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. XXXIV. My Twelfth Day of Hearing.

THis Day Serjeant Wild, instead of beginning with a new Charge, * 1.1 made another long Reply to my Answers of the former Day. Whether he found that his former Reply made at the time, was * 1.2 weak, and so reputed, I cannot tell.

But another he made, as full of premeditated Weakness, as the former was of sudden. Mr. Pryn I think perceived it, and was often at his Ear; but Mr. Serjeant was little less than angry, and would on.

I knew I was to make no Answer to any Reply, and so took no Notes: Indeed, hold∣ing it all as it was, that is, either nothing, or nothing to the purpose. This tedious Reply ended;

Then came on the First Charge about the Window of Coloured * 1.3 Glass set up in the New Chappel at Westminster. It was the Histo∣ry of the coming down of the Holy-Ghost upon the Apostles. This was Charged to be done by me, and at my Cost: The Witnesses, Mr. Brown, imployed in setting up the Window, and Mr: Sutton the Glasier.

These Men say, that Dr: Newell, Sub-Dean of Westminster, gave Order for the Window and the setting of it up; but they know not at whose Cost, nor was any Order given from me. So here's nothing Charged upon me. And if it were, I know nothing amiss in the Window. As for the Kings Arms being taken down (as they say) Let them an∣swer that did it. Though I believe, that the King's Arms standing alone in a white Window, was not taken down out of any ill mean∣ing, but only out of necessity to make way for the History.

The Second Charge was the Picture of the Blessed Virgin set upon * 1.4 a New-Built Door at S: Marys in Oxford. Here Alderman Nixon says, That some Passengers put off their Hats, and, as he supposes, to that Picture. But, my Lords, his Supposal is no Proof. He says, that the next day he saw it. But what did he see? Nothing, but the put∣ting off the Hat; For he could not see why, or to what; unless they which put off, told it. They might put off to some Acquaintance that passed by. He farther says, he saw a Man in that Porch upon his Knees, and he thinks praying; but he cannot say to that.

But then (if the Malice he hath long born me, would have suffer'd him)

he might have stayed till he knew to whom he was Praying, for till then 'tis no Evidence. He says, he thinks that I Countenanced the setting of it up, because it was done by Bishop Owen. But Mr: Bromfeeld, who did that Work, gave Testimony to the Lords, that I had nothing to do in it. He says, there was an Image set up at Carfax Church, but pulled down again by Mr: Widdows, Vicar there. But this hath no re∣lation at all to me.

This Picture of the Blessed Virgin was twice mentioned before. And Sir Nath: Brent could say nothing to it but Hearsay. And Mr: Corbet did not so much as hear of any Abuse. And now Alderman Nixon says, he saw Hats put off; but the wise

Man knows not to what. Nor is there any shew of Proof offer'd, that I had any Hand or Approbation in the setting of it up. Or that ever any Complaint was made to me of any Abuse to it, or dislike of it. And yet Mr. Brown, when he gave the Summ of the Charge against me, insisted upon this also, as some great Fault of mine, which I cannot yet see.

In the next Charge, Mr. Serjeant is gone back again to White-Hall, * 1.5 as in the former to Oxford. The Witnesses are Mrs. Charnock, and her Daughter. They say, they went (being at Court) into the Chappel, and it seems a Woman with them, that was a Papist: And that while they were there, Dr. Brown, one of the King's Chaplains came in, Bowed toward the Communion-Table, and then at the Altar kneeled down to his Prayers. I do not know of any Fault Dr. Brown com∣mitted, either in doing Reverence to God, or Praying, and there. And yet if he had committed any Fault, I hope I shall not answer for him. I was not then Dean of the Chappel, nor did any ever complain to me. They say, that two Strangers came into the Chappel at the same time, and saw what Dr. Brown did, and said thereupon, that sure we did not differ much, and should be of one Religion shortly. And that the Woman which was with these Witnesses, told them they were Priests. First, this can no way Relate to me; for neither did these Women complain to me of it, nor any from them. Secondly, if these two Men were Priests, and did say, as is Testified; are we e∣ver a whit the nearer them in Religion? Indeed, if all the difference between Rome and us, consisted in outward Reverence, and no Points of Doctrine, some Argument might hence be drawn; but the Points of Doctrine being so many and great, put stop enough to that. Thirdly, if Recusants, Priests especially, did so speak, might it not be said in Cunning to Discountenance all External Worship in the Service of God, that so they may have opportunity to make more Proselytes? And 'tis no small Advantage, to my knowledge, which they have this way made.

