Canterburys Doom

it is proved to be called in by him, who hath the happiness to forget all the evil deeds which he cannot justify, though others swear them: And it was not contrary to the Kings Declaration (which himself originally contrived) in the Kings intention, but in his own perverting of it, to suppress the truth. Sixthly, the hindering of the reprinting of Master Fox, Bishop Jewel and Doctor Willets Works, was certainly his own act, because done by color of this Star-chamber Decree, procured by himself for this very purpose, and the reprinting of them was stopped by his own Officers, creatures means, who knew his mind, if not received his command herein: Seventhly, himself, if not immediately, yet originally and mediately hindered the printing of all the new Books against Popery, refused at the Press, and denied license by his Instruments, Chaplains, Doctor Bray, Doctor Haywood, Doctor Weekes, Doctor Baker, unless first purged by them.

Ninthly, the questioning of Master Prynne, Master Burton, with their Printers and Stationers in the High Commission, for their Books against Doctor Cosins his popery, Babel no Bethel, Baiting of the Popes Bull, and the like, was originally his act alone, not the Courts, which did naught in it but by his instigation: Their getting off thence was by Prohibitions, sore against his will, where else he resolved to ruin them. Master Burtons answering the Popes Bull by license, deserved no questioning at the Counsel Table, and was certainly no Libell at all, unless the Pope or his Partisans deemed it such to them: His Books then were no trouble to the Church, and therefore it was strange and most unjust he should be troubled for them; yea, his imprisonment without Baile (which he tendered) when bailable by Law, was contrary to Magna Charta and the Petition of Right, though the cause of it (not warranted by Law) was expressed in the Warrant. Tenthly, his own Chaplains oversights and offenses in licensing popish Books, even with this special Encomium, that there was nothing in them contrary to faith and sound Doctrine (the form of licensing himself prescribed them under his own hand) is certainly both in law and justice, his own crime more then theirs, who must answer for it much more then they; the trust of licensing books being originally reposed in himself by the State, and in his Chaplains only by his own Deputation, for whom he must answer at his peril: To prove this, and take away this poor evasion, which he so much insists on, we shall put but these few cases adjudged in Law; If a Bailiff, under Jailor, or under Sheriff suffer a prisoner to escape, or any way to misdemeane themselves in their office, an action of escape, debt (an fine in cases of felony and treason,) and action of the case lieth against the high Sheriff and chief Jailor for it, who must undergo the penalty and blame, because they are their servants, entrusted by themselves: And to put a case, which comes nearer home, and is far stronger then this of a Chaplain, 21. E. 1. membr. 3. Dorso Clauso, and in the Pleas of that Parliament, placit. 17. John Archbishop of York was questioned in Parliament, for excommunicating William of Willicon, and John Rowman, servants to the Bishop of Durham, then employed in the Kings service; the Archbishop pleaded just as this Archbishop doth now, That they were not excommunicated by himself, but only by his Commissary, who must answer for it, and so no act of his for which he ought to answer: But yet notwithstanding, it was upon serious debate resolved in Parliament, that the Act of his Commissary being his own immediate Officer, was his own act, for whose misdemeanor he must answer, and thereupon he was fined 4000. marks to the King, and forced to pay it, (a great fine in those times for such an offense) yea gladed to make many friends to the King to avoid a further censure: which is far stronger then the case of this Archprelate: For this Commissary was an Officer established by Law, which the Archbishop could not remove at pleasure without just cause; but his Chaplains were no Officers by Law, but mere meniall servants, under his immediate command, and removable at pleasure; therefore certainly, they durst license nothing especially against our established Religion, without his privity and command: Besides, there were never any such popish Books authorized since the beginning of Reformation in any of his Predecessors times, by themselves or their Chaplains, neither durst such erroneous pamphlets appear publicly amongst us, till he grew great to patronize them; yea, when they were thus licensed, and publicly complained against, as Popish, erroneous, and destructive to our Religion, he censured, persecuted such who durst complain or write against them, never questioning nor punishing the Licensers, Printers or Authors of them exemplarily as he should have done, to discharge the trust reposed in him, and vindicate his sincerity herein; whereas if any new Book against Arminians or Popish Innovations did but privily pass the Press by license of his Predecessors Chaplains (as Bishop Carltons Book against Montague, Master Prynne's Perpetuity, his Survey of Master Cozens his Cozening Devotions, Histriomastix, with other forenamed Impressions did) he presently suppressed, burnt them, questioned the Authous, Printers, Dispersers, Licensers of them, both in the High Commission and Star-chamber too, where Master Prynne by his means, was censured in the highest degree of extremity for his Histriomastix, a licensed Book, and Master Buckner too, who licensed it, fined by this Archbishop himself and that Court; therefore this act of his Chaplains must rest upon his own head, and the guilt thereof lie heaviest upon him, whose fault it was to make choice of such, and to entrust them in this kind. As for his excuse of his many other grand employments, which so engrossed his time, that he had no leisure to peruse what Books were tendered and licensed for the Press, it is so far from being any excuse, that it aggavates his crime: Certainly the preservation of our Religion in its purity, the keeping out all Popish innovations in Ceremony, Doctrine, Worship, and the suppression of Popish errors, Books, Doctrines, were the principal things of all others, which his Place, Calling, yea, his Majesty's trust engaged him to look unto; for him then to neglect this principal part of his Episcopal duty, the frequent preaching of God's Word (he seldom appearing in the Pulpit after he became Archbishop and a Privy Counselor) to drown himself in all manner of secular employments in the Star-chamber, Counsel-Chamber, Exchequer, spending his time in proling about Tobacco; Licenses, illegal Taxes, Projects, Monopolies of all sorts, contrary to the Laws and Liberties of the Subjects, in undermining Parliaments, oppressing the people everywhere, and managing the Kings Revenues, (things no way suitable to his spiritual Function;) is so far from extenuating, that it puts the highest degree of aggravation upon this his negligence and Chaplains misdemeanors, which he should have better looked too: But admit the real duties of his Place alone had been overburthensome to him, he should then have entrusted, employed such in Licensing and perusing Books, who would have discharged the trust reposed in them, in far better manner then his known Popish and Arminian Chaplains did. Tenthly, to his excuses touching the particular Popish Books objected: We answer, first, that Sales his Book was Licensed by Doctor Haywood, his own Chaplain: that he was not abused in it, but the Printer, whom he checked for complaining to him of the Popish passages in the Book, and encouraged to proceed in the printing of it, which otherwise he durst not have printed. That it was afterwards called in and publicly burnt, was no thanks to him or his Chaplain, but to Master Prynne's cross Bill against him and his Chaplain in Star-Chamber for licensing it; As for the Proclamation for calling it in, it was but a mere device to abuse the King, Kingdom, to justify or excuse his peccant Chaplain and himself, by a most false relation of the carriage of the business. Besides, if his Chaplain was innocent, Why then doth he pretend, he punished him by turning him out of his service? If guilty, Why doth he justify him to the King and Kingdom by this Proclamation? But indeed this pretended punishment was but a mere pretence; for he punished him only with a good Living, to wit, Saint Giles in the Fields, sending him from Lambeth thither to infect that Parish with his Popish Leprosy, or to please the Papists, Priests, Jesuits, of which there were more residing in that Parish alone, then in all the Parishes about London. For Christ's Epistle to a Devout Soul, that it was licensed by Doctor Weekes at London-house the self-same day that Sales was at Lambeth; is true, but yet it is as true that Doctor Weeks was this Archbishops own Chaplain, and the Bishop of London his mere creature Servant, yea it appears there was a strong confederacy between the Chaplains of Lambeth and London-house in licensing both these Popish Books for the same Stationer the self-same day, to propagate and license Popery with a witness, even just at that very season, (which makes it more remarkable) when Master Prynne, Master Burton, and Doctor Bastwicke were prosecuted by their good Lord and Master Canterbury in the Star-chamber, for opposing their Popish Innovations, Impositions, Doctrines, and just when the gaudy Crucifix was erected by him at White-hall in the Kings own Chapel in Passion week, they then thinking all cock-sure on their side: That this Epistle was suppressed, we may thank, not the Archbishop, but Master Prynne's Cross-bill, who but a few weeks after was ill requited with a bloody barbarous censure for his pains, and sent away hence close prisoner, first, into North-Wales, then into Jersey, where none must have access unto him, to prevent anymore such oppositions, discoveries of popish Books and Bills against them. For Doctor Heylins Books complained of, they were some of them purposely written by the Archbishops own command, as he hath confessed (to wit, that against M ^r . Burton & Antidotum Lincolnienses) & licensed by his own Chaplains; therefore they concern him much: For Doctor Pocklingtons Popish Impressions, they were perused by himself, yea, published by his direction without the Doctors privity, as his Petition manifests; therefore his censure for writing them, will be no excuse for his own publishing, or his Chaplains authorizing them without the Doctors knowledge or desire: For Bishop Montague's Books, they were all bound up (most of them with his Arms very rightly gilt) and presented to him by Montague himself; after that, entertained by him in his Study, justified by him in private conferences, yea, the later of them expressly submitted to his judgment, dispose, and licensed by his Chaplains; and yet are they nothing to him? For the Epitome of the Lives of the Emperors, it was licensed by his own Chaplain Doctor Weekes, at London-house, as the license and entry of it in the Stationers Hall (which we have here ready to produce) attests: That he took no notice of it, nor of what was in it, was his own voluntary negligence, who could take notice of any the least pretended Puritannicall, Anti-episcopal, or Anti-Arminian passages in all new printed Books whatsoever; yea, of any harsh passages against the Pope, Papists, Jesuits, and cause them to be suppressed, expunged, and the Authors of them sometimes to be deeply censured: For the Popish Index Biblicus, being printed here in London, then publicly bound up with our Latin Bibles of Junius and Tremellius translation (with which they as well accorded as Fire doth with Water, or Popery with Protestanisme) it concerned him most of anything to take notice of, and have most severely punished: But this vigilant Argus against Protestanisme, or anything that trenched upon Episcopacy, Popish Ceremonies, Arminianism, or the High Commission, was here as blind as a Beetle, and could espy no Books at all (though never so gross) that made for Popery and popish Innovations, or else fell fast asleep, when he should watch against these popish enemies, who sowed their Tarts so fast among us.

For the objected popish passages out of these now Authorized Printed Authors, himself must answer for them:

First, because many of them were particularly complained against by Master Burton in his Sermon for God and the King; by Master Prynne in his Cross Bill, which he read, and by sundry printed Books, which he could not but take notice of; yet he neither suppressed the Books, nor questioned the Authors, Printers or dispersers of them. Secondly, because never any such large crop or harvest of Popish Books and Tares appeared or sprung up in our English Church before his time, since the beginning of Reformation; it being the chief part of his place and Office as Archbishop of Canterbury to suppress and extirpate, whereas he authorized and propagated them all he could. For the rejecting of Master Prynne's Cross Bill in Star-chamber against him, his Chaplains and Confederates for Writing, Licensing, Publishing these Popish Books and Passages, it was principally his own Act, who stopped it at the Lord Keepers; was present when it was rejected in open Court (where he sat as one of the most swaying Judges) and endeavored to have brought him in danger of his life, only for preferring it in a Legal manner; whereas had he, his Chaplains, Confederates been Innocent, they would have Petitioned the Court it might have been received, that so they might legally have cleared themselves (if they could) of that, which now (blessed be God) we have fully proved before an Higher Tribunal, for which this cause by God's providence was reserved, as the fittest Court both to hear and censure it. For Master Croxtons Letter; he was his own creature, specially recommended by him to the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who preferred him for his sake: and he that durst prefer such a Popish Priest in that Popish Kingdom, who dared thus openly to put the Mass-Priests, yea Jesuits badge of a Cross in the Front of his Letter to him, and acquaint him with this open practice of Auricular Confession; must doubtless be no well-wisher to our Religion, and assured of the Archbishops readiness to concur with him in the approbation of his courses, else he durst not write thus to him.

