THE OBSERVATOR OBSERVED: OR, ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE OBSERVATIONS on the HISTORY OF KING CHARLES. WHEREIN That HISTORY is Vindicated, partly Illustrated, And several other things tending to the Rectification of some public mistakes, are inserted. To which is added, at the latter end, the OBSERVATORS Rejoinder.  {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. JAMES Chap. 3. v. 8. But the Tongue can no man tame. 
LONDON, Printed by T. C. for Edw. Dod, and are to be sold at the gun in Ivy-lane. 1656.   

To the READER.  
Gentle Reader,  
DID I not tell thee so? That some [Oblique descants would come traverse upon my honest Narrative.] Those Oblique descents are the Oservations mentioned in the Title leaf, being descants oblique enough, not only upon my Narative, but upon or rather against King Charles; so that the Title of his Pamphlet might rather have been formed into the Observations against King Charles, than Observations upon his History. These Observations are ushered in with an address to the worthily esteemed, myself. In this address I read my Charge, and it is this, [Either my Intelligence or my diligence hath failed me, or my judgement is not well informed, or I have been biased from the Mark of Truth by the excess and transport of mine own affections.] Having thus bespattered me, he seems desirous to wash me clean again with a little of his holy water, saying [he hath my parts & person in an high esteem] but in very truth the mystery of the business is, to make the world believe I am worthy the overcoming. If in this I mistake, and the man be real, yet I heartily wish he would hereafter spare that cost of complyment, which is but cast away on me, who value his bits as little as his knocks: And this is all I shall say to his Epistle. Next he should come to open the evidence of his Accusation; but he is stayed, see how.   

Page. 1.  
Observator. I thought it fit to prepare the way by offering some considerations at the author's style, which by reason of many lofty words, no English reader can climb over.  
Answer. Style, unknown, lofty, and climb over! Here's a wooden conceit made by as wooden an Observator, who, had not his head (all but the face) been made of blocks, or had he consulted 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, one end whereof was serviceable as a pen, the other as a knife to race or scrape out what was amiss. As to those lofty words, I declare to all the world, this, not uningenuous acknowledgement, that having conversed with Authors of the Noblest and chief remark in several languages, not only their nations, but their very words, especially being of the most elegant import, became at length so familiar with me, as when I applied myself to that present work, I found it very difficult to renounce my former acquaintance with them; but as they freely offered themselves, so I entertained them upon these considerations. First, I was confident that amongst learned men they needed no other pass then their own extraction. And for those who were mere English readers I saw no reason they should wonder at them, considering that for their satisfaction, I had sent along with every foreigner his interpreter to serve instead of a Dictionary.  
Then I had observed that our language had of late already admitted very near all of them into so frequent use in ordinary discourse, as almost amounted to a naturalisation of them amongst us.  
Lastly, I was persuaded, so long as my Narrative was evenly carried, and tolerably true, a candied Reader would have pardoned that blemish of my style, especially such an one as takes notice that two Historians Livy and Sallust 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; yet notwithstanding are by some thought to carry away the Garland from all their fellows.  
The premises considered, I shall demand of the Observator in the words of his own Horace, de arte Poetica.  
Ego cur acquirere, pauca  
Si possum invideor, cum lingua Catonis & Ennî  
Sermonem patrium ditaverit, & nova rerum  
Nomina protulerit. i.e.  
If I a word or two new forge, what then?  
So did old Cato and elder Ennius, Men  
Who on old things imposing names new-coyned,  
Rendered the Roman language more refined.   

Page. 7.  
Fol. 2. To whom the Prince returned answer that he would empower the Earl of Bristol to give his Majesty all satisfaction in that particular] That is to say (for so it must be understood in the words foregoing) that he would make a Proxy to the Earl of Bristol to celebrate (in his name) the marriage with the Lady Infanta. But there was no such Proxy made to the Earl of Bristol, that being a power and trust thought worthy of the Catholic King and Don. Charles his Brother, as appeareth plainly, &c.  
Answer. What a do is here about nothing? Had the Observator well considered and advised with the next page (the third) he might have found there, that I no less than twice spoke of the Earls delivering up the Proxy, clearly importing it was only in his custody to consign to another, and that was indeed to the King of Spain only, not to him and Don Charles, as the Observator saith, of whom I would gladly learn, who that Don Charles was, he being the first Don Charles; I, or I think, any else ever heard of. So that here the Observator was out himself, I take it.   

Page. 9  
Fol. 5. England ever found the Spaniard a worse friend than enemy] for this I think you have no reason; the amity and correspondence between those Nations having continued firm for many ages and never broke (if not now of late) but by the English or on these occasions. First by the invasion of Spain by the Black Prince, &c.  
Answer. What I spoke here of England, any fair-mannered Interpreter will judge to be meant of England in the quality she then and now is, that is, in the state of Reformation, of which I hope there is no doubt, and the Observator seems to confess it.   

Page. 10.  
Ibid. Who perceiving upon the whole sum that the sly Spaniard practised to make an aftergame of the Palatinate] King James was not to be told that, now reserved as an aftergame, but yet intended to be played by the Spanish Court to the more honour and advantage of the English; for thus I find it in a letter from the Earl of Bristol, Oct. 28. For the business of the Palatinate &c. These words give me no small assurance of the integrity and good meaning of the Court of Spain.  
Answer. Whither or not King James was to be told this, now I do not determine; sure I am, told he was of it. And whereas the Observator is become a stout advocate for the Spanish faith, in the point both of the match and the Pallatinate, had he perused the letter of King Philip the third to the Conde of Olivares extant in the last Cabala, and recited in Parliament, he might there have found that neither was sincerely intended, but merely delays sought for by the Spaniard to accomplish his perfidious ends. And as for bristol letter insisted upon by the Observator, it signifieth nothing to the vindication of the Spanish faith; that Earl being articled against in Parliament for abusing both the King and Prince with a false persuasion of Spain's sincerity.   

Page. 12.  
Fol. 4. Which being new, and the business propounded, it was entertained with an unanimous consent and a motion made that an Ambassador should be sent over to negotiate that Treaty] I somewhat doubt of your intelligence, the marriage of the Prince containing such a branch of the Royal Prerogative as King James was not likely to communicate with his Houses of Parliament. For when he was Petitioned by both Houses not long before, that for the avoiding of some dangers which did seem to threaten the whole Kingdom, he would marry the Prince to a Lady of the Protestant Religion, he entertained the motion with no small disdain.  
Answer. The logic of the Observator! The King was angry when the Parliament moved him concerning the marriage of the Prince. Ergo (which is in English therefore) he would not communicate with them in one of his own liking. Again, 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, 21. Jac.   

Page. 13.  
Ibid. In the stile of the Court he went for Great Britain's Solomon] That he was Great Solomon, that is to say, either the wisest man or wisest King of the British Nation, I am not Courtier enough to defend or say. It is true indeed that he much pleased himself with boasting of his kingcraft; but I have heard many wise men say that they could never find what that kingcraft was.  
Answer. The Observator here falls foul upon King James, inveighing against and withal detracting from his kingcraft: pity it is his Observations came so tarde into the world, that Squire Sanderson took no notice of them in this particular, who would else have taught him either more wit or manners.   

Page. 14.  
Fol. 5. A stout adversary he was to the Arminians, and Semipelagians whom he called, as Prosper before him, the enemies of God's grace] In this short Sentence, there are many things to be considered. 1. What these Arminians were which our Author speaks of. 2. Whether they were the enemies of God's grace, or not. 3. What the Reason was, why King James showed himself so great an adversary to them.  
Answer. In the pursuance of these three particulars, the Observator spends not less than 10. pages, wherein though I am very little concerned, yet I shall take the liberty to observe these few things. First, he saith St. Augustine's zeal against the Pelagian heresy, transported him into inconvenient expressions. It were a very proper work, for this Observator, to instance to us those inconvenient expressions, and to undertake the confutation of him, as he is presented to the world by Jansenius. Secondly, he imputeth to them of Calvin's way, this opinion that a man is forcibly drawn and irresistibly with the cords of grace, in the work of conversion. Let him produce the men who, and where they say it. They take away indeed an actual resistance of the will, as inconsistent, simul & semel, with efficacious grace, but none I think, assert this irresistibility the Observator mentioneth; Nor is this all, but they hold also, saith he, that man contributeth nothing to his own eternity. A thing I am confident never declared in terminis by any; but seeing the man seems to account it as one of their errors, I would gladly learn, and have the Observator explain this Metaphysical whimwham, how Eternity (for so he saith, not Salvation) can recipere majus & minus, receive either augmentation, or diminution from man. Lastly, he endeavoureth to show that King James was much governed by Doctor Montague, Bishop of Winchester, who being of a contrary persuasion, put him upon many harsh and severe expressions against those poor men. But this Montague being dead, he began to show himself more favourable unto those opinions, especially upon the coming out of a book, of another Montague than Prebend of Windsor; whose judgement in those points he liked very well. A thing most unlikely; for in Theological controversies, it is well known King James was able enough to go alone, & needed not like a child, be led up and down by the hanging sleeves from one opinion to the other, by either the one or the other. And whereas Mr. Montague is made the man who first reformed King James his judgement, I offer it to consideration, how probably it is asserted, when An. 1628. this Mr. Montague then Bishop, together with Dr. Neal Bishop of Winchester, being Remonstrated to the King, as abetters of those Tenets, and the King declaring dislike of those Novelties, both he and the other Bishop; with tears in their eyes, protesting, they hated those opinions, and before his Majesty and his council on their knees, renounced them. So Sr. Humphrey Mildmay averred in open Parliament 30 Careli nomine contradicente, 
See the Additions.  No one near the Chair contradicting.*   

Page. 25.  
Fil. 6. The King's corpse on the 4th of May was conveyed to Westminster, and there inhumed &c.] Our Author tells us in the end of his Preface, what a special care he hath of his temporality; and yet he fails us here in the first beginning. For neither was the body of the King interred on the 4th of May, not the letters of procuration kept undelivered until the 8th nor the Marriage Celebrated after the Funeral of the King. For upon Sunday, May the first, &c.  
Answer. That the 4th. of May was put for the 7th. is confessed to be a mistake; and it must be either in the Printer, or, a mere clip of my pen, for that I intended it so; I have these reasons to persuade the contrary. First, all my informations, not one (and four they were) dissenting fixed, the King's interment on the 7th. and I were a mad Historian, to vary in so impertinent a matter, from those informations. Secondly, my mentioning that that solemnity would be past May the 8th. may probably imply, I intended to assign the 7th. for it, for else the 5th. day had been more proper. But this is not all, I am mistaken also in the celebration of the marriage; which though at first designed to be on the 8th. as I am able in fallibly to demonstrate, was as I am now informed, on the first of May as we account. So that two errors are in point of temperality here acknowledged.   

Page. 27.  
Fol. 7. From Canterbury his Majesty took Coach for Whitehall where the third day after his arrival] If our Author meaneth by this, that their Majesties went in Coach but some part of the way only, he should then have said so, their majesty's passing no further than Graves end, and from thence went by water in their Royal Barges, &c.  
Answer. What I meant here any ordinary capacity may know, which is able to discern the difference between the taking Coach to, and for Whitehal.   

Page. 28.  
Fol. 8. For as a man is without a female consort, so to a King without his supreme council an half-formed sterile thing] Our Author in these words, and the rest that follow, maintains a Paradox most dangerous to supreme Authority, in making Parliaments so necessary to all Acts of State, as if Kings could do nothing without their consent.  
Answer. I hope no man of any ingenuity, will interpret me here or elsewhere, an enemy to Monarchy; or doth so much as question but that my politic Descondants imply Statute-laws, which I am of opinion, no King of England hath power to make without common consent in Parliament.   

