Observator. I thought it fit to prepare the way by offering some considerations at the Authors Stile, which by reason of many lofty words, no English reader can climb over.

Answer. Stile, unknown, lofty, and climb over! Here's a wood­den conceit made by as woodden 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 stile used by writers, was not made of wood, as this ob­servator supposeth, but of mettal; 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 amisse. As to those lofty words, I declare to all the world, this, not uningenu­ous acknowledgment, that having conversed with Authors of the Noblest and cheif Remarque in several languages, not onely their nations, but their very words, especially being of the most elegant import, became at length so familiar with me, as when I apply'd my self to that present work, I found it very difficult to renounce my former acquaintance with them; but as they freely offred themselves, so I entertain'd them upon these considerations. First, I was confident that amongst learned men they needed no other passe then their own extraction. And for those who were meer English readers I saw no reason they should wonder at them, considering that for their satisfaction, I had sent along with every forreigner his interpreter to serve instead of a Dictionary.

Then I had observed that our language had of late already admitted very neer all of them into so frequent use in ordi­nary discourse, as almost amounted to a Naturalization of them amongst us.

Lastly, I was perswaded, so long as my Narrative was even­ly carri'd, and tolerably true, a canded Reader would have pardoned that blemish of my Stile, especially such an one as takes notice that two Historians Livy and Salust 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.

Fol. 2. To whom the Prince returned answer that he would impo­wer the Earl of Bristow 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 Bristow to celebrate (in his name) the marriage with the Lady Infanta. But there was no such Proxy made to the Earl of Bristow, that being a power and trust thought worthy of the Catholique 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 lesse then twice spoke of the Earls delivering up the Proxy, clearly im­porting it was onely 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.

Fol. 5. England ever found the Spaniard a worse friend then 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 spake here of England, any faire-manner'd 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 confesse it.

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 plai'd 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 Bristow, Oct. 28. For the businesse of the Palatinate &c. These words give me no small assurance of the integrity and good meaning of the Court of Spain.

[Page 4] 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 meerly delayes sought for by the Spa­niard to accomplish his perfidious ends. And as for Bristowes letter insisted upon by the Observator, it signifyeth 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 perswasion of Spains sincerity.

Fol. 4. Which being new, and the businesse propounded, it was en­tertain'd 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 avoyding of some dangers which did seem to threaten the whole Kingdom, he would marry the Prince to a Lady of the Protestant Religion, he entertain'd the motion with no small disdain.

Answer. The Logick of the Observator! The King was angry when the Parliament moved him concerning the ma­riage 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 businesse debated in the Parliament, 21. Jac.

Ibid. In the stile of the Court he went for Great Britaines 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 King-Craft; but I have heard many wise men say that they could never find what that King-Craft was.

Answer. The Observator here falls foul upon King James, in­veighing against and withal detracting from his King-Craft: Pitty 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.

Fol. 5. A stout adversary he was to the Arminians, and Semi­pelagians whom he call'd, as Prosper before him, the enemies of Gods 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 Gods grace, or not. 3. What the Reason was, why King James shew'd himself so great an ad­versary to them.

Answer. In the persuance of these three particulars, the Ob­servator spends not lesse then 10. pages, wherein though I am very little concerned, yet I shall take the liberty to ob­serve these few things. First, he saith St. Augustines 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 Cal­vins 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 errours, 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 shew that King James was much governed by Doctor Mountague, Bishop of Winchester, who being of a contrary perswasion, put him upon many harsh and severe expressions against those poor men. But this Mountague being dead, he began to shew himself more favou­rable unto those opinions, especially upon the comming out of a book, of another Mountague then Prebend of Windsor; whose judgment in those points he liked very wel. 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. Mountague 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. Mountague then Bishop, to­gether [Page 6] 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 Councel on their knees, renounced them. So Sr. Humphrey Mildmay averred in open Parliament 30 Careli nomine contradicente, See the Additions. No one neer the Chair contradicting. *

Fil. 6. The Kings Corps on the 4 ^th. 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 temporalitie; and yet he failes us here in the first beginning. For neither was the body of the King interred on the 4 ^th. of May, not the letters of procuration kept undelivered until the 8 ^th. nor the Marriage Cele­brated after the Funeral of the King. For upon Sunday, May the first, &c.

