The history of the troubles and tryal of the Most Reverend Father in God and blessed martyr, William Laud, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury. vol. 1 wrote by himself during his imprisonment in the Tower ; to which is prefixed the diary of his own life, faithfully and entirely published from the original copy ; and subjoined, a supplement to the preceding history, the Arch-Bishop's last will, his large answer to the Lord Say's speech concerning liturgies, his annual accounts of his province delivered to the king, and some other things relating to the history.

CAP. XXXIII. The Eleventh Day of my Hearing.

THis day Mr. Serjeant Wilde followed the Charge upon me. And went back again to my Chappel Windows at Lambeth. Three Witnesses against them. The first was one Pember a Glasier. He says, there was in one of the Glass-Windows on the North side, the Picture of an Old Man with a Glory, which he thinks was of God the Father. But his thinking so is no proof: Nor doth he express in which of the North Windows he saw it. And for the Glory, that is usual about the Head of every Saint. And Mr. Brown, who was the Second Witness, and was trusted by me for all the work of the Windows, both at Lambeth and Croydon, says expresly upon his Oath, that there was no Picture of God the Father in the Windows at Lam∣beth. But he says, He found a Picture of God the Father in a Window at Croydon, and Arch-Bishop Cranmer's Arms under it, and that he pulled it down. So it appears this Picture was there before my time: And continued there in so Zealous an Arch-Bishop's time as Cranmer was well known to be, and it was pulled down in my time. Neither did I know till now, that ever such a Picture was there; and the Witness deposes, he never made me acquainted with it. The Third Witness was Mr. Pryn. He says, he had taken a survey of the Windows at Lambeth. And I doubt not his diligence. He repeated the Story in each Window. I have told this before, and shall not repeat it. He says, the Pictures of these Stories are in the Mass-Book. If it be so, yet they were not taken thence by me. Arch-Bishop Morton did that work, as appears by his Device in the Windows. He says, the Story of the day of Judgment was in a Window in atrio, that must not come into the Chappel. Good Lord, whither will Malice carry a Man? The Story opposite is of the Creation; and what, must not that come into the Chappel neither? The Chappel is divided into an inner and utter Chappel. In this outward the two Windows mentioned are. And the Partition or Skreen of the Chappel, which makes it two, was just in the same place where now it stands, from the very building of the Chappel, for ought can be proved to the contrary. So neither I nor any Man else did shut out the day of Judgment. He says, I had Read the Mass-Book diligently. How else should I be able really to confute what is amiss in it? He says, I had also a Book of Pictures con∣cerning the Life of Christ in my Study. And it was fit for me to have

it. For some things are to be seen in their Pictures for the People, which their Writings do not, perhaps dare not avow.

The Second Charge of this day, was about the Administration of the Sacrament in my Chappel. The Witnesses two.

The first was Dr. Haywood, who had been my Chaplain in the House. They had got from others the Ceremonies there used, and then brought him upon Oath. He confessed he Administred in a Cope. And the Canon warranted it. He confesses (as it was urged) that he fetched the Elements from the Credential (a little Side-Table as they cal∣led it) and set them Reverently upon the Communion Table. Where's the offence? For first, the Communion Table was little, and there was hardly room for the Elements to stand conveniently there, while the Service was in Administration. And Secondly, I did not this without Example; for both Bishop Andrews and some other Bi∣shops, used it so all their time, and no exception taken. The Second Witness was Rob. Cornwall, one of my Menial Servants. A very for∣ward Witness he shewed himself. But said no more than is said and answered before. Both of them confessing that I was sometimes pre∣sent.

