Extraneus Vapulans: OR THE OBSERVATOR RESCUED FROM The violent but vain Assaults OF Hamon L'Estrange, Esq. AND The Backblows 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 Lion, near the little North-door of St. Paul's Church. 1656.   

To the Reader.  
Good 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 Bookseller, who publishing a Discourse of mine, under the title of France painted to the Life, (but publishing it by a false & imperfect Copy) hath fathered it in the Stationer's Hall on one Richard Bignall, a fellow to me utterly unknown. Next, plundered of my good name by Mr. Hamon L' Estrange, the Author 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 own person, and in that of the Observator, to whom I am made the Altar Idem, or the same man with him, with many foul, 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 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 confess 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 Libel, 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 confess withal, that I had been much more amazed at this strange alarm, had I not been prepared beforehand 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 overmuch tenderness, when once he had me on the Anvil; I used some means, to get into my hands, the printed, but unpublished sheets of his first Edition, whereof thou shalt hear more in its proper place. I found there, that the Gentleman had a personal malice, an old grudge against me, and was resolved to make his, History do the drudgery of his own despite; though in the Preface to the Reader, he profess▪ the contrary. I found myself 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 fawn, and to cringe to him, no man more, etc. Evident Arguments, that his quarrel 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 mean 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 shoe did wring him. For finding him to be stiffly principled in the Puritan Tenets, a Semi Presbyterian at the least, in the form of Government, a Non conformist 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 Storm: it being the humour of too many of the Stoical Sect, neither to treat their Opposites, with that Civility which belongs to them, as men, nor with that Charity and meekness which becomes them as Christians. Parcius Andromachen vexavit Achaia victrix, in the Poet's language. Our Historian was not so uncivilly dealt with by the Observator, and he seems 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 compliment, 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 again, as not worth the keeping. What should a poor man do to get a good word from him, if this will not do it?  
Thou mayst perhaps expect, Good Reader, that after so many neglects & provocations, I should cause him to be paid in the same coin 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 Altar Idem, may be thought uncapable; there being some creatures mentioned by Laertius, in the life of Socrates, which are not to be kicked again, kick they never so often. Indignation may sometimes transport him beyond his natural disposition, but never hurry him beyond the bounds of Wit or Manners, which both the Observator and myself are affirmed to want, and therefore sent to school 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 untouched. And as for those which he hath pleased to touch upon, they are but touched, not cured of any of the evils, of which he hath rendered them suspected. The whole body of the Observations, and every 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 methodical, and well-composed discourse, I have not bound myself to the tract and method of the Pamphlet, but digested all the scattered limbs thereof under several heads, to the end thou mayst 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 find 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 means will be brought more punctually and succinctly under thy perusal. Judge thou according to the truth, and God bless thee in it: So wisheth he, who would not with the loss of Truth buy the greatest Victory;  
P. HEYLYN. Lacy's Court in Abingdon, June 7. 1656   

Peter Heylyn Dr. in Divinity, To Hamon L'Estrange, Esq.  
SIR,  
ON Saturday May 17. I received a Pamphlet from you, called The Observator observed, enclosed 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 Strangeness of the Present, and the more than ordinary disrespect in the Superscription, put me upon a sudden perusal 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 Superscription, and 〈…〉 from it in your Pamphlet▪ (where you call it a groundless suspicion, by me professedly disavowed) fol. 25. you make yourself 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 general drift of your discourse, will have it so; and the design will fall to ground, of raising Trophies to yourself, on the promised victory, without this concession. But than it seems, 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 kind of blows, even reproachful 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 testify 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 public 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 find fault with any thing, which had passed your Pen, or to presume to rectify the Story in such particulars, wherein either your intelligence or diligence 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 therefore 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 withdrawn myself from the present action, put out the work 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 battle. 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 aim at.  
Only, I fear, you will be somewhat disappointed of your expectation, and not of your own only, but of that which you have raised in others, by promising a rejoinder, added at the latter ●nd 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 known by their train of followers, than by any other outward bravery. But in this you have made yourself too large a promise, and presume more upon your greatness, than you have just ground for. The rejoinder, whosoever writes it, will not march in the rear 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 less serve as an Apocrypha, to your pure Canonical. We poor Cavies have all somewhat 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 reproachful language, as you stand justly charged withal; not only in the whole course of your Pamphlet, but in much of the History itself, as it was first printed, and intended for the public view A good Cause need not be so managed, though by interdicting all civil addresses to you by the name of Compliment, there be less cost bestowed in Holywater, 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, if you please) and sport himself with greater liberty, than the gravity of a severe Judgement can dispense withal. 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 Poet's words (and I hope it may be said without any of the selfe-deceiving of love or flattery)  
Haec mala sunt, sed tu non meliora facis.  
Lacy's Court in Abingdon, June 7, 1656.   

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

CHAPT. I.  
The Laws of History, 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 Author's intended bitterness against the general government of King. Charles. The Observator is no inveigher against King James. Our Author's smart & unjustifiable censure of King James. The Queen abused by our Author for Bishop Lands indulgence towards the Catholic 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 general, and in particular, the Court-Clergy, and the late Archbishop. The Bishops Neile, Juxton, Williams, Montague, Manwaring, and Wren, etc. The faint Amends made by him unto two of that number; his mischievous intent in an unnecessary Advocating for Bishop Potter.  
THere were two Cautions given anciently to those who undertook the composing of Histories, that is to say, ne quid fals● audeant, ne quid veri non audeant; that they should neither dare to write any thing which was false, nor fear to write any thing which was true. To these Josephus adds 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, etc. for they (saith he) 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 beautify 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 especial 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 aught in forgetfulness. 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 falsehoods (and I conceive no falsehood 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 History. 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 therefore it was well said by Mr. Fuller in his Church-History newly published, that though it be dangerous to follow a Truth too near 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 sweetmeats of Flattery. Lib. 9 fol. 232. The Observator (as it seemeth) was resolved thus also, professing, that as he undertook that business, with a mind free from love or hatred, or any of those other affections, which pre-engagements in a party do possess men with, so he would carry it all along with such impartiality and confidence, as might witness for him that he preferred truth before interess: without respect to fear, self-ends, or any particular relation of what sort soever.  
But my Author, though he will not be thought to love the world so well, as the Observator is said by him to do, yet knoweth he much better how to save his stake, than twenty such Observators, and Church-Historians; and therefore is not only content to enjoy himself in writing nothing but Saving truths, but falls upon the Observator, for writing truths which are not saving. How so? marry saith he, the Title of his Pamphlet, might rather have been form 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 withal detracting from his Kingcraft, and for that sends him to Squire Sanderson to learn wit and manners. Squire Sanderson; with scorn and contempt enough. Squire Sanderson, for aught I know, may be as good a Gentleman as Squire L ' Estrange, there being at this time one Lord, and some Knights of that Family, which is as much as the Historian, or any of his Father's 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 counsel, and conceal the crime, rendering 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 sat 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 Royal, or the Laws could give them; and therefore, 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 King's heels now his back is turned. And why all this? Fol. 19 Marry because the King hath told us, that he did it out of a firm persuasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution in their heights, 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 Sovereign's 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 choice of that which seemed the least, and yet affirms not any where (for aught 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 Cur, that they will be always barking though they cannot bite.  
The other passage charged upon the Observator, is taxing the King and the Lords of the Scotish council for Oversights, great oversights, in not punishing the principal Authors of the tumuls of Edinburgh, 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 shown more judgement in you to confute his reasons, than to fall foul upon his person. Errors in conduct of affairs, and Effects in council 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 always better cheap, which is purchased with the price of another man's 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 accounted, 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 go 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 frailty; 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 crowd, 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 money, 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 persuasion with us, or by the French Kings breaking his faith with them in the demolishing of Fort Lewis, according to the conditions granted at this King's instance, & mediation, adding withal, that he could have no Christian licence 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 less 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 Majesty's Declaration about Lawful sports upon the Sunday, he calls a Sacrilegious 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 amiss 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 easy than to impose upon the incuriosity of the Kings Faith. All this & more than this in the printed, but not published sheets of my Author's History, a History as 'twas intended not so much of, as agaitxsst that King, the grand concernment of his Annals, as the Preface calls him; which renders him a most unfit Censurer of that innocent and modest freedom, which is taken by the Observator, whose observations are entitled, Oblique Descants, not only upon his Narrative, but against King Charles. But it is usual with most men, Omnia sibi remittere, nihil aliis, to condemn that in others which they allow in themselves; not verified so much in any, as my present Author.  
Next for King James, he telleth us 〈◊〉 the Observator, that he falls foul on him inveighing against, and withal detracting from his Kingcraft. 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 ado 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 choose 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 Dudley, and treated the Ear● of Oxford most disagreeably. It seems by this, that even our wisest Kings, may fail sometimes in the Arts of Kingcraft; 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. 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 amiss in their several Governments. Qui ●alterum incusat probri, seipsum intueri opor●et, is a good old Rule, learned by our Author in his Grammar, but forgotten now, he had not else enveighed so much against King James, and detracted also from his Kingcraft, as he after doth, and then accuse the Observator of the selfsame crimes: For hath he not told us in his History, as it is now extant? That in Religious exercises, where the extern Demeanour 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 overstudious in pursuit of Peace, he incurred the note of Pusillanimity, which made the thought of war 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 from their lawful Patrimony; that in the several negotiations of Carlisle, Belfast, Bristol and Weston, he spent so vast sums, 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 Son, were ampliated by a superfetation of causes, yet was their first and main existence, derivative from the grounds which were laid by the Father. Thus also hath he told us, in his printed, but not published 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 pursuit of those Articles 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 Honours, 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 public 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 liberality herself, etc. What call you this my most dear Historian? is not this an inveighing against King James, and a detracting from his Kingcraft? 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 sex, no order or degree of men, no persons of eminent employment 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 Archbishop showed to them of the Romish Faction. The Observator gives two reasons why that Archbishop might afford some favours to the Catholic par●y, the one grounded upon point of State, the other on prudential considerations. But our Author not content with these, he subjoins 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 Archbishop 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 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 Counsel Table, against Mr. Walter Montague, and Sir Toby Matthews, the Queen was almost at the highest of her power and greatness, and therefore had the Archbishop 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 justify 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 Covey, 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 Countess 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 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 public 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 authorising 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 virtue, but the Bishop's 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 persuaded otherwise, as is apparent in the Pamphlet called the Court of King James, Page 130. which I had rather you should look for in the Author, than expect from me.  
On from the Mother to the Son, from the Countess 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 practices and fascinations of Dr. Lamb, he won and preserved the high esteem he possessed in the Affections of both his Sovereigns: 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 Author's mouth) to which excessiuly 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 persuaded the Convocation in Ireland to re●eal, (much against their wills) the System or Body of Articles form 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 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 King's profit, as the advancing of his own estate; Of Mr. Noye the famous Attorney 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 ferreting 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 dissoluteness, abandon Religion as too rigid and supercilious a comptroller 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 Andrea's ab Haberfeild (which make up three whole Sheets of his History) yet he disdains to be beholding to his Author for it, whom he esteems of little credit, saying expressly, that he inserts it, not on the account 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 mildness, they prevailed daily on the affections of such, who little thought such out side Lambs had claws and asperities (so cunningly did they conceal them) far more sharp and terrible than the Prelates had, whereof they gave some years after sensible Demonstration. Our Author cares not much who knoweth it, Tros, Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine habentur, that all men are alike to him when they come before him. A man would think our Author were that John Kinsaider mentioned in the Comedy, called The Return from Parnassus, who lifted up his leg, and pissed against all the world, as it is there said, the Vice in an old English Play, or some Turkish Santo, whose port and privilege it is to snap at every one he meets, and yet no hurt done: But he is neither of all these, no such matter verily. Our Author (he doth not care who knows it) is a Gent. every inch of him, except his tongue; A man at arms, 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 England's Miseries, and their own ruin. The like of the Prelates, that they were many of them notoriously wicked Blasphemers of Gods sacred name, addicted to drunkenness, lasciviousness, & such enormities; some of them also guilty of a turgid swelling Pride, and intolerable insolency, all of them charged with obtruding extravagancies, and erecting an arbitrariness in holy things, as others did in civil, whose actions and proceedings he calls afterwards prelatical whimsies, the Fictions and Chimaeras 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 Errors, and withal vehemently inclined to superstition. But most particularly he telleth us of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that he was of a pragmatical and factious spirit, a bold Assertor of some dangerous and superstitious Tenets, that being by the King's extraordinary goodness 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 Sphere of his both cognisance & calling, ruin'd all. The most reverend Archbishop Neile, he calleth most disgracefully an empty Tub, and fathers that phrase upon King James, who being a very able discerner of men, had questionless never raised him to so many Bishoprics (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 ungrateful person. To Montague and Manwaring Bishops both, the scornful appellation of unworthy wretches. Doctor fuxon the Lord Bishop of London, censured for none of the best Scholars, though he might pass in a throng for one of the worst Bishops; and Bishop Wren condemned of turgid, swelling Pride, and intolerable 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 Frenzy. And though our Author be a high flyer, and loves to fly 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 inferior 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 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 nettled with this Antithesis, this opposition (he means that which was made by the Bishop of Lincoln against placing the Communion Table Altarwise) 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 Goliath have we here stretching himself upon his Tiptoes, and bidding a general defiance to the Host 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, 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, than Pap with anhatchet in those times to the elder Martinists. And though it is to be confessed, that much of this strain stuff 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 inquire) 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, should be kept in the scabbard, and that he was persuaded not to draw it out, though he had only fenced and flourished with it (like a Whiffler in my Lord Mayor's show) to delight the multitude.  
And yet (a blessing on him for it) he would be said thought to write some of them, but leaves them at the last in a worse condition, than 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 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 note 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, entering 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 itself, without that Deleatur which he seems to brag of, it is such a sorry piece of commendation, as the Historian gives us of a noble Roman, of whom he saith, that he, was magis extra vitia quam cum virtutibus, rather not 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 Pontifical ruff, 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 jack-gentleman in England. For, though he doth confess, that his information was not then so good as it hath been since, and hath therefore corrected that expression according to the Observators (for so I think he meaneth by that Authors own Copy) and added Upstart 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 public 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 Upstart Jack-Gentleman in all the Pack, I can see no reason; the dignity, office, function, and the civility 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 Bishop Potter, of whom the Observator telleth us, that his preferment unto the Bishopric of Carlisle, could not get the King any love in the hearts of his people. Our Author hereupon inferreth, Fol. 14. That this must necessarily signify 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 Logic, that the Observators Premises about the Bishop, must necessarily infer any such Conclusion as our Author maketh? he might as well conclude from that passage in the Observator, (and perhaps more truly) that there was something of abominable quality, in the Kings calling in of Montague's book, as in the person and Doctrine of Dr. Potter, which might obstruct the affection of the King's Liege people, both being joined together by the Observator to rove this Aphorism, That it never falls out well with Christian Princes, when they make Religion bend to policy; there being no reason eminently visible why that Doctor (being a Thoroughpaced 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 pass 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 persuasion, so much the more odious and uncharitable, because delivered in the general.  
Thus I have laid together such particular passages as serve best to discover our Author's temper, and the ill spirit which doth guide him in all his Characters and censures; that when it comes either to the Doctor's 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.   