And this was the Answer which I gave Mr. Brown, when he Charged this upon me in the House of Commons.

Here, before they went any farther, Mr. Serjeant Wilde told the Lords, that when Sir Nathaniel Brent was imployed in my Visita∣tion, he had Instructions for particular Churches, of which some were Tacit Intimations, and some Express. I know not to what end this was spoken; for no Coherent Charge followed upon it. But sure, he thinks Sir Nathaniel Brent very skilful in me, that he can under∣stand my Tacit Intimations, and know to what Particular Church to apply them.

And as I said no more at the Bar, so neither did I think to say any more after; yet now I cannot but a little bemoan my self. For ever since Mr. Maynard left off, who Pleaded, though strongly, yet fairly, against me, I have been in very ill Condition between the other two. For from Mr. Nicolas, I had some Sense, but extream virulent and foul Language. And from Serjeant Wilde, Language good enough sometimes, but little or no Sense. For let me answer what I would, when he came to Reply, he repeated the Charge again, as if I had made no Answer at all. Or as if all that I Expressed never so plainly, had been but Tacit

Intimations; which I think he understood as much as Sir Nathaniel Brent

In the Fourth Charge, he told the Lords he would not trouble * 1.6 them with repeating the Evidence, but only put them in mind of some things in the Case of Ferdinando Adams, of Ipswich: Of the Men of Lewis suffering in the High-Commission: Of the Parishioners of Beckington, and some others heard before, but would leave the Lords to their Memory and their Notes. Yet read over the Sentences given in the High-Commission, and made a Repetition of whatsoever might but make a shew to render me odious to the People.

And this hath been their Art all along, to run over the same thing twice and again (as they did here in the second Charge about the Picture of the Blessed Virgin:) To the end, that as the Audi∣tors changed, the more of them might hear it; and that which wrought not upon some, might upon others. In all which I pa∣tiently referred my self to my former Answers, having no other way to help my self; in regard they pretended that they renewed the same Instances, but not the same way; but in one place, as against Law; and in another, as against Religion. But why then did they in both places run over all Circumstances appliable to both?

And on they went too with the Men of Lewis, where one * 1.7 Mr. Parnlye (they say) was Censured cruelly in the High-Commission, for not removing the Communion-Table. The Business was but this. Sir Nathaniel Brent, and his own Ordinary, Dr. Nevill, Ordered the remove of the Table: He would not. For this Contumacy he was Censured, but injoyned only to make his Submission to Dr. Nevill. Which I think was a Sentence far from any Barbarous Cruelty, as 'tis called.

2. Another Instance, and the next, was Mr. Burket. He says, he was Censured also about removing the Communion-Table, and for that on∣ly. But first, this was not simply for removing the Holy-Table; but it was for abetting the Church-Wardens to remove it back again from the place, where lawful Authority had set it. And secondly, whereas he says, he was Censured for this only; the very Charge it self confutes him. For there 'tis said, that this, about removing of the Communion-Table, appears in the Sixth Article that was against him. Therefore there were Five other Articles at least more against him. And therefore not this only.

3. The Third Instance was in Mr. Chancye: And he likewise is said to have suffered very much only about Railing in of the Communion-Table. But this is not so neither. For he confesses that he spake Reproachful Words against Authority, and in Contempt of his Or∣dinary. That he said, the Rails were fit to be set up in his Gar∣den. That he came Fifty Miles from his own Church, on purpose to Countenance this Business. And all this he acknowledges upon his Oath in his Submission. And yet nothing laid upon him but Suspension, and that no longer than till he submitted. And all this the Act of the High-Commission, not mine.

And so I answered Mr. Brown, who urged this against me also.

And the Truth of all this appears apud Acta; though they were taken away, and kept ever since from my use, yet many things done in that Court, have

been Charged against me. And here stepped in a Testimony of Mr. Genebrards, That I threatned openly in the High-Commission to suspend Dr. Merrick. And why might I not do it, if he will be o∣ver-bold with the Proceeding of the whole Court? I have known e're now, a very good Lawyer Committed from the Chancery Bar to the Fleet. Though I shall spare Names.

