent Spectator in the defecti­on of the Subjects of other Princes, but much more by abetting and siding with them, he could expect nothing, but a to­tal desertion of all his friends, when he most should need them. He renders him inexcusably guilty, in advancing such as had been censured in open Parliament, which Act (saith he) could in a literal construction mind nothing else, but the defiance of his people; as also in his ef­fuse & liberal indulgence to Recusants, not only convicted, but condemned re­mitting to them the Penalties of their offences, notwithstanding the epidemical and general Out-cries against them. His Majesties Declaration about Lawfull sports upon the Sunday, he calls a Sacri­legious [Page 11] robbing of God, a maculating of [...]is own honour, a Profane Edict. And finally [...]he telleth us of him, ‘that he was won­drous slow, no man living more, to be­lieve amisse of those he trusted, which confidence not only followed, but led him to the fatal block; that no King (set­ting Solomon aside) was ever able to give better, or ever followed worse advice; & that being swayed by supine and implicit faith, in the either wisdom or integrity of those who seemed to advise him, he was pre­cipitated upon designs which could promise nothing but confusion, there being nothing more easie than to impose upon the incu­riosity of the Kings Faith. All this & more than this in the printed, but not publish'd sheets of my Authors History, a History as 'twas intended not so much of, as agaitxsst that King, the grand concernment of his An­nals, as the Preface cals him; which renders him a most unfit Censurer of that inno­cent and modest freedom, which is taken by the Observator, whose observations are entituled, Oblique Descants, not only upon his Narrative, but against King Charles. But it is usual with most men, Omnia sibi remittere, nihil aliis, to con­demn that in others which they allow in themselves; not verified so much in [Page 12] any, as my present Author.

Next for King James, he telleth us [...] the Observator, that he falls foul on him inveighing against, and withall detracting from his King-craft. This is a gene­ral charge, and answereth not to a­ny of those particulars, in which tha [...] King is thought to have failed in the Act [...] of Government; and therefore with­out more adoe may be remitted by the Observator to the former passage, in which he cleareth himself from the like charge or crimination about King Charles. Be­sides, our Author cannot chuse but know, who tells us, that the noble Verulam hath not violated those Laws of History which he gave to all the world, by signifying, tha [...] one of the wisest of our English Kings had his Empson, and Dudly, and treated the Ear [...] of Oxford most disagreeably. It seems by this, that even our wisest Kings, may fail sometimes in the Arts of King-craft; and that those failers may be also signified as Documents to succeeding times, with­out violating the Laws of History, or be­ing sent to School to learn wit and man­ners, there being no reason in the world why that should be allowed of in the no­ble Verulam, which is so sharply taxed, so severely censured in the Observator. [Page 13] Assuredly a man would think that our Historian was a professed Champion for defence of the honour of the two last Kings, whereas indeed the Gentleman is only troubled, that any man should u­surp upon his prerogative of taking the two Kings to task, or noting any thing [...]misse in their several Governments. Qui [...]alterum incusat probri, seipsum intueri opor­ [...]et, is a good old Rule, learnt by our Author in his Grammar, but forgotten now, he had not else enveighed so much against King James, and detracted also from his King-craft, as he after doth, and then accuse the Observator of the self-same crimes: For hath he not told us in his History, as it is now extant? ‘That in Religious exercises, where the ex­tern Demeanor is a grand part of that sacred homage, he was somewhat too incurious and irreverent; that he was too indnlgent to his Palate, and had a smack of the Epicure in him; that be­ing over-studious in pursute of Peace, he incurred the note of Pusillanimitie, which made the thought of warr be so terrible to him, that he was Cajolled, and kept in Delusory chat with speci­ous fallacies by the Austrian Faction, whilst his children were exterminated [Page 14] from their lawfull Patrimony; that in the severall negotiations of Carlile, Bel­fast, Bristoll and Weston, he spent so vast summes, that the moiety there­of disposed in military levies, would have totally dissipated all the forces of those usurpers, and re-estated the Pals­grave; that there could be no stronger evidence of defect of courage, than his tedious courting the Alliance of Spain, whom his Predecessors had so often baf­fled. And finally, that by his faint-heartedness on the one side, and his un­due levies on the other, he grew into such disaffection and contempt with his people, that though those dismal cala­mities which befell his Sonne, were ampliated by a superfetation of causes, yet was their first and main existence, derivative from the grounds which were layed by the Father.’ Thus also hath he told us, in his printed, but not publisht sheets, ‘that never any treaty was by a wise Prince so bungled up (the treaty with Spain it is he meaneth) upon con­cessions so imprudent, so inconsistent with the welfare of his dominions, by making such an ample resignation of the Protestant interess; and that his excessive indulgence in pursute of those Articles [Page 15] mightily exasperated, nothing more, the acute distempers, and irritated the bili­ous animosities of his people against him.’ What hath been said of him, touching his liberal and promiscuous be­stowing of Honors, we have seen before; take this now for the close of all, ‘that by his luxury and dissolute pastimes, which were the only delights of his times, he wasted and decocted the publick treasury; and by his most extra­vagant Largesses to his minions, he entailed a perpetuity of indigence upon his posterity, squandring his wealth, till he had given away even liberalitie herself,’ &c. What call you this my most dear Historian? is not this an inveighing against King James, and a detra­cting from his King-craft? greater I think, but I am sure with less excuse, than any thing which you have found in the Ob­servator. Your hand then, gentle Sir, for the Observator, and get you gone toge­ther to Squire Sanderson to learn wit and manners, or let him rather stay at home, as not worth the teaching. Vel neutrum flammis ure, vel ure duos, as you know who said.

Follow this Game a little further, now we are on the [...]ents, and we shall find no [Page 16] sex, no order or degree of men, no per­sons of eminent imployment in Church or State, who are not brought under the censorious lash of our Authors pen. And first the Queen, notwithstanding all the miseries which have fallen upon her, must be made the more miserable in bearing the blame of that indulgence, which the late Arch-bishop shewed to them of the Romish Faction. The Observator gives two reasons why that Arch-bishop might afford some favours to the Catholick par­ [...]y, the one grounded upon point of State, the other on prudentiall considerations. But our Author not content with these, he subjoyns a third, and that which he conceives to be the very true cause there­of, Fol. 33. and so conceives not upon du­bious reports, as formerly, but upon certain information; that is to say, that it was done to please the Queen. Assuredly, if it had been so, the Arch-bishop was not of such weak parts, and so ill a keeper of his own counsel, as to make any such precla­ration of his reason for it; that being a readier way to displease than to please the Queen, who although she were willing that all offices of grace and favour should be extended to that party, yet was not willing, that the burden of it should be [Page 17] laid upon her shoulders. And besides this our Author cannot choose but know, that at such time as the Archbishop made his complaint unto the King, at the Coun­sell Table, against Mr. Walter Moun­tague, and Sir Toby Matthews, the Queen was almost at the highest of her power and greatness, and therefore had the Arch-bishop favoured the Romish Factions on a'desire to please the Queen, when her power was only in the increase, he would not have hazarded her displeasure when it was at the full. This therefore only serves to accuse the Queen, not to justifie him, or otherwise might have been spa­red at this time, when there was no ne­cessity or occasion for it, but that our Author had a mind to fly at the whole Covy, as he knows who saith; and therefore having made so bold with the King, as we saw before, he thinks it fit the Queen, like a loving wife, should bear him Com­pany.

But being so great a person as the Queen must not go alone, without some Ladies to attend her; the Countesse of Buckingham comes in next, of whom our Author told us in the first Edition of his History, that (if fame belied her not) she loved the Bishop of Lincoln better than was [Page 18] fit. Reproved for this impudence by the Observator, he hath left that passage out of his new impression: But fearing lest the Lady might come off with too much honour, he pleadeth very strongly for the Fame, which, though not always an infalli­ble Informer, some rumours being begot by malice, and nursed up by credulity, yet true it is, (saith he) that she is sometimes a pub­like testimony, and the wise Tacitus doth many times present her in the like concern­ments, Fol. 9. And this (I take it) is not a righting of the wronged Lady, but an authorizing rather of the scandal which was laid upon her. Nor will he have her Innocence as to that particular to be grounded on her own vertue, but the Bishops impotency: Not that the Bishop was [...]unuchus ab utero, as was ridiculous­ly affirmed by Brother Wilson, who went too far in that, as my Author telleth us; but that he was made impo­tent when he was a Boy, by falling on a Stake, 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 [Page 19] 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 Went­ [...]worth, that he rather frighted than per­swaded the Convocation in Ireland to re­ [...]eal, (much against their wills) the Sy­ [...]teme or Body of Articles formed by that Church, Anno 1615 and in their place [...]o substitute the 39 Articles of the Church of England, and that upon no o­ [...]her design than to advance the Arminian [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 [Page 22] 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 [Page 23] 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 As [...]rtor of some dangerous and su­perstitious Tenets, that being by the Kings extraordinary goodne [...]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 [Page 42] 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, and elevated by a petit blaze of mistaken honours to an height of Frenzie. And though our Author be a high flyer, and loves to flye at none so much as high Peers and Prelates, yet he will play at small game rather than sit out, there being one (and but one) of the in­feriour Clergy whom he hath in choice, and that is Peter Heylyn Dr. in Cosmogra­phy ('tis well he will allow him to be Dr. in somewhat yet) as he calls him [Page 25] there a Theologaster, as with scorn and disdain enough he is called there also; of him he telleth us in those printed but unpublished sheets, fol. 131. ‘That the Court Bishops netled with this Anti­thesis, this opposition (he means that which was made by the Bishop of Lin­coln against placing the Communion Table Altar-wise) to their grand design, laboured as vehemently to maintain their own proceedings, and put out the work to their bold Champion Dr. Heylyn, who thereupon undertakes the Bishop, and bungleth up a reply to him full of ignorance and virulence, so much the fiercer because he thought the Bishop not in the state of operating any thing considerably noxious to him. But the next lustre this Bishop became for a while illustrious, and then he did fawn upon and cringe to him, on whom he had formerly trampled, no man more.’

What a Goliah have we here stretching himself upon his Tiptoes, and bidding a general defiance to the Hoste of Israel! The Blatant Beast broke loose again, and no Sir Laniorack, or Sir Calidore to hunt him back unto his Den, and there tie him up. A second Mar-Prelate at the best, fit to be dealt withal by none, but Tom Nashes ghost, [Page 26] and to that I leave him. The honour he hath done the Dr. in giving him a place a­mongst so much good company, requireth from any friend of his, a more gentle u­sage, then Pap with anhatchet in those times to the elder Martinists. And though it is to be confessed, that much of this strain stuffe died under the Press, & never was permitted to come abroad (whether upon the second & more sober thoughts of the Author himself, or the care and mo­desty of some friends who perused the sheets, doth not concern me to enquire) yet doth our Author stand convicted in his first intention, & may be counted, voto saltem si non opere, as guilty of the crime of defamation, as any other whatsoever in these last ill times: great pity certainly, that such a two-hand sword as this, shou'd be kept in the scabbard, and that he was perswaded not to draw it out, though he had only fenced and flourished with it (like a Whiffler in my Lord Maiors show) to delight the multitude.

And yet (a blessing on him for it) he would be sain thought to write some of them, but leaves them at the last in a worse condition, then he had brought them to at first. He is content to leave out the first part of that character, which he h [...]d given my Lord of London, whom he [Page 27] had formerly affirmed to be none of the best Scholars; and now stands only to the last that he was none of the worst Bishops, not that he finds himself to be fully satisfied with the Observator touching the abilities of that Prelate, but that he was loath to abide any misconstructions, finding the Hi­storians noate verified, Virorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura difficilis est, Fol. 26. and therefore he stands to it still, that he saw no reason, why he might not safely say, that this Bishop was none of the greatest Scholars, without disparagement to his fun­ction, Scholarship, or his own prudence, en­tring upon a wild discourse, touching the measure of learning, required to the qua­lification of a Bishop, and so resolves up­on the point, that a Bishop may be Scho­lar sufficient for his place, though he be none of the greatest magnitude. Which, whether it be a righting of the person, or rather a wronging of the Bishop, I leave unto the consideration of the critical Reader. And for that part of the Character which he hath left standing by it self, without that Deleatur which he seems to brag of, it is such a sorry peece of commendation, as the Historian gives us of a noble Roman, of whom he sayth, that he, was magis ex­tra vitia quam cum virtutibus, rather not [Page 28] guilty of any notorious vices, than adorn­ed with any eminent virtues. No hearty commendations, this, according to the old style of England, but a cold nega­tive commendation, a commendation Stylo novo, and such a one as I conceive our Author would not be well pleased with from another man. None of the worst Bishops, and none of the worst Hi­storians, may seem to intimate, that nei­ther are positively good in their several kinds, or though amongst so many bad ones (as almost all the Bishops are by him presented) they may pass for tole­rable; and therefore I desire our Author, if either the History or Pamphlet live to another edition, that he would pass a deleatur upon this part also, leaving this reverend person unto that amends which our Author hopes he hath made in the rest that followeth.

Less candidly doth he deal with the other Bishop, accused for saying (in his Pontificall ruffe, as he elsewhere phra­seth it) that he hoped to live to see the day when a Minister should be as good a man, as any Iack-Gentleman in England. For, though he doth confesse, that his in­formation was not then so good as it hath been since, and hath therefore corrected that ex­pression [Page 29] according to the Observators (for so I think he meaneth by that Authors own Copy) and added Ʋpstart to Jack-Gen­tleman in the new Edition, yet will he not allow that the Observators vindication of him, from any such distemper in his words or actions, as he freeth him from; or that the expression so corrected, doth argue much of that temper or wisdom, which the Observator crieth up in him. Fol. 29. This is hard dealing in our Author, first to expose a man, one of the Fathers of the Church, for words which were never spo­ken by him, and not so spoken as present­ed to the eye of the Reader, to the publique hatred, and after when the ex­pression stands so qualified and corrected in the Author himself, as to admit a ju­stification with all sober men, to keep him still under the same uncharitable terms of reproach and obloquy. For why a Minister should not be as good a Man as any Ʋpstart Jack-Gentleman in all the Pack, I can see no reason; the dignity, office, function, and the civillity of his breeding, with other necessary qualifica­tions required in him, being well consi­dered.

With greater zeal, but with as mis­chievous intention, doth he advocate for [Page 30] Bishop Potter, of whom the Observator telleth us, that his preferment unto the Bi­shoprick of Carlile, could not get the King a­ny love in the hearts of his people. Our Au­thor hereupon inferreth, Fol. 14. That this must necessarily signifie something of abomi­nable quality, in either the person or Do­ctrine of Dr. Potter, or both, to be efficati­ous to obstruct and impede the affection of the Subject. The Gentleman telleth us, Fol. 35. That really there are many better Histo­rians than himself, which I readily grant, but addeth withal, that there are some worse Disputants also, which I more than doubt. For who can say which hath but the least smattering in the rules of L [...]gick, that the Observators Premises about the Bishop, must necessarily inferr any such Conclusion as our Author maketh? he might as well conclude from that passage in the Obser­vator, (and perhaps more truely) that there was something of abominable quality, in the Kings calling in of Montagues book, as in the person and Doctrine of Dr. Potter, which might obstruct the af­fection of the Kings Liege people, both being joyned together by the Observator to rove this Aphorisme, That it never falls out well with Christian Princes, when they make Religion bend to policy; there be­ing [Page 31] no reason eminently visible why that Doctor (being a Thorow-paced Calvinian, and otherwise unqualified for so great a charge) should be made a Bishop, but only ad faciendum populum, to gain the King some reputation and esteem with the rest of that party. But the vindicati­on of this Bishop is not the main point which our Author driveth at. For ta­king an occasion by the word Calvinian, he telleth us, that though a man be never so great a Scholar, never so pious, never so conscientious in all his actions, he must (if he passe under the notion of a Calvinist) be said to dote, or to be an Hypocrite, or be called a Knave, with all which titles of honour (as our Author saith) he hath known the gallantest men in this Nation dub­bed. He had done well to have specified the names of those, who have given any of those vile terms to such gallant per­sons, and not to leave it as a brand on all those of the contrary perswasion, so much the more odious and uncharitable, be­cause delivered in the general.

Thus I have layed together such parti­cular passages as serve best to discover our Authors temper, and the ill spirit which doth guide him in all his Chara­cters [Page 32] and censures; that when it comes either to the Doctors turn, or the Ob­servator to be arraigned (but not convi­cted) before his Tribunal, it may not seem any wonder to a charitable and Ju­dicious Reader, to see them charged so frequently with the like reproaches. Which Premonition being given, I shall proceed in order to the rest that follow­eth.

Our Authors affecting of hard words no part of eloquence. The sorry plea made by him for his justification. His incorri­gibility therein, & a course prescribed for his cure. Neither the Observator nor the Dr. so ignorant in the meaning of the word Sty­lus as the Pamphleter makes them. Titles of honour given by the Pampleter to the Obser­vator, and the Dr. also. A general view of the five charges laid upon them. The Observator freed from falsifying the Au­thors Preface, and vindicated in his cre­dit from the Pamphleters scandals. The Authors faint plea for calumniating the English Clergy. The Dr. vindicated from that extreme love of the world, which the Pamphleter hath charged upon him. The Answer to his second charge, deferred to the Chapter of the Sabbath. The Dr. freed from any servile fawnings on the Bishop of Lincoln. A true Relation of the Drs. carriage toward that Bishop, and the Com­mittee of Parliament at the time of these supposed fawnings. The Author corrupts his own Text, to make it justifie his Pamphlet in these four particulars, viz. First in the matter of the Kings power. 2ly. In the Jurisdiction of the Ʋice-Ad­mirall. 3ly In the Informations about Arminianism. And 4ly. touching the Re­peal of the Articles of the Church of Ire­land.

[Page 34] IT is the Counsel of Jo­sephus, as before is no­ted, that they who make profession to write Histo­ries, should beautifie the same with ornaments of Eloquence, to the end that the Reader may converse therein with the more delectation. Our Author likes this counsell well, but thinks all eloquence to consist in the af­fectation of new-minted and out-landish words, which rather seem to astonish and confound, than delight the Reader. For which being admonished by the Ob­servator in a friendly and ingenuous way he laboureth more to justifie than refor [...] the errour. And first he tells us for himsel [...] ‘that being conversant with Authors [...] the noblest and chief remarque in seve­ral languages, not only their Nation [...] but their very words, especially being [...] the most elegant import, became a [...] [Page 35] length so familiar with him, as when he applyed himself to that present work, he found it very difficult to renounce his former acquaintance with them.’ Fol. 2. Assuredly I cannot doubt but that many others are as conversant in writers of se­verall tongues, and as familiar with their words and phrases, as our Author is, who yet disdain to diaper their style with such in Inckhorn Tearms, as none but Rhombus or Rhomboides (that is to say the son of old Father Rhombus) would vouchsafe to use. But our Author hath bor­rowed his plea from Ignoramus, who could not speak out of the Dialect of the Law, and therefore urged these words for his justification, viz. linqua mea vadit ad verba accustumata, that is to say in our Authors English, that they were grown so familiar to him, that he found it very difficult to renounce his former ac­quaintance with them. He telleth us next, that Livy and Salust, two Historians, lye under the same censure; the first for his Patavinity, as Asinius called it, the o­other for his obsolete words extracted from Cato de Originibus, as Augustus said. But Sir, the censure under which Livy [...]ay was not for affectation of new-minted [Page 36] words extracted from the Tyrian, Gal­lick, or Greek originalls; but for the flourishing Verdure of his Style, agree­able in some sort unto the fertility and redundancy of the soyle of Padua, his Pa­tavinity, as for that cause Asinius called it. And for the obsolete words which are found in Salust, they are but very rarely used, nor were so Obsolete, but that the Romans very well understood their mean­ing, without any such interpreter to be sent along with them, as our Author hath been fain to send with some hun­dreds of foreiners. I know Sir Philip Sid­ney in his defence of Poesie hath for the same cause, blamed Edmund Spencer, our chief English Poet, for affecting in his Pastorals the like Obsolete words, con­sidering that neither any of the Greeks or Latines in their Eclogues, or Bucolicks, did affect the like. Nor did Spencer, though he lived long after it, endeavour to justifie himself, as our Author doth: the affectation of new words never heard before, and of old words, worne out of use by long tract of time, being equally faulty and ridiculous. And though our Author promiseth (twice for failing) to reform this errour, yet I see little refor­mation [Page 37] in the new impression of his Hi­story, wherein the greatest part of those new-coyned Tearms, are still left remain­ing: as one that rather seems resolved as well in this, (as many other things be­sides) not to alter any thing, than to take any hint for it from such an incon­siderable fellow as the Observator, or one of so mean parts, as his alter idem, Doctor Heylin must be thought to be. I see our Author is past cure by any ordi­nary means and applications. No way to bring up these hard words, but that prescribed by Ben Iohnson to his Poetas­ters, and practised by Coln, and Cupes on their Ignoramus, and to that I leave him. And first with reference to his style, so high, as the Observator noted, that no English Reader could climb over it he telleth us, that it is a wooden conceit made by as wo [...]den an Observator, who had not his Head (all but the face) been made of blocks, or had he consulted with ancient Au­thors, he might have known that the word Style used by writers was not made of wood, as this Observator supposeth, but of metal, the very same with his own face, &c. Fol. 2. Now the Thunder-Thumping Jove trans­fund his Dotes into the Pericranion of [Page 38] our learned Author, who seems like Rhombus in Sir Philip (old Father Rhom­bus, well may the bones rest of that good old Father) to be even gravidated with Child untill he hath endoctrinated our Plumbeus Cerebrolities in the ad [...]equate sence, and perceptibility of the word Sty­lus, which neither that unconcerned fel­low, the Observator, whose head is made of blocks and his face of brass, nor that Dull piece of ignorance the poor Dr. of Cosmography (of whom wee shall hear more anon) ever heard before. But Sir, in good earnest can you think, that nei­ther the Doctor or the Observator could understand the meaning of a common or­dinary word (with the help of a Dictio­nary at the least) untill they were in­structed by your learned commentary. Assuredly, but that the Gentleman lieth continually at rack and manger with my Lady Philologie, and is so conversant with Authors of the noblest remarque in se­veral languages, that a poor English writer cannot get a good look from him, he might have known that in the first Editi­on of his Cosmography, writ but when 20 years of age, or not much above, the Doctor understood the meaning of the [Page 39] old word Stylus. ‘It is an Instrument (saith he, pagina 741. of the Book cal­led Micorocosm.) with which they wrote, & was a sharp-pointed Iron, which they called Stylus, a word now signifying (the original hence taken) the peculiar kind of Phrase which any man used, as negligens Stylus in Quintilian, and exer­citatus Stylus in Cicero. And if the Doctor and the Observator make but the same one person, as our Author telleth us, the Observator is as free from this piece of ignorance, as the Au­thor himself, how poorly and scornfully soever he is pleased to think and speak of the one, and the other.

To clear our way to that which fol­loweth, I think my self obliged to pre­sent the Reader with a Catalogue of those scornfull names, and reproachfull charges, which he hath laid upon the Observator and the Doctor too, that I may shew what manner of man we have to deal with; & what necessity there is of wi­ping off those slanders and calumniations which with a prodigal hand he bestoweth upon them. For if they be such men as our Author maketh them, the very truth will prove unwelcome for their sakes; [Page 40] little credit being commonly given un­to any such thing, as is commended by the Pen of unworthy Persons. Dividing therefore all these slanders and calumnia­tions which are meerly verbal, from such as carry with them some charge of conse­quence, we will only make a generall muster of the first, and so pass them over, knowing full well, convitia spreta exoles­cunt, that obloquies of this nature have been better contemned than answered by the wisest men. And for such charges as our Author hath reproached them with, we doubt not but we shall be able to wipe them off, and to retort the intended imputation on the Authors head. First then, he telleth us of the wooden Observator, that his head is made of blocks, and his face of metal, Fol. 2. Sends him to Squire Sanderson to learn wit and manners, Fol. 4. Gives him the name of an impudent Observator, Fol. 9. Of Canis Palatinus, Court-curre, a fellow so unconcerned, &c. Fol. 12. of This man in the Moon, Fol. 15. of Doctor Coale whom the Bishop of Lincoln carbo­nadoed, Fol. 27. of one between Hawk and Buzzard, Fol. 30. of the light-fin­gered Observator, Fol. 35. of a modern [Page 41] Poet, and a wit every inch of him, Fol. 36. of an ill-looking Fellow, Fol. 36. of as arrant an errant as ever was, Fol. 39. accuseth him of metaphysical whim­whams, Folio 5. of failing and for­ging fouly, Fol. 9. of notorious cor­rupting and falsifying, Fol. 45. of jug­gling and supposititious foistings, Fol. 10. of being more shamefully out than ever man was, out of the story beyond all measure, and out of charity beyond all Religion, Fol. 41. Then for the Do­ctor he honoreth him with no other title than that of a Doctor in Cosmogra­phy, Fol. 22. the which he so vehement­ly affected, that though it was dam­ned in one of the unpublished sheets, yet he must needs vent it in this second Pamphlet: in which unpublished sheets he makes him amends indeed (and we thank him for it) by calling him the bold Champion of the Prelates, or Prela­latical party, to all which they need say no more (but that the accusations shall be answered in their proper pla­ces) than as a wise man once did upon the like provocations, viz. Tu linguae nos aurium domini sumus, that is to say, that they have as much command [Page 42] of their eares to hear with patience, as our Author hath of his tongue to speak his passions, our Author being like those who love to say, with our tongue we will prevail, our lips are our own, who is Lord over us? Psal. 12. v. 4.

Then, for the charges they stand thus, First for the Obsetvator, that he hath fouly forged and failed, in leaving out a word in the Authors Preface, Fol. 9. for which called impudent Observator there, and taxed with notorious corrupting and falsifying in the latter end of this pre­sent Pamphlet. And 2ly. That the Ob­servator doth save him part of his la­bour, (that is to say in naming any of those men whom he had accused of being vicious even to scandall) in naming him­self for one of them, Fol. 28. Then of the Doctor it is said, that Cosmography was a work very proper for him, there be­ing none fitter to describe the world than he, who all his life hath loved the World, none like him, Fol. 22. 2ly. That in the business of the Sabbath he hath falsifyed the words of Pareus by changing quando into quomodo; it being submitted thereupon unto all the World, to consider what it is for a Doctor of [Page 43] Divinity, for so great a Champion of Antiquity against noveltie, not in an idle circumstance, but in the grand concern­ment of a controversie, to forge and fal­sifye a Record so boldly, the modest Gentlemam not daring (as he telleth us) to say, so impudently, Fol. 24. 3ly. That having, as all the World knoweth, most insolently trampled and insulted upon this Bishop, (the Bishop of Lincoln he means) 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 at 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, Fol. 40. Some­what to this effect occurs in the unpubli­shed sheets of our Authors History, which hath been touched upon already in their proper place, and therefore do not stand in need of a repetiti­on.

These are the charges which our Author hath drawn up against his ad­versaries, and unto these in gene­rall, [Page 44] we shall say with Phaeton.

—Pudet haec appropria nobis
Est dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli.

That is to say,

Foul shame it were, should he such men defie,
And we stand mute, not able to re­ply.

First then, it is charged on the Ob­servator, that he hath fouly failed and forged, in leaving out a word in the Au­thors Preface. How so? marry because our Author having expressed himself in these very words, viz. Confident I am, I stand secure against any substantiall falshoods, and I hope against circumstanti­all also; The Observator in trimming or abbreviating these words of the Au­thor, leaves out I hope, making the whole sentence to run thus, viz. that he is confident he stands secure, not only from substantiall falshoods, but even from cer­cumstantial also; and this he calls a no­torious corrupting and falsifying of his Preface, Fol. 45. With pride and inso­lence [Page 45] enough, parturiant montes &c. you have shewed us the mountain gentle Sir, but pray you Sir where is the mouse? For though you seem to quali­fie your confidence in standing secure a­gainst circumstantial falshoods, especially in point of Temporalities, with this word, I Hope; yet you are bold to say, in the following words, that no one thing or action, is so in those Annals of yours mislaid, as to su­per-Annuate; no hoping here in refer­rence unto superanuating (as you please to phrase it) but an absolute confidence, as ab­solute a confidence as these words of yours, I will be bold to say, can express or signifie, & tis in reference to your superannuating, if you mark it well, that the Observator puts you in mind of your confident Pre­face, For thus it followeth word for word in the observations, that is to say, ‘This is a very strange Hysteron prote­ron, setting the Cart before the Horse,’ as we use to say, For certainly the articles ‘at Lambeth, being made part of the con­fession of the Church of Ireland, Anno 1615. as indeed they were, could not be­fore that time be sent to the Assembly, or Synod of Dort, which was not held till three years after, Anno 1619. [Page 47] and this I take to be somewhat more? than a super-annuating as he calleth it in his temporalities, though he be confident in his Preface, that he stands se­cure, not only from substantiall fals­hoods, but even from circumstantiall also, in assigning all, both things and actions,’ their proper places. How ill this confidence is grounded we have seen in part, and shall see more hereof hereafter, as occasion serveth. What think you now on the whole matter, my most precious Pamphleter? Do not those words you quarrel in the Observator follow immediatly upon so grosse a super-annuating, as you stand convinced of, and was it not of your not super-anunating that you speak so boldly, without that qualifying hope, which though it may save your credit in some other circumstantiall falshoods, cannot d [...] it here? Take therefore back unto your self, your failing and your forging, your notorious falsifying and cor­rupting, and your impudence too, into the bargain; the Observator hath no title unto either of them.