CHAPT. II.  
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 Pamphleteer to the Observator, and the Dr. also. A general view of the five charges laid upon them. The Observator freed from falsifying the Author's Preface, and vindicated in his credit from the Pamphleteers scandals. The Author's 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 fawn 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 fawn. The Author corrupts his own Text, to make it justify his Pamphlet in these four particulars, viz. First in the matter of the King's power. 2ly. In the Jurisdiction of the Vice-admiral. 3ly In the Informations about Arminianism. And 4ly. touching the Repeal of the Articles of the Church of Ireland.  
IT is the Counsel of Josephus, as before is noted, that they who make profession to write Histories, should beautify the same with ornaments of Eloquence, to the end that the Reader may converse therein with the more delectation. Our Author likes this counsel well, but thinks all eloquence to consist in the affectation of new-minted and outlandish 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 justify than reform the error. And first he tells us for himself that being conversant with Author's 〈◊〉 the noblest and chief remark in several languages, not only their Nation● but their very words, especially being 〈◊〉 the most elegant import, became a● length so familiar with him, as when he applied 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 several tongues, and as familiar with their words and phrases, as our Author is, who yet disdain to diaper their style with such in Inckhorn Terms, 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 Author's 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 Sallust, two Historians, lie under the same censure; the first for his Patavinity, as Asinius called it, the other for his obsolete words extracted from Cato de Originibus, as Augustus said. But Sir, the censure under which Livy●ay ●ay was not for affectation of new-minted words extracted from the Tyrian, gallic, or Greek originals; but for the flourishing Verdure of his Style, agreeable in some sort unto the fertility and redundancy of the soil of Milan, his Patavinity, as for that cause Asinius called it. And for the obsolete words which are found in Sallust, 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 Poesy 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 Latins in their Eclogues, or Bucolics, did affect the like. Nor did Spencer, though he lived long after it, endeavour to justify himself, as our Author doth: the affectation of new words never heard before, and of old words, worn out of use by long tract of time, being equally faulty and ridiculous. And though our Author promiseth (twice for failing) to reform this error, yet I see little reformation in the new impression of his History, wherein the greatest part of those new-coined Terms, 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 johnson 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, etc. Fol. 2. Now the Thunder-Thumping Jove transfund his Dotes into the Pericranion of 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 until he hath endoctrinated our Plumbeus Cerebrolities in the adequate sense, 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 we 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) until they were instructed by your learned commentary. Assuredly, but that the Gentleman lieth continually at rack and manger with my Lady philology, and is so conversant with Authors of the noblest remark 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 old word Stylus. It is an Instrument (saith he, pagina 741. of the Book called Micorocosm.) with which they wrote, & was a sharppointed 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 myself obliged to present the Reader with a Catalogue of those scornful names, and reproachful charges, which he hath laid upon the Observator and the Doctor too, that I may show 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; 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 merely verbal, from such as carry with them some charge of consequence, we will only make a general muster of the first, and so pass them over, knowing full well, convitia spreta exolescunt, that obloquys 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 Author's 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, etc. 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 Poet, and a wit every inch of him, Fol. 36. of an ill-looking Fellow, Fol. 36. of as arrant an errand as ever was, Fol. 39 accuseth him of metaphysical whim-whams, Folio 5. of failing and forging foully, Fol. 9 of notorious corrupting and falsifying, Fol. 45. of juggling and supposititious foist, 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 honoureth 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 of their ears 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 foully forged and failed, in leaving out a word in the Author's 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 scandal) 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 Divinity, for so great a Champion of Antiquity against novelty, not in an idle circumstance, but in the grand concernment of a controversy, to forge and falsify 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 enlargement, 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 Author's 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 general, 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 defy,  
And we stand mute, not able to reply.   
First then, it is charged on the Observator, that he hath foully failed and forged, in leaving out a word in the Author's Preface. How so? marry because our Author having expressed himself in these very words, viz. Confident I am, I stand secure against any substantial falsehoods, and I hope against circumstantial 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 substantial falsehoods, but even from cercumstantial also; and this he calls a notorious corrupting and falsifying of his Preface, Fol. 45. With pride and insolence enough, parturiant montes etc. you have showed us the mountain gentle Sir, but pray you Sir where is the mouse? For though you seem to qualify your confidence in standing secure against circumstantial falsehoods, 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 reference 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 signify, & '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. 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 substantial falsehoods, but even from circumstantial 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 immediately upon so gross 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 circumstantial falsehoods, cannot d● it here? Take therefore back unto yourself, 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 labour (that is to say) in nameing any of those men whom he had accused of being vicious even to scandal, in naming himself for one of them. This is good Fish indeed if it were well fried, but who shall have the cooking of it? It must sure be some Cook of the Devils 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 Author's purpose, as all the saving truths which are found in his History. And should that use be made of the Father's maxim, which our Author mak●s of it in this case, any men might ponere Os in coelum, libel Archbishops, Bishops, a whole national Clergy, proclaim them guilty of a viciousness 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 innocence, for fear of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a Felo de se, as our Lawyers 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 doughty 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 vicious 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 viciousness even to scandal, and not be able to name any one (when invited and required to do it) but by the saving inferences of a general maxim, makes him unworthy of any further answer, than what Michael the Archangel gave unto you know whom. And whereas our Author pleadeth after for his justification to this particular, that History is not only, the repository of the virtues of Heroic spirits, but ●he testimony of the vices of bad men; And therefore that he could do no less 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 discharged of that foul reproach, Fol. 2. But we know who it was that said, Do●olosus versatur in generalibns, that fraudulent and deceitful men keep aloof in generals, that being a more saving way to preserve themselves from the danger of a stricter 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 wholly ●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 Cosmography was a work very proper for him, there being none fitter to describe the world, than he who all his life loved the world, none like him. None like him? that were strange indeed; what more Philargurous (one of your fine words dear Sir) and more addicted unto filthy 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 Ecclesiastical 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, only 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 Poet's language; It will b● high time for him to burn his books, & gi● over his studies, to abandon his forme● interess, like a right timeserver, 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 Pamphleteer shall 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 Doctor's 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 renounced my faith? or basely sold  
Salvation, or my Loyalty for Gold?  
Have I some former practice undertook  
By Poison, Shot, sharp Knife, or sharper look  
To kill my King? Have I betrayed the State  
To Fire, or Fury, or some newer Fate?  
If guilty in these kinds 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 business 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 enlargement, but instantly he came creeping and cringing, and crawling, and crouching to him so servilely, as made his Lordship merry with the uncouth sight, and all this to stand his friend, or at least not appear his foe at that time, when that Doctor was in a most sorry plight. A pretty Tale, whether a Winter Tale, or the Tale of a Tub, ●is no matter now, our Author having no ground for it, but a tris●ing hearsay, 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 do, 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 groundless slander. But since he layeth it home to the Observator, and would gladly know of him, whether so or no, partly to satisfy 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 pass 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 leisure serving, and the story fit,  
From the beginning I will open it.   
Know then, that the Doctor having done his service to the King at the opening of his last Parliament, Novemb. 3. An. 1640. retired himself into the Country, that being far off, and out of sight, he might the less 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 satisfy all such as conceived so of him, He went the next morning in his Gown and Tippet into Westminster Hall, showing himself with no less confidence than 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 prebend's were then met together, he gave him in as few words as might be the common civility of a compliment, 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 joined him in a Petition with the Lord Archbishop, 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, 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 testify. The sequel of the whole was this, that though he made his first appearance with all those disadvantages of prejudice and prepossession, which 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 cheerful 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 imprisonment and fine, that reparation should be made him by all those Lords of his Majesty's 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 such other charges and complaints as were come against him. So Mr. Prynne relates the business in the story of his own proceedings, Page 142, and 143. After which time the Doctor never heard more of this business, 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 happened 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 press it further, he would proceed unto the next, which he did accordingly. No sooner was he brought back to his Stall, 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 cheerfully yielded, 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 success of that day's adventure. The same day, as they came from the evening Service, the Bishop sent one of his Gentlemen, to desire the Subdean, Doctor Wilson, and Doctor Heylyn to come to his lodging, to which it was answered openly, and in a full Cloister, 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 public Chapterhouse of the Church, and would there answer any thing he could charge him with, but that he would never shuffle up the business in the Bishop's lodging, or take a private satisfaction for a public Baffle. Scarce had he put off his Church-vestments, 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 public, 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 Doctor's disadvantage; that as he did not court his favours, or expect any thing from him, so neither did he fear his frown, or any further mischief which he could do to him, equal to what he had done already; And finally, that he was more ashamed of the poorness of this prostitution, than at the insolences of the morning, which being the best answer that the Subdean could at that time obtain from him, He threw the Book into the Room, and so went his way. The carriage 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 and cringing, the crawling and crouching which your Pamphlet speaks of? where that servility of carriage which made his Lordship merry at the sight thereof? though possibly as the case then stood, & in that very nick of time when the Bishop might either stand his Friend or appear his Foe, a little cringing in the Doctor had not been scandalous as the Gentleman makes it. Nor did the Doctor only consult his Fame, but he took order to provide for his safety also. And therefore understanding what reports had been spread abroad upon the accident, some saying that the Bishop had interrupted him for preaching against the Scots (some of whose commissioners were then present) others, for preaching in defence of Transubstantiation & others for Arminianism, and I know not what, he gave an account 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 address took so good effect, that Mr. White (though most eagerly bend against the Doctor at his first appearance) did the business for him, reading the whole passage to that Committee, and testified what he saw and noted when he was at the Sermon; and thereupon it was declared by the unanimous voice of all then present, that there was nothing in that passage which did not become an honest man to speak, and a good Christian to hear; and not so only, but that the Bishop was transported beyond his bounds, and failed in his accustomed prudence. And this perhaps both smoothed the way unto the Doctor for his next appearance, where he found better entertainment than he did at the first; and drew the Bishop unto gentler; and more moderate Counsels.  
But to proceed, matters continuing between them in this State till after Candelmas, the Subdean findeth the Doctor! walking in the Common Orchard, persuades 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 troublesome 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 looked upon than a fruitless motion; if from the Bishop, it would require some further time of consideration. Being assured that it came from the Bishop, and that he should not doubt of a fair reception, he took some time to consider of it, and to acquaint some friends therewith, for removing of all such umbrages and misapprehensions, as otherwise that interparlance might have occasioned, which having done, he signified to the Subdean about 2 days after, that he would wait upon his Lordship in the evening following, being Saturday night, when he conceived his Lordship would be most at leisure from the business 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 recoiled again, followed immediately 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 withdraw, and the Doctor left in private with him, where after some previous expostulations on the one side, and honest defences on the other, they came by little and little unto better terms, and at the last into that familiarity and freedom of discourse, as seemed to have no token in it of the old displeasures; the Bishop in conclusion, accompanying the Doctor out of the Gallery, commanding one of his Servants to light him home, and not to leave him till he brought him to his very door. After which time the Doctor never saw him more (except at the Church) till his second commitment to the Tower; whither the Doctor going on some other occasion, resolved to pay unto him the homage of a dutiful 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 committed 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 Doctor's affairs being at that time and ●ong before ●n a good condition, and that Archbishops in as bad as the fury of a popular hatred could expose him to. This is the ●ruth, the whole truth, and nothing but the ●ruth, as to the Doctor's 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 asked (if any shall vouchsafe to read it) for this long but not unnecessary digression, I go 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 falsely lays unto his charge, in falsifying and corrupting the Text of his own History, by soisting many words into it, to make his quarrel with the Observator the more just and rational. For as I have some where read of Calvin, that having first made his Book of Institutions, he did afterwards so translate and expound the Scripture as to make it speak agreeable to the sense and Doctrine which he had published in that Book: so I may very safely say, that our Author having framed his answer to the observations, as much to the disadvantage of the Observator as he possibly could, did after change and alter the very sense of his History, to make it speak agreeable to the words of his Pamphlet; as for example.  
1. The Observator faulted it in the Historian, for saying, that as a man without a female consort, so a King without his supreme Council, was but a half-formed sterile thing, the natural extracts of the one, (for so it followeth in the Author) procreated without a wife, being not more spurious, than the politic descendants 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 politic Descendants 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-admiral had an unquestionoble right of the chief conduct of that enterprise (against the Spaniard) upon the Duke's 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 still to his former error, upon this ground, that many men of wisdom 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 withal, 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 enterprise, to be the opinion of those many men of wisdom 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 confess) of long experience, but of no great wisdom, and such as better understand the Jurisdiction of their Masters-place, than of the Vice-admiral of England, and what such men as these may hold, touching the Powers and privileges of such as have vicarium potestatem, is so inconsiderable, that I shall not trouble myself to insist more on it.  
3ly. The Historian had declared, that for Armianism, the informations were very pregnant, etc. 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 inquiries, 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, etc. and Fol. 98. l. 12, 13. the hazard conceived from Rome, etc. flowed, they said, partly from the uncontrolled publishing of several 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, etc. Here have we dicnnt, ferunt, aiunt, these words they said, no less 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 uncontrolled 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 Cousins, 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 settling in their place the Articles of the Church of Enggland, to which the Pamphleteer replieth, that the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated, though those of England were received and approved by that convocation, Fol. 42. For proof whereof he hath produced a Certificate under the hands of Doctor Barnard, and one Samuel Pullain, whose title and degree I know, and therefore am not to be blamed, if I give none to him. Whether this Superinduction of the Articles of the Church of England amount not to an abrogation of those of Ireland, shall be considered of hereafter in that Chapter which concerns Armianism. Now I shall only tell you this, that whereas our Author had it thus in his first Edition, Fol. 132, viz. that in the Synod assembled in Ireland, the body of Articles form by that Church, Anno 1615. were repealed, and in their places were substituted the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England: Now to conform his text to the former Comment, he hath left out the word repealed in his new Edition, Fol. 137. and tells us a clean contrary story to that before, which shall be looked upon in the place before mentioned, as more proper for it.  
And so I close this Chapter, intended chiefly for the justication of the Observator, and the retorting of some Foist, on the Author's head; withal confuting many of the Pamphleteers Answers, which could not be so well considered of in an other place.   

