The annals of King James and King Charles the First ... containing a faithful history and impartial account of the great affairs of state, and transactions of parliaments in England from the tenth of King James MDCXII to the eighteenth of King Charles MDCXLII : wherein several material passages relating to the late civil wars (omitted in former histories) are made known.

A Speech delivered in the Star-Cham∣ber, on Wednesday the 16. of June, 1637. at the Censure of John Bastwick, Henry Burton, and William Prinn; concerning pre∣tended Innovations in the Church. By the most Reverend Father in God, William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace.

My Lords,

I Shall not need to speak of the infamous course of Libelling in any kind:

Nor of the punishment of it, which in some ca∣ses was Capital by the Imperial Laws. As appears Cod. l. 9. T. 36.

Nor how patiently some great men, very great men indeed, have born Animo civili (that's Sue∣tonius his word) laceratam existimationem, the * 1.1 tearing and rending of their Credit and Reputati∣on, with a gentle, nay, a generous mind.

But of all Libels, they are most odious which pretend Religion: As if that of all things did desire to be defended by a Mouth that is like an open Sepulchre, or by a Pen that is made of a sick and a loathsom Quill.

There were times when Persecutions were great in the Church, even to exceed Barbarity it∣self: Did any martyr or Confessor, in those times, Libel the Governours? Surely no, not one of them to my best remembrance: Yet these complain of Persecution without all shew of cause; and in the mean time Libel and Rail with∣out all measure. So little of kin are they to those which suffer for Christ, or the least part of Chri∣stian Religion.

My Lords, it is not every mans spirit to hold up against the venom which Libellers spit. For St. Ambrose, who was a stout and a worthy Pre∣late, tells us, not that himself, but that a far grea∣ter man than he, that's King David, had found out (so it seems in his judgment 'twas no matter of ordinary ability) Grande inventum, a great and mighty invention, how to swallow and put off those bitter Contumelies of the Tongue: And those of the Pen are no whit less, and spread * 1.2 farther. And it was a great one indeed, and well beseemed the greatness of David. But I think it will be far better for me to look upward, and pra∣ctise it, than to look downward, and discourse upon it.

In the mean time I shall remember what an An∣tient under the name of St. Hierom tells me, In∣dignum * 1.3 est & praeposterum, 'Tis unworthy in itself, and preposterous in demeanour for a man to be a∣shamed for doing good, because other men glory in speaking ill.

And I can say it clearly and truly, as in the presence of God, I have done nothing, as a Pre∣late, to the uttermost of what I am conscious, but with a single heart, and with a sincere inten∣tion for the good Government and Honour of the Church, and the maintenance of the Orthodox Truth and Religion of Christ, Professed, Esta∣blished, and Maintained in this Church of Eng∣land.

For my care of this Church, the reducing of it into Order, the upholding of the External Wor∣ship of God in it, and the setling of it to the Rules of its first Reformation, are the causes (and the sole causes, whatever are pretended) of all this malicious storm, which hath loured so black upon me and some of my Brethren. And in the mean time, they which are the only, or the chief Innovators of the Christian World, having no∣thing to say, accuse us of Innovation; they them∣selves and their Complices in the mean time be∣ing the greatest Innovators that the Christian World hath almost ever known. I deny not but others have spread more dangerous Errours in the Church of Christ; but no men, in any Age of it, have been more guilty of Innovation than they, while themselves cry out against it: Quis tulerit Gracchos?

And I said well, Quis tulerit Gracchos? For 'tis most apparent to any man that will not wink, that the intention of these men, and their Abet∣tors, was and is to raise a Sedition, being as great Incendiaries in the State (where they get power) as they have ever been in the Church? Novatian himself hardly greater.

Our main Crime is (would they all speak out, * 1.4 as some of them do) that we are Bishops; were we not so, some of us might be as passable as other men.

And a great trouble 'tis to them, that we main∣tain that our calling of Bishops is Jure Divino, by Divine Right: Of this I have said enough, and in this place, in Lighton's Case, nor will I repeat. Only this I will say, and abide by it, that the Calling of Bishops is Jure Divino, by Divine Right, though not all Adjuncts to their Calling. And this I say in as direct opposition to the Church of Rome, as to the Puritan humour.

And I say farther, that from the Apostles times, in all Ages, in all places the Church of Christ was governed by Bishops: And Lay-Elders ne∣ver heard of, till Calvin's new-fangled device at Geneva.

Now this is made by these men, as if it were Contra Regem, against the King, in right or in power.

But that is a meer ignorant shift; for our be∣ing Bishops, Jure Divino, by Divine Right, takes nothing from the King's Right or power over us. For though our Office be from God and Christ immediately, yet may we not exercise that power, either of Order or Jurisdiction, but as God hath appointed us, that is, not in his Majesties, or any Christian Kings Kingdoms, but by and under the power of the King given us so to do.

And were this a good Argument against us, as Bishops, it must needs be good against Priests and Ministers too; for themselves grant that their Calling is Jure Divino, by Divine Right; and yet I hope they will not say, that to be Priests and Ministers is against the King, or any His Royal Prerogatives.

Next, suppose our Callings, as Bishops, could not be made good Jure Divino, by Divine Right; yet Jure Ecclesiastico, by Ecclesiastical Right it cannot be denied. And here in England the Bishops are confirmed, both in their power and means, by Act of Parliament. So that here we stand in as good case, as the present Laws of the Realm can make us. And so we must stand, till the Laws shall be repealed by the same power that made them.

Now then, suppose we had no other string to hold by (I say suppose this, but I grant it not) yet no man can Libel against our Calling (as these men do) be it in Pulpit, Print, or other∣wise, but he Libels against the King and the State, by whose Laws we are established. There∣fore, all these Libels, so far forth as they are against our Calling, are against the King and the Law, and can have no other purpose, then to stir up Sedition among the People.

If these men had any other intention, or if they had any Christian or Charitable desire, to Reform any thing amiss; why did they not mo∣destly Pet••tion his Majesty about it, that in his Princely▪wisdom he might set all things right, in a Just and Orderly manner? But this was nei∣ther their intention, nor way. For one clamours out of his Pulpit, and all of them from the Press, and in a most virulent and Unchristian manner, set themselves to make a heat among the People; and so by Mutiny, to effect that, which by Law they cannot; And, by most salfe and unjust Ca∣lumnies, to defame both our Callings and Per∣sons. But for my part, as I pity their rage, so I heartily pray God to forgive their malice.

No Nation hath ever appeared more jealous of Religion than the People of England have e∣ver been. And their zeal to God's glory hath been, and at this day is a great honour to them. But this Zeal of theirs hath not been at all times and in all persons, alike guided by knowledge. Now Zeal, as it is of excellent use, where it sees its way; so is it very dangerous Company, * 1.5 where it goes on in the dark: And these men, knowing the disposition of the People, have la∣boured nothing more, than to misinform their knowledge, and misguide their Zeal, and so to fire that into a Sedition, in hope that they, whom they causlesly hate, might miscarry in it.

For the main scope of these Libels, is to kin∣dle a Jealousie in mens minds, that there are some great Plots in hand, dangerous Plots (so says Mr. Burton expresly) to change the Orthodox Religion Established in England; and to bring in, I know not what, Romish Superstition in the room of it. As if the external decent Wor∣ship of God could not be upheld in this Kingdom, without bringing in of Popery.