It is charged next on the Observa­tor, that he saveth our Author part of his [Page 48] labour (that is to say) in nameing any of those men whom he had accused of being vitious even to scandal, in naming himself for one of them. This is good Fish indeed if it were well fryed, but who shall have the cooking of it? It must sure be some Cook of the Devills send­ing, one who is accusator fratrum, a slanderer or Calumniator of the Bre­thren, as before was noted: for this charge he grounds himself on these words of Jerome, Quando sine nomine contra vitia scribitur, qui ir [...]scitur accusator sui est, that is to say, When vices are declamed against, and no person named, he who is angry, accuseth himself. A very sa­ving maxim, I assure you that; as sa­ving and advantageous to our Authors purpose, as all the saving truths which are found in his History. And should that use be made of the Fathers maxim, which our Author mak [...]s of it in this case, any men might ponere Os in coelum, libell Archbishops, Bishops, a whole national Clergy, proclame them guilty of a vitiousnesse to the height of Scandal, and lay unto their charge even things they know not, in the Psalmist language; yet none must dare to advocate for the com­mon [Page 49] innocence, for fear of being [...], or a Felo de se, as our Lawiers call it, a self condemnor at the least, and in this case a murderer of his own good name. The Pamphletter seems to have some knowledge of the Observator, telling us Fol. 45. That he hath met him in the same shop near a hun­dred times, and not less than ten times after the publication of this doubty History; and questionless hath inquired with a di­ligent malice into the whole course of his life and actions. If therefore he can prove him guilty of any one vitious qua­ly, either in the habit or the disposition if at the least our Author be so conver­sant amongst the Moralists, as to know the difference between them) let him speak out, & do it boldly, none shall blame him for it. But to talk thus of vitiousnesse e­ven to scandall, and not be able to name any one (when invited and required to do it) but by the saving inferences of a ge­nerall maxim, makes him unworthy of any further answer, than what Michael the Arch-Angel gave unto you know whom. And whereas our Author plea­deth after for his justification to this par­ticular, that History is not only, the repo­sitory [Page 49] of the virtues of Heroick spirits, but [...]he testimony of the vices of bad men; And therefore that he could do no lesse than [...]ake some notice of this exorbitancy of some of the Clergy; he should have na­med as well the vices, as the men, that so (as it was hinted to him by the Ob­servator) the rest of the Clergy might have [...]een discharg'd of that foul reproach, Fol. 2. But we know who it was that said, Do­ [...]olosus versatur in generalibns, that fraudu­ [...]ent and deceitfull men keep aloof in ge­nerals, that being a more saving way to preserve themselves from the danger of a [...]tricter examination, than if they should [...]lescend to particular instances. Nor do I [...]hink our Author was indeed afraid of [...]eing accused of I know not what, had he [...]mitted this calumniating of some of the Clergy, as he seems to be; but rather [...]hat it had conduced very much to his [...]onour, either in leaving it quite out of [...]he first Edition, or suppressing it wholy [...]n the second.

The third in course, but first in order [...]f these charges which he lays on [...]he Dr. the Dr. of Cosmography, in his [...]aunting language, is, That Cosmogra­ [...]hy was a work very proper for him, there [Page 50] 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 fil [...]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 Ecclesiastica [...] preferments, 1000 l. at the least in Books [...] Plate, & moveables, for the testimony of a good conscience? hath his poor tempora [...] estate been first brought under Sequestra­tion, under a Decimation since, onl [...] for his adhesion to those sacred verities to which he hath been principled by edu­cation, and confirmed by study, and ca [...] he be challenged notwithstanding, fo [...] loving the world all his life, and loving i [...] in such a measure, as no man like him? the [...] Frange leves calamos & scinde Thalia li [...] ­bellos, in the Poets language; It will b [...] high time for him to burn his books, & gi [...] over his studies, to abandon his forme [...] [Page 51] 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
[Page 52] 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 [Page 53] a Winter Tale, or the Tale of a Tub, [...]is no matter now, our Author having no ground for it, but a tris [...]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 [...]hings, and consequently both may and doe, mendacium dicere, re [...]ort a thing that is not true, though they think [...]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 [...]able, so that I might here end with these words of Cicero, Quid m [...]nus est non dico Oratoris, sed hominis, quam id ob [...]icere [...]adve [...]sar [...]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, [Page 54] 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.

[Page 55] 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, brought him back to Westminster, there to abide such fortune, whether good or ill, as that conjunction of ill Planets, which seemed destructive to so many, should portend to him. No sooner was he come, but he was advertised, that his retreat in­to the Country, was taken by most men for a flight from England; and wagers of­fered to be laid, that he should be seen no more while the Parliament lasted. The better to cry down this clamour, and sa­tisfie all such as conceived so of him, He went the next morning in his Gown and Tippet into Westminster Hall, shewing himself with no lesse confidence than [Page 56] courage to the eyes of many, who would have been much better pleased with his Room than his Company. To the Bishop of Lincoln, then released from imprison­ment, he gave no attendance at all, in his private lodging or elsewhere, till meeting him one day in Jerusalem Cham­ber, where the Prebends were then met together, he gave him in as few words as might be the common civility of a complement, for his return unto the College. The Doctor knew that Mr. Bag­shaw, and Mr. Prynne, had been in private with the Bishop some two days before; and he knew too much of that Prelate, [...]nd his exasperations, either to look for aavour from him, or rely upon him. Sum­moned to attend before the Committee for the Courts of Justice, about the be­ginning of December, on the complaint of Mr. Prynne, who had joyned him in a Pe­tition with the Lord Arch-Bishop, as the chief Agents and contrivers of all his sufferings, he appeared accordingly. In what a sorry plight he was, or rather how far from being in any such sorry plight, how little dijectednesse there appeared in his Spirits, with what vivacity of counte­nance, and with what readiness of speech, [Page 57] he behaved himself in the several times of his attendance, not only Mr. Prynne himself, but several Members of that Committee, who are still alive, are best able to testifie. The sequel of the whole was this, that though he made his first ap­pearance with all those disadvantages of prejudice and prepossession, wch common­ly obstruct the way to an equal hearing, yet got he so much ground of them, by his own modest confidence on the one side, and want of fit▪ roofs on the other, that in the end he was dismissed, not on­ly with cheerfull countenance from them all, but with expressions also of esteem and favour from divers of them. And where­as it was ordered and resolved upon the Question, on Tuesday April 20. 1641. That the Sentences against Mr. Prynne in the Star-chamber were illegal, and with­out just ground, that he should be relea­sed of his impris [...]nment and fine, that re­paration should be made him by all those Lords of his Majesties Council, whose names were to the warrant for his Com­mitment; It was ordered at the same time that the charge against the Doctor should be transmitted to the Committee for Religion, to be considered of with [Page 58] such other charges and complaints as were come against him. So Mr. Prynne relates the businesse in the story of his own proceedings, Page 142, and 143. Af­ter which time the Doctor never heard more of this businesse, nor of any other which did or might create any trouble to him from the Houses of Parliament, or a­ny of the committees or members of it.

It hapened in the mean season, that the Doctor preaching in the Abby-Church at Westminster, on the next Sun­day after his first appearance before that Committee, was interrupted in his Ser­mon, (after a very unusual manner) by the Bishop of Lincoln, knocking with his Staff upon the Pulpit, and saying a­loud, No more of that point, no more of that point, with which Alarm the Doctor was so little disturbed, that without any haesitance in speech, or change of counte­nance, He addressed himself unto his au­ditors, telling them, that he had not much to come of the present point, but being that he was commanded not to presse it further, he would proceed unto the next, which he did accordingly. No sooner was he brought back to his Stall, [Page 59] but the Bishop calling one Doctor Wilson (another of the Prebendaries) to bear wit­ness of that which passed between them, required the Doctor to deliver a Copy of the Sermon by him preached, to which the Doctor chearfully yeelded, and pre­sently gave his Lordship the whole book of Sermons which he had then with him: a thing, in which it was much feared by some of his friends, that he had been sud­denly surprised, and gi [...]en thereby a great and notable advantage to a dangerous e­nemy But the Doctor knew well enough on what grounds he went, expecting without any trouble the successe of that daies adventure. The same day, as they came from the evening Service, the Bi­shop sent one of his Gentlemen, to de­sire the Sub-Dean, Doctor Wilson, and Doctor Heylyn to come to his lodging, to which it was answered openly, and in a full Cloyster, by Doctor Heylyn, that he would not go: that he would meet his Lordship in either of the Houses of Par­liament, or any of the Courts in West­minster-Hall, or the publique Chapter-House of the Church, and would there answer any thing he could charge him with, but that he would never shuffle [Page 60] up the business in the Bishops lodging, or take a private satisfaction for a publick Baffle. Scarce had he put off his Church­vestments, when his most honoured friends the Lord Bishop of Peterborough, and Sir Robert Filmer (who had heard all that passed before) came to spend an hour with him, and not long after comes the Subdean, from the Bishop of Lincoln, with the Book of Sermons, assuring him that the Bishop meant him nothing but well, that he had read none of the Sermons but that which had been preached that morn­ing, that he professed himself much behol­ding to him for committing into his hands so great a trust, and finally, that since the Doctor would not come to receive the Book, he had sent it to him. To which the Dr. made reply, that the Book was ta­ken from him in the sight of hundreds, and that he would not otherwise receive it, than either in the same place, or a place more publick, that therefore he should carry back the Book to him that sent it, to the end that he might read over all the rest of the Sermons, and pick out of them what he could to the Doctors disadvan­tage; that as he did not court his favours, or expect any thing from him, so neither [Page 61] did he fear his frown, or any further mis­chief which he could do to him, equall to what he had done already; And finally, that he was more ashamed of the poorness of this prostitution, than at the insolencies of the morning, which being the best an­swer that the Sub-dean could at that time obtain from him, He threw the Book in­to the Room, and so went his way. The ca­riage of this business on the Drs. part was variously censured the next day, as men stood affected, Laudatnr ab his, culpatur ab illis: some thinking that he had carried it with too high a hand, others, that he had done no more, than what he was obliged to do for his own justification. What think you my most precious Author, where is the creeping aud cringing, the crawling and crouching which your Pamphlet speaks of? where that servility of carriage which made his Lordship merry at the sight there­of? though possibly as the case then stood, & in that very nick of time when the Bishop might either stand his Friend or appear his Foe, a little cringing in the Doctor had not been scandalous as the Gentleman makes it. Nor did the Doctor only con­sult his Fame, but he took order to pro­vide for his safety also. And therefore [Page 62] understanding what reports had been spread abroad upon the accident, some saying that the Bishop had interrupted him for preaching against the Scots (some of whose (ō nissioners were then present) others, for preaching in defence of Transub­stantiation & others for Arminianism, and I know not what, he gave an accompt there­of to the King, and then transcribed a copy of the whole passage, which had been and was to have been spoken, and sent it in a letter to Mr. John White of the Temple, whom he observed to be at the Sermon, desiring him to communicate it at the next sitting of the Committee, that when he was to appear before them the se­cond time, they might be satisfied in all things touching that particular. Which addresse took so good effect, that Mr. White (though most eagerly bent a­gainst the Doctor at his first appearance) did the businesse for him, reading the whole passage to that Committee, and testified what he saw and noted when he was at the Sermon; and thereupon it was declared by the unanimous voice of all then present, that there was nothing in that passage which did not become an honest man to speak, and a good Christi­an [Page 63] to hear; and not so only, but that the Bishop was transported beyond his bounds, and failed in his accustomed pru­dence. And this perhaps both smoothed the way unto the Doctor for his next ap­pearance, where he found better enter­tainment than he did at the first; and drew the Bishop unto gentler; and more moderate Counsels.

But to proceed, matters continuing between them in this State till aftre Candelmas, the Sub-dean findeth the Doctor! walking in the Common Or­chard, perswades him to apply himself to the Bishop, as being better able to help or hurt him than any other whatsoever, pressing the point with such a troublesom importunity, that the Doctor asked him at the last whether that Proposition came from himself, or the Bishop of Lincoln? If from himself, it would no otherwise be look'd upon than a fruitles motion; if from the Bishop, it would require some further time of consideration. Being assured that it came from the Bishop, and that he should not doubt of a fair reception, he took some time to consider of it, and to acquaint some friends therewith, for removing of all such umbrages and mis­apprehensions, [Page 64] as otherwise that inter­parlance might have occasioned, which having done, he signified to the Subdean about 2 days after, that he would wait upon his Lordship in the evening fol­lowing, being Saturday night, when he conceived his Lordship would be most at leasure from the businesse and affairs of Parliament. His Lordship being thus prepared, the Dr. went accordingly to per­form his visit, but finding some company in the room, whom he knew to be of the Scotish Nation, he recoyled again, fol­lowed immediatly at the heels by a Gen­tleman, whom the Bishop sent after him, to let him know, that the Company was upon the parting, and that he should find his Lordship all alone, at his coming back, as indeed he did; Being re­turned, he was presently taken by his Lord­ship into his private Gallery, his Ser­vants commanded to withdaw, and the Doctor left in private with him, where after some previous expostulations on the one side, and honest defences on the o­ther, they came by little and little unto better terms, and at the last into that fa­miliarity and freedom of discourse, as seemed to have no token in it of the old [Page 65] displeasures; the Bishop in conclusion, accompanying the Doctor out of the Gal­lery, commanding one of his Servants to light him home, and not to leave him till he brought him to his very door. Af­ter which time the Doctor never saw him more (except at the Church) till his second commitment to the Tower; whi­ther the Doctor going on some other oc­casion, resolved to pay unto him the ho­mage of a dutifull attendance, l [...]st else his Grace (for then he was Archbishop of York) hearing that he had gi [...]en a visit to the rest of the Bishops cōmitted at the same time for the Protestation, might think the former breach between them, was not well made up. And at this time I trow, there was no need of creeping, and [...]ringing, and crouching; The Doctors af­fairs being at that time and [...]ong before [...]n a good condition, and that Arch-bi­shops in as bad as the fury of a popular [...]atred could expose him to. This is the [...]ruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the [...]ruth, as to the Doctors carriage in this particular, and to the sorry plight, which [...]he Pamphleter makes him to be in, at [...]he time of these supposed cringings and [...]servile crouchings. The Readers pardon be­ing [Page 66] asked (if any shall vouchsafe to read it) for this long but not unnecessary di­gression, I goe on again.

The Observator being freed from those failings and forgings, those falsifyings and corruptings, which the Pamphleter had charged upon him, it will be worth our time to see, whether our Author be not truly guilty of the self same crime, which he falsly lays unto his charge, in falsifying and corrupting the Text of his own History, by soisting many words in­to it, to make his quarrel with the Ob­servator the more just and rational. For as I have some where read of Calvin, that having first made his Book of Instituti­ons, he did afterwards so translate and expound the Scripture as to make it speak agreeable to the sense and Doctrine which he had published in that Book: so I may very safely say, that our Author ha­ving framed his answer to the observati­ons, as much to the disadvantage of the Observator as he possibly could, did after change and alter the very sense of his History, to make it speak agreeable to the words of his Pamphlet; as for example.

1. The Observator faulted it in the Histo­rian, for saying, that as a man without a fe­male [Page 67] consort, so a King without his supreme Councel, was but a half-formed sterill thing, the natural extracts of the one, (for so it fol­loweth in the Author) procreated without a wife, being not more spurious, than the politique descendents of the other, without the Caution of a representative. This looked on ‘by the Observator, as a Paradox most dangerous to supreme Authority, in ma­king Parliaments so necessary to all acts of State, as if that Kings, or they that have the 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 [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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 [...]ine 19, 20. the greatest danger was from Popery direct, and from this, the danger they said ap­peared very great, &c. Here have we [Page 70] 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 [Page 71] 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.

[Page 72] 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.

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 [...]ynod of Do [...]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.

[Page 82] WEE are now come to the main body of the Pamphlet, in which we shall begin (and good reason for it) with such particulars as do relate to the two Kings, and such of their personal affairs as our Author treateth of.

The first exception made by the Ob­servator, is the impowering of the Eat [...] of Bristol, to celebrate by Proxie in the Princes name, the marriage with the Lady Infanta. That so it must be un­derstood, appeareth by the words forego­ing. ‘The Spaniard (saith he) impor­tunately moves his Highnesse (the [...] ready to depart for England) that b [...] would be pleased to assign in his ab­sence some Proxie to contract with th [...] Infanta, after a new Dispensation ha [...] [Page 83] from Rome, to whom the Prince retur­ned answer, that he would impower the Earl of Bristol, to give his Majesty all satisfaction in that particular, which accordingly he did.’ The Gen­tleman seems much displeased, that any such inference should be made from the former words, as the impowering of the Earl by Proxie, to proceed to the cele­bration of the Marriage, and cals it ‘An adoe about nothing. How so? Because (saith he) the Observator might have found his meaning in the page next following, where he speaks of the Earls delivering of the Proxie, clearly importing, it was on­ly in his custody to consign to another, Fol.’ 3. But gentle Sir, men that write Histories, must write both properly and plainly, and not post off the Reader from one place to another, to finde out their meaning, or else be forced to put such a sense and understanding on their words, as they will not bear, whereof we shall speak more anon on another oc­casion.

In the mean time he proceeds to tell us, first that the Proxie was to be con­signed to the King of Spain only, not to him and Don Charles, as the Observator [Page 84] saith; And secondly, that he would gladly know, who this Don Charles was, he being the first Don Charles, as he, or any body else he thought had ever heard of, Ibid. To reply first unto the last, he need not be desirous to know who this Don Charles was, the Observator having told him positively and plainly enough, that he was the King of Spains Brother; and though the Gentleman pretending to the Spanish Tongue (as his Encuerpoes, and Ac­collados do most plainly fignifie) con­ceives the Observator should have called that Prince by the name of Don Carlo, as the Spaniards do: yet, if he please to look into the general History of that Kingdome, written in French by Lewis de Mayerne, and translated into English by Grimstone, he shall not fail of finding there the name of Don Charles many scores of times. But for his confident assevera­tion that the Proxie was made, or con­signed only to the King, and not unto the King and his Brother, or to ei­ther of them, as the Observator hath enformed him; if that prove true, I must renounce my knowledge in all other Languages, but my natural Eng­lish. For in the instrument of the Proxie, it is said expresly, that the Prince, perso­nam [Page 85] nominaturus magnitudini rei, ita praeex­celsae parem, & quae nomine suo, seque ipsum repraesentando, qua per est dignitate, & autho­ritate actui adeo solenni, henorifico & sumno pos­sit satisfacere, & praedictum mat [...]imonium celebrare, & ad exitum perducere; serenissimi regis Catholici Philippi 4. majestatem eli­git, item & Carolum Hispaniarum infant [...]m ejus fratrem, unicuiqs eorum in solidum vices suas committendo, prout de facto & cum effectu, & melioribus via & forma commisit & de­dit, & utrumquemq, eo um facit & constituit suum verum & legitimum & indubitabilem procuratorem, concedens unicui (que) &c. ut prae­dicto serenissimo Carolo Walliae principe, & ejus nomine, propriam (que) illius personam refe­rendo, repraesentando, nuptias & matrimonium contrahat &c. cum praedicta serenissima do­mina Maria Hispaniarum infante &c. Th [...]se are the very words of the publick instru­ment, which if they do not prove, and prove most undeniably, that the Proxie was made unto the King of Spain, a [...]d his Brother Charles, or to either of them, the Pamphleter must have more knowledge in the Latine Tongue, then all men else that ever learn'd it.

The next thing faulted in our Author, is, his affirming, that England had ever found the Spaniard a worse friend then Ene­my. [Page 86] The contrary whereof being proved by the Observator, the Pamphlet telleth us, that any fair mannered man, would un­derstand the word ever, with reference to the State of Reformation, Fol. 3. and then the meaning must be this, that the Spa­niard hath ever been an ill friend to Eng­land, that is to say, ever since the time of her Reformation. This was perhaps the Gent. meaning, but we poor men that cannot search into his thoughts, must know his meaning by his gaping, by what he speaks or writes, not by what he thinks: and sure I am, the words can bear no such Grammatical construction as he puts upon them. Nor is his pro­position true, with that limitation which he gives us of it; the Spaniards never troubling our proceedings in the Refor­mation in the reign of King Edward, nor in the first beginnings of Queen Eliza­beth (of whose life next under God him­self he was the principal preserver) till first by an underhand fomenting, and af­ter by appearing visibly in the broyles of the Netherlands, he was in forced to arm against her: reasons of State, and not the interests of Religion, being the motives of the long war which after followed. But he goeth on and telleth [Page 87] us, that the Observator seemeth to confesse it. He doth but seem so them, that's one thing, and he doth not seem so, that is another: the Observator saying only, that if upon the provocations given by Queen Eliza­beth in supporting the Netherlands, the Spaniard took up armes against us, he had all the reason in the world for his justi­fication; which certainly is not so much as a seeming confession, that either Religi­on or Reformation, was any cause of that quarrel, on the Spaniards part.

Next for the businesse of the Pal [...]ti­late, the Observator telleth us from some Letters of the Earl Bristols, that the Spa­niard really intended the restoring o [...] it. Our Author doth oppose to this, a Let­ter of the King of Spain to the Count of Olivarez his especial favourite, in which it may be found (saith he) that neither the match it self, nor the restitution of the Palatinate, was sincerely intended, but delaies meerly sought for by the Spaniard to accomplish his pe [...]fidious ends. Now how he hath abused this Letter, in ma­king it to speak of things which he find­eth not in it, will best be seen by looking on the Letter it self, which is this that followeth.

Philip the 3. to the Conde of Olivarez.

The King my Father declared at his death, that his intention never was to marry my Sister the Infanta Donna Ma­ria with the Prince of Wales, which your Unkle Don Balthaser well under­stood, and so treated this Match ever with an intention to delay it; not­withstanding it is now so far advan­ced, that considering withall the a­versnesse unto it of 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 [Page 89] 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.

[Page 90] 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 [Page 91] 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 st [...]p of his pen, Fol. 6. and putteth on some reasons, signifying nothing, to [Page 92] 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 [Page 93] 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.

[Page 94] 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 i [...]le to better purpose. Reproved for this by the Observator, and those solemn Inaugurations being proved, to be very ancient, directed by the holy Spirit in the Book of God, exemplified not only, in David, and many other Kings of Judah, but also in the Son of David, the chief King of all: our Author standeth unto it still, because (saith he) it conferreth no one dram of solid Grandure to the Throne, Kings being perfect Kings, and qualified fully to all intent of Royalty without it, Fol. 7. Igrant indeed, that Kings are perfect Kings without this solem­nity. The Case of Clark and Watson in the first year of King James, and of ma­ny Murderers and Felons in the first year of King Charles, make this plain enough: all of them being indited for their seve­ral Felonies and Treasons, committed by them against the peace of those several [Page 95] 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 [Page 96] 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 [Page 97] 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 i [...] 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 99] 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 ev [...]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. [Page 100] 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; [Page 101] 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 [Page 102] 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 [Page 103] 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 [...]ansitions and affairs at home, though these h [...]s principal concernment. [Page 104] 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? dar [...]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 ind [...]d a plain confession of the Fact, a taking to himself, or his own copy [Page 105] 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 abu [...]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 E [...]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 these mistakes together, then if he had took them one by one, as they came in his way, especially considering that he gives a good reason for it, that is to say, that he might not trouble himself with the like observation at another time: [Page 106] and did I think the Pamphleter would be ruled again by reason, I could give him another reason for it: that he was now to take his leave of those Obser­vations which personally related to the two Kings, in their several and distinct capacities: This of King James in send­ing the Articles of Lambeth to the convo­cation of Ireland, and the Assembly at Dort being the last point in which he was concerned in his own particular, without relation to King Charles, and not seconded by him. It's true, we finde them acting afterward in the same de­sign, but in several times; King James first setting out the Declaration about lawfull sports, and King Charles se­conding the same by a more strict com­mand, to have it punctually obser­ved throughout the Kingdome. Which giving the occasion to some observati­ons, and those Observations occasio­ning a sharp and uncivill Answer in our Authors Pamphlet; I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Con­troversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that followes: though the Debates touching the sprea­ding of Arminianism, and the suppo­sed [Page 107] growth of Popery, according to the course of time, and the method of our Authors History do occur be­fore it.

Only I must crave leave to hoop in here the Duke of York as a considerable Member of the Royal Family, before I close this present Chapter. Of him our Au [...]hor telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets, that he was by Birth­right Duke of York; but to avoid the Scil­la of that mistake, he fals into the Cha­rybdis of another as bad, telling us in that leafe new printed, (but not new printed only, if at all, on that occasion) that he was after styled Duke of York. For which, being reprehended by the Ob­servator, as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times, the Gent. seemeth much distressed, and in the agony of those distresses, asks these following questions: 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash? 2. What shall an ho­nest Historian do in such a case? Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him, and resolve him briefly, letting him know, that an honest Historian should have said, he was after created Duke of York, and not styled so only: And 2. That [Page 108] if our Author shewed himself an ho­nest Historian, the Observator hath no lash for him, and so it will be possi­ble enough to scape it. Which said, we shall go on to that grand concern­ment, in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose.

The Pamphleters mistake, in making discon­tinuance equall to a calling in. The un­charitable censure of H. B. and our Hi­storian, upon the first and second publishing of their two Majesties Declarations about lawful sports. The Divinity of the Lords Day not known to Mr. Fryth, or Mr. Tyn­dall, two eminent Martyrs in the time of King Henry 8. nor to Bishop Hooper, martyred in the time of Queen Mary. The opinions of those men, how contrary to this new Divinity. This new Divinity not found in the Liturgies, Articles, or Ca­nons of the Church of England; nor in the writings of any private man before Dr. Bound, anno 1595. The Observator justified in this particular by the Church Historian. The Authors ill luck in choo­sing Archbishop Whitgift for a Patron of this new Divinity; and the argument drawn from his authority, answered. An Answer to the Pamphleters argument from the Book of Homilies; the full scope and Analysis of the Homilie, as to this par­ticular. The Pamphleters great brag of [Page 110] all learned men on his side, reduced to one, and that one worth nothing. The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrewes, neither of his writing, nor ap­proved of by him. Our Authors new Book in maintenance of this new Divinity. The Doctor vindicated from the forgings and falsifyings objected against him by the Pamphleter. Proofs from the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Chur­ches, (1) That in the judgement of the Protestant Divines, the sanctifying one day in seven, is not the moral part of the fourth Commandement. (2) That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand, then the authority of the Church. And (3) That the Church hath power to change the Day, and to translate it to some other.

WE are now come unto the business of the Lordsday, in which our Au­thor sheweth himself a stiffe Sabbatarian, taking his rise from the Kings Declarati­on about Lawful sports, first published by King James at Greenwitch, May, 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westmin­ster, Octob. 18. anno 1633. when publish­ed first, it raised so many impetuous clamours, [Page 111] as our Author told us in his first, that the Book was soon after called in; in which being otherwise informed by the Observator, and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in, though the execution of it (by the re­misnesse of that Kings Government) was soon discontinued, will notwithstan­ding keep himself to his former error, and thinks to save himself by this hand­some shift, that the discontinuance of the execution of it, (no matter upon what oc­casion, for he leaves that out) was a ta­cite suppressing and calling of it in, Fol. 22. This is a piece of strange State Doctrine, that the discontinuance of the execution of any Law, Ordinance, Canon, or Act of State, should be equivalent unto the cal­ling of them in. Our Author hath not found it so in the Act for Knighthood, nor have the Subjects found it so in such penal Statutes, as having lain dor [...] [...] ma­ny years, were awakened afterwards; nor can it be inferred from hence, that any of the Lawes against Priests and Jesuites are at the present, or have been former­ly suppressed, and tacitely call'd in, be­cause by the clemency of King James, the prudence of King Charles, and the tem­per of the present Government, there [Page 112] was and is a discontinuance of such Execu­tions, as only are to be commended, when they may not, then when they may possibly be spared. What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration, the Observator tels at large from the Books themselves. But H. B. in his seditious Sermon (most undeservedly) entituled, For God and the King, gives another rea­son for the publishing of it by King James, which, being not pertinent to my businesse with our present Author, I for­bear to mention, that being already canvassed in another place. But the de­sign of the re-publishing of it in the reign of King Charles, was by our Author in the first draught of his History, as it was sent unto the Presse, and printed, though suppressed with others of like nature spoken of before, affirmed to be a plot to gall and vex those godly Divines, whose consciences would not vail to such impie­ty, as to promote the work; and for the not promoting of it to compell them to de­sert their Stations, and abandon their livings, in which their very vitality and livelihood con­sisted, Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably, or un­truly said. This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop [Page 113] Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon, to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit; so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict, a maculating of his own honour, and a sacrilegious robbing of God. All which, though afterwards left out, declare his willingnesse to make both Prince and Prelates, and the de­pendants of those Prelates (the poor Do­ctor of Cosmography among the rest) feel the dint of his spirit; and pity 'twas he was not suffered to go on in so good a purpose.