CHAP. III.  
The affairs of the two Kings considered. Of the impowering or not impowering the Earl of Bristol, by Letters of Proxy. The Proxy 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 Author's nicety between taking Coach to and for Whitehall, and the vanity of it. Some solid Grandeur, contributed to the throne of Kings in their Coronations. His Catholic Majesty how concerned in our Author's scoffs. That heretofore some Kings in Spain have been Crowned and anointed; though of late those ceremonies be disused, and upon what reasons. The Pamphleteers weak defences for our Author's 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 synod 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.  
WE 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 Proxy in the Prince's 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 Highness (the● ready to depart for England) that b● would be pleased to assign in his absence some Proxy to contract with th● Infanta, after a new Dispensation ha● from Rome, to whom the Prince returned answer, that he would empower 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 Proxy, to proceed to the celebration of the Marriage, and calls it An ado 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 Proxy, 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 find 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 Proxy was to be consigned to the King of Spain only, not to him and Don Charles, as the Observator saith; And secondly, that he would gladly know, who this Don Charles was, he being the first Don Charles, as he, or any body else he thought had ever heard of, Ibid. To reply first unto the last, he need not be desirous to know who this Don Charles was, the Observator having told him positively and plainly enough, that he was the King of Spain's Brother; and though the Gentleman pretending to the Spanish Tongue (as his Encuerpoes', and Accollados do most plainly signify) 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 Kingdom, 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 Proxy 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 informed him; if that prove true, I must renounce my knowledge in all other Languages, but my natural English. For in the instrument of the Proxy, it is said expressly, that the Prince, personam nominaturus magnitudini rei, ita praeexcelsae parem, & quae nomine suo, seque ipsum repraesentando, qua per est dignitate, & authoritate actui adeo solenni, henorifico & sumno possit satisfacere, & praedictum 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 unicuique etc. ut praedicto serenissimo Carolo Walliae principe, & ejus nomine, propriamque illius personam referendo, repraesentando, nuptias & matrimonium contrahat etc. cum praedicta serenissima domina Maria Hispaniarum infante etc. Th●se are the very words of the public instrument, which if they do not prove, and prove most undeniably, that the Proxy 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 Latin Tongue, than all men else that ever learned it.  
The next thing faulted in our Author, is, his affirming, that England had ever found the Spaniard a worse friend than Enemy. The contrary whereof being proved by the Observator, the Pamphlet telleth us, that any fair mannered man, would understand the word ever, with reference to the State of Reformation, Fol. 3. and then the meaning must be this, that the Spaniard hath ever been an ill friend to England, that is to say, ever since the time of her Reformation. This was perhaps the Gent. meaning, but we poor men that cannot search into his thoughts, must know his meaning by his gaping, by what he speaks or writes, not by what he thinks: and sure I am, the words can bear no such Grammatical construction as he puts upon them. Nor is his proposition true, with that limitation which he gives us of it; the Spaniards never troubling our proceedings in the Reformation in the reign of King Edward, nor in the first beginnings of Queen Elizabeth (of whose life next under God himself he was the principal preserver) till first by an underhand fomenting, and after by appearing visibly in the broils of the Netherlands, he was in forced to arm against her: reasons of State, and not the interests of Religion, being the motives of the long war which after followed. But he goeth on and telleth us, that the Observator seemeth to confess 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 arms 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 business 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 itself, nor the restitution of the Palatinate, was sincerely intended, but delays merely sought for by the Spaniard to accomplish his perfidious 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 itself, 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 Uncle 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 withal the averseness unto it of the Infanta, as it is high time to seek some means to divert the Treaty, which I would have you find out, and I will make it good whatsoever it be, but in all other things procure the satisfaction of the King of Great Britain, who hath deserved very much, and it shall content me, so that it be not the match.  
This is that letter in the Cabala, to which the Author doth direct us, and refer himself, in which it is to be observed, first, that there is not one word in it touching the Palatinate, that being a point which the Spaniards would not hear of in that long Treaty, and without which the match was finally agreed on, as was plainly shown 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 itself. 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 business, he not only overcame all those difficulties, which had before been interposed, but conquered the averseness of the Lady Infanta, who became afterward extremely affectionate to him. And for the Rupture which ensued, it is most clear and evident, that it proceeded from the English, not from the fraudulency or delays of the Spanish Counsels.  
After this follows 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 averseness of that King from parting with such a special 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 business 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 find not any such thing in the Journals of either of the Houses, with which you seem at other times to be very conversant; and doubtless 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 Catholic Majesty, and could not communicate those counsels with his Houses of Parliament, which he never had. In the course of that business, he was merely passive, forcibly drawn to yield 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 Author's Logic, 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 King's interment, and the new King's marriage is confessed and mended by the Author, but so that he would fain have the first error accounted but a st●p of his pen, Fol. 6. and putteth on some reasons, signifying nothing, to conclude it for him. And for the second error, that about the marriage, he confesseth that he was mistaken. But saith withal, 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 less occasion for it, than was given him now. And we know the Rule in Logic to be very true, viz. non existentium & non apparentium, eadem est ratio, A Demonstration not produced, is as good as none.  
In their Majesty's goings to Whitehall, the Pamphleter still adheres to his first expression, and seemeth displeased, that the Observator should not have so much ordinary capacity, as to discern the difference between the taking Coach to and for Whitehall, Fol. 6. But Sir, a good Historian (amongst which number you would fain count yourself 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 find 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 King's 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 yield himself to be out in any thing, whereof we have had many examples already, and have more to come.  
Of restraining the King's 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 calls 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 Grandeur 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 indicted for their several Felonies and Treasons, committed by them against the peace of those several Kings, their Crowns and dignities, they neither of them crowned at the time of those trials, so that I shall not trouble myself with looking into the case of the Postnati, as to that particular. But yet I cannot yield unto him, that these solemnities confer not so much as a single dram of solid Grandeur to the Throne. For certainly the Kings▪ entry into a Cognizance or stipulation with his people, to govern them according to their several Laws, and their Atturning Subjects to him, or acclaiming him to be their King, in our Author's 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 than he, in threatening 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 Grandeur; and this our Author saw at last, and therefore is compelled by the light of Reason, and the convicting of his judgement (whether by the Observator, or not, shall not now be questioned) to conclude thus with him, that there is something of a solid signification in those serious vanities.  
But then he adds withal, that all Christian Kings are not concerned in it, as is affirmed by the Observator, his Catholic Majesty not being touched in it, because not Crowned. Nor doth this inference hold good by the Rules of Logic, that because his Catholic Majesty is not crowned at all, therefore the Rites of Coronation are not accounted sacred by him, or that he is unconcerned in those scoffs and scorns, 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 Catholic 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 spoke in the case of Marriage between man and woman, viz. Non fuit sic ab initio, that it was not so from the beginning, being true in the Political Marriages of these Kings and Kingdoms. 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 custom being afterwards observed in the following Kings. And though it be believed by some, that this custom 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 withal that Crowning and Anointing, was observed by some Kings in that Continent. Nor was it thus only in Navarre, but in Castille also, Alfonso the third of that name, King of Castille and Leon (fortunate in his wars against his Neighbours) causing himself to be Crowned Emperor 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 Castille (as some writers say) for the Crown of Toledo as a distinct and different Kingdom. The chargeable repetition of which solemn Act in so many Kingdoms, as now and of long time have been united in the persons of the Catholic Kings, may possibly be the reason of the discontinuance of it in these latter days: each Kingdom in that Continent, being apt to think itself 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 Kingdoms.  
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 account (saith our Historian) the Lord Keeper Williams fell, and his place was disposed of to Sir Thomas Coventry. From which what can be possibly concluded by a knowing man, but that the displacing of the Lord Keeper Williams, must fall between the Coronation and the following Parliament? And then our Author will not yield, 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 find no other way to evade the errors of his pen but these silly shifts. And yet Solamen miseris, as the old verse hath it. It is some comfort to him, that the Observator should be out himself, in saying that the Great Seal was taken from him in October, whereas it is said by Mr. Howell, that he departed from the Seal in August, Fol. 8. But what if Mr. Howels intelligence fail him, who though a very honest man pretends not to the Spirit of infallibility, as our Author doth? then certainly the Observator is not out, nor my Author in. But that we may not spend more time in tossing this debate like a Tennis 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 Stows 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 whensoever it was given to Sir Thomas Coventry, it was taken from the Bishop of Lincoln but a day or two before, the news 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 Author's justification? makes it not to his further condemnation rather? Who placeth it after Candlemas, and makes it one of those things in which the King thought fit to prepare himself (the Coronation being ended) for the following Parliament. Never had writer such ill luck, or so little modesty; such ill luck, in calling after any thing which comes in his way, but finding nothing that will keep him up from sinking in his own mistakes; so little modesty, in yielding to no evidence which is brought against him: our Author being like the bold Wrestler, I have somewhere read of, who though he had many falls, and was often foiled, would still persuade the company that he had the better.  
But yet he makes us some amends in the next that follows, Confessing that he was mistaken in making Dr. Laud Bishop of bath and Wells, when he officiated at the Coronation. But then withal, he slights the error, calling it scornfully Grandee nefas, an horrid crime no doubt, Ibid. Not noted by the Observator as a crime, or a horrid crime, but as an error or mistake in his Temporalities; concerning which he saith, and will be bold to say it, in the end of his Preface, that no one thing or action is so mislaid, as to superannuate, and not many to vary from the very day of their prime existence. Not from the very day of their prime existence! that were brave indeed, but braver if it were good in the course of the History. Some variations from the very day of their prime existence, being seen already. We have here a super-semi-annuating (a fine word of our Authors new fashion) in making Doctor Laud Bishop of bath and Wells, seven months 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 until three years after, and if I do not find 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 public triumph; he must take greater pains than 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 business of the Council of Dort, (a subterannuating called 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 Wrestler above mentioned, and will not yield himself foiled, fall he never so often. And first he flieth 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 error 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 less 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 foreign Countries, or look back into former times, must have as great care in the circumstances of time and place (his Temporability and localities in our Author's language) as in relating the ●ansitions and affairs at home, though these h●s principal concernment. But lest this should not serve the turn, he hath a trick to make all sure above all dispute, which is by fathering this mistake on the Committee for Religion, whose report, he there did, or at least intended (he will be sure that his intentions shall not fail him) to complete. But dares he stand to this? dar●s he stand to any thing? no, we find 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 account as himself entitleth 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 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 penman had abused 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 Sepulchers 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 than not find 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: 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 find them acting afterward in the same design, but in several times; King James first setting out the Declaration about lawful sports, and King Charles seconding the same by a more strict command, to have it punctually observed throughout the Kingdom. Which giving the occasion to some observations, and those Observations occasioning a sharp and uncivil Answer in our Author's Pamphlet; I shall here take another leap to fetch in those Controversies before we do proceed to the examination of the rest that follows: though the Debates touching the spreading of Arminianism, and the supposed growth of Popery, according to the course of time, and the method of our Author's 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 Author telleth us in his printed but unpublished sheets, that he was by Birthright Duke of York; but to avoid the Scylla of that mistake, he falls into the Charybdis of another as bad, telling us in that leaf new printed, (but not new printed only, if at all, on that occasion) that he was after styled Duke of York. For which, being reprehended by the Observator, as one that did accommodate his Style to the present times, the Gent. seemeth much distressed, and in the agony of those distresses, asks these following questions: 1. How it is possible to escape the Observators lash? 2. What shall an honest Historian do in such a case? Fol. 25. In these two doubts I shall resolve him, and resolve him briefly, letting him know, that an honest Historian should have said, he was after created Duke of York, and not styled so only: And 2. That if our Author showed himself an honest Historian, the Observator hath no lash for him, and so it will be possible enough to scape it. Which said, we shall go on to that grand concernment, in which our Author spends his passions to so little purpose.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Pamphleteers mistake, in making discontinuance equal 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 Author's 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 Pamphleteers argument from the Book of Homilies; the full scope and Analysis of the Homily, as to this particular. The Pamphleteers great brag of all learned men on his side, reduced to one, and that one worth nothing. The Book of Catechestical Doctrine ascribed to Bishop Andrew's, neither of his writing, nor approved of by him. Our Author's 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 Commandment. (2) That the Lords Day hath no other ground on which to stand, than 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 showeth himself a stiff Sabbatarian, taking his rise from the King's Declaration about Lawful sports, first published by King James at Greenwich, May, 24. anno 1618. and by King Charles at Westminster, Octob. 18. anno 1633. when published first, it raised so many impetuous clamours, as our Author told us in his first, that the Book was soon after called in; in which being otherwise informed by the Observator, and so far satisfied in the point that the Book never was called in, though the execution of it (by the remissness of that King's 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 tacit 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 Laws against Priests and Jesuits are at the present, or have been formerly suppressed, and tacitly called in, because by the clemency of King James, the prudence of King Charles, and the temper of the present Government, there was and is a discontinuance of such Executions, as only are to be commended, when they may not, then when they may possibly be spared. What the occasion was in publishing of this Declaration, the Observator tells at large from the Books themselves. But H. B. in his seditious Sermon (most undeservedly) entitled, For God and the King, gives another reason for the publishing of it by King James, which, being not pertinent to my business 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 Press, 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 veil to such impiety, as to promote the work; and for the not promoting of it to compel them to desert their Stations, and abandon their livings, in which their very vitality and livelihood consisted, Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably, or untruly said. This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon, to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit; so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict, a maculating of his own honour, and a sacrilegious robbing of God. All which, though afterwards left out, declare his willingness 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 jeer 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 Country too, not known in England till the year 1595. etc. The Observator said it then, I shall prove it now, and having proved it in the Thesis, or proposition, will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it. And first it is to be observed, that this new Divinity of the Lords day was unknown to those, who suffered for Religion, and the testimony of a good conscience, under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth (who suffered in the year 1533) in a tract by him written about Baptism. Our forefathers, 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, etc. 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 King's 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 Monday, 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 Jews: neither need we any▪ holy day at all, if the people might be taught without it. The same Doctrine publicly defended in the writings of Bishop Hooper, advanced to the Mitre by King Edward, and by Queen Mary to the Crown, the crown o● Martyrdom, in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandments, anno 1550. who resolves it thus: We may not think (saith he) that God gave any more holiness to the Sabbath, then to the other days. For if ye consider, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, in as much as they be days, and the work of God, the one is no more holy than the other, but that day is always most holy, in the which we most apply and give ourselves 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 days wholly alike, the Sunday no otherwise then the rest.  
As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs, so was it also to those Prelates, and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward, or afterwards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth, anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holidays; no more divine offices performed, or diligent attendance required by the old Laws 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 towards this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation, Protestant▪ Papist, Puritan, of what sort soever, till broached by Dr. Bound, anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator.  
But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author, from the mouth of another, then from that of the ignorant Observator, I would desire him to consult the new Church History, writ by a man more suitable 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 called 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 Commandment 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 ourselves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lord's day, as the Jews were upon their Sabbath, it being one of the moral Commandments where all are of equal authority. lib. 9 sect. 20. After this, he goeth on to tell us, how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines; some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, now seasonably revived for the increase of piety; others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom, 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 men's 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 days, 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 finally, that the Book was afterwards called in and commanded to be 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 Pamphleteers arguments not more remarkable for their paucity, than they are for their weakness. 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 Lord's day (in a Metaphorical and figurative sense) the name of Sabbath, Ergo, which is in English, therefore, it must be kept with all the rigours and severities which were required unto the observation of the Sabbath by the Law of Moses: or therefore, which is in Latin Ergo, there is as much divinity in the Lord's 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 days 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 Logic that there is a Divinity in all the holidays of the Church; because all grounded on, and warranted by the fourth commandment, 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 allegeth, 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, as he hath done (or endeavours to do at least) for the Divinity of the Lords days Sabbath. If none in these, and I conceive our Author will not say there is, though grounded on the warrant of the fourth Commandment, let him not dream of any such Divinity in the Lord's day, because now kept by virtue 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, than 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 certainly 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 Pamphleter hath put upon him. Assuredly unless the Pamphleter had been bribed to betray the cause, and justify the Observator, he would have passed over the debating of this new Divinity, or else found more than one man in the space of 36 years (so long it was from the first of Queen Elizabeth to the coming out of Bounds Book) to have spoken for him; and such a man, as had not showed himself so professed an enemy to the newness 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 find from the book of Homilies, of which he saith, that there was not any thing more especially taught in them, than the Divinity of the Lords day. This he affirms, but they that look into that Book, will find many points more specially taught, and more throughly pressed, than this Divinity he talketh of; witness 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 forth) 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 such a divine institution of the Lords day, as our Author would fain put upon it: first than we must have some express 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 commandment 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 Jews 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 etc. And thirdly, it is said in the same Homily, that by this commandment we ought to have a time, as one day in the week, wherein we ought to rest, yea from our lawful and needful works, etc. Which passages being laid together, will amount to this, first that the Homily doth not say that by the fourth Commandment we ought to have one day in the week, which 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 itself, and so esteemed of by the Christians in the Primitive times, they thought it good, immediately after Christ's ascension, 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 commandment, 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 Homily 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 Jews, so the godly Christian people after Christ's Ascension, following 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 Jews 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 rendered, 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 prodigy 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 Ministry, 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 us, that there is not a man of note, who treateth of the 4. Commandment (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 wondered at to be called a prodigy. Fol. 23. But the reply to this will be very easy. For first, all the men of note which write upon the 4. Commandment, all learned men (our Author too into the bargain) are no fit balance for S. Paul, nor able to counterpoise the express 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 Commandment, 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 by any of relation or nearness to him, therefore to undeceive so many, as shall read these papers, they may please to know, that in the year 1583. Mr. Andrew's 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 Colleges in that University, and some out of the Country 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 Catechising, 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 command to search and sort his papers could not find 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, than 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 eminent 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 signify 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, falls 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 than nothing.  
But the Pamphleter may be pardoned for coming short in this present project, 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 cried so loud, that it entitled our Author (the dear Father of it) to any Estate of Reputation for term of life, as Tenant by the courtesy 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 stillborn, 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 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 Precaution) but for other reasons. For first the year 1640. was a busy 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 audaciousness thereby prompted unto several 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 fruitless 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 of you, as you say the Observator had, who did therefore (if you judge aright of his intentions) profess 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 combat, 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 controversy with spite 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 withal, in vindication whereof, he never attempted any thing as yet, Fol. 24. This I confess is grave crimen, & ante hoc tempus inaudi●um, a grievous c●ime, the like to which was never charged upon him by his greatest enemies. In answer whereunto, I must tell you for him that being plundered 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 always thought, that Tenure in capite, was a nobler and more honourable tenure, then to hold by Copy, and therefore carelessly 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 rendered him considerable, and made more noise than all the Geese in the Capitol to the awakening of the dull Doctor, and the drowsy Clergy: or if he thought this task too great, and the burden too heavy for his shoulders; why did he let these falsifyings and forgings sl●p 20 years together, and never call to an account 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 than doubts, it was not willingly and wilfully committed by him, and therefore not within the compass 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 than 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 withal 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 follows, and so submit the whole controversy to his better judgement. This only is to be premised, that the 5. section shows, that the Reformators found great fault, both with the new Doctrine of the Papist, about the natural and inherent holiness, which they ascribe to some days above the rest, and the restraints from Labour on the Lords day and the other holy days; 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 itself; 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 Commandment, or to be reckoned as a part of the Law of Nature. 2. That the Lords day is not founded on divine Commandment, 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 remembered, and the new Doctrine thence arising, about the natural and inherent holiness, 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 Commandment. This Calvin (Instit. l. 2. c. 8. 11. 34.) chargeth them withal, that they had taught the people in the former times, that whatsoever was ceremonial in the fourth Commandment, which was the keeping of the Jews 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 Jews to change the day; and to affix as great a sanctity thereunto, as the Jews 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 mind, and speak of keeping holy one day in seven, as a matter necessary; (which some say he doth) either they must accuse him of much inconstancy, and forgetfulness; or else interpret him, with Rivet (In Decalog.) as speaking of an Ecclesiastical custom, not to be neglected; non de necessitate legis divinae; and not of any obligation laid 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 expressly, 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 God's public 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 always, that was not necessary in the Church of Christ. So also Francisc. Gomarus, 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 Commandment, one day in seven is of necessity to be dedicated to God's service. And Rivet as professed 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 merely positive, as in our first part we observed; but lays it down for the received opinion of most of the reformed Divines, Vnum 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, opinion necessitatis in Novo Testamento, etc. That men are neither bound, nor aught to be, unto the observation of any days 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 Commandment, or parcel of the Law of Nature. As for the subtle shift of Amesius (Medulla. 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 itself; 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 show in these latter times. But he had learned 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 Commandment, 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 tells 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 public 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 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, etc. (in Gen. 2.) That this was rather chose then that, for God's public 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 joined together, as being sent for into England in King Edward's 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 selfsame 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 Gualther, 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 Saviour's Resurrection, the Church set apart this day, in the Sabbaths stead, whereon 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. Gualther (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, than not enjoined by the Apostles. Yea Beza, though herein he differ from his Master Calvin, and makes the Lord's 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 commandment. And more than that, he tells us in another place (in Act 20.) that from St. Paul's preaching at Troas, and from the Text, 1 Cor. 16. 2. Non inepte colligi, it may be gathered not unfitly, that then the Christians were accustomed to meet that day; the ceremony of the Jewish Sabbath, beginning by degrees to vanish. But sure the custom of the people makes no divine traditions; and such conclusions, as not unfitly may be gathered from the Text, are not Text itself. Others there be, who attribute the changing of the day to the Apostles; not to their precept, but their practice. 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 custom; yet he is peremptory, that the Apostles gave no such commandment: Apostolos praeceptum reliquisse, constanter negamus. S. Simler (de Festis Chr. p. 24) calls it only consuetudinem tempore Apostolorum rec●ptam: a custom taken up in the Apostles time. And so Hospinian, Although, saith he, it be apparent, 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 find 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. precept.) Nullibi legimus Apostolos, etc. 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 Church's power. To those add Vrsin 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 Saviour's 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 remembered, have determined further, viz. That in the choosing of this day, the Church did exercise as well her wisdom, as her freedom: her freedom being not obliged to any day, by the Law of God: her wisdom, Ne majori mutatione Judaeos offenderet; that by so small an alteration, she might the less offend the Jews, 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 days for the assembly of the people: which is plain confession. But for particulars; Brentius, as Dr. Prideaux tells us, calls it Civilem institutionem, a civil institutionem, and no Commandment of the Gospel: which is no more indeed than 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 tells us, that the Apostles did not impose the keeping of this day as necessary upon the consciences of God's people, by any Law or Precept whatsoever: sed libera fuit observatio ordinis gratia; but that for order's 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 several Churches, eighteen by name, and all the Lutherans in general, of the same opinion; That the Lords day is of no other institution than 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 itself, on the former grounds: the Protestant Doctors before remembered, in saying that the Church did institute the Lord's day, as we see they do; confessing tacitly, that still the Church hath power to change it. Nor do they tacitly confess it, as if they were afraid to speak it out: but some of them in plain terms affirm it, as a certain truth. Zuinglius, the first reformer of the Swissers, hath resolved it so, in his discourse against one Valentine Gentilis, a new Arrian Heretic (Tom. 1. p. 254. a.) Audi mi Valentine, quibus modis & rationibus, Sabbatum Ceremoniale reddatur. Harken now Valentine, by what ways and means the Sabbath may be made a Ceremony: if either we observe that day which the Jews once did, or think the Lords day so affixed to any time, ut nefas sit illum in aliud tempus transfer: that we conceive it an impiety, it should be changed unto another; on which, 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 than 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 affirms as much, as touching the Authority: And so doth Bullinger, and Brentius, Vrsine 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 tied to days and times, in matters which concern God's service; and that the Apostles made it manifest by their example, Singulis diebus, vel quocunque die: That every day, or any day, may by the Church be set apart for Religious Exercises. And as for Vrsine, he makes this difference between the Lord's day and the Sabbath (Catech. qu. 103. 2.) That it was utterly unlawful to the Jews, either to neglect or change the Sabbath, without express 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 God's public service; so that our Christian liberty be not thereby infringed, or any opinion of necessity or holiness affixed 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 add 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 Quicunque alius, Sunday, or Saturday, or any other, be it one in seven. (Som. 17. post Trinit.) And so Hospinian is persuaded: Dominicum diem mutare, & in alium transferre licet, etc. That if the 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 public prayers, Preaching the Word, and Ministering 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 days 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 days, which the Church retained. This was the fancy or the frenzy 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 falsify 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 finds 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. finds 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 search of all Editions, then lay so soul a charge upon him in so great a controversy. 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. Commandment. 2. That the Lords day hath no other ground on which to stand, than 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 Doctor's eyes and leisure will not serve to do it, 'tis ten to one but I will find some friend or other that shall kick you an Answer.   