Now by this Art of theirs, give me leave to tell you, That the King is most desperately abused and wounded in the minds of his People; and the Prelates shamefully.

The King most desperately: For there is not a more cunning trick in the world, to withdraw he Peoples hearts from their Sovereign, than to perswade them that he is changing true Religion, and about to bring in gross Superstition upon them.

And the Prelates shamefully; for they are charged to seduce, and lay the Plot, and be the Instruments.

For his Majesty first. This I know, and upon this occasion take it my duty to speak: There is no Prince in Christendom more sincere in his Religion, nor more constant to it, than the King. And he gave such a Testimony of this at his be∣ing in Spain, as I much doubt, whether the best of that Faction durst have done half so much, as his Majesty did in the face of that Kingdom. And this you, my Lord, the Earl of Holland, and other Persons of Honour, were Eye and Ear-Witnesses of, having the happiness to attend Him there.

And at this day, as his Majesty (by God's great blessing both on him and us) knows more, so is he more settled and more confirmed, both in the Truth of the Religion here Established, and in Resolution to maintain it.

And for the Prelates; I assure my self they cannot be so base, as to live Prelates in the Church of England, and labour to bring in the Superstitions of the Church of Rome, upon them∣selves and it. And if any should be so foul, I do not only leave him to God's Judgment, but (if these Libellers, or any other, can discover that his base and irreligious falshood) to shame also, and severe punishment from the State: And in any just way, no mans hand shall be more, or sooner against him, than mine shall be.

And for my self, to pass by all the scandalous reproaches, which they have most injuriously cast upon me, I shall say this only,

First, I know of no Plot, nor purpose of alter∣ing the Religion established.

Secondly, I have ever been far from attempt∣ing any thing that may truly be said to tend that way in the least degree, and to these two I here offer my Oath.

Thirdly, If the King had a mind to change Religion, (which I know he hath not, and God forbid he should ever have) he must seek for other Instruments. For as basely as these men conceive of me, yet I thank God, I know my duty well both to God and the King: And I know that all the duty I owe to the King, is under God. And my great happiness it is (though not mine alone, but your Lordships and all his Subjects with me) that we live under a Gracious and a Religious King, that will ever give us leave to serve God first, and him next. But were the days other∣wise, I thank Christ for it, I yet knew not how to serve any man against the Truth of God, and I hope I shall never learn it.

But to return to the business: What is their Art to make the world believe a change of Reli∣gion is endeavoured? What? Why, forsooth, they say, there are great Innovations brought in by the Prelates, and such as tend to the advance∣ment of Popery.

Now that the vanity and falshood of this may appear, I shall humbly desire your Lordships to give me leave to recite briefly all the Innovations charged upon us, be they of less or greater mo∣ment, and as briefly to answer them. And then you shall clearly see, whether any cause hath been given of these unsavoury Libels; and withal, whether there be any shew of cause to fear a change of Religion. And I will take these great pretended Innovations in order, as I meet with them.

First, I begin with the News from Ipswich.

Where the first Innovation is, That the last years * 1.6 Fast was enjoyned to be without Sermons in London, the Suburbs, and other infected Places, contrary to the Orders for other Fasts in former times: Whereas Sermons are the only means to humble men, &c.

To this I say First, That an after-age may, without offence, learn to avoid any visible incon∣venience observed in the former. And there was visible inconvenience observed in mens former flocking to Sermons in infected places.

Secondly, This was no particular Act of the Prelates; but the business was debated at the Council Table, being a matter of State, as well as of Religion. And it was concluded for no Ser∣mons in those infected places, upon this Reason; That infected Persons or Families, known in their own Parishes, might not take occasion up∣on those by-days to run to other Churches, where they were not known, as many use to do, to hear some humorous men preach: For on the Sundays, when they better kept their own Churches, the danger is not so great altogether.

Nor thirdly, is that true, that Sermons are the only means to humble men. For though the Preaching of God's Word, where it is perform∣ed according to his Ordinance, be a great means of many good effects in the Souls of men; yet no Sermons are the only means to humble men. And some of their Sermons are ••itter a great deal for other operations; namely, to stir up Sedition, as you may see by Mr. Burton's: For this his printed Libel was a Sermon first, and a Libel too. And 'tis the best part of a Fast to abstain from such Sermons.

2. The second Innovation is, That Wednes∣day was appointed for the Fast-day, and that this * 1.7 was done with this intention, by the example of this Fast without Preaching, to suppress all the Wednes∣day Lectures in London.

To this I answer First, that the appointing of Wednesday for the Fast-day was no Innovation. For it was the day in the last Fast before this: And I my self remember it so, above forty years since, more than once.

Secondly, If there had been any Innovation in it, the Prelates named not the day; my Lord Keeper, I must appeal to your Lordship: The day was first named by your Lordship, as the u∣sual and fittest day. And yet I dare say, and swear too, that your Lordship had no aim to bring in Popery; nor to suppress all, or any the Wednesday Lectures in London. Besides, these men live to see the Fast ended, and no one Wednesday Lecture suppressed.

3. The third Innovation is, That the Prayer for * 1.8 seasonable weather was purged out of this last Fast-Book, which was, say they, one cause of Shipwrecks and Tempestuous weather.

To this I say, First in the General; This Fast-Book, and all that have formerly been made, have been both made, and published by the com∣mand of the King, in whose sole power it is to call a Fast. And the Archbishop and Bishops to whom the ordering of the Book is committed, have power under the King, to put in, or leave out, whatsoever they think fit for the present occasion; as their Predecessors have ever done before them. Provided that nothing be in con∣trary to the Doctrine or Discipline of the Church of England,

And this may serve in the General for all Alte∣rations, in that or any other Fast-Book or Books of Devotion upon any particular occasions, which may and ought to vary with several times, and we may, and do, and will justifie, under His Majesties Power, all such Alterations made therein.

Secondly, For the particular. When this last Book was set out, the weather was very season∣able. And it is not the Custom of the Church, nor fit in itself to pray for seasonable weather when we have it, but when we want it. When the former Book was set out, the weather was ex∣tream ill, and the Harvest in danger; Now the Harvest was in, and the weather good.

Thirdly, 'Tis most inconsequent to say, that the leaving that Prayer out of the Book of De∣votions, caused the Shipwrecks and the Tem∣pests, which followed. And as bold they are with God Almighty, in saying it was the cause: For sure I am, God never told them that was the cause. And if God never revealed it, they can∣not come to know it; yet had the Bishops been Prophets, and foreseen these Accidents, they would certainly have prayed against them.

Fourthly, Had any Minister found it necessary to use this Prayer at any one time during the Fast▪ he might with ease, and without danger, have supplied that want, by using that Prayer to the same purpose which is in the ordinary Litur∣gy.

Fifthly, I humbly desire your Lordships to weigh well the Consequence of this great and dangerous Innovation. The Prayer for fair wea∣ther was left out of the Book for the Fast; there∣fore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. An excellent Consequence, were there any shew of Reason in it.

4. The Fourth Innovation is, That there is one * 1.9 very useful Collect left out, and a Clause omitted in a∣nother.

To this I answer First, as before; It was law∣ful for us to alter what we thought fit.

And Secondly, Since that Collect made men∣tion of Preaching, and the Act of State forbad Sermons on the Fast-days in infected places; we though it fit, in pursuance of that Order, to leave out that Collect.

And Thirdly, for the branch in the other, which is the first Collect, though God did deliver our Forefathers out of Romish Superstition, yet (God be blessed for it) we are never in. And therefore that Clause being unfittingly expressed, we thought fit to pass it over.