Our Author having intimated in the way of a scorn or j [...]ar that the Divinity of the Lords day, was new Divinity at the Court; was answered by the Observator, that so it was, by his leave, in the Countrey too, not known in England till the year 1595. &c. The Observator said it then, I shal prove it now, and having proved it in the Thesis, or proposition, will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it. And first it is to be observed, that this new Divinity of the Lords day was un­known to those, who suffered for Reli­gion, and the testimony of a good con­science, under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth (who suffered in the [Page 114] year 1533) in a tract by him written about Baptism. ‘Our fore-fathers, saith he, which were in the beginning of the Church, did abrogate the Sabbath, to the intent that men might have an Ensample of Christian Liberty, &c. How­beit because it was necessary, that a day should be reserved, in which the people should come together, to hear the word of God, they ordained in stead of the Sabbath, which was Saturday, the next day following, which is Sunday. And though they might have kept the Sa­turday with the Jew, as a thing indif­ferent,’ yet they did much better. Next to him followeth Mr. Tyndall, famous in those times, for his translation of the Bible, for which, and for many of his Do­ctrines opposite to the Church of Rome, condemned unto the flames ann [...] 1536. in the same Kings reign, who in his Answer to Sir Thoma [...] More, hath re­solved it thus: ‘As for the Sabbath, we be Lords over the Sabbath, and may yet change it into Munday, or into any other day, as we see need, or may make every tenth day holiday only, if we see cause why, neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, but to put a difference between us and the Jewes: [Page 115] neither need we any▪ holy day at all, if the people might be taught without it.’ The same Doctrine publickly de­fended in the writings of Bishop Hooper, advanced to the Miter by King Edward, and by Queen Mary to the Crown, the crown o [...] Martyrdome, in a Trea­tise by him written on the Ten Com­mandements, anno 1550. who resolves it thus: We may not think (saith he) that God gave any more holinesse to the Sabbath, then to the other daies. For if ‘ye consider, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, in as much as they be daies, and the work of God, the one is no more ho­ly then the other, but that day is al­waies most holy, in the which we most apply and give our selves unto Holy works.’ No notice taken by these Martyrs of this new Divinity: The first speaking of the observation of the Lords day, no otherwise then as an in­stitution grounded on their forefathers, a constitution of the Church; the se­cond placing no more Morality in a se­venth-day, then in a tenth-day Sabbath; and the third making all daies wholly alike, the Sunday no otherwise then the rest.

[Page 116] As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs, so was it also to those Prelates, and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward, or after­wards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holydaies; no more divine offices performed, or diligent attendance required by the old Lawes of this Land upon the one, then on the other. No notice taken of this new Divinity in the Articles of Religion as they were published, anno 1552. or as they were revised and ratified in the tenth year after; no order taken for such a strict observation of it, as might entitle it unto any Divinity, either in the Orders of 1561. or the Advertise­ments of 1565. or the Canons of 1571. or those which [...]ollowed anno 1575. No­thing that doth so much as squint to­ward [...] this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation, Prote­stant▪ Papist, Puritan, of what sort so­ever, till broached by Dr. Bound, anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator.

[Page 117] But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author, from the mouth of another, then from that of the ignorant Observator, I would desire him to consult the new Church History, writ by a man more sutable to his own affections, and so more like to be believed. ‘About this time (saith he) throughout England, began the more solemn and strict observation of the Lords Day (hereafter both in writing and preaching commonly call'd the Sab­bath) occasioned by a book this year set forth by P. Bound Dr. in Divinity (and enlarged with additions, anno 1606.) wherein the following opini­ons are maintained. 1. That the Com­mandement of sanctifying every se­venth day, as in the Mosaical Decalogue, is moral and perpetual. 2. That where­as all other things in the Jewish Church were taken away (Priesthood, Sacrifices, and Sacraments) his Sabbath was so changed as it still remaineth. 3. That there is a great reason, why we Chri­stians should take our selves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lords day, as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath, it being one of the moral Commande­ments where all are of equall autho­rity.’ [Page 118] lib. 9. sect. 20. After this, he goeth on to tell us, ‘how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines; some embraced them as ancient truths con­sonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety; others con­ceived them grounded on a wrong bot­tome, but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion, it was pity to oppose them, seeing none have just reason to complain, being deceived into their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out with these positi­ons, as galling mens necks with a Jewish yoke against the Liberty of Christians. That Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had re­moved the rigour thereof, and allowed men lawful Recreations: that his Do­ctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday; on set purpose to eclipse all other Holy daies, to the deroga­tion of the authority of the Church: that this strict observance was set up out of Faction to be a character of difference, to brand all for Libertines who did not entertain it.’ sect. 21. He telleth us fin [...]lly, that the Book was af­terwards called in and command [...]d to be [Page 119] no more printed. The Doctrine op­sed by the Archbishop, and the maintainers of it punished by Judge Popham; though by the diligence and counterworking of the brethren it got ground again.

This being said, we shall proceed unto the answering of the Pamphleters argu­ments not more remarkable for their paucity, then they are for their weak­nesse. He telleth us first that Archbi­shop Whitgift in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition, saith, in the present tense, that the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some, and speaks soon after of a Sabbath, then com­manded by the fourth Precept. The Pam­phleter hereupon inferreth that he could not mean the Jewish Sabbath, and if not that, it must of necessity be the Lords day, Fol. 23. Here is a stout argument in­deed, able to knock down any man which thinks the contrary; for mark the in­ference thereof. Archbishop Whitgift, gives unto the Lords day (in a Metapho­rical and figurative sense) the name of Sabbath, Ergo, which is in English, there­fore, it must be kept with all the rigors and severities which were [...]equired unto the observation of the Sabbath by the Law of Moses: or therefore, which is in [Page 120] Latine Ergo, there is as much divinity in the Lords day now by whomsoever it was ordained, as had been heretofore ascri­bed to the Sabbath-day of Gods own ap­pointing. And then again, the Lords day is by him called a Sabbath, and said to be there commanded by the fourth precept, therefore there is such a Divinity in it as Dr. Bound ascribes to his Lords daies Sab­bath, according to his Articles and petiti­ons laid down. Did ever man so argue in a point which he makes to be of so great concernment, or make so ill a choice both of the Medium and the Author, which he groundeth upon? First of the Medi­um; for may we not conclude by the self­same Logick that there is a Divinity in all the holydaies of the Church; because all grounded on, and warranted by the fourth commandement, as all learned writers say they are? and that there is a Divinity in Tithes and Churches, because both places set apart for sacred Actions, and maintenance also for the persons, which of­ficiate in them, as the Pamphleter after­wards alledgeth, are included also in this precept? If there be a Divinity in these, let our Author speak out plainly, and plea [...] as strongly for the Divinity or di­vine Institution of Tithes and Churches, [Page 121] as he hath done (or endevours to do at least) for the Divinity of the Lords dayes Sabbath. If none in these, and I conceive our Author will not say there is, though grounded on the warrant of the fourth Commande­ment, let him not d [...]eam of any such Di­vinity in the Lords day, because now kept by vertue of that precept also. But worse luck hath the G [...]nt in the choice of his Author, then in that of his Medi­um; there being no man, that more dis­relished and opposed this new Divinity of the Sabbath, and all the Sabbatarian er­rors depending on it, then this most re­verend Prelate did, insomuch that he commanded Bounds Book to be called in, upon the first discovery of the Doctrines delivered in it: which cert [...]inly he had not done, if he had been of the same Judgement with that Doctor, or had meant any such thing in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition, which our Pam­phlete [...] hath put upon him. Assuredly unless the Pamphleter had been bribed to betray the cause, and justifie the Obser­vator, he would have passed over the debating of this new Divinity, or else found more then one man in the space of 36 years (so long it was from the [Page 122] first of Queen Elizabeth to the coming out of Bounds Book) to have spoken for him; and such a man, as had not shew­ed himself so professed an enemy to the newnesse of it, by causing the Book to be called in, that the Brethren commonly used to say, that out of envy to their pro­ceedings, he had caused such a pearl to be con­cealed.

Let us next see what comfort he can finde from the book of Homilies, of which he saith, that there was not any thing more especially taught in them, then the Divinity of the Lords day. This he affirmes, but they that look into that Book, will finde many points more specially taught, and more throughly pressed, then this Divi­nity he talketh of; witnesse those long and learned Homilies, upon the peril of Idolatry, against disobedience and rebel­lion (of these last six at least in number) besides many others. But if it can be proved at all, no matter whether specially or more specially, that shall make no dif­ference, and that it may be proved he telleth us, that they say [God in that Precept (speaking of the [...]ourth) com­mandeth the observation of the Sabbath, which is our Sunday] Fol. 23. If this be so, and to be understood of such a Divinity, or [Page 123] such a divine institution of the Lords day, as our Author would fain put up­on it: first then we must have some ex­presse warrant, and command from God himself, altering the day, from the se­venth day of the week, on which he commanded it to be kept by the Law of Moses, unto the first day of the week, on which it is now kept by the Church of Christ. But secondly that Homily (I mean that Of the time and place of prayer) doth inform us thus: ‘That the goldly Christian people began to follow the example, and commande­ment of God, immediately after the Ascension of our Lord Christ, and be­gan to choose them a standing day of the week to come together, yet not the seventh day which the Jewes kept, but the Lords day, the day of the Lords Resurrection, the day after the se­venth day, which is the fi [...]st day of the week &c. And thirdly, it is said in the same Homily, that by this commande­ment we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest, yea from our lawful and needful works, &c. Which passages being laid together, will amount to this, first that the Homilie doth not say that by the fourth Commandement we ought to have one day in the week, which [Page 124] is plainly peremptory; but that we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, which is plainly Arbitrary. Secondly, that being Arbitrary in it self, and so esteemed of by the Christians in the Primi­tive times, they thought it good, imme­diately after Christs [...]scension, to choose a standing day of the week to come together in, namely the Lords day, or the day of the Resurrection. Not that they were required so to do by the fourth commandement, which li­mited the Sabbath (the ordinary time of worship) to the day foregoing; nor com­manded so to do by Christ, this choice of the day not being made till after his ascension, and no command of his ap­proving in the holy Scripture; nor fi­nally by any Precept or Injunction of the holy Apostles: of which as the Scri­ptures are quite silent; so the Homilie ascribes it wholly to the voluntary choice of godly Christian people, without any mention made at all of their authori­ty. So the then meaning of those words, produced by our Author, for the ground of this new Divinity, will be only this, that as God rested on the seventh day, and commanded it to be kept whol­ly by the Jewes, so the godly Christian people after Christs Ascension, fol­lowing [Page 125] his example, and warranting themselves by his Authority, did choose a seventh day of the week, though not the same which had been kept holy by the Jewes for the day of worship. And this is all we are to trust to for the Divi­nity, or Divine institution of the Lords day Sabbath, from the Book of Homilies; neither so positively, nor so clearly rendred, as to lay a fit or sure foundation for so great a building.

In the next place, the Pamphleter quarrels with the Observator, for ma­king it a prodigie and a paradox too, that neither the order nor revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood, should have any existence, but in relation to the Di­vinity of the Lords day. But Sir the Observator doth not only say it, but he proves it too, and proves it by the au­thority of the holy Scriptures, mentio­ning the calling of the Apostles, of the se­venty Disciples of S. Paul and others to the work of the Ministery, and pleading strongly in behalf of an Evangelical maintenance, as belonging to them; at such time as the Lords day no such exi­stence, no such Divinity of existence, as our Author speaks of. In stead of answer­ing to these proofs, the Pamphleter telleth [Page 126] us, that there is not a man of note, who treateth of the 4. Commandement (himself especially for one, and the chief one too) that owneth not this prodigious opinion; and therefore aske [...]h, where this Observator ha [...]h been brought up, that this Tenet of his, ye [...] of all learned men, should be so wondred at to be called a prodigie. Fol. 23. But the re­ply to this will be very easie. For first, all the men of note which write upon the 4. Commandement, all learned men (our Author too into the bargain) are no fit ballance for S. Paul, nor able to counterpoise the expresse and clear Au­thority of the holy Scriptures. And secondly, the Pamphleter after his great brag, that all learned men, almost all men of note, which write upon the 4 Commande­ment, are of his opinion, is fain to content himself at the present with only one, and such an one, who though he be insta [...] omnium with the Pamphleter, is not so with me, nor with the Observator neither. Not that we fail in any part of due ho­nour to that Reverend Prelate, whose name he useth to make good the point which is in question, but that we think the work imputed to him by the Pam­phleter to be none of his, never owned by him in his life, nor justified for his [Page 127] by any of relation or nearnesse to him, therefore to undeceive so many, as shall read these papers, they may please to know, that in the year 1583. Mr. An­drewes was made the Catechist of Pem­brook-hall, for the instruction of the younger students of that house in the grounds of Divinity; that though he was then but a young man, yet his abi­lities were so well known, that not on­ly those of the same foundation, but many of other Colledges in that Uni­versity, and some out of the Countrey also, came to be his Auditors; that some of them taking notes of his Lectures as well as they could, were said to have copies of his Catechizing, though for most part very imperfect, and in many points of consequence very much mista­ken; that after his coming to be Bishop he gave a special warrant unto one of his Chaplains, not to own any thing for his, that was said to have been taken by notes from his mouth. And finally that hearing of the coming out of that Catechism, as in discourse with those about him he would never own it, nor liked to have it mentioned to him, so he abolished (as it seemeth) his own original Copy, which they that had [Page 128] command to search and sort his papers could not finde in his study: and though this Catechism came out since in a larger volume, yet not being published according to his own papers (although under his name) it can no more be said to be his, then many false and supposi­titious writings foisted into the works of Ambrose, Augustine, and almost all the ancient Fathe [...], may be counted theirs. Of all this, I am punctually advertised by an emin [...]nt person of near admission to that Prelate, when he was alive, and a great honourer of him since his death, and have thought fit to signifie as much upon this occasion to disabuse all such whom the name of this most reverend Prelate might else work upon: which said, there needs no Answer to this doughty argument, which being built upon a ruinous and false foundation, fals to the ground, without more [...]doe, as not worth the answering. We see by this that all the learned men which our Author brags of, are reduced to one, which one upon examination proves as good as none, if not worse then no­thing.

But the Pamphleter may be pardoned for coming short in this present pro­ject, [Page 129] in regard of the great pains he had taken in writing a Book of the Doctrine of the Sab­bath, or Divinity of the Lords day, published in the year 1640. unto which Treatise he refers all men who shall desire his judgement in that subject, that Book being never yet answered by any, as he gallantly braves it, Fol. 24. In this there are many things to be con­sidered. For first it is probable enough that this Treatise to which we are re­ferred for our satisfaction, was either so short lived, or made so little noise a­broad, that it was not heard of. For had it either moved so strongly, or cry­ed so loud, that it intituled our Author (the dear Father of it) to any Estate of Reputation for term of life, as Tenant by the courtesie of the gentle Reader; it is not possible, but that we should have had some tale or tidings of it in so long a time, and therefore I conceive that it was still-born, and obscurely buried, and perhaps buried by the Man-midwife, I mean the Bookseller or Printer, who gave it birth, before the Godfathers and Godmothers, and the rest of the good Gossips could be drawn together, to give a name unto the In [...]ant, or at the best like the solstitial herb in Plautus, quae re­pentino orta est, repentino occidit, withered [Page 130] as soon as it sprang up, and so came to nothing. Secondly, if it were not an­swered, I would not have the Gent▪ think, that it was therefore not an­swered, because unanswerable (though he were apt enough to think so with­out this Praecaution) but for other rea­sons. For first the year 1640. was a bu­sie year, and brought so much trouble and encumbrance on the English Clergy, as gave them neither list nor leisure to answer all impertinent scribbles, which by the liberty of that time, and the au­daciousnesse thereby prompted unto severall men, did break out upon them: Securi de salute, de gloria cer­temus, as you know who said. Men have small edge to fight for honour, and undertake unprofitable and fruitlesse quarrels, when unsecure of life and safety, and all things else which are most near and dear unto them. But se­condly, taking it for granted, that some men were at leisure to attend those ser­vices, how may we be assured, that there was any thing in the book which was worth the answering, or that any cre­dit could be gotten from the work or Author? For it is possible enough, that every man might not have such opinion [Page 131] of you, as you say the Observator had, who did therefore (if you judge aright of his intentions) professe an high esteem of your parts and person, only to make the world believe, that you were worthy the over­coming. And if they did not think so of you, they had all the reason in the world to decline a combate, ubi & vin­cere inglorium esset, & atteri sordidum, in which to overcome, or to be conquered, is like inglorious.

But whatsoever opinion the Observa­tor had of you, you have not the like opi­nion of his Alter idem, the Doctor in Cosmography, as you please to taunt him, whom you accuse, for forging and falsifying a Record so boldly, the modest Gent. will not say so impudently, and that too not in an idle circumstance, but in the grand concernment of a controversie with spight and calumny enough. And why all this? Marry say you in the second book and 6. Chapter, of his History of the Sab­bath, published in the year 1636. he hath misreported the words of Pareus in put­ting down quomodo for quando, adding withall, in vindication whereof, he never at­tempted any thing as yet, Fol. 24. This I confesse is grave crimen, & ante hoc tempus inaudi [...]um, a grievous c [...]ime, the like [Page 132] to which was never charged upon him by his greatest enemies. In answer whereunto, I must tell you for him that being plundred of his Books, and kee­ping no remembrances, and collections of his Studies by him, he cannot rea­dily resolve what Edition he followed in his consulting with that Author. He alwaies thought, that Tenure in capite, was a nobler and more honourable te­nure, then to hold by Copy, and there­fore carelesly neglected to commit any part of his readings unto notes and pa­pers, of which he never found such want as in this particular, which you so bold­ly charge upon him. Or were it so as you inform us, both he and I have cause to wonder why our learned Author did not rather choose to confute that whole Hi­story of the Sabbath, then spend his time in hammering some petit Tractate; of which the world hath took no notice; that being a work, which might have rendred him considerable, and made more noise then all the Geese in the Capitol to the awakening of the dull Doctor, and the drowsie Clergie: or if he thought this task too great, and the burden too heavie for his shoulders; why did he let these falsifyings and forgings sl [...]p 20 [Page 133] years together, and never call to an accompt for it till this present time, when it may justly be supposed, that not your zeal unto the truth, but secret ma­lice to his person did ex [...]ort it from you? Thirdly, I am required to tell you that if there be such a mistake in the citati­on, which he more then doubts, it was not willingly and wilfully committed by him, and therefore not within the compasse of those forgings and falsifyings which you tax him with. For he would fain know cui bono, or cui malo rather, to what end, whether good or bad, he should use those forgings or falsifyings, in that Author, when he was compassed about with a cloud of witnesses, attesting positively and plainly to the point in hand; or what need there should be of pra­ctising on Pareus to appear fair for him, when more then a whole Jury of learned and Religious men, as learned and as good as he, had given up their verdict in the case? Now that this may appear to be so indeed, and that withall the Re [...]der may understand the true state of the Question, I will lay down that Secti­on which the Pamphleter doth refer us to, together with the next before it and the next that followes, and so submit [Page 134] the whole controver [...]ie to his better judgement. This only is to be pre­mised, that the 5. section shews, that the Reformators found great fault, both with the new Doctrine of the Papist, about the natural and inherent holinesse, which they ascribe to some daies above the rest, and the restraints from Labour on the Lords day and the other holy daies; upon which it followeth in these words, viz.

(6) Indeed it is not to be thought, that they could otherwise resolve and de­termine of it, considering what their Do­ctrine is of the day it self; how different they make it from a Sabbath day: which doctrine, that we may perceive with the greater ease, we will consider it in three propositions, in which most agree: 1. That the keeping holy one day of seven, is not the Moral part of the fourth Comman­dement, or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature. 2. That the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandement, but only on the authority of the Church; And 3. That the Church [...]ath still Authority to change the day, and to transfer it to some other. First for the first, it seems that some of Rome (considering the restraints before re­membred, and the new Doctrine thence [Page 135] arising, about the natural and inherent holinesse, which one day had above ano­ther) had altered what was formerly delivered amongst the Schoolmen: and made the keeping of one day in seven, to be the Moral part of the fourth Comman­dement. This Calvin (Instit. l. 2. c. 8. 11. 34.) chargeth them withall, that they had taught the people in the former times, that whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandement, which was the keeping of the Jewes seventh day, had been long since abrogated: Remanere vero quod morale est, nempe unius diei ob­servationem in hebdomade, but that the moral part thereof, which was the keeping of one day in seven, did continue still. ‘Which what else is it, as before was said, then in dishonour of the Jewes to change the day; and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto, as the Jewes ever did?’ As for his own part he pro [...]esseth, that howsoever he approved of the Lords day meetings: Non tamen numerum septenarium ita se morari, ut ejus servituti ec­clesias astringeret; ‘yet stood not he so much for the number of seven, as to confine the Church unto it.’ If Calvin elsewhere be of another minde, and speak of keeping holy one day in seven, [Page 136] as a matter necessary; (which some say he doth) either they must accuse him of much inconstancy, and forgetfulnesse; or else interpret him, with Rivet (In Decalog.) as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custome, not to be neglected; non de ne­cessitate legis divinae; and not of any obli­gation layed upon us by the Law of God. Neither is he the only one that hath so determined. Simler (in Exod. 20.) hath said it more expresly, Quod dies una cultui divino consecratur, ex lege naturae est; quod autem haec sit septima, non octava, nona, aut decima, juris est divini sed ceremonialis: ‘That one day should be set apart for Gods publick worship, is the Law of nature, but that this day should be the seventh, and not the eighth, ninth or tenth, was not of divine appoint­ment, but ceremonial. Aretius (Loc. 55) also in his common places distinguished between the substance of the Sabbath, and the time thereof: ‘The substance of it, which was rest, and the works of piety, being in all times to continue; tempus autem, ut septimo die observetur, hoc non fuit necessarium in Ecclesia Christi, but for the time, to keep it on the seventh day al­waies, that was not necessary in the Church of Christ. So also Francisc. Go­marus, [Page 137] that great undertaker against Ar­minius, in a book written purposely, De origine & institutione Sabbati, affirms for certain, that it can neither be made good by the Law of Nature, or Text of Scri­pture, or any solid argument drawn from thence, unum è septem diebus ex vi praecepti quarti ad cultum Dei necessario observandum, that by the fourth Commandement, one day in seven is of necessity to be dedi­cated to Gods service. And Rivet as profest an enemy of the Remonstrants, though for the antiquity of the Sabbath, he differeth from the said Gomarus; yet he agreeth with him in this: not only making the observance of one day in se­ven, to be meerly positive, as in our first part we observed; but laies it down for the received opinion of most of the re­formed Divines, Ʋnum ex septem diebus non esse necessario eligendum, ex vi praec [...]pti, ad sacros conventus celebrandos; (in Exod. 20. p. 190.) the very same with what Go­marus affirmed before. So lastly for the Lutheran Churches, Chemnitius makes it part of our Christian Liberty, quod nec sint alle­gati, nec debeant alligari ad certorum vel die­rum, vel temporum observationes, opinione ne­cessitatis in Novo Testamento, &c. ‘That men are neither bound, nor ought to [Page 138] be, unto the observation of any daies or times, as matters necessary, under the Gospel of our Saviour: Though otherwise he account it for a barbarous folly, not to observe that day with all due solemnity, which hath for so long time been kept by the Church of God.’ Therefore in his opinion also, the kee­ping of one day in seven, is neither any moral part of the fourth Commandement, or parcel of the Law of Nature. As for the subtle shift of Amesius (Medull. Theo­log. l. 2. 15.) finding, that keeping holy one day in seven, is positive indeed, sed im­mutabilis plane institutionis, but such a po­sitive Law, as is absolutely immutable; & doth as much oblige, as those which in themselves are plainly natural and moral: it may then serve, when there is nothing else to help us. For that a positive Law should be immutable in it self; and in its own nature, be as universally binding as the moral Law; is such a piece of lear­ning, and of contradiction, as never was put up to shew in these latter times. But he had learnt his lirry in England here; and durst not broach it but by halves amongst the Hollanders.

(7) For the next Thesis, that the Lords day is not founded on divine Comman­dement, [Page 139] but the Authority of the Church: it is a point so universally resolved on, as no one thing more: And first we will be­gin with Calvin, who tels us (Institut. l. 2. c. 8. n. 3.) how it was not without good reason, that those of old, appoin­ted the Lords day, as we call [...]it, to supply the place of the Jewish Sabbath. Non sine delectu Dominicum quem vocamus diem, ve­teres in locum Sabbati subrogarunt: as his words there are. Where none, I hope, will think that he would give our Sa­viour Christ, or his Apostles, such a short come off, as to include them in the name of Veteres only: which makes it plain, that he conceived it not to be their appointment. Bucer resolves the point more clearly: (in Mat. 12.) Com­muni Christianorum consensu Dominicum diem publicis Ecclesiae conventibus ac requieti pub­licae dicatum esse, ipso statim Apostolorum tem­pore; viz. ‘That in the Apostles times, the Lords day by the common consent of Christian people, was dedicated un­to publick rest, and the Assemblies of the Church.’ And Peter Martyr upon a question asked, why the old seventh day was not kept in the Christian Church; makes answer, That upon that day, and on all the rest, we ought to rest from our [Page 140] own works, the works of sin. Sed quod is magis quam ille, eligatur ad externum Dei cultum, liberum fuit Ecclesiae per Christum ut id consuleret quod ex re magis judicaret: nec illa pessime judicavit, &c. (in Gen. 2.) ‘That this was rather chose then that, for Gods publick service, that, saith he, Christ left totally unto the liber­ty of the Church, to do therein what should seem most expedient; and that the Church did very well, in that she did prefer the memory of the Resur­rection, before the memory of the Crea­tion. These two I have the rather thus joyned together,’ as being sent for into England in King Edwards time, and placed by the Protector in the Universities, the better to establish Reformation, at that time begun: and doubt we not, but that they taught the self-same Doctrine (if at the least they touched at all upon that point) with that now extant in their writings. At the same time with them lived Bullinger, and Gualter, two great learned men. Of these, the first informs us, Hunc diem, loco Sabba [...]i, in memoriam resurgentis Domini delegisse sibi Ecclesias. (in Apoc. 1.) ‘That in memorial of our Sa­viours Resurrection, the Church set apart this day, in the Sabbaths stead, where­on [Page 141] to hold their solemn and religious meetings.’ And after, Sponte receperunt Ecclesiae illam diem; non legimus eam ullibi praeceptam. ‘That of their own accord, and by their own authority, the Church made choice thereof for the use aforesaid; it being no where to be found that it was commanded.’ Gualter (in Act. Apost. Hom. 13) more generally, that the Christians first assembled on the Sabbath day, as being then most famous, and so most in use: But when the Churches were augmented, Proximus à Sabbato dies, rebus sacris destinatus, the next day after the Sabbath was designed to those holy uses, If not before, then certainly not so commanded by our Saviour Christ: and if designed only, then not enjoyned by the Apostles. Yea Beza, though herein he differ from his Master Calvin, and makes the Lords day meetings, Apostolicae & verae divinae traditi­onis, (Apoc. 1. 10.) to be indeed of Apo­stolical and divine tradition: yet being a tradition only, although Apostolical, it is no commandement. And more then that, he tels us in another place (in Act 20.) that from St. Pauls preaching at Troas, and from the Text, 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi, it may be gathered not un­fitly, [Page 142] that then the Christians were ac­customed to meet that day; the cere­mony of the Jewish Sabbath, beginning by degrees to vanish. But sure the cu­stome of the people makes no divine tradi­tions; and such conclusions, as not un­fitly may be gathered from the Text, are not Text it self. Others there be, who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles; not to their precept, but their practise. So Mercer (in Gen.) Apostoli in Dominicum converterunt, the Apostles chan­ged the Sabbath to the Lords day. Paraeus attributes the same Apostolicae Ecclesiae, unto the Apostolical Church, or Church in the Apostles times: Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio, in Sacris literis expressum non habemus: ‘but how, by what authority such a change was made, is not delive­red (as he confesseth) in the Scripture. And John Cuchlinus, (in Thesib. pag. 733.) though he call it consuetudinem Apostoli­cam, an Apostolical custome; yet he is pe­remptory, that the Apostles gave no such commandment: Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse, constanter negamus. S. Simler (de Festis Chr. p. 24) cals it only consuetudinem tem­pore Apostolorum rec [...]ptam: a custome taken up in the Apostles time. And so Hospi­nian, ‘Although, saith he, it be appa­rent, [Page 143] that the Lords day was celebrated in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, even in the times of the Apostles; Non inve­nitur tamen vel Apostolos, vel alios, Lege ali­qua & Praecepto, observationem ejus institu­isse: yet finde we not, that either they, or any other did institute the keeping of the same, by any Law or Precept, but left it free. Thus Zanchius (in 4. prae­cept.) Nullibi legimus Apostolos, &c. We do not read, saith he, that the Apostles commanded any to observe this Day: we only read what they and others did upon it; Liberum ergo reliquerunt: which is an argument, that they left it to the Churches power.’ To those adde Ʋrsin in his Exposition on the fourth Com­mandment, (in Catech. Palat.) Liberum Ec­clesiae reliquit alios dies eligere, that it is left unto the Church, to make choice of any day; and that the Church made choice of this, in honour of our Saviours Re­surrection: and so Aretius in his common places: Christiani in Dominicum transtule­runt: that by the Christian people the Sabbath was translated to the Lords day. Gomarus and Ryvet, in the Tracts before remembred, have determined further, viz. That in the choosing of this day, the Church did exercise as well her wis­dome, [Page 144] as her freedome: her freedome being not oblig [...]d to any day, by the Law of God: her wisdome, Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet; that by so small an al­teration, she might the lesse offend the Jewes, who were then considerable. As for the Lutheran Divines: it is affirmed by Dr. Bound, That for the most part they ascribe too much unto the liberty of the Church, in ap­pointing daies for the assembly of the people: which is plain confession. But for par­ticulars; Brentius, as Dr. Prideaux tels us, cals it Civilem institutionem, a civil institu­tionem, and no Commandement of the Go­spel: which is no more indeed then what is elsewhere said by Calvin, when he ac­counts no otherwise thereof, then ut re­medium retinendo ordini necessarium, as a fit way to retain order in the Church. And sure I am, Chemnitius tels us, that the A­postles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of Gods people, by any Law or Precept whatsoever: sed libera fuit observatio ordi­nis gratia; but that for orders sake, it had been voluntarily used amongst them, of their own accord.