CHAP. V.  
Our Author's opinion touching the Divine right of Episcopacy; and his intention doubted in it. Bishops and Presbyters not always 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 rendered Ministers. The like acceptions of the word in other places. Proofs that the Author speaks 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 rendered 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 his Testimony in behalf of Episcopacy was not produced by the Observator. The Pamphleteers rage, for being said to make Episcopacy but a thing of indifferency; That so he must be understood proved from the History itself, 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 lawful Sports, satisfied the objections of the Pamphleter, and cleared the Dr. from the forgings and falsifyings, so maliciously imputed to him; and therewithal laid down the true state of the Controversy, touching the Lord's 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 fundamental. That there was a Prelacy or Superiority, 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. utinam sic semper errasset, would he had never erred otherwise, than he doth in this. Only I could have wished, that for the better clearing of his own intentions, and satisfaction unto others, he had expressed himself more fully as to this particular, viz. whether the Superiority of such persons over such Presbyters in the Church Apostolic, was fixed in them during life; or that passed from one to another in their several turns like the Moderatorship, in the general Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, or the Chairman, in the Conferences, and debates of Council 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, than 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 movable Presidency to be not unusual, 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 mind 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 myself 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 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 Ancient writers, and not appliable to the Presbyters or inferior Ministers. For proof whereof, I shall offer some few considerations, out of the Text itself, 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 inferior Ministers in the Plural. 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, etc. 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, 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 Layman entertain but two or three, Hospitalitatis officium implebit, he hath exceeding well complied with all the Rules of Hospitality; Episcopus nist omnes receperit, inhumanus est, but that the B●shop is accounted a Churl or Niggard, if his House be not open unto all. Which howsoever it might possibly agree in those ancient times to the Condition of a Bishop, who had the keeping and disposing of the Church's 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 lengthening and increasing the poor woman's oil. Fourthly and lastly, it is required by Saint Paul, that his Bishop must not be neophytus', a novice, as our English reads it, and exceeding rightly; that is, as Chrysostom, and out of him Theophylact expound the word: one newly Catechised 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 graft a Bishop; yet I can hardly find a possibility of furnishing the Garden of the Church, with a fit number of Presbyters, unless we take them from the Nursery.  
It than 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 rendered Deacons: yet in our old translation, and in that of Coverdale, we read it Ministers, according to the general 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 inferior to the Bishop. Not forced, for if we search the Scriptures, we shall there perceive, that generally Diaconus is rendered Ministers, and that not only in the Gospel, before that Deacons had been instituted in the Church of God; but also in St. Paul's 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 entitled, Col. 1. 7, etc. 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. Paul's 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 inferior Ministers under their authority. Not to say any thing of the Subscription of the Epistle to Titus, and the 2. to Timothy; 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 authentic. Next that the word Presbyter is used sometimes in the same strict, and limited sense, as it denotes a person inferior to the Bishop, and subject unto his authority and 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, etc. 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 Devil's 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 be very cautious in their proceedings against men of that Profession. But if they find them guilty on examination, than 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, etc. 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 publicly, 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 ascribed to Jerome. Presbyters than 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 standing. And in this limited sense, I understand those Presbyters ordained by St. Paul in many of the Churches of his Plantations, whom we find 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, etc. but had proved it too. For thus be understands the word in another place, where speaking of the Bishop of Lincoln, he telleth us that he published a Book, asserting positively, that the holy Table was to stand in Gremio or Nave of the Choir, fol. 137. By which if he means only a bare affirming of the thing, it than signifies nothing, and concludes as little to his purpose. For the word Assero (if he be critic 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, meque assere Coele.  
That is to say, 
But if I be descended from above,  
By some known sign, 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 expressly that the truth contended for, touching 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, than the reservedness of your last expressions, which in your Pamphlet you have given us for your full sense in this Controversy, enough (you say) to satisfy 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 shows 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 Ox 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 affronted 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 lays a greater prejudice upon them, than you found them in; your quarrels with the Observator, for disproving the Identity or sameness of Name, of Ordination, of Office, etc. 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 laid together, make up a clearer and fuller evidence, that you are but half Episcopal, and the worst half too, than all the fine flourishes you have given us in the present Pamphlet can persuade to the contrary.  
Your next quarrel with the Observator, is a mere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a strife and quarrel about words, because forsooth he doth not like that the word Presbyter, when it signifieth one in Holy Orders, should be rendered Elder. To which the Pamphleter objects, that all Latin 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 Latin, a man as learned I believe, as any of those whom you have consulted in the point? Yet he translateth not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (when it is used to signify a man in Orders) by that of Senior, but by that of Presbyter; as, Et cum constituissent illis per singulas ecclesias Presbyteros, etc. Act. 14. 23. qui be●e praesunt Presbyteri, etc. 1 Tim. 5. 17. Adversus Presbyterum accusationem noli admittere, 5. 19 as on the other side, when the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used to signify a man in years, and not in orders, he rendereth 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 Latins did, which in short time would have been as familiar to an English ear (in the Ecclesiastical notion of it) as those of Bishop or of Deacon, being both of them Greek of the same Original, 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 find any one who ever interpreted Senior by Priest, fol. 35. But Gentle Sir, the Observator never told you that it was so rendered; 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 find in him, that the ancients 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 criticisms, than you do in this, your best way were to keep yourself 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 mind, 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 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 public acknowledgement of his error and offence given unto the Church, in publishing a Book entitled The History of Tithes, it sunk so deep into his stomach, that he did never after affect the men, or cordially approve the calling, though many ways were tried to gain him to the Church's interest.  
The Pamphleteers quarrels against Churchmen (perhaps as good a man as himself, or, I am sure, as true) I shall defer unto a time and place more proper; keeping myself here to those he hath with the Observator. And the next quarrel is, that he finds 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 can add nothing to him. But Sir, if you will look but with half an eye on the Observations, you will find 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 ways interessed (but only by their good affections) in the Church's quarrels. According to which choice, he could not make use of that Royal pen, which gave the death's wound to Henderson in the town of Newcastle, and foiled 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 Regal Throne. No Bishop, no King, the known old maxim of King James, in the sad events thereof, hath been found Prophetical. And therefore if the Observator had produced his testimony, the Pamphleter might have objected (as perhaps he would) that the King's judgement was corrupted by Partiality, and swayed with interess, which rendered him no fit witness in the present Trial.  
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 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 quarrel, or on that occasion? His Majesty in all his messages, and declarations, professed solemnly, that he was forced to take up Arms to preserve himself: His Forts, Castles, Royal Navy, and the Militia of the Kingdom, being taken from him. His Negative voice denied, his Magazine at Hull employed against him, his faithful Servants threatened under the name of evil 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 falls, then 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 History, called the Bishop's wars, and he hath laid some grounds here, to have the long wars raised in England, called by that name also, the Bishop's 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 aggrieved that the Clergy should bind 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, than Tully against Catiline in the open Senate, crying in these great words, Quousque abuteris patientia nostra, how doth this Observator provoke us? Assuredly the Gentleman is extremely moved; his patience much off the hinges, & Patientia laesa fit furor, as the saying is. One cannot tell what hurt or mischief he may do us now he is in this rage and fury, and therefore 
Peace for the Lords sake, Harry, lest he take us,  
And drag us back, as Hercules did Cacus.   
'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, etc. 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 General Assembly of Scotland, and by their example framed the Oath as an Anticovenant. This is the substance of the Preamble to those objections, but that I would not stir the man's patience too much, I had called them Cavils, which our Author makes against that Oath, that some things were expressly to be sworn to which were never thought to have any show or colour of sacred right, but were conceived Arbitrary, and at the disposition of the State; and to exact an Oath of dissent from Civil 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 expressly pointed at, and the discourse driving at the Government of the Church by Bishops; who can conceive but that his Argument or Objection must tend that way also, and that Episcopacy must be reckoned in the number of those things of indifferency for which there was no reason to require the Oath? And though the Pamphleter would fain have it that Episcopacy is not in those things of indifferency, but excluded rather, yet this will do him as small service, as the Press when it was said to have swarmed with Books, had done the Bishops. For first he doth not say that Episcopacy was not pointed at, at all, in those things of indifferency, but not signanter and expressly; our Author keeping a reserve, or secret intention to himself, upon all occasions. Nor doth it help him, secondly, to say, that the things there spoken of are such, as never had any show or colour of sacred right, whereas Episcopacy in the very account of its adversaries, hath some colour and show of it, fol. 39 Where first, he pleadeth but very coldly for Episcopacy in giving it only some show and colour which all Heresies, enthusiastics, and Fanatical fancies, all that have set up any other Government, Papal, anarchical, Presbyterian, do pretend unto. And secondly, it is not true, hath any such colour or show 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 Diabolical institution in the last times of the Church; and therefore questionless without any show 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 Northamptonshire and Kent Exceptions limit themselves to Archbishops, Arch-deacons, etc. 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 general terms as he should think to help himself in the Postfact by their limitations. 'tis true, the History rendereth 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 Signior Sophister (as you please to call the Obfervator) who could have pressed these answers further, but that the Gentleman's patience must not be abused, nor himself provoked. We must take care of that, though of nothing else. And so much for ou● Author's flutterings in the point of Episcopacy; we will next see, whether the persons be as precious with him, as the calling is.   