5. The Fifth Innovation is, That in the sixth * 1.10 Order for the Fast, there is a passage left out concern∣ing the abuse of Fasting in relation to merit.

To this I answer, That he to whom the order∣ing of that Book to the Press was committed, did therefore leave it out; because in this Age and Kingdom there is little opinion of meriting by Fasting.

Nay, on the contrary, the contempt and scorn of all fasting (save what humorous men call for of themselves) is so rank, that it would grieve any Christian man to see the necessary Orders of the Church concerning Fasting, both in Lent, and at other set times, so vilified as they are.

6. The Sixth Innovation is, That the Lady E∣lizabeth * 1.11 and her Princely Children are dashed (that is their Phrase) out of the new Collect, whereas they were in the Collect of the former Book.

For this First, The Author of the News knows full well that they are left out of the Collect in the latter Editions of the Common-Prayer Book, as well as in the Book for the Fast. And this was done according to the Course of the Church, which ordinarily names none in the Prayer, but the Right Line descending. Yet this was not done till the King himself commanded it; as I have to shew under his Majestie's hand.

Secondly, I beseech your Lordships to consider, what must be the Consequence here: The Queen of Bohemia and her Children are left out of the Collect, therefore the Prelates intend to bring in Popery; For that (you know) they say is the end of all these Innovations. Now, if this be the end and the Consequence, truly the Libellers have done very dutifully to the King, to poyson his People with this conceit; That the Lady Eli∣zabeth, and her Children, would keep Popery out of this Kingdom, but the King and his Chil∣dren will not. And many as good Offices as these have they done the King quite through these Libels, and quite through his Kingdoms. For my part, I honour the Queen of Bohemia, and her Line, as much as any man whatsoever, and shall be as ready to serve them, but I know not how to depart from my Allegiance, as I doubt these men have done.

7. The Seventh Innovation is, That these words * 1.12 [Who art the Father of thine Elect and of their Seed] are changed in the Preface of that Collect, which is for the Prince and the King's Children. And, with a most spiteful inference, That this was done by the Prelates to exclude the King's Children out of the number of God's Elect. And they call it an intole∣rable impiety and horrid Treason.

To this I answer, First, That this Alteration was made in my Predecessor's time, before I had any Authority to meddle with these things, fur∣ther then I was called upon by him.

Secondly, This is not therefore to lay any as∣persion upon my Predecessor; for he did in that but his duty: For his Majesty acknowledges, it was done by his special direction, as having then no Children to pray for.

And thirdly, This Collect could not be ve∣ry old, for it had no being in the Common-Prayer Book all Queen Elizabeths time, she having no Issue.

The truth is, it was made at the coming in of King James; and must of necessity be changed over and over again pro ratione Temporum, as Times and Persons vary. And this is the intole∣rable Impiety, and horrid Treason they charge upon Us.

In this Method the Innovations are set down in the News from Ipswich. But then in Mr. Bur∣ton's News from Friday-street, (called his Apolo∣gy) they are in another Order, and more are ad∣ded. Therefore with your Lordships leave I will not repeat any of these, but go on to the rest, which Mr. Burton adds.

8. The Eighth Innovation is, That in the Epistle * 1.13 the Sunday before Easter, we have put out In, and made it, At the Name of Jesus every Knee shall bow; which alteration, he saith, is directly against the Act of Parliament.

Here give me leave to tell you it is At the Name of Jesus, in the late learned Translation made in King James his time. About which many learn∣ed Men of best note in the Kingdom were im∣ployed, besides some Prelates.

But to this I answer, First, It is true, the Com∣mon-Prayer Book was confirmed by Act of Parlia∣ment, and so all things contained in it, at the passing of that Act. But I hope, if any thing were false printed then, the Parliament did not intend to pass those slips for current.

Secondly, I am not of opinion, that if one word •••• put in for another, so they bear both the same sen••e, that there is any great matter done a∣gainst the Act of Parliament.

Thirdly, This can make no Innovation. For In the Name, and At the Name of Jesus, can make no Essential difference here. And Mr. Prynn (whose Darling business it hath long been to cry down the honour due to the Son of God, at the mentioning of his saving Name Jesus) knows the Grammar Rule well, In a place, or At a place, &c.

Fourthly, If there were any Error in the change of In into At; I do here solemnly protest to you, I know not how it came: For Authority from the Prelates, the Printers had none; and such a word is easily changed in such a negligent Press as we have in England. Or if any altered it pur∣posely, for ought I know, they did it to gratifie the Preciser sort. For therein they followed the Geneva Translation, 1557. where the words are, At the Name of Jesus. And that is Ninety four years ago; and therefore no Innovation made by us.

Fifthly, This I find in the Queens Injunctions, without either word, In or At. Whensoever the Name of Jesus shall be in any Lesson, Sermon, or o∣therwise pronounced in the Church (it is enjoyned) that due reverence be made of all persons, Young and Old, with lowliness of Coursie, and uncovering of the heads of the Menkind, as thereunto doth necessa∣rily belong, and heretofore hath been accustomed. So here is necessity laid upon it, and custom for it, and both expressed by Authority in the very beginning of the Reformation; and is therefore no Innovation now.

9. The Ninth Innovation is, That no places are changed in the Prayers set forth for the Fifth of No∣vember: And ordered to be read (they say) by Act of Parliament. The first place is changed thus, from, Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian Sect, which say of Jerusalem, &c. Into this form of words, Root out that Babylonish and Antichristian Sect (of them) which say, &c. The second place went thus in the old; Cut of these workers of Ini∣quity, whose Religion is Rebellion. But in the Book printed 1635. it is thus altered: Cut off those wor∣kers of Iniquity, who turn Religion into Rebellion, &c.

To this I say first, It is a notorious untruth, that this Book was ordered to be read by Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament indeed is printed before it; and therein is a Command for Prayers and Thanksgivings every Fifth of No∣vember; but not one word or syllable for the Form of Prayer: That is left to the Church, therefore here is no Innovation against that Act of Parliament.

Secondly, The Alteration first mentioned, that is, That Sect, or That Sect of them: is of so small consequence, as it is not worth the speaking of. Besides, if there be any thing of moment in it, it is answered in the next.

Thirdly, Both for that and the second place, which seems of more moment; and so for the rest, not only in that Book, but that other also for his Majesties Coronation; His Majesty ex∣presly commanded me to make the Alterations, and see them printed. And here are both the Books with his Majesties Warrant to each of them. So that herein I conceive I did not offend, unless it were that I gave not these men notice of it, or asked them leave to obey the King.

Against this there can be but two Objections, should Malice it self go to work. The one is, that I moved his Majesty to command the Change. And the other, that now, when I saw my self challenged

for it, I procured his Majesties Hand for my security.

To these I answer clearly; First, That I did not move the King, directly, or indirectly, to make this change.

And Secondly, That I had his Majesties hand to the Book, not now, but then, and before ever I caused them to be printed, as now they are. And that both these are true, I here again freely offer my self to my Oath.

And yet Fourthly, that you may see his gra∣cious Majesty used not his power only in com∣manding this change, but his wisdom also; I shall adventure to give you my Reasons, such as they are, why this Alteration was most fit, if not necessary.

