Selected quad for the lemma: parliament_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
parliament_n	council_n	king_n	privy_a	5,649	5	10.4701	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56144	Canterburies doome, or, The first part of a compleat history of the commitment, charge, tryall, condemnation, execution of William Laud, late Arch-bishop of Canterbury containing the severall orders, articles, proceedings in Parliament against him, from his first accusation therein, till his tryall : together with the various evidences and proofs produced against him at the Lords Bar ... : wherein this Arch-prelates manifold trayterous artifices to usher in popery by degrees, are cleerly detected, and the ecclesiasticall history of our church-affaires, during his pontificall domination, faithfully presented to the publike view of the world / by William Prynne, of Lincolns Inne, Esquire ...	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1646 (1646)	Wing P3917; ESTC R19620	792,548	593

had separated from Rome ever since the time of Reformatior An evill therefore which hath issued not so much from the personall disposition of the Prelates themselves as from the innate quality and nature of their Office and Prelaticall Hierarchie which did bring forth the Pope in Ancient times and never ceaseth till it bringeth forth popish Doctrine and worship where it is once rooted and the Principles thereof somented and constantly followed And from that antipathy and inconsistency of the two formes of Ecclesiasticall Government which they conceived and not without cause that one Island united also under one head and Monarch was not able to beare the one being the same in all the parts and powers which it was in times of Popery and now is in the Roman Church The other being the forme of Government received maintained and practised by all the Reformed Kirks wherein by their owne testimonies and confessions the Kirks of Scotland had amongst them no small eminencie This also we represent to Your Lordships most serious consideration that not only the fire-brands may be removed but that the fire may be provided against that there be no more combustion after this This charge of the Scots against the Arch-Bishop was usherd in with this Introduction in the Scotish Treatie which clearely manifests him to be excepted by name out of the Act of Pacification and Oblivion by the fourth clause thereof An Introduction to the accusation against Canterbury and the Leiutenant of IRELAND SEeing His Majestie hath beene Gratiously pleased concerning out fourth demand to declare that all his subjects shall be lyable to the tryall and sentence of the Parhament respective And seeing the Incendiaries are of two sorts either of the English or Scottish Nation to bee tryed here or there of the Scottish wee shall speake afterward And for the present we shall deliver to your Lordships the grounds of our complaint against the Prelate of Canterbury and the Leiutenant of Ireland whom the Kingdome of Scotland have conceived and expressed to have beene prime Incendiaries that they may be fully presented to your Lordshipps to the Kings Majesty and to the Parliament without prejudice alwayes unto us to adde hereafter what we shall find necessarie And although we do not presently verefie every point therein yet our present proofs of some principall points our probable presumptions of the rest which are annexed therewith are sufficient ground cum constat de incendio to one Nation to desire another to put them per viam transitionis to a tryall and to examine all the Councellors and others here who may be conceived to have beene eye or eare witnesses of any of the Councells speeches or Actions lyable to the Charge and for saving unnecessarie charges and travell to the subjects to direct Commissions and all other Warrants requisite to such as his Majesty and the Parliament shall think fit for examining all such persons as may be apprehended to have knowledge of any of these Councells Speeches or Actions which are alleadged to have beene in Ireland and that upon such Interrogatories as we shall give unto the Parliament shall be pleased to adde for triall All which we earnestly crave of his Majesty and the Parliament as we desire that his Majesty may be pleased to send Warrant to the Committee of at Esr like or to the Sheriffes of Shires for examining witnesse anent the oath pressed upon any of our Country men and other wrongs contained in the complaint if they be not sufficiently proved here 14. December 1640. After these Originall Articles exhibited against the Archbishop both by the Scottish Commissioners and House of Commons to the House of Peeres the Archbishop delaying to plead unto them and the Parliament being taken up with many emergent weighty affaires for their owne and the Kingdomes necessary preservation by reason of the unnaturall bloody Rebellion in Ireland and Warres in England so reploted and raised by the popish party the proceedings against him were respited neare two yeares space And then the Commons intending to bring him to a speedy triall exhibited these ensuing Additionall Articles against him not much different from the Originall except in some particulars Further Articles of Impeachment by the Commons assembled in Parliament against William Laud Archbishop of CANTERBVRY of high Treason and divers high Crimes and Misdemeanours as followeth 1. THat the said Archbishop of Canterbury to introduce an Arbitrary Government within this Realme and to destroy Parliaments in the third and fourth yeares of his Majesties reigne that now is a Parliament being then called and sitting at Westminster traiterously and maliciously caused the said Parliament to be dissolved to the great grievance