CHAP. VI  
The light excuse made by the Pamphleter for our Author in pretermitting Bishop Bancroft: not bettered much in showing the differences, between the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvin. Our Author's learned ignorance in the word Quorum. The Observator cleared from foisting any thing into the Text of the History; with our Authors blundering 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 Andrew's by the Observator. Of Doctor Sibthorps' Sermon, and whether the Archbishop were sequestered from his Jurisdiction for refusing to licence it. The Pamphleteers nice distinction between most and many, in the repairing of St. Paul's, and that these many did keep off in reference to the work itself. The war against the Scots not to be called the Bishop's war; not undertaken by the King in defence of their Hierarchy, nor occasioned by Archbishop Laud. The Scots Rebellion grounded upon some words of the King touching Abby-Lands in the beginning of his reign; hammered and form, and almost ready to break out before the Liturgy was sent to them. The Archbishop neither the principal nor sole Agent in revising that Liturgy. Good counsels not to be measured by success. On what grounds the Liturgy 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 King's Declaration, anno 1633. The Pamphleteers Ipse dixit no sufficient ground for his London measure. Our Author satisfied in placing the Communion Table Altarwise, and adoration toward the East; the liberty granted by the Church in the last particular. The Bishops charged with the undiscreet practice 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 Pamphleteers etc. Our Author miserably out in the meaning of the Statute 1. Eliz. c. 2. That Statute opened and expounded, in the case alleged. 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 Bishop's anno 1628. because inquired into in Bishop Wrens visitation anno 1636. The Pamphleter confuted by our Author, and our Author's Panegyric by himself. The Clergy freed from Doctrinal Popery by our Author himself. The scandal since given unto the Church by Bishop Goodman.  
FRom Episcopacy pass 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 yield to that) but a lapse of memory, Fol. 35. A privilege which if all other writers of History should pretend unto as frequently as our Author doth, we should find little truth among them, and not much assurance of any thing upon which to rest: This not being the first time in which our Author hath been forced to use this remedy, as in these words (as is beforesaid) is here acknowledged. We had the same excuse before in the mistake about Marriage of the one King, and Funeral of the other, as also in that Hysteron proteron in placing the Synod of Dort before that of Ireland; so that by this time this defence must needs be worn as thread bare as the Observators coat, Fol. 37.  
Of Dr. Abbot, the immediate predecessor to Archbishop Laud, the Historian telleth us, that he was stiffly 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 Author's privileges, who when he hath given us any things in general terms, 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 stiffly principled in that part of St. Augustine's Doctrine, which was in opposition to the tenets before remembered, 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 than 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 Bishop's 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 kill of the keeper of his (the Archbishops) game. And 4. That the irregularity is said to be but supposed only, and no more than so. To this the Pamphleter first answereth in his usual way, that he should keep his own supposititious foist at home, and that by the same art of juggling his own words into the Text, he that made them four, might have made them four hundred, Fol. 10. Why so? because (saith he) I never said that Bishop Laud was of the Quorum more than 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 stuff and abstain from laughter? Such a ridiculous piece of intelligent nonsense, 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 commission 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 Mayor of Brackley being by his place a Justice of the Peace, and one of the Quorum by the public charter of that Town, threatened to bind a poor country fellow (who had carried himself somewhat saucily to him) not only to the Peace, but to the Quorum too.  
Pass we on to the next that follows. And there, or no where, we shall find one of those many supposititious Foist which are charged upon the Observator. The Historian having said that the Archbishop was sequestered 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; adds 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 etc. Can any intelligent Reader understand otherwise by these wo●ds, but that the impulsive to this Sequestration, 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 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 kind 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 foist 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 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 yield (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 pious 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, than 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 Andrew's for a vindicator of the Archbishop's 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) the plain and manifest words of the Observator; who is so far from vouching this amongst the rest of his errors, that he affirms it to be true, that the learned Bishop Andrew's (as our Author telleth us) did do the Archbishop very great service in this business. Here is no fair dealing in this to begin withal, and far more sophistry than ingenuity in the rest that follows. 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 tells us, fol. 11. Yet Bishop Andrew's in the executing of that Commission, might proceed with favour, and was not bound to press 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. 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 showed that the unfortunate accident which our Author speaks of, was not the declared impulsive cause in the commission for sequestering 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 rendering 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 publicly declared, yet it was by knowing men in those affairs beheld as the real and genuine cause of this commission; that the Archbishop had refused to licence Dr. Sibthorps' Book, Fol. 47. The Book here meant, was a Sermon preached at No●thampton by that Doctor before the Judges 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 licenced by Archbishop Abbet, as our Author telleth us, though he doth not tell the reasons of it; but if it were refused to be licenced by him, it was because it had too much of the Court, as tending partly to the justification of the general L●an which was then required of the the Subjects. Not suffered to be licenced 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 Archbishop's refusal to licence it (if it were brought to him to be licenced) could be no such crime, as to draw after it both his removing from the Court, and sequestering from his Jurisdiction, if other things of greater moment had not then concurred.  
Pass we unto the next Archbishop, of whom, being then Bishop of London, our Author telleth us, that many had no fancy to the work (the repairing of St. Paul's Church) merely 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' Litany. And to this last, our very Author himself hath hinted somewhat in his History, Fol. 124. where he affirms, that some did not forbear to cry, what needs this cost to decore a superstitious Relic? This the chief cause, why the work went so slowly forward, that at length the distempers of the State spoilt the temper of the mortar, as our Author there.  
Next look upon him as Archbishop, in which capacity we shall find him made by our Historian, a principal occasion of the Scottish war; Reproved by the Observator for calling the war against the Scots, the Bishop's 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 believe not so. The English Protestants were otherwise persuaded of it, though the Puritans were not, and 'twas the English Puritan, not the English Protestant, who joined 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 Bishop's 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 Arms, and published a large Declaration of the proceedings of the Scots, imputes the causes of the war to their continuing the Assembly at Glascow when by him dissolved, ejecting such of the Clergy, as had refused to subscribe to the Acts thereof, then commanded to do, suspended and repealed Laws without his Authority, putting the Subjects into Arms, 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 quarrel, than the Kings own interest, which enforced 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 Liturgy amongst them, and thereupon he doth conclude, that the war which the Archbishop occasioned, and which was entered 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 King's demand of the Abbey 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 mutual 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 Liturgy 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 mass of the people's minds with mischievous impressions, they first whispered and instilled into them close intelligence of some terrible plot against their liberties; and after sent abroad a venomous libel, in which amongst other things, they suggested formidable fictions of his tendency to the Romish Belief, Fol. 133. And finally, that for the Liturgy▪ it self, there was a purpose in King James, to settle such an one amongst them, as might hold conformity with that of England; and that King Charles in pursuance of his Father's purpose, gave directions to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Ely, and to divers Bishops of that Kingdom, to revise, correct, alter, and change as they pleased, the Liturgy compiled in his Father's time; and finally, that the Book so altered, was by the King sent by the Counsel of that Kingdom, with order to proclaim the Reading of it upon next Easter day, Fol.  
By this we see that sacrilege and rapine was the first ground of these discontents, these discontents broke out into sedition, and that sedition ended in an open war, to which the introducing of the Liturgy could not be a cause, though it might be made use of by those factious and rebellious spirits for a present occasion: and so much is confessed by the Pamphleter himself, in that there was no doubt, but many of them had other then Religious designs, as hoping to obtain that honour and wealth in a troubled State, which they were confident they should never arrive at in a calm, Fol. 31. Adeo veritas ab invitis etiam pectoribus erumpit, said Lactantius truly. By this it also doth appear, that the Archbishop had not the sole hand in the Scotish Liturgy, the Book being revised by many, by the King's directions, and sent by him to the Lords of his Council in that kingdom, 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 finds the Archbishop named for the main cause of introducing that Liturgy 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 Author's words his own, and seems to approve of the intent, though the success proved not answerable; I shall only put him in mind of a saying in Ovid, viz.  
— Careat successibus opto,  
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.  
That is to say, 
Ill may he prosper in his best intents,  
That measures Counsels by their sad events.   
But to satisfy both the Pamphleter, and the ingenuous Author by him alleged, I shall say somewhat here of the business of the Scotish Liturgy, which is not commonly observed, and tends both to the justification of the King himself, and of those whom he entrusted in it. Know then that when the Scots required aid of Queen Elizabeth (in the beginning of their Reformation) to expel the French, they bound themselves by the Subscription of their hands to embrace the form of worship, & other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England. Religionis cultui, & ritibus, cum Anglis communibus, subscripserunt, as Buchannan, their own Historian, and no friend unto the Anglican Church, informs us of them. But being cleared of the French Forces, and able to stand on their own legs, they broke their faith ('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 Knox's 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 Liturgy to them, as might hold some conformity with that of the Church of England. To this end having restored the Bishops, and settled the five Articles of Perth, as necessary introductions to it, he gave order to the Bishops, and the rest of the Clergy then assembled, to compose a Liturgy for that Church, desiring it might be as near the English forms as they could conveniently. Wherein 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 King's death not long after had not laid it by. So that King Char. had not only the general subscription of the nation never yet lawfully reversed, but the order of King James registered 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 Liturgy first grounded on their own subscription, designed by their own general Assembly, revised by their own Bishops, and confirmed by their own natural and native King, was or could be the ground of their taking Arms (for I must not say the Scots rebelled, though the Irish did) may by the same Logic 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 goodwin's sands.  
We left the late Archbishop 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, Arminianism, and I know not what. And first, our Author told us of him, that be tampered to introduce some Ceremonies bordering up on superstition, disused by us, and abused by them, that is to say, by those of Rome. And being told by the Observator, that if they were disused only, they were still in force, as appeared by the case of Knighthood; the Pamphleter answered thereunto, the word disused doth not at all imply, that those Ceremonies were in force, but rather laid 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 lawful sports) was a tacit suppressing and calling of it in. To that we refer the Reader for an Answer to this. I add now only by the way, and ex abundanti, that many things may be in abejance (as your Lawyer's phrase it) which are not utterly lost, and irrecoverable, but carry with them a hope or longing expectance, that though for the present they be in no man, yet be in the hope and expectation of him who is next to enjoy them. For as the Civilians say of Haereditas jacens, that goods and lands do Jacere whilst they want a possessor, and yet not simply because they lately had one, and may shortly have another; so the common Lawyers do say, that things in like estate are in Abejance. Thus Dr. cowel hath defined that word in his Interpreter. And this I take to be the case of those ancient Ceremonies, which were reduced into the Church by the Archbish. 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 than it must be (saith he) by lawful authority, and in a lawful manner. Which Rule of his I hold to be undoubtedly true in the Proposition, but of no use at all in the application, the Archbishop having in himself a lawful power of restoring such ancient 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 King's authority, of which more anon.  
But next our Author tells us of this Archbishop, that he commanded in his metropolitical visitation, that the Communion-table which formerly stood in the midst of the Church or Chancel, should be placed at the East end, upon a graduated advance of ground with the ends inverted, and a wooden traverse of Rails 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 replieth, that by the Archbishops out-running Authority, he intended not, his placing the Communion Table Altarwise, at the East of the Chancel (so than we have gained that point, if nothing else) but by enjoining a wooden Traverse of Rails 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 Queen's Injunctions, and the 82. Canon, the Table is to be placed within the Church or Chancel, 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 Chancel. And against this, or in defence of setting Rails before the Table, so as the Communicant should come up to those Rails 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 boiled already, served in, and set by the Bishop of Lincoln on his Holy Table; so that there needs no other Answer, than what we find in the Antidotum Lincolniense, Chap. 7. and therefore I refer him thither for his satisfaction. But since he hath appealed to the Declaration; to the Declaration he shall go. In which it is expressly said, That for as much as concerns the liberty given by the said Common Book or Canons, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chapel 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 itself, and for the time, when and how long as he may find cause. So that his Majesty's Declaration leaves it to the power of the Ordinary; and the Archbishop as chief Ordinary enjoineth the Table to be placed at the East end of the Chancel, 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 Archbishop proceeded in his visitation according to his Majesty's 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) metropolitical 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 Author's body by a Metempsuchosis. I say it, therefore nothing truer, nothing to be replied against it. But good Sir, not so fast, let a poor man speak and he will tell you, if your Mastership will hear him out, that though perhaps the metropolitical 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 Kingdom, and more particularly (if my memory deceive me not) in all the Counties or Archdeaconries, of the Diocese of Lincoln, Anno 1634. which was the next year after the Declaration, without making any such London measure as you sport yourself with.  
We 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 Altarwise, at the East end of the Chancel; the Author seeming so far satisfied, that he sees not now any out-running of Authority in that particular. And he is so far satisfied also out of his own knowledge in the Monuments of most pure Antiquity, which the Observator had appealed to, that bodily adoration and worshipping toward the East, was an ancient custom of the Primitive Church, of which he grants that there is evidence enough in the Ancient writers: adding that as it was ancient, 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. Ancient, 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 ancient laudable custom to the serious consideration of all good people (and not obtruding it on any) concludeth the whole with this desire, that in the practice or emission 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 who use it not, condemn not those who use it. And in requital 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 Friar Richard of Roughton, which gave a good meals milk with one heel (it should seem a Bull rather than 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 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 practice laid 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 Superiors, let them stand or fall unto themselves. But that the children should eat sour grapes, and the Father's 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 Gospel's 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 asks the Theologaster (the Dr. or 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 Rubric enjoined 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, than 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 signal 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 Rubric, which requireth our standing at the Creed.  
But then he telleth us not long after, that as standing is not improper (we are glad to hear that howsoever) so is it not a posture peculiar to the action of doxology 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 easy 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 doxology, 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 reform, ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis, especially, where there is no Rule to the contrary. The Pamphleter alloweth well enough with a Bene, Bene; but says withal that it is little 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, etc. 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 shameful thing (for he calls it somewhere a shameful etc. 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 bind all men to a strict conformity to the very letter of it. I find by this, that our Author is better at the Bar then upon the Bench; not so much studied in the Quirks and Quorums of a Commission, as in the ferreting and fingering of a Statute-law, in which no Barrister of them all, no not the Utter Barrister of Lincoln's Inn is to be named the same day with him. For what an Argument had here been for Mr. Prinne, if he could have seen so far into this millstone of the Law, as our Author can, against bowing at the name of Jesus; no where appointed in the Rubrics of the public Liturgy, but first retained, ex vi Catholica● consuetudinis, required afterwards by the Queen's 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 Prince's Tutor Sir, you are out in that, though honoured by you with that title in the sheets 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 Hymns? 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.  
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, etc. than 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; enjoining 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 matins, 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 public Rubrics, no such matter verily; but a Command, that no man in the Quality of a man 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 than 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 public Liturgy, had been restrained from using any such Rites, or Ceremonies, as were here cut off with an etc. the people being left at liberty to use such Rites and Ceremonies, etc. as they had a mind 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 spiritural Benefices and Promotions, of which to forfeit one whole years' Profits for the first offence. Nor doth the Statute speak▪ of such, who shall willingly use any other Rite or Ceremony, etc. (our man of Law is out in that too, as in all things else) but of such only as shall wilfully and obstinately stand in the same. And I conceive our Author is so good a critic 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 frauds which necessarily conduce to the advancing of the Holy cause, and so let it go.  
I might expect a fee of my Author for this point of Law, whom otherwise I find like enough to have entangled himself in the danger of that Statute, pleading so strongly as he doth for standing not only at the Gospels, but also at the Epistles and second Lessons; though neither the Rubrics of the Liturgy, nor any Canon of the Church do require it of us. His following maxim, 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 speaks to him, fol. 19 But for all, I would have him take a special care, lest whilst he thus zealously pursueth Order, he outrun 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 testify by that sign and gesture, their inward humility, Christian Resolution, and due acknowledgement that the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world, etc. As in the 18. Canon of 603.  
But one good turn requireth another. The Pamphleter in requital, 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 Counsel 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 Diocese of Norwich, sure he is Chap. 4. there are these words, viz. Do they, i. e. the people, at the end of every Psalms stand up, and say, Glory be to the Father, etc. 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 him he that can. But Sir, though I have heard some men ascribe infallibility to the Houses of Parliament, yet I never heard of any man till now, that did entitle 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 mark 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, etc. partly from the audacious obtruding of divers superstitious Ceremonies by the Prelates, as standing at the Gloria Patri, etc. 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, etc. At that time and before obtruded by some audacious Prelates. The Proof is given them by the Spirit of prophecy, in telling them what was, or should be done above seven years after, when Bishop Wren should hold his first visitation for the Diocese of Norwich. I see our Author is as good at Logic as he is at Law. For mark the Argument in Bishop Wrens Articles, framed for the Diocese 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, etc. 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 paid him all, there is some behind. 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, Hist. fol. 127. yet he remembreth it well enough; For he tells 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 Rails before the Holy Table, fol. 28. Well then allowing our Author his more secret meaning, we have gained thus much, that placing the Table Altarwise, 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 alleged should relate to the setting Rails 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 the man that tells us Anno 1635. in his new Edition, that he who desires to portray England in her full Stature of external Glory, may now take her dimensions; he shall behold her Church shining in transcendent Empyreal 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, Model, suitable to the Apostolic form. The set and suit 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 Apostolic, can or ever could, compare with her in any one, fol. 142. Here is an Euge tuum, & belle, an excellent Panegyric I confess, and I thank him for it, but very different from those Taxes, charges, and obtrusions, which we find elsewhere. Out of which I shall only note, as proper to my present purpose. First, that this Panegyric is placed by him Anno 1635. at what time placing the Communion Table Altarwise, and bowing towards it, and standing at the Gloria Patri were grown more generally in use, than 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, than neither placing the Table Altarwise, nor bowing towards it, nor standing at the Gloria Patri, no nor the very Rails themselves coming within the compass 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 Popery, by the uncontrolled preaching of several points, tending and warping that way, by Montague, Goodman, Cousins, and others, as in the History, Fol. 96. To which the Observator answered, That neither Montague nor Cousins, 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 equal and judicious Reader will find any Popery. What saith the Pamphleter to this? Why, first he doth confess, That in stead of preaching, he should have said publishing: and this mistake (with more than ordinary ingenuity) he hath rectified in the last Edition, Fol. 98. Secondly, as for Dr. Cousins, he grants ingenuously enough, that in his Book, there is no direct Popery, though something (as he saith) which might raise a jealousy of his tendency that way; but yet forbears to press it further (and it is well for him, 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. Montague, 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 ado. 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 uncontrolled, 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 scandal; a scandal so unseasonably, and untimely given, as if the Devil himself had watched an opportunity to despite this Church. And though some men have gladly cherished this occasion, to draw the rest of the Prelates, and Prelatical party, into a general 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 less the whole Body of a Clergy, for the fault of another. It rather should be wondered 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.  
But, oportet esse memorem, as we know who said: and now it will be time to pass from those Anomalous Innovations, which seemed to threaten, that Tiber would drown the Thames, in our Author's language, to those designs which tended to the bringing in of Arminianism, if all be true, which was brought in to the Committee, or by our Author is reported to be brought in to them.   