My first Reason is, In the Litany in Hen. VIII. his time † 1.14: And also under Edward VI. ‖ 1.15 there was this Clause: From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities, from all false Doctrine, &c. Good Lord, deliver us. But in the Litany in Queen Elizabeths time this Clause about the Pope was left out, and it seems of pur∣pose, for avoiding of Scandal: And yet the Prelates for that not accounted Innovators, or Introducers of Popery. Now it is a far greater scandal to call their Rel••gion Rebellion, then it is to call their chief Bishop Tyrant.

And this Reason is drawn from Scandal, which must ever be avoided as much as it may.

My second Reason is, That the Learned make but three Religions to have been of old in the World, Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. And now they have added a fourth, which is Tur∣cism, and is an absurd mixture of the other three. Now if this ground of theirs be true (as it is ge∣nerally received) perhaps it will be of dangerous consequence sadly to avow, that the Popish Re∣ligion is Rebellion. That some opinions of theirs teach Rebellion, that is apparently true, the o∣ther would be thought on, to say no more. And this Reason well weighed, is taken from the very foundations of Religion itself.

My third Reason is, Because if you make their Religion to be Rebellion, then you make their Religion and Rebellion to be all one. And that is against the ground both of State and the Law. For when divers Romish Priests and Jesuits have de∣servedly suffered death for Treason, is it not the constant and just profession of the State, that they never put any man to death for Religion, but for Rebellion and Treason only? Doth not the State truly affirm, that there was never any Law made against the life of a Papist, quatenus a Papist only? And is not all this stark false, if their very Reli∣gion be Rebellion? For if their Religion be Re∣bellion, it is not only false, but impossible, that the same man in the same Act should suffer for his Rebellion, and not for his Religion.

And this King James of ever blessed memory understood passing well, when (in his premonition to all Christian Monarchs) he saith, I do constant∣ly maintain that no Papist, either in my time, or in * 1.16 the time of the late Queen, ever died for his Consci∣ence. Therefore he did not think, their very Religion was Rebellion. Though this Clause passed through Inadvertency in his time. And this Reason is grounded both upon the Practice, and the Justice of the Law.

Which of these Reasons, or whether any o∣ther better, were in his Majesties thoughts, when he commanded the alteration of this Clause, I know not. But I took it my duty to lay it before you, that the King had not only Power, but Rea∣son to command it.

10. The Tenth Innovation is, That the Prayer for the Navy is left out of the late Book for the Fast. * 1.17

To this I say, The•••• is great Reason it should. For the King had no declared Enemy then, nor (God be thanked) hath he now. Nor had he then any Navy at Sea. For almost all the Ships were come in, before the Fast-Book was set out.

But howsoever, an excellent Consequence it is, if you mark it; The Prayer for the Navy was left out of the Book for the Fast, therefore by that, and such like Innovations the Prelates intend to bring in Popery. Indeed, if that were a piece of the Prelates Plots to bring in Popery from be∣yond Sea, then they were mightily overseen that they left out the Prayer for the Navy. But else what Reason or Consequence is in it, I know not, unless perhaps Mr. Burton intended to be∣friend Dr. Bastwick, and in the Navy bring hither the Whore of Babylon to be ready for his Christen∣ing, as he most profanely scoffs.

Well; I pray God the time come not upon this Kingdom, in which it will be found, that no one thing hath advanced or ushered in Popery so fast, as the gross Absurdities even in the Worship of God, which these Men, and their like, maintain both in Opinion and Practice.

11. The Eleventh Innovation is, The reading * 1.18 of the Second Service at the Communion Table, or the Altar.

To this; First, I can truly say, that since my own memory, this was in use in very many pla∣ces, as being most proper (for those Prayers are then read which both precede and follow the Communion,) and by little and little this Anci∣ent Custom was altered, and in those places first, where the Emissaries of this Faction came to preach. And now if any in Authority offer to reduce it; this ancient course of the Church is by and by called an Innovation.

Secondly, With this the Rubricks of the Com∣mon-Prayer Book agree: For the first Rubrick af∣ter the Communion tells us, that upon Holy-days, though there be no Communion, yet all else that is appointed at the Communion shall be read. Shall be read? That is true, but where? Why, the last Rubrick before the Communion tells us, that the Priest, standing at the North side of the Holy Table, shall say the Lord's Prayer, with that which follows. So that not only the Com∣munion, but the Prayers which accompany the Communion (which are commonly called the Se∣cond Service) are to be read at the Communion Table. Therefore if this be an Innovation, it is made by the Rubrick, not the Prelates; And Mr. Burton's Scoff, that this Second Service must be ser∣ved in for dainties † 1.19, favours too much of Belly and Profanation.

12. One thing sticks much in their Stomachs, and they call it an Innovation * 1.20 too. And that is, bowing, or doing Reverence at our first coming in∣to the Church, or at our nearer approaches to the Ho∣ly Table, or the Altar, (call it whether you will) In which they will needs have it, that we worship the Holy Table, or God knows what.

To this I answer: First, That God forbid we should worship any thing but God himself.

Secondly, That if to worship God when we enter into his House, or approach his Altar, be an Innovation, it is a very old one.

For Moses did reverence at the very door of the Tabernacle, Num. 20. 6. Hezekiah, and all that were present with him, when they had made an end of offering, bowed and worshipped, (2 Chron. 29. 29.) David calls the Peo•••• to it with a Venite, O come let us worship and fall down, and kneel be∣fore the Lord our Maker, (Psal. 95. 6.) And in all these places (I pray mark it) it is bodily Wor∣ship.

Nor can they say, that this was Judaical Wor∣ship, and now not to be imitated. For long be∣fore Judaism began, Bethel, the House of God, was a place of Reverence, Gen. 28. 17, &c. There∣fore certainly, Of, and To God.

And after Judaical Worship ended, Venite, Ad∣oremus, as far upwards as there is any tract of a Liturgy, was the Introitus of the Priest all the Latin Church over.

And in the daily Prayers of the Church of Eng∣land, this was retained at the Reformation; and that Psalm, in which is Venite, Adoremus; is com∣manded to begin the Morning Service every day, and for ought I know, the Priest may as well leave out the Venite, as the Adoremus; the calling the People to their duty, as the duty itself, when they are come.

Therefore even according to the Service Book of the Church of England, the Priest and the Peo∣ple both are called upon, for external and bo∣dily Reverence and Worship of God in his Church. Therefore they which do it, do not Innovate. And yet the Government is so mode∣rate (God grant it be not too loose therewhile) that no man is constrained, no man questioned, only religiously called upon, Venite, Adoremus, Come, let us worship.

For my own part, I take my self bound to wor∣ship with Body, as well as in Soul, when ever I come where God is worshipped. And were this Kingdom such as would allow no Holy Table, standing in its proper place (and such places some there are) yet I would worship God when I came into his House. And were the times such, as should beat down Churches, and all the curious carved work thereof with Axes, and Hammers, as in Psalm 74. 6. (and such times have been) yet would I worship in what place soever I came to pray, though there were not so much as a stone laid for Bethel. But this is the misery; it is Superstition now adays for any man to come with more Reverence into a Church, than a Tinker and his Bitch come into an Ale-house; the Compari∣son is too homely, but my just Indignation at the Prosaneness of the times, makes me speak it.