(8) Thus have we proved by the Do­ctrine of the Protestants, of what side soe­ever, and those of greatest credit in their [Page 145] several Churches, eighteen by name, and all the Lutherans in general, of the same opinion; That the Lords day is of no other institution then the Authority of the Church: which proved the last of the three Theses. That still the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other: will follow of it self, on the for­mer grounds: the Protestant Doctors be­fore remembred, in saying that the Church did institute the Lords day, as we see they do; confessing tacitely, that still the Church hath power to change it. Nor do they tacitely confesse it, as if they were affraid to speak it out: but some of them in plain terms affirm it, as a certain truth. Zuinglius, the first refor­mer of the Switzers, hath resolved it so, in his discourse against one Valentine Genti­lis, a new Arrian Heretick (Tom. 1. p. 254. a.) Audi mi Valentine, quibus modis & rationibus, Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur. ‘Hearken now Valentine, by what waies and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony: if either we observe that day which the Jewes once did, or think the Lords day so affixed to any time, ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transferre: that we conceive it an impiety, it should be changed unto another; on which, [Page 146] as well as upon that, we may not rest from labour, and hearken to the word of God: if perhaps such necessity should be, this would indeed make it become a Ceremony. Nothing can be more plain then this: yet Calvin is as plain; when he professeth, That he regarded not so much the number of seven, ut ejus servituti Ecclesias astringeret, as to enthral the Church unto it. Sure I am, Doctor Pri­deaux (in Orat. de Sab.) reckoneth him, as one of them, who teach us, that the Church hath power to change the day, and to transfer it to some other. And that John Barclaie makes report, how once he had a consultation, de transferenda Domini­ca in Feriam quintam, of altering the Lords day unto the Thursday. Bucer affirmes as much, as touching the Authority: And so doth Bullinger, and Brentius, Ʋrsine and Chemnitius, as Doctor Prideaux hath ob­served. Of Bullinger, Bucer, Brentius, I have nought to say, because the places are not cited; but take it, as I think I may, upon his credit. But for Chemnitius, he saith often, that it is libera observatio, a vo­luntary observation; that it is an espe­cial part of our Christian liberty, not to be tyed to daies and times, in matters which concern Gods service; and that the Apo­stles [Page 147] made it manifest by their example, Singulis diebus, vel quocun (que) die: That every day, or any day, may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises. And as for Ʋrsine, he makes this difference be­tween the Lords day and the Sabbath (Ca­tech. qu. 103. 2.) ‘That it was utterly unlawful to the Jewes, either to neg­lect or change the Sabbath, without expresse commandment from God him­self, as being a ceremonial part of divine worship: but for the Christian Church, that may design the first, or second, or any other day to Gods publick service; so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed, or any opinion of ne­cessity or holinesse affixt unto them.’ Ecole­sia vero Christiana primum, vel alium diem, tribuit Ministerio, salva sua libertate sine opinione cultus vel necessitatis; as his words there are. To these adde Dietericus, a Lutheran Divine, who, though he makes the keeping of one day in seven, to be the Moral part of the fourth Commandment; yet for that day, it may be Dies Sabbati, or Dies Solis, or Quicun (que) alius, Sunday, or Saturday, or any other, be it one in seven. (Som. 17. post Trinit.) And so Hospinian is perswaded: Dominicum diem mutare, & in alium transferre licet, &c. ‘That if the [Page 148] occasions of the Church do so require, the Lords day may be changed unto any other: provided it be one of seven; and that the change be so transacted, that it produce no scandal or confusion in the Church of God.’ Nay, by the Do­ctrine of the Helvetian Churches, every particular Church may destinate what ‘day they please to Religious Meetings, to publick prayers, Preaching the Word, and Mi­nistring the Sacraments. For so they gave it up in their confession (cap. 2.) Deligit ergo quaevis Ecclesia sibi certum tempus ad pre­ces publicas, & Evangelii praedicationem, nec non Sacramentorum celebrationem. And howsoever for their own parts, they kept that day, which had been set apart for those holy uses, even from the time of the Apostles; yet, that they conceived it free, to keep the Lords day, or the Sab­bath; Sed & Dominicum, non Sabbatum, li­bera observatione celebramus. Some Secta­ries since the Reformation, have gone fur­ther yet, and would have had all daies alike, as unto their use, all equally to be regarded: And reckoned that the Lords day, as the Church continued it, was a Jewish Ordinance; thwarting the Do­ctrine of S. Paul, who seemed to them to abrogate the difference of daies, which [Page 149] the Church retained. This was the fancie or the frenzie rather of the Ana­baptist, taking the hint perhaps from some­thing which had formerly been delivered by some wiser men; and after them, of the Swinckfieldian, and the Familist: as in the times before, of the Petro-Brusians, and (if Waldensis wrong him not) of Wicklef also.

By this it will appear, that the Doctor had no reason to forge and falsifie Pa­reus, as the Pamphleter saith he did, when the whole current of Protestant and reformed Divines do affirm that point for which Paraeus is produced. A greater vindication needs not in a case so clear; and sooner had this vindica­tion been made, if this foul charge had sooner come unto his ears. The Pam­phleter findes fault with the Obser­vator, in that he did not, viva vo [...]e, by conference, or by letters, hint those mistakes to him which were found in his History, as fit considerations for a second impression. Fol. 44. The Dr. findes the same fault in him, by whom he stands accused of forging and falsifying a Record, and thinks it would have represented him to be a man of more Christian, yea moral principles, to have given him a private admonition touching that mistake (if it prove such upon the [Page 150] search of all Editions, then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a contro­versie. By this it also will appear, 1. That in the judgement of the Protestant Di­vines, the sanctifying one day in seven, is not the moral part of the 4. Com­mandement. 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand, then the Authority of the Church. And 3. That the Church hath power to change the day and to transfer it to some other. Crack me these nuts my most learned sir, and when you have broke your teeth about them, as I doubt you will, throw me your never-yet-an­swered piece of 640. and if the Doctors eyes and leisure will not serve to do it, 'tis ten to one but I will finde some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer.

Our Authors opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy; and his intention doubted in it. Bishops and Presbyters not alwayes of equivalent import in Holy Scripture. Proofs that the word Bishop in the first of Tim. c. 3. is taken properly and restrictively, drawn, 1. From the word there used in the singular number. 2. From his fitness for Government. 3. From the Hospitality required in him; And 4. From his being no Novice, but of longer standing in the Church. Pres­byters there included, under the name Dia­coni, more properly in that place to be ren­dred Ministers. The like acceptions of the word in other places. Proofs that the Au­thor speakes his own opinion under that of others; 1. From the word Asserted, which is here explained. 2. From some pas­sages in the published and unpublished sheets. [...] not rendred Senior (as the Pam­phleter would fain have it) in all learned Au­thors. The word Presbyter fitter to be used then Elder in our English Translations. Mr. Selden no good friend to Bishops, and the reason why. The reason why King Charles [Page 152] his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator. The Pamphle­ters rage, for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency; That so he must be understood proved from the History it self, and the weak arguments brought by the Pamphleter to the contrary; An Answer to those Arguments.

HAving thus vindicated the Declara­tions of the two Kings about law­full Sports, satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter, and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings, so maliciously imputed to him; and therewithall layed down the true state of the Controver­sie, touching the Lords day, out of the writings of the most learned men of the Protestant and reformed Churches: it is high time we should proceed to the rest that follows, and free the Bishops and their Actions, from those odious Calum­nies, which are charged upon them.

Our Author fol. 36. and 37. hath not unhandsomely stated the whole point of Episcopacy, ascribing a Divine Right to it, and thinks it as demonstrable out of Scri­ptures, as any thing whatsoever not funda­mentall. That there was a Prelacy or Supe­riority, [Page 153] of some one over other Presbyters, with­in some certain Walks and Precincts; that this Superiority was appointed by the very Apo­stles, to be exemplary, and to give law to suc­ceeding times. Concerning which and many other good expressions, which fol­low after, I may justly say, as Bellarmine did of Calvin in another Case; viz. Vti­nam sic semper errasset, would he had never erred otherwise, then he doth in this. Only I could have wished, that for the better clearing of his own intentions, and satisfaction unto others, he had ex­prest himself more fully as to this par­ticular, viz. whether the Superiority of such persons over such Presbyters in the Church Apostolique, was fixed in them during life; or that passed from one to another in their severall turns like the M [...]deratorship, in the generall Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, or the Chair-man, in the Conferences, and debates of Coun­cell in the rest of the Calvinian Churches. For if he mean in this last sense, as I hope he doth not, Episcopacy is no more be­holding to him, then it was to Beza; who notwithstanding he maintained a party of Ministers without any fixed Superiori­ty which one may claim above another, yet he allows a moveable Presidency to [Page 154] be not unusuall, nor unfrequent in the very times of the Apostles. And yet that some such secret meaning may be gather­ed from him by such as have a minde to interpret all things to their own advan­tage, will be made not improbable by his standing to this Proposition, That there is no place in Holy Text, wherein Presbyters import not Bishops, and Bishops Pres­byters.

Considering therefore that he still stands to his former Principle, that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase are of equi­valent import, and denote the self same persons without the least distinction, and requireth it of the Observator, or of any man else 36. to tell him where such persons in Holy Text, are distinguished so really, that a Bi­shop doth not import a Presbyter, and a Presby­ter doth not import a Bishop. I think my self as much concerned as the Observator, to make answer to it. First, then say I, that though those words may be some­times, though but rarely used promiscu­ously, the word Presbyter denoting a Bi­shop, and the word Bishop importing no­thing but a Presbyter, yet that more fre­quently and in other places they are used in a more limited and distinct sense, as in times succeeding. And 2. I say that [Page 155] the word Episcopus, 1 Timothy 3. 2. and the description of a Bishop which is therein made, is meant of a Bishop truly, and properly so called, according as the word was used and appropriated by the Antient writers, and not appliable to the Presbyters or inferior Ministers. For proof whereof, I shall offer some few con­siderations, out of the Text it self, leaving them to the judgement of the sober and intelligent Reader. And first, St. Paul speaks of a Bishop in the singu­lar number, but of inferiour Ministers in the Plurall. One Church, or City, though it had many Presbyters, had one Bishop only. And therefore we may reason­ably conceive, that the Apostle speaking of a Bishop in the singular number, speaks of him in his proper and true capacity, as one distinguished from, and above the Presbyters. 2. The Apostle seemeth to require in him an Act of Government, as being a man, that is to take care of the Church of God: and thereupon gives order for an Inquisition to be had upon him, whether he hath ruled his house well, &c. A charge of too transcendent, and sublime a nature, to be entrusted un­to every common Presbyter, or dischar­ged by him, who as our Hooker well ob­serveth, [Page 156] though he be somewhat better able to speak, is as little able to judge as another man. And if not fit to judge, no fit man to govern. 3. St. Paul requi­reth in a Bishop, that he be given to Hospitality, i. e. that he receive the Stran­ger, entertain the Native, and in a word, admit all Comers. Hierom doth so expound it, saying, that if a Lay-man entertain but two or three, Hospitalitatis officium implebit, he hath exceeding well complyed with all the Rules of Hospita­lity; Episcopus nist omnes receperit, inhuma­nus est, but that the B [...]shop is accounted a Churle or Niggard, if his House be not open unto all. Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those antient times to the Condition of a Bishop, who had the keeping and disposing of the Churches Treasures; yet I can see no possibility, how it could be expected from the Presbyters, that out of his poor pittance from the sportula, he should be able to perform it. For I believe not that the Lord intended to work miracles dai­ly, as in the lengthning and increasing the poor womans oyle. Fourthly and lastly, it is required by St Paul, that his Bishop must not be neophytus, a novice, as our English reads it, and exceeding right­ly; [Page 157] that is, as Chrysostom, and out of him Theophylact expound the word: one new­ly Catechized as it were, lately instruct­ed in the Faith. Now who knoweth not, but that in the beginnings of the Church, some of these new plants, these Neophyti, must of necessity be taken into holy orders, for the increase and propa­gation of the Gospel? The Presbyters were many, but the Bishops few. And therefore howsoever there must be found sufficient Standards, upon the which to graffe a Bishop; yet I can hardly finde a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church, with a fit number of Pres­byters, unless we take them from the Nurserie.

It then it be demanded, whether St. Paul hath utterly omitted to speak of Presby­ters, I answer no; but that we have them in the next Paragraphe, Diacones similiter; which why it should not comprehend the Presbyters, and all inferior Mini­sters under the degree of Bishops; I can see no reason, there being no qualification requisite in or to the Presbyter, which is not found in the Apostles Character of these Diaconi. And though the word in our last translation, be rendred Deacons: yet in our old translation, and in that of [Page 158] Coverdale, we read it Ministers, according to the generall and native meaning of the same. An exposition neither new, nor forced. Not new, for Calvin doth acknow­ledge alios ad Presbyteros referre Episcopo in­feriores, that some referred those words to Presbyters, subordinate or inferiour to the Bishop. Not forced, for if we search the Scriptures, we shall there per­ceive, that generally Diaconus is rendred Ministers, and that not only in the Gos­pel, before that Deacons had been institu­ted in the Church of God; but also in St. Pauls Epistles, after the planting of the Church, when all the Officers therein had their bounds and limits. Thus Tychi­cus is called, [...], a faithful Minister, Eph. 6. 26. and Col. 4. 7. and so is Epaphras entituled, Col. 1. 7, &c. And hereunto I shall further add, that I can see no convincing reason why the Episco­pi, and Deacons, or the Bishops and Dea­cons mentioned in the first words of St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians, may not be understood of the Bishops (properly so called) of Philippi and the bordering Ci­ties, and of the Presbyters or inferiour Ministers under their authority. Not to say any thing of the Subscription of the Epistle to Titus, and the 2. to Timothy; [Page 159] in which the word Bishop is taken in this proper and limited sense, because (whatsoever opinion I have of them) the Pamphleter perhaps may not think them to be authentick. Next that the word Presbyter is used sometimes in the same strict, and limited sense, as it de­notes a person inferiour to the Bishop, and subject unto his authority aud juris­diction, appeareth plainly, by that Text in the first of Timothy, c. 5. v. 19, 20. where it is said, Adversus Presbyterum accu­sationem noli recipere, &c. Against a Pres­byter, and Elder (as our English reads it) receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. But if they be convicted, them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. In the declaring of which power, I take for granted, that the Apostle here by Elder doth mean a Presbyter, according to the Ecclesiastical notion of that word, though I know that Chrysostom, and a [...]ter him Theopbylact and Oecumenius, do take it only [...]or a man well grown in years. And then the meaning of St. Paul will be briefly this, that partly in regard of the Devils malice, apt to calumniate men of that holy [...]unction; and partly to avoid the scandal which may thence arise; Ti­mothy, and in him all other Bishops should [Page 160] be very cautious in their proceedings a­gainst men of that Profession. But if they finde them guilty on examination, then not to smother or conceal the matter, but censure and rebuke them openly, that others may take heed of the like offences. The Commentaries under the name of Ambrose, do expound it so, Quoniam non facile credi debet & Presbytero crimen, &c. because a crime or accusation is not to be credited against a Presbyter; yet if the same prove manifest and undeniable, St. Paul commandeth that in regard of his irregular conversation, he be rebuked and censured publiquely, that others may be thereby terrified. And, saith he, non solum ordinatis sed & plebi proficit, will not be only profitable unto men in Or­ders, but to Lay people al [...]o. Herewith agreeth, as to the making of these Elders to be men in Orders, the Comment up­on that Epistle a [...]cribed to Jerome. Pres­byters then are subject unto censure; but to whose censure are they subject? not unto one another surely, that would breed con [...]usion, but to the censure of their Bishop. See to the same purpose also Epiphanius adversus Haeres. 75. n. 5. and Theophylact upon the place; not to say any thing of Lyra and some others of a later [Page 161] standing. And in this limited sense, I understand those Presbyters ordained by St. Paul in many of the Churches of his Plantations, whom we finde mentioned in the Acts; some of which he after­wards made Bishops, and over other pla­ced such Bishops as he thought most fit.

Thus having satisfied our Author, in telling him where Presbyters import not Bi­shops, and Bishops Presbyters; we next pro­ceed to answer those objections which are made against the Observator. And first, it is objected, that our Author doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this parti­cular, but what many did then assert, fol. 35. To which I answer, First, that our Au­thor puts the opinion down so savourly, and with such advantages, as any man would easily take it for his own, or at the least, that he himself was also of the same opinion. This not improbably to be gathered from the word assered, which plainly intimates that those many whom he speaks of did not only affirm or say, that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import, &c. but had proved it too. For thus be understands the word in another place, where speaking of the Bishop of Lincolne, he telleth us that he [Page 162] published a Book, asserting positively, that the holy Table was to stand in Gremio or Nave of the Quire, fol. 137. By which if he means only a bare affirming of the thing, it then signifies nothing, and con­cludes as little to his purpose. For the word Assero (if he be critick enough to understand the true meaning of it) not only signifieth simply to affirm, or say, but to confirm that affirmation, and make good that saying. Once for all take this out of Ovid in his Metamor. lib. 1.

At tu, si modo sum coelesti stirpe creatus,
Ede notam tanti generis, me (que) assere Coele.

That is to say,

But if I be descended from above,
By some known signe, make good my birth from Jove.

2. Though he tells us that if the Obser­vator had not been an ill looking fellow, he might with half an eye have discerned, that he doth not at all deliver his own opinion in this particular; But I have a bird in a corner which sing­eth the contrary. For fol. 137. of the prin­ted but unpublished papers, it is said ex­presly that the truth contended for, touching [Page 163] the right on which the Hierarchy was founded was (as his late Majesty hath (no man better) sufficiently demonstrated) to be awarded to the Prelates; which speaks more plainly for Episcopacy, then the reservedness of your last expressions, which in your Pamphlet you have given us for your full sense in this Controversie, enough (you say) to satisfie Spirits of the most modest and sober temper. Fol. 37. But in the Book as it comes published to our hands, these words are totally left out, which shews as plainly, that you have either altered your opinion (if you ever were of that opinion) or else for fear of offending the weak Brethren, dare not own it now. What meaneth else, this bleating of the Sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the Oxe which I hear? as you know who said; that is to say, your placing Episcopacy a­mongst those things of indifferency, for the establishing whereof, to exact an Oath, was (as you say Hist. fol. 185.) an aff [...]ont to the very fundamentals of Government; your positive declration, that the truth conten­ded for, between the Bishops and those of the Puritans party, lay then so deep as few had perspicacity enough to discern ti. f. 185. adding in your unpublished sheets, that in the ge­nerality of votes, the Bishops were much worst­ed in that Contest; which layes a greater [Page 164] prejudice upon them, then you found them in; your quarrels with the Obser­vator, for disproving the Identity or same­ness of Name, of Ordination, of Office, &c. which is affirmed to be in Presbyters and Bishops without any distinction, telling him that his Arguments are nothing ad rem, and clear besides the cushion, fol. 36. which layed together, make up a clearer and ful­ler evidence, that you are but half Epi­scopall, and the worst half too, then all the fine flourishes you have given us in the present Pamphlet can perswade to the contrary.

Your next quarrel with the Observa­tor, is a meer [...] a strife and quar­rell about words, because forsooth he doth not like that the word Presbyter, when it signifieth one in Holy Orders, should be rendred Elder. To which the Pamphleter objects, that all Latine Ex­positors, and Greek Lexicons, translate [...] Senior, fol. 25. What all Ex­positors, all without exception? so I hear you say, and so you must be thought to mean too, in case you have not here (as elsewhere) your most secret intentions. What think you of the Au­thor of the vulgar Latine, a man as learn­ed I believe, as any of those whom you have consulted in the point? Yet he tran­slateth [Page 165] not the word [...], (when it is used to signifie a man in Orders) by that of Senior, but by that of Presbyter; as, Et cum constituissent illis per singulas eccle­sias Presbyteros, &c. Act. 14. 23. qui be­ [...]e praesunt Presbyteri, &c. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Ad­versus Presbyterum accusationem noli admitte­re, 5. 19. as on the other side, when the word [...] is used to signifie a man in years, and not in orders, he ren­dreth it by Senior, and not by Presbyter-Seniorem increpaveris, sed obsecra ut patrem, 1 Tim. 5. 1. and this is that which the Observator faulted in our English Tran­slators, viz. that they did not keep the word Presbyter, as the Latines did, which in short time would have been as familiar to an English ear (in the Ecclesiasticall notion of it) as those of Bishop or of Deacon, being both of them Greek of the same Originall, whereas the word Elder being of ambiguous sense, hath given occasion to the factiousness of the trou­blers of Israel, to grub up by the roots those goodly Cdars of the Church the Bishops, and plant their stinking Elders in the place thereof. But you go on and say, that you believe it will puzzle the Obser­vator, to finde any one who ever interpreted Se­nior by Priest, fol. 35. But Gentle Sir, the [Page 166] Observator never told you that it was so rendred; so that you need not trouble him to prove what he never said, or charge him with any vast difference in this particular from Dr. Heylyn, unless you can finde in him, that the antients did not call the Minister of the Sacrament of the Al­tar, sometimes Presbyter, Elder, and sometimes Sacerdos, Priest, as I think you cannot. If you come off no better in your other criticismes, then you do in this, your best way were to keep your self to plain Gram­mar learning, & leave my Lady Philology to more learned Mercurists to whom con­tracted by Martianus Capella, before you made love to her.

You quarrel next with the Observator, first, for bringing in Mr. Selden amongst his Lay Champions for Episcopacy, who (as the Pamphleter saith) seems clear of another minde, in his Book De Synedriis, where he extols Salmasius, and Wal [...] Mas­salinus (both enemies to the Episcopal or­der) a note above Ela for their pains in this Argument, &c fol. 37. But had the Obser­vator been observed here, as he should have been, he might have found that the learn­ed Mr. Selden is not brought in by him, as a Champion [...]or Bishops, but as not total­ly against them. And this he proves by the [Page 167] Retortion made to Mr. Grimstons double argument in the House of Commons. The Observator knew as well as the Pamphle­ter, that Mr. Selden was no friend to Bi­shops, as constituted and established in the Church of England; and he knew too, which perhaps the Pamphleter doth not, what moved him to appear against them, when by the Complexion of affairs, he might safely do it. For being called be­fore the High Commission, and forced to make a publique acknowledgement of his error and offence given unto the Church, in publishing a Book entituled The Historie of Tithes, it sunk so deep into his stomack, that he did never after affect the men, or cordially approve the calling, though many wayes were tryed to gain him to the Churches interest.

The Pamphleters quarrels against Church-men (perhaps as good a man as himself, or, I am sure, as true) I shall de­fer unto a time and place more proper; keeping my self here to those he hath with the Observator. And the next quar­rel is, that he findes not King Charles amongst his Assertors for Episcopacy. Of whose per­formance in that Argument he makes in­deed a very fair and ingenuous declarati­on, fol. 38. though all that he hath said [Page 168] can add nothing to him. But Sir, if you will look but with half an eye on the Ob­servations, you will finde there, that in the naming of his Lay Champions as you call them, he made choice of such only, as were not likely to be suspected of partiali­ty, men no wayes interessed (but onely by their good affections) in the Churches quarrels. Ac­cording to which choice, he could not make use of that Royall pen, which gave the deaths wound to Henderson in the town of New-castle, and foyled the Pres­byterians in the Isle of Wight. It was the interess of King Charles to maintain Epi­scopacy, as one of the chief Supporters of the Regall Throne. No Bishop, no King, the known old maxime of King James, in the sad events thereof, hath been found Propheticall. And therefore if the Observator had produced his testi­mony, the Pamphleter might have ob­jected (as perhaps he would) that the Kings judgement was corrupted by Par­tiality, and swayed with interess, which rendred him no fit witness in the present Tryall.

And to say truth, if all be Oracle which com [...]s from the deserts of Cyrene, there is good reason for saving all advantages of ex­ception, against the Testimony of that [Page 169] King, had it been produced. The Pam­phleter telling us, that he did not only employ the Pen, but took up the Bucklers in good earnest to defend Episcopacy, fol. 38. But Sir, who told you in good earnest, that his Majesty either drew the sword, or took up the Bucklers in that quarrell, or on that occasion? His Majesty in all his messages, and declarations, professed so­lemnly, that he was forced to take up Armes to preserve himself: His Forts, Castles, Royall Navy, and the Militia of the Kingdome, being taken from him. His Negative voice denyed, his Magazine at Hull employed against him, his faithfull Servants threatned under the name of evill Counsellors, and nothing left unto him but the name of a King. Episcopa­cy not so much as touched on for a ground of that quarrel; nor was there reason why it should. The King by for­mer Acts had yielded up their place and vote in the House of Peers, and abroga­ted the Coercive power of their Jurisdi­ction: that which remained being then thought so inconsiderable, that in the 19. Propositions, containing the whole demand of both Houses, the Abolition of Episcopacy was not touched upon. So that there is not any thing more fals, then [Page 170] that the King took up the Bucklers to defend Episcopacy. But I know well enough what the Author aims at. The wars de­signed by this King against the Scots, is by our Pamphleter in his Historie, cal­led the Bishops wars, and he hath layed some grounds here, to have the long wars raised in England, called by that name also, the Bishops war, no doubt of that, if he should fortune to go on with the rest of the story. Of which the Rea­der may take notice, and our Author too.

His last quarrel with the Observator, with reference to the point of Episcopacy, is that he makes our Author take it for granted, that the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency, and thereupon was much agrieved that the Clergy should binde themselves by Oath not to consent to any altera­tion of it. On this occasion the Pam­phleter flies out against them with no less violence and fury, then Tully against Cataline in the open Senate, crying in these great words, Quous (que) abuteris patientia no­stra, how doth this Observator provoke us? Assuredly the Gentleman is extreamly moved; his patience much off the hinges, & Patientia laesa fit furor, as the say­ing is. One cannot tell what hurt or [Page 171] mischief he may do us now he is in this rage and fury, and therefore

Peace for the Lords sake, Harry, lest he take us,
And drag us back, as Hercules did Cacus.