4. The fourth Instance was in Mr. Workman's Case: Charged as if he were Sentenced only for Preaching a Sermon to the Judges, against Images in Churches. 1. The first Witness in the Cause was Mr. Langly: He says, Mr. Workman was Censured for this Sermon, and other things. Therefore not for this Sermon only: The High-Commissioners were no such Patrons of Images. He says, that when I was Dean of Glou∣cester, I told them in the Chappel, that King James had heard of many things amiss in that Church, and required me to take care of them. 'Tis true, he did so. He says farther, that hereupon I placed the Commu∣nion-Table Altar-wise, and Commanded due Reverence at the coming into the Church. This I did, and I have given my Reason often already for it, out of the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth. He says, that Bi∣shop Smith took offence at this, and would come no more to the Cathedral. First, my Lords, this Gentleman was then Schoolmaster there, and had free Access unto me: He never discovered this. Secondly, the Bishop himself never said a word to me about it: If he had, I would either have satisfied his Lordship in that, or any thing else that I did: Or if he had satisfied me, I would have forborn it: He says, that Mr. Workman, after he was put from his Lecture, was not suffered to teach Children. First, if he had been suffered, this Man had been like to make the first Complaint for decay of his own School. But secondly, The Commission thought it no way fit to trust him with the Education of Children, who had been Factious among Men. Especially not in that place, where he had so shewed him∣self.

And this Answer I gave to Mr. Brown, who in Summing the Evidence stood as much, and inveighed as earnestly against this Cruel proceeding with Mr. Workman, as upon any one thing in the Charge. At which time he added also, that he would not be suffered to Practise Physick to get his Living. But First, no Wit∣ness Evidenceth this, that he was denied to Practise Physick. And Secondly, he might have taught a School, or Practised Physick a∣ny where else. But he had done so much Harm, and made such a Faction in Gloucester, as that the High Commission thought it not fit to continue him there; and he was not willing to go from thence, where he had made his Party.

He says farther, that some few of the Citizens of Gloucester were called into the High-Commission, for an Annuity of Twenty Pound a Year allowed Mr. Workman, out of the Town-Stock. For the thing it self, it was a Gross Abuse and Scorn put upon that Court; that when they had Censured a Schis∣matical Lecturer (for such he was there proved) the Towns-Men should make him an allowance of Twenty Pound a Year. A thing (as I humbly conceive) not fit to be indured in any settled Govern∣ment. And whereas Clamour is made, that some few of the Citi∣zens were called to an account for it, that's as strange on the other side. For where there are many Offenders, the Noise would be too

great to call all. And yet here's Noise enough made for calling a few. Here it was replyed by Mr. Maynard, That this was done by that Corpo∣ration, and yet a few singled out to Answer; and that therefore I might be singled out to Answer for things done in the High-Commission.

But, under Favour, this Learned and Worthy Gentleman is mistaken. For here the Mayor and Magistrates of Gloucester, did that which was no way warrantable by their Charter, in which Case they may be ac∣countable, all or some: But in the High-Commission we medled with no Cause not Cognoscible there; or if by Misinformation we did, we were sure of a Prohibition to stop us. And medling with nothing but things proper to them, I conceive still, no one Man can be singled out to suffer for that which was done by all. And this may serve to Answer Mr. Brown also, who in his last Reply upon me, when I might not Answer, made use of it:

2. The Second Witness was Mr. Purye of 〈◊〉〈◊〉. He says, that Mr. Brewster and Mr. Guies the Town-Clark, were called to the Council-Table about this Annuity, and that I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it might be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Examined at the High-Commission. If this were true, I know no Of∣fence in it, to desire that such an Affront to Government might be more thoroughly Examined than the Lords had leisure to do. But the Witness doth not give this in Evidence. For he says no more, than that he heard so from Mr. Brewster. And his Hear-say is no Con∣viction. He says farther, that the High-Commission called upon this Business of the Annuity, as informed that the Twenty Pound given to Mr. Workman, was taken out of the Moneys for the Poor. And this I must still think was a good and a sufficient ground, justly to call them in question. He says also, That these Men were Fined, because that which they did was against Authority. So by their own Witness it appears, that they were not Fined simply for allowing Means to Mr. Workman, but for doing it in opposition to Authority. Lastly, he says, they were Fined Ten Pound apiece, and that presently taken off again. So here was no such great Persecution as is made in the Cause. And for the Can∣celling of this Deed of the Annuity, it was done by themselves, as Mr. Langlye Witnesses.