Page. 36.  
Fol. 17. And who (i. e. Sr. Robert Mansel) had an unquestionable right to the chief conduct of this enterprise upon the Duke's default] I believe not so.  
Answer. The Observators contrary belief is no evidence, who was never made an Arbitrator in the business; nor is it to others so strange a thing; many men of wisdom, and long experience, still holding it for a Rule, not only in this particular, but in all such as have vicariam potestatem, a vicegerency.   

Page. 37.  
Fol. 20. And the first thing resolved upon was his solemn Initiation into Regality &c.] Observator. As solemn as the King esteemed it, yet our Author as it seems, thinks more poorly of it; for he censureth it for a vanity, and thinks that kings are idle in it. Are not all Christian Kings concerned in this? &c.  
Answer. Why I call this Inauguration a serious vanity, I declare the Reason; because it conferreth no one dram of solid grandeur to the Throne, Kings being perfect Kings, and qualified fully to all intents of Royality without it. Will the Observator deny this? if so, let him consult the Lord Chancellor Egertons Postnati, where he shall find the same asserted: Yet lest some such Cavillers should quarrel at my inclination, I added serious to it, importing there was somewhat in it of solid signification. Nor are all Christian Kings concerned in this. His Catholic Majesty of Spain, is not so much as touched, who is not Crowned at all.   

Page. 39  
Fol. Ibid. The Lord Keeper Williams was displaced, and his place disposed of to Sr. Thomas Coventry] Observator. Our Author is here out again in his Temporalities; for the great Seal was taken from him in October, three months before. The like mistake he proves in his Temporalities, touching Bishop Laud whom he make Bishop of Bath and Welles; who was then Bishop of St. David's.  
Answer. The fall of Lord Keeper Williams, I never said or intended to be in that moment of time, to which that Paragraph relates; but principally purposing to deliver therein his and others exclusion from the Parliament, I mentioned also his fall as a thing preceding, and no way concurring with the other. So I was not out in this temperality; but if I was not, I am afraid I know who is, in affirming [the great Seal was taken from him in October] whereas he parted with it in August, as Mr. Howel in his familiar letters, Sect. 4. l. 23. relates. But in making Dr. Laud Bishop of Bath and Welles at that time, I confess I was mistaken, and this is grande nefas, an horrid crime no doubt. But, this is not all; for rather than he will not find another, the Observator fetcheth a running leap to Fol. 96. where speaking of the Articles of Lambeth, it is said [they were first sent to the Synod of Dort, and after that to the Convocation of Ireland; a very strange Hysteron Proteron, Setting the Convocation of Ireland after the Synod of Dort, which preceded it three years; and this is somewhat more than superannuating in his Temporalities] Answer. I write the History of the Reign of King Charles, and than what I said of that superannuating, was by me intended (nor can it be rationally interpreted otherways) of such things and actions as have reference to the sixteen years whereof I treat in that History, not of such things as antecedently occurred, & are taken in by the By: for I have oft occasion to mention things of preceding date, as in the case of the Scottish Presbytery, wherein though I am guided by the best informers I had, yet will I not, nor did ever so mean, to warrant the truth thereof, as to every particular year. So it fareth in this error, in point of precedency between a Convocation and a Synod; whereof to raise a question is only to strive de Lana Caprina, and is at worst {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, but a mere laps of memory; a thing as obvious, so withal excusable in the best Authors in point of circumstance; in such an one especially as this, wherein (as being extravagant, and out of the bounds of the Principal Narrative) curiosity was less concerned. And this is I hope enough to keep this error within the bounds of my confidence of not superannuating, were the error infallibly mine own. But if now▪ after all this ranting triumph, upon a melius inquirendum, and better search, the error should prove none of mine, would not the Observator, think you Reader, be wondrous blank at his Ridiculus mus Resort to, and Review the place; then tell me, whither or not in your unbiased sense, That Paragraph with the former, and three subsequent to it, do not, or were not so intended, to complete the report of the Committee for Religion. If so, than my information hath wronged me, or I my information. Now for my wronging my information (for I must walk circumspectly, so many snares being laid to entrap me) take this ingenuous account. As for this report, it being very long, I thought fit to contract it into a narrow scantling, not minding the words, so I secured the substance. And if I have failed in this, if I have delivered any thing material, which those Journals will not own, let me suffer; and to speak here to the purpose, I appeal to Mr. Pym his speech Jan. the 27. in those Journals, where my copy (though erroneously I grant) presents these Articles sent to Dort, before Ireland; so much in defence of my not superannuating in this particular. Now I come to relieve my Preface out of the Observators Purgatory, which hath tortured it sufficiently, by saying I am confident I stand secure, not only from substantial falsehoods, but from circumstantial also; whereas this is his Preface, not mine; for male dum recitat, the property is altered saith the Epigrammatist, my words being expressly these, Confident I am, I stand secure against any substantial falsehoods; and I hope (now that 'tis no more than I hope) against circumstantial also. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, fie impudent Observator, relish it as you please; for cum dixeris quod vis, audies quod non vis, if you will take upon you thus, garrire per angulos & de mundo ferre sententiam, to sneak behind noon, and there give judgement upon all the world, you must look when you fail and forge so foully, to be told of it to your teeth.   

Page. 41.  
Fol. 21. Who loved the Bishop if fame belies her not, better than was fit] Observator. I think our Author with more prudence might have spared this note, especially having Fame only for the ground thereof, which is so infamous an Historian.  
Answer. True it is, Fame is not always an infallible informer, some rumours being begot by Malice, and nursed up by Credulity: But yet true it is, that she is sometimes a public Testimony: and the wise Tacitus, though he erects no Historical structures upon her bare affidavit, yet doth present her in the like concernments, for an Author of a second Admission. How far she stands guilty of the crime of Defamation in reference to that Lady, I list not to inquire. Sure I am Mr. Wilsons Eunuchus ab utero was a clearer acquittance of that Lady's Innocence, than any Argument by the Observator produced; and I must tell him it seemeth not at all ridiculous to any one who had a more inward knowledge of that Prelates condition. Mr. Wilson went indeed too far in the extraction of Bishop Williams his impotency which was not ab Utero from the womb, but contracted after when he was a boy by falling upon a stake; whereof the Observator may be further assured, please he to inquire.   

Page. 48.  
Fol. 45. For the Lords found an ancient Order, that no Lords sedente Parliamento, should have voice during that Session &c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded] Observator. I somewhat doubt our author's intelligence in this particular.  
Answer. Matters of fact must not be born down with I believe, or I conceive; if the Observator can from the records themselves demonstrate my error, I recant.   

Page. 51.  
Fol. 64. But all would not smooth the aspirity of this illegal Tax] Observator. The money which was then required of the Subject, was not imposed in the way of tax, but a Loan.  
Answer. tax in common speech is taken for a Compulsory Tribute, imposed upon the Subject, at a certain rate; and such a tax this Loan was, it being so cumpulsory, as the refusers were by special instructions bound over to the council-board and imprisoned.   

Page. 55.  
Fol. 71. And a Commission granted by the King to five Bishops, B. Laud being of the Quorum, to execute Archi-Episcopal Jurisdiction. The cause impulsive to it was a supposed irregularity &c.] Observator. In this and the rest which followeth, our Author runs himself into many errors. First, Bishop Laud was not of the Quorum, no more than any of the other. Secondly, the irregularity supposed, was not touched upon in the Commission. Thirdly, it was not his keeper but the Lord Zouches he killed in Bramhil Park, etc:  
Answer. What four errors at a clap? that's ill luck; yet it was well they proved no more, for he that made them four, might have made them by the same art of juggling his words into my Text, four hundred. Let him keep his own suppositicious foistings at home, my errors will not multiply so fast. Now first, where did I say Bishop Laud was of the Quorum more than any other? of the Quorum, I said he was, meaning that of the five he was one. Secondly, where did I say that the Irregularity was expressed in the Commission, as the impulsive to it? I said it was the declared impulsive to the Commission, and if it was not, or these had been any other, the Observator should have done well to have discovered. 
* See the Additions.  Lastly, whereas I said the Archbishop killed his Keeper, Mr. Prynn in his Brevians of Archbishop Laud's life, p. 11. and Aulives Coquinariae, p. 130. expressly say it was his Keeper. My last error is the vouching Bishop Andrews for a vindicator of the Archbishop's Regularity. The Observator yields [he did the Archbishop great service in this business, but not for any opinion which he had, that no irregularity was incurred by that misadventure.] Really Bishop Andrews is beholding to the Observator for this note, the whole scope of that Commission was to inquire into the matter of fact, and to resolve whither the Archbishop (notwithstanding that mischance) was Regular or not Regular. This Bishop with Sir Henry Martin, positively maintained that he was Regular still; now if acting as a Commissioner from the King, he would positively maintain one thing, and in his own judgement adhere to the contrary, as the Observator positively saith he did, I say the more too blame he, and the much more too blame the Observator if he doth in this particular belie him, as 'tis an hundred to one he doth. But if the Bishop pronounced the Archbishop Regular, though he thought otherways, what was then the plot? the Observator tells us it was to keep out Dr. Williams then Bishop of Lincoln, and Lord Keeper, &c. who would have stepped into that See. So than it seems the question was not whither Regular or Irregular, but who, Abbot or Williams, would make the best Archbishop. This is fine stuff, pity it is, there is no more of the remnant.   

Page. 58.  
Fol. 73. They who lately were confined as Prisoners, are now not only free, but Petty Lords, and Masters, yea and Petty Kings.] Observator. I cannot chose but marvel what induced our Author unto this expression of making the Gentlemen assembled in the house of Commons, not only petty Lords, but Petty Kings; I have heard that King James once said in a time of Parliament (but whither in way of jeer, or otherways, I am not able to say) that there were now five hundred Kings, beside himself.  
Answer. King James having said the like before, it is no great marvel that a poor Subject should use the same expression, considering what the Observators Court-Historian (as he, and Dr. Heilen usually styles him) saith, Non ibi consistant exempla, unde (so it is not ubi, by his favour) caeperunt] Examples are not restrained to their first Originals. Nor did that expression import what these Gentlemen were de jure, but what in reputation, and what de facto, and of this experience hath taught us, they lately were not Petty Lords, but Lords Paramount; not Petty Kings, but superiors to Kings themselves.   

Page. 59  
Fol. 75. Their Estates modestly estimated were able to buy the house of Peers, the King excepted, though an hundred and eighteen thrice over] Observator. Assuredly the Basonage were brought very low when the Gentlemen assembled in the house of Commons could buy them thrice over, there being not above 500 of the one, and thrice one hundred and 18, that is to say, three hundred and fifty of the other, by which account every Gentleman must be able to buy his two Lords and an half one with another. But why doth our Author leave out the Bishops, &c. It was ill done of him to exclude them, and not well done of him that should have kept them in, to exclude them afterward, &c.  
Answer. All that I can make out of this account is, that it will take two such Observators and an half to make up one good Arithmetician. The Computation is not so over-difficult but any one of slender skill may sum up, and proportion it. The number of Peers being 118 allow to every Peer 3000 l. per annum, the total is 354000 l. multiply this by 3, there ariseth 1062000 l. The Commoners the Observator grants to be five hundred; allow to every Commoner 2124 l. per annum, the product will be 1062000 l, so than every Peer considered at 3000 l. and every Commoner at 2124 l. per annum, no such stupendious business, if it be withal taken for granted, that for estates they were the gallantest assembly that ever those walls immured; then I say the Commons were able to buy the house of Peers thrice over. Now for omitting the Bishops, I demand what were they? members of the house of Peers, or are they not? if the first, than these words are turn-key enough to let them in; if the Observator say not, their exclusion is his own manufacture. Next to come to the man, who did so ill when he should have kept them in, to exclude them: This man is King Charles, the very same I assure you, sed dicere mussat, would he speak out, and exclude them; true it is he did [out of a firm persuasion of their contentedness to suffer a present diminution in their Rights and Honour for his sake] so are his very words. And I dare answer for almost all (for all I dare not; non omnes Episcopi Episcopi sunt) they were for his sake well contented; and if so, the greater indignity it is for this Canis Palatinus this Court-curre, a fellow so unconcerned therein, now his Royal back is turned, to be snarling at his heels for it. But of such men this Nation hath enough, and to spare. I well remember being once at Table, our number being about a dozen, at that time when somebody was in a flourishing condition in Scotland, several discourses passing in reference to his affairs, amongst other things a report was mentioned, that in order to his establishment he promised the Covenanters a settlement of the Presbyerian government, whereto one replied [If he comply with the Presbyterians, it is not this bit of bread to me whither he sink or swim] so strong an influence had Episcopacy upon his Spirit, and possibly not Episcopacy neither; for it is shrewdly to be suspected that some stand not so much upon that Hierarchy, in reference to the church's splendour, as to their private Ambition. Fac me Episcopum Romae, & ero protenus Christianus, Make me Bishop of Rome, & then I will turn Christian, said a flouting Pagan to Damasus. And if Fac me Episcopum, make me a Bishop, be not the terminus ad quem, the main scope of some Prelatical Regalists, they are honester men than I take them to be.   