CHAP. VII.  
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 Laws and Privileges of the Netherlands never more violated, than in the proceedings against Barnevelt. The Conspiracy of Barnevelts Kindred 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 Pamphleteers 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 story of those Articles; With the Pamphleteers 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 error of the Printers charged on the Observator.  
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 bitterness of his Style against those poor men whom he so nicknameth, 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 Doctrine branded by the name of errors, and the Contrary opinions honoured with the title of Orthodox, Hist. Fol. 98. Their tenets joined with those of the Massilians and Semipelagians, Fol. 6. 131. their persons stigmatised in the Pamphlet, as men having a strong tang of the Jesuits, 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 account in the unpublished sheets of the History, to have frighted, rather than persuaded 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. Montague (afterwards Bishop of Chichester) called unworthy wretch, because he was supposed to incline that way. Strong Arguments that our Author doth not think himself so little concerned in this business; 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 styled them, by the name of a Faction, if he consult the place again but with half an eye, he will not find them styled so by the Observator, but by Dr. Whitacres, Dr. Willet, Mr. Chatterton, Mr. Perkins, and certain others, desiring the Archbishop's assistance to suppress that Faction, which was like to grow against them in that University.  
And here I think it not amiss 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 tendering the safety of the Prince of Orange, and the peace of those Provinces, thought it no small piece of Kingcraft, to contribute toward the Suppression of the weaker party, blasting them not only with Reproachful 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 infer from hence by the Rules of Logic, that reason of State and Kingcraft will not tolerate the Arminiaus in a Commonwealth? because as the Case then stood in the Belgic Provinces, betwixt Barnevelt and the Prince of Orange, King James thought fit to Countenance the party of the Prince of Orange, and suppress 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 balanced, might end at last in the Suppression of the Public Liberty; and make those Provinces, Unius quasi familiae haereditas, the Patrimony and Inheritance of the Nassovian Family. Hereupon finding that the Prince had made himself the head of the rigid Calvinists, he joined 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 straight, that to preserve his power, and make sure of Barnevelt, he violated all the privileges of those several States, for which they had first took up Arms 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 Governors, 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 Magistrates is seized upon, and contrary to the Fundamental Laws of Holland (whereof he was a native) put over to certain Delegates appointed by the States Gen. (men utterly uncapable of dealing in matters of that nature) to hear his process, by whom 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 less concerned than the Pamphleter is, will be better able to discern, if he peruse the Apology of the Remonstrants, in which are many things of note which concern this business.  
As for that Damnable and Hellish Plot about three years after, wherein the States sitting in Council at the Hague, and after them all, other Anti-Arminian Magistrates were destined 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 Pamphleteer makes it, yet doth not this concern the Arminian party, but only the Children and Kindred 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 Laws, might fall upon some desperate counsels, and most unjustifiable courses in pursuance of it. But what makes this to the Arminian and Remonstrant party? Barnevelts Children were convicted of a Damnable and Hellish plot against the State; Ergo, the Arminians or Remonstrants are a turbulent, seditious Faction; and consequently, not to be suffered in a Commonwealth. King James approved not of this Logic, when it was moved by some hotheaded Members of the Lower House, to seize upon the persons, and Confiscate the Fistates of all English Papists, as guilty of the Gunpowder Treason, because some discontented, turbulent and ambitious spirits had designed the Plot; I know (saith he, in his Speech to both Houses of Parliament, Anno 1605.) that your hearts are so burnt up with zeal in this errand, and your tongues so ready to utter your dutiful Affections, and your hands and feet so bend to concur in the execution thereof, (for which, as I need not to spur 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 errors 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 Pamphleteers Logic, (though that the best Logic of these times) is left to the Consideration of all equal and Indifferent men. And 2ly, admitting that the whole Arminian party were engaged in these Treasons, either in voto or in Re, yet doth it not follow hereupon with reference to other Countries; that they are none of the best subjects, be their Doctrine as Orthodox as they pretend: Which is the Corollary which the Pamphleter hath inferred upon it. My reason is, because Arminianism itself, as it relates to the five points in difference (which in our Author's 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. Augustine's zeal against the Pelagians, transported him into such inconvenient expressions, as the wisest men may fall into on the like occasions. To this the Pamphleter replieth, That it were a work very proper for the Observator, to instance in those inconvenient expressions, and to undertake the confutation of them, Fol. 5. And this I call, both an unnecessary and invidious task: unnecessary, as being no way pertinent to the present business; 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 unbaptised to the pains of Hell, he never had incurred the name of Infanto-Mastix: A more particular account 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 errors; Nor was displeased with St. Hierome, for canvasing or confuting any point of Doctrine by him delivered. This liberty they mutually indulged on one another, and good reason for it; Non tam Stultus sum ut diversitate explanationum tuarum me laedi putem, quia nec tu laederis si nos contraria senserimus. This was St. Hieromes resolution to St. Augustine in a point between them; equally full of piety, and Christian courage.  
The next thing required of the Observator, is, To produce the men of the Calvinian party, who say, that a man is forcibly drawn and irresistibly with the Cords of Grace in the work of conversion. Folly 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 accounted, when all man's 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 than 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 less evident in the workings of Grace, then in those of the natural generation, or supernatural resurrection from the dead, man being no more able in their opinion to resist the operations of Grace, than he is able either to hinder his own begetting, or his last raising from the grave: Quemadmodum non est humani arbitrii nasci aut non nasci, excitari ex mortuis aut non excitari, ita neque ex nostro arbitrio pendet ullo modo nostra conversio. So they Collat. Hague, pag. 27. A more particular account, together with the names of those who maintain this Tenet, the Observator will produce, when required of him. But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation of this Metaphysical whim-wham, viz. How Eternity (for so saith he the Observator saith) not Salvation, can recipere majus & minus, receive either augmentation or diminution from man, ●ol. 5. But Sir, without any of your whim-whams, where find you any such thing, or any thing that looks that way in the Observator? Cannot the Observator say, that by the doctrine of some Calvinists, and Rigid Lutherans, a man contributes nothing to his own Eternity, but presently you must cry out of I know not what Metaphysical whimwhams, as if he had affirmed, that Eternity might recipere majus & minus? For though Eternity cannot recipere majus & minus, as indeed it cannot, yet I hope the Pamphleter or our Author will not stick at this, that some men do contribute more or less, to their own Eternity, or towards the attaining of their own Eternity (if that will better please the man) than some other do. But had the observator used the word Salvation, as the Pamphleter sayeth he should have done, had he spoken properly, than this great quarrel had been saved; Salvation being susceptible of a majus et minus, (what else can be inferred from the Pamphleteers 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 pity 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 Montague, first Dean of the Chapel, and afterwards Bishop of bath and Wells, and at last of Winchester, he should be thought to change his Judgements in those points on Reading of Mr. Richard Mountagues Book against the Gagger, and this (saith he) is most unlikely, It being well known, that in Theological controversies King James was able enough to go alone, and needed not, like a Child, be led up and down by the hanging Sleeves from one opinion to the other, Fol. 5. But than 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 unusual 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 Augustive did) what they said before. And that the King had either altered his opinion in those points, or abated much of his rigour in it, appeareth by the countenance which he gave to Mountagues Book, and the encouragements which the Author had from him, to vindicate both his Fame and Doctrine against Ward and Yates, the two Informers; a full account whereof we have in the observations. Fol. 33.  
But the Pamphleter will not have done with Master Montague, telling us a very pretty tale, that in the year 1628. this Mr. Montague 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 Counsel renounced them, Fol. 6. Here is indeed a doleful ditty, the Lamentation of a sinner, to the Tune of Lachrymae; a tale like this we had before, but that it was the Squire's tale then, and the Knight's 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 weight 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 Humphrey, or Sir What you will, was any of the King's Council, or called into the Conncell Chamber, to behold the Comedy. It was averred secondly in the open Parliament, therefore 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 Alchemy, 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 Interlude, as Sir Humphrey 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 signify 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 à fulmine) did presume to do it. And this I hope will satisfy the Pamphleter, and Sir Humphrey too.  
We have now done with Bishop Montague, but we must have another pull about Bishop Neile, than Bishop of Winchester, by whose, and the Bishop of London's prevalency, 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 random, 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 Philip's, informed the House, that Doctor More and Doctor Martial, were chid by the Bishop of Winchester, 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 Logic too. The Information is brought against the Bishops of London and Winchester, but the proof (such as it is,) against the Bishop of Winchester only; No reparation being made unto the other for so great an injury. I trow this is but sorry Justice, and yet the Logic 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 Winchester? Because for sooth he had chidden Doctor More and Doctor Martial for preaching against popery. This is the Logic we must look for. The Premises are of Arminianism, The Conclusion of popery. Or else it must be argued thus, The Bishop of Winchester chid Doctor More and Doctor Martial, 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 dishonour of the Bishop of Winchester, as if they had been chidden on the other account, 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 add that too) that they might have some private grudges against that Prelate. Doctor Marshal claimed some fuel yearly out of that Bishop's 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 withal 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 long before, obtained a turn for this Doctor before King James, in which he showed 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 Duke's return from the Isle of the, he took occasion in his Sermon, to speak of the defeat given to the Roman Army, under the command of Quintilius Varus, by the Germane 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 Doctrine 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 withal, That it is very probable, that the Compilers of the Book of Articles, and the Book of Homilies, differed from calvin's sense in the point of Predestination, and its subordinate's, 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 jonah, to be Professor there, Anno 1574. and confessed to be so by the Observator, Anno 1595. 2. That that 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 (Countess of Richmond and Derby) the foundress of it. 3. That Peter Baro never went or retired into France, after the resignation of his Professorship, but lived and died in Crutched Friars, 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 error 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 less, 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 ancient 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 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, etc. Sect. 21. which laid 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 Triennial Lectures in Fuller's 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 Pamphleteers 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 Pamphleteers proofs come home to conclude the contrary; unless 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 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 laid down in the Observator, he tellerh us it was never heard off, till the year 1641. which showeth 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 controversy. Adeo absurda argumenta ineptos habent exitus, as Lactantius hath it.  
On what account these Articles were made a part of the confession of the Church of Ireland, hath been shown elsewhere, we must next come unto the abrogating or repealing of them, for saying which the Observator stands accused, 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 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 itself, than was before between the Churches of both Kingdoms. And this the Certificate itself 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 joined 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 may the weak Brethren be out-witted by more able heads. To make this matter plainer to their several 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 Logic, when he proved the Abrogating of the old Covenant by the superinducing of the new. Dicendo autem novum, veteravit prius, etc. 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 disannulled 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 lessened in authority and reputation by little and little, & in short time, was absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ; the 4th Commandement, by which it was at first ordained, being still in force. So then, according to these grounds, the Articles of Ireland were virtually, though not formally Abbrogatad, by the super-inducing of the Articles of the Church of England, which is as much as need be said for the satisfaction of the two Subscribers, taking them in the capacity of Divines, as before is said. Now for my Man of law, I would have him know, that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, was confirmed in Parliament, with several penalties to those who should refuse to officiate by it, or should not diligently resort and repair unto it. 2, 3. Edw. 6th c. 1. But because divers doubts had arisen in the use and exercise of the said Book, (as is declared in the Statute of 5, 6. Edward 6. c. 1.) for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same, rather by the curiosity of the Ministers, and mistakers, than of any other worthy cause; therefore as well for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof, as for the more perfection of the said order of Common service, in some places where it is necessary to make the same prayer and fashion of Service more earnest and fit to stir Christian People to the true honouring of Almighty God; The Kings most Excellent Majesty, with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament a●embled, and by the authority of the same, hath caused the foresaid Order of Common service, entitled The Book of Common Prayer, to be faithfully and Godly perused, explained, and made fully perfect. Which Book being thus fitted and explained, 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 virtue, 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 gross mistake, so manifest an untruth, I would fain know in what that gross mistaking, and the manifest untruth which these men speak of is to be discerned. The Premises which usher in this conclusion are these, viz. But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland, hath no truth at all in it: The Conclusion this, therefore the Observator, and whosoever else hath, or doth aver, that the said Articles either were abolished, or any motion made for the suppressing or abolishing of them, are grossly 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 gross mistake which those men dream of, must be returned upon themselves. And on the other side if he be charged with this gross 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 showed where he saith it, before they fell so rudely and uncivilly on a man they know not: The Observator never said it, never meant it, he understands himself too well to speak so improperly. The word he used was abrogated, and not abolished: The first word intimating that those Articles were repealed, or disannulled, & of no force in Law, whereas to be abolished signifieth to be defaced, or razed 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 ask, moving, or persuading to enact the same, velitis jubeatisne Quirites, etc. 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, unless 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 signify the same one thing; where is their equity the while, for charging that as a gross mistake, and manifest nntruth in the Observator, which must be looked on only as a failing, or an easy slip, within the incidence of frailty, as we know who said, in their friend our Author, the Systeme, the Body of Articles form 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 gross 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 Lieutenant's score, because Doctor Bramhall, (once his Chaplain, and) than Bishop of Derry had appeared most in it: The Pamphleter answereth, that there was never any Controversy 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 controversy betwixt him and the Primate, if so, then was the Primate more engaged in the quarrel, about receiving, or not receiving the Articles of the Church of England, than you would gladly seem to have him; If otherwise, your Answer is nothing to the purpose, nor confutes any thing affirmed by the Observator. Some disagreement he confesseth to have been between them in that Synod, about the Canons, not the Articles of the Church of England, but neither he nor the Observator being present at it, they must rely upon the credit of their Authors. The Observator (as he telleth me) had his intelligence from some of the Bishops of that Kingdom, men of integrity and great worth, present at all debates and conferences amongst those of their own order, and so most like to give a just account of all passages there. The Pamphleter takes his (it seems) from two members of the lower House of Convocation, who neither were bound to tell more than they knew, nor to know more than the advantages of the place they served in could communicate to them. Which of the two intelligences, have, or should have most power in moving the Sphere of any common understanding, let the Reader judge.  
The Pampheter is almost spent, and now plays with flies, quarrelling the Observator, for saying that this Convocation was held in Ireland Anno 1633. Whereas Dr. Heylyn, whom he makes to be his alter idem, hath placed it in his History of the Sabbath, Anno 1634. It could not then proceed from ignorance in the Observator, you have cleared him very well for that, and it will be very hard for you to prove, that it proceeded from negligence, or from (your ordinary excuse) a lapse of memory. Printers will fall into such errors do we what we can, though the calculation be put down, in words at length, and not in figures, more easily and frequently, when they meet with figures, not words in length. And so much for all matters which relate to Arminianism. The rest that follows shall be reduced into two Chapters, the first for Parliaments and Convocations, and the points coincident; the second for all such other matters as cannot be contained under those two heads.   