After these two Witnesses heard, the Sentence of the High-Com∣mission-Court was read, which I could not have come at, had not they produced it. And by that it appeared evidently, that Mr: Work∣man was Censured, as well for other things as for his Sermon about Images in Churches. As first, he said, so many Paces in Dancing were so many to Hell. This was hard, if he meant the Measures in the Inns of Court at Christmas; and he excepted none. Then he said, and was no way able to prove it; that Drunkards, so they were Conformable, were preferred. Which was a great and a notorious Slander upon the Governours of the Church, and upon Orderly and Conformable Men. Then he said, that Election of Ministers was in the People. And this is directly against the Laws of England, in the Right of all Pa∣trons. Then constantly in his Prayer before his Sermon, he Prayed for the States and the King of Sweden, before his Majesty, which was the Garb of that time, among that Party of Men. Then, that one of his common Themes of Preaching to the People, was against the Government of the Church. And then, that Images in Churches, were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 better

than Stews in the Commonwealth, which at the best is a very unsavoury Comparison. But here it was replyed, That Images were Idols, and so called in the Homilies, and that therefore the Comparison might hold. Yea, * 1.8 but in the second Homily, against the Peril of Idolatry, Images or Pi∣ctures in Glass or Hangings, are expresly and truly said not to be Idols, till they be Worshipped. And therefore Mr. Workman should not have compared their setting up, to Stews, till he could have proved them Worshipped. And in all this, were the Act good or bad in the Censuring of him, it was the Act of the High-Commission, not mine.

After this followed the Fifth Charge, which was Mr: Sherfeild's * 1.9 Case, his Sentence in the Star-Chamber for defacing of a Church-Win∣dow in or near Salisbury. The Witnesses produced were Two. The First * 1.10 was Mr: Carill. He said that Mr: Sherfeild defaced this Window, because there was an Image in it, conceived to be the Picture of God the Father. But first, this comes not home. For many a Picture may be con∣ceived to be of God the Father, which yet is not, nor was ever made for it. And then suppose it were so, yet Mr: Sherfeild in a setled Go∣vernment of a State, ought not to have done it, but by Command of Authority. He says, that in my Speech there in the Court, I justi∣fied the having of the Picture of God the Father, as he remembers, out of Dan. 7. 22. This (as he remembers) came well in. For I ne∣ver justified the making or having that Picture.

For Calvin's Rule, * 1.11 that we may picture that which may be seen, is grounded upon the Ne∣gative, that no Picture may be made of that which was never, never can be seen. And to ground this Negative, is the Command given by Moses, Deut. 4. Take good heed to your selves. For what? That you * 1.12 make not to your selves this Picture: Why? For that you saw no man∣ner of similitude, in the day that the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire. Out of the midst of the fire, and yet he still reserved himself in thick darkness, Exod. 20. So no Picture of him, because no simili∣tude * 1.13 ever seen. And this Rule having ever possessed me wholly, I could not justifie the having of it.

I said indeed, that some Men in later Superstitious Times, were so foolish as to Picture God the Father, by occasion of that place in Daniel; but for my self I ever rejected it. Nor can that place bear any shew of it. For Daniel says there, that the Ancient of days came. But in what shape or similitude he came, no Man Living can tell. And he is called the Ancient of days from his Eternity, not as if he appeared like an Old Man. The Text hath no Warrant at all for that.

2. Yet the Second Witness Mr. Tomlyns says also, that I did justi∣fie this Picture.

God forgive him the Malice or Ignorance of this Oath, be it which it will.

He might have been as wary as Mr. Ca∣ril, and added (as he remembers;) For so many Years since, as this Hearing was, he may easily mistake. But if I did say any such thing; why are not my own Papers here produced against me? I had that written which I then spake, and the Paper was in my Study with the rest, and came (for ought I know) into their Hands which follow the Charge against me. I ask again, why is not this Paper produced? Out of all doubt it would, had there appeared any such thing in it. He says also, that I said then, that if the Idol of Jupiter

were set up, yet it were not lawful to pull it down in a Popular Tumult, but by Order and Authority. I did say so, or to that effect, indeed; and must say it still. For I find in St. Augustin almost the very words. * 1.14 And Bishop Davenant, a Man very Learned, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this place of St. Augustin and approves it. And they both prove this Doctrine from Deut. 12. Where the Command given for destroying of the Idols, * 1.15 when they came into the Land of Canaan, was not left at large to the People, but setled in Moses the chief Magistrate, and his Power. And according to this Rule, the Temple of AEsculapius, though then grown very Scandalous, was not pulled down but by * 1.16 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Command. Which place I then shewed the Lords. But this Wit∣ness added, that Mr: Sherfeild had. Authority to do this from the Vestry. If he had, that's as good as none; for by the Laws of England there is yet no power given them for that or any thing else. And all that Vestries do, is by usurpation or consent of the Parish, but reaches not this. The Bishop of the Diocess had been fitter to be consulted here∣in, than the Vestry.