Page. 64.  
Fol. 90. He stitched a paper in the lining of his hat wherein he declared &c.] Observator. I think he is somewhat out in short, there being nothing found in his hat or elsewhere about him; a few loose papers such as might become those men who make God the Author of sin.  
Answer. My informer is Captain Harvey (one of those to whose custody by order of the Lord Carlton, Felton was first committed) who in a letter that very 23 of August, wherein beside other things formerly observed, he hath also this passage, that Pelton told him he was to be prayed for the next day (being Sunday) at London in a Church (meaning St. bride's) at Fleetstreet Conduit, and in the end concludes his letter (having formerly related, his Motive to the fact, was, the Remonstrance of the House of Parliament) thus; He sewed a writing into his hat, within the lining, to show the cause why he put this cruel act in execution. The writing was thus even for a syllable.  
I would have no man commend me for doing it, but rather discommend themselves; for if God had not taken away their hearts for their sins, he had not gone so long unpunished.  
John Felton.  
The man is cowardly base in mine opinion, and deserves neither the name of a Gentleman or soldier, that is unwilling to sacrifice his life, for the honour of God, his King, and Country.  
John Felton.   

Page. 68  
Fol. 94. The body was from thence conveyed to Portsmouth, & there hung in chains, but by some stole and conveyed away, Gibbet and all.] Observator. Our Author is deceived in this; for I both saw the Gibbet standing, and some part of the body hanging on it about three years after.  
Answer. That it was confidently so reported (though erroneously, as I am since informed by the Observators betters) I have good Authority to prove, and that will be sufficient for me; nor is it any great wonder, when we consider how ready and disposed Fame is to unwarantable superfetation.   

Page. 70.  
Observator. The calling in of Mr. Montague's book, and the advancing of Dr. Barnaby Potter (a through-paced Calvinian) unto the bishopric of Carlisle, could not get him any love in the hearts of his People.  
Answer. This must necessarily signify something of abominable quality in either the Person, or Doctrine of Dr. Potter, or both; to be so efficacious to obstruct and impede the affection of his people. As for the man, know it is his eminent Relation to his Majesty; might rather create a wonder why he was advanced so late, then why so soon; and to imagine any thing tending to scandal in his life, considering his place of so near admission to the King person, will at the first sight, look so like a Calumny, as deserves no answer. So than the horrid thing in him is, and must be his Opinion, and being a through-paced Calvinian; and that indeed is blemish enough now a days; he that is so, be he the greatest scholar in the Land, he doteth; Be he the most pious, he is an hypocrite; be he the most conscientious in all his Actions, a very knave; with all these titles of honour, I have known the gallantest men in this Nation dubbed; and what is this but to make a faction of an opinion, and to contend for victory with the loss of charity? 
Ephes. 4. 15. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  The institution of Cyrus makes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} speaking truth, one of the three accomplishments of a complete man; Christiany goes further; and therefore the Apostles rule is, we must search for truth and speak it, but in love, that is, keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of Peace. This unity of love, must be preserved even where there is not an unity of faith in things not fundamental, which I take not one of those controversies to be; and if they be not so, it is a most sad thing for the Church of God to be torn and rent in the entire cloth with diversities of such opinions, whose truths will neither carry us to Heaven, nor errors to hell; what the uncharitable animosities on both sides may produce I tremble to think. It was St. Augustine's opinion, 
Augustine Epist. 162.  and I wish it entertained by our whole Church in such polemic questions as these, Laudandi sunt qui pro bono veritatis tolerant, quod bono veritatis oderunt. [they are to be commended who for Christian verities sake patiently endure what they would else dislike for the avail of Truth.] To proceed.   

Page. 70.  
Fol. 96. For Arminianism informations were very pregnant, that notwithstanding the Resolution of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and other Reverend Bishops and Divines assembled Anno. 1595. &c.] Observator. Why man, the Articles of Lambeth were never looked upon as the Doctrine of the Church of England, nor intended to be so looked upon by them that made them.  
Answer. Why Man, who said they were? not I; it was Mr. Pym, and the Committee for Religion said so. I do but recite what that Committee declared as the product of their inquiries: and with this answer legible enough to any who can read, I might easily avoid no less than 25 pages of the Observator. So that I might justly have this Man in the Moon, like Mithridates his soldiers, sighting by moonshine with his own shadow; Had he not scattered my particulars in my way which detain me.  
First, Stating the occasion of making the Lambeth Articles, he saith, page. 74. That the Compilers of the book of Articles, and the book of Homiles, the public Monuments of our Church in point of Doctrine differed from Calvin's since, in the point of Predestination and its subordinates.] Answer. This is very probable; for it is very rare for two ever of the same party to agree exactly in all parcels of these controversies. But if they did in some things vary in opinion, I am still to demand, Quorsum hoc, what then?  
Secondly, Page. 74. He saith of Petrus Baro, at the end of his three first years, he relinquished the Professorship, and retired not long after into France.] Answer. Three errors in not full so many lines. First, Petrus Baro relinquished not his Professorship at the end of his first three years. He was Professor Anno. 1574. his Lectures upon Ionas tells us so. And the Observator will have him Professor about the time of the Lambeth Articles, which were in 1595. So than he relinquished his place not at the end of his first three years. Secondly, his first three years are manifestly mistaken for two. For by the Statutes of the Lady Margaret, foundress of that Professorship, every Professor is eligible at the expiration of two, not of three years. The precise words are, Et volumus insuper quod de caetero quolibet Bienmio, ultimo die cessationis cujuslibet termini ante magnam vacationem universitatis praedictae, una habilis, apta & idonea persona in lectorem lecturae praedictae, pro uno Biennio integro, viz. a festo nativitatis B. Mariae Virginis tunc proximè sequente duntaxat duraturo eligatur. Fol. 105. in nigro codice. This I thought fit to insert for the information of very many of a contrary belief. Thirdly, Peter Baron never went or retired into France after the Resignation of his Professorship, but went up to London, to Crutched friars; there he lived, there he died, and was buried in St. Olaf's Church, at whose interment the Bishop of London Ordered all the most eminent Divines, Ministers in that City, to be present. Of this I hope I am credibly informed from his own Son still alive.  
Thirdly, the Observator laboureth to discredit the Articles of Lambeth; by telling us a story, perhaps a tale, of the Queen, the Lord Burly, and Archbishop Whi●gift in reference to those Articles. To which I answer, first, This story was never heard of till the year and the reputed father thereof, is one Aurelius (not Aurelius Augustinus, nor Petrus Aurelius to be sure) a Kentish-man, who was unborn when those Articles were framed. Secondly, admit his relation true; that Assembly was neither the first, nor the Greatest that have incurred a Praemunire.  
Fol. 96. By the prevalency of the Bishops of London and Winchester, the Orthodox party were depressed, and the truth they served was scarce able to protect them to impunity.] Observator. A very heavy charge, which hath no truth in it; for I am very confident that neither of these Bishops, did ever draw any man within the danger of punishment in relation only to their Tenets in the present Controversies, if they managed them with that prudence and moderation which became men studiously addicted to the Gospel of Peace.  
Answer. I fear then the fault will be in their Prudence; for that some were snibbed for matters of like nature, & restrained from speaking their consciences, the same journals relate, Sir Daniel Norton and Sir Robert Phillips informing the House, the one of Dr. Moor, the other of Dr. Martial, who both testified they were chid by that B. of Winchester for preaching against Popery, and commanded to do so no more.   

Page. 80.  
Ibid. By the uncontrolled Preaching of several points tending and warping towards Popery by Montague, Goodman, cousins and others.] Observator. How again our Author is I think mistaken; for neither Montague nor cousins were questioned for preaching any thing warping towards Popery, &c.  
Answer. All the error the Observator can here pick out, is in the word Preaching, which I confess should have been Publishing, though both are sometime of the same, never of a much differing import; And though I shall agree with the Observator, that in Dr. cousins his Horary there is no direct Popery; yet might it raise jealousies of his tendency that way, considering the time wherein he published it. But seeing that Doctor hath appeared of late a stout advocate for the Reformed Church, as I was first informed by my Reverend friend Mr. Lionel Gatford, and am now further assured by others. I wish all men would indulge him a favourable construction of that his right-hand Error. Charity to himself as Christian, and to the unity of this distracted Church, requires no less.   