The Third Charge was about the Ceremonies at the Coronation of his Majesty. And first out of my Diary, Feb: 2: 1625. 'Tis urged, that I carried back the Regalia, offer'd them on the Altar, and then laid them up in their place of safety. I bare the place at the Coronation of the Dean of Westminster, and I was to look to all those things, and their safe return into Custody, by the place I then Executed. And the offering of them could be no offence. For the King himself offers upon solemn days. And the Right Honourable the Knights of the Garter offer at their Solemnity. And the Offertory is Established by Law in the Common Prayer Book of this Church. And the Preben∣daries assured me it was the Custom for the Dean so to do. Secondly, they charged a Marginal Note in the Book upon me: That the Vn∣ction was in formâ Crucis. That Note doth not say that it ought so to be done; but it only relates the Practice, what was done. And if any fault were in Anointing the King in that form, it was my Predeces∣sors fault, not mine, for he so Anointed him. They say, there was a Crucifix among the Regalia, and that it stood upon the Altar at the Coro∣nation, and that I did not except against it. My Predecessor Executed at that time. And I believe would have excepted against the Cru∣cifix had it stood there. But I remember not any there. Yet if there were, if my Predecessor approved the standing of it, or were con∣tent to connive at it, it would have been made but a Scorn had I quarrell'd it. They say one of the Prayers was taken out of the Pon∣tifical. And I say, if it were, it was not taken thence by me. And the Prayers are the same that were used at King James his Coronati∣on. And so the Prayer be good (and here's no word in it, that is ex∣cepted against) 'tis no matter whence 'tis taken.

Then leaving the Ceremonies, he charged me with two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Body of the King's Oath. One added, namely these Words (〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the King's Prerogative.) The other omitted, namely these words, (Quae Populus Elegerit, which the People have chosen, or shall choose.) For this latter, the Clause omitted, that suddenly va∣nished.

For it was omitted in the Oath of King James, as is confes∣sed by themselves in the Printed Votes of this present Parliament. But the other highly insisted on, as taking off the total assurance which the Subjects have by the Oath of their Prince for the performance of his Laws. First, I humbly conceive this Clause takes off none of the Peoples Assurance; none at all. For the King's Just and Legal Prerogative, and the Subjects Assurance for Liberty and Property may stand well together, and have so stood for Hundreds of Years. Secondly, that Alteration, what ever it be, was not made by me; nor is there any Interlining or Alteration so much as of a Letter found in that Book. Thirdly, if any thing be amiss therein, my Predecessor gave that Oath to the King, and not I. I was meerly Ministerial, both in the Preparation, and at the Coronation it self, supplying the place of the Dean of Westminster.

After this days work was ended, it instantly spread all over the City, that I had altered the King's Oath at his Coronation, and from thence into all parts of the Kingdom; as if all must be true which was said at the Bar against me, what Answer so-ever I made. The People and some of the Synod now crying out, that this one thing was enough to take away my Life. And though this was all that was Charged this day concerning this Oath, yet seeing how this fire took, I thought fit the next day that I came to the Bar, to desire that the Books of the Coronation of former Kings, especially those of Queen Elizabeth and King James, might be seen and compared, and the Copies brought into the Court, both from the Exchequer, and such as were in my Study at Lambeth: And a fuller Inquisition made into the Business: In regard I was as Innocent from this Crime, as when my Mother bare me into the World. A Salvo was entred for me upon this. And every day that I after came to the Bar, I called upon this Business. But somewhat or other was still pretended by them which managed the Evidence, that I could not get the Books to be brought forth, nor any thing to be done, till almost the last day of my Hear∣ing. Then no Books could be found in the Exchequer, nor in my Study, but only that of King James; whereas, when the Keys were taken from me, there were divers Books there, as is confessed in the Printed Votes of this Parliament: And one of them with a Watchet Sattin Cover, now missing. And whether this of King James (had not my Secretary, who knew the Book, seen it drop out of Mr. Pryn's Bag) would not have been concealed too, I cannot tell. At last, the Book of King James his Coronation, and the other urged against me concerning King Charles, were seen and compared openly in the Lords House, and found to be the same Oath in both, and no Inter∣lining or Alteration in the Book charged against me.

This Business was left by the Serjeant to Mr. Maynard, who made the most that could be out of my Diary against me. And so did Mr. Brown, when he came to give the Summ of the Charge against me, both before the Lords, and after in the House of Commons. And therefore for the avoiding of all tedious Repetition: And for that the Arguments which both used, are the same: And because I hold it not fit to break a Charge of this moment into divers pieces, or put them in different places, I will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 set

down the whole Business together, and the Answer which I then gave.

Mr. Brown in the Summ of the Charge against me in the Com∣mons-House, when he came to this Article, said, he was now come to the Business so much expected. And I humbly besought that Honou∣rable House, if it were a Matter of so great Expectation, it might be of as great Attention too, while I should follow that Worthy Gentleman, step after step, and Answer as I went.