Here, as if these Witnesses had not said enough, Mr: Nicolas of∣fered himself to be a Witness. And told the Lords he was present at the Hearing of this Cause, and that four Witnesses came in clear, that the Picture broken down, was the Picture of God the Father, and that yet the Sentence of the Court passed against Mr: Sherfeild. First, if this be so, it concludes against the Sentence given in the Star-Chamber, not against me; and he calls it here the Sentence of the Court. Second∣ly, be it, that it were undoubtedly the Picture of God the Father; yet he ought to have taken Authority along with him, and not to go about it with violence, which he did, and fell and brake his Leg in the Business. Thirdly, by his own description of the Picture, it seems to me to be some old Fabulous Picture out of a Legend, and not one of God the Father: For he then told the Lords, it was a Picture of an Old Man with a Budget by his side, out of which he was plucking Adam and Eve,

And I believe no Man ever saw God the Father so Pictured any where. Lastly, let me observe how Mr: Nicolas takes all parts upon him wherein he may hope to do me mischief.

The Sixth Charge was concerning a Bible, that was Printed with * 1.17 Pictures, and sold. The Witness Mr: Walsal a Stationer. Who says, That this Bible was Licensed by Dr: Weeks; my Lord of London's Chaplain, not mine; so thus far it concerns not me.

Yes, says Mr. Brown in his last Reply: For it appears in a List of my Chaplains un∣der my own Hand, that Dr: Weeks was one: 'Tis true, when I was Bishop of Bath and Wells he was mine; but my Lord of London had him from me, so soon as ever he was Bishop. And was his, not mine, when he Licensed that Book. And Mr. Brown knew that I answer'd it thus to the Lords.

He says, that I gave him direction that they should not be sold openly upon the Stalls, but only to discreet Men that knew how to use them. The Case was this. As I was at Prayers in the King's Chappel, I there saw one of them in Mrs. Kirk's Hand. She was far enough from any affection to Rome. And this being the first knowledge I had of it, many were vented and sold before I could prevent it. Upon this I sent for one (whether to this Witness or ano∣ther I cannot say) and acquainted the Lords of the Council with it,

and craved their direction what should be done. It was there Orde∣red, that I should forbid the open Sale of them upon their Stalls, but not otherwise to Learned and Discreet Men. And when I would have had this Order stricter, no Man stuck to me but Mr: Secretary Cook. So according to this Order I gave direction to Mr: Walsal, as he witnesses.

Here Mr. Maynard replyed, that I ought to have withstood this Order, in regard it was every way faulty. For, said he, either these Pictures were good or bad. And if they were good, why should they not be Sold openly upon the Stalls to all that would buy? And if they were bad, why should they be Sold privately to any?

To this Reply I was not suffer'd to Answer: But when I heard Mr. Brown charge this Bible with Pictures against me, then I answer'd the thing as before, and took occasion thereby to answer this Dilemma thus. Namely, that this kind of Argument concludes not, but in things Necessary, and where no Medium can be given. For where a Medium can be given, the Horns of this Argument are too weak to hurt. And so 'tis here. For Pictures in themselves are things indifferent; not simply good, nor simply bad, but as they are used. And therefore they were not to be sold to all comers, because they may be abused, and become evil; and yet might be sold to Learned and Discreet Men, who might turn them to good. And that Images are things indifferent of them∣selves, is granted in the Homilies which are against the very Peril of * 1.18 Idolatry.

He said, there was some inconvenient Pictures among them; as the Assumption, and the Dove. Be it so, the Book was not Licensed by me or mine. And yet, as I then shewed the Lords, they were not so strict at Amsterdam against these Pictures. For the Book which Mr. Walsal shewed me, was Printed and sent thence, before it was Printed here. Besides, our old English Bibles in the beginning of the Queen were full of Pictures; and no fault found. As for that which is added at the Bar, that one of these Bibles was found in Secretary Winde∣bank's Trunk, and another in Sir John Lambs. That's nothing to me.

The last Charge of this day was, that something about Images was * 1.19 Expunged out of Dr: Featly's Sermons, by my Chaplain Dr: Bray, before they could be suffer'd to be Printed. But first, he himself confesses, that I told him he might Print them, so nothing were in them contra∣ry to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England. Secondly, he confesses, that when Dr. Bray made stay of them, he never complain∣ed to me; and I cannot remedy that which I do not know. Thirdly, he confesses, that all the time he was in Lambeth-House, my Predecessor ever left that care of the Press upon his Chaplains; and why I might not do it as well as my Predecessor, I do not yet know. But he said, that he complained to Sir Edmund Scott, and desired to be advised by him what he should do: And that he Answer'd, he thought I would not meddle with that troublesome Business, more than my Predecessors had done.