Page. 85.  
Observator. That Adoration towards the Altar or Eastern part of the Church, was generally used by the best and most religious Christians in the Primitive Times, Our Author, (if he be the man he is said to be) being well versed in the Monuments of most pure Antiquity cannot choose but know.  
Answer. Because the Observator appeals here to my knowledge, though I boast not of any great knowledge of or acquaintance with the Monuments of most pure Antiquity, yet will I render both my science and conscience, and these apart from what I deliver as the Report of this Committee, who are of age to answer for themselves. True it is that bodily Adoration, and worshipping towards the East, was an ancient custom of the Primitive Church; evidence thereof there is enough in Ecclesiastical writers. As it was ancient, so can I not say it was illaudable in them, and might be tolerable in us, as I conceive, 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. But for dopping or cringing to, or towards the Altar or holy Table, as oft as they approached to, or retreated from it, (which is I take the bowing meant by the Committee, and was oft practised by some indiscreet pretenders to conformity with the Primitive Church) I profess seriously I find not the least trace thereof in any genuine Author of the first 500 years; and suppose I did, yet would not that be exemplary enough to me to imitate their practice. The Primitive Fathers never intended their usages or expressions should be leading Charts, or Directories to all posterity; they knew well enough that ceremonies, phrases & modes of speech, must comply with, & humour the temper of their respective times, places, and other like circumstances. Their Priests, Altars, Sacrifices were at first words of an innocent import, and pious intendment; but became afterwards, in process of time, the main turn-keys to the superstitious Sacrifice of the mass, and the supporters of Transubstantiation; and though Great Scholars who know most properly how to apply them, may sometime take the same liberty the Fathers used, yet seeing the Idolatry of worse times hath imposed upon those words a sense differing from their primitive reception, reason good in common speech they should be forborn. Ne propter ambiguitatem vocabuli quam non d●scernit quotidiana locutio, illud profiteri videatur, quod est immicum nom ini Christiano. Least by reason of the ambiguity of a word not so easily discerned in ordinary discourse, something may seem to be intended not consonant to Christian faith] as Augustine excellently in another, 
Epist. 200. Asellio.  though not unlike, case: So that the Primitive practice is in my opinion no general rule to go by. I proceed to the next ceremony faulted by the Committee, the standing up at Gloria Patri. Concerning this the Observator saith first [It was never obtruded I am sure] Answer, what never? Let him not be too confident, for really I fear there will prove a flaw in his assurance, who so ever was of his council. For in Bishop Wren's Articles frameed for the diocese of Norwich, sure I am, cap. 4th. there are these words [Do they (i.e. the People) at the end of every Psalm stand up and say, Glory be to the Father, &c.] Now I think things inquired after in Diocesan visitations may be said to be urged and obtruded. But if it was not obtruded by the Bishops, the more negligent, the more too blame they; for the Observator tells us Secondly, [The rubric of the Church requiring us to stand up at the Creed, obligeth us by the same reason to stand up at the Gospels and Gloria Patri, the Gospels being the foundation of the Creed, as Gloria Patri is the Epitome and abstract of it] Now say I, if the rubric obliged us to use this ceremony, it did also oblige the Bishops to enforce conformity to it: and the Observators excuse is their accusation. But this Theologaster saying that Gloria Patri is an Epitome of the Creed, tells us news indeed. For of what Creed I demand? of that (the Apostles) at which the rubric enjoined us to stand up? surely no such thing. It is in truth as Mr. Hooker quoteth out of St. Basil, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the evidence of a right sense in the doctrine of the Trinity; and not in all concernments of that Doctrine neither, but only in the particular of Coequality of the three Persons. Now there are in the Creed other points besides relating to the Trinity, and some Articles not at all belonging to that Doctrine. So that this Doxology must be stretched beyond all reason to comprehend them.  
Thirdly, he saith that [Many a thing may be retained in a Reformed Church, without special Rubriques to direct them, ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis, especially where there is no rule to the Contrary.] Bene, Bene, sed quo istud tam bene? much truth, but to little purpose. For will the Observator say; we have no Rule to the contrary? If he doth, he must be transmitted to the Act for uniformity prefixed to our liturgy, where there is a vae, a woe to him who [shall wilfully use any other Rite or Ceremony, &c. then is set forth in the book of commonprayer] expressly binding all men to a strict conformity to the very letter of it.  
Fourthly, He saith [there is no more Authority for standing up at the Gospel, then at Gloria Patri] Answer. Reason there is more I am certain, and I believe more Authority. As for Reason, Standing is the most proper posture of attention; and if any part of Scripture requireth attention, the Gospel doth it in a most eminent degree, 
Chrysost. in Isai. Hom. 2.  the reading whereof is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the setting of Heaven gates wide open, not with the Psalmist for the King of Glory to come in, but for the King of Glory to come forth. Now as standing is not improper, so is it not a posture peculiar to the action of Doxology, and glorifying of God, as is evident by our Church, which sometimes (as in our Communion service) requireth it from our knees. Next I come to Authority, which I say did positively enjoin me and all men of my mind to stand up at the Gospel, not so at Gloria Patri. For by the Canons, it is required of every man [when in the time of Divine Service the Lord [I think it should be, word or name, as in the Queen's Injunctions] Jesus shall be mentioned] due & lowly reverence shall be done, as hath been accustomed; now how it hath been accustomed, the Queen's Injunctions tell us expressly, it was [by lowness of courtesy, and uncovering of the head] By uncovering my head this reverence I cannot perform; for Pileum being insigne libertatis receptae, the cognizance of liberty, I think it becometh me not to have it on when my Lord and Master speaks to me. So that my Reverence I must do by Genuflection and bowing of the knee, which cannot be done but in a Stationary posture. And note further, that this Reverence is not only required by our Church, when the Gospel, but also when the secondlesson, yea when the Epistle (or Apostle as the ancients called it) was read.   

Page. 98.  
Fol. 110. There was an old skulking statute long since out of use, though not out of force, &c.] Observator. This statute was made in the first year of Edward the second. But whereas our Author tells us that the persons mentioned in that statute were not required to be made Knights, as was vulgarly supposed, but ad arma gerenda, to bear arms, and thereupon tells us a story of a Sword and Surcoate, I shall rather believe the plain words of the Statute, than his interpretation.]  
Answer. I find by Sr. Edward Coke, Inst. part second, that by the Common-Law all persons who hold a knight's Fee (which was of uncertain value, sometimes 15, sometimes 20, sometimes (as in this present case) 40 l. per annum) might be compelled to be made Knights. That the Kings of England had this power before the Stat. 1. Ed. 2. it is evident by Matthew Paris, pag. 897. who relateth that H. 3. came into the Exchequer, & there fined all the Sheriffs of England five marks a man, for not distraining Quemlibet habentem, &c. [Every one having ●5. pounds per annum, to be made Knights as he commanded by his writs directed to those Sheriffs.] And the like precept was sent out by Edward 1. as is to be seen by Matthew Westminster, Flor. Hist. p. 223. As to my story of the Belt and Surcoate, the Author thereof (an eminent Antiquary) being long since dead, and not in being to make his defence, I shall offer something out of my reading, tending that way in confirmation of that note. First, for the time, that it was regularly to be at the Coronation, is inferrible from the instrutions sent down this year, with the King's Commission, whereby [all such Baronets as were not Knights at his Coronation, and all Knights who have received that honour since that time] are declared liable to make fine. As for the Belt and Surcoate, Matthew Westminster tells us, K. Ed. 1. sent forth a Proclamation, that all such persons, Qui haber unde militarent adessent apud Westmonaster. &c. Who had possessions valued at a knight's fee should appear at Westminster, &c. What to do? he tells you presently, admissuri singuli ornatum militatem ex regia garderoba, to receive military accoutrements out of the King's Wardrobe. But I said, these men summoned were not to be made Knights, as was vulgarly supposed, which words having reference to the present case, are no other in substance then what Sr. Edward Coke said before me, who in the place forerecited speaks clearly thus. [Now, 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.   

Page. 103.  
Fol. 124. For many had no fancy to the work, merely because he was the promoter of it] Observator. It was plainly contrary, his case in promoting it, being one great reason why so many had a fancy to it most of the Clergy contributing largely unto it; the like did most of the Nobility and Gentry.  
Answer. The Observator saith most of the Clergy, and most of the Nobility and Gentry contributed largely to the repairing of St. Paul's. Many, and most, may sure be consistent; there may be many opposite to the major vote.   

Page. 106.  
Fol. 126. But the entertainment most of all August and Royal, was that of the Earl of Newcastle at Welbech, which was estimated to cost the Earl not less than 6000 l.] Observator. I have showed our Author some mistakes in his Temporalities, and now I shall show him one or two in his localities, besides his misplacing of the battle of Tissique spoken of before. The entertainment so much talked of, which cost the Earl 6000 l. was not made 1633 in the time of the King's going into Scotland, but July the last in the next year; nor was it made at Welbech, but at Belsover Castle. The like mistake in matter of locality, occurreth Fol. 129. &c.  
Answer. The Observator here mentioneth a battle of Tissique, spoken of before; but where I know not; only conjecture that he had a good will to take me to task for misplacing a battle, I suppose at Rostoch; but upon better consideration he found the error was his own, not mine; and therefore cut out the leaf containing the 101 & 102 pages wherein his mistake lay, leaving that Paragraph tied head and heels together.  
Now I come to my two errors in Locality. The first is my misplacing of the Earl of Newcastle's entertainment of the King. Which he will have at Belsover Castle in Derbyshire, not at Welbech: and not 1633 but the next year after; and why so? because [that was the entertainment which cost the Earl 6000 l.] I answer, mentioning the entertainment given the King by the Earl, I delivered these particulars. First, that it was in his progress into Scotland. Secondly, that it was the most August of all. Thirdly, that it was at Welbech. Lastly, that it was estimated (not positively that it did so) to cost the Earl 6000 l. The three first are granted for truth by the very Observator himself; and for the last, as I said barely, it was so estimated, so I must tell him it was so estimated to myself at York at that very time of the King's progress, and a full year before the next entertainment was given or perhaps thought of.  
The next mistake in Locality, is, Fol. 129. where I relate that both their Majesties, with their train of Court-Grandees and Gentlemen Revellers, were solemnly invited to a most sumptuous banquet at Guild-Hall.] Whereas the entertainment which at that time the City gave the King was at Alderman Freman's house. Herein I confess my error; Parce precor falso.   

Page. 110.  
Fol. 127. A very Learned man he was, his Erudition of the old stamp stiffly disciplined in the doctrine of St. Augustine, which they who understand it not call Calvinism.] Observator. Whereas Our Author makes the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvinism to be all One, I think he is very much out in that. St. Augustine was a great maintainer of Episcopacy, which the Calvinians have rejected, &c.  
Answer. Good Reader, judge thou if I make the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvinism to be in all concernments all one; in opposition to the Massilian and Arminian Tenets they are I both said then, and dare say again, the very same or very near. In some other points know I do they differ. The Observator instanceth in that of Episcopacy; how true that, I determine not; but in that of the Sabath or Lord's day which is the next thing offers itself to our consideration, sure I am they do.   

Page▪ 112.  
Fol. 128. This Declaration than caused so many impetuous clamours against it, as it was soon called in.] Observator. In this I am sure our Author is extremely Out; that Book being never called in, though the execution was soon descontinued.  
Answer. Out I may be, but sure not extremely out, the discontinuance of the Execution of it being a tacit suppressing and calling of it in.   

Page. 114.  
Fol. 129. The Divinity of the Lord's day being new Divinity at Court.] Observator. And so it was by its favour in the country too, not known in England till the year 1595. So new it is that it cannot prescribe to 60 years; for if it could, we should have found some mention of it in our Articles, or Our Book of Homilies, in which we find nothing at all touching the keeping of that day.  
Answer. By this and some other passages in the Observator, we may suspect the man to be petrified (there's an hard word, as hard as a stone) and very conversant with Peter Hielen a Dr. of Cosmography, a work very proper for him; for none fitter to describe the world than he, who all his life hath loved the world; none like him; but of that Dr. more anon. Next to the Observator, if that Dr. and he be two; First, he saith that [the Divinity of the Lord's day was not known in England till the year 1595.] If so, I demand of the Observator, what did Archbishop Whitgift mean in his defence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 553. where speaking in the present tense, he saith the Sabbath is superstitiously used by some? did he mean the Jewish Sabbath? that cannot be; for he subjoins, so is the Church, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer; importing it to be a lawful thing, abused by superstitious people; and soon after he speaks of a Sabbath then commanded by the 4th. Precept, which could not be the Jewish; and if not that, must of necessity be the Lord's day. Now this Archbishop published his Defence, Anno. 1574. Next for the book of Homiles, surely he spoke much without book; for certainly there was not any thing more especially taught in those Homiles, than the divinity of the Lord's day: they saying [God in that Precept (speaking of the fourth) commandeth the observation of the Sabbath, which is our Sunday] What can positively be rendered clearer? Here's the Sabbath interpreted by the Lord's day, and that commandeth to be observed in the 4th. Precept by God himself. So that by the Observators leave, the Divinity of the Lord's day may be found in our book of Homilies.   

Page. 115.  
Fol. Ibid. Which seemed the greater prodigy, that men who so eagerly cried up their own Order and Revenues for Divine, should so much deny the Lord's day from being such when they had no other Existence then in Relation to this.] Observator. Here's a Prodigy indeed, and a Paradox too; that neither the Order nor Revenues of the Evangelical Priesthood, have any existence but in Relation to the Divinity of the Lord's day. If our Author be not out in this, I am much mistaken.  
Answer. Where hath this Observator been brought up, that this Tenet of mine, of mine said I? yea of all learned men should be so wondered at to be called a Prodigy? Good Reader when thou seest him next, tell him from me, there is scarce a man of note who treateth of the fourth Commandment, that owneth not this Prodigious opinion. I shall content myself with only one at present, but one who I hope will be instar omnium with the Observator, as being free from Puritanism. 
Catechist. Doct. p. 259.  The learned Bishop of Winchester, who expounding the fourth Commandment, saith first, [because men should not be left at liberty when to perform Religious duties, God hath appointed a Day whereon to do them, and that more solemnly in a public meeting or assembly] this Day, he calleth the Lord's Day. Secondly [Now whereas the solemn duties of this Day, cannot be performed in a public manner, without a Place set a part, and Persons enabled to perform such sacred actions. Therefore both Places & Persons sanctified to those purposes, & Maintenance also for those Persons, are included in this Precept] so here are both the sacred Orders and Revenues constituted in relation to the Lord's Day, and the duties thereof; and emergent both from the fourth Commandment, and so I hope the Prodigy is at an end.   