1. And First, he went about to prove out of my Diary, that this Ad∣dition (of the King's Prerogative) to the Oath, was made by me. Thus he says, that Decemb. 31. 1625. I went to Hampton-Court. That's true. He says, that there, Januar. 1. I understood I was Named with other Bishops, to meet and consider of the Ceremonies about the Coronati∣on; and that, Januar. 4. we did meet at White-Hall accordingly; and that, Januar. 6. we gave his Majesty an Answer. Not I (as 'twas Charged) but We gave his Majesty Answer. So if the Oath, had been changed by me, it must have been known to the Committee, and broken forth to my Ruin long since. Then he says, that Ja∣nuar. 16. I was appointed to serve at the Coronation, in the room of the Dean of Westminster. That's no Crime; and 'tis added in the Diary, that this Charge was delivered unto me by my Predecessor. So he knew that this Service to Attend at the Coronation was im∣posed upon me. He says next, that Januar. 18. the Duke of Buck∣ingham had me to the King, to shew his Majesty the Notes we had agreed on, if nothing offended him. These were only Notes of the Cere∣monies. And the other Bishops sent me, being Puny, to give the Account. Then he says, Januar. 23. It is in my Diary, Librum habui paratum, I had a Book ready. And it was time, after such meet∣ings; and the Coronation being to follow Feb. 2. and I designed to assist and attend that Service, that I should have a Book ready. The Ceremonies were too long and various to carry them in Me∣mory. And whereas 'tis urged, that I prepared and altered this Book; the words in my Diary, are only Paratum habui, I had the Book ready for my own use in that Service. Nor can Paratum ha∣bui, signifie preparing or altering the Book. And Thirdly, 'tis ad∣ded there, That the Book which I had ready in my Hands, did agree per omnia cum Libro Regali: And if it did agree in all things with the King's Recorded Book then brought out of the Ex∣chequer, where then is the Alteration so laboriously sought to be fastned on me? I humbly beseech you to mark this.

Yet out of these Premises put together, Mr. Brown's Inference was, that I made this Alteration of the Oath. But surely these Pre∣mises, neither single nor together, can produce any such Conclusion; but rather the contrary. Beside, Inference upon Evidence is not Evidence, unless it be absolutely necessary; which all Men see that here it is not. But I pray observe. Why was such a sudden stay made at Januar. 23. whereas it appears in my Diary at Januar. 31. that the Bishops were not alone trusted with this Coronation Busi∣ness; Sed alii Proceres, but other Great and Noble Men also. And they did meet that Januar. 31. and sate in Council about it. So the Bishops Meetings were but Preparatory to ease the Lords, most of

the Ceremonies being in the Church-way. And then can any Man think, that these great Lords, when they came to review all that was done, would let the Oath be altered by me or any other, so materially, and not check at it? 'Tis impossible.

2. Secondly, this Gentleman went on to charge this Addition upon me, Thus, There were found in my Study at Lambeth two Books of King James his Coronation, one of them had this Clause or Addition in it, and the other had it not; and we cannot tell by which he was Crown∣ed, therefore it must needs be some wilful Error in me; to make choice of that Book which had this Addition in it; or some great mistake. First, if it were a mistake only, then it is no Crime. And wilful Error it could not be. For being Named one of them that were to consider of the Ceremonies, I went to my Predecessor, and desi∣red a Book, to see by it what was formerly done. He delivered me this now in question; I knew not whether he had more or no; nor did I know that any one of them differed from other. There∣fore no wilful Error. For I had no choice to make of this Book which had the Addition, before that which had it not; but thank∣fully took that which he gave me. But Secondly, If one Book of King James his Coronation, in which I could have no Hand, had this Addition in it, (as is confessed) then was not this a new Ad∣dition of my making. And Thirdly, it may easily be seen, that King James was Crowned by the Book which hath this Addition in it, this being in a fair Carnation Sattin Cover, the other in Paper without a Cover, and unfit for a King's Hand, especially in such a great and publick Solemnity.