Answer. That the 4 ^th. of May was put for the 7 ^th. is con­fest to be a mistake; and it must be either in the Printer, or, a meer clip of my pen, for that I intended it so; I have these reasons to perswade the contrary. First, all my informati­ons, not one (and four they were) dissenting fixt, the Kings interment on the 7 ^th. 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 8 ^th. may probably imply, I intended to assign the 7 ^th. for it, for else the 5 ^th. 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 8 ^th. 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 errours are in point of temporality here acknowledged.

Fol. 7. From Canterbury his Majesty took Coach for White­hall where the third day after his arival] 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 Majesties passing no further then 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.

Fol. 8. For as a man is without a female consort, so to a King [Page 7] without his supream councel an half-form'd steril thing] Our Au­thor in these words, and the rest that follow, maintains a Paradox most dangerous to supream 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 Politique Descondants imply Statute-laws, which I am of opinion, no King of England hath power to make without common consent in Parliament.

Fol. 17. And who (i. e. Sr. Robert Mansel) had an unque­stionable right to the cheif conduct of this enterprise upon the Dukes default] I believe not so.

Answer. The Observators contrary beliefe is no evidence, who was never made an Arbitrator in the businesse; nor is it to others so strange a thing; many men of wisedom, and long experience, still holding it for a Rule, not onely in this parti­cular, but in all such as have vicariam potestatem, a vicege­rency.

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 grandure to the Throne, Kings being perfect Kings, and qua­lifyed 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 Catholick Majesty of Spain, is not so much as touched, who is not Crowned at all.

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 [Page 8] he make Bishop of Bath and Welles; who was then Bishop of St. Davids.

Answer. The fall of Lord Keeper Williams, I never say'd 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 Temporality; 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 confesse I was mistaken, and this is grande nefas, an horrid crime no doubt. But, this is not all; for rather then 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 then superannuating in his Temporalities] Answer. I write the History of the Reign of King Charles, and then what I said of that superannuating, was by me intended (nor can it be ratio­nally interpreted otherwaies) of such things and actions as have reference to the sixteen years whereof I treat in that Hi­story, not of such things as antecedently occurr'd, & 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 errour, 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 [...], but a meer 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 lesse concerned. And this is I hope e­nough to keep this errour within the bounds of my confidence of not superannuating, were the errour infallibly mine own. But if now▪ after all this ranting triumph, upon a melius inqui­rendum, and better search, the errour 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 unbyast sense, That Paragraph with the former, and three subsequent to it, do [Page 9] not, or were not so intended, to compleat the report of the Committee for Religion. If so, then 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 fail'd 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 Coppy (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 falshoods, but from circumstantial also; whereas this is his Preface, not mine; for male dum recitat, the property is al­ter'd saith the Epigrammatist, my words being expresly these, Confident I am, I stand secure against any substantial falshoods; and I hope (now that 'tis no more then I hope) against circumstan­tial also. [...], Phy 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 judgment upon all the world, you must look when you fail and forge so fouly, to be told of it to your teeth.

Fol. 21. Who loved the Bishop if fame belies her not, better then was fit] Observator. I think our Author with more prudence might have spared this note, especially having Fame onely for the ground thereof, which is so infamous an Historian.

Answer. True it is, Fame is not alwaies an infallible infor­mer, some Rumors being begot by Malice, and nursed up by Credulity: But yet true it is, that she is sometimes a Publique 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 enquire. Sure I am Mr. Wilsons Eunuchus ab utero was a clearer acquitance of that La­dies Innocence, then 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 [Page 10] 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 enquire.

Fol. 45. For the Lords found an antient Order, that no Lords sedente Parliamento, should have voice during that Session &c. whereupon their suffrage was excluded] Observator. I somewhat doubt our Authors 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 errour, I recant.

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 Taxe, but a Loan.

Answer. Taxe in common speech is taken for a Compulsory Tribute, imposed upon the Subject, at a certain rate; and such a Taxe this Loan was, it being so cumpulsory, as the refusers were by special instructions bound over to the Councel-board and imprison'd.

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 errours. First, Bishop Laud was not of the Quo­rum, no more then 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 kill'd in Bramhil Park, &c:

Answer. What four errours 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 foystings at home, my errours will not multiply so fast. Now first, where did I say Bishop Laud was of the Quorum more then 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 Cōmission, 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 discover'd. See the Additions. Lastly, where­as I said the Archbishop kill'd his Keeper, Mr. Prynn in his Bre­vians [Page 11] of Archbishop Lauds life, p. 11. and Aulives Coquinariae, p. 130. expresly say it was his Keeper. My last errour is the vouching Bishop Andrews for a vindicator of the Archbishops Regularity. The Observator yeelds [he did the Archbishop great service in this businesse, 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 maintain'd 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 belye him, as 'tis an hundred to one he doth. But if the Bishop pronounced the Archbishop Regular, though he thought otherwaies, 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 stept into that See. So then it seems the question was not whither Regular or Irregular, but who, Abbot or Williams, would make the best Archbishop. This is fine stuffe, pitty it is, there is no more of the remnant.