Page. 116.  
Fol. Ibid. But of this elsewhere.] Observator. And indeed of this there hath enough been said elsewhere to satisfy all learned and ingenuous men both in the meaning of the law and in point of practice.  
Answer. Never any thing more truly spoken. And all I shall superadd is this, that whereas I said, But of this elsewhere, my meaning was, that of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Divinity of the Lord's day I had treated elsewhere, in a book extant of that Argument, Anno. 1640. never as yet answered by any. To that Treatise I refer all men who shall desire my judgement in that Subject. Only from thence I shall (having so fit an opportunity) be bold to remind Doctor Heilen of an odd mistake (to say no worse) committed by him, in vindication whereof he never attempted any thing as yet; The mistake this. The main question concerning that Day was (and I am sorry to find it is) whither or not it be of Divine institution; That Doctor with his leaders and followers, said nay; and (because it would signify the same thing, should it be evinced to be Apostolical) the man sweats, toils, and somewhat worse, to evade it. For Part 2. c. 6. S. 7. of his History of the Sabbath, he citeth out of Pareus his Com. in Gen. 2. treating of the change of the Sabbath into the Lord's Day, these words; Quomodo autem facta sit haec mutatio in sacris literis non apparet. And to make it apparent, he was industrious in it, because Quomodo alone he thought non vult fac, would not do the deed without his Paraphrase; he descants on it thus. How? that is by, what Authority this change was made, appeareth not in sacred Scripture, whereas in very truth, Pareus his word, in two several Editions, one 4o. the other folio, is Quando (not Quomodo) & for the Authority, he in that very place ascribes it Apostolicae Ecclesiae, to the Apostolic Church; and in Comment upon 1 Cor. 16. v. 2. and upon the Revelation, fixeth it positively upon Apostolical Authority. Now 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, I dare not say so impudently, I submit to the judgement of all the world. This I write partly to provoke an answer from that Doctor, and partly, to vindicate him from the groundless supposition, which renders him the Author of these Observations; who, as he hath professedly disavowed it, so is it scarce credible that he of all men, durst be so bold with me, as this Observator is, knowing how readily I might have returned— Quis tulerit gracchoes—   

Page. 117.  
Fol. Ibid. And was after styled Duke of York] Observator. Our Author here accomodates his stile to the present times, when the weekly Pamphlets gave the Prince no other Title than the Titulary Duke of York. It is true indeed the second son of England is not born to the Dukedom of York, but receives that Title by creation, &c.  
Answer. How is it possible to escape the Observators lash? Had I said he was then styled Duke of York, I had been out in my Temporalities, he being not created Duke of York till afterward: to avoid which Scylla, I inserted after, and fell upon the Charybdis of complying with weekly Pamphlets; what shall an honest Historian do in such a case?   

Page. 122.  
Fol. 131. The King presently issued out writs to all the Counties within the Realm.] Observator. Our Author is deceived in this, as in many things else; For in the first year of the Payments of Ship-money the writs were not issued to all the Counties of England, but only to the maritine Counties, &c.  
Answer. This mistake I acknowledge also. But did it deserve so much favour as for the Observator to give me two for one? for first he saith, in the first year of Shipmoney the writs were issued to the Maritine Counties] No such matter, it was to the maritine, to the Port-townes only. Secondly, he saith that in the next year, and not before, the like writs were issued out to the Counties in England, which is an undoubted truth; but whereas he gives us some more certain note of that year to be 1636. he is much out; for those general writs were issued in the year 1635. as a consequent of the opinion of the Judges in that November; and this is an undoubted truth also.   

Page 125.  
Fol. 132. But in regard he came without Credential letters from the Queen of Sweaden, he denied him audience, whereupon he returned in some disgust] Observator. In this short passage there are more mistakes than lines. For first, it is not likely that young Oxonstern came without Credential letters. Secondly, I am sure he had public audience, my curiosity carrying me to the Court that day, not so much to see the formalities of such receptions, as to behold the Son of so wise a Father, &c.  
Answer. Never was any man's hand so out as mine in this Narration; what? more mistakes than lines? that's sad, if not somewhat hyperbolical, as is evident because there are many lines, and but two mistakes, taking the Observators information for currant. But be there more mistakes then lines, I have a Father for them all. The History of the Wars of Christendom, 
Page 245.  The Author whereof, though he be an Italian, and therefore not so competent a Judge of our affairs; yet the Earl of Monmouth, who translated him, was of our Nation, and 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.   

Page 130.  
Fol. 137. The King committing the staff of that office to Dr. Juxon Lord Bishop of London; who, though he was none of the greatest Scholars, yet was withal none of the worst Bishops.] Observator. I would fain learn of our Author in what particular parts of either divine or human learning he reckons this Bishop defective.]  
Answer. That this Bishop was none of the greatest scholars, I saw then no reason but that I might safely say, without disparagement to his Function, scholarship, or my Prudence; a Bishop may be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, able to instruct, and scholar sufficient for his Placo, though he be none of the greatest magnitude. Nor is it requisite that a Bishop be much more learned than a Presbyter: That he be more prudent, requisite it is, being a quality more pertinent to Government; and in this particular, I hope I have made him an amends in the latter part of his Character. 
Adv. Pelagian. l. 1.  I shall conclude with Jerome, Nullus aut rarus est qui omnia habeat, quae habere debet Episcopus. No Bishop, or rarely any hath all virtues belonging to a Bishop; and he who wanteth two or three, and hath all the rest, is more commendable for what he hath, then to be blamed for what he wants: If this be not satisfaction enough, I hope that is, that I have ordered a deleatur upon it, being loath to abide a misconstruction; and finding the Historians note verified, Vivorum ut magna admiratio, ita censura difficilis est.   

Page 133.  
Fol. 138. As the Archbishop, whilst he so vehemently pursued Order, did a little outrun Authority, &c.] Observator. The King gave Authority and Approbation to it (a year before this Metropolitical Visitation) in the case of St. Gregory's in London, being heard before him sitting in the Privy council. Anno 1633  
Answer. The Archbishops out-running Authority I intended not in placing the Communion-Table altarwise, at the East-end of the Chancel; but by enjoining a wooden traverse of rails to be set before it, by commanding all Communicants thither to resort for the Blessed Sacrament: These I commend as decent in themselves, but account as Innovations. I will give you now my reason, not quarrelling with Dr. Coal, whom the Bishop of Lincoln carbonadoed, nor yet with Peter Heylin; plainly and sincerely the 82 Canon enjoineth, that the Communion-Table, when the holy Communion is to be administered [shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, and the Communicants also in more number may communicate with the said Minister. Now the Communicants may both best hear, & in most number communicate, when the Table is in the body of the Church, or of the Chancel. Again, it is clear from the word saving, mentioned in this Canon, that the Table was to stand in one place when there was no Communion, and in another when there was one. And this is most clearly made out by the Queen's Injunctions 1559. from whence this Canon in this particular is almost verbatim taken; for after order taken where it shall stand, in Communion-time, it is further said in those injunctions [And after the Communion done, from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before.] Infallibly implying, that though it stood altarwise before, yet at Communion-time it was to be removed, and consequently not to be railed in.  
But behold how he defends this from Innovation, [the King gave Authority and Approbation for it a year before the Metropolitical Visitation I speak of] Where's that? [in deciding the controversy about the Communion-Table in the case of St. Gregory's 1633) This Metropolitical Visitation, say I, was 1635. His majesty's Declaration, says the Observator, was 1633 a year before; sure the man means London measure. But what? did the King declare any thing in that case, concerning the setting of rails before the Holy Table, or that it should stand there immovable, so as the Communicants were to resort up to those rails to receive? Sure I am that Declaration speaks no such matter, not a syllable tending that way: Oportet esse memorem. When these words fell from me, it seems I forgot what I said before of the remiss government of Archbishop Abbot [which made the future reduction of tender-conscienced men so long discontinued obedience, interpreted an innovation.] No such matter, I well remembered those words, and withal that I never meant they should relate to the setting rails before the Holy Table, so as it might not be removed at the time of celebrating the Blessed Sacrament.   

Page 139.  
Fol. 138. They were not blameless in their lives, some being vicious unto scandal.] Observator. Vicious even to scandal! That goes high indeed, and it had well become the Author to have named the men. Or were there such, it had been fitter for our Author to have played the part of Sem and Japhet, in hiding the nakedness of their Spiritual Father, then to act the part of Cham, in making Proclamation of it unto all the world, &c.  
Answer. 
Ad Ruffin.  A true saying it is of St. Jerome: Quando sine nomine contra vitia scribitur, qui irascitur, accusator sui est. When vices are declamed against, and no persons named, he who is angry, accuseth himself: So that here the Observator may seem to save part of my labour, and names himself for one. And wish I do, from my very soul, I were not able to add another; for the Observator himself cannot more cordially rejoice in the conviction of me here for untruth, than I would myself, so much do I prefer the honour of the Clergy before mine own reputation.  
But were there such, it had been fitter, says the Observator, for our Author to have played the part of Sem and Japhet, in hiding, then of Cham, in making Proclamation of it to all the world. Certainly no fit for me than it was for Chrysostom, the Greek of whose golden mouth was, in relation to the vices of his times, as broad as is my English in reference to those. No fitter for me then for Gildas, surnamed the wise, the most Ancient of our British Writers extant, to say, Sacerdotes habet Britannia, sed insipientes; quam plurimos Ministros, sed impudentes; clericos, sed raptores subdolos, &c. Great Britain hath Priests indeed, but silly ones; Ministers of God's word very many, but impudent; a Clergy, but given up to greedy rapine, &c.  
No one of us all acting Cham's part, that is, making sport with the failings of those we should reverence; but rather sadly bewailing the church's condition, in being burdened with such unsanctified persons; and for myself, acting the part not of Cham, but of an Historian, history being not only {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the repository of the virtues of heroic Spirits, but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, the testimony of the vices of Bad men, I thought I could do no less than take some notice of this exorbitancy of some of the Clergy; and that (as this Observators Court-Historian saith) non ut arguerem, 
Patercl. l. 2.  sed ne arguerer, not so much that I might accuse them, as fearing lest I should be accused myself for omitting them.   

Page 141.  
Fol. Ibid. He was bold to say, he hoped to live to see the day when a Minister should be as good a Man as any Jack-Gentleman in England.] Observator. Our Author telling us this Man was an high Flyer, he gives us some conjecture at the Man he drives at. A Man of an undaunted spirit, and strong resolutions, but not so intemperate in his Words, or unwise in his Actions, as to speak so contemptuously of our English Gentry.  
Answer. The Observator hath, I believe, a probable conjecture at this high-Flyer; but as to his vindication of him from such distemper in his words or actions, I fear his word will scarce be taken. The truth is, it seems my information was not then so good as since; therefore I have now corrected that expression according to that Authors own copy, adding upstart to Jack-Gentleman; which argues, I think, not much of the temper or wisdom the Observator cries up in him.   

Page 143.  
Fol. 147. Very little differing, as the King was unhappily persuaded by them, from the English.] Observator. The Alterations 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 Lord Supper, it might be a means to gain the Papists to the Church, who liked far better of the first, than second Liturgy.  
Answer. Though the King was showed the Alterations of the Scottish 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: They are not the multitude of words that create the greatness of a difference; it was but one word, yea, but one vowel of that one word, about which the Orthodox Church and heretical Synagogue of Arius contested. But behold the reason why the King (as the Observator saith) approved of the Scotch Liturgy. It came near to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the Administration of the Lord's Supper, and so might be a means to gain the Papists to the Church, who liked far better of the first, than second Liturgy. That the Papists liked King Edward's first Liturgy (and consequently the Scot'sh) better then the second is without all dispute; the very words of distribution of the Elements in both, being so framed, as they may consist with Transubstantiation. And yet a slender means to gain them to our Church. The gaining Papists to our Church, was indeed the great pretended project of 40 years' continuance; and yet in all that time not so much as one taken with that bait. How many true Protestants have been lost thereby, I grieve to think.   