3. In the Third place he said, There were in this Book twenty Alte∣rations more, and all or most in my Hand. Be it so, (for I was never suffered to have the Book to consider of) they are confessed not to be material. The Truth is, when we met in the Committee, we were fain to mend many slips of the Pen, to make Sense in some places, and good English in other. And the Book being trusted with me, I had Reason to do it with my own Hand, but openly at the Committee all. Yet two Things as Matters of some moment Mr. Brown checked at.

1. The one was, that Confirm is changed into Perform.

If it be so, Perform is the greater and more advantagious to the Subject, because it includes Execution, which the other word doth not. Nor doth this word hinder, but that the Laws and Liberties are the Peoples already. For though they be their own, yet the King by his place, may and ought to perform the keeping and maintaining of them. I say (if it be so) for I was never suffered to have this Book in my Hands thoroughly to peruse: Nor, under favour, do I believe this Alteration is so made, as 'tis urged. [In the Book which I have by me, and was Transcribed from the other, it is Confirm.]

2. The other is, that the King is said to Answer, I will for I do: But when will he? Why all the days of his Life; which is much more than I do for the present. So, if this change be made, 'tis still for the Peoples advantage. [And there also 'tis I do grant.] And yet again I say (if) for the Reason before given. Besides, in all the Latin Copies, there is a latitude left for them that are trusted, to add to those

Interrogatories which are then put to the King, any other that is just; In these Words, Adijciantur praedictis Interrogationibus quae justa fuerint. And such are these two mentioned, if they were made.

4. Mr. Brown's Fourth and last Objection was, that I made this Alteration of the Oath, because it agrees (as he said) with my Judg∣ment: For that in a Paper of Bishop Harsnett's, there is a Marginal Note in my Hand, that Salvo Jure Coronae, is understood in the Oaths of a King. But first, there's a great deal of difference between Jus Regis & Praerogativa, between the Right and Inheritance of the King and his Prerogative, though never so Legal. And with Sub∣mission, and until I shall be convinced herein, I must believe; that no King can Swear himself out of his Native Right. Second∣ly, If this were, and still be an Error in my Judgment, that's no Ar∣gument at all to prove Malice in my Will: That because that is my Judgment for Jus Regis, therefore I must thrust Praerogativam Regis, which is not my Judgment, into a Publick Oath which I had no Power to alter. These were all the Proofs which Mr. May∣nard at first, and Mr. Brown at last, brought against me in this Par∣ticular. And they are all but Conjectural, and the Conjectures weak. But that I did not alter this Oath by adding the Preroga∣tive, the Proofs I shall bring are Pregnant, and some of them Ne∣cessary. They are these.

1. My Predecessor was one of the Grand Committee for these Ceremonies. That was proved by his Servants to the Lords. Now his known Love to the Publick was such, as that he would never have suffered me or any other, to make such an Alteration. Nor would he have concealed such a Crime in me, loving me so well as he did.

2. Secondly, 'Tis Notoriously known, that he Crowned the King, and Administred the Oath, (which was avowed also before the Lords by his Ancient Servants.) And it cannot be rationally con∣ceived he would ever have Administred such an alter'd Oath to his Majesty.

3. Thirdly, 'Tis expressed in my Diary, at Januar. 31. 1625. (And that must be good Evidence for me, having been so often produced against me,) that divers great Lords were in this Committee for the Ceremonies, and did that Day sit in Council upon them. And can it be thought they would not so much as compare the Books? Or that comparing of them, they would indure an Oath with such an Alteration to be Tender'd to the King? Especially, since 'tis be∣fore confessed, that One Copy of King James his Coronation had this Alteration in it, and the other had it not.

4. Fourthly, 'Tis expressed in my Diary, and made use of a∣gainst me, at Januar. 23. 1625. That this Book urged against me did agree per Omnia cum Libro Regali, in all things with the King's Book brought out of the Exchequer. And if the Book that I then had, and is now insisted upon, did agree with that Book which came out of the Exchequer, and that in all things, how is it possible I should make this Alteration?

5. Fifthly, with much Labour I got the Books to be compared in the Lords House; That of King James his Coronation, and this

of King Charles. And they were found to agree in all things to a Syllable. Therefore 'tis impossible this should be added by me. And this I conceive cuts off all Conjectural Proofs to the con∣trary.