Tis best to slip a side a while and say no­thing, till his heat be over, and the man in some temper to be dealt with; and then we will not fear to tell him, that his own words shall be the only evidence we will use against him. The introducti­on which he makes to his discourse a­gainst the Oath required by the new Ca­nons instruct us, ‘That many asserted in good earnest, that Bishops and Presby­ters in Scripture phrase were of equiva­lent import, and denoted the self same persons, without the least distinction, &c. That thereupon, the Prelates see­ing their deer Palladium so deeply con­cerned, and heaved at, did first cause the Press to swarm with Books, setting forth the right upon which Episcopa­cy was founded; and finding how little this advantaged them, they took measure from their professed Adversa­ries the Generall Assembly of Scotland, [Page 172] and by their example framed the Oath as an Anti-Covenant.’ This is the substance of the Preamble to those obje­ctions, but that I would not stir the mans patience too much, I had called them Ca­vils, which our Author makes against that Oath, that ‘some things were ex­presly to be sworn to which were never thought to have any shew or colour of sacred right, but were conceived Arbi­trary, and at the disposition of the State; and to exact an Oath of dissent from Civill establishments, in such things of indifferency, was an affront to the very fundamentals of Govern­ment.’ Now the Oath being made for maintenance of the Doctrine and Disci­pline, or Government, established in the Church of England, the Doctrine being confessed on all sides to be signanter, and expresly pointed at, and the discourse dri­ving at the Government of the Church by Bishops; who can conceive but that his Argument or Objection must tend that way also, and that Episcopacy must be reckoned in the number of those things of indifferency for which there was no reason to require the Oath? And though the Pamphleter would fain have it that Episcopacy is not in those things [Page 173] of indifferency, but excluded rather, yet this will do him as small service, as the Press when it was said to have swarmed with Books, had done the Bishops. For first he doth not say that Episcopacy was not pointed at, at all, in those things of indifferency, but not signanter and ex­presly; our Author keeping a reserve, or secret intention to himself, upon al oc­casions. Nor doth it help him, secondly, to say, that the things there spoken of are such, as never had any shew or colour of sacred right, whereas Episcopacy in the very account of its ad­versaries, hath some colour and shew of it, fol. 39. Where first, he pleadeth but very coldly for Episcopacy in giving it only some shew and colour which all Heresies, Enthusiasticks, and Fanaticall fancies, all that have set up any other Government, Papall, Anarchicall, Presbyterian, do pretend unto. And secondly, it is not true, hath any such colour or shew in the account of its adversaries. Episcopacy, as it stood in the Primitive times, being by Beza called Humanus, and Diabolicus, as it stood in these latter ages. An Humane invention in the first, a Diabolicall in­stitution in the last times of the Church; and therefore questionless without any [Page 174] shew or colour of sacred right. Nor doth he help himself much by the little Army raised out of the Northampton and Kentish forces under the command of the Lord Digby; which is so far from putting the matter out of all dispute in the sense he mean­eth, that it rather doth conclude against him. For if the Northampton-shire and Kent Exceptions limit themselves to Arch-bishops, Arch-deacons, &c. our Author certainly is to blame in these two respects: First, that he did not li­mit his things of indifferency as they did before him; And secondly, that speak­in such generall termes as he should think to help himself in the Postfact by their limitations. Tis true, the History ren­dreth the Lord Digby as friend to Episco­pacy, when the London Petition came to be considered of in the House of Com­mons, before which time he had begun to look toward the Court, but telleth us not that he was so in the very first openings of the Parliament, when the Oath required in the Canon was in most agitation. And this I hope is fair for a Senior Sophister (as you please to call the Obfervator) who could have pressed these answers further, but that [Page 175] the Gentlemans patience must not be abused, nor himself provoked. We must take care of that, though of no­thing else. And so much for ou [...] Au­thors flutterings in the point of Episco­pacy; we will next see, whether the per­sons be as pretious with him, as the calling is.

The light excuse made by the Pamphleter for our Author in pretermitting Bishop Ban­croft: not bettered much in shewing the dif­ferences, between the Doctrine of St. Au­gustine and Calvin. Our Authors lear­ned ignorance in the word Quorum. The Observator cleared from foisting any thing into the Text of the History; with our Au­thors blunderings in that point. The dis­agreement between the Comment and the Text in the unfortunate accident of Arch­bishop Abbot. Foisting returned upon the Author, no injury done to Bishop Andrewes by the Observator. Of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon, and whether the Archbishop were sequestred from his Jurisdiction for refusing to license it. The Pamphleters nice di­stinction between most and many, in the repairing of St. Pauls, and that these ma­ny did keep off in reference to the work it self. The war against the Scots not to be called the Bishops war; not undertaken by the King in defence of their Hierarchy, nor occasioned by Archbishop Laud. The Scots Rebellion grounded upon some words [Page 177] of the King touching Abby-Lands in the beginning of his reign; hammered and formed, and almost ready to break out be­fore the Liturgy was sent to them. The Archbishop neither the principal nor sole Agent in revising that Liturgie. Good counsels not to be measured by successe. On what grounds the Liturgie was first de­signed to be sent to the Scots. Disusing implies not an abrogation. Abeiance what it is in the common Law. The Communi­cants by what authority required to come unto the Ray [...]e to receive the Sacrament. The 82. Canon explained and regulated by the Kings Declaration, anno 1633. The Pamphleters Ipse dixit no sufficient ground for his London measure. Our Author sa­tisfied in placing the Communion Table Altar-wise, and adoration toward the East; the liberty granted by the Church in the last particular. The Bishops charged with the undiscreet practise of some private persons. The Gloria patri an Epitome of the A­postles Creed. Why kneeling is required at the saying of Gloria in excelsis. The Pamphleters &c. Our Author miserably out in the meaning of the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 2. That Statute opened and expounded, in the case alledged. The Pamphleter in danger of the Statute by out-running Authority. His excellent proof that standing at the Glo­ria patri had been obtruded by the Bishops anno 1628. because inquired into in Bi­shop Wrens visitation anno 1636. The Pamphleter confuted by our Author, and our Authors Panegyrick by himself. The Cler­gie freed from Doctrinal Popery by our Au­thor himself. The scandal since given unto the Church by Bishop Goodman.

[Page 178] FRom Episcopacy passe we to the Bi­shops, where the first thing we meet with is the rectifying of a mistake about Archbishop Whitgift, whom our Author had made the predecessor penultime, or next predecessor but one to Archbishop Laud. This he confesseth for an error, but puts it off, not as a want of dili­gence (he will by no means yeeld to that) but a lapse of memory, Fol. 35. A priviledge which if all other writers of History should pretend unto as frequent­ly as our Author doth, we should finde little truth among them, and not much assurance of any thing upon which to rest: This not being the first time in which our Author hath been forced to [Page 179] use this remedy, as in these words (as is beforesaid) is here acknowledged. We had the same excuse before in the mistake about Marriage of the one King, and Fu­neral of the other, as also in that Hyste­ron proteron in placing the Synod of Dort before that of Ireland; so that by this time this defence must needs be worn as threed bare as the Observators coat, Fol. 37.

Of Dr. Abbot, the immediate predeces­sor to Archbishop Laud, the Historian telleth us, that he was stifly disciplined in the Doctrine of St Augustine, which they who understand it not call Calvinism. Charged for this by the Observator, and some points produced in which Calvinism and the Doctrine of St. Augustine, do ex­tremely differ; he answereth that he makes them not to be all one in all con­cernments, but only in opposition to the Massi­lian and Arminian Tenets, Fol. 23. And this I look on as another of our Authors priviledges, who when he hath given us any things in general termes, thinks all is well if he can make it hold good in a few particulars. Whereas if he had limited his proposition to those points alone, and told us that he was stifly principled in that part of St. Augustines Doctrine, [Page 180] which was in opposition to the tenets be­fore remembred, there had been no occa­sion given to the Observator to except against him. But the best is, that seeming to make a question of that which is out of Question, viz. Whether St. Augustine and Calvin differ in the point of Episcopacy, he telleth us, that they differ in the point of the Sabbath or Lords day, which is more then the Observator had obser­ved, and for which we thank him.

In the story of the Sequestration of Archbishop Abbot, there are four mistakes noted by the Observator, 1. That in the Commission granted to the 5 Bishops Bishop Laud is said to be of the Quorum. 2. That the declared impulsive cause of it was a supposed irregularity. 3. That this supposed irregularity was incurred upon the casual killing of the keeper of his (the Archbishops) game. And 4. That the irregularity is said to be but sup­posed only, and no more then so. To this the Pamphleter first answereth in his usual way, that he should keep his own supposititio [...]s foistings at home, and that by the same art of jugling his own words into the Text, he that made them four, might have made them four hundred, Fol. 10. Why so? because (saith he) I never said that Bishop [Page 181] Laud was of the Quorum more then any other, but only that he was of the Quorum, mea­ning thereby that he was one of the five. Auditum admisse risum teneatis amici? Can any man hear this fine stuffe and abstain from laughter? Such a ridiculous piece of intelligent non-sense, as might make Heraclitus grin, and put Democritus into tears, producing contrary operations on their several humours. I thought before I read this passage, our Gent. had been one of the right Worshipful of the Bench, in comission for the Peace at least, if not one of the Quorum but I see now that he is not so well skilled at it, as a Justices Clerk. Did the man ever hear of any Commis­sion in which five or more persons were nominated, of which one or two are na­med to be of the Quorum, and by that word understand, with such an abun­dant want of understanding, that nothing more was meant in it, but that the said one or two, were to be of the number? Confident I am (and I think may confi­dently say it) that we have not had such a learned piece of ignorance, since Jack Maior of Brackley being by his place a Justice of the Peace, and one of the Quo­rum by the publick charter of that Town, threatned to binde a poor coun­trey [Page 182] fellow (who had carried himself somewhat sawcily to him) not only to the Peace, but to the Quorum too.

Passe we on to the next that followes. And there, or no where, we shall finde one of those many supposititious Foist­ings which are charged upon the Obser­vator. The Historian having said that the Archbishop was sequestred from his Function, and a Commission granted by the King to five Bishops (Bishop Laud being of the Quorum) to execute Epi­scopal jurisdiction within his Province; addes presently in the very next words, that the declared impulsive to it, was a supposed irregularity in him by reason of a Homicide committed by him per in­fortunium &c. Can any intelligent Rea­der understand otherwise by these wo [...]ds, but that the impulsive to this Se­quest [...]ation, whatsoever it was, was de­clared, or supposed to be declared in that Commission? For who but the King, that granted the Commission, should de­clare the impulsive causes to it? or wh [...]r [...] else should they be declared but in that Commission? Yes, saith the Pamphle­ter, the King granted the Commission, and common Fame, our Author, or I know not who, declared the Impulsives [Page 183] to it. What pity 'tis our Author had not served seven years to the Clerk of the Crown, before he undertook the History of a King of England, that so being better versed in all kinde of Commissions he might the better have avoided these ri­diculous errors which he falleth into? And yet this is the only thing, namely, that the irregularity or supposed irregularity of the said Archbishop, was not touched upon in the Commission as the impulsive cause unto it; for which not one alone, but many (no man knoweth how many) supposititi­ous foistings are charged with so much noise and clamour on the Observa­tor.

Somewhat more modestly in the third, but with as little thought of rectifying any thing, as in those before. Told by the Observator, that the person whom this Archbishop so unfortunately killed, was not the keeper of his own Game, but a keeper of the Lord Zouches in Bram­zill Park; he acknowledgeth his error in it, Fol. 44. and yet not only keeps it in the Text of his new impression, as before it was; but stands unto the truth of it in the very same Pamphlet, Fol. 11. and this he stands to on the authority of Aulicus C [...]quinariae, and Mr. Prynne; Men [Page 184] elsewhere of no credit with him, though here they be, but both mistaken in this point on uncertain hearsay. Confessed for an error in the Pamphlet, because upon a further inquiry he could do no otherwise; justified for no error in the very same Pamphlet, because he must not yeeld (as inconsistent with his cre­dit) to be out in any thing; And finally retains still, in the Text of the History, because he loves not to walk single in those paths of error, but must have ma­ny followers for the greater State.

The fourth thing noted by the Ob­servator, namely, that some pio [...]s and learned men being nominated and elected Bishops, refused to be consecrated by him, in regard that they conceived that there was more incurred by that mis­adventure, then a supposed irregularity only, is by the Pamphleter passed over; in place whereof he foists in another, which he thinks may be more easily an­swered, that is to say, his vouching Bishop Andrewes for a vin [...]icator of the Archbishops Regularity, Fol. 11. Might I not here f [...]ll foul upon the Pamphleter, and pay him home in some of his own Billingsgate language, for falsifying so boldly, I will not say so impudently (as you know who did) [Page 185] the plain and manifest words of the Ob­servator; who is so far from vouching this amongst the rest of his errors, that he affirmes it to be true, that the learned Bishop Andrewes (as our Author telleth us) did do the Archbishop very great service in this businesse. Here is no fair dealing in this to begin withall, and far more sophistry then ingenuity in the rest that followes. For though the whole scope of that Commission, was to inquire into the matter of Fact, and to resolve whe­ther the Archbishop (notwithstanding that mischance) was regular or not regular, as the Pamphleter tels us, fol. 11. Yet Bi­shop Andrewes in the executing of that Commission, might proceed with favour, and was not bound to presse the point to the utmost extremity, when he saw what further inconveniencies might en­sue upon it. That learned Bishop might do this, and did really do it, without drawing blame upon himself, or being belied in it by the Observator, as in the or­dinary eloquence of the Pamphleter he is said to be.

But stay a while, we have another im­pulsive found out for this irregularity, and found out chiefly (as it seems) because the Observator so dislikes the other, fol. 46. [Page 186] And yet I trow the Observator never ma­nifested any such dislike, as to the cause impulsive of his (the Archbishops) irre­gularity; no such matter verily, but only shewed that the unfortunate accident which our Author speaks of, was not the declared impulsive cause in the commis­sion for sequestring him from his Juris­diction, and granting it to the five Bi­shops which are therein named, as in­deed it was not. The impulsive cause it might be, though not there declared; the Commission only saying in the general, That the said Archbishop could not at that present, in his own person, attend those ser­vices, which were otherwise proper for his Cognizance and Jurisdiction; not ren­dring any certain impulsive cause, where­by he was conceived uncapable of per­forming his office. And now what new impulsive will he give us in exchange for the other? marry he telleth us, that though it was not publickly declared, yet it was by knowing men in those af­fairs beheld as the reall and genuine cause of this commission; that the Arch-Bishop had refused to license Dr. Sib­thorps Book, Fol. 47. The Book here meant, was a Sermon preached at No [...] ­thampton by that Doct [...]r before the Judges [Page 187] of Assize anno 1627▪ and after printed with the name of Apostolical obedience. A Sermon made of such a temper, that if our Author be in the right, and Mr. Prynne be not in the wrong, it hath pleased all parties. Refused to be licen­sed by Archbishop Abbet, as our Author telleth us, though he doth not tell the reasons of it; but if it were refused to be licensed by him, it was because it had too much of the Court, as tending part­ly to the justification of the generall L [...]an which was then required of the the Subjects. Not suffered to be licen­sed by Bishop Laud, because it had too little of the Court, till some passages which seemed offensive in it touching the profanation of the Sabbath, and toleration of Popery (as we are told by Mr. Prynne) had been first expunged. But whatsoever the Sermon was, the Archbishops refusal to license it (if it were brought to him to be licensed) could be no such crime, as to draw after it both his removing from the Court, and se­questring from his Jurisdiction, if other things of greater moment had not then concurred.

Passe we unto the next Archbishop, of whom, being then Bishop of London, [Page 188] our Author telleth us, that many had no fancy to the work (the repairing of St. Pauls Church) meerly because he was the promoter of it. But the contrary being proved by the Observator, most of the Clergy, No­bility and Gentry, contributing very largely to it, because he promoted it, he only answereth, that many, and most, may be consistent, and that many may be oppo­site to the major vote, Fol. 21. but proveth not that any of those many, did dislike it in respect of the the Bishop, or that it was not rather disliked by them in re­gard of the work, which was there proved from a base and scurrilous pas­sage in Bastwicks Letany. And to this last, our very Author himself hath hinted somewhat in his History, Fol. 124. where he affirmes, that some did not forbear to cry, what needs this cost to decore a supersti­tious Relique? This the chief cause, why the work went so slowly forward, that at length the distempers of the State spoiled the temper of the mortar, as our Author there.

Next look upon him as Archbishop, in which capacity we shall finde him made by our Historian, a principal occasion of the Scottish war; Reproved by the Ob­servator for calling the war against the [Page 189] Scots, the Bishops war, he now stands to it that it was, and might be so called for these reasons following: First, because not the Covenanters only, but many an Eng­lish Protestant did so call it also, Fol. 30. Some English Protestants! I beleeve not so. The English Protestants were otherwise perswaded of it, though the Puritans were not, and 'twas the English Puritan, not the English Protestant, who joyned with the Covenanters in Scotland in the main design, and gave it consequently the name of the Bishops War. He asketh us secondly, If it were not a war undertaken at first for defence of their Hierarchy. Which question being equivalent to an affir­mation, doth amount to this, that the war was first undertaken in the Bishops quarrel, and in defence of their Order. This is well said indeed, if it were well proved; but this the Pamphleter doth not prove, I am sure he cannot: the King who best knew the reasons of his taking Armes, and published a large De­claration of the proceedings of the Scots, imputes the causes of the war to their continuing the Assembly at Glascow when by him dissolved, ejecting such of the Clergy, as had refused to subscribe to the Acts thereof, then comman­ded [Page 190] to do, suspended and repealed Lawes without his Authority, putting the Subjects into Armes, seizing upon his Forts and Castles, and intercepting his Revenues. All which, or any one of which might have moved the King to undertake a war against them, without consulting with our Author how to bring the poor Bishops into that engage­ment, and make it rather seem their quarrell, then the Kings own interesse, which inforced him to it.

But he saith thirdly, That one of that Order (he means the late Archbishop of Canterbury) was the main cause of that war, by introducing the Liturgie amongst them, and thereupon he doth conclude, that the war which the Archbishop occasioned, and which was entred into for maintaining that Hierarchy, may, he hopes, without offence, be called the Bishops war. And now we are come to that we looked for, a very pret­ty tale indeed, and one of the finest he hath told us; none of the Hundred merry Tales, nor such a tale as made his Lord­ship wondrous merry, which we had before, but a new Canterbury Tale, and the Esquires tale too. Our Author, a more mode­derate and sober Gent. then the Pam­phleter is, hath told us, that the Kings [Page 191] demand of the Abby Lands in Scotland, in the first year of his reign (made by the Observator) was the true cause of the war, and the bug-words spoke by the Scottish Lords on that occasion, first ge­nerated a mutuall and immortal distance between them, which being in the un­published sheets, Fol. 18. is seconded in the Book now extant, where we are told that those discontents (upon which the war was after grounded) did break out in Scotland, anno 1633. four years be­fore the Liturgie was commended to them; that the next year after, these discontents began to contract a little more confidence in his absence, and to attempt his patience by a most malici­ous plot against his Fame, as preambu­latory to another against his person: That the first work and operation in the method of Sedition, being to leaven the masse of the peoples mindes with mis­chievous impressions, they first whispered and instilled into them close intelligence of some terrible plot against their liber­ties; and after sent abroad a venemous libel, in which amongst other things, they suggested formidable fictions of his tendency to the Romish Belief, Fol. 133. And finally, that for the Liturgie▪ it [Page 192] self, there was a purpose in King James, to settle such an one amongst them, as might hold conformity with that of Eng­land; and that King Charles in pursu­ance of his Fathers purpose, gave dire­ctions to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Ely, and to divers Bishops of that Kingdome, to revise, correct, al­ter, and change as they pleased, the Li­turgie compiled in his Fathers time; and finally, that the Book so altered, was by the King sent by the Counsel of that Kingdome, with order to proclaim the Reading of it upon next Easter day, Fol.

By this we see that sacriledge and rapine was the first ground of these dis­contents, these discontents brake out in­to sedition, and that sedition ended in an open war, to which the introducing of the Liturgie could not be a cause, though it might be made use of by those facti­ous and rebellious spirits for a present occasion: and so much is confessed by the Pamphleter himself, in that there was no doubt, but many of them had other then Religious designs, as hoping to obtain that honour and wealth in a troubled State, which they were confi­dent they should never arrive at in a calm, Fol. 31. Adeo veritas ab invitis [Page 199] etiam pectoribus erumpit, said Lactantius tru­ly. By this it also doth appear, that the Arch-bishop had not the sole hand in the Scotish Liturgie, the Book being revised by many, by the Kings directions, and sent by him to the Lords of his Councell in that kingdome, with order and command to see it executed accor­dingly.

But the best is, that the Pamphleter hath not only his tale ready, but his Tales master too, fathering it on the ingeni­ous Author of the Elenchus motuum, in which he findes the Arch-bishop named for the main cause of introducing that Liturgie among the Scots, and that he did it spe quidem laudabili, eventu vero pes­simo, with a good intent, but exceeding ill success, fol. 30. I have as great an esteem for the Author of that Book (whosoever he was) as any Pamphleter can have of him; but yet could tell him of some things in which he was as much mistaken as in this particular, but since the Pam­phleter hath made that Authors words his own, and seems to approve of the in­tent, though the success proved not an­swerable; I shall only put him in mind of a saying in Ovid, viz.

[Page 194]
—Careat successibus opto,
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.

That is to say,

Ill may he prosper in his best intents,
That measures Counsels by their sad events.

But to satisfie both the Pamphleter, and the ingenuous Author by him alleadged, I shall say somewhat here of the business of the Scotish Liturgie, which is not commonly observed, and tends both to the justification of the King himself, and of those whom he intrusted in it. Know then that when the Scots required aid of Queen Elizabeth (in the beginning of their Reformation) to expell the French, they bound themselves by the Subscription of their hands to em­brace the form of worship, & other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England. Religionis cultui, & ritibus, cum Anglis communibus, subscripserunt, as Buchannan, their own Historian, and no friend unto the Anglican Church, informs us of them. But being cleared of the French Forces, and able to stand on their own [Page 195] legs, they broke their faith (tis hard to say they ever kept it) in this particular, and fell on those extemporary undigested prayers, which their own Fancies had directed, or were thought most agreeable to Knoxes humour. The confusion, in­conveniencies, and sad effects whereof being well known to 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 [Page 205] 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 [Page 204] 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 [Page 198] 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 [Page 199] 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 out­running Authority, he intended not, his placing the Communion Table Altar­wise, 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 [Page 208] 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 [Page 209] 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 but as an accessary.

But he hath one more fling at the Ob­servator, by which he is like to get as little as by that before. The Observator telleth us, that the Arch-bishop procee­ded in his visitation according to his Majesties Declaration above mentioned, made the year before Anno 1633. And this saith he is London measure, and he proves it stoutly, because, I say (this must be understood as speaking in his own proper person) metropoliticall visita­tion was 1635. and therefore the Declara­tion being made, 1633. cannot be said to have been made the year before, but by London measure, fol. 27. What a Pytha­goras have we here, with his Ipse dixit; if not the whole man, yet the Soul at least of that grave Philosopher, transfused in­to our Authors body by a Metempsucho­sis. I say it, therefore nothing truer, no­thing to be replyed against it. But good Sir, not so fast, let a poor man speak and he wi [...]l tell you, if your Mastership will [Page 202] hear him out, that though perhaps the metropoliticall visitation was not held till the year 1635. in those parts and pa­rishes, in which you served, as one of the E [...]ders of the Vestry, yet I am very well assured, that it was held in other places of the Kingdome, and more par­ticularly (if my memory deceive me not) in all the Counties or Arch-dea­conries, of the Diocess of Lincoln, Anno 1634. which was the next year after the Declaration, without making any such London measure as you sport your self with.

Wee must next see how far the rest of the Bishops were concerned in those Innova­tions. They were first charged with the audacious obtruding of divers superstitious Ce­remonies, as erecting of fixed Altars, and dopping and cringing towards them. But in the Pamphlet we hear nothing of these fixed Altars, or against placing the Com­munion Table Altar-wise, at the East end of the Chancell; the Author seeming so far satisfied, that he sees not now any out­running of Authority in that particular. And he is so far satisfied also out of his own knowledge in the M [...]numents of most pure Antiquity, which the Observator had [Page 203] appealed to, that bodily adoration and worshipping toward the East, was an antient custom of the Primitive Church, of which he grants that there is evidence enough in the Antient wri­ters: adding that as it was antient, so he could not say it was illaudable in them, and might be tolerable in us, as he con­ceiveth, were all men satisfied in the Decorum of it; or a liberty left to those who are still dubious of the lawfulness thereof, to forbear it, fol. 17. In this we both agree, none better. Antient, lau­dable, and tolerable, who can wish for more? yes, liberty to be left those who are dubious of it, either to use it or not use it, according to the light of their un­derstanding. That if we do not grant him, we shall not deal so friendly with him as he hath deserved. Let him there­fore consult the 7. Canon of the year 1646. in which the Church commending the reviving of this antient laudable custome to the serious consideration of all good people (and not obtruding it on any) concludeth the whole with this desire, that in the practise or emis [...]ion of this rite the Rule of Charity prescribed by the Apostle may be observed, which is, that they that use this rite, despise not them [Page 212] who use it not, condemn not those who use it. And in requitall of this kind­ness, I shall not stick to allow of his discourse ensuing, about the not using of such words and names, by the ambiguity whereof not easily discerned in ordinary discourse, any thing may seem to be intended not consonant to the Christian Faith, according to that golden saying of reve­rend Saint Augustine, which is cited by him.

But now comes in the naughty Cow of Frier Richard of Roughton, which gave a good meals milk with one heel (it should seem a Bull rather then a Cow, by the lowing of it) and kicks it down with the other. For he telleth us ‘That for dopping or cringing to, or towards the Altar or Holy Table, as oft as they approached to, or retreated from it, which was oft practised by some in­discreet pretenders to conformity with the Primitive Church, he finds not the least trace thereof in any genuine Author,’ of the first 500 years, fol. 17. Let us indulge him this also for his for­mer kindness, yet what makes this unto the purpose? The Bishops stand accused (whether before the Committee or not, is [Page 213] all one to me) of an audacious obtruding of new Rites and Ceremonies, and in particular of this cringing to, or towards the Altar, or Holy Table. This is the charge, a very heavy charge indeed, and but lightly proved; the charge is of obtruding; but the Proof of practising; the obtruding charged upon the Prelates, but the practise layed on some indiscreet pretenders to conformity with the Primitive times; who if they did it on their own heads, and had no warrant for it from their Superiours, let them stand or fall unto themselves. But that the children should eat sowre grapes, and the Fathers teeth should be set an edge, is such a manner of proceeding, as neither Proverb, Law, nor Gospel, can give countenance to.

The next Innovation, affirmed to be obtruded by the Bishops, is standing up at the Gloria Patri, to which the Obser­vator Answered, That the Rubrique of the Church requiring us to stand up at the Creed, obligeth us by the same reasons to stand up at the Gospels, and Gloria Patri, the Gospels being the foundation of the Creed, as Gloria Patri is the Abstract and Epitome of it. What saith the Pamphleter to this? marry he first askes the Theologaster (the Dr. or [Page 207] the Observator 'tis no matter which) of what Creed the Gloria Patri is by him said to be the Epitome; and then resolves it of himself, that it is not that of the Apostles, at which the Rubrick enjoyned us to stand up, because there are in that Creed some other points, which relate not the Doctrine of the Trinity, fol. 18. But good Sir have a little patience, and I will pay you all. In the mean time take this for earnest or in part of payment, that though that Creed containeth the profession of our Faith, in some other points, then those of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, included summarily in the Gloria Patri; yet are they all redu­cible to that part of the Creed, as being the repetition of such signall Benefits, as redound to us by the death and resurre­ction, of the Son, our most blessed Sa­viour, or communicated to us by the influences of the Holy Ghost. So that if this be all you have to object against us, we may stand up at the Gloria Patri, and stand up at it by the authority of that very Rubrick, which requireth our standing at the Creed.

But then he telleth us not long after, that as standing is not improper (we are glad [Page 206] to hear that howsoever) so is it not a posture peculiar to the action of doxologie and glorifying God, as is evident by our Church, which some­times (as in our Communion Service) requi­reth it from our knees, fol. 19. An objecti­on easie to be answered. The Observator no where saith that standing is a posture peculiar to the Gloria Patri, as not to be communicated to any other part of Di­vine worship, it being practised at the Gospels, and required at the Creed, and so the first part of this Objection falls without more ado. And 2. though the Communion Book require kneeling in the people, when Gloria in excels [...]s, is said or sung by the Priest; yet is not this requi­red unto it as it is a doxologie, a giving of glory unto God, but as it is an invo­cation on Christ our Saviour to have mercy on us, and to receive those pray­ers which are offered to him. And knee­ling doubtless is the most proper posture in the act of prayers, required therefore in all such as receive the Sacrament, be­cause it is given them with a prayer by the Priest or Minister.