Page 144.  
Observator. Our Author here doth very well describe the two Tumults at Edinburgh, upon the reading of the Book of Common Prayer; but he omits the great oversights committed by the King and the Lords of that council, in the conduct and carriage of that business.  
Answer. Here the Observator (being between Hawk and Buzzard) flies at the whole covey, taxing not only the King (for that is nothing with him) but him and the Lords of the Scot'sh council with oversights, great oversights: Sure things will be gallantly ordered, when our Observator comes to be of a council of State.   

Page 151.  
Fol. 151. Because it was the Bishops War] Observator. I am sorry to see this passage have our author's pen, whom I should willingly have accounted a true Son of the Church, were it not for this, and some other passages, which savour more of the Covenanter.  
Answer. A Covenanter? yes no doubt of that, a through-paced Covenanter; but why so? Because I call it the Bishop's War, and so did they. True, they did; and besides them many an English Protestant: 
Elenchus Mat.  why might they not? Was it not a War undertaken at first in defence of their Hierarchy? Nay, one of no mean esteem makes one of that Order the main cause of that War, by introducing the Liturgy amongst them, Sc. spe quidem laudabili, eventu verò pessimo; with a good intent, but exceeding ill success: why so? Hinc siquidem, &c. For from hence proceeded Tragedies, Tumults, War, and Invasion. Now that War which an Archbishop occasioned, and which was entered into for maintaining that Hierarchy, may, I hope, without offence be called the Bishops War. But here I am cut off; the Observator telling us that [Religion was but the vizard to disguise that business which covetousness and sacrilege had the greatest had in] which he confirms by this ensuing Narrative. [The King being engaged into a War with Spain, and deserted by those who engaged him in it, amongst other ways of assistance, was minded of a purpose his Father had of Revoking all Grants of Abby Lands, &c. which being vested in the Crown, were by his Protectors in his Minority, conferred on many of the Nobility and Gentry, &c. Being resolved upon the same course, he intends a Parliament in that kingdom, appoints the Earl of Nidderdale to preside therein, and arms him with instructions for passing of an Act of Revocation accordingly: who being on his way as far as Barwick, was there informed that all was in Tumult at Edinburgh; that a rich coach which he had sent before to Dalkeith was cut in pieces, the poor horses killed, the people seeming only sorry that they could not do the like to the Earl himself. Things being brought to this stand, and the Parliament put off with a sine Die, the King was put to a necessity of second counsels, &c.]  
Answer. That many had other then Religious designs, there is little doubt, they hoping to obtain that honour or wealth in a troubled State, which they were confident they should never arrive at in a calm. Now, as concerning this Relation, the Observator being a person to whom I am so much obliged, I cannot but as part of requital of his own labours, add something for illustration of his Story, and rectifying some mistakes thereof. Know then, Reader, that this Earl of Nidderdale, of whom the Observator speaks, was then no Earl, but the Lord Maxwell, no more but so; and the very Man, or I am deceived, mentioned in Habernfield Discovery. For, a rank Papist he was, and Anno 1624. went to Rome to receive the Pope's extraordinary Benediction; which the council of Scotland hearing of, they set out a Bar, or Prescription against him for departing the kingdom without leave: Soon after, King James dying, he came over into England, and by the Duke's favour, whose Kinswoman he had married, was, Anno 1625. joined in Commission with the Earl of Anandale (Murrey) 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; and was designed to preside there, with power to place and displace what Officers he pleased. In Order and Pomp suitable to so great a Trust, the Lord buys him a Coach most radiant and richly gilded; this he sends before him to Dalkeith. The council of Scotland having early notice of this, conspire to adhere and stick close together, and to oppose his commission: And the surer to frustrate the Lord's design, they send to all the chief Towns informing them what was coming, desiring they would send in the money with all expedition. The towns conformed instantly, and all was done; yea the very undoing and destruction of his glorious Coach, before the Lord Maxwell came to Barwich, and further he durst not go, being informed his person so generally hated, might be in great danger there, but posted a main to the Court of England, where finding the King cool in the business (having had an account from the council of Scotland of all their proceedings, & advertised by them how displeasing a precedent that Lord was like to prove, in respect of his Religion) & h the Duke gone to the Hague, after him he goes, and returns with him into England. The Duke and this Lord being come to Court, possess the King with strange insolences and affronts committed by the council of Scotland against his Regal power. His Majesty in some indignation thereupon sends for them to come forthwith, and answer what he had to object against them: up they come to court, and being by his Majesty chidden for their miscarriages, they defying this Lord openly in his majesty's presence, spoke withal bug words, not very loyal 'tis confessed; whereat his Majesty told them then, and not before, he would make them restore all to the Crown, which they had taken from it in his father's Minority. This and somewhat more, my information from a credible hand, and of a date agreeable to the story, what succeeded hereupon the Observator tells you.   

Page. 163.  
Fol. 161. The King first named eight Bishops, than those eight Bishops those eight Noble men, those Noble men chose so many Barons, and those the like number of Burgesses, &c. Observator. Not altogether so as our Author hath it, for the Bishops and Noble men together chose eight Commissioners for the sheriffdoms and as many for the Corporations.  
Answer. My informer being a Person of such eminency of that Nation, and so versed in the affairs of that kingdom; is, I think, more credible in this particular than a foreigner.   

Page 171.  
Fol. 182. True it is he had too much and too long favoured the Romish Faction, but as upon what account he favoured it is uncertain, &c.] Our Author here acquits the Archbishop from the Popish faith, but leaves him under a suspicion of favouring the Popish faction; which in a man who cannot tell upon what account he favoured it, may be thought uncharitable. But both King James and King Charles in several Declarations give this Reason for it, &c.  
Answer. It is I think, no uncharitable act to censure any man for what is professedly true, no matter upon what account; to condemn a man for what is but a bare surmise may be uncharitable. And that the Archbishop favoured the Popish faction, our Observator doth not only grant, but endeavours to show upon what account it was; saying [Both King James and King Charles in several Declarations, and in their several Answers to Parliament Petitions give this reason for it] for it? for what? for the Archbishops favouring the Popish faction? did ever any such thing ever enter into their thoughts, as to declare what moved the Archbishop to favour the Romish faction? I will not dwell upon this reason which the Observator would persuade us he had for it, that is, therefore to obtain like favours for such Protestants as lived in the Dominions of Popish Princes; nor on what he might have had, of keeping the balance even between them and the Puritans. But deliver what, having heard formerly, but upon dubious report, I am I think, certainly informed was the true cause thereof. For being told by one, that he had many an ill look from the Commons upon that very account, True, said he, I believe it, but something must be done to please the Queen.   

Page 172.  
Fol. Ibid. He tampered indeed to introduce some ceremonies bordering upon Superstition, disused by us and abused by them; from whence the Romanists collected such a disposition in him to their Tenets, as they began to cry him up for their proselyte.] Observator. In this Passage many things are to be considered. First, these Ceremonies are not here said to be superstitious, but only to border upon superstition. Secondly, they are said to be disused; which shows they were still in force. Thirdly, that these ceremonies had been abused by them of the Church of Rome, and therefore might lawfully be restored; for abusus non tollit usum.  
Answer. The first is confessed. The second is really a very dumb show; the word disused doth not at all imply that those ceremonies were in force, but only that the Reformers of our Church, observing how much they had been abused by the Church of Rome, thought fit not to retain but lay aside the use of them; Thirdly, things abused may be lawfully restored to their Primitive use, but than it must be by lawful Authority, and in a lawful manner. And the lawfulness of their restauration, doth not import an expediency, the Apostle putting such a difference between these two.   

Page 176.  
Fol. 184. This Archbishop's Predecessor penultine and last but one.] Observator. He was not Dr. Whitgift, but Dr. Bancroft. Answer. confessed, as I said before, a lapse of memory.   

Ibid.  
Fol. Ibid. That is, as a witty Gentleman said well, a new Synod, made of an old Convocation.] Observator. This witty Gentleman here meant was Sr. Edward Deering.  
Answer. Here the Observator is woefully out; for the witty Gentleman here meant was not Sr. Edward Deering; no such words to be found in all his speeches, but it was the Lord Digby his speech Nov. 12. 1640. and consequently this learned descant upon Sr. Edward is out of doors.   

Page 179.  
Fol. Ibid. By a new Commission from the King.] No such matter verily; the new Commission which he speaks of, 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.  
Answer. I shall here deliver the true state of this business, and then submit to the judgement of standers by. Feb. the 20th. 1639. the Convocation writs went forth to the several Archbishops of Canterbury and York for the Election of Clerks to the Convocation; in which writs though there were these words ad tractandum, consentiendum, & concludendum, &c. Yet could not the Convocation Treat, consent, or conclude any thing without a special Commission enabling them thereto. This Commission therefore was issued out April the 15. two days after the Parliament sat and empowered the Houses of Convocation [to alter, amend and change the old Canons, and to make new during the Parliament.] So that the Parliament being dissolved May the 5. by consequence this Commission expired by the Observators own concession; but though the Commission was nulled, it was a question still whither the Convocation was so also: In the ensuing Parliament it was agreed that it was; and if it was not, yet was it beheld to have so little life in it, as the King thought fit to reanimate it with a new Commission, bearing date May 12, authorising it to make Canons, &c. And to continue during his majesty's pleasure. Notwithstanding this Commission, the Observator tells us [That the King for satisfaction of some scrupulous members of the lower house, propounded the Question to some eminent Lawyers, who resolved under their hands [That the Convocation being called by the King's writ, was to continue until it were dissolved by the King's writ, notwithstanding the dissolution of the Parliament.] All which is very true, but not all the truth; for the light-fingerd Observator hath pocketed up the break-neck of the business, suppressing what those Lawyers sent along with their opinions, viz. that notwithstanding them, they would advise the Convocation in making of Canons to be very sparing, as I am informed by a member of that Convocation, and one (no matter who) as knowing and credible a person as that assembly had any.   