Fol. 73. They who lately were confind as Prisoners, are now not only free, but Petty Lords, and Masters, yea and Petty Kings.] Ob­servator. I cannot chose but marvail what enduced our Author unto this expression of making the Gentlemen assembled in the house of Commons, not onely 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 otherwaies, 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 marvail that a poor Subject should use the same expres­sion, considering what the Observators Court-Historian (as he, and Dr. Heilen usually stiles 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 Superiours to Kings themselves.

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 then every Peer con­sidered at 3000 l. and every Commoner at 2124 l. per an­num, no such stupendious businesse, 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, then 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 perswasion of their con­tentednesse 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 enow, 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 [Page 13] was mentioned, that in order to his establishment he promised the Covenanters a settlement of the Presbyerian go­vernment, whereto one Reply'd [If he complie with the Pres­byterians, it is not this bit of bread to me whither he sinke 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 Churches splendor, 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 then I take them to be.

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 prai'd for the next day (being Sunday) at London in a Church (meaning St. Brides) 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 shew the cause why he put this cruel act in execution. The writing was thus even for a syllable.

Fol. 94. The body was from thence convey'd to Portsmouth, [Page 14] & there hung in chains, but by some stole and convey'd 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 superfaetation.

Observator. The calling in of Mr. Mountagues book, and the advancing of Dr. Barnaby Potter (a through-paced Calvinian) unto the Bishoprick of Carlile, could not get him any love in the hearts of his People.

Answer. This must necessarily signifie 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 neer admission to the King person, will at the first sight, look so like a Calumny, as deserves no answer. So then the horrid thing in him is, and must be his Opinion, and being a through­paced Calvinian; and that indeed is blemish enough now a daies; he that is so, be he the greatest Scholler in the Land, he doteth; Be he the most pious, he is an hypocrite; be he the most consciencious in all his Actions, a very knave; with all these titles of honour, I have known the gallantest men in this Nation dubb'd; and what is this but to make a faction of an opinion, and to contend for victory with the losse of charity? Ephes. 4. 15. [...]. The institution of Cyrus makes [...] speaking truth, one of the three accomplishments of a compleat 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 errours to hell; what the uncharitable animosities on both sides may produce I tremble to think. It was St. Augustines opinion, Augustine Epist. 162. and I wish it entertain'd by our [Page 15] whole Church in such Polemick 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.

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 avoyd no lesse then 25 pages of the Ob­servator. So that I might justly have this Man in the Moon, like Mithridates his soldiers, sighting by Moon-shine with his own shaddow; 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 publique Monuments of our Church in point of Doctrine differ'd from Calvines 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 errours in not full so many lines. First, Petrus Baro relinquisht not his Professor­ship at the end of his first three years. He was Professor Anno. 1574. his Lectures upon Jonas tells us so. And the Observator will have him Professor about the time of the Lambeth Arti­cles, which were in 1595. So then he relinquisht 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, Foundresse 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 [Page 16] & 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 Friers; there he lived, there he dyed, and was buried in St. Olaves Church, at whose Interr­ment 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 in­curr'd 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 snibb'd 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. Marshall, who both testify'd they were chid by that B. of Winchester for preaching against Popery, and commanded to do so no more.

Ibid. By the uncontrouled Preaching of several points tending and warping towards Popery by Mountague, Goodman, Cozens and others.] Observator. How again our Author is I think mista­ken; for neither Mountague nor Cozens 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, [Page 17] though both are sometime of the same, never of a much differing import; And though I shall agree with the Observator, that in Dr. Cozens 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.

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 chuse but know.