And you my Honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great Solemnities, you do your Reve∣rence, and to Almighty God, I doubt not, but yet it is versus Altare, towards his Altar, as the greatest place of God's Residence upon Earth. (I say the greatest, yea, greater than the Pul∣pit. For there it is, Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body. But in the Pulpit, it is, at most, but, Hoc est Verbum meum, This is my Word. And a greater Reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body, than to the Word of our Lord. And so, in Relation, answerably to the Throne, where his Body is usually present; than to the Seat, whence his Word useth to be Proclaimed. And God hold it there, at his Word; for, as too ma∣ny men use the matter, It is Hoc est Verbum Dia∣b••li, This is the word of the Devil, in too many places, Witness Sedition, and the like to it.) And this Reverence ye do, when ye enter the Chappel, and when you approach nearer to offer. And this is no Innovation, for you are bound to it by your Order, and that is now New.

And Idolatry it is not, to worship God towards his Holy Table; For if it had been Idolatry, I presume Queen Elizabeth, and King James would not have practised it, no not in those Solemni∣ties. And being not Idolatry, but true Divine Worship, You will, I hope, give a poor Priest leave to Worship God, as your selves do: For if it be God's Worship, I ought to do it as well as you: And if it be Idolatry, you ought not to do it more than I.

I say again, I hope a poor Priest may worship God with as lowly Reverence as you do, since you are bound by your Order, and by your Oath, according to a Constitution of Henry the Fifth, (as appears * 1.21) to give due Honour and Reve∣rence, Domino Deo, & Altari ejus, in modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum; That is, to the Lord your God, and to his Altar (for there is a Reverence due to that too, though such as comes far short of Divine Worship) and this in the manner, as Ecclesiastical Persons both Worship and do Reverence.

The Story which led in this Decree is this, King Henry the Fifth, that Noble and Victorious Prince, returning gloriously out of France, sate at this Solemnity; and finding the Knights of the Order scarce bow to God, or but slightly, and then bow towards Him and his Seat, startled at it (being a Prince then grown as Religious, as he was before victorious) and after asking the Rea∣son; for till then the Knights of the Order never bowed toward the King or his Seat; the Duke of Bedford answered, It was settled by a Chapter Act three years before. Hereupon that Great King replied, No, I'le none of this, till you the Knights do it Satis benè, well enough, and with due perform∣ance to Almighty God. And hereupon the fore∣named Act proceeded, that they should do this duty to Almighty God, not slightly, but Ad mo∣dum virorum Ecclesiasticorum, as low, as well, as decently, as Clergy-men use to do it.

Now if you will turn this off, and say, it was the Superstition of that Age so to do; Bishop Jewel will come in to help me there. For where Harding names divers Ceremonies, and particu∣larly bowing themselves and adoring at the Sa∣crament, I say, adoring at the Sacrament, not a∣doring the Sacrament; there Bishop Jewel (that learned, painful, and reverend Prelate) approves all both the kneeling and the bowing, and the standing up at the Gospel (which as ancient as it is in the Church, and a common Custom, is yet fondly made another of their Innovations ‖ 1.22:) And further the Bishop adds, That they are all commendable gestures, and tokens of Devotion, so long as the People understand what they mean, and ap∣ply them unto God. Now with us the People did ever understand them fully, and apply them to God, and to none but God, till these factious Spirits, and their like, to the great dis-service of God and his Church, went about to perswade them, that they are Superstitious, if not Idola∣trous gestures: As they make every thing else to be, where God is not served slovenly.

13. The Thirteenth Innovation is, The placing of the Holy Table Altar-wise, at the upper end of the * 1.23 Chancel, that is, the setting of it North and South, and placing a Rail before it, to keep it from pro∣fanation, which Mr. Burton says, is done to ad∣vance and usher in Popery.

To this I answer, That it is no Popery to set a Rail to keep profanation from that Holy Ta∣ble: Nor is it any Innovation to place it at the upper end of the Chancel as the Altar stood. And this appears both by the Practice, and by the Command and Canon of the Church of Eng∣land.

First, By the Practice of the Church of Eng∣land. For in the King's Royal Chappels, and di∣vers Cathedrals, the Holy Table hath ever since the Reformation stood at the upper end of the Quire, with the large or full side towards the People.

And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way, yet whether there be not more reason, the Parish Churches should be made con∣formable to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, than the Cathedrals to them, I leave to any reason∣able man to judge.

And yet here is nothing done either by violence or command to take off the Indifferency of the standing of the Holy Table either way, but only by laying it fairly before men, how fit it is there should be Order and Uniformity; I say, still reser∣ving the Indifferency of the standing.

But howsoever, I would fain know, how any discreet moderate man dares say, That the placing of the Holy Table Altar-wise (since they will needs call it so) is done either to advance or usher in Popery? For did Queen Elizabeth banish Pope∣ry, and yet did she all along her Reign, from first to last, leave the Communion Table so standing in her own Chappel Royal, in St. Pauls, and Westminster, and other places; and all this of purpose to advance or usher in that Popery which she had driven out?

And since her death, have two gracious Kings kept out Popery all their times, and yet left the Holy Table standing, as it did in the Queens time, and all of purpose to advance or usher in Popery which they kept out?

Or what is the matter? May the Holy Table stand this way in the King's Chappel, or Cathe∣drals, or Bishops Chappels, and not elsewhere? Surely, if it be decent, and fit for God's Service, it may stand so (if Authority please) in any Church. But if it advance or usher in any Superstition and Popery, it ought to stand so in none.

Nor hath any King's Chappel any Prerogative (if that may be called one) above any ordinary Church to dis-serve God in by any Superstitious Rites. Where, give me leave to tell you, that the King and his Chappel are most jeeringly, and with scorn abused, in the last leaf of Mr. Burton's Mutinous Appeal, for such it is.

Secondly, This appears by the Canon or Rule of the Church of England too, for it is plain in the last Injunction of the Queen; That the Holy Ta∣ble ought to stand at the upper end of the Quire, North and South, or Altar-wise. For the words of the Queens Injunctions are these:

The Holy Table in every Church (mark it, I pray, not in the Royal Chappel, or Cathedrals only, but in every Church) shall be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood. Now the Al∣tar stood at the upper end of the Quire North and South, as appears before by the Practice of the Church. And there to set it otherwise, is to set it cross the place, not In the place where the Altar stood: And so Stulti dum vitant vitia—weak men, as these Libellers are, run into one Supersti∣tion, while they would avoid another; For they run upon the Superstition of the Cross, while they seek to avoid the Superstition of the Altar. So you see here is neither Popery nor Innovation in all the practice of Queen Elizabeth, or since.

These words of the Injunction are so plain, as that they can admit of no shist.

And give me leave to tell you, that a very learn∣ed Prelate of this Church, and one, whom I think these men will not accuse, as a man like to advance or usher in Popery, is of the same opinion: It is, my Lord, the Bishop of Salisbury.

Some difference was lately rising about placing the Communion Table in a Parish Church of his Diocess. The Bishop, careful to prevent all dis∣order, sends his Injunction under his Hand and * 1.24 Seal to the Curate and Churchwardens, to settle that business: In which he hath these two passages remarkable. I have seen and read the Order.

The first passage is this; By the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth (saith he) and by Can. 82. under King James, the Communion Tables should ordinari∣ly be set and stand with the side to the East-wall of the Chancel. Therefore this is no Innovation, since there is Injunction and Canon for it.

The other passage is this; It is Ignorance (saith that learned Bishop) to think that the standing of the Holy Table there, relishes of Popery. Therefore, if it do not so much as relish of Popery, it can nei∣ther advance it, nor usher it in. And therefore, this is a most odious slander and scandal cast up∣on us.