Page 182.  
Fol. Ibid. Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture-Phrase being of equivalent import, and denoting the self same persons without the least distinction.] Observator. When our Author plays the Historian in relating of such things as are built upon good intelligence, he doth it very well, few better; but when he comes to show his opinion in matters of controversy, he doth it very ill, none worse. For first, I do not believe our Author can easily prove Bishops and Presbyters to be of equivalent import.  
Answer. Out upon this Observator who is so grossly out in both; for really there are many better Historians than myself, and some worse disputants; the Observator for one; but a very much worse Observator, I am certain; for had he not been an ill-looking-fellow, he might with half an eye have discerned, that I do not at all deliver mine own opinion in this particular, but what many did then assert; those are the very words; and that many did so assert, is without all dispute: but since the Observator will needs have it to be mine own judgement, it shall be so for once, and he have his saying. And what I pray doth he oppose against it? but [first, want of logic, to infer an identity or sameness in the thing, from a Community of names, and proves it by St. Peter, who calls our Saviour Christ 1 Pet. 2. 25. the Bishop of our souls, and himself 1 Pet. verse 1. a Presbyter or priest (as most unhandsomely our English reads it) an Elder, concluding from thence, that it were sorry logic to make Christ, & every ordinary Bishop, and the Prince of the Apostles, and a simple Presbyter all one. I shall first take leave to observe his Parenthesis, before I pass further. Herein he hath a fling at our Translators, for rendering the word Presbyter, Elder; where's the unhandsomeness of it? All Latin Expositors, and Greek Lexicons, translate {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} senior; and I believe it will puzzle the Observator, to find any one who ever interpreted senior by Priest; and why, I would gladly know, is it more unhandsome in our Translators, than it was in Dr. Heilen (from whom the Observator differs vastly in this particular) who tells us, 
Autidot. Lincoln. Edit. 2. p. 157.  that the ancient Fathers called the Minister of the Sacrament of the Altar sometimes Presbyter, Elder, and sometimes Sacerdos, Priest: a thing so universally received amongst us, as you shall very rarely find the word Presbyter turned into Priest, and never Sacerdos into Elder; now it being so rare to find Presbyter otherwise rendered then by Elder, a vulgar translation should be accommodated to vulgar apprehensions; for a modern Poet, and a wit every inch of him, gives us this golden Rule, 
Return old virtues, but forbear  
New words not fitted to the Ear.   
But now ad rem, and to the man's arguments, which is nothing ad rem, and clear besides the cushion, a mere shift and no more; for doth any man doubt that the thesis is limited to gospel-people initiated into sacred orders, beneath the Apostles, and above Deacons? Let him or any men else, tell me where such persons in Holy Text are really distinguished, that is, where Presbyters import not Bishops, and Bishops Presbyters, and then he shall be confessed to speak to purpose, to much better purpose than the Observator, who produceth the order of the late Church of England in the ordaining of Bishops, when we talk of those whom Holy Text calls Bishops, not what they were in succeeding times, or are in our Church. And thus I have knocked down Episcopacy, saith the Observator, with a painted club: Dead as a door nail no doubt, yet really not so much as touched I dare say for it; I am sure Episcopacy, I mean Episcopacy by Divine Right, may live many a fair day after it, notwithstanding that assertion, the other 1300. years, as it hath done already (for so long it is since St. Hieromes' time, whose opinion all men know it was in terminis) and yet for all that, by the leave of Smectymnuus, he as great a friend to Episcopacy as any other Father; and not more than myself. That there was in the Apostolic Church, a Prelacy, a Superiority instituted, of some one (no matter how denominated) 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, I do as little doubt, and think it as demonstrable out of Scripture as any thing whatsoever not fundamental. That the persons selected for so high a function, should be men of the most eminent quality for piety and learning, there is all the reason in the world; and if such a choice be once made, as de facto in some it now is, judge others what they please, I shall account them meriting the greatest Reverence and honour (taken in the most advantageous sense, either for dignity or maintenance, that any subjects are capable of. Souls of the most noble size must have elbow-room, they cannot exercise their activity in an angust and narrow Sphere. The internal grandeur of the mind, may perhaps exist; visible, conspicuous it cannot be, without external grandeur of Estate. Again, the entries and advenues to advancement, are free and open to Professions under-graduates to the Sacred; why then shall this be excluded? If Merit be all-sufficient to entitle it possessor to Preferment; what Merit greater than what is resident in persons of Holy Orders? To defraud others of their due Rewards, can at worst be but injustice; to rob these differeth nothing from sacrilege. This is my sense of Episcopacy; enough, I hope, to satisfy spirits of the most modest and sober temper; and for others, they are beneath my consideration. This done, I shall jog on to attend the Observators next motion.   

Page 186.  
Fol. Ibid. Such a prejudice there was against them, and the truth contended for lay then so deep as few had perspicacity enough to discern it.] Observator. Though some men blind with prejudice, had not the perspicacity of discerning Truth, yet some others had; yet for the opening of the eyes, as well of men willing to be informed, as wilfully blinded, no sooner had the Smectymnuans revived the controversy, but presently the Divine Right of Episcopacy was maintained and published by Dr. Hall, than Bishop of Exeter, &c.  
Answ. Though these observations little touch my freehold; yet I shall take a superficicial view of his Authors. D. Hall, the most Reverend and Holy Bp. of Exeter, leads the Van; next comes Churchman, but whether Goodman, Worshipful, right Worshipful, honourable, right honourable, right Reverend Churchman, he tells us not: There is indeed such an Author extant, but what's in him? really, nothing but what he hath stolen from Archb. Whitgi ft. Ep. Bilson, Bp. Hall, and others, and is worn as threadbare as this Observators coat: Then he goes on to Dr. Tailor, and Dr. Hammond, these all of a cloth, and but Churchman, good men and true. Next, he proceeds to Lay-Champions, Sir Thomas Aston, Mr. their, the Lord Falkland, and in the fag-end of all, would you think it? learned Mr. Selden, not totally against Bishops. But verily the man did not consult Mr. Selden when he wrote this; for certain I am, that in his de Synedris page 423. he seems clear of another mind, extolling Salmasius, and Walo-Messalinus, a note above Ela, for their pains in the Argument of Ecclesiastical Order; though I profess I see little solid in either. Before I leave the Observator, I cannot but take notice, that I miss amongst his Assertors for Episcopacy, one, who though he is nobody with the Observator, is somebody with all men else, and that is King Charles, the Chief {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of that Cause; who did not only take up the Bucklers in good earnest, but the pen also defend it; and by the last did so gallantly acquit himself of his opponents, so solidly, so perspicuously refute them, as Smectymnuus, & qui smectymnuuntur ab illis, and all their adherents will never be able to make head against it again.   

Page 189.  
Fol. Ibid. It was of so mysterious import, as the very Imposers, much less the Jurors, could not decipher what it meant, &c.] Observator. I find by this that our Author hath spoken with very few of the Convocation.  
Answer. Were not malice {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, such a brutish and an ill-reasoning thing, (as Gregory Nazianzen call it) sure the Observator might have easily discovered, that these faults imputed to the Canon, are not delivered as of mine own suggestion, but contrived by others: If any doubt of this, he may consult the Lord Dygbies' Speech Novemb. 12. 1640. the Exceptions taken against this oath by the Counties of Northamptonshire, of Kent, more especially those of Devonshire, framed at the Summer Assizes there 1640. formed by the Earl of Bath, and most of the Gentry and Clergy; and Septemb. the 16. presented with a Petition to the Lords of the Privy council; in every one of which he shall find almost every objection here mentioned, and in all many more.   

Page. 191.  
Fol. Ibid. To exact an Oath of dissent from Civil Establishments in such things of indifferency, was an affront to the very fundamentals of Government.] Observator. Our Author taking it for granted, that the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency, is much aggrieved that the Clergy should bind themselves by Oath not to consent to any alteration of it.  
Answer. Quousque abuteris patientiâ nostrâ? How doth this Observator provoke us? Verily Reader, we must be at the charge of a Remembrancer for him. He is at his Author again, when his Author quoteth others words: And what saith his Author? That the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency; Really this Senior Sophister hath no aim in his hand, be the Author who he will, certainly he declares no such matter; his words are, 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 things of indifferency, &c. Now these some things do not signanter and expressly point out Episcopacy, but clearly exclude it; for they are said to be such things as never had any show or colour of sacred Right; but Episcopacy, in the very account of its adversaries, hath some colour and show of it. And to put the matter out of all dispute, this Objection was the Lord Digby's, who was a firm friend of Episcopacy, as my History renders him. So than these some things mentioned in the Objection, will be soon deciphered by archbishops, Arch-Deacons, Deans, &c. as the Northamptonshire and Kent Exceptions say expressly.   

Page. 196.  
Fol. 186. No Convocation having power to grant any Subsidies or aid without consent of the Parliament.] Observator. I must let our Author (and all who shall read him) know that never was any rule more false, nor more weakly grounded.  
Answer. Spoken Magisterially enough. What, never any rule more false? How comes it then to pass, that so many Wise and Learned Men in this Parliament should be transported into a different judgement? Nor is the Rule more false than weakly grounded, if we believe the Observator; truly by his leave there is ground enough to bear that Rule, or wiser men then either he, or I, are mistaken▪ For, doth not the Convocation constantly most humbly pray and desire their Grants and Subsidies may be confirmed and ratified by the High Court of Parliament? Are not their Subsidies always in the Statute-books assigned a particular chapter beginning thus, A Confirmation of a Subsidy, &c. granted by the Clergy? Now I would gladly learn of the Observator, if the Convocation be all-sufficient of itself to grant Subsidies, why is the Parliaments Ratification sought for, which must signify either all or nothing?   

Page. 215.  
Fol. 202. And on the 18th he was voted guilty of High Treason.] Observator. Our Author may please to know, that on Wednesday, December the 16. a Committee was appointed to draw up against him (the Archbishop) and the same day, not on the 17th. he was named an Incendiary by the Scots, no complaint coming from them on the Thursday.  
Answer. The Observator may be displeased to know that in this particular he is as arrant an Errant as ever was. The Journals, had he searched them, would have told him, that [on Thursday Decemb. the 17th. there was a conference between the two Houses: At that meeting the Lord Paget read the Scotch Charge against the Lieutenant of Ireland and the Archbishop. It was many sheets of paper close written, and in folio, &c.] So that here is a complaint from the Scots against the Archbishop, and in this charge the Archbishop was named an Incendiary.   

Page 217.  
Observator. I remember that congratulating him (the Bishop of Lincoln) for the high esteem which he had in both Houses of Parliament, &c.  
Answer. By this, and what follows, I perceive this Observator had some Intimacy with this Bishop at this time. Now, gentle Reader, if thou lovest me, beg his resolution in this one Question; if I do not wrong those credible persons who informed me, to call it a Question. I have been told that Doctor Heylin (I will not say a party to these premises) who all the world knows most insolently trampled and insulted upon this Bishop when he was down; 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. Now I would gladly know of this Observator, was it so, or no?   

Page 221.  
Observator. I have some reason to believe that the Clergy of that Convocation did not appear there by their council learned, sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them.  
Answer. How their council were instructed I will not determine; sure I am by their council they did appear, first, by Mr. Chadwel of Lincoln's inn, November the 26th. then again by Mr. Holborn this 15th of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them.   

Page 224.  
Fol. 219. The Bishops were excluded by ancient Canon-Laws of the council of Toledo to be assistant in cause of Blood or Death.] Observator. That they were disabled from being assistant in such Cases, I believe our Author cannot prove.  
Answer. Let the fourth Canon speak for me and itself in this point. [Si quis Sacerdotum discursor in alienis periculis extiterit, apud Ecclesiam proprium perdat Gradum.] If any Priest shall intermeddle in cases endangering the life of others, let him be degraded.   

Page 235.  
Fol. 256. They pasted upon the gate of Westminster a Catalogue of all such whose suffrages were for the Earls acquittal, under the stile of Straffordians.] Observator. This paper was not pasted upon the gate of Westminster, but on the corner of the wall of Sir William Brunkards house.  
Answer. Several and various are the Reports concerning this paper; some agreeing with the Observator; some relating it to be pasted on the head of an hogshead. What I conceived most probable, and was most generally received, I fixed upon, not undertaking to warrant the circumstance, but the thing.   

Page 238.  
Fol. Ibid. The Protestation formed, was the next day read in the lower House, and generally taken by all the Members.] Observator. Our Author is here out, as in that before; the Protestation not being taken the next day after, but on the very same day it was framed.  
Answer. If his Author was no more out in that before, then in this, he is in still I dare warrant him. For the Protestation being debated on the third 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.   

Page 240.  
Fol. 257. In this perplexity of thoughts he consults with four Bishops.] Observator. Not sent for by himself, but sent to him by the Houses of Parliament. The Persons sent on this employment, were the Primate of Armagh, the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham, and Carlisle. Of which, the two last being men unskilled in politic affairs, depended wholly on the judgement of the other two; and those carried a sharp tooth against the Lord Lieutenant upon former grudges. The displeasure which the Primate had conceived against him, was for the abrogating of the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland, and settling in their place the Articles of the Church of England, Anno 1633  
Answer. Was ever man so shamefully out, as this Observator is here? out of the Story beyond all measure, and out of charity beyond all Religion. First these Bishops were not sent by the Parliament to the King, but sent for by Him. Secondly, they were five, not four. Thirdly, 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. As for the Bishops of Durham and Carlisle, they spoke as freely as any other, insomuch as the King faulted one of their syllogisms, because it had in it four terms. Fourthly, the Lord Primate had no sharp tooth against the Lieutenant, as the Observator or Malice itself suggests; a calumny so absurd, as nothing but the sin thereof can defend it from being ridiculous, not a syllable relating to it being true; for, First the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland were never abrogated, as is evidenced by this Certificate.  

