4. The fourth Instance was in the "Book of Martyrs." But that was but named to credit a base business, an Almanack made by one Mr. Genebrand;* in which he had left out all the Saints, Apostles and all, and put in those which are named in Mr. Fox, and yet not all of them neither; for he had left out the solemu days, which are in Fox, as Feb. 2, Feb. 25, Mar. 25. And Cranmer translated to Mar. 23.. In this particular Mr. Genebrand, brother to this Almanack-maker, witnesseth, that the queen sent to me about this new Almanack. If her majesty did send to me about it, (as it is probable she would disdain the book,) is that any crime in me? Could I prevent her majesty's sending, who could not know so much as that she would send? He says, His brother was acquitted in the High Commission, but charged by me that he made a faction in the court. If I did say so, surely, my lords, I saw ! some practising by him in this new-found way. He says, The Papists bought up a great number of these Almanacks, and burnt them. It seems he could not hinder that, nor I neither; unless it shall not be lawful for a papist to buy an Almanack: for when he hath bought him, he may burn him if he please.

But since the "Book of Martyrs" was named, I shall tell your lordships how careful I was of it. It is well known how easily Abridgements, by their brevity and their cheapness, in short time work out the authors themselves. Mr. Young the printer laboured me earnestly and often for an Abridgment of the Book of Martyrs; but I still withstood it, as my Secretary here present can testify, upon these two grounds: The one, lest it should bring the large Book itself into disuse; and the other, lest if any material thing should be left out, that should have been charged as done of purpose by me, as now I see it is in other books. And I humbly pray your lordships cast your eyes upon the Frontispiece of the Book of Martyrs, printed A. D. 1642, since this parliament began, and when I was safe enough from having any hand in the business, and there you shall see as dangerous pictures as have been charged upon me, or any my Chapel Windows.

Upon occasion of Mr. Genebrand's Calendar, Mr. Prynn took occasion to tell the Lords, That I had made Notes upon the Calendar in the Missal. I desired they might be read; it was thought too tedious. They were nothing but some Additions of my own reading to the occurrences on some days. And because the Calendar in the Missal was open and large, I thought fit to write them there.

S

I

5. The fifth Instance is in Dr. Pocklington's v Censure of ‚† and of Flaccius Illyricus; F and that this book was licensed by my chaplain o Dr. Bray; and he was censured in this ho- t nourable house for that and like slips of his. h Then it was inferred at the bar, That it must th

* His name was Gellibrand. W. S. A. C. I believe the name here wanting is Mr. Fox the Martyrologist. W. S. A. C.

W ne

the printing of it, and that I opposed him, to affront the parliament. Nothing so, my lords: Nothing done by me to oppose, or affront the one or the other. This Sermon came forth when the Loan was not yet settled in parliament. The Lords, and the Judges, and the bishops, were some for, some against it. And if my judgment were erroneous in that point, it was misled by lords of great honour and experience, and by judges of great knowledge in the law. But I did nothing to affront any. It is said, that I inserted into the Sermon, "That the people may not refuse any tax that is not unjustly laid." I conceive nothing is justly laid in that kind but according to law, God's and man's: And 1 dare not say, the people may refuse any thing so laid. For Jus Regis, the Right of a King, (which is urged against me too) I never went farther than the scriptures lead me; nor did I ever think that Jus Regis, mentioned 1 Sam. viii. is meant of the ordinary and just Right of Kings, but of that power which such as Saul would be, would assume unto themselves, and make it right by power, 1 Sam. viii, 12.