So here is enough both for the Practice and Rule of the Church of England since the Refor∣mation. Now before that time, both in this and other Churches of Christendom, in the East and Weast ordinarily the Holy Table or Altar stood so: Against this Mr. Burton says little.

But the Lincolnshire Minister comes in to play the Puritan for that. Concerning which Book (falling thus in my way) and the Nameless Au∣thor of it, I shall only say these two things:

The one is, that the Author prevaricates from the first word to the last in the Book; for he takes on him both sor the name and for the placing of the Holy Table, and the like, to prove, that Ge∣nerally and Universally, and ordinarily in the whole Catholick Church, both East and West, the Holy Table did not stand at the upper end of the Quire or Chancel. And this he must prove, or he doth nothing.

Now when he comes to make his Proofs, they are almost all of them particular, few or none general and concludent: For he neither brings Testimonies out of the General and received Ri∣tuals of the Eastern and Western Churches, nor of Fathers and Histories of the Church, which speak in General tearms of all, but where they speak of particular Churches only.

So that suppose the most that can be, that is, suppose his quotations be all truly alledged, and true too in the sense that the Minister takes them (though in very truth, the places, most of them, are neither truly alledged, nor sensed) yet they are but exceptions of, and exemptions from the General practice. And you know both in Law and Reason, Exceptio firmat Regulam in non excep∣tis. So that upon the sudden I am not able to re∣solve, whether this Minister hath done more wrong to himself or his Readers, for he hath abused both.

The other is, that in the judgment of very many learned men, which have perused this Book, the Author is clearly conceived to want a great deal of that Learning to which he pretends: Or else to have written this Book wholly and resolvedly a∣gainst both his Science, and his Conscience.

And for my own part, I am fully of opinion, this Book was thrust now to the Press, both to countenance these Libellers, and as much as in him lay, to fire both Church and State.

And though I wonder not at the Minister, yet I should wonder at the Bishop of the Diocess (a man of learning and experience) that he should give Testimony to such a business, and in such times as these.

And once more, before I leave the Holy Ta∣ble, Name, and Thing, give me leave to put you in mind, that there is no danger at all in the Al∣tar, Name, or Thing. For at the beginning of the Reformation, though there were a Law for the taking down of the Altars, and setting up of Holy Tables in the room of them; yet in some places the Altars were not suddenly removed. And what says the Queen in her Injunction to this? * 1.25 Why, she says, That there seems no matter of great moment in this, saving for uniformity, and the better imitation of the Law in that behalf. Therefore for any danger or hurt that was in the Altar, Name, or thing, they might have been left standing, but for Uniformity, and the Imitation of the Law.

But howsoever, it follows in the same Injun∣ction, That when the Altar is taken down, the Ho∣ly Table shall be set in (not cross) the place where the Altar stood; which (as is asoresaid) must needs be Altar-wise.

14. The Fourteenth and the last Innovation comes with a mighty Charge, and it is taken out of an Epistle to the Temporal Lords of his Ma∣jesties Privy Council. Of which Epistle we got one sheet, and so (for ought I yet know) that Impression staid: In that sheet is this Charge, The words are,

The Prelates to justifie their proceedings, have for∣ged a new Article of Religion, brought from Rome, (which gives them full power to alter the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church at a blow, as they interpret it) and have foisted it (such is their language) into the beginning of the Twentieth Article of our Church. And this is in the last E∣dition of the Articles, Anno 1628. in affront of his Majesties Declaration before them, &c.

The Clause (which they say is forged by us) is this: The Church (that is, the Bishops, as they expound it) hath Power to decree Rites and Cere∣monies, and Authority in matters of Faith (The word is Controversies of Faith, by their leave.) This Clause (say they) is a Forgery fit to be examin∣ed, and deeply censured in the Star-Chamber. For it is not to be found in the Latin or English Articles of Edward VI. or Queen Elizabeth, ratified by Par∣liament.

And then in the Margent thus, If to forge a Will or Writing be censurable in the Star-Chamber, which is but a wrong to a private man: How much more the Forgery of an Article of Religion, to wrong the whole Church, and overturn Religion, which con∣cerns all our souls?

This is a heavy Charge, my Lords; but I thank God the Answer is easie.

And truly I grant, that to forge an Article in Religion in whole or in part, and then to thrust it upon the Church, is a most hainous Crime, far worse than the forging of a Deed; and is certain∣ly very deeply censurable in this Court. And I would have humbly besought you, that a deep cen∣sure might have been laid upon it, but that this sh••et was found after, and so is not annexed to the Information, nor in Judgment at this present be∣fore you.

But then, my Lords, I must tell you, I hope to make it as clear as the day, that this forgery was not, that this Clause mentioned was added by the Prelates to the Article, to gain power to the Church, and so to serve our turns: But that that Clause in the beginning of the Article was by these men, or at least by some of their Faction, razed out, and this to weaken the just power of the Church to serve their turns.

They say (to justifie their Charge) that this Clause is not to be found in the Articles, English or Latin, of either Edward VI. or Queen Eliza∣beth.

I answer: The Articles of Edward VI. and those made under Queen Elizabeth differ very much. And those of Edward VI. are not now binding. So whether the Clause be in or out of them, it is not much material.

But for the Articles of the Church of England, made in the Queens time, and now in force, that this Clause for the power of the Church to decree Ceremonies, and to have Authority in Controversies of Faith, should not be found in English or Latin Copies, till the Year 1628. that it was set forth with the King's Declaration before it, is to me a miracle, but your Lordships shall see the falshood and boldness of these men.

What! Is this Affirmative Clause in no Copy, English or Latin, till the Year 1628? Strange! Why, my Lords, I have a Copy of the Articles in English, of the Year 1612. and of the Year 1605. and of the Year 1593. and in the Latin of the Year 1563. which was one of the first printed Copies, if not the first of all: For the Articles were agreed on but the Nine and twenti∣eth day of January,

Anno 1562/3;.	According to the English Account.
According to the Julian Account.

And in all these, this Affirmative Clause for the Churches power is in. And is not this strange boldness then to abuse the World, and falsly to say it is in no Copy, when I my self, out of my own store, am able to shew it in so many, and so anci∣ently?

But, my Lords, I shall make it plainer yet: For it is not fit concerning an Article of Religion, and an Article of such consequence for the Order, Truth, and Peace of this Church you should rely upon my Copies, be they never so many, or never so ancient.

Therefore I sent to the publick Records in my Office, and here under my Officers hand, who is a publick Notary, is returned me the XX. Article with this Affirmative Clause in it. And there is also the whole Body of the Articles to be seen.

By this your Lordships see how free the Prelates are from forging this part of the Article. Now let these men quit themselves and their Faction, as they can, for their Index Expurgatorius, and their foul razure in leaving out this part of the Article. For to leave out of an Article is as great a Crime as to put in; and a main razure is as censurable in this Court as a forgery.

Why, but then my Lords, what is this Mystery of Iniquity?

Truly, I cannot certainly tell, but as far as I can, I'le tell you.