That many things may be retained in a Church reformed, ex vi Catholicae consuetudi­nis, especially, where there is no Rule to [Page 216] the contrary. The Pamphleter alloweth well enough with a Bene, Bene; but sayes withal that it is litle to the purpose, there being in the Act of Uniformity a Vae or Woe, to him who shall willingly use any other Rite or Ceremony, &c. then is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, fol. 19. I thought our Author had been such an enemy to all etcaeteras, because of the my­sterious import, as you know who said, which they carry with them, especially in a Law or Canon, that no such sham [...] ­full thing (for he calls it somewhere a shamefull &c. if my memory fail not) should have been found in all his wri­tings; but I see he can make use of them when there is occasion; and that too in the citing of a Law or Statute, which, as he saith, doth binde all men to a strict confor­mity to the very letter of it. I finde by this, that our Author is better at the Bar then upon the Bench; not so much studied in the Querks and Quorums of a Commission, as in the ferreting and fingring of a Statute-law, in which no Barrester of them all, no not the Utter Barrester of Lincolns Inne is to be named the same day with him. For what an Argument had here been for Mr. Prinne, if he could [Page 209] have seen so far into this mill-stone of the Law, as our Author can, a­gainst bowing at the name of Jesus; no where appointed in the Rubricks of the publique Liturgie, but first retained, ex vi Catholica [...] consuetudinis, required afterwards by the Queens injunctions, and finally by the Ca­nons of 603. Neither of which could stand before the face of an Act of Parliament, if produced against them. What a brave Argument could our Author have hinted and held forth to Harry Burton (never the Princes Tutor Sir, you are out in that, though honoured by you with that title in the sheetes unpublished) against standing up at the Holy Go­spels, had he been consulted in the case, as he should have been? A­gainst how many men might he have brought his Action in the times of conformity, for standing up at the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds, at the Te Deum, Benedictus, and the other Hymnes? all Trespasses against this Statute, which binds all men (as we are told by this man of Law) to a strict conformity to the very letter of it.

[Page 210] But the best is, there is no such thing in all that Statute, as our Au­thor speaks of, no Vae or Woe to him, who shall willingly use any other rite, or Ce­remony, &c. then what is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. The Sta­tute speaks of ‘Parsons, Vicars, or other whatsoever ministers, that ought or should sing or say the Common Prayer, or minister the Sacraments; enjoyning such (un­der the Penalties therein mentio­ned) not to use any other Rite, Ceremony, Order, Form, or Manner of celebrating the Lords Supper openly or privily, or mat­tens, Evensong, Administration of the Sacraments, or other open Prayer, then is mentioned and set forth in the said Book.’ Nothing in this to restrain men from using any one or none single Rites or Ce­remonies, which had been former­ly in use, and against which there is nothing directed or commanded in the publique Rubricks, no such mat­ter verily; but a Command, that no man in the Quality of a man [Page 211] in Orders, shall use any other Rite, Ceremony, Order, Form, or man­ner of celebrating the Lords Sup­per, or officiating the morning and evening Prayer; It is then the whole Form and Order of celebrating Di­vine offices which is here required, and not the restraint from using any one single Rite or Ceremony, o­ther then such as are contained in that Book. For were it otherwise to expound or understand, none but such men as were enabled to offi­ciate, the publique Liturgie, had been restrained from using any such Rites, or Ceremonies, as were here cut off with an &c. the people being left at liberty to use such Rites and Cere­monies, &c. as they had a minde to without any Vae or woe at all, or any Penalty whatsoever in that Sta­tute mentioned; unless it may be granted, as I think it will not, that every person so offending, is or may be possessed of some spiriturall Benefices and Promotions, of which to forfeit one whole years Profits for the first offence. Nor doth the Statute speak▪ [Page 212] of such, who shall willingly use any other Rite or Ceremony, &c. (our man of Law is out in that too, as in all things else) but of such only as shall willfully and obstinately stand in the same. And I conceive our Author is so good a [...]ritick in a plain piece of English, as to understand the difference between the doing of a thing willingly, and standing obstinately and wilfully to it after it is done. Had any of these things been found in the Observator, he had been told of forging and falsi­fying the Record, and I know not what. But in our Author it is only one of those Piae fraudes which necessarily conduce to the advancing of the Holy cause, and so let it goe.

I might expect a fee of my Author for this point of Law, whom o­therwise I finde like enough to have entangled himself in the danger of that Statute, pleading so strongly as he doth for stand [...]ng not only at the Gospels, but also at the Epistles and second Lessons; though neither the Rubricks of the Liturgy, nor [Page 213] any Canon of the Church do require it of us. His following maxime, that standing is the most proper posture of Attention, I like wondrous well; and I like better, that he saith it becometh him not, to have his Hat on, when his Lord and Master speakes to him, fol. 19. But for all, I would have him take a speciall care, lest whilst he thus zealously pursueth Order, he out-run authority, as we know who did. For certainly the Canon which he built upon will not bear him out in it against the Statute, if the Statute were to be so expoun­ded, as to restrain the use of all Rites and Ceremonies, not specified and ap­pointed in the Book of Common Prayer, as he told us lately. For though Genuflexion or bowing of the knee cannot be done (saith he) but in a sta­tionary posture, yet men that sit may tender due and lowly reverence at the name of Jesus, by the humble bowing of their Bodies, and testi­fie by that sign and ‘gesture, their inward humility, Christian Reso­lution, and due acknowledgement [Page 214] that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternall Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world,’ &c. As in the 18. Canon of 603.

But one good turn requireth an­other. The Pamphleter in requitall, shall advise the Observator, not to be too confident, in saying, he was sure, that standing at the Gloria Patri, was never obtruded by the Prelates; for fear there should prove some flaw in his assurance, whosoever was of his Coun­sell in it, fol. 18. This is a friendly admonition, and I shall make the best use of it accordingly. But how doth he weaken this assurance, and abate this confidence? Marry because ‘in Bishop Wrens Articles framed for the Diocess of Norwich, sure he is Chap. 4. there are these words, viz. Do they, i. e. the people, at the end of every Psalm stand up, and say, Glory be to the Father, &c. And he thinks things inquired after in Diocesan visitations, may be said to be urged and obtruded,’ fol. 18. Hic Rhodus, hic saltus; this is the man, and that's his leap, ma [...]ch [Page 215] him he that can. But Sir, though I have heard some men ascribe in­sallibility to the Houses of Parlia­ment, yet I never heard of any man till now, that did intitle them, their Committees instruments, and A­gents to the Spirit of prophecy; and 'tis impossible, that they could o­therwise tell, Anno 1628. what Bishop Wren would do at Norwich above seven years after, Anno 1636. For marke the story as it lieth. The Committee for Religion declared in Anno 1628. That upon due inspecti­on they found it in a very totter­ing and declining condition, &c. partly from the audacious obtru­ding of divers superstitious Ceremo­nies by the Prelates, as standing at the Gloria Patri, &c. Hist. fol. 96. This is the information, but what Proofs have they of it? The In­formation is in matter of Fact, of divers Superstitious Ceremonies, standing up at the Gloria Patri, &c. At that time and before obtruded by some au­dacious Prelates. The Proof is given them by the Spirit of prophecy, in [Page 216] telling them what was, or should be done above seven years after, when Bishop Wren should hold his first visitation for the Diocess of Nor­wich. I see our Author is as good at Logick as he is at Law. For mark the Argument in Bishop Wrens Arti­cles, framed for the Diocess of Norwich (Anno 1636. why was that left out?) it is enquired into, whether the peo­ple at the end of every Psalm did stand up and say, Glory be to the Father, &c. Er­go, which is in English, therefore, This Superstitious Ceremony of standing at the Gloria Patri, was obtruded by the audacious Prelates above seven years before. Anno 1628. Brave man at Arms I must confess, though weak to Baltazar. And now I hope I am quit with him for his Theolo­gaster.

But yet I have not payed him all, there is some behinde. For is not this the man that telleth us, that the remissness of the Government of Arch­bishop Abbot, made the future Reducti­on of tender conscienced men to long dis­continued obedience, interpreted an Inno­vation, [Page 217] Hist. fol. 127. yet he remem­breth it well enough; For he tels us in his Pamphlet, fol. 27. Oportet esse memorem, but he leaves out the most significant word of all, that which most properly doth concern him, Mendacem: Oportet mendacem esse memorem, was the Rule of old, and it concerns our Author to take notice of it. I well remember those words saith he, but never meant they should relate to the setting Railes before the Holy Table, fol. 28. Well then al­lowing our Author his more secret meaning, we have gained thus much, that placing the Table Altar-wise, and bowing towards it, and standing at the Gloria Patri, are no more to be reckoned for Innovations, but Re­ductions rather, as our Author freely hath acknowledged. For telling us that he never meant, that the words alleadged should relate to the set­ting Railes before the holy Table; he doth ingenuously confess he meant it in all the rest; according to the good old Rule, Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis. And again, is not this [Page 218] the man that tels us Anno 1635. in his new Edition, that he who de­sires to pourtray England in her full Stature of externall Glory, may now take her dimensions; he shall behold her Church shining in tran­scendent Empyreall brightness, and purity of Evangelicall truth. Her religious performances, her holy offices, ordered and regulated agree­able to the strict expedient of such sacred actions. Her Discipline, Mo­dell, sutable to the Apostolick form. The set and suite of her Holy Tribe renowned for piety and lear­ning, and all those in so super­eminent a degree, that no Church on this side of the Apostolique, can or ever could, compare with her in any one, fol. 142. Here is an Euge tuum, & belle, an excellent Panegy­rick I confess, and I thank him for it, but very different from those Taxes, charges, and obtrusions, which we finde elsewhere. Out of which I shall only note, as proper to my pre­sent purpose. First, that this Pa­negyrick is placed by him Anno [Page 219] 1635. at what time placing the Com­munion Table Altar-wise, and bow­ing towards it, and standing at the Gloria Patri were grown more gene­rally in use, then they had been for­merly. And secondly, that it is here said, that her Religious perfor­mances, and holy offices, were then re­gulated agreeable to the strict Expedi­ents of such sacred Actions. If regula­ted by the strict Expedients of such sa­cred Actions, as he saith they were, then neither placing the Table Altar-wise, nor bowing towards it, nor standing at the Gloria Patri, no nor the very Railes themselves com­ing within the compasse of these strict expedients, are to be reckoned of as Innovations, and Obtrusions by the Committee for Religion of which we speak, Anno 1628.

The Prelates being thus freed, and freed even by our Author him­self, from innovating in the Wor­ship of God, here by Law establish­ed, we must next see, what danger there was feared from Doctrinal Po­perie, by the uncontrouled preaching of [Page 220] severall points, tending and warping that way, by Mountague, Goodman, Cozens, and others, as in the History, Fol. 96. To which the Observator an­swered, ‘That neither Mountague nor Cozens, were questioned for preaching any thing which warp­ed toward Popery; but the one of them for writing the Book called Appello Caesarem, the other for pub­lishing a Body of Devotions, accor­ding to the Hours of Prayer, in neither of which, an equall and judicious Reader will find any Popery.’ What saith the Pamphle­ter to this? Why, first he doth con­fesse, That in stead of preaching, he should have said publishing: and this mistake (with more then ordinary ingenuity) he hath rectified in the last Edition, Fol. 98. Secondly, as for Dr. Cozens, he grants inge­nuously enough, that in his Book, there is no direct Popery, though some­thing (as he saith) which might raise a jealousie of his tendency that way; but yet forbears to presse it further (and it is well for him, [Page 221] that he had so good a colour to forbear the pressing of that, which he could not prove) Seeing that Doctor hath appeared of late so stout an Advocate for the Reformed Church; as he hath been informed by some, and assured by others, fol. 17. To the Observators defence of Bp. Moun­tague, there is no Reply: so that the Action being withdrawn against one of the parties, and the other quit by Proclamation, we may dis­charge them of the Court, with­out more adoe. Finally, as for Bp. Goodman, the Observator hath in­formed you, that though he preach­ed something once which might warp to­wards Popery, yet he did not preach it uncontrouled, being not only questioned for it, but sentenced to a Recantation be­fore the King. To this I find no Reply neither, and I wonder at it, considering the great advantage gi­ven by that Bishop at his death, to increase the scandall; a scandal so unseasonably, and untimely given, as if the Devil himself had watch­ed an opportunity to despight this Church. And though some men [Page 222] have gladly cherished this occasion, to draw the rest of the Prelates, and Prelatical party, into a generall suspicion, of being as much incli­ned to Popery, as that Bishop was; yet Christian charity should instruct them, not to think evil of all, for the fault of one, or prejudge any one man, much lesse the whole Body of a Clergy, for the fault of another. It rather should be won­dred at by all moderate and dis­cerning men, that notwithstanding so many provocations of want, and scorn, which have of late been put upon them, there should be found but one of that sacred order, and but three more (that I have heard of) of the Regular Clergy to fall off to Popery: though to say truth, it was not in this Bishop a late falling off, but a pursuance rather of some former inclinations which he had that way, that being thought to be the reason why he refused subscription to the Canons of 640. mentioned in our Historian fol. 186.

[Page 223] But, oportet esse memorem, as we know who said: and now it will be time to passe from those Anoma­lous Innovations, which seemed to threaten, that Tiber would drown the Thames, in our Authors language, to those designs which tended to the bringing in of Arminianisme, if all be true, which was brought in to the Committee, or by our Author is reported to be brought in to them.

Our Author not so little concerned in the con­troversies of Arminianism, as he would be thought. The Arminians not called a Faction by the Observator, nor said by him to be unsufferable in a Common­wealth. The Lawes and Privileges of the Netherlands never more violated, than in the proceedings against Barnevelt. The Conspiracy of Barnevelts Kinred not to be imputea to the Arminians. The mo­deration of King James on the like occa­sion. The Arminians no way turbulent, but as Calvinists only. St. Augustine did not think himself infallible, though the Pamphleter doth. The Observator mis­reported in delivering the Tenets of some Calvinists. The Pamphleters trifling in so great a matter as Eternity. The judge­ment of King James altered in the paints of Arminianism. Sir Humphries tale of the two Bishops canvassed and confuted. The Bishop of Winchester vindicated. Of Dr. More, Dr. Marshal, and their seve­ral grudges against that Bishop. The Lambeth Articles confessed by our Au­thor not to be taken for the Doctrine of the Church of England. The Observators mistake in the first 3. years of Dr. Baro, and the grounds thereof. The Observa­tor not disproved concerning that Doctors retiring into France, nor in the storie of those Articles; With the Pamphleters mi­stakes in both. The Articles of Ireland abrogated, by superinducing those of Eng­land, proved first by the Certificate of the two Subscribers, and after by some paral­lel Cases in Scripture, and the Statute-Laws. The two Subscribers speak impro­perly for themselves, and deal unjustly with the Observator. Of the Differen­ces in the Convocation of Ireland, between the Lord Primate, and the Bishop of Der­ry. An errour of the Printers charged on the Observator.

[Page 226] BUt first we must remove a Block which lieth in our way, our Author telling us, how little he is concerned in these Ar­minian Controversies, which are to be the Subject of this present Chapter, Fol. 5. Thus do I hear our Au­thor say, but I find the contrary, and then, quid verba audiam cum facta videam? The bitternesse of his Style against those poor [Page 227] men whom he so nick-nameth, and all who seem to incline towards their opi­nions, declare plainly of what Spirit he is, how very little concerned soever he would seem to be. Of this we shall not need to look for any further evidence, than the Character he gives both of the men and of the Doctrine. Their Doctrin branded by the name of errours, and the Contrary opinions honoured with the title of Orthodox, Hist. Fol. 98. Their tenets joyned with those of the Massilians and Semipelagians, Fol. 6. 131. their per­sons stigmatized in the Pamphlet, as men having a strong tang of the Jesuites, in practical or Dogmatical concernments; and indeed a Faction, a turbulent seditious faction, and so found all along by the united Provinces from the first of their spawning there, Fol. 46. The Lord Deputy of Ireland stands accused upon this accompt in the unpub­lished sheets of the History, to have frighted, rather than perswaded the Convo­cation of Ireland to repeal the Articles of that Church, principally to advance these Arminian Tenets; the Court-Clergy ge­nerally defamèd, as deeply tinctured and stained with the Massilian and Arminian errors, and Mr. Mountague (afterwards Bishop of Chichester) called unworthy [Page 228] wretch, because he was supposed to in­cline that way. Strong Arguments that our Author doth not think himself so lit­tle concerned in this businesse; as he would make the world believe, if he had the Art of it. But whereas the Pamphleter hath told us, that the Observator p. 73. hath very aptly stiled them, by the name of a Faction, if he consult the place again but with half an eye, he will not find them stiled so by the Observator, but by ‘Dr. Whitacres, Dr. Willet, Mr. Chatterton, Mr. Perkins, and certain others, desi­ring the Archbishops assistance to sup­presse that Faction, which was like to grow against them in that University.’

And here I think it not amisse to take another running leap, from Fol. 5. to Fol. 46. where he inferreth, out of I know not what words in the Observations, that reason of State and King craft, will not to­lerate the Arminians in a Commonwealth. But no such thing occurs there, I am sure of that; all that the Observator saith, be­ing only this, that King James tendring the safety of the Prince of Orange, and the peace of those Provinces, thought it no small piece of King-craft, to contribute to­ward the Suppression of the weaker party, blasting them not only with Reproachfull [Page 229] names, but sending such of his Divines to the Assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemnation. Can any man inferre from hence by the Rules of Logick, that reason of State and King-craft will not tolerate the Arminiaus in a Commonwealth? because as the Case then stood in the Belgique Provinces, betwixt Barnevelt and the Prince of Orange, King James thought fit to Countenance the partie of the Prince of Orange, and sup­presse the other. Next as for Barne­velt himself, one of the wisest men that ever those Countries bred, he saw and feared that the great power to which the Prince of Orange had attained, if not e­venly ballanced, might end at last in the Suppression of the Publique Libertie; and make those Provinces, Unius quasi familiae haereditas, the Patrimonie and Inheritance of the Nassovian Familie. Hereupon fin­ding that the Prince had made himself the head of the rigid Calvinists, he joyned himself to those, whom our Author calls Arminians, but passed in their own Country by the name of Remonstrants; and thereby brought the Prince into such a streight, that to preserve his power, and make sure of Barnevelt, he violated all the privileges of those several States, [Page 230] for which they had first took up Armes against the Spaniards. For first drawing out such Forces as were most at his De­votion, he passeth from one Town to a­nother, displaceth the Magistrates, chan­geth the Garrisons, and removes the Go­vernours, putting none into the Rooms, but such as were of the other party, and assured unto him; And 2ly, having thus altered the whole Face of the Common­wealth, Barnevelt by these new Magistrats is seized upon, and contrary to the Funda­mental Laws of Holland (whereof he was a native) put over to certain Delegats ap­pointed by the States Gen. (men utterly uncapable of dealing in matters of that nature) to hear his process, by whō he was condemned, and accordingly executed. And this is that wicked Conspiracy, for which he suffered so condignly, as our Au­thor telleth us; but whether it were so or no, the moderate and unconcerned Rea­der, but some what lesse concerned than the Pamphleter is, will be better able to discern, if he peruse the Apologie of the Remonstrants, in which are many things of note which concern this businesse.

As for that Damnable and Hellish Plot about three years after, wherein the States sitting in Councel at the Hague, and after [Page 231] them all, other Anti-Arminian Magistrates were destin'd to slaughter, as the Pamphleter hath it, Fol. 46. If all be true that is reported, and the design as damnable and hellish, as the Pampleter makes it, yet doth not this concern the Arminian par­tie, but only the Children and Kinred of Barnevelt, whose design it was; who to revenge his death, so unworthily and unjustly contrived (and, as they thought) so undeservedly, and against their Lawes, might fall upon some desperate counsels, and most unjustifiable courses in pursu­ance of it. But what makes this to the Arminian and Remonstrant partie? Bar­nevelts Children were convicted of a Damnable and Hellish plot against the State; Ergo, the Arminians or Remon­strants are a turbulent, seditious Faction; and conseq [...]ently, not to be suffered in a Commonwealth. King James approved not of this Logick, when it was moved by some hot-headed Members of the Low­er House, to seize upon the persons, and Confiscate the Fistates of all English Pa­pists, as guilty of the Gunpowder Treason, because some discontented, turbulent and ambitious spirits had designed the Plot; ‘I know (saith he, in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament, Anno 1605.) [Page 232] that your hearts are so burnt up with zeal in this errant, and your tongues so ready to utter your dutifull Affections, and your hands and feet so bent to con­curre in the execution thereof, (for which, as I need not to spurre you, so can I not but praise you for the same:) As it may very well be possible that the zeal of your hearts shall make some of you in your speeches rashly to blame such, as may be innocent of this At­tempt: But upon the other part, I wish you to consider, that I would be sorry that any being innocent of this practice, either Domestical or Foreign, should receive blame or harm for the same: For although it cannot be denied, that it was the only blind Superstition of their errours in Religion, that led them to this desperate device; yet doth it not follow, that all professing the Romish Religion were guilty of the same.’ So he. And how far different this is from the Pamphleters Logick, (though that the best Logick of these times) is left to the Consideration of all equal and Indif­ferent men. And 2ly, admitting that the whole Arminian partie were engaged in these Treasons, either in voto or in Re, yet doth it not follow hereupon with re­ference [Page 233] to other Countries; that they are none of the best subjects, be their Doctrine as Orthodox as they pretend: Which is the Corollary which the Pamphleter hath in­ferred upon it. My reason is, because Arminianism it self, as it relates to the five points in difference (which in our Authors Style is called Arminianism) dis­poseth not the Professors of it to any such practices. And therefore if the Armini­ans should prove to be as turbulent and seditious, as the Pamphleter makes them, yet must we not impute it to them, as they are Arminians, that is to say, as men following the Melancthonian way, and differing in those five points from the rest of the Calvinists, but as they are a branch of the Sect of Calvin, to whose Discipline in all particulars, they conformed themselves, and to his Doctrine in the most, as was de­clared by the Observator. And we know well what Dangerous Practices and Posi­tions have been set on foot within this Island, by such as have pursued the one, and embrace the other.

This said, I must turn back again, where I find the Observator put to an unnecessa­ry, but invidious task. The Observator had affirmed, that St. Augustines zeal a­gainst the Pelagians, transported him into [Page 234] such inconvenient expressions, as the wisest men may fall into on the like occasions. To this the Pamphleter replieth, That it were a work very proper for the Observator, to in­stance in those inconvenient expressions, and to undertake the confutation of them, Fol. 5. And this I call, both an unnecessary and invidious task: unnecessary, as being no way pertinent to the present businesse; invidious, in regard of that high esteem which that great Father hath attained to in the Christian world. And yet I shall crave leave to say, that if he had not run himself into some Inconvenient expressi­ons, in condemning Infants unbaptized to the pains of Hell, he never had incur­red the name of Infanto-Mastix: A more particular accompt whereof I had rather the Reader should take pains to collect from his writings, than expect from me. All I shall further add is this, that St Augustine, when he was alive, did neither think himself infalli­ble, or exempt from errours; Nor was displeased with St. Hierome, for canvas­sing or confuting any point of Doctrine by him delivered. This liberty they mu­tually indulged on one another, and good reason for it; Non tam Stultus sum ut di­versitate explanationum tuarum me laedi pu­tem, [Page 235] 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 [Page 236] 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 ne (que) 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 whim­wham, viz. How Eternity (for so saith he the Observator saith) not Salvati­on, can recipere majus & minus, receive either augmentation or diminution from man, [...]ol. 5. But Sir, without any of your whim­whams, 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 [Page 237] 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 tis 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 [Page 238] 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 [Page 239] 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 [Page 240] was averred secondly in the open Parli­ament, there [...]ore there can be nothing truer; nothing being told within the Walls, (whether the tales of Dutch Skippers, or of Danish Flee [...]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 Walter Earl) but ipso facto, by a strange kind of Alcumy, it was made a truth, a most unquestionable truth. It was averred thirdly, nemine contradicente, and very good reason for that too; there being none per­haps then present, who were admitted to the sight of that Enterlude, as Sir Hum­phry was, or otherwise its worth the while to disprove the Fable. But here I find something worth the Learning, which is, that nemine contradicente doth not signifie only (as the poor Theologaster might conceive it did) no one contra­dicting, but no one contradicting who stood near the Chair. A pretty piece of Grammar-learning, and I thank him for it; the rather, in regard it may be gathered from these words, that though no man who stood near the Chair did or durst contradict Sir Humpry in this pretty figment; yet others who stood farther off (and being procul à Jove, might be pro­cul [Page 241] à fulmine) did presume to do it. And this I hope will satisfie the Pamphleter, and Sir Humphry too.

We have now done with Bishop Mountague, but we must have another pull about Bishop Neile, then Bishop of Winchester, by whose, and the Bishop of Londons Prevalencie, we were told in the History, the Orthodox party were depressed, and the truth they served, scarce able to protect them to impunity. Re­proved by the Observator, for speaking thus at randome, and without any proof, of those great Prelates, (both being Counsellors of State) the Pamphleter comes in to make good the matter, tel­ling us, that Sir Daniel Norton, and Sir Robert Philips, informed the House, that Doctor More and Doctor Marshall, were chid by the Bishop of VVinchester, for preaching against popery, both Drs. being ready to bear witness of the truth thereof, Fol. 16. Now mark the Justice of the man, and his Logick too. The Information is brought against the Bi­shops of London and VVinchester, but the proof (such as it is,) against the Bishop of VVinchester only; No reparation being made unto the other for so great an injury. I trow this is but sorry Justice, [Page 242] and yet the Logick of the proof is a great deal worse. The information was about the danger of Arminianism, the Sprea­de [...]s of those errors advanced by the Pre­valency of those Bishops to great preferment, the Orthodox party in the mean time depressed, and under inglorious dis­dain. Hist. Fol. 96. How doth he make this good in the Bishop of VVin­chester? Because for sooth he had chidden Doctor More and Doctor Marshall for preaching against popery. This is the Logick we must look for. The Premi­ses are of Arminianism, The Conclusion of popery. Or else it must be argued thus, The Bishop of VVinchester chid Doctor More and Doctor Marshall, for preaching against popery, Ergo, which is in English therefore, the two Bishops of London and Winchester advanced the Arminian par­ty, and depressed the Orthodox. Our Au­thor telleth us Fol. 35. of this present Pamphlet, that there are some worse dispu­tants than himself; but if I know in what place to find them, may I burn my Ke [...] ­kerman.

But if the man were chidden, and chid­den for preaching against popery, it will as much conduce to the dishonor of the Bishop of Winchester, as if they had [Page 243] been chidden on the other accompt, and therefore we must take some time to in­quire into it, it being possible enough, that they might be chidden by that Bishop not for their preaching against Popery, but for some indiscretion in the way of their preaching, & possibly enough (let me adde that too) that they might have some pri­vate grudges against that Prelate. Doctor Marshal claimed some fewell yearly out of that Bishops woods, in the right of his Parsonage, which that Bishop (be­ing an old Courtier, but of no great Courtship) did refuse to make him. This gave him occasion of displeasure, and being withall a man of some indiscreti­on, he might possibly, not carry the mat­ter so discreetly, but that he might be liable to some just reproof. But as for Doctor More, I shall need no other matter against him, than what I find in the unpublished sheets of our Author himself, where he tells us of him, that [...]he was a man of an acute, but somewhat an [...]aculeated wit, Fol. 69. A man (it seems) of more Sting than Hony, and was not sparing of it (in his heats of zeal) upon all occasions; Insomuch that there goeth a story of him, that Mr. Hugh May who had commended Archie to the Court not [Page 244] long before, obtained a turn for this Doctor before King James, in which he shewed so much heat, and so little dis­cretion, that the King told Hugh May when he saw him next, that he thanked him more for his Fool than he did for his Preach­er. Besides our Author telleth us of him in the place above mentioned, that preaching after the Dukes return from the Isle of Rhe, he took occasion in his Ser­mon, to speak of the defeat given to the Roman Army, under the command of Quintilius Varus, by the German Nations, adding these words of the Historian, that this Army perished, propter inscitiam & temeritatem ducis: In which being thought to have put a scorn upon the Duke, and reprehended for it by his Diocesan, he was judged fit to be made use of against that Bishop, when the teeth of the In­formers were edged against him.