As for that passage in his Speech in Star-chamber; we have already proved, that it necessarily implies a Transubstantiation, or corporal presence of Christ on the very Altar. For, there (saith he, not in and to the believers heart, receiving him spiritually by faith) tis, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. and A greater reverence no doubt is due TO THE BODY, then to the word of the Lord. Its true, our 28. Article resolves, That in the Lord's Supper, to such as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ's which is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, ONLY after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. And in this sense Master Calvin writes, that the very Body of Christ wherein he suffered and rose again, is offered to us, & REALLY & TRULY given unto us in the Supper, in a spiritual manner only. But did ever our Articles, M ^r Calvin, or any Prorestant writers hold, That Christ's body was really or truly present upon the Altar (where it is, saith he, usually present, and the greatest place of Christ's residence upon earth) or more present then in his Word. Certainly, never any Protestant Author, but only Papists writ so before himself. And where doth Master Calvin say Christ's body is, which we really and truly receive in the Lord's Supper? What? on the Altar? there is no such syllable in him; but the very next words, which the Bishop purposely concealed, resolve us, that it is in heaven; Christum IN CAELO MANENTEM ô Nobis recipi, sine ut in celesti sun gloria maneat, & illuc aspici, & inde se tibi communicet. The like our Common Prayer-Book and Homilies also resolve. Therefore they call on us, Sursum corda, to lift up our hearts and faith to heaven, and feed upon Christ there; not on the Altar. This Cobweb distinction therefore of his (especially if compared with the Alterations and Additions made by him in the Scottish Common-Prayer-Book; where he clearly maintains a Transubstantiation) will no ways cover his shame, or take off his guilt. As for his DEO & Altari, the Argument pressed against him from it is still unanswered: since one and the self-same worship in one and the self-same act, instance, is given jointly to both. And whereas he saith, the object distinguisheth the worship; it is most false; since Divine worship is and may be given to an Altar, an Image, a creature, a piece of Bread (as among the Pagans and Papists) as well as to God himself. So that this whole part of our Evidence remains unanswered, unshaken in any particular, and is only aggravated by his poor evasions, his impudent justifications, of what he hath cause to be most ashamed, if not confounded, before such a great Tribunal and judicious Auditory.

The eleventh charge against me is, the expunging of sundry passages against Popery, Arminianism, &c. out of several printed Books and Sermons, by me and others, before they could pass the Press, which Passages have been reduced to several heads: I shall not recapitulate the charges of this kind, but answer them severally in their order.

The first of them is my own purging out of Doctor Sibthops Sermon sundry passages against Popery, evil Counselors and profaners of the Sabbath.

To which I answer, First, that the King committed the perusal of this Sermon to four Bishops, whereof I was but one, and these expunctions were made by their consent, not by me alone: Secondly, the first of them seemed to lay an aspersion on the Emperor, the King of Spain and France, the Duke of Bavaria and Archdutchesse, as if they had a design to extirpate the Protestant Religion; therefore it was not thought fit it should pass the Press, for fear of giving offense to them: Thirdly, the second of them seemed to cast an aspersion upon the Kings Counsel, and was therefore crossed out: The third gives the name of the Sabbath to the Lord's day, which is never so termed in the New Testament; appropriated to the Jewish Sabbath only on the Saturday, now wholly abbrogated; and likewise makes Popery to trench upon the breach of the first Commandment: which being a thing doubtful and disputable, was thought fit to be expunged.

To which was replied, First, that the committing of this Sermon to three other Bishops besides himself to be examined, is a bare averment of his own without any proof; that any other perused it besides himself, appears not: All the additions, purgations in it, are made with his own hand only, and none others, therefore his alone; yea, if he did it jointly with others, this will not extenuate his fault, since as we must not do evil alone, so we must not follow a multitude to do it. His answers to these expunged particulars, are most absurd and false: For the first of them was so far from being a scandal, that it was then (and yet is) a most apparent truth, published to all the Kingdom in the Kings own Letters to every County throughout the Realm, concerning the Loane in February 1627. to draw it on, and the Doctor in his Sermon to set on this Loane, did but transcribe it out of the Kings own Letter; if then it were a real truth, why was it blotted out of his Sermon, more then out of the Kings own Letter? If a scandal and untruth, why did the King and his Counsel then publish it in their Letters, to delude the people and draw on the Loane? But the truth is, our Religion must be rooted out abroad by the Emperor, Kings of Spain, France, with their Confederates, and undermined by the Prelatical and popish party at home, yet we must have no liberty to speak of it ourselves, or publish it to others, for fear of preventing the design: For the second clause, he thought it might reflect on, or rise up in judgment one day against himself, therefore it was wisdom for him to rase it out; the Kings evil Counselors by this means must neither be reprehended nor punished: For the third passage, it is true, that the Lord's day is not directly styled the Sabbath in the New Testament, yet it is termed the first of the SABBATHS oft times in it; but admit it were not, yet seeing all days of sacred rest and worship whatsoever, are styled Sabbaths, both in the Old and New Testament, and the Sabbath in its proper Definition, is nothing else, but a weekly day of sacred rest from worldly labors, pleasures, employments, devoted wholly to God's public and private worship; and the Lord's day is such a Sabbath as this, and so termed by Councils, Fathers, foreign writers of all sorts, and more especially by our own English Statutes, Homilies, Proclamations, Letters-Patents, Canons, Bishops visitation Articles, and Writers of all sorts; why this passage concerning the Lord's day Sabbaths sanctification, and the profanation of it, should be obliterated by him, no reason can be rendered, but only the profane Anti-sabbatarian Disposition of his own heart, which soon after more publicly displayed it self, in the re-publishing and pressing the Declaration for Lord's-day sports: sports: For the latter clause of this deleted period, concerning connivance at Popery, which trencheth upon the first and second Commandment, and making the Laws concerning it, mere Engines of State, to draw reward for toleration, dispensation and connivance, &c. his excuse is most miserable and ridiculous: For first, it is generally agreed by all Protestant Writers, that Popery trencheth upon the first Commandment, by advancing the Virgin Mary, Pope (to omit the Bredden Wafer) into the very Throne of God himself, and Deifying them both with divine Titles, Adorations, Attributes, Epithites, Orisons, and the like; therefore no reason to delete this clause, that it trencheth on the first Commandment: the rather, because Paul himself affirms it in direct terms, 2 Thes. 2. 3, 4. as all orthodox Expositors resolve: Secondly, its agreed by all Protestants, yea, by this Arch-Prelat himself (in show at least, when his reputation seemed to be somewhat blasted, as if he were devoted to Popery) and expressly resolved by our Homilies against the peril of Idolatry, that Popery expressly trencheth upon the second Commandment sundry ways, as by adoring Crucifixes, Images, Saints, Angels, Relics, Altars, the consecrated Hoast, yea, by invocation of Saints departed, and introduction of sundry Idolatrous Superstitious Rites, Ceremonies, forms of Worship, invented by Popes, Priests, Friars, into the Worship of God: Therefore had he deleted its intrenchment upon the first Commandment as dubious, yet since there is no question of their transgressing the second in all these particulars, his abolition thereof is inexcusable, and displays his popish disposition: Thirdly, however had he deleted this likewise, yet his obliterating that which follows, against connivance at, and suspension of Laws against Popery and Papists for luchre sake, least God make the gain gotten by this dividing betwixt him and Idols, to be like that of Solomon's, which was recompensed with the loss and dividing of his Kingdom betwixt his Son and a Stranger, &c. (the sad effects whereof we have lately felt) with all other passages whatsoever against Popery (especially at this juncture of time, when all foreign popish Princes had confederated to extirpate the Protestant Religion in foreign parts, as the first deleted passage informs us) is such an unsufferable execrable crime, in one who pretends himself a Protestant Bishop, and had then no legal authority to correct or license Books for the Press, as deserves the highest censure; yea, displays to all the world the hidden Popery of his heart, if not his secret correspondency with the Romish party to replant their false superstitious Religion and Idolatry in our Church; and from this original purgation of his, we may visibly discover, that all succeeding expunctions of this kind made by his own chaplains and other Agents at Lambeth or London-house, proceeded primarily from himself, as the original cause and Author of them.

The second Objection of this kind is, my alterations of the Prayers appointed for the fifth of November, in some particular causes in the Impression of them, Anno 1635.

To this I answer, First, that these alterations were not made by me, but the Prayers were sent unto me altered by the King himself, who commanded me to see them printed according to those alterations; and I have here the Books, with his Majesty's hand and Warrant to each of them for what I did: Secondly, that the expressions were somewhat overharsh, and fit to be altered, terming their very Religion, Rebellion, being but the Christian Religion, and the same with Ours, as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber, to which I must refer, where I have rendered reasons for it, which gave general satisfaction then, and I hope will do so to your Lordships now.

To which was replied, First, that the Archbishop shows his great undutifulness here in casting this and other his unwarrantable popish actions on the King himself: Secondly, that for ought appears he procured from the King this Warrant since the alterations were printed, yea complained of, and that by circumvention: Thirdly, that it had been his duty to have dissuaded the King from giving way to such scandalous alterations in favor of Jesuits, Papists, Traitors, and their bloody Religion. Fourthly, that himself in his Speech, page 33, 34. confesseth, he made the Alterations himself by the Kings command: Therefore the Book was not sent him altered by the King or any other, as now he falsely pretends. Fifthly, as for the grounds of the most gross alteration mentioned in his Speech, we have already refuted them at large in the Charge; therefore we shall not actum agere, but refer you thereunto.

The third objected Purgation made by myself is, of some clauses appointed in the Book for the Fast, Anno 1636.

To which I answer, First, that it is not proved that I made these Purgations: Secondly, that I have given a full answer to, and shown there was reason for the making of them, in my SPEECH in Star-chamber, where they were objected.

To this was replied, First, that himself doth both confess and justify these purgations in his said Speech, to be made by himself, and his confederated brethren, to whom the care of this Fast was committed; therefore he much forgets himself here in denying it to be proved, when we undeniably evidenced it, by his own printed Confession: Secondly, we have already refuted his reasons for those purgations mentioned in his Speech, discovering their absurdity, and fully proving, that they were made merely in favor of Popery, to which he hath not returned the least shadow of answer; therefore we shall acquiesse therein without further reply.

The fourth objected alterations and purgations ascribed to myself, are in Doctor Potters Book, entitled, Want of Charity, &c. the second Edition.