Answer. Because the Observator appeals here to my know­ledg, 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 custome 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 lawfulnesse 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 professe seriously I find not the least trace thereof in any genuine Au­thor of the first 500 yeares; and suppose I did, yet would not that be exemplary enough to me to imitate their practise. The Primitive Fathers never intended their usages or ex­pressions should be leading Charts, or Directories to all poste­rity; they knew wel 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 [Page 18] process of time, the main turn-keys to the superstitious Sa­crifice of the Masse, 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 goe 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 Councel. For in Bishop Wren's Articles frame'd for the Dio­cesse of Norwich, sure I am, cap. 4 ^th. 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 tels us Secondly, [The Rubrique 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 Rubrique 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 newes indeed. For of what Creed I demand? of that (the Apostles) at which the Rubrique enjoyned us to stand up? surely no such thing. It is in truth as Mr. Hooker quoteth out of St. Basil, [...], 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 [Page 19] 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 prefixt to our Leiturgy, 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 Common-Prayer] expresly 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 [...], 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 injoyn 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 Queens Injunctions] Jesus shall be mentioned] due & lowly reverence shall be done, as hath been accustomed; now how it hath been accustomed, the Queens Injunctions tell us expresly, it was [by lownesse of curtesie, 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 anti­ents call'd it) was read.

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 mention'd in that statute were not required to be made Knights, as was vulgarly supposed, but ad arma geren­da, [Page 20] to bear armes, and thereupon tells us a story of a Sword and Surcoate, I shall rather believe the plain words of the Statute, then his interpretation.]

Answer. I find by Sr. Edward Coke, Inst. part second, that by the Common-Law all persons who hold a Knights Fee (which was of uncertain value, sometimes 15, sometimes 20, some­times (as in this present case) 40 l. per annum) might be com­pell'd 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 markes 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 instrucions sent down this year, with the Kings Commission, whereby [Al 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 ent unde militarent adessent apud Westmonaster. &c. Who had possessions valued at a Knights 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 Kings Wardrobe. But I said, these men summon'd 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 Knights service, and yet (non debet) ought not, for want of Gentry, to be a Knight] and a little after, the fine to the Mark which is chiefly aimed at.

Fol. 124. For many had no fancy to the work, meerly 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.

[Page 21] Answer. The Observator saith most of the Clergy, and most of the Nobility and Gentry contributed largely to the repai­ring of St. Pauls. Many, and most, may sure be consistent; there may be many opposite to the major vote.

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 lesse then 6000 l.] Observator. I have shewed our Author some mistakes in his Temporalities, and now I shall shew him one or two in his localities, besides his misplacing of the battail 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, occureth Fol. 129. &c.

Answer. The Observator here mentioneth a battail of Tissi­que, spoken of before; but where I know not; only conjecture that he had a good will to take me to taske for misplacing a battail, I suppose at Rostoch; but upon better consideration he found the errour was his own, not mine; and therefore cut out the leaf containing the 101 & 102 pages wherein his mistake lay, leaving that Paragraph tyed head and heeles to­gether.

Now I come to my two errours in Locality. The first is my misplacing of the Earl of Newcastles entertainment of the King. Which he will have at Belsover Castle in Darby-shire, 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 progresse 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 my self at York at that very time of the Kings Progresse, 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 [Page 22] Freman's house. Herein I confesse my errour; Parce precor falso.

Fol. 127. A very Learned man he was, his Erudition of the old stamp stifly disciplin'd in the doctrine of St. Augustine, which they who understand it not call Calvinisme.] Observator. Whereas Our Author makes the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvinisme 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 Calvinisme 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 neer. 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 Lords day which is the next thing offers it self to our consideration, sure I am they do.

Fol. 128. This Declaration then caused so many impetuous clamours against it, as it was soon call'd in.] Observator. In this I am sure our Author is extremely Out; that Book being never call'd 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 tacite suppressing and calling of it in.

Fol. 129. The Divinity of the Lords day being new Divinity at Court.] Observator. And so it was by its favour in the Coun­trey 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 Petrifi'd (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 then 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 Lords day was not known in Eng­land till the year 1595.] If so, I demand of the Observator, [Page 23] 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 subjoynes, so is the Church, the Creed, the Lords Pray­er; importing it to be a lawful thing, abused by super­stitious people; and soon after he speaks of a Sabbath then commanded by the 4 ^th. Precept, which could not be the Jewish; and if not that, must of necessity be the Lords day. Now this Archbishop published his Defence, Anno. 1574. Next for the book of Homiles, surely he spake much without book; for certainly there was not any thing more especially taught in those Homiles, then the divinity of the Lords 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 rendred clearer? Here's the Sabbath interpreted by the Lords day, and that com­mandeth to be observed in the 4 ^th. Precept by God himself. So that by the Observators leave, the Divinity of the Lords day may be found in our book of Homilies.