CHAP. VIII.  
A voluntary mistake of the Author, charged on the account of the Observator. The Pamphleter agreeth with the Observator, about the sitting and impowering of the Convocation. Our Author satisfied in the etc. 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 Subsidy. 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 Council in the House of Commons. New Lords created in time of Parliament, not excluded from their suffrage in it. The difference between the Loan and the Tax made reconcileable; the Commons in the Parliament, 1621. not to be called petty Kings. Our Author's weak excuses for it, and the damages of it. The Pamphleteers great liberty 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 Archbishop. The Bishops not excluded by the Canon-Laws, from being present at the intermediate proceedings in the business of the Earl of Strafford. Our Author's 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 Pamphleteers weak argument upon his silence in that meeting. The Primate of Armagh, not made use of by the Lord Leiutenant in framing the Answer to his charge; why chosen to be with him, as his Ghostly Father, before, and at the time of his death. A fair and friendly expostulation with Dr. Bernard.  
FRom the Convocation held in Ireland, proceed we now to that in England, both yielding 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 enquiring 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 Sheets, by the name of a Lord. Had he corrected himself in this expression, as he did in the other, he might have eased 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 Commission 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 Trifler; Confessing, that though the Convocation were not dissolved, by the dissolutiof the Parliament, yet that it had so little life in it, as the King thought fit to reanimate it with a new Commission, Fol. 34. not one word in this impertinent nothing of above 30 lines, till the close of all where the light-fingered Observator is said to have pocketed up the Break-neck of the business, 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, for either he hath no witness to it, or else his witness is ashamed to own the testimony; there being otherwise no danger or inconvenience likely to fall upon him, for giving evidence in the Cause. And thetefore I would fain know of this nameless witness, how, and by whom, the Lawyers sent this Advice to the Convocation; whether in the same paper in which they had subscribed to their opinions, or by some message sent along with it, by word of month. Not in the Paper I am sure, there was no such matter; I having opportunity both to see and transcribe the same, as it came from their hands. And if by message I would know, who it was that brought it, Not the Archbishop I am sure, by whom the paper was communicated, containing their opinions, with their names subscribed. The Lawyers durst not be so bold as to send him upon their errand; or if they were, he lost his errand 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 Council of State. When I am satisfied in these particulars, he shall hear more of me, till than I look upon a nameless witness sa no wirness at all.  
In the Declaration of the meaning of that unhappy etc. left so improvidently in the Oath, the Pamphleter seems to be very well satisfied, objecting not one word against it. Only he finds himself aggrieved, that these faults imputed to the Canon, and contrived by others, should be said or thought to be delivered as of his own suggestion, the exceptions being taken by the Kentish and Northamptonshire men, but especially by those of Devonshire, presented Septemb. 16. to the Lords of the Council, and touched at in the Lord Digby'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 Author's 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 pre-eminence 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 Dioceses for which they serve; next by a Precedent of the like in Queen Elizabeth's time, Anno 1585. exemplified and followed word for word by this Convocation. Against this the Pamphleter makes these two Objections: The first drawn from the most infallible judgement of the House of Commons, in which so many wise and learned men had declared it so, Fol. 39 To which there needs no other Answer, but that many things passed in that House, rather to pursue their own interest, and carry on the design which they had in hand, than that they should be urged in succeeding 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 Precedent in the Observator. The Parliaments ratification, when desired by the Clergy, signifies all; but when the Clergy have a mind to proceed without it, than it signifieth nothing. This said, I shall ex abundantia let the Pamphleter know, that the Convocation had in this particular, the advice of the King's Counsel 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 Subsidy, but of a Benevolence or extraordinary contribution, according to the precedent before mentioned, they then changed their minds, and gave their Counsel and encouragement to go on accordingly. So then, according to this Criticism of the Council learned, the Convocation may be delivered of a Benevolence, without the help and Midwifery of an Act of Parliament, but of a Subsidy it cannot.  
Now the Impulsives to this grant were not only the consideration of their duty owing to his Majesty, for his constant defence of the Faith, and protection of Christ's holy Church, by the maintenance of the happy government, etc. but also of those great expenses, whereat he was then like to be, as well for the honourable sustentation of his Royal Estate at home, and the necessary defence of this his Realm, as also for the effectual furtherance of his Majesty's most Royal and extraordinary designs abroad. This gives me some occasion to look toward the Scots, and to consider so far of the Liturgy recommended to them, as it lieth before me in my Author; of this Liturgy he telleth us, how unhappily the King had been persuaded, that it little differed from the English; to which the Observator answered, that the King needed no persuasion 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 replieth, that though the King was showed the Alteration of the Scotish Liturgy; yet might he so apprehend or be persuaded that the differences were small, and yet might they be great for all that, and perhaps not discovered by him. But might be and perhaps are but forry Mediums, on which to huild a Conclusion of such weight and consequence. 1. For if they might be great for all that, they might for all that not be great, the one as probable as the other; if perhaps discovered by him, it is but a perhaps they were not, and perhaps they were; So that his argument concludeth nothing to the contrary, but that the difference between the two Liturgies (whether great or little) were (not only shown, but) made known unto him.  
The Observator noted next, that the alterations in the Liturgy being made and showed to the King, he approved well of them; in regard that coming 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 fastening the hopes of gaining Papists to the Church, on the nearness of the Scotish Liturgy to the first of King Edward's, without relating to the Forms of more elder times, to which the Papists stand affected, Fol. 29. This is no fair dealing by the way. But let that pass, he grants it is a matter beyond dispute, that the Papists liked the first Liturgy of King Edward, better than the second. Why so? Because the words of Distribution of the Elements are so framed, as they may consist with transubstantiation. Fol. 30. If that be all, the Papists have as good reason to like the Liturgy of the Church of England now by Law established, as they had or have to like the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth, The words of Distribution used in the first Liturgy being still retained in the present, together with the words of Participation (take and eat, take and drink, etc.) 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 subjoins, that the gaining of Papists to our Church, was indeed the great pretended project of forty years' continuance, and yet in all that time not so much as one taken with that Bait. In answer unto which I desire to know, where the fault was, that for the space of forty years the intended project of gaining Papists to the Church took no more effect. The Project certainly was pious, and intended really, and where the fault was we shall hear from our Author himself, the Bishops of late years (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 comeliness and order in God's public service, will not be taken with the hateful Bait of Inconformity, and forty years of general 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 itself. 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 nearness which it had to the first of King Edward, which they liked better than the second. If the pamphleter can prevail so far with my Lord Protector, as to settle the Scotish Liturgy in Scotland, and the first of King Edward in this Kingdom, we may in less than forty years give him a better account 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 add, 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 Council learned, sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them. To this the Pamphleter replieth by halves, professing that he will not determine ('tis because he cannot) how the Council for the Clergy were instructed by them; but withal confidently averring, that by their Council they did appear, first by Mr. Chadwell of Lincoln's Inn, Novemb. 26. then again by Mr. Holburn, the 15 day of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them, Fol. 40. That these two Gentlemen appeared in this business 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 do them the best offices they could in their great extremities. If the Pamphleteer 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 do, to the judgement of the House of Commons, it had been more proper for them to have made this appearance by his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor, and others of his Council learned; the King's interest and theirs, being so complicated and involved, as the case then stood, that the one could not fall without the other.  
Being thus entered on this Parliament, I will look back to those before, and take them in their course and order. And the first thing we meet with, is an ancient Order, said in the History to be found by the Lords, (that is to say, the Lords which were of the popular party against the Duke) that no Lords created sedente Parliamento should have voice during that Session, etc. 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, etc. 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. Errors from the Records themselves, or otherwise no recantation to be looked for from him, Fol. 10. Whereas indeed it doth belong unto our Author, according to the ordinary rules of Disputation, both to produce a Copy of that ancient Order, and to make proof out of the Journals of that House, that the new Lords were excluded from their suffrage accordingly: And this since he hath failed to do, the Observators Arguments remain un-answered, and the pretended Order must be thought no Order, or of no authority.  
In the business of the Levy made upon the Subject, Anno 1626. there is little difference, the Observator call 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 screwed them up as high as they could, with reference to their Abilities in Estate, and Charge of Family.  
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 Jeer than otherwise) he thinks it no great marvel 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 Superiors to Kings themselves, Ibid. 'tis true, he hath a kind of Plaster 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 withal he leaves it standing in the Text, as a plain Position, to serve as a Precedent to the Commons of arrogating the like powers unto themselves in succeeding Parliaments. And in this he may be thought the rather to have some design, because he makes no Answer to that part of the Observation, which declareth out of the very Writs of Summons, that they are called only to consent and submit such resolutions and Conclusions, as should be then and there agreed on by the King's great Council, 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 account 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 less than 2124l. per annum, one with another. Whereas, unless he make the Baronage of England to be very despicable, there were but few whose estates could be valued at so mean a rate, as on the other side there were not very many members in the House of Commons whose Estates exceeded the proportion which he puts upon them, some of them being of mean estates, and some of very little or none at all. But give him leave to set the members of each House at what rate he pleaseth, than 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 entered 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, than 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 applied John Ellis, and possibly intelligible enough in a place of manufactures, but nothing proper to the true meaniug of the word in the vulgar Idiom. But let us take his meaning whatsoever it be, and in what Country Dialect soever, we may trade the word; and yet all will not serve the turn to save our Author from the purpose of excluding the Bishops from the valuation, and consequently from being members of the House of Peers; my reason is, because it is affirmed by the Observator, that there were at that time about an hundred and eighteen Temporal Lords, in the Upper House, and therefore that the Bishops were not reckoned in the calculation. This is so plain, that the Pamphleteers 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 Episcopacy 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 Bishop's 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 itself, is the stating of the true time of the charge brought in against the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Commitment thereupon. The Observator following the account of that prelate's Diary, abbreviated and published by Mr. Prynne, Anno 1644. doth state it thus, viz. That on Wednesday the 16th day of December, a Committee 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 Incendiary, 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 easy 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. prynn's Ghost, to help him out of it; and now there is do remedy (for aught that I can see) but to conjure up the silly shadow of john Brown, that famous Clericus Parliamentorum (as he styled 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 Errand as ever was, Fol. 39 If he must needs be an Errand as you please to make him, you will allow him to be a Knight Errand at the least, I presume of that, and then none fitter than our Author to be made his Squire; 'tis pity 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 ancient Canons forbidding them to be assistant in causes of blood or death, absented themselves at the trial 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 conceius the Bishops to absent themselves, as if they did it by their own voluntary act, of their own accord, in reference to some ancient 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 business, contrary to the former practice, and their ancient rights, long time before this Cause was btought to a public trial; 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 final trial, or taking the Examinations, or hearing the Depositions of Witnesses, or giving counsel 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. Hereupon I conclude against him, that the Bishops were to be admitted to all preparatory examinations in the present business, because their Counsel and Assistance would have tended rather to the preservation, than conduced to the endangering of the party's 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 Westminster, but on the corner of the wall of Sir William 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 fastened 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 falsehoods, and as he hopes, (I must be sure not to leave out that) circumstantial also. Not undertaking to warrant the circumstance but the thing? What a brave medicine have we here, a Panpharmacon fitted for all diseases in his Temporalities, and Localties too. He may now confidently go on, in mistaking not only days 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 control. He doth not undertake to warrant the circumstance, but the thing. He may misplace battles, feasts, and entertainments, with equal privilege. It is but a matter of Locality, and mere point of circumstance, and 'tis resolved, his undertake extend only to warrant the things themselves, and not the circumstances. How easily might the Observator have excused the Error 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 general Catalogne, Fol. 45. that he had erred concerning the protestation, that is to say, for saying the protestation 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 Author's 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 entitled, 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, etc. 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 sat all that day (Monday) till 8 at night, nor were they idle all that time, 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 process or delay, before they came out subscribed by the whole House, except the Lord Digby, and an Uncle or friend of his, pag. 87, 88 If this suffice not as a Countercheck to the Pamphleteers Journals, let him consult the Protestation itself, 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 add 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 Sunshine.  
If no consideration could be had of the Observator, in the mistake but of a day only, had it happened, 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 business of the Earl of Strafford, that is to say: 1. These Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King, but sent for by him. 2ly. They were five, not four. 3ly. If any of them depended upon the Judgement of the others, it was the Bishop of London, who at the last meeting and consultation spoke 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 answered 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 ado, but being Magisterially delivered, and delivered ad appositum, to that which had been said by the Observator, I will examine them one by one as they lie before me.  
And first he saith, that these Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King, but sent for by him, Fol. 41. And for this we have his own word, worth a thousand witnesses, without further proof. But first I remember very well, that on Saturday the 8th. of May, as soon as the House of Peers was risen, I was told of the designation of the four Bishops, that is to say, the Lord Primate of Armagh, the Bishops of Durham, Lincoln, and Carl●le, to go the next day unto the King, to satisfy and inform his conscience in the Bill of Attainder. 2ly. The King had before declared, the satisfaction which he had in his own conscience, publicly, 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 wisdom 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 frequent prevarications, he was well acquainted▪ or that, he would confide any thing in the judgement of Bishop Potter, a man of so much want, so many weaknesses, that nothing but the Lawen Sleeves could make him venerable and, so most like to be the man whose Syllogism the King faulted for having four terms 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 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 judgement 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 man's Sleeve, or to the King in choosing so unfit a Counsellor 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 spoke not one syllable. A most excellent argument. He spoke not a syllable at the last meeting; Ergo, he spoke 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 Author's Logic, to save himself from the imputation of depending on another man. Or thus, admitting it for true, that the Bishop spoke nothing in the first conference neither, the argument will be as faulty as it was before. The Bishop of London, spoke nothing, not one syllable, during the whole time of the consultation, Ergo, which is in English therefore, he depended on the Judgement of the other four. For if he spoke nothing all the while, how can the Pamphleter assure us, what his judgement 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 judgement in the morning privately, and thereby given the King the satisfaction before mentioned, he rather chose to hear what the other said, than to say any thing himself.  
Whether the Lord Primate had any sharp tooth against the Lord Lieutenant or not, I dispute not now, the parties being both dead, and the displeasures buried in the same Grave with them, which for my part I am not wilto revive. But as to the occasion of them (whatsoever they were) in repealing the first Articles of the Church of Ireland, and the Debates between the Lord Primate and the Bishop of Derry, I have already vindicated the Observator in the former Chapter. The rest which doth remain in this redious nothing, which taketh up so great a part of the Pamphlet, consisteth of some offers of proof, that there was a more than ordinary dearness 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 Counsel 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 trial, and consequently how unuseful 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 Author's purpose. For first the English Bishops were engaged in a daily 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 form 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 Jealousies of the time considered, that the suit had absolutely been rejected. As for his taking him by the hand, and leading him along with him to the Scaffold, there wanted not very good reasons to induce him to it. 1. To declare to all the world the reality and sincerity of their Reconciliaty, the utter abolition of all former differences. And 2ly. That the Christianity and Piety of his last Deportment, reported from the mouth of one, who was known to be none of his greatest friends, might find the greater credit amongst his Enemies. I see my man of Law is a sorry Advocate, though he may be good for Chamber-Councel; for never was good cause more betrayed, nor ill worse managed.  
Having thus done with the Pamphleter, as to this particular, I should proceed to my next and last Chapter; but that I must needs meet with Doctor Bornard, whom I left but now upon that promise. Not thinking he had Edified sufficiently by the general Doctrine of the Certificate, without a particular application, he makes a use of Admonition and Reproof to the Observator, and fearing that might not be enough to confound the man (for it appeareth not, that ●e aimed at his Conversion) he must needs have a fling at him in his Sermon preached at the Lord Primates Funeral; in which he had some words, to this, or the like effect, as I am credibly informed, viz. There is one thing which I cannot forbear (and am wished by others also to it) and that is to vindicate him from the unjust aspersions of a late Observator, as though he had advised the King to sign the Bill for the Earl of strafford's death, and afforded some distinction between his personal and politic 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 justify 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 Panegyric, had he been quite silent, and not awakened those inquiries, which are so little advantageous 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 strafford's 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) must rest at his own doors 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 yield 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 King's 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. Less 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 King's personal and politic Conscience; The Preacher must look for that elsewhere, if he mean to find it. The Presumptuous Obsertator was not so presumptuous as to write things which till that time he never heard of, and possibly had never heard of them at all, if as well he as others had not been awakened by the Preacher to a further search. And now upon a further search, I can tell the Preacher where he may easily satisfy himself, if his stomach 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 public 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.   