To which I answer, First, that he writ to me of his own accord, to alter or correct anything I thought meet in the second Impression of his Book, and what I did therein was upon his own request: Secondly, that the expressions I advised him to amend, were either such as were very harsh, as Believe in the Pope; or somewhat obscure, as The Idol of Rome, &c. Thirdly, that his exposition of Matth. 18. 17, 11. Dic Ecclesiae, &c. concerns not the Parliament, but the Sanhedrin, or Civil Court of the Jews: And whereas it is urged, that I writ, his Exposition of it, seems to give as much power to the Parliament, as to the Church (or Convocation) in Church affairs, which is a derogation to the Parliaments Jurisdiction; I conceive it to be none, since it appears by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 1. that the Parliament cannot determine anything in matter of Religion, without assent of the Clergy in their Convocation; this Act, providing, That the High Commissioners shall not in any wise adjudge any matter to be Heresy, but only such as hath been heretofore determined, ordered or adjudged to be Heresy by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four general Councils, or any of them, &c. or such as shall be hereafter ordered, judged or determined to be Heresy by the high Court of Parliament in this Realm, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CLERGY IN THEIR CONVOCATION. Fourthly, that I did not alter or rase out those passages, but only left them to the Doctors own consideration, who thereupon of himself amended and left them out.

To this was replied, First, that Doctor Potter writ to him only to correct or alter by his servant Master Dell or others, anything in his Book OFFENSIVE TO HIM: To which he returned this answer; I have done that which you have so desired, &c. So as these very passages against the Pope and Papists were offensive to him, as well as to them; at which (as it seems by the Doctors Letter) he had formerly taken some offense, else why should he thus write to him, to alter and correct anything in his Book offensive to his GRACE? It seems by this, that whatever offended the Pope or Papists (be it but an harsh expression) offended his Grace too, who was all for Charitable expressions towards them, who are so uncharitable towards us.

Secondly, for the expressions themselves: The first of them is not so harsh, as true and fitting, since Papists not only believe the Pope, but believe in him too; viz. That his Exposition of Scripture is infallible; that he cannot err in his chair; that this Lord God the Pope, cannot only pardon sins, and release souls out of purgatory at his pleasure, but infallibly save all such who adhere to, believe in, and trust upon him for salvation. The latter of them, the Idol of Rome, is a proper Periphrasis or Character of the Pope himself, who is there idolized, adored sundry ways.

Thirdly, the deleting his exposition on Matth, 18. 17, 18. upon the reason rendered by him, is both derogatory and destructive to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Parliaments, in Ecclesiastical causes and affairs, which our Parliaments have always judged, settled, established in all Ages, oft times without, yea against the Clergies consent, the Convocation only propounded, advised, and submitted wholly to the Parliaments judgment: Yea, our Parliaments have made Laws concerning Heresy, its punishment, and matters of Religion, sometimes without the Clergies consent, as it is evident by the Statutes of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 28 Hen. VIII. c. 10. 35 Hen. VIII. c. 5. 1 Edw. 6. c. 1. 2. & 12. with others: Sometimes upon their Petition and earnest request, as 5 Ric. II. c. 5. 2. Hen. IV. c. 15. (repealed, though never truly a Statute, since the Commons never consented to them) 2 Hen. V. c. 7. Sometimes by their request and advice too, as 31 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 34 Hen. VIII. c. 1. 1 k 2 Ph. & Mary, c. 6. As for the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. it no ways infers, that the Parliament it self cannot adjudge or determine any Ecclesiastical matters without the assent of the Clergy in the Convocation (for then they had never cast our Popery and the Popes usurped authority which the Clergy still maintained, nor wrought any reformation of Religion in our present or former Parliaments) but only Enacts, That the High Commissioners shall adjudge nothing to be Heresy, not formerly resolved to be so (as this Act expresseth) but what the Parliament shall adjudge • rder and determine to be Heresy by assent of the Clergy in their Convocation; from whence no argument can be deduced, but this Nonsequitur; The High Commissioners can judge no new opinion to be, nor punish it as Heresy, unless the Parliament of England first adjudge it to be Heresy with the assent of the Clergy in Convocation, by the express provision of this Act: Ergo, the Parliament can make no Ecclesiastical Laws, meddle with no Church affairs, nor determine ought to be Heresy unless the Clergy in Convocation first assent thereto. Pretty incoherent Logic, and Anti-parliamentary Divinity.

Fourthly, that Doctor Potter himself voluntarily corrected them upon his Letter, appears not; but if he did, it was to please this Archbishop, in deleting those passages which he signified to be displeasing to him, the better to obtain the Prebendary he sued for to him in this Letter: Wherefore these purgations must rest still upon his score.

To the Popish Alterations and Delections, under his own hand made in the SCOTTISH COMMON-PRAYER BOOKE, which the Commons desired to press, he pleaded the ACT OF PACIFICATION AND OBLIVION, against the very reading of them: Whereupon they did forbear, and wave the reading of them for the present, though clean out of the ACT, alleging only, that this Plea of his was a plain confession of his Guilt.

The fifth sort of purgations objected to me are those in SIR ANTHONY HUNGERFORDS Books, which DOCTOR BAAR my Chaplain would have expunged: Of which SIR EDWARD HUNGERFORD his Son complained to me, as he deposeth, after he had expostulated with my Chaplain, who would cross them out, or not license the Books: Whereupon I told him, I having many other employments had trusted my CHAPLAINES with those things, which I wholly referred to them, therefore what they thought fit to leave out, you must Submit to: And thereupon would not redress his Grievance herein.

To this I Answer, First, that if there were any Error herein, it was not mine but my Chaplains, since dead, who if he were alive, and might have been heard to speak for himself, would doubtless have given a good account and reason to your Lordships, why he thought these passages unfit to be printed. Saint Augustine saith, that oft times infinite harm did accrue to the Church, per temerarios veritatis assertatores; and every Treatise written against Papists is not so satisfactory, but that it may prove so disadvantageous to the Cause, as to be unfit to be printed: It may be these were such; however, God be thanked, the Books were printed with those passages in them, and so no harm done by my Chaplain. Secondly, for my answer to Sir Edward; it was true, I had so many public businesses then upon me, that I had no leisure to peruse Books for the Press, and thereupon referred that trust wholly to my Chaplains; therefore if they offended, they only must answer for it, not I: and should I herein control what my Chaplains had done in this kind, it would have so discouraged them, that none of them have undertaken the office of a Licenser afterwards: Besides, I should have been perpetually troubled with clamours against that which my Chaplains thought fit to be blotted out of Books tendered to them to be licensed, for them every man would have appealed from them to me in this kind, so as I should have had no quiet.

To this was replied, First, that we have formerly proved at large, that his Chaplains errors and delinquencies in this kind are his own, because the care of licensing Books was originally vested in himself, and they were but his entrusted servants, for whom he must be responsible at his peril; and the rather in this case, because he confesseth his Chaplain is dead and cannot be punished for it, who if alive, could give no reason for not licensing those Books, unless these passages against popery were expunged; but only this, that it was by his Lord's own special directions, who would suffer no harsh passages against popery or Papists to pass our Presses unexpunged; as appears by those himself purged out of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon, the Prayer for the Fast, Doctor Potters Treatise; and that himself was every way as Popish, as good a friend to Popery as his Grace. Secondly, for Saint Augustine's saying, we approve it, confessing, that every Pamphlet weakly written against Popery is not fit to pass the Press: But this concerns not those two Treatises, written by a converted Papist of eminent rank, with excellent solidity, judgment, learning, which must not be licensed; not upon any pretext of weakness or want of solidity in them (never so much as once objected;) but only because Sir Edward Hungerford would not condescend that the forecited clauses against the Pope and Popery (some of them taken out of Popish Authors themselves) should be expunged out of his Fathers Works, to martilate them. That these Books were since printed without those purgations, is no thanks to the Archbishop nor his Chaplain, who would not license them unless first purged, and the licensing of them without such purgations by others, proves strongly, that there was no just grounds of purging them, but only •• gratify the Pope and popery. Fourthly, we believe his answer true, that he intruded himself out of a polypragmatical humor into so many secular employments, as he had little time to peruse Books or preach the Gospel; but this is only his crime, not his excuse: However, since he could find so much leisure upon all occasions to persecute godly Ministers, suppress Orthodox Books, Lectures, Prayers, advance Arminianism, Popery, and popish designs, he might by like reason have found out time enough to have perused these small Treatises or at least the clauses excepted against by his Chaplain upon Sir Edward Hungerford's complaint, being a Gentleman of quality and fortune. Fifthly, the latter part of his answer proves, that it was altogether bootless for any man to complain to him of his Chaplains abuses in purging out passages against Popery, and that he was resolved to hear no complaints of this kind, much less not to redress them: His reasons rendered for it are most absurd. The first is, because this would discourage his Chaplains from being Licensers: It seems by this they were so really, so realously popish, that they must not be checked or controlled in the least kind for purging out ought against Popes, Popery, Papists, for fear of discouragement, no, not by himself; or so waspish and self-willed (like himself) that they would fling up their very Office of licensing, if they might not have their wills, to obliterate what they pleased, without any superior control: But this is but a pretence, for Doctor Bray himself rendered this as the true reason of hie refusal to license these clauses to Sir Edward; That they would offend those of the Roman Religion, against whom no harsh phrases must be used, we being now in a fair way to win them (viz. by reconciling ourselves to them, not them to us) therefore they must be either expladed, or the Book left unprinted. The second reason is yet more absurd, taken from his own case and quiet, that he should have been perpetually troubled with employments and clamours of this nature, &c. It seems it was his Chaplains constant practice by his own direction, to purge out all sharp passages against the Pope, popery, and popish Innovations out of new licensed Books, os else the reason would not hold; for did they it but rarely, not usually, he should not have been perpetually disturbed with such complaints as this of Sir Edwards: But be it so or not, yet certainly it was no more then his place and duty required, to hear and redress all just complaints of this kind against his Chaplains when they did amiss, else Authors, Stationers, Printers, might be most injuriously handled by them, without knowing where to complain or seek relief; for to whom else should they complain, but unto him, whose Chaplains they were, whose place, trust, they herein executed by his own appointment? Or who else should or durst right them herein if injured, but himself? and if it were no trouble for him to spend whole days, weeks, years, in advancing unlawful oppressive Loane, Monopolies, Projects, Impositions, Texes, to oppress the Subjects, contrary to, and inconsistent with his Archiepiscopall function; with what face could he deem it any trouble or vexation to spare one hour or two each month or year in hearing, examining such just complaints against his Chaplains, when they so grossly offended? This answer therefore plainly remonstrates, that he was inflexibly resolved his Chaplains should purge out all notable passages against the Pope, Popery, and popish errors, no doubt by his own special direction given to them: Therefore let who would complain thereof, he must go without redress, and submit to his Chaplains pleasure, else his whole Volume must go unlicensed, be it never so useful, so necessary for our Religions just defense; which manifests the transcendent height of his and his Chaplains resolutions, their arbitrary, uncontrollable proceedings to set up popery without opposition, by these Purgations.