The Articles you see were fully and fairly a∣greed to, and subscribed in the Year 1562/3;. But as∣ter this, in the Year 1571. there were some that re∣fused to subscribe, but why they did so, is not re∣corded. Whether it were about this Article, or any other, I know not. But in fact this is manifest,

that in that year 1571. the Articles were Printed both in Latin and English, and this Clause for the Church left out of both. And certainly, this could not be done, but by the malicious cunning of that Opposite Faction. And though I shall spare dead mens names where I have not certain∣ty; yet if you be pleased to look back and consi∣der who they were that Governed businesses in 1571. and rid the Church almost at their plea∣sure; and how potent the Ancestors of these Li∣bellers began then to grow, you will think it no hard matter to have the Articles Printed, and this Clause left out.

And yet it is plain, That, after the stir about Subscription in the year 1571. the Articles were settled and subscribed unto at last, as in the year 1562. with this Clause in them for the Church: For looking sarther into the Records which are in mine own hands, I have found the Book of 1562/3;. subscribed by all the Lower-House of Con∣vocation, in this very year of Contradiction, 1571. Dr. John Elmar, (who was after Lord Bishop of London) being there Proloquutor: Alexander Nowel, Dean of St. Pauls, having been Proloquutor in 1562/3;. and yet living and present and subscribing in 1571. Therefore I do here openly in Star-Chamber charge upon that pure Sect this foul corruption of salsifying the Articles of the Church of England; let them take it off as they can.

I have now done, and it is time I should, with the Innovations charged upon the Prelates, and fit to be answered here.

Some few more there are, but they belong to matter of Doctrine, which shall presently be an∣swered, Justo Volumine, at large, to satisfie all well-minded people. But when Mr. Burton's Book which is the main one, is answered, (I mean his Book, not his Railing) neither Prynn, nor Bastwick, nor any Attendants upon Rabshakeh shall by me or my care be answered. If this Court find not a way to stop these Libellers Mouths and Pens, for me they shall rail on till they be weary.

Yet one thing more I beseech you give me leave * 1.26 to add. It is Mr. Burton's charge upon the Prelates, That the Censures formerly laid upon Malefactors are now put upon God's Ministers for their Vertue and Piety.

A heavy charge this too. But if he or any man else can shew that any man hath been pu∣nished in the High Commission, or elsewhere, by the Prelates, for Vertue and Piety, there is all the reason in the World we should be severely pu∣nished our selves. But the truth is, the Vertue and Piety for which these Ministers are punished, is for Preaching Schism and Sedition, many of their Sermons being as bad as their Libels; As Burton's Libel was one of his Sermons first. But whether this stuff have any Affinity with Vertue and Piety, I submit to any Christian Reader.

And yet Mr. Burton is so confident of his Inno∣cency, even in this cause wherein he hath so foul∣ly carried himself, that he breaks forth into these words, I never so much as once dreamed, that Impie∣ty * 1.27 and Impudency it self, in such a Christian State as this is, and under such a gracious Prince, durst ever thus publickly have called me in question, and that up∣on the open Stage, &c.

You see the boldness of the Man, and in as bad a cause, as (I think) in this kind ever any man had.

I shall end all with a passage out of St. Cypri∣an * 1.28, when he, then Bishop of Carthage, was bit∣terly railed upon by a pack of Schismaticks, his answer was, and it is now mine; They have railed both bitterly and falsly upon me, and yet Non oportet me paria cum illis facere; It becomes not me to answer them with the like, either Levities or Revilings, but to speak and write that only which becomes Sacerdotem Dei, a Priest of God.

Neither shall I in this give way (though I have been extreamly vilisied) to either grief or passion to speak, remembring that of the Psalmist, Psal. 37. 8. Fret not thy self, else shalt thou be moved to do evil.

Neither yet by God's Grace shall the Re∣proaches of such men as these, make me faint or start aside, either from the right way in matter of practice, (they are St. Cyprian's words again) or * 1.29 à certa regula, from the certain Rule of Faith.

And since in former times, some spared not to call the Master of the House Beelzebub, how much more will they be bold with them of his House∣hold, as it is in St. Matthew, Chap. 10. 25? And so bold have these men been; but the next words of our Saviour are, Fear them not.

I humbly crave pardon of your Lordships for this my necessary length, and give you all hearty thanks for your Noble patience, and your Just and Honourable Censure upon these Men, and your unanimous dislike of them, and defence of the Church.

But because the business hath some reflection upon my self, I shall forbear to censure them, and leave them to God's Mercy, and the King's Ju∣stice.

But the great quarrel which arose in the ensuing Parliament, was, about the Oath imposed by the Canons made in that Convocation having an &c. in it: The Oath it self here followeth:

I A. B. do swear, That I do approve the Doctrine and Discipline of Government established in the Church of England, as containing all things neces∣sary to Salvation. And that I will not endeavour by my self, or any other directly or indirectly, to bring in any Popish Doctrine, contrary to that so established. Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the Govern∣ment of this Church by Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, and Arch-Deacons, &c. as it stands now established, and as by right it ought to stand, nor yet ever to subject it to the usurpations and superstitions of the See of Rome; And all these things do I plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, or mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever; And this I do hear∣tily, willingly and truly, upon the Faith of a Chri∣stian, So help me God in Jesus Christ.

The Exceptions taken against this Oath, were, especially three, to which some add a fourth: First, That the word &c. leaves the Oath too loose, that neither the makers nor the Takers could know the meaning.

Answer hereto was made, That in the Canons a particular Enumeration is made of all persons having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, Archdeacons, Deans and Chap∣ters, and other persons having exempt or pecu∣liar Jurisdictions, and therefore for avoiding Tautology the &c. was added as an expression importing all the foregoing, than which nothing in the Canons was more known.

The Second was, That the Commanding an Oath in things of Indifferency was an Affront to the Government.

The Answer was, the Sanction was added by the King to this Canon, and it was added to pre∣vent alterations in Church Government by those who had no power, and to continue it the same till allowed by lawful Authority.

The Third Objection was, That the Juror de∣clares he swears willingly, whereas he was under restraint by the most severe Penalties.

Hereunto it was Answered, The Oath of Al∣legiance, 3 Jac. enjoyns this recognition that the Juror do it heartily, truly, and willingly, and yet there is a great penalty upon not taking.

The Fourth or last Objection was, That as the Scots condemned the Arminian Tenets (for which they were blamed) without defining what they were, so did these the Socinians without de∣fining what they were.

Answer: The Arminian Tenets were but five, and might easily have been enumerated, but So∣cinianism is a complication of many and gross Er∣rors; but more especially the Presbyterians Oath here and in Scotland were used to brand any Epis∣••opal person with the name of an Arminian or Popishly addicted; though those five Points Con∣troverted in Holland were here in England amongst our Divines amicably and peaceably tolerated to be entreated of, and fairly disputed, till the ex∣cesses of some hot men on both sides, caused his Majesty to emit his Proclamation to cause those Disputes to surcease, especially in Pulpit Debates.

Upon the conclusion of this Synod, they grant to the King an ample Benevolence of four shil∣lings in the pound for six years, towards his in∣tended Expedition against the Scots, at which Ex∣ception was taken upon a great mistake, as if it had been an usurpation upon the power of Parlia∣ments, no Convocation having power so to do but only in time of Parliament: For why may not our Clergy give their own without the leave of any, and yet for instance and precedent the Con∣vocation, Anno 1585. after having given one sub∣sidy confirm'd by Parliament, did afterwards add two shillings per pound without leave of the Par∣liament.