Then they say I expunged some things out of it: As, 1. The “Sabbath," and put instead of it the "Lord's-Day." What is my offence? Sabbath is the Jews word, and the Lord's-Day the Christians. 2. About evil Counsellors, to be used as Haman. The passage, as there expressed, was very scandalous, and without just cause, upon the lords of the council. And they might justly have thought I had wanted discretion, should I have left it in. 3. That I expunged this, "That Popery is against the first and the second commandment." If I did it, it was because it is much doubted by learned men, whether any thing in Popery is against the first Commandment, or denies the Unity of the God-head. And Mr. Perkins, who charges very home against Popery, lays not the breach of the first Commandment upon them. And when I gave Mr. Browne this Answer; in his last Reply he asked why I left out both? Why, I did it because its being against the 'second is common and obvious, and I did not think it worthy the standing in such a Sermon, when it could not be made good against the 'first.'

But they demanded, Why I should make any animadversions at all upon the Sermon? It was thus: The Sermon being presented to his majesty, and the argument not common, he committed the care of printing it to bishop Mountain, the bishop of London, and four other; of which I was one. And this was the reason of the Animadversions now called mine; as also of the Answer to my predecessor's Exceptions, now charged also, and called mine. But it was the Joint-Answer of the Committee. And so is that other particular also, in which the whole business is left to the learned in the laws: For though the Animadversions be in my hand, yet they were done at and by the Com

* See No. 126, vol. 2, p. 1449.

mittee, only I being puny bishop, was put to write them in my hand.

VII. The seventh Charge was Dr. Manwaring's Business and Preferment. It was handled before, only resumed here to make a noise, and so passed it over.*

VIII. The eighth Charge was concerning some Alterations in the Prayers made for the 5th of November, and in the Book for the Fast, which was published anno 1636, and the prayers on the Coronation-Day.

1. For the Fast-Book: The Prayer mentioned was altered, as is expressed; but it was by him that had the ordering of that Book to the press, not by me. Yet I cannot but approve the reason given for it, and that without any the least approbation of merit: For the abuse of Fasting, by thinking it meritorious, is the thing left out: whereas in this age and kingdom, when and where set Fastings of the church are cried down, there can be little fear of that erroneous opinion of placing any merit in fastings.

2. For the Prayers published for the fifth of November and Coronation-Day; the Alterations were made either by the king himself, or some about him when I was not in court: And the Book sent me, with a command for the printing, as there altered. I made stay till I might wait upon his majesty. I found him resolved upon the Alterations; nor in my judg ment could I justly except against them. His majesty then gave warrant to the Books themselves, with the Alterations in them; and so by his warrant I commanded the printing. And I then shewed both the books to the lords, who viewed them, and acknowledged his majesty's hand, with which, not his name only, but the whole warrant was written.

And here I humbly desired three things might be observed, and I still desire it. 1. With what conscience this Passage out of my Speech in the Star-Chamber (p. 32.) was urged against me, (for so it was, and fiercely by Mr. Nicolas) to prove that I had altered the Oath at the King's Coronation, because the Prayers appointed for the Anniversary of the Coronation were altered. Which is absolute nonsense.' 2. He charged me that the word Antichristian was left out. But that is visibly untrue: for it is left in. 3. That though it be in, yet that the Alteration takes it off from the Papist, as also their rebellion. Neither: For the Change is this: "That Antichristian sect," altered into the "Antichristian sect of them which," &c. and, "whose religion is rebellion," altered into "who turn religion into rebellion." By which it is manifest, that the Alteration takes off neither imputation from the Papist, but moderates both. And for aught I yet know, it is necessary it should: For if their religion be rebellion, see what it will produce. Is not this the syllogism? The Religion of the Papist is Rebellion; but Christianity is the Religion of

See No. 131, vol. 3, p. 335.

the Papist: Therefore Christianity is Rebellion. I may not inlarge; but you inay see more, if you please, in my speech in the Star-Chamber. (p. 36.) And when Mr. Browne in the Sum of his Charge pressed these Alterations hard against me, he did not so much as mention that I had the king's both warrant and com'mand to all that I did in that particular. And 'besides urged this as a great Innovation; be'cause the prayers mentioned had continued unaltered for the space of above 30 years; of the church, established by act of parlianot remembering therewhile, that the liturgy 'ment, must be taken away, or altered, though it hath continued above fourscore. Nay, and episcopacy must be quite abolished, though it

have continued in the church of Christ above * 1600.'