The fixed purged Book is Doctor Featlies Sermons, ordered by my command (after they were printed by an ancient License) to be carried to my Chaplain Doctor Bray, who gelded out of them divers of the smartest and most masculine passages against Popery, Arminianism, toleration of Papists, Priests, Jesuits, and a passage against Adoration of Images by Papists, taken out of the very Homily against the peril of Idolatry; whereof he complained to Sir Edmond Soot, desiring him to acquaint me with it; who told him, he conceived it would be in vain, because he thought my Chaplain had directions from me for what he did, and that I would not alter anything in this kind done by my Chaplains.

To this I answer: First, that though it be the place and office of the Archbishop of Canterbury to have a care what Books are Licensed, yet Doctor Featly himself (who hath been a Chaplain and Licenser of Books under my Predecessor) can attest, that the Archbishop himself did seldom or never use to peruse or license Books in person, but only by his Chaplains. Secondly, these purgations were made by my Chaplain, who is dead and cannot answer for himself; not by me: and Doctor Featly never complained to me of them; neither did Sir Edmond Scot ever acquaint me with any complaint the Doctor made to him about it. Thirdly, though some few smart Passages of this kind are expunged, mitigated, and left out; yet there are in his Sermons, yea in those very Pages complained of, many sharp passages against Popery left in (two or three whereof he read) as one against Prayer to Saints, p. 787. where he compares the Papists with the Baalists, p. 808. where he avers, that the Pope is Antichrist; and p. 810. where he calls the Pope, the whore of Babylon. Therefore these could not be thought to be crossed out in favor of Papists and Popery, but because the expressions in them were such as might give just occasion of distaste. Fourthly, I shall by your Lordships favor demand of Doctor Featly himself two questions, and desire his answer to them. First, Whether when he was a Licenser in my Predecessors time, it was not usual for his Chaplains to qualify or rase out some unfitting expressions when they saw cause, out of Books tendered to them to license? and whether they were not liable to censure, if any such escaped them, upon complaint? Secondly, Whether himself, since the sitting of this Parliament, hath not written a Book, afterwards licensed? and whether the Licenser did not alter and blot something out of it? what was it, and who did it?

To which sudden questions the Doctor being commanded by the Lord's to give an answer; replied to the first Question; That he and his fellow-Licensers did sometimes use to qualify or obliterate some passages savouring of Puritanism, or in favor of it, (especially after the burning of Doctor Mockets Book, for which the Licenser was reprehended) and that himself was once questioned before King James for a Book licensed, about a passage concerning the calling of the Jews, and for Master Eltons Book upon the Commandments, savouring of Puritanism; but he never knew in his time of any Passages against the Papists, Popery, Arminianism, or the like, expunged out by Archbishop Abbot, or his Chaplains; nor any one questioned for licensing any such, but rather encouraged, till of late times. To the second, he confessed that he and Master Rouse did jointly write and publish a Book since this Parliament, entitled Uertumnus Romanus, and that Master Rouse caused him to strike out a Passage in it that was somewhat sharp against the Separatists, which he did at his desire. Whereupon the Archbishop urged, that then he hoped his Chaplains might have the same liberty to cross what they thought fitting out of the Books they licensed, though it were against Popery.

To this was answered: First, that by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, Numb. 51. The Archbishops of Canterbury, York & Bishop of London themselves (not their Chaplains) are appointed to License Books, and trusted with this charge: which they personally performed, as appears by sundry Entries of Books licensed by them in the Stationers Register of Entries: And why their Successors in these days should not personally license Books and discharge this trust, as well as their Predecessors, making 〈◊〉 of their Chaplains only for their assistance, to report the substance of the 〈◊〉 unprinted to them, no reason can be given, but either their carelessness, 〈◊〉 , or overmuch intermeddling with secular affairs, no ways concerning or beseeming them. Secondly, that his Chaplain made these Purgations, not himself, is no excuse, since he did it by his special command and direction, as Sir Edmond Scots words, and Doctor Featlies testimony evidence. Thirdly, his Chaplains death is no excuse of his own guilt. That Doctor Featly complained not to him of these Purgations, is no excuse; for if he had, Sir Edward Hungerfords example, his own answer to him then, his present expressions at the Barre now, and Sir Edmond Scots words to Doctor Featly clearly prove, it had been bootless and he remediless; Legem sibi dixerat ipse, he was resolved to admit and redress no complaints of this nature against his Chaplains. Fourthly, the permitting of some Passages against Popery to stand in the Doctors Sermon, is an aggravation of his Chaplains crime in purging out others of the same nature; for why should not all stand as well as some, especially that against Popish worshiping of Images taken verbatim out of our Homilies there quoted, and the very words of the Scriptuze it self against conniving at Popish Seducers to Idolatry? Indeed those that remained are more general; these obliterated more particular, sharp, piercing, and more concerned our present times, practices; therefore less reason to be expunged. Fifthly, these expunctions out of the Doctors Sermons were so many that the Printer was enforced to new print some 16. or 18. sheets in folio, to his great prejudice. That those Passages he cites escaped their purgation, was because the Book being large, they passed undiscerned till after its publication, else doubtless the Archbishop and his Chaplains would have crossed them out in Doctor Featlies Sermons, as well as in Doctor Sibthorps, or in Doctor Potters, Bishop Hals own Book, Doctor Jones and Doctor Clerke; and not have permitted his Brother Pontiffe of Rome, to be styled Antichrist, and the whore of Rome, and his Priests compared unto Baalists. Sixthly, Doctor Featlies testimony is a very strong evidence against the Archbishop; for before his time, there were never any such Purgations made, but only of Passages in favor of Puritanism, nor any Books questioned, or Passages deleted that were against the Pope, Popery, Arminianism, Jesuits, Seminary Priests, or Papists, which the Archbishop and his Chaplains first introduced. As for his Vertumnus Romanus, being jointly written by Master Rowse and himself; it was just that Master Rowse should have liberty to cross out by the Doctors consent any passage he disliked, and the Doctor consented to have this deleted; this Passage therefore not being obliterated by any Licenser, but by the Authors themselves by joint consent, and being not against Popery or Papists, but Separatists only (who profess the same Doctrine with us, and were then ready to join with us in one way of Worship, of Government) is no extenuation or justification of his and his Chaplains purging this Doctors Book so grossly as they did of Passages against the Pope, Popery and Arminianism.

The next Purgations objected, were made in Doctor Clerks, Doctor Jones, and Master Wards Books, by Doctor Heywood, Doctor Baker, Doctor Weeks.

To this I answer: First, that there are divers sharp Passages yet remaining in Doctor Clerks Sermons against Papists: that they were licensed part of them by Doctor Weekes (none of mine but the Bishop of London's household Chaplain) and part of them by Doctor Heywood my Chaplain: That Master White distinguished not what Sermons were Licensed by the one, what by the other. Besides, Master White is but a single witness. Secondly, Doctor Jones his Commentary on the Hebrews was licensed and purged by Doctor Baker, the Bishop of London's Chaplain, and Master Wards Book by Doctor Weeks, not by me or my Chaplains; therefore they concern me not.

To this was replied: First, that the most pungent and pregnant Passages in Doctor Clerks Sermons against the Popes Authority, tyranny, pride, Jesuits, Priests, Papists, Arminians, Arminianism, Popery and Popish errors, are 〈◊〉 tally wiped out by the Licensers, and very few such escaped their spunge 〈…〉 leaving therefore of a few inconfiderable Passages against them unexpung ••• 〈…〉 no more excuse the obliterating of the rest; then a thiefes leaving of a true man's clothes on his back, or sparing his life, will justify or extenuate the taking away of his purse, or the leaving a few Cottages standing excuse the burning of a whole City besides. That Doctor Weekes and Doctor Heywood joined in expunging these Sermons, proves their confederacy only, not lessens but aggravates their iniquity. As for Doctor Weekes he was his own Chaplain as well as the Bishop of London's, as appears by his own hand and Diary; therefore he must answer for his misdemeanors in this kind, for purging both Doctor Clorkes Sermons and Master Wards Commentary: For Doctor Baker, he was his own great favourite, advanced by him to a Prebendary, as appears by the Docquet Book; Therefore his Index Expurgatorius on Doctor Jones his Commentary (proceeding doubtless from this Archbishops antecedent directions) must remain upon his score, notwithstanding all his shifting evasions. To the particular passages purgged out of these Authors, he returned no answer at all; only by these his several answers to these Purgations, all the world may clearly discover his shameless impudence and Popery in justifying them, his brain-sick folly in his extenuations of them, his palpable Romanizing in practicing many of them himself, and the whole weight of all the Branches in this charge falling heavily upon him, notwithstanding all his shifts to ward them off.

The twelfth charge objected against me is, my connivance at the importation of popish Books, and restoring them to the owners, when seized by the Customers and Searchers, contrary to the Statute of 3. Jacobi e. 5.

To this I answer, I never connived at their importation, and that the restoring of them when seized, was not by any direction of mine, but by order of the High Commission Court.

To which was replied, First, that he doth not so much as once allege, he ever gave any order for seizing any Popish Books imported, whereas the Customers, Searchers, Pursivants, and other Officers had strict Warrants and special Commands from him to seize all imported Bibles with Notes, with all Books savouring any way of Puritanism, as he deemed it, or tending against Arminianism and popish Innovations. Secondly, he confesseth, that popish Books when seized, were usually restored by order of the High Commission Court to the owners, contrary to the Statute, whereas that Court never restored any Bibles with Notes, or Books against Arminianism or popish Innovations seized by their order, but burnt them privately, or otherwise destroyed them. Thirdly, he proves not that any of them were restored by Order of Court, whereas Egerton swears, that Mottershead averred, they were restored by the Archbishops own order, without the Courts: But be it by order of Court, yet his crime is still the same, since himself sat President and chief Controller in the High Commission, and consented to these Orders, if not commanded them to be made; whereas in duty he should have crossed them; that Court not daring to make any such Orders of Restitution without his consent, who had such an over-ruling power in it.

The thirteenth particular objected against me is, my advancing of Arminians and Clergy-men superstitiously and popishly affected, to Bishoprics, Deaneries, Headships of Houses, Prebendaries, and all other Ecclesiastical preferments, yea Chaplainships, not only about myself, but about his Majesty, and the Prince: with my encroachments herein upon the Lord Keeper, the Lord High Chamberlain, Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries; and my disgracing, persecuting godly Orthodox Ministers, and keeping them from preferment, for opposing Arminianism, popery and popish Innovations; of both which they have given sundry particular instances, to the chief whereof I shall return such answers as I am • ble in due place.

〈◊〉 this I shall answer something in general, First, that to my remembrance 〈◊〉 preferred no such persons to Bishoprics, or any Ecclesiastical livings and preferments; secondly, if any of those preferred by me were such at the time of their preferments, it was unknown to me; and if they turned such afterwards, I could neither foresee nor prevent it: Thirdly, on the contrary, I have preferred divers worthy orthodox Ministers, free from all exceptions; as Master Taylor of Clapham, now one of the Assembly, Master John Downham, Bishop Hall, and sundry others.