Proceed we next to the Lambeth Ar­ticles, the great Diana of the Ephesians of our times. It was affirmed by the Obser­vator, that they were never looked on as the Doctrin of the Church of England, nor in­tended to be so looked upon by them that made them. But this the Pamphleter puts off to Mr. Pym, and the Committee for Religi­on; but grants withall, That it is very [Page 245] probable, that the Compilers of the Book of Articles, and the Book of Homilies, dif­fered from Calvins sense in the point of Pre­destination, and its subordinates, Fol. 15. Nor doth he only grant it to be probable, but he proves it also, It being (saith he) very rare for two, even of the same party, to agree exactly in all parcels of these Contro­versies. So then, whether it were our Author, or the Committee for Religion, which declare these Articles of Lambeth to speak the sense of the 39 Articles of the Church of England, it comes all to one, the Pamphleter leaving them in the plain field, and siding with the Ob­servator in this particular. In the occasi­on of these Articles, or rather in one circumstance of it, the Observator was mi­staken, affirming Page 74. That on the com­ing of these Articles to Cambridge, Dr. Baro found himself so discouraged & discountenan­ced, that at the end of his first 3 years he relin­quished his Professorship, and retired not long after into France; to this the Pamphle­ter makes answer, That Peter Baro re­linquished not his professorship at the end of his first three years, proved by his Le­ctures upon Ionah, to be Professor there, Anno 1574. and confessed to be so by the Observator, Anno 1595. 2. That that [Page 246] Professorship is not eligible, from 3 years to 3 years, but at the end of each se­cond year; proved by the Statutes of the Lady Margaret (Countesse of Richmond and Derby) the foundresse of it. 3. That Peter Baro never went or retired into France, after the resignation of his Pro­fessorship, but lived and dyed in Crutch­ed Friers, as may be proved by the Testi­mony of a Son of his, who is still a­live.

In the two first of these we have Confiten­tem reum, the Observator crying peccavi, and confessing guilty, but so that he had good authority for his errour in it; For first the Pamphleter hath told us, That very many were of the contrary belief, that is to say, to the election of that Professor every second year, & so the wonder is the lesse, if the Observator should be one of those very many. 2. He had found in the History of the Lambeth Articles printed at London 1641. that Baro at the third years end (for so long he was to hold that Lecture by their antient Ordinan­ces) relinquished his Professorship, and betook himself to his private studies. Baro (saith he) elapso tri [...]nnii spatio (Nam vetere instituto in illius lectura triennalis est professio) professione abiit & in privata se [Page 247] studia recondidit. 3. He had read in a book called Responsio necessaria, publi­shed by the Remonstrants, Anno 1615. That notwithstanding the coming of those Articles, he continued in his Pro­fessorship, Donec exacto suo triennio (profes­sio utique il a qua in Collegio fungebatur, in triennium solum prorogabatur) professione se abdicavit, & tranquillam ut viveret vitam privatis se studiis totum dedit; that is to say, that his three years being expired (that Professorship being continued in that University but for three years only) he left the place, retired unto a private life, and gave himself wholly to his stu­dies. 4. He hath found also in the History of Cambridge, writ by Mr. Fuller a Cam­bridge man, and one that should have known the Customs and Statutes of that University, that the end of Doctor Peter Baro (the Marguaret Professor) his Tri­ennial Lectures began to draw near, &c. Sect. 21. which layed together, I would fain know of the equal and impartial Reader, First, whether the Observator may not be excused for making that Le­cture to continue from three years to three years; And secondly, whether the exacto suo Triennio, in the Book called Responsio necessaria, and the end of his [Page 248] Triennial Lectures in Fullers History, might not induce him to conceive, that Dr. Baro gave over the Professorship at the end of his first three years.

In the last point the cause is not so clear on the Pamphleters side, nay it will rather go against him. Mr. Prynne, a man diligent enough in the search of any thing which concerns his Argument, hath told us positively, in his Auli-Ar­mianism, pag. 268. that being conven­ted before the heads of that University, he was not only forced to forsake the U­niversity, but the Kingdom too; For which he citeth Dr. Ward in his Concio ad Clerum, Anno 1626. and Thytius in his Preface ad Fratres Belgas; Nor do the Pamphleters proofs come home to con­clude the contrary; unlesse the Argu­ment be good, that Baro lived and died in London, and was buried there in St. O­laves Church. Ergo he retired not into France, upon his first relinquishing of the University. And if it be true which the Pamphleter telleth us, That the Bishop of London ordered the most Divines in that City to be present at his interment; it is a good Argument, that both the Bishop, and most eminent Divines of London, were either inclinable to his opinions, or not [Page 249] so much averse from them, as not to give a solemn attendance at the time of his Funeral.

As for the Story of these Articles, as layed down in the Observator, he tel­lerh us it was never heard off, till the year 1641. which sheweth how little he is versed in his own concernments, the same story, let him call it a Tale if he will, being published in the Responsio necessa [...]ia, Anno Dom. 1615. which was 26 years be­fore, and but the 20th year from the meeting at Lambeth. And though the Kentish man he speaks of, whosoever he were, might be unborn at the time of the making of the Articles, as he saith he was, yet the Remonstrants who publi­shed the Responsio necessaria, must be born before, and probably might have the whole Story from Baro himself, with whom they coresponded in these points of controversie. Adeo absurda argumenta ineptos habent exitus, as Lactantius hath it.

On what accompt these Articles were made a part of the confession of the Church of Ireland, hath been shewen elsewhere, we must next come unto the abrogating or repealing of them, for saying which the Observator stands ac­cused, [Page 250] although repealing be the word of our Author himself in the first Edition, Fol. 132. yet now he singeth a new Song, and telleth us many things quite different from the common opinion, and from his own amongst the rest: assuring us, that the Articles established in the Church of Ireland, Anno 1615. were never abro­gated, and proving it by a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Bernard, and one Mr. Pullein, (if he be not of a high­er degree,) both of them convocation men, and present at the conclusion of it, Anno 1634. But this Certificate will prove upon examination to conclude nothing to the purpose. It is acknow­ledged both in the Certificate and Ca­non ‘That they did not only approve (which might a been a sufficient mani­festation of their agreement with the Church of England, in the confession of the same Christian faith) but that they also did receive the Book of Ar­ticles of religion, agreed upon by the Archbishops, and Bishops, and the whole Clergy, in the whole convo­cation holden at London, Anno Dom. 1562.’ Now the Receiving or su­perinducing of a new confession, will prove equivalent in the Fact, and I think [Page 251] in Law,) to the repealing of the old, for otherwise there must be two confessions in the same Church, differing in many points from one another; Which would have been so far from creating a unifor­mity of belief between the Churches, and taking away thereby the matter of Deri­sion which was given the Papists, in two distinct (and in some points contrary) con­fessions, yet both pretending unto one and the same Religion; that it would rather have increased their Scorn, and made a greater disagreement in Ireland it self, than was before between the Chur­ches of both Kingdomes. And this the Certificate it self doth seem to intimate. In which we find, ‘That one of the As­sembly (some rigid Calvinist belike) stood up, and desired that the other Book of Articles, (that is to say in the year 1615) should be be joyned with it’ which proposition, being it might have made some rub in the busi­ness, if it had been absolutely denied, was put off, by this cleanly and handsome Temperament, that this would be need­less, that Book having been already suf­ficiently ratified by the dcer [...]e of the former Synod. With this all parties seem con­tented, and the Canon passed. So ea­sily [Page 252] may the weak Brethren be out­witted 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 Cōman­dement, by which it was at first ordained, being stil in force. So then, according to [Page 253] 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; [Page 254] The Kings most Excellent Majesty, with the assent of the Lords and Com­mons in this present Parliament a [...]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 [Page 255] 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 [Page 256] 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 [Page 257] 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; wi [...]h Doctor Bernard I shall meet in another place.

In the next place, whereas the Obser­vator said, that the abrogating of the Ar­ticles of Ireland was put on the Lieu­tenants score, because Doctor Bramhall, (once his Chaplain, and) then Bishop of Der­ry had appeared most in it: The Pamphle­ter answereth, that there was never any Controversie in that Synod, between the Lord Primate and that Bishop, concerning those Articles, Fol. 43. But tell me Gentle Sir, might not the Bishop of Derry be most active in it, without a personal contro­versie betwixt him and the Primate, if so, then was the Primate more engaged in the quarrel, about receiving, or not re­ceiving [Page 258] the Articles of the Church of England, than you would gladly seem to have him; If otherwise, your Answer is nothing to the purpose, nor confutes a­ny thing affirmed by the Observator. Some disagreement he confesseth to have been between them in that Synod, about the Canons, not the Articles of the Church of England, but neither he nor the Observator being present at it, they must rely upon the credit of their Au­thors. The Observator (as he telleth me) had his intelligence from some of the Bishops of that Kingdom, men of in­tegrity and great worth, present at all debates and conferences amongst those of their own order, and so most like to give a just account of all passages there. The Pamphleter takes his (it seems) from two members of the lower House of Convocation, who neither were bound to tell more than they knew, nor to know more than the advantages of the place they served in could communi­cate to them. Which of the two intelli­gences, have, or should have most pow­er in moving the Sphear of any common understanding, let the Reader judge.

The Pampheter is almost spent, and now plays with flies, quarrelling the Ob­servator, [Page 259] for saying that this Convocation was held in Ireland Anno 1633. Where­as Dr. Heylyn, whom he makes to be his alter idem, hath placed it in his History of the Sabbath, Anno 1634. It could not then proceed from ignorance in the Ob­servator, you have cleared him very well for that, and it will be very hard for you to prove, that it proceeded from negli­gence, or from (your ordinary excuse) a lapse of memory. Printers will fall into such errours do we what we can, though the calculation be put down, in words at length, and not in figures, more easily and frequently, when they meet with figures, not words in length. And so much for all matters which relate to Arminia­nism. The rest that follows shall be re­duced into two Chapters, the first for Parliaments and Convocations, and the points coincident; the second for all such other matters as cannot be contained un­der those two heads.

A voluntary mistake of the Author, charg­ed on the accompt of the Observator. The Pamphleter agreeth with the Obser­vator, about the sitting and impowering of the Convocation. Our Author satisfi­ed in the &c. left so unhappily in the Ca­non of 640. That the Clergy in their Convocation may give away their own mo­ney without leave from the Parliament. The difference in that Case between a Bene­volence and a Subsidie. The Impulsives to that Benevolence. The King not un­acquainted with the differences between the Liturgies. The words of distribu­tion in the first Liturgy of King Ed­ward, no more favourable to Transub­stantiation, than those which are retain­ed in the present Liturgy. The reason why so many Papists have been gained of late to the Church of England. The Convocation of the year 1640 appeared not by their Councel in the House of Com­mons. New Lords created in time of Parliam [...]nt, not excluded from their suf­frage in it. The difference between the Loan and the Tax made reconcileable; the Commons in the Parliament, [Page 261] 1621. not to be called petty Kings. Our Authors weak excuses for it, and the damages of it. The Pamphleters great libertie in calculating the Estates of the Peers and Commons to make good his estimate. The Bishops purposely left out in the valuation. The true stating of the time of the charge against the late Arch-Bishop. The Bishops not excluded by the Canon-Laws, from being pre­sent at the intermediate proceedings in the businesse of the Earl of Strafford. Our Authors resolution, not to war­rant Circumstances, but the Things themselves, of what not able advan­tage to him. The Observator justified in the day of taking the Protestation. The four Bishops sent to the King, and not sent for by him. The Bishop of Lon­don supernumerary. The Pamphle­ters weak argument upon his silence in that meeting. The Primate of Armagh, not made use of by the Lord Leiutenant in framing the Answer to his charge; why chosen to be with him, as his Ghostly Father, before, and at the time of his death. A fair and friendly expostu­lation with Dr. Bernard.

[Page 262] FRom the Convocation held in Ireland, proceed we now to that in Eng­land, both yeelding mat­ter of Observation, and both alike unplea­sing to the Presbiterian or Puritan par­ty. And the first thing the Pamphleter layeth hold on, is a mistake, occasioned chiefly by himself. He told us of a new Synod made of an old Convocation, and Fa­thers the conceit, such as it is, on a wit­ty Gentleman. But now the witty Gentle­man proves to be a Lord, and therefore the Observators descant on Sir Edward Deering, must be out of Doors Fol. 34. Had the Historian spoke properly, and told us of a witty Lord, who had said so of that Convocation, the Observator would have took more pains in inquiring after him, but speaking of him in the notion of a Gent. only, though a witty Gentle­man, the Observator had some reason to conceive it spoken by Sir Edward Deering, one of whose witty Speeches, was made chiefly upon that occasion. But as this Lord is here presented to us in the name of a Gentleman, so Mr. Secretary V [...]ne is given unto us in the unpubli­shed [Page 263] Sheets, by the name of a Lord. Had he corrected himself in this expression, as he did in the other, he might have eas'd himself of some work, excused the Observator from some part of his trouble, and freed Sir Edward Deering from the Descant (as he calls it) of the Observa­tor.

The Historian had affirmed, that the Convocation was impowered to sit still by a new Commission. To this the Observa­tor answereth, ‘no such matter verily; the new Cōmission which he speaks off, gave them no such power; the writ by which they were first called, and made to be a Convocation, gave them power to sit, and by that writ they were to sit as a Convocation, till by another writ proceeding from the same authority, they were dissolved.’ Doth the Pam­phleter deny any part of this? no, he grants it all, and takes great pains to prove himself, a most serious Trifeler; Confessing, that though the Convocati­on were not dissolved, by the dissoluti­of the Parliament, yet that it had so little life in it, as the King thought fit to reani­mate it with a new Commission, Fol. 34. not one word in this impertinent no­thing of above 30 lines, till the close of [Page 164] all ‘where the light-fingered Observator is said to have pocketed up the Break­neck of the businesse, in suppressing what the Lawyers sent along with their opinions;’ viz. that they would advise the Convocation in making Canons to be very sparing. And this, he saith ‘he is informed by a member of that Con­vocation, and one as knowing and 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, [Page 265] 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 [Page 266] and Northamptonshire men, but especially by those of Devonshire, pre­sented Septemb. 16. to the Lords of the Councel, and touched at in the Lord Digbi [...]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. [Page 267] 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 [Page 268] 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 [Page 269] 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 [Page 270] 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 [Page 271] 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 [Page 272] 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 [Page 273] 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 ('tis 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 [Page 274] 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.

[Page 275] 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 [Page 276] 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, [Page 277] 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. Tis 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 [Page 278] 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 [Page 279] 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 [Page 280] 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, [Page 281] 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) to abuse his credulity, and make him pay for false Copies as if true and perfect. We found him in the snare before, when he was fain to rouse up Mr. Prynns Ghost, to help [Page 282] him out of it; and now there is do remedy (for ought that I can see) but to conjure up the silly shaddow of Iohn Brown, that famous Clericus Parliamentorum (as he stiled himself) to give him a cast of his old Office in the present plunge. And yet upon these sorry grounds he builds his triumph, and doth not only reckon this among the Observators mistakes, Fol. 45. but tells him, that in this particular, he is as arrant an Errant as ever was, Fol. 39. If he must needs be an Errant as you please to make him, you will allow him to be a Knight Errant at the least, I pre­sume of that, and then none fitter than our Author to be made his Squire; 'tis pitty that such a Don Quixot should not have his Sancho, especially considering how easily he may fit him, with some I­fland, or other of the Terra incognita, wherein the Vice may spend his wit, and abuse his authority.

Our Author telleth us, that the Bishops, upon consideration of some antient Canons forbidding them to be assistant in causes of blood or death, absented them­selves at the tryal of the Earl of Strafford: in which he more mistakes the matter than I thought he did, or the Observator hath observed. For whereas he conceivs [Page 283] the Bishops to absent themselves, as if they did it by their own voluntary act, of their own accord, in reference to some antient Canons: Certain it is, that they were purposely excluded by the Votes of both Houses, from taking Examinations, and hearing the Depositions of Witnes­ses in the course of that businesse, con­trary to the former practice, and their an­tient rights, long time before this Cause was btought to a publike tryal; and that not in relation to any such Canons, but for fear they might discover some of those secret practices which were to be contrived and hatched against him. Against which Preparations to a finall tryal, or taking the Examinations, or hea­ring the Depositions of Witnesses, or giving counsell in such Cases as they saw occasion; the Council of Toledo saith nothing to their disadvantage; and therefore is pro­duced here by the Pamphleter, to no end at all, but only for the ostentation of his mighty reading. The Canon is, Si quis Sacerdotum discursor in altenis pericu­lis extiter it apud Ecclesiam proprium perdat gradum, that is to say (in our own Au­thors very words) If any Priest shall in­termeadle in cases endangering the life of o­thers, let him be degraded, Fol. 40, 41. [Page 284] Hereupon I conclude against him, that the Bishops were to be admitted to all preparatory examinations in the present businesse, because their Counsell and As­sistance would have tended rather to the preservation, than conduced to the en­dangering of the parties life.

Our Author being told by the Obser­vator, that the paper which contained the names of the Straffordians, was not pasted on the Gates of VVestminster, but on the corner of the wall of Sir VVilliam Brunkards House, makes answer, that the Reports were various, concerning this paper, that some of them agreed with the Observator; and finally that for his part, he had fastned upon another place; not undertaking to warrant the circum­stance, but the thing, Fol. 41. A very saving Declaration, and of great advan­tage, of which if our Author had be­thought himself when he made his Pre­face, it would have served his turn bet­ter and with less exceptions than to ex­empt himself so confidently from sub­stantial falshoods, and as he hopes, (I must be sure not to leave out that) cir­cumstantiall also. Not undertaking to warrant the circumstance but the thing? What a brave medicine have we here, [Page 285] a Panpharmacon fitted for all diseases in his Temporalities, and Localties too. He may now confidently go on, in mista­king not only daies but years, in his Super-semi-annuating, Super-annuating, Subter-trienniating, and Subter-sexenniating (for I must cant to him in his own Language) without all controul. He doth not un­dertake to warrant the circumstance, but the thing. He may misplace battels, feasts, and entertainments, with equal privilege. It is but a matter of Locality, and mere point of circumstance, and tis re­solved, his undertakings extend only to warrant the things themselves, and not the circumstances. How easily might the Observator have excused the Errour a­bout the first Trennium of P. Baro, could he have gotten but a lick on my Authors Gallipot, and helped himself with the same medicine, when his need requi­red.

But this preservative, our Author keeps only to himself, not having so much cha­rity, as to allow any part of it to the Observator, should he mistake only in a day. He makes it one of his mistakes in the generall Catalogne, Fol. 45. that he had erred concerning the protestation, that is to say, for saying the protestation [Page 286] was taken the very same day in which it was framed, before the Members were permitted to go out of the House. Whereas saith he, ‘the Protestation was debated on the 3 day of May, the ordering and framing thereof kept the House all that day, till late at night. So the Journals of that week, which also present us with the Reading, and taking thereof the next day by the whole House.’ Fol. 41. These Journals are an other of our Au­thors helps, but upon examination prove to be only false and imperfect Copies, as hath appeared by our inquiry into some of those which before were cited. But say his Copies what they will, the Ob­servator shall not vary from what he said, nor save himself by declaring his underta­taking, not to warrant circumstances so he had the Thing. The Author of the Book entituled, A Brief and perfect Re­lation of the Answers and Replies of Tho­mas Earl of Strafford, to the Articles ex­hibited against him by the House of Com­mons, &c. a very intelligent person, whosoever he was, and very punctuaal in the circumstances of time and place, doth declare it thus, viz. The House of Commons sate all that day (Monday) till 8 at night, nor were they idle all that time, [Page 287] but brought forth that Protestation, or Bond of Association (as they term it) which is now in print, it was then drawn up, and without further processe or delay, before they came out subscribed by the whole House, except the Lord Digby, and an Unkle or friend of his, pag. 87, 88. If this suffice not as a Countercheck to the Pamphle­ters Journals, let him consult the Prote­station it self, as it was first printed, where he shall find it with this Title, viz. The Protestation taken in the House of Commons, May the 3. 1641. I could adde somewhat of my own knowledge, living then near the place, and taking notice of all businesses from day to day, but that I will not light a Candle in so clear a Sun-shine.

If no consideration could be had of the Observator, in the mistake but of a 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: [Page 288] 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 [Page 289] Primate of Armagh, the Bishops of Dur­ham, Lincoln, and Carl [...]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 re [...]ca [...]ed from a long Imprisonment, and a prose [...]ed ser­vant at that time to the opposite party in both Houses, and with whose [...]requent prevarications, he was well acquainted▪ or that, he would confide any thing in the judgement of Bishop Potter, a man of [Page 290] 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 s [...]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; ei [...]her the diligence or intelligence of ou [Page 291] Author being wanting here, as in many other things besides, though he will by no means ye [...]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 [Page 292] 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 [Page 293] 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 [Page 294] 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 [Page 295] 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 [...]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, [Page 296] 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 a [...]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 pe [...]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 h [...] can find no body else upon whom to Father it, the Calumny (if such it were) [Page 297] 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 [Page 298] 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 [...]inium dili­ge [...]tes, is a good old Rule; but causa patrocinio non bona pejor erit, is a great deal better.

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 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 b [...] 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 Sw [...]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, [Page 300] 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.

[Page 301] 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, h [...] 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 a [...]so takes a hint, of giving us a full Copy of the Dukes [Page 302] 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 o [...]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 [Page 303] 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, cō ­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 [Page 304] 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; [Page 305] 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 purpose of our Author. Now the first paper had these words, as the Pamphleter telleth us, viz. I would have no man commend me for doing it, but rather discommend themselves: for if God had not taken away their hear [...]s for their sins, he had not gone so long unpunished. The second Paper had these words, viz. The man is cowardly base in mine opinion, and deserves neither the fame of a Gentle­man or Souldier, that is unwilling to sacri­fice his life, for the honour of God, his King, and Country. To both these he subscribes his name, and Copies of both these were sent the same day by Captain Harvy to his friends in London, but neither of them do declare, that his only motive to the fact, was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke. The man might possi­bly be set on, and his discontents made use of to this barbarous murder, by some [Page 306] of those who wished well to this Re­monstrance (I deny not that) and it may be believed the rather, because the Pi­ctures of the wretch being cut in brasse, and exposed to sale, were caught up gree­dily by that party, and being the Copies of these Letters were printed in the bot­tom of it, it is more probable that our Author might have them thence, than from the Letters of the Captain; but that he was induced to it by the Remonstrance is more than any man of common sense can collect from those papers; and therefore very ill brought in with so much confidence and ostentation, to prove that positively, which by no Lo­gical Inference can be gathered from them. If ever man were Animal Rationale Risibile, that is to say, a Creature ridiculous for his reasoning, it must needs be this. But certainly, our Author could not possi­bly be so much out, in his rational and dis­cursive faculties, had he not wished well unto the man, and approved the Fact. He had not else accounted it an exploit of glory, or put that glosse upon the mean­ing of the Wretch, that he had stitched those Papers into the lining of his Hat, for fear, lest the Supposition of private re­venge would infame and blemish the glory of [Page 307] the exploit; nor had he told us, that it pleased the Common man too well, and that in vulgar sense, it rather passed for an Ex­ecution of a Malefactor, and an admini­stration of that Justice dispensed from Hea­ved, which they thought was denied on earth, Fol. 91. Never did man so advocate for a willfull murder, or render a whole Na­tion so obnoxious to it, and so guilty of it; there being little difference, if any, between the rejoycing at such facts, when done, and consenting to them; Ci­cero speaking of the Murder of Julius Cae­sar, hath resolved it so, viz. Quid in­terest utrum velim fieri, an gaudeam factum? He that applaudes a Murder acted, rendreth himself an Accessary to it, before the fact. We have not done with Felton yet, for our Author told us that

His bodie was from thence conveyed to Portsmouth, and there hung in chains, but by some stole and conveyed away Gibbet and all. The contrary being proved by the Ob­servator, and the thing too plain to be de­nied, he hath since rectified his History, as to this parricular, not on the credit of the Observator (no, take heed o [...] that) but because told so by his betters. Yet still he must be standing on his justification, and as long as he hath any common Fame, or [Page 308] confident Report (be it never so erroneous) to pretend unto, he conceives that suf­ficient for him, Fol. 14. Upon this ground, the honour of the Countess of Buck­ingham shall be called in question; and an affront falsly reported to be done to publique Justice, shall passe into his Annals as a matter of truth. He could not else instruct Posterity, or the present age, how to defame the honour of La­dies, or commit the like Rapes upon the Law, without fear of impunitie, if ei­ther such superfaetations of Fame (in his Canting Language) should not passe for truths, or otherwise be wondred at as no grounds for History. If no such conse­quent follow on it, we must not thank the History, but the Observations.

In the next place, our Author had told us in his History, ‘That there was an old sculking Statute long since out of use, though not out of force, which enjoyned all Subjects, who had not some special privilege, to appear at the Coro­nation of every King, ad Arma Gerenda, to bear Armes, not to be made Knights as was vulgarly supposed.’ In this pas­sage there are two things chiefly faulted by the Observator; first his reproaching of that Law, by the name of an old Skul­king Statute, which lay not under the [Page 309] Rubbish of Antiquity, but was printed and exposed to open view, and there­fore needed no such progging and bolting out, as is elsewhere spoken of; And 2ly. his Glosse upon it, as if it only signified the hearing of Arms, and not receiving the Order of Knighthood, as had been vulgarly supposed, the contrary whereof was undeniably, and convincingly pro­ved by the Observator. He hath now ful­ly rectified the first expression▪ but seems to stand still upon his last. The first ex­pression rectified thus, viz. By the com­mon Law there was vested in the Kings of this Realm, a power to Summon (by their Writs out of the Chancery) all persons pos­sessing a Knights Fee, and who had no spe­cial privilege to the contrary, to appear at their Coronation, &c. Fol. 115. So then, the antient Common Law, explained and moderated for the ease of the Sub­ject, by the Statute of King Edward 2. is freed from the reproachfull name of an old Skulking Statute; we have got that by it, The Observator being justified in our Authors Pamphlet, for so much of his discourse as concerns that point. And to the rest of that Discourse, proving that all those who were masters of such an estate as the Statute mentioneth, [Page 310] were by the same bound to be made Knights, or to receive the Order of Knight­hood, and not simply to bear Arms, or to receive a Sword and Surcoat out of the Kings wardrobe, as the Author would have had it in his first Edition; he comes up so close, as could be scarce ex­pected from him. For first he telleth us in the Text of his new Edition, that such as appeared at the Coronation, were to receive a sword and Surcoat (he still stands to that) as the Ensignes of Knighthood: and therefore questionless to receive the Order of Knighthood also, if the King so pleased: And 2ly, he confesseth in his Comment on it out of Matthew Paris, that King Henry the 3. fined all the She­riffs of England five Marks a man, for not distraining every one having 15 l. per an­num, to be made Knights, as he had com­manded; adding withall, that he had read of the like Precept of King Edward the First, Fol. 20. So then, the Subjects were not called together to the Corona­tion, ad militiae a [...]ma gerenda, to bear Arms only, but to receive the Order of Knighthood; we have got that too.

But all this while the King is like to get nothing by it, if our Author might be suffered to expound the Law; against [Page 311] 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 [Page 312] 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 [Page 313] 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 Cl [...]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 [Page 314] 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 [Page 315] 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 mo [...]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 [Page 316] 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 Guild­hall, but now acknowledged upon the reading of the Observations, to have been made at Alderman Freemans, Fol. 22. This he hath rectified in part, in the new Edition, and it is but in part neither. For whereas he was told by the Observator, ‘that the entertain­ment which the City gave at that time to the King, was at the House of Al­derman Freeman, then Lord Mayor, situate in Cornhill, near the Royall Ex­change, and the entertainment which the King gave unto the City, by shew­ing them that glorious Masque, was at the Merchant-Tailors Hall in Thread-needle street, on the backside of the Lord Mayors House, an open pas­sage being then made from the one to the other:’ Our Author placeth both of them in the Aldermans house. Thei [...] Majesties saith he, with their train o [...] Court-Grandees, and Gentleman Revel­lers, were solemnly by Alderman Free­man, [Page 317] then Lord Mayor, invited to a most sumptuous▪ Banquet, at his House, where that resplendent shew was iterated and re [...] exhibitted. Hist. Fol. 134. This (by his leave) is but a Tinker-like kind of refor­mation, they mend one hole, and make another, that gallant shew, not being [...]terated and exhibited in the Lord May­ors House, but in the Merchant-Taylors Hall, as more capable of it.