CHAP. IX.  
The Duke of Buckingham and the Earl of Bristol absolved from treason by our Author. Of the papers found sticking in Feltons' Hat, and that they prove not, that the late Remonstrance of the House of Commons, was 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 the King so pleased. Sir Edward Cooks opinion in the Case examined. The Pamphleteers notable Arguments for the Sword 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 Pamphleteers causeless quarrel with the Observator, in reference unto the battle at Rostock; no such beleguering of that Town, no such battle, nor any such engagement of the Armies, (before the battle of Lipsique,) as the History mentioneth. The History rectified in the first issuing out of the writs for Ship money. And the Observator quarrelled for directing in it. The Pamphleteers gross error in pursuit of that quarrel, 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 Pamphleteers weak defences, for his error 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 Author's false Arithmetic in Substracting from his own errors, and multiplying the supposed mistakes of the Observator. His sharp expostulation, how unjustly grounded. The Close of all.  
THis Chapter will be like that of Champion in his Decem Rationes, which he calls testes omnium generum; an Aggregate body, a collection of incoherencies, as commonly it happeneth 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 Bristol from the crime of treason, wherewith our Author had reproached them in the first Edition: where showing▪ 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 Traitor, but which the most, Hist. Fol. 29. Both charged as Traitors, 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 also takes a hint, of giving us a full Copy of the Duke's 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 suppress it in this place, where it relates only to a private person, and stand unto it in all points concerning Episcopacy, the Clergy, and the Convocation, which still stand under the same terms 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 succeeding times, against all those concerned in it, though it be proved how much they are calumniated and abused in those scandalous passages. Yet deals he better with these great persons, than he doth with Mr. Attorney Noye; whom (notwithstanding the vindication of him, by the Observator, which he is not able to refute,) he leaves still under the defamation of prating and bawling, giving him the odious Title of a Projector, a subtle Engineer, a man of cynical 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 drudgery of his own despite, though his Preface (if it could) would persuade 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 Parricide, committed 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, wherein 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 falsely charged on him, Fol. 45. but that there were no such papers foundin his hat or elsewhere about him, as the Historian mentions, And 2ly. In the way of explication, that the first to whom that particular motive was communicated, was one Dr. Hutchenson, sent by the King (upon the first hearing of the News,) to sift it out of him. Against this last the Pamphleter hath nothing to say. For taking it upon his word, (which we need not do) that Captain Harvey signified as much, in his Letter dated the same day, Fol. 13. yet this concludes not in my Logic, nor in no man's else (but his that thinks himself an Allsteed) that that vile Murderer 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 Author's Arguments, viz. Captain Harvy, being one of those to whose custody he was committed, did signify it on the same day to his friends at London, Ergo it was not first confessed to Doctor Hutchenson. But Captain Harveys Letter saith more than this. Felton (saith he) told me he was to be prayed for next day in London, therefore (for one of these Conclusions must needs follow on it) either Felton had acknowledged to him, that the late Remonstrance did induce him to kill the Duke; or that it was affirmed to be so, in the papers which were stitched in his hat.  
Now for the matter of those papers; That which they are produced for, is to prove this point, namely, that his only motive to the Fact, was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke. And if they prove not this, as I think they do 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 Soldier, that is unwilling to sacrifice his life, for the honour of God, his King, and Country. To both these he subscribes his name, and Copies of both these were sent the same day by Captain Harvy to his friends in London, but neither of them do declare, that his only motive to the fact, was the late Remonstrance of the Commons against the Duke. The man might possibly be set on, and his discontents made use of to this barbarous murder, by some of those who wished well to this Remonstrance (I deny not that) and it may be believed the rather, because the Pictures of the wretch being cut in brass, 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 gloss upon the meaning of the Wretch, that he had stitched those Papers into the lining of his Hat, for fear, lest the Supposition of private revenge would infame and blemish the glory of the exploit; nor had he told us, that it pleased the Common man too well, and that in vulgar sense, it rather passed for an Execution of a Malefactor, and an administration of that Justice dispensed from Heaved, which they thought was denied on earth, Fol. 91. Never did man so advocate for a wilful murder, or render a whole Nation so obnoxious to it, and so guilty of it; there being little difference, if any, between the rejoicing 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 applauds a Murder acted, rendereth himself an Accessary to it, before the fact. We have not done with Felton yet, for our Author told us that  
His body 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 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 falsely reported to be done to public Justice, shall pass 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 impunity, if either such superfetations of Fame (in his Canting Language) should not pass for truths, or otherwise be wondered 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 skulking Statute long since out of use, though not out of force, which enjoined all Subjects, who had not some special privilege, to appear at the Coronation of every King, ad Arma Gerenda, to bear Arms, not to be made Knights as was vulgarly supposed. In this passage there are two things chiefly faulted by the Observator; first his reproaching of that Law, by the name of an old Skulking Statute, which lay not under the Rubbish of Antiquity, but was printed and exposed to open view, and therefore needed no such progging and bolting out, as is elsewhere spoken of; And 2ly. his Gloss 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 Knight's Fee, and who had no special privilege to the contrary, to appear at their Coronation, etc. Fol. 115. So then, the ancient Common Law, explained and moderated for the ease of the Subject, by the Statute of King Edward 2. is freed from the reproachful name of an old Skulking Statute; we have got that by it, The Observator being justified in our Author's Pamphlet, for so much of his discourse as concerns that point. And to the rest of that Discourse, proving that all those who were masters of such an estate as the Statute mentioneth, were by the same bound to be made Knights, or to receive the Order of Knighthood, and not simply to bear Arms, or to receive a Sword and Surcoat out of the King's 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 Ensigns 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 withal, 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 which he opposeth only the Authority of Sir Edward Coke; A learned Lawyer I confess, but not to be put in equal Balance with the Law itself. Well, what saith he? Now (saith he) tempora mutantur, the times are changed, and many a Yeoman purchaseth lands in Knight's 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 Coke 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 capacity of Gentry. Were it not thus, the Door of Preferment would be shut against well deservers, and neither honour gained in War, nor eminencies in Learning, nor fidelity in Service, nor any other Consideration in the way of merit, would render any person capable of the Order of Knighthood, for want of Gentry, or being descended only from a House of Yeomanrie. 2ly, I observe, that though he would not have such petsons honoured with the title of Knighthood, (lest else perhaps that honourable Order might grow Despicable, were it made too common) yet he confesseth, that they were to Fine for it (if I understand his meaning rightly) at the King's 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 King's 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 therefore 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 King's Wardrobe, to such as were summoned to appear; he still stands to that, not thinking it agreeable to his Condition to yield the cause, if not found against him by the Jury; the point to be made good is this, that such as were summoned to the Coronation, were to have every man of them a Sword and a Surcoat delivered to him out of the King's Wardrobe by the Lord High Chamberlain, if the King's 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 Court 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 Sidney; and here we have an eminent Antiquary, but the man is dead, dead as a door-nail, quoth the Pamphleter in another place. A nameless witness there, a dead witness here, let them go together. The next witness is old Matthew of Westminster, who, though dead, yet speaketh, who tells us, That King Edward the 1. sent forth a proclamation, that all such persons, who had possessions valued at a Knight's Fee, should appear at Westminster, etc. what to do, he tells you presently, admissuri singuli ornatum militarem ex Regia Garderoba, to receive military accoutrements out of the King's 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 Nonsuited, and so let him be. He tells 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 Welbeck, is granted by the Observator, and that it was the most magnificent entertainment which had been given the King in his way toward Scotland, shall be granted also; Which notwithstanding, it was truly said by the Observator, that the Magnificent Feast so much talked of, was not made at Welbeck, 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 Superfetations of Fame, which, like a Snowball, groweth by rolling, 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 itself, when the mo●ths of men were filled with the talk, and their stomaches 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 Author's language) held no Comparison with this. So that the one Feast being great, and the other greater, the Observator is in the right, and our Author was not much in the wrong.  
More in the wrong he doth confess in the great entertainment given to the City by the King, affirmed before to have been made at the Guild-hall, but now acknowledged upon the reading of the Observations, to have been made at Alderman Freeman's, 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, than Lord Mayor, situate in Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange, and the entertainment which the King gave unto the City, by showing them that glorious Masque, was at the Merchant-Tailors Hall in Thread-needle street, on the backside of the Lord Mayor's House, an open passage being then made from the one to the other: Our Author placeth both of them in the Alderman's house. Thei● Majesties saith he, with their train o● Court-Grandees, and Gentleman Revelers, were solemnly by Alderman Freeman, than Lord Mayor, invited to a most sumptuous▪ Banquet, at his House, where that resplendent show was iterated and re● exhibited. Hist. Fol. 134. This (by his leave) is but a Tinker-like kind of reformation, they mend one hole, and make another, that gallant show, not being iterated and exhibited in the Lord Mayor's 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 go 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 Author's 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 draws out of his Trenches, to entertain him, seventeen thousand foot, and six hundred horse; that in conclusion of the battle Tilly was put unto the worst, and his Army routed; and that finally upon this Victory he immediately stormed the Town, and carried it, Hist. Fol. 112. The Observator finding no such rout given to Tilly near Rostock Anno 1630. where our Author placeth it, conceived it might be meant of the battle 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 advertiseth that the Observator mentioneth a Battle 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 battle, he supposes at Rostock, but upon better consideration, he found his error to be his own, and not the Authors, and therefore cut out the Leaf containing the 101, 102 pages, wherein his mistake lay, leaving that Paragraph tied head and heels together Fol. 21. Did ever man so lay about him in a matter of nothing, for such is both his fight near Rostock, and this long prattle which he makes of the Observator. For first, the Lease which contained the 101 and 102 pages, was never cut out; 2ly there is no such incoherence in any of the Paragraphs there, as if head and heels were laid together; 3ly. the Leaf which was cut out, contained 107 and 108 pages, and was cut out, not in regard of any thing there spoken of our Author's battle, but the misplacing the train of Captives, and the rear of the triumphant mask, 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 battle of Lipsique, which he saith he knows not where to find, saying, that he, the Observator, mentioneth a battle at Lipsique spoken of before, but where he knows not, one evident argument, that either he looked but carelessly 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 than he had been only chargeable with some prudent omissions (as we know who was) whereas by speaking in his History of a battle 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, written 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 siege or of any such battle, or of any such storming of that Town as my Author speaks of. All that I find concerning Rostock, shall be summed up thus, namely, that having solicited, and practised the people of Rostock to declare for him in that War, he was peaceably received into it; that having left no Garrison in it, it was surprised 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 Garrisons of those Towns, and secure the Country; and finally, that after the great Battle 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. fight men, drew thrice toward the King; first as he lay entrenched between Landsperge and Frankford on the Oder, in the Marches of Brandenburg. 2ly, as he lay entrenched near Werben, not far from the Territory of Magdeburg. And 3dly, in his Retreat by Tangermond to his faster Holds: that there was no engagement 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 Battle of Lipsique, in which Tilly received that dismal rout, which opened the King's 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 Battle, and the storming the Town upon it, as matters to be found only in the Pamphleteers dreams; not otherwise to be excused, but that our Author writing the History of the reign of King Charles, intends only to justify such Things and Actions, as have reference to the 16 years whereof he treateth in that History, and that he neaver meant it of such things as were taken in by the By, as he declares himself, Fol. 8. A very Saving Declaration, and of as great advantage to him, as the Parliament Journals, or any of his witnesses, either Dead or Nameless.  
Our Author had told us in his History, that presently on the Discovery of Mr. Attorney 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 prefixed, provide Ships of so many Tun, etc. 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, etc. 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 withal, that the Observator gives him two for one: in saying first, that the Ship writs were directed in the first year to the Maritime Counties, whereas it was to the Port towns only; and 2ly, in saying that the Ship writs were directed to all the Counties, Anno 1636. whereas saith he, it was 1635. Fol. 25. For the first of these, he offereth no proof but his Ipse dixit, and of what authority that is, we have seen already. He telleth us positively in his Preface, that for matter of Record he hath not consulted the very Originals, but hath conformed himself to Copies; and having been so often cozened in the false Copies of Journals and Reports, 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, unless by such a Fictio Juris as our common Lawyers call an action of Trover, a Port Town may be said to be in the Midland Countries. For the second he offereth us some proof, telling us those writs were issued out Anno 1635. as a consequent of the opinion of the Judges in that Novemb. But will the Pamphleter stand to this, will he stand to any thing? If so, then certainly he is gone again. The Opinion delivered by the Judges, was grounded on a letter sent unto them from the King, with the Case enclosed; which letter bears date the 2d. of February in the 12th year of his Majesty's 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 months before the letter came to them, that is to say, in the month 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 extrinsical, as the Battle of Rostock, or in things taken in on the By, as the Synod of Dort.  
But for the ingenuity of the man, and his equity too, The Observator had informed him of some other mistakes about this business; as first, his making the Earl of Northumberland Admiral of the first years Fleet, whereas it was the Earl of Lindsey; And 2ly, in affirming, that the King upon the Archbishop's entreaty, had granted the Clergy an exemption from that general payment, whereas in●●●● there was no such matter. The first of these he hath rectified in the History, and confessed in the Pamphlet; the second he hath rectified 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 sailing on the Mountains, and cast Anchor there, Whales shall be taken up in Cotsall, and Shelfish crawl in shoals on the top of the Chilterne, as they did once in the days 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,  
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 Shells of Fishes on the upland ground,  
And on the Mountain's 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 eyewitness speaking to a matter of Fact, is of greater credit than ten that take it up on hear-say. Much less in History, the word being anciently derived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifieth to see, Intimating the relation of such remarkable 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 eyewitness 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 business, 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, with a witness: 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 eyewitness 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 rectify the Story, as he finds it in the Observator, he hath indeed rectified his own error by it. In the unpublished, sheets where this narration was to pass, as a part of the History, we find it said, that when the Lord Maxwell came and entr●d the Council of Scotland, the Lords refuse● to admit him, as many ways uncapable of such Authority. Fol. 18.  
But in the Story as it lieth 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 go 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 Bishoprics; 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 moneys and Ships against the Dunkirkers, Fol. 31. But this assuredly thwarts with nothing delivered by the Observator, the Observator no where saying, that the Parliament was to be summoned, for revoking of Church and other lands formerly invested in the Crown; but that the Lord Maxwell, or Earl of Nidisdale (call him which you will) was furnished with instructions for passing an Act, to the purpose above mentioned. And furnished he might be, with such secret Instructions, though there was nothing to that purpose in the Writ of Summons, by which that Parliament was called, or in the Commission itself, by which he was appointed and authorized to preside therein. Much less 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 Majesty told them, and not before, he would make them restore all to the crown, which they had taken from it in his Father's Minority, Fol. 32. which, whether it be true or not, is neither ad rem, nor ad Rhombum, as to this particular; It being no where said by the Observator, that the King had told him so beofre. So that this long impertinency, might have well been spared, but that the Pamphleter had a mind to say something in it, though, he knew not what.  
Concerning the election of the Lords of the Articles for the Parliament in Scotland, there appeareth some difference between the Observator; and the Historian; to justify 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 Kingdom, is (as he thinks,) more credible in this particular, than a foreiner, Fol. 32. this is another nameless witness, given to us under the Nation of a person of eminency, one of that nation, and versed in the affairs of that Kingdom; 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 we need not put ourselves unto the trouble of a repetition, nor the Observator want a witness of unquestioned credit, that is to say the famous Camden Clarentius King of Arms, a man so well versed in the affairs of that Kingdom, as few Natives better.  
The rest that follows in the Pamphlet, consisteth 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 errors and mistakes on the Author's side; is left unto the judgement of the equal and indifferent Reader. The errors of the Observator, he hath raised to no fewer than 18 which is more than one for every sheet, one of which, as he saith, tends to the very destruction of sacred worship, as that of the Sabbath, another to the Defamation of one of the most glorious lights, of our Church, besides his (the Observators) most notorious corrupting, and falfying his Preface, and such like odious imputations, not to be pardoned in a man, pretending either to learning or ingenuity. How far the Observator is excusable, in these three last charges, and with what folly he is taxed with so many mistakes, the Reader hath seen before this time, if he hath seriously considered all the points and circumstances in dispute between us. And that we may the better see it, I shall present him with a Catalogue of those 18 Errors, which being perused, will need no other refutation, but to read them only. Now the eighteen are these that follow.  
1. Denying the papers found in Feltons' Hat. 2, 3, 4. concerning Peter Baro and the Marguaret Professorship 5. saying standing at Gloria Patri was never obtruded, 6, 7. Concerning the Sabbath. 8, 9 Concerning the setting forth of Ships. 10. Sir Edward Deering for the Lord Digby. 11. ArchBishop of Canterbnry voted an Incendiary. Decemb. 16. for the 17. 12. concerning the protestation. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. Concerning the Bishops sent to the King, the Primate, and the Irish Articles.  
This is the Pamphleteers Bill of Lading, wherewith he fraughts the small Bark of the Observator, consisting more in tale than it doth in weight; his general muster of mistakes, many of which like Soldiers 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 only to make good the Shelves, and create him some credit with the Vulgar. For which, and for how many of which the Observator stands accountable 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 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 says he did in transitu, or intermixed 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 concerned 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 man's own Case, when himself is subjected to the guilt of such Suspicions, 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, viciousness (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 public 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 Biased 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, 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 myself, to deal ruggedly with him; Medicum severum intemperans aeger facit. The Patient's Intemperancy doth many time's 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 bless us all.    

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER, Concerning some ADDITIONS to the former WORK.  
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 Civility 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 relieth 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 Recrimination, in which he charged Gunter, for sweeting 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 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 Proofs came so home, that though Gunter did deny the Fact, as to his spitting in the Minister's 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 pass censure on it, he openly declared, that he would proceed then, as at other times, secundum allegata & probata, according to the Proofs 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 Bachelor of Divinity 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 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 public 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 ancient 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 Declaration of the true State of the business. I hope the Reader will be satisfied, though our Author be not; the Impeachment being printed by an Order of the House of Commons, and easy to be seen by any who desires to see it.  
With greater zeal, but with as mischievous intention, etc.   

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 Critics do) conceive this Patavinity to consist rather in some phrases, which savoured more of the Paduan than the Roman Idiom, 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 find from this Patavinity, to justify that long Catalogue of Ourlandish and new-minted words, which is subjoined unto the end of the Observations. And for the obsolete words which were found in Sallust, etc.   

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 justify 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, 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 Father's meaning, yet he plainly doth show his own, insinuating that God draws men forcibly and against their own will to his Heavenly Kingdom. 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 irresistible manner, that is to say, with such an efficacious operation, that the will of him who is to be regenerated, hath not the power to make resistance; and then the answer follows thus, I believe and profess it to be so, So he in his Declaration, Page 20. Peter Martyr, a more moderate man than the most amongst them, in his 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 eyes ●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 actiuly in our Regeneration, considering that we are able to do 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 righteousness, 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 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 fruitless, and to conduce more to his hurt than benefit, before Faith and the Spirit of Regeneration by irresistible operations, (So I understand his meaning) are iufused into him. Concludimus omnem zelum, omnemque curam quam promovendae saluti suae h●mines adhibent, variam & frustraneam esse, magisque obesse quam prodesse, ante fidem & Spiritum renovationis. But I am weary with raking in these dead men's Graves, whose Heterodoxies and unsound expressions should (for me) have lain buried in the same Grave with them, if the Pamphleter had not put me to this troublesome and thankless office.  
But then the Pamphleter must have an explanation, etc.   

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 consult 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 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, etc.   

Addend. ad Pag. 298. l. ult.  
— non bona pejor erit, is a great deal better.  
'tis true indeed, the words of the Doctor's 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 Forest stands charged with this, viz. That the Lord Primate had coined a distinction, between the King's personal and political Conscience. For having eased his Stomach on the Rainger of the vocal Forest, upon that occasion, he addeth, that there was a presumptuous Observator, who had of late more ridiculously and maliciously 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 ridiculousness 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 Oak 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 conceived and said by the Observator, how doth the Preacher go about to prove the contrary? Why certainly by a most unavoidable Argument, declaring thus; that both are of like falsehood, 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 falsehood of that one thing which is touched on by the Observator, not being made apparent in the Pamphleteers Answer, and to the other thing, the pretended distinction which he wots of, the Pamphleter makes no Answer 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 Forest, 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 of the Lord Primates death, this business 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 press 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, etc. and so fare him well.  
FINIS.    

ERRATA.  
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 Master's place r. Master's Mate. p. 102. for super superannuating r. supper 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.