To which was replied, First, that we had proved the generality of those he preferred, to be addicted, inclined to Arminianism, Popery, or both, and so known to be when he advanced them, no doubt to himself better then others, and this their inclination was one chief cause of their preferment. Secondly, that his preferment of Master John Downham and Master Taylor, orthodox men, to petty Benefices, and no higher preferments, was but a mere stale to blind some people's eyes, or stop their mouths, for his advancing of so many rotten, corrupt, popish Clergy-men to Bishoprics, Deanaries, Prebendaries, Arch-deaconries, Masterships of Colleges, and the fattest Benefices; but no justification nor extenuation of his preferring of so many such. Thirdly, for his advancement of Bishop Hall (viz. from one Bishopric to another) it is yet a mere non liquet to us, only averred not proved by himself; but if true, it was rather to corrupt and draw him over to his party, then prefer him for his own or the Churches benefit; and how that worthy Prelate hath degenerated, declined since, in case of Episcopacy, the Scottish Wars, the new Canons, the Et cetera Oath, popish Ceremonies, Innovations of all sorts, and pressing the book of Sports upon the Lord's day, we have already manifested by his own Letters in part, and the residue is so experimentally known to most of his Diocese, that it needs no proof. However, his preferring of above twelve Judas-Bishops to one true Apostle, is a grand disservice to our Church, our Religion, and no justification nor extenuation of his offense therein.

For particulars, the first thing I am charged with, is for advancing Master Montague, Doctor Manwaring, Bishop Neal, Bishop Wren, Doctor Lindsey, and others, to Bishoprics, men publicly complained against, one of them censured in Parliament, and disabled from all preferments in our Church, which was proved by the Docquet Books.

To this I answer, First, that Master Montague was not preferred by me to any Bishopric, neither is the Docquet Book any good proof thereof, but he was preferred to it by Sir Dudly Carltons means; true it is, I was at his consecration, but that was by command, and I could not refuse or resist it: Besides, he was a great Scholar, therefore thought worthy of preferment by the King. Secondly, for Doctor Manwaring, I did not prefer him, but it was his Majesty's pleasure to bestow a Deanery, and after that a Bishopric on him in regard of his sufferings for his service, notwithstanding his sentence, and he commanded me to consecrate him, which command I had no power to withstand or oppose, being bound by Law and the duty of my Place to obey it. Thirdly, for Bishop Neal he was a worthy man, free from Popery and Arminianism, who in King James his Reign, before his preferment to Winchester and York had been preferred to sundry Dignities, Bishoprics, and was in office and good esteem at Court, both with King James and King Charles. Fourthly, For Bishop Wren, when I first preferred him, he was a worthy man, who waited upon his Majesty when he was in Spain, and did good service there; if he hath misdemeaned himself since, it is his own fault, not mine, he is still alive, and must answer for himself, to the charge and impeachment exhibited against him. Fifthly, Doctor Lindsey was a very great Scholar, who deserved well, neither did I know him to be an Arminian; 'tis true, he was preferred to two Bishoprics successively, but it was by Bishop Neal, whose Chaplain he was, not by me; there is no Oath nor clea •• evidence it was by my means, the Docquet book being no sufficient 〈…〉 for it mentioned only the Kings pleasure and order for it, signified by 〈…〉 Signet to me, as a servant, but not that I was the author of his preferments; the King may signify his pleasure to the Signet Office by whom he pleaseth; as for Master Smarts testimony of him, there were some quarrels and differences at Durham, between Master Smart and him, which may cause him to speak the worse of him: Master Walker saith only, he was reputed a great Arminian, which is no Heresy. Sixthly, however these were affected, yet none can charge me with any Popery or Arminianism.

To this was replied, First, that we have as clearly proved as the Sun at noon day, that Montague was protected, advanced by him, and that in contempt of the Parliament, by his own Diary, the Docquet Book, Bishop Montague's own Letter of thanks to him for his favor and preferments, which he hath no way answered; as for his preferment, that it was by Sir Dudly Carltons means, it is but a bare surmise of his own, without proof or color; and for his presence at his consecration, it was merely voluntary to countenance him, not by command for ought appears. Secondly, it appears most clearly by the Evidence given, that Doctor Manwaring was advanced both to his Deanery and Bishopric by his means & recommendations alone, for the disservice he had done the Kingdom by those Sermons for which he was justly sentenced in Parliament, and the ill offices he had since done our Church, by introducing Stone-Altars, Copes, with other Popish Relics, Ceremonies thereinto; that he was thus advanced and consecrated a Bishop by him in direct affront of the Parliaments censure, disabling him from all future preferments, we have fully proved: And whereas he lays the Odium of his preferments only upon the King to excuse himself, it is but his own bare allegation, without any shadow of proof, and that in his own case, for his own defense, therefore not to be credited: But admit it true, yet since himself was present at his censure in the Lord's House, upon the Commons impeachment of him, recorded it in his Diary, and was accused for having a finger in his Sermons, and licensing them for the Press, it was his duty to have acquainted his Majesty with, and minded him of this his censure, disabling him forever from all such preferments in our Church, to have opposed his preferment, and withstood his consecration and Montague's too; the rather, because every man before any Bishops consecration, hath free liberty to put in any just exceptions against him, there being a public Instrument solemnly posted up in the Arches at Bow, before every Bishops consecration (as a necessary formality) giving public notice, That such a one is to be consecrated the Bishop of such a Diocese such a day, and signifying, that if any person can take any just exceptions against him, and show good cause why he should not be consecrated, he shall be heard. In regard whereof, this Archbishop ex Officio, might, yea ought to have shown the Lord's public censure of Manwaring, as a just legal Plea, why he should not be consecrated a Bishop (as Master Jones the Printer did in a legal way object Bishop Montague's Popish and Arminian Books, with the proceedings pending against him in Parliament for the same, is a just cause why he should not be made a Bishop, yet he could not be heard nor prevail therein:) therefore the neglect of this his trust, duty, contrary to Law, and his recommending, consecrating him to be a Bishop, in affront of the Parliaments Judgment which disabled him, must needs be a transcendent crime, no ways mittigated, but aggravated, by his false disloyal excuses. Thirdly, for Bishop Neal, he was ever reputed a Popish and Arminian Prelate, a persecutor of all orthodox, godly Ministers, a preferrer of popish Arminian Clergymen, making choice of such for his Chaplains, for such a one was he accused to his Majesty by the House of Commons in their Remonstrance Anno 1628. and complained of in sundry Parliaments before his advancement to Winchester or York: For his pretended worth, all the Court knew very well he had little worth or learning in him, being unable to preach, write, dispute, not preaching once in a dozen years or more: For his preferments and Court-offices, they were gained, maintained by flattery, symony, and his base temporizing servility, he serving as a ready Instrument upon all occasions to introduce anypopish Innovasions in the Church, and set on foot any oppressing projects in the State: Therefore his preferment of such an ill Instrument (who first advanced and brought this Arch-Prelat into favor at Court) is no ways excusable. Fourthly, Doctor Wren was before his advancement to a Bishopric, a professed Arminian, a superstitious, popish, dissolute, impious, corrupt Clergy-man, and so reputed by all; therefore a fit Chaplain to promote the Spanish Match and Design, to seduce his Majesty, when in Spain, from our Religion; and his tyrannical, superstitious, popish proceedings since he was made Bishop, have more fully discovered what he was before: All or most of which being in pursuance of the Archbishops Instructions, Injunctions to him (as his Annual Account of his proceedings to him evidence) himself who promoted him and them, must be more guilty of, and responsible for them, then Wren himself, who yet may suffer for them in due time. Fifthly, Doctor Linseys scholarship is not in question, but his Arminian, popish inclination and opinions, which were so much the more dangerous, by reason of his great reputed learning and scholarship; the greatest Scholars, if unsound, being the most pernicious seducers, and unfittest to be preferred of all others: That he was promoted by Bishop Neales means, is a bare allegation of his own without proof; that himself preferred him is clear by the Docquet Book; how much he was tainted with Popery and Arminianism, Master Smart and Master Walker have deposed upon Oath, and his presumption in bringing Sancta Clara to him, even when he was about to publish his Book, to acquaint him with his person and design of reconciling us thereby to the Church of Rome, (which himself records under his own hand) is a sufficient confirmation of their testimony and his intimacy with him, after which he yet preferred him; For Master Smarts quarrel with him at Durham, it was only for his Arminianism, popish Tenets, and Innovations there broached, introduced, and so his testimony the more credible, he then complaining against him in Parliament for it; for the Docquet Book, it is not simply, that the King signified his pleasure by this Archbishops for Doctor Linseys, and those others preferments, but that it was by Order from the Archbishop of Canterbury, therefore no doubt by his procurement, consent and approbation, who had engrossed the sole disposal of all preferments Ecclesiastical. Sixthly, to that he objects, that however these were affected, yet none can object any Arminianism or Popery to him: We reply, that his constant advancing and favoring of such persons, is a very strong evidence of his inclination to both; and our evidence already produced to prove it, is so full, that it unavoidably manifests him guilty in the highest Degree of both. Finally, he gives no answer to the other popish and Arminian Bishops preferments by himself, and so confesseth it.

The second thing I am charged with, is the preferring of Doctor Potter and Doctor Jackson, both Arminians, and Popish Doctor Cosins to Deanaries.

I answer, First, that Doctor Potter was a learned man, an there was no proof he is an Arminian, but by hear-say. Secondly, for Doctor Cosins, I named four to the King for the Deanery of Peterborough, whereof he was one, and the King pitched upon him by reason of his poverty and losses by the Scots. Thirdly, for Doctor Jackson, he was a learned man and honest, for which cause I did prefer him.

To which was replied, First, that we proved directly Doctor Potter was a professed Arminian, by Doctor Featlies testimony, and so known, reputed to be by all in the University of Oxford, so as none can deny it; yea he preferred him as he was thus inclined, not as a learned man; his learning making him only capable of doing more mischief in propagating his Arminian errors. Secondly, that he recommended Doctor Cosins to the King, and th Deanery, is clear by the Docquet Book and his own confession; that he put any other in competition with him▪ Is uncertain: Aowever, he carried the Deanery by his recommendation; and for him to advance a person so popish, so supersttitious, so infamous, so oft complained against in Parliament for popery, as this Doctor was, who had done so much mischief in our Church, upon any pretext, was, no doubt, a grand offense. Thirdly, Doctor Jacksons civil conversation and learning, made his errous and preferment more dangerous, more pernicious; his Arminian errors, not his Learning or Honesty being the ground of his advancement to this dignity, and of those other Deans preferments, to which he hath given no answer.

The third thing objected against me, is my encroachment upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, and preferring Popish and Arminian Chaplains in ordinary to the King and Prince.

For this, I deny I did ever encroach upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, or that I preferred any such Chaplains in ordinary to the King or Prince, neither is there any proof that they were preferred by me; as for Doctor Heylin he was preferred by the Earl of Danby, Doctor Cosins by the Archbishop of York, Doctor Baker by the Bishop of London, Doctor Pocklington and the rest, by I know not whom; as for Doctor Weekes he was none of my Chaplain, but the Bishop of London's, and by him preferred.