We who were present at, and Members of the Convocation holden at Dublin Anno Domini 1634. do hereby certify, that upon the proposal of the first Canon, wherein, for the manifestation of our agreement with the Church of England in the confession of the same Christian faith, and doctrine of the Sacraments (as was then expressed) we did receive and approve the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562. One of the Assembly stood up and desired that the other Book of Articles agreed upon in the Convocation holden at Dublin in the year 1615. should be joined therewith: unto whom it was then answered, that this addition was altogether needless, that Book having Been already sufficiently ratified by the Decree of the former Synod. But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland, hath no truth all in it; And 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.  
March 18. 1655. 

Wil. Bernard.  
Samuel Pullein.     
Now the Foundation failing, the superstructed grudge must needs fall also. Again, that there was not between the Lord Primate and the Earl any the least umbrage of discontent; that all was most amicable, most friendly between them, is further so likely, as it is almost demonstrable. For before his final Sentence, the Lieutenant did from time to time, both at the Black-Red, and in the Tower, advise with the Primate concerning his Answer to his Charge. For 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; he cheerfully entertained his spiritual instructions, he prayed with him, sent Messages to the King by him, took him by the hand and led him along with him to the Scaffold: All which sure he would never have done, had he taken notice, or but suspected such a grudge levant and couchant in the Primates breast. Fifthly, whereas this Trifler deriveth this forged grudge from this occasion [because, saith he, Dr. Bramhil, once the lieutenant's Chaplain, and then Bishop of Derry, had appeared most in Abrogation of those Articles] I must tell the man that there was never any controversy in that Synod between the Lord Primate and that Bishop concerning those Articles: About the Reception of the English Ecclesiastical Canons, some disagreement there was indeed, the Bishop of Derry moving they might be there admitted entirely, which the Lord Primate opposed as prejudicial to the liberty of the Irish Church, and prevailed that only some selected Canons of the English Church should be received with the addition of others of that Synods framing, which was done accordingly. Sixthly, whereas the Observator placeth the Synod of Ireland in Anno 1633 his alter idem Dr. Heylins History of the Sabbath, part 2d. page 259. could have told him it was in 1634. Lastly, whereas this Observator demands an account of our thoughts whether [the King was likely to be well informed in his Conscience, when men so interessed were designed to the managing and preparing of it?] I can assure him that the Bishops only sent him to the resolution of his own judgement for matter of fact, and to the opinions of the Judges for matter of Law; and that the restless and insatiable scruple which so discomposed his majesty's Conscience was this; That notwithstanding he most earnestly pressed the Judges to declare the particular Article of the Earls charge, which (if proved) was Treason by an express Law of the Land, he could not extort from them one single instance, nor any thing else, but that the Earl was guilty upon the whole matter, which he thought was too confused a general, upon which to shed the blood of one of the basest, much more of the Noblest Orb.  
Thus have I finished my Animadversions upon the Observators Matter. I should next proceed to his Alphabetical Table, or Vocabulary of my uncouth words, which really is the Comical part of his Tragedies against me, and it were pity to lose so much mirth. I shall therefore in lieu of that Alphabet present thee Reader with a Catalogue, first of mine own, and then of his mistakes, with some things of remark resulting from them both; and first for mine own.  
Fol. 6. In King James his interment, May the 4th. is put for the 7th.  
Ibid. Concerning the Marriage of the Queen, May the 8th for the first.  
Fol. 20. Dr. Laud Bishop of Bath and Wells, for Bishop of St. David's.  
Fol. 71. Archbishop Abbot his Keeper for the Lord Zouch his.  
Fol. 129. Guild-Hall for Alderman freeman's house.  
Fol. 131. All Counties for all Port Towns within the Realm.  
Fol. 136. Earl of Norhumberland for the Earl of Lindsey.  
Fol. 184. Archbishop Whitgift mistaken one remove.  
Other things as errors there are, I confess, charged upon me by the Observator; but some are dubious, and no constat they are errors. Some are infallibly demonstrated to be no errors, and the rest that are errors are none of mine. Of mine, these are a true and perfect account; and how far these comply for quality and number with what I pretend to in my Preface, I shall now examine. My words in that Preface are [Confident I am I stand secure against substantial falsehoods] Dares the Observator (though he as daring as another) say any one of these falsehoods are substantial, so as their rectification will destroy the frame of the Narrative to which they relate? I presume he will not. Circumstantial they are every one; and against circumstantial, though I durst not assume confidence, yet I hoped I stood secure also. And now how that hope hath failed me, shall be my next enquiry. The total of my lapses and slips amount to eight; no more, if I have faithfully collected them, as I hope I have, and did really so intend; but lest one or two should be casually omitted, I allow them to be 10. And being so, I appeal to thy ingenuous candour, gentle Reader, first, whether in describing of at least a thousand circumstances, it be not a greater miracle that I mistook in but 10, then that I erred so many. Secondly, whether 10. errors in such circumstances, wherein the fame of no one man, the interest of no one cause, is either damnified, or advantaged, be ground sufficient for so much clamour, so loud outcry, as would gladly raise the Country, yea the whole Nation against me. Lastly, whether it would not have represented the Observator to be a man of more Christian, yea Moral Principles, had he viuâ voce, by conference, or by letters hinted to me these mistakes, as fit considerations for a second impression. Indeed the last is needless, he having so fair and frequent opport unities of doing the first: True it is, acquaintance there is none between us, if acquaintance be taken for familiarity; but acquainted with my person he is, and I with his, so well, as he knows me perfectly without a Nomenclator.  
How can it be otherwise conjectured? when the truth is, we have met in London at the same shop, I may safely say near an hundred times; and to speak more close to the point, not less than ten times, not only after the publication of my History; but after he had, to my knowledge, perused it, and before he had entered one line of his Observations into the press. All which do evidently declare, that it was not my information, but a dear and precious quarrel he desired.  
Having given you this particular of mine own failings, I proceed to those of the Observator himself, which I have not only said, but proved to be errors.  
Page 64. Denying the paper found in Feltons' hat.  
Page 7. Concerning Peter Baro, and the Margaret's Professorship. 3.  
Page 86. Saying, Standing at Gloria Patri was never obtruded.  
Page 114. Concerning the Sabbath 2.  
Page: 122. Concerning the setting forth of the Ships. 2.  
Page 176. Sir Edward Dering for the Lord Digby.  
Page 215. Archbishop of Canterbury voted an Incendiary Decemb. the 16th for the 17.  
Page 238 Concerning the taking of the Protestation.  
Page 240. Concerning the Bishops sent to the King, the Primate, and the Irish Articles. 6.  
The total whereof is 18. in 17 printed sheets, almost two for one escaped from me in 70. which yet were dispensable in any man, were they but circumstantial, as mine, but when one of them tends to the very destruction of sacred worship, as that of the Sabbath; and another to the defamation of one of the most glorious Lights of our Church: These are unpardonable faults, were not both the snfferers thereby above his obloquy. In this Catalogue I have forborn such mistakes as relate immediately to myself. I have not minded him of his most notorous corrupting and falsifying my Preface; nor of his wilful mistaking other words for mine, which cost him a sixth part of his Pamphlet; nor yet his detorting & wrestling mine own words to his fancy, against their natural mind and inclination, Things counter to the ingenuity he so pretends to in his Epistle made to me, to the ancient mode of simplicity, to which I wish he would conform hereafter: Therefore, gentle Reader, when thou seest him next; after my hearty commendations, present him from me with his Distich again a little varied.  
Use thou old virtues, I shall forbear  
New words not fitted to the ear.   

Addenda to the Observator Observed.  
PAge 6. l. 8. After the end of the Paragraph. But if any demand what made King James so stout an adversary of the Arminians, the Observator hath an answer ready minted, an exceeding good one I assure you, and for which the Arminians have reason to thank him: Reason of State, he saith, it was, and kingcraft: how so? because [the Arminians were united into a party under the command and countenance of Olden-Barnevelt, and by him used to undermine the power of Maurice then Prince of Orange] so then by the Observators own inference, Reason of State and kingcraft will not tolerate the Arminians in a Commonwealth; and if so, they well deserved the name of a Faction, as he page 73. most aptly styleth them, as men having as strong a tang of the Jesuits in Practical, as Dogmatical concernments; and indeed a Faction, a turbulent, seditious Faction, the united Provinces found them all along from the first of their spawning there; more especially in that wicked conspiracy of Barnevelt who suffered most condignly upon that very account 1619, and in no less 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: but this plot aborting and miscarrying, the next was to murder the Prince of Orange, to seize upon the Magazines, to displace all Officers both martial and civil, and commit an horrid Massacre upon all of different belief; all which was by a blessed providence discovered and prevented, four of the principal conspirators hanged, and the rest some imprisoned, others banished. This was the deportment of the Observators Faction in the Netherlands, an argument they are none of the best Subjects, be their Doctrine as Orthodox as they pretend.  
Page 10. l. Penult. At this mark* But seeing the Observator so disliketh this impulsive of Irregularity, I will take it again & by exchange afford him another for it, which though not so publicly declared, yet was by knowing men in those affairs beheld as the real and genuine cause of this Commission, and that was the Archbishop's refusal to licence Dr. Sibthorp's Book. But be the impulsive to it what it will, sure I am Sr. Henry Martin told the Bishops they would incur a praemunire did they act by this Commission, and that Legally the Commission which should empower them aught to proceed from the Archbishop, not from the King: to whose advice the Bishops did so far listen as they superseded and forbore to act until a while after they obtained leave and Commission from the Archbishop.  
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of some Books Printed for, and sold by Edw. Dod at the Gun in Ivy-lane.  
AN entire Commentary upon the whole Old Testament in 4. Vol. in Fol. wherein the diverse Translations and Expositions, literal and mystical, of all the most famous Commentators both Ancient and Modern are propounded, examined, and judged of, for the more full satisfaction of the studious Reader in all things, which compleateth the author's comet on the whole Bible, a Work, the like to which hath never yet been published in English by any man, written by John Mayer Doctor in divinity.  
The Expiation of a Sinner in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews: Fol. by T. L. D. D. a learned and Reverend Divine.  
The Justification of a sinner being the main argument of S. Paul's Epistle to the Galathians, Fol. Written by the Author of the Expiation of a sinner.  
Thomae Loshintonii Logica analytica de principiis, Regulis & usu Rationis Recta, 8.  
The Angel Guardian proved by the light of Nature, beams of Scripture, and consent of many Ancient and Modern Writers untainted with Popery; by Robert Dingley Master of Arts, late Fellow of Magdalen college in Oxford; 8.  
America, or an exact description of the West-Indies, especially of those Provinces under the dominion of Spain, in which not only the Nature and Climate of the place, with the Commodities it affordeth is fully described; but also plain and full directions given for the right ordering of the same, so as to fit them for the use of the Inhabitants, and also for transportation, the like never yet published in English, faithfully related by N. N. Gent. in 8.  
Nature's Paradox, or the Innocent Impostor, a pleasant 〈◊〉 history translated out of French into English, by Major John Wright, 4.  
Poems, Songs, and sonnets, written by Richard Lovelace Esq. 8.  
The Life and death of Mr. Carter, with other Tracts written by his son Mr. John Carter Minister of God's Word in the City of Norwich; 8.  
Directions for writing of true English by Richard Hodges, in 8.  
The Reign of King Charles faithfully and impartially delivered and disposed into Annals by H. L. Esq. Fol.  
Judgement and Mercy; or the plague of Frogs inflicted, removed: delivered in nine Sermons, by that late Reverend, and Learned Divine, Mr. Josias Shute. 4.  
The Safe way to Glory, in several Exercises of General use, By William Smith Mr. Ar. R. of Cotton in Suff.