Fol. Ibid. Which seemed the greater prodigy, that men who so eagerly cryed up their own Order and Revenues for Divine, should so much deny the Lords 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 Lords 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 wondred 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 my self 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 publique meeting or assembly] this Day, he calleth the Lords Day. Secondly [Now whereas the solemn duties of this Day, cannot be performed in a publique manner, without a Place set a part, and Persons enabled to per­form [Page 24] such sacred actions. Therefore both Places & Persons san­ctify'd 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 Lords Day, and the duties thereof; and emergent both from the fourth Commandment, and so I hope the Prodigy is at an end.

Fol. Ibid. But of this elsewhere.] Observator. And indeed of this there hath enough been said elsewhere to satisfie 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 superadde is this, that whereas I said, But of this elsewhere, my meaning was, that of the Doctrine of the Sabbath or Di­vinity of the Lords 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 Judgment in that Subject. Only from thence I shall (having so fit an opportunity) be bold to re-mind Doctor Heilen of an od 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 signifie the same thing, should it be evinced to be Apostolical) the man sweats, toyles, 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 Lords 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 4 ^o. the other folio, is Quando (not Quomodo) & for the Authority, he in that very place ascribes it Apostolicae Ecclesiae, to the Apostolique 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 controversie, to forge and falsifye a Record so boldly, I dare not say so impudently, I submit to the judgment of all the world. This I write partly to provoke an answer from that Doctor, and [Page 25] partly, to vindicate him from the groundlesse 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 Gracchos—

Fol. Ibid. And was after stiled Duke of York] Observator. Our Author here accomodates his stile to the present times, when the weekly Pamphlets gave the Prince no other Title then 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 stiled Duke of York, I had been out in my Temporalities, he being not created Duke of York till af­terward: to avoy'd 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?

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 Ship­money 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.

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 then lines. For first, it is not likely that yong Oxonstern came without Credential letters. Secondly, I am sure he had publique audience, my curiosity carrying me to the Court [Page 26] 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 mans hand so out as mine in this Narration; what? more mistakes then 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 Christendome, Page 245. The Author whereof, though he be an Italian, and therefore not so competent a Judge of our affaires; yet the Earle of Monmouth, who tran­slated him, was of our Nation, and a person of so much ho­nour and knowledge in this businesse, as he would have gi­ven us some Marginal caveat, had it been so wide of truth as the Observator would make it.

Fol. 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 humane learning he reckons this Bishop defective.]

Answer. That this Bishop was none of the greatest Schol­lars, I saw then no reason but that I might safely say, with­out disparagement to his Function, Schollarship, or my Pru­dence; a Bishop may be [...], able to instruct, and Schollar sufficient for his Placo, though he be none of the grea­test magnitude. Nor is it requisite that a Bishop be much more learned then 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 Hierome, Nullus aut rarus est qui omnia habeat, quae habere debet Episcopus. No Bishop, or rarely any hath all vertues 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 loth to abide a misconstruction; and finding the Historians note verified, Vivorum ut magna admiratio, ita cen­sura difficilis est.

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. Gregories in London, [Page 27] being heard before him sitting in the Privy Councel. Anno 1633.

Answer. The Archbishops out-running Authority I inten­ded not in placing the Communion-Table Altar-wise, at the East-end of the Chancel; but by enjoyning 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 carbonado'd, nor yet with Peter Heylin; plainly and sincerely the 82 Canon enjoyneth, that the Communion-Table, when the holy Communion is to be administred [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, mention'd 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 Queens 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 Altar-wise before, yet at Communion-time it was to be removed, and consequently not to be raild 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 controversie about the Communion-Table in the case of St. Gregories 1633.) This Metropolitical Visitation, say I, was 1635. His Majesties Declaration, sayes the Obser­vator, was 1633. a year before; sure the man meanes London measure. But what? did the King declare any thing in that case, concerning the setting of railes before the Holy Table, or that it should stand there immoveable, so as the Communi­cants were to resort up to those railes 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 re­misse government of Arch-Bishop Abbot [which made the future reduction of tender-conscienced men so long discon­tinued [Page 28] obedience, interpreted an innovation.] No such matter, I well remembred those words, and withal that I never meant they should relate to the setting Railes before the Holy Table, so as it might not be removed at the time of celebrating the Blessed Sacrament.

Fol. 138. They were not blamelesse in their lives, some being vitious unto scandal.] Observator. Vitious 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 nakednesse 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. Hierome: Quando sine nomine contra vitia scribitur, qui irascitur, accusator sui est. When vices are declam'd 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 doe, from my very soule, I were not able to add another; for the Observator himselfe cannot more cordial­ly rejoyce in the conviction of me here for untruth, then I would my self, so much do I prefer the honour of the Cler­gy before mine own reputation.