To which was replied, First, that Master Oldsworth expressly deposed, and the Earl of Pembroke himself averred the contrary, that he encroached on the Lord Chamberlaines Office, and preferred these Chaplains to the King. Secondly, that many of them were his own Chaplains, therefore doubtless specially recommended to the King by himself, and no other. Thirdly, the King entrusting him with all Ecclesiastical affairs and preferments, no man else but himself could prefer any to be Chaplains to the King, but by his approbation or assistance first obtained; yea, no other person durst encroach upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office in this kind but he. Fourthly, we shall prove Doctor Weekes to be his own Chaplain, by a Catalogue of his Chaplains, written with his own hand, affixed to the end of his Diary, which was produced and read; in which Catalogue Doctor Weekes his name was found Registred among others of his Chaplains; therefore his impudency and falsehood in denying it, was most intolerable: Hereupon the Archbishop being so confounded, that he could not deny it; confessed he was his Chaplain, but he had quite forgotten it, by reason he lived at London-house, and was that Bishops household Chaplain, which the Commons Counsel said, was a very poor excuse for so palpable, so gross an untruth, averred with so much confidence.

The fourth thing objected against me is, my preferring of Arminians, and persons popishly affected, in the Universities; as Doctor Jackson and others in Oxford, Doctor Martin in Cambridge, and Master Chapel in Ireland.

I answer; First, that Doctor Jackson was a learned man, and honest, and for ought I know orthodox. Secondly, Doctor Martin was my household Chaplain for a time, but not known to me to be an Arminian. Thirdly, Master Chapel had a great name in the University of Cambridge for a great Scoller, which made me prefer him; what he did maintain in Ireland is but by hear-say, since I preferred him, and there was no complaint ever made to me against him, by Doctor Hoyle or any other.

To which was replied; First, that he answered not to the main charge, against him, in making ill Vice-Chancellors as well as Heads of houses in Oxford: To that to which he offers an answer, we give this Reply; that Doctor Jackson was a professed Arminian, though learned and honest, therefore no fit man to be President of so famous a College as Corpus Christi. Secondly, that Doctor Martin was a professed Arminian, and declared himself so by licensing Arminian Books, and maintaining Arminian errous in his Sermon at Paul's-Cross when he was his own household Chaplain; all which was known and complained of to himself; therefore unfit to be made Master of a College in Cambridge, or any other of his strain, to which he gives no answer. Thirdly, that Master Chapel had a great name in the University of Cambridge and in London is true, but it was only for a most dangerous Arminian, who leavened the whole College wherein he lived, and many of the University with his pestilent errors; therefore a most unfitting man for him to make Provost and chief Governor of the University and College in Dublin, where Doctor Hoyle expressly deposeth, that he broached not only Arminian, but dangerous Popish Errors, of which it was in vain to complain to the Archbishop, who advanced and countenanced him herein.

The fifth objection is, my encroachment upon the Lord Keepers and Master of the Wards Rights, of presenting to the Kings livings, with my preferment of divers Arminians, and persons popishly affected to Prebendaries and Benefices of best value; as Doctor Heylin, Doctor Weekes, Doctor Baker, Doctor Bray, Doctor Heywood, and others.

To this I answer; First, that I encroached not upon either of their rights: True it is, there being a difference between the Lord Keeper Coventry and the Lord Cottington, Master of the Court of Wards, about the presentation towards livings in the Kings gift; I took occasion thereupon to inform his Majesty, that till the controversy were decided between them, he might do well to dispose of these livings himself, for the encouragement and reward of such young Scholars that went to Sea as Chaplains in his Ships, who had nothing to live on after their return from Sea, till they went forth again; which motion the King approving of very well, committed the disposing of these livings accordingly to my charge, without my desire or suit. Secondly, I disposed of livings to divers good and orthodox men, as to Doctor Jackson of Canterbury, and others, as well as to the persons objected, who were not all preferred by me; for Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings by the Earl of Danby, Doctor Baker and Doctor Weekes were preferred by the Bishop of London.

To which was replied; First, that most of the living belonging to the Lord Keeper, and Master of the Wards, were bestowed by him, of which both of them oft complained; therefore he encroached upon both, which none of his Predecessors did: For those belonging to the Mastership of the Wards, he confesseth he disposed of them by the Kings appointment, but that it was upon the pretended occasion, without his seeking or desire (though occasioned only his motion) we know not how to credit his bare word, without better evidence, who hath had the impudency to deny his own hand-writing very often since his Trial, and afterwards been enforced to confess it. Secondly, his collation of Livings upon orthodox good men are so few, that he names but one [Doctor Jackson of Canterbury] and that when he had so far prevailed upon his weakness, by a new Cathedral Statute and Oath, as to induce him to Bow to the Altar, &c. as frequently as other Prebends (which he hath deposed) to his great shame, and re-greet since; this one Swallow therefore will prove no Spring, no proof of his ordinary preferring orthodox godly men to livings, which he commonly bestowed on the most rotten Arminians and popish Clergy-men he could cull out. Thirdly, the Docquet Book is express, that Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings and Prebendary by himself, not by the Earl; that Doctor Baker and Weekes too were preferred by him, not by the Bishop of London; and Weekes being his own Chaplain, and Baker made a Prebend of Canterbury (where no man durst interpose but he) no doubt they were both preferred by him, as the DOCQUET witnesseth on Record, against his impudent Denial, without other proof or truth.

The fixed Objection is, that I usurped to me the conferring of most Bishoprics and Ecclesiastical preferments in Ireland.

I answer; first, that I preferred none there, but at the request of the Primate of Armagh, and others of that Kingdom, who first recommended them to me by their Letters. Secondly, that I was a means, at their request, to recover the Patrimony of the Churches in that Kingdom, which had been long defrauded of it; to restore Impropriations, and increase the Revenues of Bishoprics and Church-livings there, for the encouragement of Learning, and better maintenance of Preaching; in which regard, they were desirous I should be acquainted with the persons they thought meet to have recommended to them. This appears by the substance of most of the Letters that passed between the Lord Primate and other Bishops of Ireland and me.

To which was replied: First, that we instanced in his bestowing Bishoprics, Deaneries and other Church-preferments in Ireland, only to demonstrate the Papal usurpation, and Patriarchicall Jurisdiction he there encroached even whiles he was Bishop of London; and to evidence his power in disposing of all Ecclesiastical preferments then at home, since he disposed of these in Ireland, where he had no Episcopal or Archiepiscopall Jurisdiction. Secondly, that most of those he there preferred, were never recommended from thence, though some of them perchance were. Thirdly, that although the recovery of the usurped depopulated Patrimony of that Church in Ireland was a commendable work, if done in a Legal way; yet to recover it, per fas & nefas, as he did it, by the mere arbitrary power of the Lord Deputy & Council Table there, by oppressing, ruining, dispossessing men of what they had lawfully purchased against their wills, without any consideration or legal proceeding, was a most unjust and wicked act. Fourthly, justly to recover and get in Impropriations to maintain Preaching, was a very good work; had this been his end; but certainly this was but a mere pretence; for would he, think you, set up sincere Preaching in Ireland; who suppressed it all he could in England? Would he who subverted the Feoffees for purchasing in Impropriations to the Church, to support Preaching and Preaching Ministers in England, recover and get in Impropriations to the Church in Ireland, to support Preaching and Preaching Ministers there? No verily: He did it only to maintain the Pomp, Power, Pride, State of the Prelates and Clergy there; as he did in England; not to maintain, or set up godly Preaching Ministers, which he both here and there suppressed all he could.

The fourteenth thing objected against me is, my prosecution and severe proceedings against godly Ministers, for Preaching against Arminianism, Popery, and its dangerous increase among us; as namely against Master Samuel Ward, Master Chauncy and Master Bernard.

To this I answer; first, that these persons Censures were the Act of the whole High-Commission (which is but one body aggregate, for whose Act no one particular man is liable to be questioned, but the whole Court;) not mine alone (as an Act of Parliament is the Act of both Houses, not of any particular Member) who gave my voice always last, or last but one; and so could not sway the Court with my opinion, not known to the Court till I delivered it, after all had declared theirs. Secondly, that the Act of Parliament which lately abolished the Star-chamber and High-Commission hath no retrospect to nullify the Sentences given in them, but admits them good and valid in Law, not subjecting the Judges who gave them to any punishment. Thirdly, their Sentences appeared to me to be just, upon just grounds; and admit the Sentences or Proceedings unjust, yet it is but a misdemenour in others of the Commissioners that gave them; therefore no Treason in me. Fourthly, the Passages and Sermons for which they were Sentenced were, partly Schismaticall against the laudable Ceremonies of the Church and the Kings Declaration; partly Seditious, to infuse fears and jealousies of the increase of Popery into the people's minds, and casting aspersions upon the Governors of the Church; For Master Bernard's prosecution it was upon the Complaint of Doctor Cumber, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge. Fifthly, for other Ministers that were questioned, or fled from hence to New-England; they were Non-conformists, questioned upon just complaints; and most of them fled hence, out of a consciousness of guilt or of a panic fear, before they were questioned or pursued.

To this was replied; first, that we must not follow a multitude to do evil; and injustice done by a whole Court, is a greater crime in every particular person who votes or concurs in it, then if he had done an act of Injustice alone; because more dangerous, more inexcusable, a greater perverting of Justice; framing of mischief by a Law, and making the very throne of Justice, a throne of wickedness: Yea, since the injustice of the whole Court flows from the injustice of each particular Members vote, and is the Act of each particular man who concurs in, or consents to it, he may no doubt be justly censured for it; and others concurrence with him will be no excuse. If twenty men join in a Treason, Felony, or Trespass, any one of them may by Law be severally arraigned and condemned for it, as well as all of them together: We have a notable President to prove this in the Judges censured and condemned in Parliament in King Richard the seconds time, for delivering their opinions contrary to Law against the Members of Parliament, and in the Judges questioned, impeached this present Parliament for their false Judgment given in the case of Ship-money; who might have pleaded as well as the Archbishop, each for himself, the judgment we gave in these cases was the Act and Judgment of the whole Bench; therefore we ought not to be severally impeached for it; but none of them were so inconsiderate, as to make such a childish plea, which himself refused to admit in the High-Commission in the case of the men of Gloucester, censured for granting an Annuity to Master Workman their Minister, under the City Seal; an Act of the whole Corporation; yet they were there Sentenced for it in their natural capacities, as single men. And if this Plea should be admitted, no corrupt Judges in any Court of Justice should be severally proceeded against for any illegal Judgment or proceedings of the Court, which would be the very bane of public Justice, and encourage ill Judges to do what they list. Secondly, the objected Act of Parliament leaves the Judgments of both Courts as it found them, neither better nor worse; and the Judges that gave them in the same condition as before, not in a better. If the Judgment be unjust, it leaves both them and the Judges, as far forth liable to examination, repeal, censure, as formerly; as appears by divers of them now questioned in Parliament for unjust Sentences therein given. Thirdly, the Proceedings, Sentences against these persons were certainly most unjust, being only for Preaching necessary Truths; and that which is but a Misdemeanour in others, simply considerated as a single offense; may prove high-treason in him, being conjoynedwith, and done in pursuit of his other Treasonable practices to subvert Religion, Laws, Liberties, introduce popery & an arbitrary tyrannical government, which we have fully manifested. Fourthly, the passages for which they were censured, were neither scismatical nor seditious, nor scandalous, but necessary for those secure times, to mind the people of the dangerous covert increase of popery, Arminianism, and undermining of our Religion, which all now visibly discern, but few then observed; and to ruin godly Ministers for discharging their consciences, duties, in warning men of those dangers and speaking for the safety of that endangered Religion, which we all profess, was a most unjust and monstrous misdemeanor, especially in an Arch-prelat, who should have encouraged, rewarded, advanced them for this their faithfulness: as for the aspersions pretended to be cast upon the Governors of the Church therein, they were in truth mere general censures, without particularizing of such who justly deserved them: And it is no calumny, but a necessary duty for Ministers to tell negligent or unfaithful Prelates of their duties, and reprehend them for their supinesse when they are faulty, as well as other men. For Master Bernard and the rest, they were prosecuted only by this Archbishops own instigation: for all the passages and proceedings against them were found in his study, endorsed with his own hand; he was the person to whom they made their humble addresses though without relief, and the only inexorable enemy they met with; their unjust censures therefore must rest principally on him, who though he voted last in their condemnation, yet appeared first in their prosecution, and pre-directed their censures in private, before they were given in open Court. Fifthly, all the forementioned godly Ministers were unjusty molested by him, and few fled from hence, but such who were actually prosecuted or threatened with ruin ere they left the Kingdom; most of them being then conformable to all Rites and Ceremonies by Law established in our Church, though not to his popish Innovations, Ceremonies, and Book of Sports, against our Laws and their consciences too: This charge therefore still rests entirely upon him, notwithstanding his evasions.