Lastly, In the Printed Book of the Votes of this present Parlia∣ment, it is acknowledged, that the Oath given to King James and King Charles was the same. The same. Therefore unaltered. And this Passage of that Book I then shewed the Lords in my De∣fence. To this Mr. Maynard then replyed. That the Votes there mentioned, were upon the Word Elegerit, and the doubt whether it should be, hath chosen, or shall chuse. I might not then Answer to the Reply, but the Answer is plain. For, be the occasion which led on the Votes, what it will; as long as the Oath is acknow∣ledged the same, 'tis manifest it could not be altered by me. And I doubt not, but these Reasons will give this Honourable House Satisfaction, that I added not this Particular of the Prerogative to the Oath.

Mr. Brown, in his last Reply, passed over the other Arguments I know not how. But against this, he took Exception. He brought the Book with him, and Read the Passage. And said (as far as I remember) that the Votes had Relation to the Word Chuse, and not to this Alteration. Which is in Effect the same which Mr. Maynard urged before. I might not Reply by the Course of the Court, but I have again considered of that Passage, and find it plain. Thus, First they say: They have considered of all the Alterations in the Form of this Oath which they can find. Therefore of this Alteration also, if any such were: Then they say, Excepting that Oath which was taken by his Majesty and his Father King James. There it is confessed, that the Oath taken by them, was one and the same, called there That Oath, which was taken by both. Where falls the Exception then? For 'tis said, Excepting that Oath, &c. why it fol∣lows, Excepting that the Word Chuse is wholly left out, as well hath Chosen as will Chuse. Which is a most manifest and evident Con∣fession, that the Oath of King James and King Charles was the same in all things, to the very leaving out of the Word Chuse. Therefore it was the same Oath all along. No difference at all. For Exceptio firmat Regulam in non Exceptis; and here's no Excep∣tion at all of this Clause of the Prerogative. Therefore the Oath of both the Kings was the same in that, or else the Votes would have been sure to mention it. Where it may be observed too, that Serjeant Wilde, though he knew these Votes, and was present both at the Debate and the Voting; and so must know that the Word Chuse, was omitted in both the Oaths, yet at the first he Charged it eagerly upon me, that I had left this Clause of Chusing out of King Charles his Oath, and added the other. God forgive him. But the World may see by this, and some other Passages, with what Art my Life was sought for.

And yet before I quite leave this Oath, I may say 'tis not al∣together improbable, that this Clause (And agreeing to the Preroga∣tive of the King's thereof) was added to the Oath in Edward 6. or Queen Elizabeth's time: And hath no Relation at all to the Laws of

this Kingdom, absolutely mentioned before in the beginning of this Oath; But only to the Words [The Profession of the Gospel Establish∣ed in this Kingdom,] And then immediately follows, And agreeing to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof. By which the King Swears to maintain his Prerogative, according to God's Law, and the Gospel Established, against all foreign Claims and Jurisdictions whatsoever. And if this be the meaning, he that made the Alte∣ration, whoever it were (for I did it not) deserves Thanks for it, and not the Reward of a Traytor.

Now to return to the Day. The Fourth Charge went on with the Ceremonies still. But Mr. Serjeant was very nimble. For he leaped from the Coronation at Westminster, to see what I did at Oxford. 1. There the first Witness is Sir Nathaniel Brent. And he says, The standing of the Communion-Table at St. Mary's was al∣tered. I have answered to this Situation of the Communion-Table already. And if it be lawful in one place, 'tis in another. For the Chappel of Magdalen College, and Christ-Church Quire, he con∣fesses he knows of no Direction given by me to either: Nor doth he know, whether I reproved the things there done or no. So all this is no Evidence. For the Picture of the Blessed Virgin at St. Mary's Door, as I knew nothing of it till it was done, so never did I hear any Abuse or Dislike of it after it was done. And here Sir Nathaniel confesses too, that he knows not of any Adoration of it, as Men passed the Streets or otherwise. When this Witness came not home, they urged the Statute of Merton College, or the Vniversity, where (if I took my Notes right) they say, I enjoyned Debitam Reverentiam. And as I know no fault in that Injunction, or Sta∣tute; so neither do I know what due Bodily Reverence can be given to God in his Church, without some Bowing or Genu∣flection.