His Majesty, as you heard, ordered the March of his Army against the Scots: several Councils were held for the advance of Money, and the City of London, as is usual, being importuned to lend, pretend poverty, whereas the City never more abounded with Treasure, Bullion, and all manner of rich Merchandize, having enjoyed peace and plenty of Commerce for forty years, Their Plenty (saith one) bred Luxury, Lux∣ury filled them with all Vices answerable; un∣faithful they were to their Soveraign, ungrateful to their own Members and Friends, &c.

The King to let them see themselves and their own demerits, how much they depended upon his bounty and goodness, and how little they had deserved, his Majesty had granted them a Patent on account of their Plantation in London-Derry in ••••••land; and this Patent they had forfeited by usurping upon their Neighbours, and taking more Land than their Patent would impower; for this the City was sued in the Star-Chamber, their Lands sentenced to be forseit to his Majesty, Fines im∣posed upon the Undertakers, notwithstanding a small Fine in respect of the forfeiture by his Ma∣jesty and their Patent restored. This gracious dealing of his Majesty with that City was by them complamed of, and bore in mind to be revenged upon occasion. Hereupon order being sent to the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs for the collecting of the Arrearages of Ship-money, as like orders were sent into other Counties upon the same affair, and the Mayor and Sheriffs giving the Council-Board no account thereupon, and having not executed the Writ by distraint upon any one person; the Or∣der following was issued against the said persons:

At White-hall, July 5. 1640. Present The King's Most Excellent Majesty.

• Lord Archbishop of Canterbury,
• ...Lord Keeper,
• ...Lord Treasurer,
• Lord Marquess Hamilton,
• ...Earl Marshal,
• Earl of Salisbury,
• Earl of Bridgewater,
• Earl of Holland,
• Earl of Berks,
• Earl of Strafford,
• Earl of Cork,
• Lord Goring,
• Lord Cottington,
• Lord Newburgh,
• ...Mr. Treasurer,
• Mr. Secretary Windebanke,
• Sir Thomas Rowe,
• Lord Chief Justice of the Common-Pleas.

WHereas the Lord Mayor of London, and the two Sheriffs, did this day appear▪ before his Majesty and the Board, to give an account of their proceedings upon the Writ for the Ship business this present year: Forasmuch as it did appear, that besides all former neglects in the execution of that Writ, his Majesty having respited the Information against them for the same; yet they have not since distrained any one person according to the said Writ. It was this day ordered by his Majesty, with the advice of the Board, that his Majesties Attorney General shall forthwith prefer an Information in the Star-Chamber against the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of London and Middlesex, for their contempt and default in the execution of the said Writ; and shall forthwith proceed against them De die in Diem, until the Cause be ready for hearing: and if upon Examination of the said Cause, his Majesties Attorney General shall find sufficient Cause against any of the Aldermen, that then he do prefer one other Information against the said Aldermen; and in like manner do proceed against them apart.

A Gallant Army was now the second time raised against the Scots, who not performing their former stipulatious, and having under-hand en∣couragement and assistance from some Male-con∣tent persons here in England of their perswasion as to Church Discipline, had already in a second Rebellion taken up Arms against their Sove∣raign, but pretended they were only to deliver a Petition to his Majesty in order to the redress of their Grievances, and that some Incendiaries about his Majesty, their enemies might be re∣moved from the King's Person and Counsels, they were now already on their March ready to pass the River Tine, which to impede the Lord Conway had

posted himself with three thousand Foot, and about one thousand Horse on the adverse part of the River; hereupon Lesley the Scotch General desires his leave to pass towards his Majesty, with the humble Petition and request of his Majesties good Subjects of his Native Kingdom of Scot∣land; The Lord Conway for answer told him, That he should readily permit him to pass with a few in order thereunto, but he would not permit his Army to pass; hereupon Lesley Commands three hundred Horse to pass the River, who were driven back by the English Foot, which play'd up∣on them by their small Shot from a Breast-work on the English side of the River; hereupon Lesley having placed his great Guns behind the blind of some Bushes, lets fly amongst the English, who having nothing to secure them but their Breast∣work retired and fled; hereupon the Scots Horse again advance, and are entertain'd by Commis∣sioner General Wilmot who gallantly charg'd them back to the River, but these were over∣power'd by the numbers of the Scots, and being withal gall'd and annoyed by the Scottish Ord∣nances were forced to retire in disorder, two hun∣dred English being slain and taken Prisoners. The Lord Conway was blamed for his ill conduct in this Action, having no other security but the aforesaid Breast-works for the Foot, and no great Guns well made use of on his part to oppose to those of the Rebels; nay, some have not sticked to affix on him either Cowardize or Treachery for this his evil manage; however he retreats to his Majesty at Northallerton, where the Noble Earl of Strafford was very severe upon him be∣cause of this defect. Sir Jacob Ashley, Governor of Newcastle, judging the Town not tenable, de∣serts it, and sinks his Ordnance in the River.

About this time the Queens Majesty was safely delivered of her third Son Henry, who was af∣terward created Duke of Glocester, and died after his Majesties return to his Kingdoms, a Prince of great hopes and worth, and Gallantry.

After the Lord Conway's defeat at Newbourne upon Tine, the Earl of Strafford under his Maje∣sty took care of his Army, for that the Earl of Northumberland, Lord General thereof, was not able by reason of sickness to undertake the Com∣mand; and this gallant Army to which the Gen∣try of England had so nobly and freely contri∣buted, lay quarter'd in Yorkshire and the Bishop∣rick of Durham, and for that divers disorders, as is usual on such occasions, were committed by the Souldiery in their Quarters, the Inhabitants of that County at the general Assizes at York on the twenty eighth of July exhibited their Petition complaining (though at a very unseasonable time, the Kingdom being then invaded by the Scots) hereof.

Notes

• * 1.1

  In Jul. c. 75
• * 1.2

  In Apol. 1. •• a. id c. 6.
• * 1.3

  Ad Ocean. d••ferend. Opprob.
• * 1.4

  Burton 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 110.
• * 1.5

  You m••y see it in the Exam∣ple of St. Paul him∣self, whose very Zeal in the darkness of his un∣derstanding, which he then had, made him persecute Christ and his Church, Acts 22. 3, 4. And he was very dangerous Company then; for he breathed out threatnings against the Disciples, Acts 9. 1. So true is that of Saint Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. Zelus Iracundiam acuit, All Zeal puts an edge to anger it self. And that must needs be dangerous in the dark. Pag. 5.
• * 1.6

  Pag. 2.
• * 1.7

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.8

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.9

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.10

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.11

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.12

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.13

  Burton's Apology page ••.
• † 1.14

  It was put into the Lita∣ny of H. 8. his time, as appears in his Pri∣mer, with his In∣junction before it.
• ‖ 1.15

  And it is in both the Ser∣vice Books of E. 6. both that which was prin∣ted 1549. And in that which was after, An. 1552.
• * 1.16

  Pag. 336.
• * 1.17

  Pag. 3.
• * 1.18

  Pag. 105.
• † 1.19

  Pag. 105. [Then the second Service as dainties, must be said there]
• * 1.20

  Pag. 105.
• * 1.21

  In libro Nigro windsori∣ensi. p. 65.
• ‖ 1.22

  B. Jewels Reply to Harding's Answer. Art. 3. Div. 29.
• * 1.23

  Pag. 4, 5. 105.
• * 1.24

  May 17. 1637.
• * 1.25

  Injunct. ••ltim.
• * 1.26

  Page 175.
• * 1.27

  Page 7.
• * 1.28

  Lib. 1. Ep. 3.
• * 1.29

  Ibid. p. 10.