The fifteenth charge objected against me is, my endeavors, practices, proceedings to suppress preaching, Lecturers, Lectures on Lord's-days and week-days; and that first, by a paper of Considerations which I tendered to the King. Secondly, by Instructions extracted out of them, and sent as the Kings, in his name and authority to both the Archishops and all Bishops of the Realm, to be put in strict execution; by color whereof many Lectures, Lecturers were suppressed in my own Diocese of London, and in other Dioceses, especially by Bishop Montague, Bishop Wren, and Bishop Peice; as appears by their Articles and proceedings. Thirdly: orders for Combination Lectures. Fourthly, the Kings Letters that none should be ordained without a Title. Fifthly, the silencing of Master Leigh and others by my own direction and Letters signed by me. Sixthly, by suppressing the Feoffees for Impropriations, alleged to be my act and project.

To this I answer; first, that these Considerations were originally drawn by Bishop Harsnet, not me, who only transcribed them out of his Copy. Secondly, that these Instructions of the King were before I was made Archbishop, and were sent unto me by my Predecessour in the Kings name to be put in execution in my Diocese; whereupon I was bound in duty to see them executed, being good and necessary; the intent of them being principally to bring all Lecturers to conformity, to suppress single Lecturers where there were Preaching Ministers, to preserve peace between the Minister and people, betwixt whom Lecturers in many places made great contentions, alienating the people's affections from their Ministers person, Ministry, and raising divers Schisms, to the disturbance of the Churches peace. As for the Articles, Proceedings and Misdemeanours of Bishop Wren, Bishop Montague and Bishop Peirce, they are nothing to me; they must answer for themselves. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures were none of mine, and tended only to bring men to conformity. Fourthly, the Kings Letter, that none should be made without a Title, was to prevent unworthy Ordinations, agreeable to ancient Canons, and no harm therein. Fifthly, for Master Leigh, I received many complaints against him, that he was a scismaticall & seditious person, whereupon I writ thus to my Vicar general; If you can fasten anything on him, whereby he may be justly censured, then to proceed against him, and he finding just cause did suspend him for his non-conformity; so as in this I did but discharge my duty, and deserve no blame. Sixthly, as to the Feoffees for impropriations, there was great complaint made to me against them, that their end was to take away the right of patronages from the Church to make those Ministers they preferred independent on the Bishops, & dependent wholly on them, and to engross most Ecclesiastical preferments into their own hands, which I conceiving to be true in it self, and that it would prove mischievous to the Church, did thereupon by the Kings command, cause an Information to be exhibited against them, in a legal way, in the Exchequer; where upon a full and fair hearing, they were suppressed, not by me, but by the Judges of that Court, who gave sentence against them; which sentence was either legal or illegal, just or unjust; if just and legal, then there was no wrong nor injustice at all done in the case, and so no cause of accusation or complaint against me, or those who gave it; if illegal and unjust, the Judges who gave the sentence must answer for it, not I, who prosecuted them only in a legal way, and left them to judge according to Law and Justice: Besides, some of the profits of the purchased impropriations, were bestowed towards the maintenance of Lecturers at Saint Antholins, contrary to the trust and intention, and Parsons not wholly conformable to the Church of England were put into some of them; therefore I conceived that I did but my duty in questioning & suppessing them as I did: For Doctor Heylins Sermon, it concerns not me, he spake therein of the Feoffees, according as he conceived of them, and if anything be mistaken he must answer for it: As for Master Foxly, I did only check him for his forwardness in this work, which I conceived would prove mischievous to the Church.

To which was replied; First, that the original draught of these Considerations was produced under his own hand; that it was but a transcript out of Bishop Harsnets Copy, the original Author of them, is but his own bare surmise, without any proof or color: But admit Harsnet first contrived them, yet he was the only man that presented them to the King, and caused them to be put in execution, to the suppression of Lecturers, Lectures, preaching; therefore the mischief produced by them must rest on him alone. Secondly, it is true, the Instructions were sent to him by his Predecessor Abbot, as from the King; but we have proved, that himself first procured, contrived, presented them to the King, to be put in execution, and caused the King to send them to Archbishop Abbot, to communicate them to all the Bishops of his Province; and so zealous was he in the pursuit of them in his own Diocese of London, that he suppressed many Lectures and Lecturers by color of them; yea, such was his activity in their original contrivance and subsequent execution, that the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury certified all their proceedings on them, not to Archbishop Abbot, but to him, being then but Bishop of London, and complained to him of the Archbishops remissness in seeing them duly executed in such sort as they desired, as we have fully manifested: Therefore all the mischief in suppressing of Lectures and preaching, by means or color of them, must light upon his head, the original contriver and chief prosecutor of them; yea, all Bishop Wrens, Bishop Montague's, and Bishop Pierces Visitations Articles, and suppressions of preaching, Lecturers and Lectures, must be attributed to & charged upon him, because they originally sprang from these Injunctions of his contrivance; because he was acquainted with, and countenanced, approved them in all their wicked proceedings, of which they gave a particular annual account to him in writing, found in his Study under their own hands, and never checked but animated them in their persecutions, suppressions of godly Ministers, Lectures, Preaching, Et qui non prohibit malum quod potest, jubet, is the very resolution of the Canon Law. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures, tending to suppress or make them merely superstitious or ceremonial useless Ordinances, though not made immediately by him, did yet spring originally from him, were sent up to, and not revoked, but approved by him, and Sir John Lamb his creature, and no Bishops durst to have made or enjoined them without his previous approbation or direction; therefore he must bear the blame and guilt of them. Fourthly, for the Kings Letter touching Ordination of Ministers, we have proved it to be his own (the Original thereof being penned, corrected by himself) not the Kings, whom he over-reached, abused in it: For though the pretence and letter of it seemed very fair and necessary, yet the intention and execution of it by the Archbishop, was most impious, detestable, to suppress Lecturers, Lectures, Preaching, and deter all pious, conscientious Scholars from the Ministry, as we have plentifully manifested, to which he hath offered no reply; nor yet to his pressing of the Book of Sports, for the like purpose. Fifthly, for his silencing Master Leigh and others Lecturers, his answer is very defective, since he cannot prove him factious or scismaticall, nor yet Master Randall, they being known to be orthodox and conformable: The only crime they were guilty of was, that they were diligent, painful Preachers, and did much good among the people; and therefore his Letter concerning Master Leigh is positive, That if nothing can be fastened on him, whereby he may be censured; HOWEVER let him not obtain any license to Lecture there, &c. for the Church hath not need of such men: And Master Randalls fault was only this, that he preached long Sermons on Sundays in the afternoon, and for this they must be and were suspended from preaching. Sixthly, for the Feoffees to purchase in impropriations, it was a most pious work, to the great benefit of the Church and people's souls, approved generally by the worst of men and Bishops; that the overthrow of it was his own act and design, we have undeniably proved it by his own DIARY, and sundry witnesses from his own mouth; that any ever complained to him thereof as dangerous to the Church, is but his own bare allegation, void of truth; he naming neither the persons complaining, nor the time of their complaint: That it would introduce a Ministry independent on the Bishops, is a false surmise, since none were recommended to officiate or preach at any of the purchased Impropriations, but by special license of the Bishops in whose they were, and none were presented to them but conformable men, free from all just exceptions, & if he could justly except against ought in their proceedings, Master White deposeth, he offered that he himself should rectify it, so as the work might proceed; but this would not content him, but they must be suppressed and criminally proceeded against: That he did it in a legal way, is no justification nor excuse, since those who work and accomplish mischief by color of Law, are worse then open Tyrants: For the sentence, no doubt it was most unjust, and so the Earl of Dorset, who was present at it, told the King himself, affirming the buying in of Impropriations to be the best work that ever was set on foot, for the Churches good; his own beging the Impropriations in Ireland from the Crown, for the pretended good of the Church, proves it infallibly against himself: But that the Judges only must answer for this unjust sentence, not he, is a mere Nonsequitur; because the Law resolves, that Plus peccat Author quàm Actor; and the Judges had never given such an unjust sentence in this cause, had not he by his violence, power, fraud, interressing the King himself against the Feoffees, over-awed, swayed the Judges to swerve from the rules of Piety and Justice: That some of the revenues of purchased Impropriations were contributed towards the maintenance of Saint Antholins Lecturers, is true; but that it was a mis-employing by them contrary to trust, or that any unworthy or unconformable Ministers were put into them, is a gross falsehood, disproved by Master White upon Oath: However, had it been true, he should then have reformed the abuse, not utterly destroyed the good work, so much conducing to God's glory, and the people's edification: For Heylins Sermon, it was presented to, retained, approved, yea himself advanced by him, and no doubt he preached it by his direction: As for Master Foxly, he did not only check, but persecute, imprison, and most barbarously handle him to his undoing, only for his promoting this pious project, even after he had quite overthrown it, and openly vaunted of this his wickedness: All which considered, each branch of this charge sticks most immovably upon him, notwithstanding all his evasions to shake it off.

The sixteenth charge urged against me is, That I have endeavored to cause division and discord between the Church of England and other reformed Churches, and endeavored to suppress the Privileges & Immunities of the reformed Dutch and French Churches in this Kingdom; wherein it was objected: First, that I esteemed them no Churches of God or Christ at all, because they •• nted Bishope which they endeavored to prove by mine own Conference with Fisher, Bishop Hals Propositions, approved by me, and Bishop Montague's Book, authorized by my Chaplain. Secondly, that I deemed their Religion and ours not to be one, but different, and their Religion not to be the true Religion: Upon which ground I grew angry with Master Ruly, and caused the Letters-Patents granted by the King for a Collection for the Palatinate Ministers, to be revoked after they had passed the great Seal, and a clause in them to be expunged, to their great injury and scandal, as Master Wakerly and Master Hartlib attested. Thirdly, that I caused the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Pals 〈◊〉 Church to be called in and suppressed. Fourthly, That I molested the DUTCH, FRENCH and WALLOONE reformed Churches in England sundry years, and infringed their ancient Privileges by my Injunctions in divers particulars.