But were there such, it had been fitter, sayes 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 fitter for me then it was for Chrysostome, 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, sirnamed 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 Gods 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 Churches condition, in being burthen'd with such unsanctify'd persons; and for my self, acting the part not of Cham, but of an Historian, Historie being not on­ly [...], the Repositorie of the vertues of He­roick Spirits, but [...], the testimony of the vices of Bad men, I thought I could doe no lesse then take some notice of this exorbitancy of some of the Clergy; and [Page 29] 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 my selfe for omitting them.

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 wisedome the Observator cries up in him.

Fol. 147. Very little differing, as the King was unhappily per­swaded by them, from the English.] Observator. The Altera­tions being made, and shewed to the King, he approved well of them; in regard that comming neerer to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the Administration of the Lord Supper, it might be a meanes to gain the Papists to the Church, who liked far better of the first, then second Liturgy.

Answer. Though the King was shewed the Alterations of the Scottish Liturgy; yet might he so apprehend, or be per­swaded that the differences were small; and yet might they be great for all that, and perhaps not discovered by him: They are not the multitude of words that create the great­nesse 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 neer to the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth in the Administration of the Lords Supper, and so might be a meanes to gain the Papists to the Church, who liked far better of the first, then second Liturgy. That the Papists liked King Edwards first Liturgy (and conse­quently the Scot'sh) better then the second is without all [Page 30] 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 yeares 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.

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 over-sights committed by the King and the Lords of that Councel, in the conduct and carriage of that businesse.

Answer. Here the Observator (being between Hawk and Buzzard) flies at the whole Covy, taxing not onely the King (for that is nothing with him) but him and the Lords of the Scot'sh Councel with oversights, great oversights: Sure things will be gallantly ordered, when our Observator comes to be of a Councel of State.

Fol. 151. Because it was the Bishops War.] Observator. I am sorry to see this passage have our Authors 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 through­paced Covenanter; but why so? Because I call it the Bi­shops 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 successe: why so? Hinc siquidem, &c. For from hence proceeded Tragedies, Tumults, War, and Invasion. Now that War which an Arch-Bishop occasion'd, and which was entred 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 businesse which covetousnesse and sacriledge had the greatest had in] which he confirmes by this ensuing Narrative. [The King being engaged into a War with Spain, and deser­ted by those who engaged him in it, amongst other wayes of assistance, was minded of a purpose his Father had of Revoking all Grants of Abby Lands, &c. which being vested [Page 31] 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 Kingdome, appoints the Earle of Nidderdale to preside there­in, and armes 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 poore horses killed, the people seem­ing onely sorry that they could not doe the like to the Earle himselfe. Things being brought to this stand, and the Par­liament put off with a sine Die, the King was put to a necessi­ty of second Councels, &c.]

Answer. That many had other then Religious designes, there is little doubt, they hoping to obtain that honour or wealth in a troubled State, which they were consident 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, adde something for illustration of his Story, and re­ctifying some mistakes thereof. Know then, Reader, that this Earl of Nidderdale, of whom the Observator speakes, was then no Earle, but the Lord Maxwell, no more but so; and the very Man, or I am deceived, mention'd in Habernfield Di­scovery. For, a rank Papist he was, and Anno 1624. went to Rome to receive the Popes extraordinary Benediction; which the Councel of Scotland hearing of, they set out a Bar, or Prescription against him for departing the Kingdome with­out leave: Soon after, King James dying, he came over into England, and by the Dukes favour, whose Kinswoman he had married, was, Anno 1625. joyned in Commission with the Earle of Anandale (Murrey) for summoning a Parliament (not for Revoking of Church, and other lands formerly inve­sted in the Crown) but for contribution of monies and ships against the Dunkirkers; and was designed to preside there, with power to place and displace what Officers he pleased. In Order and Pomp sutable to so great a Trust, the Lord buyes him a Coach most radiant and richly gilded; this he sends before him to Dalkeith. The Councel 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 Lords designe, they send to all the chief Towns informing them what was comming, desiring they would send in the money with all expedition. The Townes con­formed instantly, and all was done; yea the very undoing [Page 32] 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 businesse (having had an account from the Councel of Scotland of al their proceedings, & adver­tised by them how displeasing a President that Lord was like to prove, in respect of his Religion) &h the Duke gone to the Hague, after him he goes, and returnes with him into England. The Duke and this Lord being come to Court, possesse the King with strange insolences and affronts committed by the Coun­cel 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 Majesties pre­sence, spake withal bug words, not very loyal 'tis confest; 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 Fathers 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.