Be this so, yet Sir Ed. Scott never told me this; nor is there any the least Proof offer'd that he did. But because this and the like passages about Expunging some things out of Books, makes such a great Noise, as if nothing concerning Popery might be Printed: And be∣cause Mr. Brown in Summing up of the Charge in the House of Com∣mons, warmly insisted upon this Particular, I thought it necessary

to Answer as follows. That what moved my Chaplain to Ex∣punge that large passage against Images, I knew not; nor could I now know, my Chaplain being Dead. But that this I was sure of, that else-where in those very Sermons, there was as plain a passage, * 1.20 and full against * 1.21 Images left in. And in another place a whole Leaf together, spent to prove them † 1.22 Idolaters; and that as gross as the Baalists, and so he terms them. Yea; and that the | 1.23 Pope is Antichrist too, and not only called so, but proved by divers Ar∣guments. And not so only, but in plain Terms, that he is the * 1.24 Whore of Babylon. And these passages I then Read out of the Book it self in the House of Commons. And many other-like to these there are. So my Chaplain might see good Cause to leave out some passages.

Where so many upon as good Cause were left in:

But to the Business of leaving the Care of these Books, and the overview of them to my Chaplains, it was then urged,

That the Com∣missary * 1.25 of John Lord Arch-Bishop of York, had Excommunicated the Lord Bishop of Durham, being then in the King's Service. And that the Arch-Bishop himself was deeply Fined for this Act of his Commissary. And that therefore I ought much more to be answerable for my Chaplain's Act, whom I might put away when I would, than he for his Commissary, who had a Patent, and could not be put out at pleasure.

Mr. Brown also followed this Precedent close upon me. But first, there is a great deal of difference in the thing it self: My Chaplain's Case being but the leaving out of a passage in a Book to be Printed: But his Com∣missary's Case being the Excommunicating of a great Bishop, and he in the King's Service, of whose Honour the Laws of this Realm are very tender. And Secondly, the Bishop and his Official, (call him Chancellor or Commissary, or what you will) make but one Person in Law; and therefore the Act of the Commissary to the full extent of his Patent, is the Act of the Bishop in legal Construction, and the Bishop may be answerable for it. But the Bishop and his Chaplain are not one Person in any Construction of Law.

And say he may put away his Chaplain when he will, yet that cannot help what is past, if ought have been done amiss by him. And this was the Answer I insisted on to Mr. Brown.

Upon my entrance on this days Defence, I found my self aggrieved at the Diurnal, and another Pamphlet of the Week, wherein they Print whatsoever is Charged against me, as if it were fully proved; never so much as mentioning what, or how I Answer'd. And that it troubled me the more, because (as I conceived) the passages as there expressed, trenched deep upon the Justice and Proceedings of that Honourable House. And could have no Aim but to incense the Mul∣titude against me. With some difficulty I got these Pamphlets re∣ceived, but there they dyed, and the Weekly abuse of me continu∣ed to keep my Patience in Breath.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Thursday, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 6. 1644.
• * 1.2

  Die Duode∣cimo.
• * 1.3

  I.
• * 1.4

  II.
• * 1.5

  III.
• * 1.6

  IV.
• * 1.7

  1.
• * 1.8

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. against the Peril of Idola. p. 3. p. 92.
• * 1.9

  V.
• * 1.10

  1.
• * 1.11

  Calv. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. c. 11. §. 12.
• * 1.12

  Deut. 4. 15, 16.
• * 1.13

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 20. 21.
• * 1.14

  St. Aug.
• * 1.15

  Deut. 7. 5. & 12. 2.
• * 1.16

  Euseb. 3. de vita Constan. c. 54.
• * 1.17

  VP.
• * 1.18

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1. p. 11.
• * 1.19

  VII.
• * 1.20

  Dr. Featly's Sermons.
• * 1.21

  p. 477.
• † 1.22

  p. 791.
• | 1.23

  p. 808.
• * 1.24

  p. 810.
• * 1.25

  This was done long before the Reformation; when the Pa∣tents of Chan∣cellors and Com∣missaries were revocable at the pleasure of the Bishop. H. W.