IX. The ninth Charge was from sir Edward Hungerford, who came to Lambeth to have a little Book licensed at the press. The author was sir Anthony Hungerford; whether sir Edward's grandfather or his uncle, I remember not the relation. He says he came to my chaplain Dr. Bray to license it; and that Dr. Bray told him there were some harsh phrases in it, which were better left out, because we were upon a way of winning the Papists. 1. I hope I shall not be made answerable for my chaplain's words too. And 2. I hope there is no harm in winning the Papists to the church of England; especially, if so easy a cure as avoiding harsh language would do it. He says, my chaplain expressed a dislike of Guicciardin's censure of pope Alexander the 6th. Sure, if the censure be false, he had reason to except against it: If true, yet to publish such an unsavoury business to the common people.--He says, he came and complained to me; and that I told him I was not at leisure, but left it to my chaplain. So the Charge upon me was, that my chaplain was in an error concerning this Book, and I would not redress it. To this I answered, 1. That my Chaplain was dead; and I not knowing the reasons which moved him to refuse licensing this Book, can neither confess him to be in an error, nor yet justify him. 2. For my own refusing to meddle with it, sir Edward took me in a time of business, when I could not attend it. 3. If I had absolutely refused it, and left it to my chaplain, I had done no more than all my predecessors did before me. And Dr. Featly then witnessed to the Lords, that archbishop Abbot, my immediate predecessor, and to whom the doctor was houshold chaplain, would never meddle with licensing books, but ever referred them to his chaplains. And Dr. Mocket, another of his chaplains (well known to Dr. Featly,) suffered for a Book sharply; yet not one word said to my predecessor about it. 4. As the Liberty of the Press is in England, and of the books which are tendered to the press, the Archbishop had better grind than take that work to his own hands, especially considering his many and necessary avocations. Lastly, No man ever complained to me

in this kind, but this gentleman only. So it is one only single offence, if it be any. But how this, or the rest, should be treason against sir 'Edward Hungerford, I cannot yet see. And so I answered Mr. Browne, who in his sum mary Charge forgot not this. But Mr. Nicolas laid load upon me in his Reply, in such language as I am willing to forget.'

Considerations to Dr. Potter, about some few X. The tenth Charge was out of Paper of Potter writ to me for my advice. I used not passages in his Answer to a Book intitled "Charity Mistaken." The business this: Dr. to be peremptory; but put some few things back to his farther consideration : Of which three were now charged upon me. The first was, he used this phrase, “ Believe in the Pope.” I desired him to consider of "in." And in this I yet know not wherein I offend. The se

66

coud was this phrase, "The Idol of Rome."

I advised him to consider this phrase too, that men might not be to seek what that idol was. And here Mr. Nicolas cried out with vehemency, That every boy in the street could 'tell the Pope was the idol. I had not Dr. 'Potter's Book now at hand, and so could not 'be certain in what sense the doctor used it; but else, as many at least think the Mass the las's boys in the streets think otherwise, and Idol of Rome, as the Pope; unless Mr. Nicothen I cannot blame him for following such. him consider whether the Passage, p. 27, (as I mature judgments.' The third was, that I bid remember) did not give as much power to the parliament in matter of Doctrine, as the church. But my Answer to this I shall put off to the Charge against me concerning Parliaments, 'because there Mr. Browne began with this. The two former he charged also, and I an'swered them as before. But he omitted, that I obtained of the Lords the reading of Dr. 'Potter's Letter to me; by which he drew from me those things which I determined not, but only put to his second thoughts and consideracannot be in crime, though I were in error. tion. In which way, I humbly conceive, I 'Here ended the business of this day, and I was ordered to attend again June 27.’

6

6

6