2. The Second Witness was Mr. Corbett. He says, that when de∣cent Reverence was required by my Visitors 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one of my Articles, he gave Reasons against it, but Sir Jo. Lambe urged it still. First, my Lords, if Mr. Corbett's Reasons were sufficient, Sir Jo. Lambe was to blame in that; but Sir Jo. Lambe must answer it, and not I. Secondly, it may be observed, that this Man, by his own Confession, gave Rea∣sons (such as they were) against due Reverence to God in his own House. He says, that Dr. Frewen told him from me, That I wished he should do as others did at St. Mary's, or let another Execute his place as Proctor. This is but a Hearsay from Dr. Frewen, who being at Oxford, I cannot produce him. And if I had sent such a Message, I know no Crime in it. He says, that after this, he desired he might enjoy in this Particular the Liberty which the King and the Church of England gave him. He did so: And from that Day he heard no more of it, but enjoyed the Liberty which he asked. He says, Mr. † Channell desired the same Liberty as well as he. And Mr. Channell had it granted as well as he. He confesses ingenuously, that the Bowing required, was only Toward, not to the Altar. And To the Picture at St. Mary's Door, he says, he never heard of any Reve∣verence done to it: And doth believe that all that was done at Christ-Church,

was since my Time. But it must be his Knowledge, not his Belief, that must make an Evidence.

3. The Third Witness, was one Mr. Bendye. He says, There was a Crucifix in Lincoln College Chappel since my time. If there be, 'tis more than I know. My Lord of York that now is, when he was Bi∣shop of Lincoln, worthily bestowed much Cost upon that Chappel, and if he did set up a Crucifix, I think it was before I had ought to do there. He says, there was Bowing at the Name of Jesus. And God forbid but there should; and the Canon of the Church requires it. He says, there were Latin Prayers in Lent, but he knows not who injoyned it. And then he might have held his Peace. But there were Latin Sermons, and Prayers on Ash-Wednesday, when few came to Church, but the Lent Proceeders, who understood them. And in divers Colleges they have their Morning-Prayers in Latin, and had so, long before I knew the University. The last Thing he says, was, That there were Copes used in some Colleges, and that a Traveller should say, upon the sight of them, that he saw just such a thing upon the Pope's Back. This Wise Man might have said as much of a Gown: He saw a Gown on the Pope's Back; therefore a Protestant may not wear one: or entring into S. Pauls, he may cry, Down with it; for I saw the Pope in just such another Church in Rome.

4. Then was urged the conclusion of a Letter of mine sent to that Vniversity. The Words were to this Effect, I desire you to re∣member me a Sinner, Quoties coram 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Dei 〈◊〉〈◊〉. The Charge lay upon the Word Procidatis; which is no more, than that when they there fall on their Knees, or Prostrate to Prayer, they would remember me. In which Desire of mine, or Expression of it, I can yet see no Offence. No, nor in coram Altare, their So∣lemnest time of Prayer being at the Communion.

Here Mr. Brown Aggravated the things done in that University: And fell upon the Titles given me in some Letters from thence; but because I have answered those Titles already, I refer the Reader thither, and shall not make here any tedious Repetition: Only this I shall add; That in the Civil Law 'tis frequent to be seen, that not Bishops only one to another, but the great Emperours of the World have com∣monly given that Title of Sanctitas vestra, to Bishops of meaner place than my self; to say no more. But here Mr. Brown, in his last Reply, was pleased to say, This Title was not given to any Bishop of England. First, if I had my Books about me, perhaps this might be refuted. Secondly, why should so Grave a Man as he so much Di∣sparage his own Nation? Is it impossible (be my Unworthiness what it will) for an English Bishop to deserve as good a Title as another? Thirdly, be that as it may, if it were (as certainly it was) Law∣fully given to other Bishops, though they not English, then is it neither Blasphemy, nor Assumption of Papal Power, as was Charged upon it.