Fol. 161. The King first named eight Bishops, then 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 Sheriffdomes 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 Kingdome; is, I think, more credible in this particular then a forreigner.

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 suspition 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; [Page 33] 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 en­deavors to shew 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 perswade 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 ballance 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.

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 dis-used; which shews 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 confest. The second is really a very dumb shew; 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 then it must be by lawful Autho­rity, and in a lawful manner. And the lawfulnesse of their restauration, doth not import an expediency, the Apostle putting such a difference between these two.

Fol. 184. This Archbishops Predecessor penultine and last but one.] Observator. He was not Dr. Whitgift, but Dr. Bancroft. [Page 34] Answer. Confest, as I said before, a lapse of memory.

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 wofully out; for the witty Gentleman here meant was not Sr. Edward Deering; no such words to be found in al his speeches, but it was the Lord Digby his speech Nov. 12. 1640. and consequently this learned de­scant upon Sr. Edward is out of doores.

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, til by another writ proceeding from the same Authority they were dissolved.

Answer. I shall here deliver the true state of this businesse, and then submit to the judgement of standers by. Feb. the 20 ^th. 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 dayes after the Parliament sate and impowred 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 re-animate it with a new Commission, bearing date May 12, Authorizing it to make Canons, &c. And to continue during his Majesties pleasure. Notwithstanding this Commission, the Observator tells us [That the King for satisfation 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 Kings writ, was to continue until it were dissolved by the Kings writ, not­withstanding the dissolution of the Parliament.] All which [Page 35] is very true, but not all the truth; for the light-fingerd Observator hath pocketed up the break-neck of the busi­nesse, 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 enformed by a member of that Convocation, and one (no matter who) as knowing and credible a person as that assembly had any.

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 playes 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 shew his opinion in matters of controversie, 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 grosly out in both; for really there are many better Historians then my self, 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 Logick, to inferre an identity or samenesse 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 Preist (as most unhand­somely our English reads it) an Elder, concluding from thence, that it were sorry Logick 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 passe further. Herein he hath a fling at our Transla­tors, for rendring the word Presbyter, Elder; where's the un­handsomenesse of it? All Latine Expositors, and Greek Lexicons, translate [...] 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, then 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 [Page 36] 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 finde the word Presbyter turned into Priest, and never Sacerdos into Elder; now it being so rare to finde Presbyter otherwise rendred 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,

But now ad rem, and to the mans arguments, which is no­thing ad rem, and clear besides the cushion, a meer shift and no more; for doth any man doubt that the thesis is limited to Gospel-persons 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 confest to speak to purpose, to much better purpose then 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 knockt 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 then my self. That there was in the Apostolique 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 choyce 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 Advan­tagious [Page 37] sense, either for dignity or maintenance, that any subjects are capable of. Soules of the most noble size must have elbow-room, they cannot exercise their activity in an angust and narrow Sphere. The internal Grandour of the mind, may perhaps exist; visible, conspicuous it cannot be, without external Grandour of Estate. Againe, 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 then 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 Sacriledge. This is my sense of Episcopacy; enough, I hope, to satisfie 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.

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 Controversie, but presently the Divine Right of Episcopacy was maintained and published by Dr. Hall, then Bishop of Exeter, &c.

Answ. Though these observations little touch my Free-hold; 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, Honorable, right Honorable, right Reverend Churchman, he tels us not: There is indeed such an Author ex­tant, but what's in him? really, nothing but what he hath stol­len from Archb. Whitgi ft. Ep. Bilson, Bp. Hall, and others, and is worn as thredbare 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. Theyr, 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 paines in the Argument of Eccle­siastical [Page 38] Order; though I professe I see little solid in either. Before I leave the Observator, I cannot but take notice, that I misse amongst his Assertors for Episcopacy, one, who though he is No-body with the Observator, is Some-body with all men else, and that is King Charles, the Chief [...] 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 himselfe 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.

Fol. Ibid. It was of so mysterious import, as the very Impo­sers, much lesse 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 [...], 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 owne 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 Earle of Bath, and most of the Gentry and Clergy; and Septemb. the 16. presented with a Petition to the Lords of the Privy Councel; in every one of which he shall find almost every objection here mention'd, and in all many more.

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 binde themselves by Oath not to consent to any alteration of it.