It is an old saying and a true, that it is better coming to the end of a Feast, than the beginning of a Fray. Which not­withstanding, I must needs goe where the Pamphleter drives me, that is to say, to a great and terrible fight near Rostock, which I can find in no place but my Au­thors brains. He tells us in his History, That Tilly condacted a numerous Army of thirty three thousand foot, and seven hun­dred Horse for the relief of Rostock then besieged by the King of Sweden; That the King alarmed herewith drawes out of his Trenches, to entertain him, seventeen thou­sand foot, and six hundred horse; that in conclusion of the battle Tilly was put un­to the worst, and his Army routed; and that finally upon this Victory he imme­diately stormed the Town, and carried it, Hist. Fol. 112. The Observator finding no [Page 317] such rout given to Tilly near Rostock Anno 1630. where our Author pla­ceth it, conceived it might be meant of the battell near Lipsique, Anno 1631. and made his observations accordingly. And upon this he might have rested, had the Pamphleter pleased, who in his introduction to the Feast at Welbeck advertise [...]h ‘that the Observator mentioneth a Battel at Lipsique, spo­ken of before, but where he knows not, only conjectures that he had a good will to take him to task for a misplacing a battel, he supposes at Rostock, but upon better consideration, he found his errour to be his own, and not the Au­thors, and therefore cut out the Leafe containing the 101, 102 pages, wherin his mistake lay, leaving that Paragraph tyed head and heels together’ Fol. 21. Did ever man so lay about him in a matter of nothing, for such is both his fight near Rostock, and this long prattle which he makes of the Observator. For first, the Lease which contained the 101 and 102 pages, was never cut out; 2ly there is no such incoherence in any of the Paragraphs there, as if head and heels were laid together; 3ly. the Leaf which was cut out, contained 107 and 108 pa­ges, and was cut out, not in regard of any [Page 318] thing there spoken of our Authors battel, but the misplacing the train of Captives, and the rear of the trium­phant masque, occasioned by the neg­ligence of the Printers only: 4ly. That, in the leaf containing pages 101, 102. The Author might have found mention of the battell of Lipsique, which he saith he knows not where to find, saying, that he, the Observator, mentioneth a battel at Lipsique spoken of before, but where he knows not, one evident argument, that ei­ther he looked but carelesly after it, or was not very willing to find it.

And to say truth, it had been better for him, to have passed it by, for then he had been only chargeable with some prudent omissions (as we know who was) whereas by speaking in his History of a battel of Rostock, and seeming offended to be taxed for misplacing of it, he layeth him­self open to the assaults of his adversaries. I have consulted diligently, the History of the Sweedish war in Germany till the death of that King, writen in Latin by Cluverut, together with that translated out of Italian by the Earl of Mo [...]mouth, (on whose authority the Pamphleter re­lieth in another place,) but can find no­thing in either of them, either of any such seige or of any such battell, or of any [Page 319] such storming of that Town as my Author speaks of. All that I find concerning Rostock, shall be summed up thus, name­ly, that having sollicited, and practised the people of Rostock to declare for him in that War, he was peaceably received into it; that having left no Garison in it, it was surprized by the Imperials, and strongly fortified; that the King having recovered all the Dukedom of Mecklen­burg, except the Towns of Rostock and Wismer, and not willing to waste time in besieging either, he fortified Anclam, to bridle the Garisons of those Towns, and secure the Country; and finally, that af­ter the great Battel of Lipsique, the Duke of Mecklenburg, and Marshal Tod, a Com­mander in the Swedish Army, laid siege to Rostock and reduced it, the Town not be­ing otherwise stormed than by want of victuals. Next for the engagement of the Armies, I find that Tilly having mustered up his united forces, and finding them to consist of 34000. fighting men, drew thrice toward the King; first as he lay intrenched between Landsperge and Franckford on the Oder, in the Marches of Brandenburg. 2ly, as he lay intrenched near Werben, not far from the Territory of Magdeburg. And 3dly, in his Retreat by Tangermond [Page 321] to his faster Holds: that there was no in­gagement between the Armies at all in the two first times, and only some light Skirmishes in the third, without conside­rable disadvantage unto either side; the Armies never engaging, till the Battel of Lipsique, in which Tilly received that dismal rout, which opened the Kings pas­sage into Franconia and the rest of Germa­ny. Besides which, it is more than cer­tain, that if Tilly had received any such rout, as our Author speaks of, he could not have proceeded, as he did, to the sack of Magdeburg; nor would he King have suffered him to recruit again after such a rout, wherein he had taken 16. Canons, 30 Ensigns, and 32 Cornets of Horse, and scattered the whole Imperial Army, opening thereby a way to relieve that City, which Tilly had besieged for declaring in his Behalf, without any o­ther provocation. So that I must behold this Siege, this Battel, and the s [...]orming the Town upon it, as matters to be found only in the Pamphleters dreams; not o­therwise to be excused, but that our Au­thor writing the History of the reign of King Charles, intends only to justifie such Things and Actions, as have reference to the 16 years whereof he treateth in that Hi­story, [Page 322] and that he neaver meant it of such things as were taken in by the By, as he de­clares himself, Fol. 8. A very Saving De­claration, and of as great advantage to him, as the Parliament Journals, or any of his witnesses, either Dead or Name­lesse.

Our Author had told us in his Histo­ry, that presently on the Discovery of Mr. Atturney Noyes Design, ‘he issued writs to all the Counties in the Realm, re­quiring that every County should for defence of the Kingdom, against a day prefix'd, provide Ships of so many Tun, &c. To this the Observator answereth, That in the first year of the payment of Shipmoney, the Writs were not issued to all the Counties in England, as our Au­thor tells us, but only to the Maritime Counties, &c. and that in the next year, not before, the like writs issued out to all the Counties in England, that is to say, Anno 1636. What saith the Pamphle­ter to this? First he acknowledgeth his error, and hath rectified it in the last E­dition; but adds withall, that the Ob­servator gives him two for one: in saying first, that the Ship writs were directed in the first year to the Mari [...]ime Counties, where­as it was to the Port towns only; and 2ly, in [Page 323] saying that the Ship writs were directed to all the Counties, Anno 1636. where­as saith he, it was 1635. Fol. 25. For the first of these, he offereth no proof but his Ipse dixit, and of what authority that is, we have seen already. He telleth us positively in his Preface, that for mat­ter of Record he hath not consulted the very Originals, but hath conformed himself to Co­pies; and having been so often cozened in the false Copies of Journals and Re­p [...]rts, I can see no armour of proof about him, to keep his credulity from the wounds made by false Records. But 2ly, taking it for true, as perhaps it is, that the first Writs were directed to the Ma­ritime or Port towns, only; yet being the Maritime or Port towns, stand in the Ma­ritime Counties, it is not very much out of the way, to say that the first Writ [...] were directed to the Maritime Counties: Not so much, I am sure, as to say they were directed to the Mediterraneans or Highlanders, in our Authors canting, un­lesse by such a Fictio Juris as our common Lawyers call an action of Trover, a Port Town may be said to be in the Midland Countries. For the second he offereth us some proof, telling us those writs were issued out Anno 1635. as a consequent of [Page 324] the opinion of the Judges in that Novemb. But will the Pamphleter stand to this, will he stand to any thing? If so, then cer­tainly he is gone again. The Opinion delivered by the Judges, was grounded on a letter sent unto them from the King, with the Case inclosed; which letter bears date the 2d. of February in the 12th year of his Majesties reign, Anno 1636. and is so dated by our Author, Fol. 143. Con­sidering therefore that this Letter led the way unto their Opinion, it is impossible to any common apprehension, that the Judges should deliver their Opinions 14 moneths before the letter came to them, that is to say, in the moneth of Novemb. Anno 1635. and this I take to be a Subter or a Super-annuating in his Temporalties, and that too in such things and Actions as relate to the History of King Charles, and not in things extrinsecal, as the Battel of Rostock, or in things taken in on the By, as the Synod of Dort.

But for the ingenuitie of the man, and his equitie too, The Observator had in­formed him of some other mistakes about this business; as first, his making the Earl of Northumberland Admiral of the first years Fleet, whereas it was the Earl of Lindsey; And 2ly, in affirming, that [Page 325] the King upon the Archbishops intreaty, had granted the Clergy an exemption from that general payment, whereas in­ [...] there was no such matter. The first of these he hath rectifyed in the History, and confessed in the Pamphlet; the se­cond he hath rectifyed without any Ac­knowledgement, either of the Observa­tors information, or his own mistake: And finally (so indulgent is he to his own dear self) ranking it amongst the errors ascribed by him to the Obser­vator, for making the first writ to be dire­cted to the Maritime Counties, whereas saith he, it was to the Maritime or Port Towns only, he reckoneth it not amongst his own, in saying that they were dire­cted to all the Counties of the Kingdom, the Mediterraneans and Highlanders a­mongst the rest. Rather than so, Ships shall be sayling on the Mountains, and cast Anchor there, Whales shall be taken up in Cotswold, and Shelfish crawl in shoals on the top of the Chilterne, as they did once in the dayes of Pythagoras, whom our Author hath so often followed in his Ipse dixi [...], that he will credit him in this also; Of which thus the Poet,

—vidi factas ex aequore terras,
[Page 326] Et procul a Pelago Conchae jacuere Ma­rinae
Et vetus inventa est in montibas Anchora summis.

That is to say.

Oft have I seen that Earth, which once I knew
Part of the Sea, so that a man might view
Huge Shels of Fishes on the up-land ground,
And on the Mountains top old Anchors found.

In the Embassage of young Oxenstern to the Court of England, it is said by our Author, that he was denied audience by the King. The contrary affirmed and proved by the Autoplie, (one of our Authors own words) of the Observator, whose curiosity had carried him to be­hold that ceremony. I have heard it for a Rule amongst some good women, that a man ought to believe his own wife, before his own eyes; but I never heard it for a good Rule in Law or History. Not in the Practice of the Law, in which it is a no­ted Maxim, plus valet occulatus testis unus, quam auriti decem, that is to say, that one eye-witnesse speaking to a mat­ter [Page 327] of Fact, is of greater credit than ten that take it up on hear-say. Much lesse in History, the word being anciently deri­ved [...], which signifieth to see, Intimating the relation of such remaka­ble accidents at the performance of which the Author himself was present. Apud veteres enim (saith Isidore in his o­rigines) nemo scribebat Historiam, nisi is qui interfuisset, et ea quae scribenda essent vidisset; And though the customary use of the word, hath now taught it a more ample signification, yet an eye-witnesse in point of story is more to be believed than any of those which take up matter upon trust. Which notwithstanding a­gainst this Ocular observation (as he calls it in another place) of the Observator, he opposeth the Authority of an Italian Author in his History of the wars of Christendom, he confesseth in the Pam­phlet, to be no competent Judge of our af­fairs; and yet because the Earl of Mon­mouth doth translate it so, it can be no o­therwise. How so? because, saith he, that Earl is a person of so much honour and knowledge in this businesse, as he would have given us some Marginal Caveat, had it been so wide of truth as the Observator would make it, Fol. 26. Here is a non sequ [...]tur, [Page 328] with a witnesse: The History of Galiaz­zo, was translated by the Earl of Mon­mouth, Ergo his Testimony taken upon hear-say, to be believed before that of the Observator, though speaking as an eye­witnesse to the thing or thus, The Earl of Monmouth is a 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 [Page 329] 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 entr [...]d the Councel of Scotland, the Lords refuse [...] 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, [...]el­ling us that ‘he went no further than Barwick where being informe [...] that his person was so generaly ha [...]ed as even to the very undoing of his glorious Coach, he dust goe no further, but po [...]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’ [Page 330] ‘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. wch, 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 [Page 331] 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.

[Page 332] The rest that follows in the Pamphlet, confisteth first in an Enumeration of the Observators and his own mistakes, and s [...]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 ca [...]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 [Page 333] 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 circu [...]stan­ces in dispute between us. And that we may the better see it, I shall present him with a Catalogue of those 18 E [...]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.

[Page 334] This is the Pamphleters Bill of Lading, wherewith he fraughts the small Bark of the Observator, consisting more in tale than it doth in weight; his generall muster of mistakes, many of which like Souldiers in a poor Foot Company) are counted over and over again, to increase the Captains pay, and make up his num­bers; His Catalogue, or his Comedy of Errors rather, which [...]ike the Gallypots and Boxes in the shop of a young Apo­thecary, serve onely to make good the Shelves, and create him some credit with the Vulgar. For which, and for how many of which the Observator stands accomptable before God and man, or whether any of them may be charged on his score, or not, is left (like that before) to the Readers Judgement.

In the expostulation there is nothing which requireth an Answer. But a com­plaint against the Observator, for want of Christian, yea Moral principles, in the course and way of his proceedings, with which had he been furnished in any mea­sure or Proportion, he should have hinted these mistakes, either by Conference or by Letter, as fit Considerations for a second Im­pression, and this he doth the rather insist upon, because of those many opportuni­ties [Page 335] which the Observator had of confer­ring with him, meeting together not on­ly a hundred times in the same Shop, but ten times after the Coming out of the Hi­story, and thereupon it is concluded that it was not the information of the Author, but some precious quarrel rather, which was desired, Fol. 44, 45. To Answer first unto the last, the Observator doth protest in his own behalf, that he had no desire or thought of such precious quarrels, as the Author (conscious to himself of his own impatiencies) doth accuse him of, and that he aimed at nothing else in those Observations, than the Illustration of the Story, and Rectifying some mistakes in the course thereof, as the title promiseth. How often they have met in the same shop, I am not able to say, the Observa­tor telling me, that he never changed words with him above thrice, and then took such a scant survey of his Stature, Countenance, and habit, that he might meet him, a hundred times since, as the Author sayes he did in transitu, or inter­mixt with other Company, without taking any notice of him. Nor doth the Obser­tor please himself in these paper quarrels, or would have took the least part of the pains he did, if he had found himself con­cern'd [Page 336] in his own particular, either in point of Fame or Fortunes, but 'tis a good Rule in St. Hierome, In suspitione Haereseos se nolle que [...]quam Fore patientem. And if patience may be counted for a dull stupidity in a mans own Case, when him­self is subjected to the guilt of such Sus­pitions, it may deserve a far worse name, when a whole National Clergy, a Provin­cial Synod, many great men of power and eminent degree, shall be taxed and branded with tendencies to Papery and Arminianism, unpardonable irregularities in their proceedings, vitiousness (even to Scandal) in their lives and Actions, and in [...]eed what not; which may expose them, in this low Estate of their Affairs, to the publique hatred. If in these points and upon these Considerations, the Ob­servator thought himself obliged to right the Church, disabuse the Reader, and lay before the Historians eyes, those ma­ny particulars, in which either his Intelli­gence or diligence failed him, or his judge­ment was not well informed, or that he had been By [...]ssed from the mark of truth by the exeesse and transport of his own Affections, I hope that God himself will pardon, and all good men excuse me in the underta­king. In seconding which undertaking, [Page 337] and justifying all the injured parties, a­gainst the Recriminations of the Pam­phleter, if I have carried my Discourse with too quick a hand, it is my hope, that it will rather be imputed to his own indiscretions, and the frequent provoca­tions given, than to any propensions in my self, to deal ruggedly with him; Medicum severum intemperans aeger facit. The Patients Intemperancy doth many times occasion the Physician to be more severe, than he would be otherwise. For my part, as I came not willingly to this employment, but was necessitated and thrust on by those many Indignities, which both the History and the Pam­phlet had heaped on those, whose memory and good name, is most precious with me; yet I despair not, but that the ho­nest zeal which hath moved me to it, and the great pains I have taken in it, may merit a pardon at the least, if it gain not praise. Hic interim liber professione Pieta­tis, aut laudatns eri., aut saltem excu­satus, in the words of Tacitus. So God blesse us all.


Good Reader,

AS well for thy fuller Satisfacti­on, as for the taking away of all exception from the Pam­phleter, I have thought good, to add some further passages to the Book foregoing: which, without further preamble, I shall here present un­to thee in this Order following.

Addend. ad Page 29. line 25.

—The Dignity of his Function, and the Civilitie of his breeding, with other necessary qualifications required in him, being well considered.

But that I may do that Reverend per­son the greater right, I shall lay down the whole state of the Business, as it pas­sed indeed, and not as taken up by our Author, upon Vulgar Fame, though Vul­gar Fame be one of the best Authors he relyeth upon in the whole Course of his History. One Captain Gunter, as they called him, having purchased the Advowzon of a Benefice, in which one Mr. Brasgirdle was Incumbent, resolved to make some present advantage by it, and to that end Articled against Brasgirdle in the High Commission. Brasgirdle was advised by his Counsel to a Recriminati­o [...], in which he charged Gunter, for swea­ting that he would spit in his face when­soever he met him, and swearing after­ward that he had spit in his Face accor­dingly, as also that the Ordinary or Offici­al meeting with Gunter at a time, when the said Brasgirdle had preached at a General Meeting of the Clergy, took [Page 340] the said Gunter to dinner with him, and placed him at the head of the board, above all the Ministers, where the said Gunter spent the greatest part of the Meal in railing at and against the Prea­cher, to the great scandal and offence of all the Company. And to this Charge or Recrimination the Proofes came so home, that though Gunter did deny the Fact, as to his spitting in the Ministers Face, yet it was proved suf­ficiently, that he had sworn he would and did it, as before is said. The cause being pleaded on both sides, and the Reve­rend Person above aimed at, being then to passe censure on it, he open­ly declared, that he would proceed then, as at other times, secundum allegata & probata, according to the Proofes and Evidences which had been produ­ced, that it had been proved that the Minister had taken the degree of a Ma­ster of Arts, and after of a Batchelor of Divinitie also, and had lived 20. years and upwards, in the place of his present dwelling, without any discredit or re­proach; that there was no Proof made of Gunters being a Captain, and he had reason to believe that he was no Gent. that he was confident no Gent. in England would [Page 341] either spit in the face of a Minister, or find no other way to shift off the shame and punishment, but by telling a lie; and finally that the Official had deserved to be censured, for placing such a Jack-Gentleman as this, above all the Mini­sters at the publique meeting of a Clergy. These were the words then spoken by that Reverend Prelate, of this particu­lar man, and not in any such general terms as our Author hath presented them in both Editions. And for the further proof of this, I shall give these reasons: First, that although he desire not to bla­zon himself; yet he hath too much in him of the blood of the antient Gentry, to lay any such disparagement, or con­tempt upon them: And 2ly. That no such thing was articled or insisted on by the House of Commons in their impeach­ment brought against him. In which Im­peachment, being many months in ham­mering, and liberty given to all manner of persons to inform against him, they would certainly have pitched on this, as a matter of most general concernment to them, if any proof could possibly have been produced to make good the charge. And with this Declaratiō of the true State of the businesse. I hope the Reader will [Page 344] be satisfied, though our Author be not; the Impeachment being printed by an Order of the House of Commons, and easie to be seen by any who desires to see it.

With greater zeal, but with as mis­chievous intention, &c.

Addend. ad Page 36. l. 6.

—as for that Cause Asinius called it. Keckerman, building on some words of Seneca in his book De Ira, placeth the Patavinitie imputed to him in this point alone; and hereunto that of Fabius (an old Latin writer) gives a very good ground, who much commends that lactea ubertas, that milky redundance, or o­verflowing of Style, which he noted in him. But if our Author, (as some of our modern Criticks doe) conceive this Pa­tavinity to consist rather in some phrases, which savoured more of the Paduan than the Roman Idiome, yet neither are they so frequent, nor so much affected, nor of such strange originations, as to give just cause to any but such severe cen­surers as Asinus was to except against him. Small comfort can our Author [Page 343] find from this Patavinity, to justifie that long Catalogue of Ourlandish and new­minted words, which is subjoyned unto the end of the Observations. And for the obsolete words which were found in Sa­lust, &c.

Addend ad Page 236. l. 12.

—The Observator will produce when required of him.

But that I may be free from his impor­tunities at another time, and that I be not chidden now with a quid gaudia no­stra moraris, for delaying his content­ment so much and so presently de­sired, I shall give him both the names and words of some of that par­ty, to justifie all that was said of them by the Observator. And first we will begin with Calvin, the father and foun­der of the Sect, and he tells us thus, Illud toties a Chrysostomo repetitum repudia­ri necesse est, quem trahit volentem trahit; quo insinuat deminum porrecta tantum manu expectare an suo auxilio juva­ri nobis adlubescat. So he in the second of his Institutions, cap. 3. ‘Those words (saith he) so often repeated by Chryso­stom, [Page 344] viz. That God draws none but such as are willing to go, are to be condem­ned. By which he intimates that God expecteth only with an outstretched and ready arm, whether we be willing to accept of his help or not’ In which, though Calvin doth not express clearly that good Fathers meaning, yet he plainly doth shew his own, insinuating that God draws men forcibly and against their own will to his Heavenly Kingdome. Gomarus one of later date, and a chief Stickler in these controversies, comes up more fully to the words and desire of the Pamphle­ter. For putting the question in this manner An gratia haec detur vi irresistibili, id est, effiicaci operatione Dei, ita ut voluntas ejus qui regeneratur, facultatem non habeat illi resistendi, he answereth presently, Credo & profiteor ita esse. ‘The question is whether the grace of God be given in an irresistable manner, that is to say, with such an efficacious operation, that the will of him who is to be regenera­ted, hath not rhe power to make resi­stance; and then the answer follows thus,’ I believe and professe it to be so, So he in his Declaration, Page 20. Peter Martyr, a more moderate man than the most amongst them, in his [Page 345] Common place de libero Arbitrio, hath re­solved it thus. Per absurdum sane est, ut ad immutationem seu regenerationem, ali­quid active conferemus, quandoquidem ne­mo quicquam agit, ad seipsum generandum, Quod si verum est in eis [...]hy sicis atque car­nalibus, quanto magis est dandum in Spi­ritualibus, quae à nostris vi [...]ibus longius distent. It is very absurd (saith he) to think, that we contribute any thing a­ctivly in our Regeneration, considering that we are able to doe nothing towards our Generation; And if it be so in these natu­ral and carnal Acts; how much more must we grant it to be so in Spiritual A­ctions, which are more beyond the reach of our power. The whole body of the Calvinists or Contra-Remonstrants in their Collatio Hagiensis, before mentio­ned, have affirmed as much, ascribing no more unto a man in the work of his own Regeneration, or in the raising of himself from the death of sin to the life of righte­ousnesse, than they ascribe unto him in his Generation, to the life of Nature, or in his Resurrection from the dead to the life eternal. For thus say they, Sicut ad nativitatem suam, nemo de suo quicquam confert, neque ad sui excitationem ex mor­tuis nemo quicquam adfert de suo; Ita eti­am [Page 349] ad conversionem suam nemo homo quic­quam confert, sed est purum putum opus e­jus gratiae Dei in Christo, quae in nobis opera­tur, non tantum potentiam credendi sed etiam fidem ipsum. Put this together, and then tell me whether the rigid sort of Calvini­ans do not hold and teach, that a man is drawn forcibly, and irresistably with the Cords of Grace in the work of conversion, without contributing any thing to, or towards his own Eternity. Nay Dontelock goeth further yet, and is so far from ascribing any thing to man, in order to his own salvation, that he counts all his best en­deavours which tend that way, to be vain and fruitlesse, and to conduce more to his hurt than benefit, before Faith and the Spirit of Regeneration by irresistable operations, (So I under­stand his meaning) are iufused into him. Concludimus omnem zelum, omnem (que) cu­ram quam promovendae saluti suae h [...]mines adhibent, variam & frustraneam esse, ma­gis (que) obesse quam prodesse, ante fidem & Spiritum renovationis. But I am weary with raking in these dead mens Graves, whose Heterodoxies and unsound ex­pressions should (for me) have lien bu­ried in the same Grave with them, if the Pamphleter had not put me to [Page 347] this troublesome and thanklesse of­fice.

But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation, &c.

Addend. ad Pag. 249. l. 3.

—At the time of his Funeral. But whereas the Pamphleter addeth, that of this he hopes he is credibly informed by his (the said Doctor Baroes) own Son, who is still alive: The certain falsity of this, may very well seem to disprove all the rest of the Story. For Doctor Baroes Son died above twenty years since, and therefore is not still alive, nor could our Author consu [...]t with him about it by a saving hope, on which he grounds the credibility of his information. It must be a strong faith, not a saving hope which can raise the dead, though newly gathe­red to their Fathers; and therefore how our Author could receive this credible information from the Son of Baro, without pretending to a greater power of work­ing miracles, than ever was granted to any of the Sons of Men, is beyond my reach. The Pamphleter must find out some other Author for this his credible [Page 348] Information, or else it might remain as a thing incredible, for any proof that he hath brought us. But this is not the first time that our Author hath endeavou­red to raise the dead to bear witness for him, and I think it will not be the last. As for the story of these Articles, &c.

Addend. ad Pag. 298. l. ult.

non bona pejor erit, is a great deal bet­ter.

Tis true indeed, the words of the Doctors Sermon, as it came out yester­day in print (viz. Monday June 16.) seems at first sight, to differ somewhat from the passage before recited, as it was sent to me in writing: But first the Reader is to know, that the Ser­mon comes not to our Hands, as it came from his Mouth, it being con­fessed in the Title, that it hath not only been revized, but enlarged also; of which Enlargements, that of Dodonas Grove may perhaps be one. 2ly. If if be not so, yet the Observator, as well as the Rainger of that Forrest stands charged with this, viz. That the Lord Primate had coined a distinction, between the Kings personal and political Conscience. For [Page 349] having eased his Stomach on the Rainger of the vocal Forrest, upon that occasion, he addeth, that there was a presump [...]uous Observator, who had of late more ridic [...] ­lously and malitiously abused him in it. Out of which Premises it cannot otherwise be concluded, but that the distinction of a personal and political Conscience must be found in the Observations also, and so found there, as to be charged on the Lord Primate by the Observator. And if the Preacher can find this in the Observa­tions, the Observator was too blame, and the Preacher hath made the alteration to a very good purpose. But if it be not so, as indeed it is not, where lieth the ma­lice or ridiculousnesse which the Pulpit rang of? Not in imposing on the Lord Primate the pretended distinction above mentioned; for that hath found ano­ther Father, and was perhaps begotten under some shady Oake in Dodonas Grove, in which the Observator is not so much as verderer, and hardly hunteth in the Pour­lieus; but for conceiving that the L. Pri­mate gave this pretended distinction (for let it be but pretended still I dispute not that) as if the root of it was in revenge for the Earls suppressing the Articles of Ire­land. Serm. Pag. 95. Admit it to be so [Page 350] conceived and said by the Observator, how doth the Preacher goe about to prove the contrary? Why certainly by a most unavoidable Argument, declaring thus; that both are of like falshood, as hath been already apparent in an Answer to him. Ibid. This is just Mulus Mulum fricat (one galled Horse rubbeth another) in the ancient Proverb. The Pamphleter justifieth himself on the Certificate of Do­ctor Bernard and his Brother Pullein; Doctor Bernard justifieth himself on the answer of the learned Pamphleter, which is now before us. The falshood of that one thing which is touched on by the Observator, not being made apparent in the Pamphleters Answer, and to the o­ther thing, the pretended distinction which he wots of, the Pamphleter makes no Answe [...] at all, as finding no ground for it in the Observations. But Bernardus non vidit omnia, as the saying is. And though he be not such an ill-looking fellow as the Observator is made to be by his friend the Pamphleter; yet having lost himself in a Vo [...]al Forrest, he may some­times mistake wood for trees, as well as another; Only I could have wished he had forborn that passage in the close of all, where he relates, That when upon a ru­mour [Page 351] of the Lord Primates death, this businesse of the Earl of Strafford was ob­jected against him; the King with an Oath protested the innocency of the Lord Primate in it; or else that he had given us the name of that person of quality, which was an Earwitnesse to the words, for I can tell him, and will tell him, if he put me to it, that there are persons of another manner of quality than those whom he pretends unto, who heard the contrary from the Kings own mouth, and will not spare to give testimony to the truth in that particular when required of them. But I forbear to presse it further, and could have wished the Preacher had per­mitted me not to say so much. I leave him at this time, with non tali auxilio, &c. and so fare him well.



PAge 8. for Effects read Defects. pag. 18. for impudence r. imprudence. p. 20. for liberty r. belief. p. 29. for office r. of his. p. 34. for seem r. serve. p. 42. l. 16. for one r. none. p. 44. for est r. Et. p. 45. for 1619 r. 1618. p. 68. for Ma­sters place r. Masters Mate. p. 102. for super superannuating r. super sexannuating. Ibid for called r. rather. p. 103. for transitions r. trans­actions. p. 102. for Petitions r. positions before. p. 196. l. 19. del. not. p. 153. for party r. parity. p. 157 for must r. might. p. 162. l. 24. for but r. yet. p. 164. l. 22. for hath r. that it hath. p. 187. for hath pleased r. displeased. p. 191. l. 3. del.) was. p. 192. for sent by r. sent to. p. 211. for 1646. r. 1640. p. 112. l. 1. ad. and they that use it not condemn not those who use it. p. 231. for when it was moved r. when it was signified to him that it would be moved. p. 240. for the walls r. these walls. Ibid. for its r. thought it. p. 250. for a been r. have been. Ibid. l. 26. del. whole. p. 256. for impose r. propose. p. 260. for so many r. no more. p. 300. for was denied r. was not denied, p. 303. for prating and bawling r. progging and bolting.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.