From Oxford Mr. Serjeant went to Cambridge. And I must be Guilty, if ought were amiss there too. For this Fifth Charge were produced three Witnesses, Mr. Wallis, Mr. Greece, and Mr. Seaman. Their Testimonies agreed very near: So I will answer them together. First, they say, That at Peter-House there were Copes and Candlesticks,

and Pictures in the Glass-Windows; and the like. But these things I have often answered already, and shall not repeat. They say, the Chief Authors of these things, were Dr. Wren and Dr. Cosens. They are both living, why are they not called to answer their own Acts? For here's yet no shew of Proof to bring any thing home to me. For no one of them says, that I gave direction for any of these. No, (says Mr. Serjeant) but why did I tolerate them? First, no Man com∣plained to me. Secondly, I was not Chancellor, and endured no small Envy for any little thing that I had occasion to look upon in that place. And thirdly, this was not the least Cause, why I followed my Right for Power to visit there. And though that Power was confirmed to me, yet the Times have been such as that I did not then think fit to use it. It would have but heaped more Envy on me, who bare too much already.

As for Mr. Greece, who hath laboured much against me in all this Business, God forgive him; and while he Inherits his Father's ill Affections to me, God preserve him from his Father's End.

From Cambridge he went to the Cathedrals, and first to Canterbury. Here the Charge is Bowing versus Altare; the two Witnesses, two Prebendaries of that Church, Dr: Jackson, and Dr: Blechenden. And first, Dr: Jackson says, the Bowing was versus Altare: So not to, but to∣ward the Altar; and Dr: Blechenden says, it was the Adoration of the High Majesty of God, to whom, if no Altar were there, I should Bow. Dr: Jackson says, this Bowing was to his Grief. Strange! I avow to your Lordships and the World, no Man did so much approve all my Proceedings in that Church, as he: And for this Particular, he never found the least fault with it to me; and if he conceal his Grief, I cannot ease it. He says, this Bowing was not in use till within this Six or Seven Years. Sure the Old Man's Memory fails him. For Dr. Blechenden says, the Communion-Table was railed about, and Bowings be∣fore it, when he came first to be a Member of that Church; and saith up∣on his Oath that's above Ten Years ago. And that it was practised before their new Statutes were made; and that in those Statutes no Punishment is infticted for the Breach, or not Performance of this Reverence. I could tell your Lordships how often Dr: Jackson hath shifted his Opinions in Religion, but that they tell me their Witnesses must not be Scandalized. As for the Statutes, my Secretary Mr: Dell, who co∣pied them out, testified here to the Lords, that I left out divers Su∣perstitions which were in the Old Book, and Ordained many Sermons in their rooms.

The next Cathedral he instanced in was Winchester. But there's nothing but the old Objections, Copes. And the wearing of them is warranted by the Canon; and Reverence at coming in, and going out of the Church. And that, great Kings have not (in better Ages) thought much to do. And they did well to instance in the College of Win∣chester as well as the Church; for 'tis confessed, the Injunction sent thither requires, that the Reverence used be such as is not dissonant from the Church of England. So, this may be a Comment to the other Injunctions.

But for the Copes in Cathedrals, Mr. Brown in his last Reply was not satisfied. For he said, the Canon mentioned but the wearing of one Cope. Be it so: But they must have that before they

can wear it. And if the Canon enjoyn the wearing of one, my In∣junction might require the providing and using of one. Besides, if there be no Popery, no introduction to Superstition in the having or using of one; then certainly, there can be none in the having of more for the same use: The Superstition being lodged in the misuse, not in the number.

From the Cathedrals, Mr. Serjeant went to view some Parish-Churches. And First, 'tis Charged, That in a Parish-Church at Win∣chester two Seats were removed to make way for Rayling in of the Commu∣nion-Table. But for ought I know, this might have been concealed. For it was liked so well, that they to whom the Seats belonged, removed them at their own Charges, that the other might be done.