Answer. Quous (que) 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 againe, 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 aym in his hand, be the Author who he will, cer­tainly [Page 39] he declares no such matter; his words are, Some things were expresly to be sworn to which were never thought, to have any shew or colour of Sacred Right, but were conceived arbitrary and things of indifferency, &c. Now these some things do not signan­ter and expresly point out Episcopacy, but clearly exclude it; for they are said to be such things as never had any shew or colour of sacred Right; but Episcopacy, in the very account of its adversaries, hath some colour and shew of it. And to put the matter out of all dispute, this Objection was the Lord Digbyes, who was a firm friend of Episcopacy, as my History renders him. So then these some things mention'd in the Objection, will be soon decipher'd by Arch-Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Deans, &c. as the Northamptonshire and Kent Exceptions say expresly.

Fol. 186. No Convocation having power to grant any Subsi­dies or ayd 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 passe, that so ma­ny Wise and Learned Men in this Parliament should be transported into a different Judgment? Nor is the Rule more false then 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 alwayes 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 it selfe to grant Subsidies, why is the Parliaments Ratification sought for, which must signifie either all or nothing?

Fol. 202. And on the 18 ^th 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 Arch-Bishop) and the same day, not on the 17th. he was named an Incendiary by the Scots, no complaint com­ming 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. [Page 40] The Journals, had he searcht them, would have told him, that [on Thursday Decemb. the 17 ^th. 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.

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 premisses) 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 crowching 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?

Observator. I have some reason to believe that the Clergy of that Convocation did not appear there by their Councel learned, sufficiently authorized and instructed to advocate for them.

Answer. How their Councel were instructed I will not de­termine; sure I am by their Councel they did appear, first, by Mr. Chadwel of Lincolnes Inne, November the 26 ^th. then a­gain by Mr. Holborn this 15 ^th. of Decemb. who argued two hours in defence of them.

Fol. 219. The Bishops were excluded by ancient Canon-Laws of the Councel 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 it self in this point. [Si quis Sacerdotum discursor in alienis periculis ex­titerit, apud Ecclesiam proprium perdat Gradum.] If any Priest [Page 41] shall intermeddle in cases endangering the life of others, let him be degraded.

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 fixt upon, not undertaking to warrant the circumstance, but the thing.

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.

Fol. 257. In this perplexity of thoughts he consults with four Bishops.] Observator. Not sent for by himselfe, but sent to him by the Houses of Parliament. The Persons sent on this im­ployment, were the Primate of Armagh, the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham, and Carlile. Of which, the two last being men un­skill'd in politick Affaires, 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. [Page 42] 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 spake not one syllable. As for the Bishops of Durham and Carlile, they spake as freely as any other, insomuch as the King faulted one of their Syllogismes, because it had in it four terms. Fourthly, the Lord Primate had no sharp tooth against the Lieutenant, as the Observator or Malice it self 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.

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 [Page 43] 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 Lieu­tenants Chaplain, and then Bishop of Derry, had appeared most in Abrogation of those Articles] I must tell the man that there was never any controversie 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 intirely, 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 Majesties 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 expresse 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 liew of that Alphabet present thee Reader with a Catalogue, first of mine own, and then of his mistakes, with some things [Page 44] 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. Davids.

Fol. 71. Archbishop Abbot his Keeper for the Lord Zouch his.

Fol. 129. Guild-Hall for Alderman Freemans house.

Fol. 131. All Counties for all Port Towns within the Realm.

Fol. 136. Earl of Norhumberland for the Earl of Lindsey.

Fol. 184. Arch-Bishop Whitgift mistaken one remove.

Other things as errors there are, I confesse, 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 falshoods] Dares the Observator (though he as daring as another) say any one of these falshoods 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 candor, 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 damnify'd, 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 vivâ voce, by conference, or by letters hinted to me these mistakes, as fit considerations for a second impression. In­deed [Page 45] the last is needlesse, 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 neer an hundred times; and to speak more close to the point, not lesse then ten times, not only after the publication of my History; but after he had, to my knowledge, perused it, and before he had entred one line of his Observations into the Presse. 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 Errours.

Page 64. Denying the paper found in Feltons hat.

Page 7. Concerning Peter Baro, and the Margarets 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 16 ^th. 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 circumstantiall, 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 imediately to my self. I have not minded him of his most notorous corrupting and falsi­fying my Preface; nor of his wilfull mistaking other words for mine, which cost him a sixth part of his Pamphlet; nor yet his detorting & wrestling mine owne words to his fancy, against their naturall 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 [Page 46] conform hereafter: Therefore, gentle Reader, when thou seest him next; after my hearty commendations, present him from me with his Distich again a little vary'd.