To this I answer in general, that I deny both the Charge and Article, and that I have endeavored to promote and preserve peace between the Protestant Churches abroad, and encouraged Master Dury, who was employed to make a reconciliation between the Calvinists and Lutherans beyond the Seas, as I could evidence by sundry of his Letters; therefore I had a good affection to these Churches, and no intent to make any discord between them: To the objected particulars I answer;

First, that in my Conference with Fisher, I cite only S ^t Jerome’s words, to prove a difference in order and degree, between a Bishop and ordinary Presbyter, and infer from his words, as his opinion, not mine; so even with him, no Bishop, no Church. But it hath been objected, that Bish. Montague's Book determines expressly, that there can be no Church without Bishops, nor Ministers but such who are ordained by Diocesian Bish. distinct from an ordinary Minister, and that no Minister (no not in case of necessity) can be ordained by any other; therefore the foreign Protestant Churches, which have no such Bishops, and their Ministers, being not ordained by Bishops, but other Presbyters, can be no Churches nor Ministers: I answer, that this Book and opinion of his concerns not me, being none of mine but the Authors: Yea, but I maintained and approved the same opinion in effect in Bishop Hals Propositions touching Episcopacy, to which I endeavored to procure a general subscription, pressing it upon others; and therein I determine, That there was no Church of Christ upon earth ever since the Apostles times governed otherwise then by Bishops; and that this government is unalterable, and ought to be perpetuated in the Church to the end of the world: Which doth wholly unchurch all the reformed Churches, and resolve them to be no Churches of Christ. I answer, that these Propositions were sent me by Bishop Hall, of his own accord, that what I did in them was by his consent, neither were any pressed to subscribe them, nor they propounded concludingly: And though Episcopacy be not alterable, yet it may be regulated: That it is unalterable, Bishop Bilson hath proved it long since, it continuing so in all Churches at least fifteen hundred years after Christ, and is allowed, approved by the Book of Ordination; yea Master Calvin himself on that of John, As my Father sent me, so send I you, acknowledgeth the perpetuity of Bishops in the Church.

Secondly, I deny that I esteem the Reformed Churches Religion & ours not to be the same; true it is, we & they differ in some particular points of Doctrine as well as in Disciplin; but this makes us not wholly to differ in Religion, nor did I deny their Religion to be true: As for Master Ruly, I used him very civilly with all respect, and promoted the Collection for the Palatinate all I could, having received a Letter from the Queen of Bohemia for that purpose: True it is, I caused the objected clause in the first Patent of the Collection to be altered, but it was by the Kings direction, who gave order for it, upon my acquainting him therewith; and I conceive there was ground enough to do it: First, because some of the Palatinate Divines (as Paraus upon the Romans) differed from our Church in some points of Doctrine touching the Kings Supremacy, concurring therein with the Papists;) for which his Book was here publicly condemned, burnt, and likewise in some other points,) therefore it could not be properly said that their Religion and ours was the same in all particulars: Secondly, it seemed to determine a great controversy between Protestant Divines among themselves, and likewise between them and the Church of Rome; whether the Pope be Antichrist? which was never yet determined by any Council, and of which there is great doubt and difference in opinion even among the learned: Now I conceived it a very unfitting thing to determine such a doubtful controversy definitively by Letters. Patents under the great Seal, which is not yet resolved in the Schools. Upon these grounds the King thought fit to revoke the Patent, though it were under the Great Seal, which I had no power to recall, but the KING only.

Thirdly, I deny that I called in the Declaration of the Palsgraves Religion, neither do I rememeber any such thing: Fourthly, it is true, that I questioned the Dutch and Walloone Churches, but not for any ancient Privileges, but only for their encroachments beyond their privileges, to the prejudice of our English Churches and Parishes wherein they lived; yet my Injunctions and proceedings towards them in this kind, were so fair and just, that they rested satisfied with them, and returned me special thanks for my favor towards them and their Congregations; therefore I much marvel that this my carriage should be so much blamed, as to make it a CAPITALL CRIME and CHARGE against me.

To this was replied in the general, that the premised proofs, with his late military proceedings against the Scots, for complying with those Churches in their Doctrine, Discipline, Government, sufficiently evidence his enmity to, his opposition against those foreign Protestant Churches, because they had no Bishops; insomuch that he blamed Bishop Hall for dealing so mildly with them in his Book for Episcopacy, which he submitted to his censure, where on the contrary he is so zealous of the Popes honor, that he could not but complain to the King of some harsh passages in it, bestowing the Title of Antichrist on his Holiness, and procured a special command from his Majesty to the Bishop to expunge them, to gratify the Pope; yea, his purging out the objected clause in the Kings Patent, and suppressing of the Declaration of Palatinate Churches Faith and Religion, argues little affection in him to those Churches, and much inward rancor against them, but a very high esteem of Rome: As for his encouraging of Master Dury in his design of reconciling the Calvinists and Lutherans, Master Dury undertook this work without his privity or advice, and found so small encouragement from him, that he oft complained thereof to his friends, as we are credibly informed.

To the particulars we reply; First, that in his Conference with Fisher, he doth not recite, but misrecite and pervert Saint Jerome’s words and opinion; who dogmatically resolves in his very Epistle to Evagrius, which this Archbishop quotes, and elsewhere; That Bishops and Presbyters Jure Divino, are both one and the same, as well in Jurisdiction as Office, and that Presbyters have the power of Ordination as well as Bishops: Therefore his appropriating of the word Sacerdos and Jerome’s saying, Ubi non est Sacerdos non est Ecclesia; to Diocesian Bishops, which he clearly means of Priests and Ministers in general, is a gross perverting of Jerome’s meaning; and his inferene thence: So even with him, NO BISHOP and NO CHURCH, is only a Declaration of his own private opinion, not of Jerome’s, who held no such Prelatical Paradox: For Bishop Montague's Book, it was licensed by his Chaplain, presented to, received, approved by himself: Bishop Hals Propositions were not only interlined with, but allowed under his own hand, as fit for a general subscription, and now he justifies them not only by Bishop Bilsons opinion, but likewise by Master Calvin's, as great an enemy to Bishops as Saint Jerome, whose words he willfully perverts as he did his, in applying that to Diocesian Bishops, which he spake only of ordinary Ministers, who succeeded the Apostles in their Ministerial Function: In brief, his own Conference, together with Montague's Book, and Bishop Hals Propositions, approved by him, do necessarily unchurch all the reformed Protestant Curches, un-minister all their Ministers, and make them no Churches no Ministers of Christ; whereas he avers the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and her Priests to be true Ministers, as we have formerly proved; therefore he must needs be guilty of the extremist malignity and anmity against them, what ever he pretends to the contrary.

Secondly, he denies, and yet at last justifies and maintains what we charge him with, to wit, that he denies the Religion of foreign Protestant Churches to be the same with ours, or to be true Religion; & he instanceth in the opinion of Pareus, whose Commentary on the Romans he caused to be burnt as erroneous, when as he writes no more then Bilson did before him (whom himself hath cited in defense of Episcopacy) & other orthodox Writers of our Church have maintained publicly for truth before & since: As for the burning of Paraus his Book, being of a foreign Nation and no Subject to our King, without summoning him to defend himself, it was an unjust, rash, inconsiderate action, to say no more, as his Son hath manifested to the world in print, who hath justified his Fathers opinion to the full, as orthodox: However, the extravagant opinion of one Palatinate Divine, in point only of the Kings Supremacy (not about any Article of Faith) cannot make the reformed Churches and ours to be of different Religions, especially since he argues in his Star-chamber Speech, that the Papists Religion and ours are both one, though we differ in some private Tenets: Yea, his denial of the Protestants Religion in foreign parts to be the true Religion, when as he contends that Rome is a true Church, argues his virulency against the one, and good affection to the other. Thirdly, the calling in of the Declaration of the Palsgraves Religion, is directly and punctually proved to be his act; its impudency therefore in him to deny it, and policy not to remember it. Fourthly, for the purgation and revocation of the Letters-Patents, he not only confesseth, but shamelessly justifies it (most undutifully laying the blame, the scandal of it on the King himself, who did naught therein but by his instigation) and that upon two false, scandalous grounds: First, that the Religion of the foreign Palatinate Churches and ours differ and are not the same: then which falsehood nothing can procure a greater schism and juster ground of scandal between us and those Churches. Secondly, that no Council had defined the Pope to be Antichrist, of which there was great variety of opinions amongst Protestant Divines touching the same, unfit to be decided by the Kings Letters-Patents. Therefore he purged it out because it intimated the Pope to be Antichrist, and subjection to him an Antichristian Yoke of bondage; both which compared with his Purgations out of Bishop Hals Book of Episcopacy to the same effect) proves him a Papist with a witness, and a special friend to the Popes Holiness, of whose honor among us he is extraordinary tender: That the Pope is the Antichrist, all Foreign & Domestic Protestant Divines (and some Papists too) unanimously agree, except Montague and Shelford, his creatures: And whereas he pretends, no Council hath so determined: We answer, that the Synod of Gape in France, Anno 1603. the whole Synod and Convocation in Ireland, Ann. 1615. in the very Articles of their Religion, Num. 80. with the whole Convocation and Parliament of England, in the Act for the Subsidy of the Clergy, 30 Jacobi, to omit others, define the Pope to be the Antichrist, and Popery Antichristian, more fully then those Letters-Patents; and why these new Letters-Patents should not determine them to be such, as well as the old ones both in King James and in King Charles their Reignes, but must now be revoked after they had passed the great Seal of England, because this Archbishop would have it so, transcends any man's capacity to guess at any other probable reason, except only this Prelates affection both to the Pope and Popery, or enmity against the reformed Churches and their Religion: For his incivilities to Master Ruly by reason of this clause, our Witnesses testimonial will outsway his bare denial of them. Fifthly, the premises abundantly manifest to all, that the Archbishop invaded, diminished the ancient Immunities and Privileges of the Dutch and Walloon Churches in all parts, not their pretended encroachments only upon our Churches Privileges, and that he was so far from being their friend, that they esteemed him then their greatest enemy: If they formerly returned him any thanks (by way of Court-complement) for not taking away all their privileges, as well as some of them, after many years hot contest, we are certain they justly complained of him ten times more for invading, depriving them of sundry of their ancient Immunities, which almost brought their Churches to utter ruin: In few words, his own forecited Papers, and Monsieur Bulteels Book of the manifold troubles of those Churches by this Arch-Prelates prosecution, will abundantly falsify this his pretended friendship towards them, and remain as a lasting Record against him to Posterity. All which considered, the whole Bulk and every particle of all the proofs and evidences produced by us to make good the first branch of the Commons first general Charge of High-treason against him, remain altogether unshaken, unavoyded, maugre all his sophistical evasions, protestations and shifting answers to them. And so much for the first branch of his first general Charge.