The next instance was in St: Gregory's Church, by S: Pauls. The Charge was, the Placing of the Communion-Table Altar-wise. To the Charge it self Answer is given before. The Particulars which are new are these: The Witness Mr: Wyan. He says, the Order for such placing of the Table was from the Dean and Chapter of S: Pauls. And S: Gregory's is in their peculiar Jurisdiction. So the Holy-Table was there placed by the Ordinary, not by me. He says next, That the Parishioners appealed to the Arches, but received an Order to Command them and the Cause to the Council Board: That it was a full Board when the Cause was heard, and his Majesty present: And that there I main∣tained the Queens Injunction, about placing the Communion-Table. In all this, here's nothing Charged upon me, but maintenance of the Injunction: And I had been much to blame if I should not have maintained it. He says, Sir Henry Martin came and saw it, and said it would make a good Court Cupboard. If Sir Henry did say so, the Scorn ill became either his Age, or Profession; though a Court Cupboard be somewhat a better Phrase than a Dresser. God forgive them who have in Print called it so. He says, That hereupon I did say, that he which spake that, had a Stigmatical Puritan in his Bosom. This Man's Memo∣ry serves him long for Words: This was many Years since; and if I did speak any thing sounding this way, 'tis more like I should say Schismatical, than Stigmatical Puritan. But let him look to his Oath; and which Word soever I used, if Sir Henry used the one, he might well hear the other. For a prophane Speech it was, and lit∣tle becoming a Dean of the Arches. He says, that soon after this, Sir Henry was put out of his Place. Not very soon after this; for I was at the time of this Business (as far as I remember) Bishop of Lon∣don, and had nothing to do with the disposing of his Place. After, when I came to be Arch-Bishop I found his Patent was void, neither could Sir Henry himself deny it. And being void, and in my Gift, I gave it to another.

He says farther, That it was urged that this way of Placing the Com∣munion Table was against the Word of God, in Bishop Jewel, and Mr: Fox his Judgment; and that I replied, it were better they should not have these Books in Churches, than so to abuse them. First, for ought I yet know (and in these straights of time the Books I cannot come at) their Judgment, rightly understood, is not so. Secondly, Though these two were very worthy Men in their Time, yet every thing which they say is not by and by the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land.

And I may upon good reason depart from their Judgment in some Particulars, and yet not differ from the Church of England. As in this very Particular, the Injunction for placing of the Table so, is the Act of the Queen and the Church of England. And I con∣cieve the Queen, then upon the Act of Reformation, would not have enjoyned it, nor the Church obeyed it, had it been against the Word of God. Thirdly, if I did say, That if they could make no better use of Jewel and the Book of Martyrs, it were better they had them not in the Churches. They gave too great occasion for the Speech: For they had picked divers things out of those Books which they could not master, and with them distempered both themselves and their Neighbours. And yet in hope other more Modest Men might make better use of them, I never gave Counsel to have those Books remo∣ved (nor is that so much as Charged) but said only thus, That if no better use would be made of them, then that last Remedy; but ne∣ver till then.

This last Passage Mr. Brown insisted upon: The taking of good Books from the People. But as I have answered, there was no such thing done, or intended; only a Word spoken to make bu∣sie Men see how they abused themselves and the Church, by mis∣understanding and misapplying that which was written for the good of both.

Lastly, it was urged, He said, that the Communion-Table must stand Altarwise, that Strangers which come and look into these Churches, might not see such a Disproportion: The Holy Table standing one way in the Mother-Church, and quite otherwise in the Parochial an∣nexed. And truly, to see this, could be no Commendation of the Di∣scipline of the Church of England. But howsoever, Mr. Clarke (the other Witness with Wyan, and agreeing with him in the most) says plainly that it was the Lord of Arundel that spake this, not I: And that he was seconded in it by the Lord Weston, then Lord Treasu∣rer, not by me.

The last Charge of this Day was a passage out of one Mr: Shel∣ford's Book, p. 20, 21. That they must take the Reverend Prelates for their Examples, &c. And Mr. Pryn Witnessed, the like was in the Missal, p. 256. Mr. Shelford is a meer Stranger to me; his Book I ne∣ver read; if he have said any thing Unjust or Untrue; let him answer for himself. As for the like to that, which he says, being in the Missal, though that be but a weak Argument, yet let him salve it.

Here this Day ending, I was put off to Saturday, June 1. And then again put off to Thursday, June 6. which held.

Notes

• I.
• Maij 27. 1644. Munday.
• Die Undecimo.
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• II.
• 1.
• Can. Eccles. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 24.
• III.
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• Heylin affirm∣eth, that the old Crucifix, being found a∣mong the Rega∣lia, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then placed upon the Altar. Life of Laud, p. 144.
• 4.
• 5.
• p. 706.
• p. 706.
• p. 706.
• p. 706.
• IV.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 11.
• †

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Cheynell.
• And the third Witness agrees in this.
• Can. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• V.
• VI.
• Can. 24.
• VII.
• Q. Eliz. Injunct. Fine.
• VIII.
• Junii 1.
• Junii 6.