of his Majesties subjects and prejudice of this Commonwealth And soone after the dissolution thereof gave divers Propositions under his hand to George then Duke of Buckingham casting therein many false aspersions upon the said Parliament calling it a factious Parliament and falsly affirming that it had cast many scandalls upon his Majesty and had used him like a child in his minority stiling them Puritans and commending the Papists for harmlesse and peaceable subjects 2. That within the space of ten yeares last past the said Archbishop hath treacherously endeavoured to subvert the fundamentall Lawes of this Realme and to that end hath in like manner endeavoured to advance the power of the Councell Table the Canons of the Church and the Kings Prerogative above the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme And for manifestation thereof about six yeares last past being then a Privy Councellor to his Majesty and sitting at the Councell Table he said that as long as he sate there they should know that an Order of that Board should be of equall force with a law or Act of Parliament And at another time used these words That he hoped ere long that the Canons of the Church and the Kings Prerogative should be of as great power as an Act of Parliament And at another time said that those that would not yeeld to the Kings power hee would crush them to peeces 3. That the said Archbishop to advance the Canons of the Church and power Ecclesiasticall above the law of the Land and to pervert and hinder the course of Iustice hath at divers times within the said time by his letters and other undue meanes and solicitations used to Iudges opposed and stopped the granting of his Majesties Writs of Prohibition where the same ought to have beene granted for stay ef proceedings in the Ecclesiasticall Court whereby justice hath beene delayed and hindered and the Iudges diverted from doing their duties 4. That for the end and purpose aforesaid about seaven yeares last past a Iudgment being given in his Majesties Court of Kings Bench against one Burley a Person being a man of bad life and conversation in an Information upon the Statute of 21. Hen. 8. for wilfull Non-residency the said Archbishop by solicitations and other undue meanes used to the Iudges

of that Court caused Execution upon the satd Judgment to be stayed and being moved therein and made acquainted with the bad life and conversation of the said Person he said that he had spoken to the Judges for him and that he would never suffer a Iudgment to passe against any Clergy-man by nihil dicit 5. That the said Archbishop about eight yeares last past being then also a privy Councellor to his Majesty for the end and purpose aforesaid caused Sir Iohn Corbet of Stoak in the County of Salop Baronet then a Iustice of peace of the said County to be committed to the Prison of the Fleet where he continued Prisoner for the space of halfe a yeare or more for no other cause but for calling for the Petition of Right causing it to be read at the Sessions of the peace for that County upon a just and necessary occasion And during the time of his said imprisonment the said Archbishop without any colour of right by a writing under the Seale of his Archbishopricke granted a way parcell of the Glebe land of the Church of Adderly in the said County whereof the said Sir Iohn Corbet was then patron unto Robert Vscount Kilmurrey without the consent of the said Sir Iohn or then the incumbent of the said Church which said Viscount Kilmurrey built a Chappel upon the said parcell of Glebe land to the great prejudice of the said Sir Iohn Corbet which hath caused great suits and dissentions betweene them And whereas the said Sir Iohn Corbet had a judgment against Sir Iames Stonehouse Knight in an action of Waste in his Majesties Court of Common Pleas at Westminster which was afterwards affirmed in a writ of Error in the Kings Bench and Execution thereupon awarded yet the said Sir Iohn by meanes of the said Archbishop could not have the effect thereof but was committed to Prison by the said Archbishop and others at the Councell Table untill he had submitted himselfe unto the order of the said Table whereby he lost the benefit of the said Judgment and Execution 6. That whereas divers gifts and dispositions of divers summes of money were heretofore made by divers charitable and well disposed persons for the buying in of divers Impropriations for the maintenance of preaching the word of God in severall Churches the said Archbishop about eight yeares last past wilfully and maliciously caused the said gifts feoffements and conveyances made to the uses aforefaid to be overthrowne in his Majesties Court of Exchequer contrary to Law as things dangerous to the Church and State under the specious pretence of buying in Appropriations whereby that pious worke was suppressed and trodden downe to the great dishonour of God and scandall of Religion 7. That the said Archbishop at severall times within these ten yeares last past at Westminster and else where within this Realme contrary to the knowne Lawes of this Land hath endeavoured to advance Popery and Superstition within the Realme And for that end and purpose hath wittingly and willingly received harboured and relieved divers popish Priests and Iesuits namely one called Sancta Clara alias Damport a dangerous Person and Franciscan Fryer who having written a Popish and seditious Booke intituled Deus natura gratia wherein the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England established by Act of Parliament were much traduced and scandalized The said Archbishop had divers conferences with him while he was in writing the said Booke and did also provide maintenance and entertainment for one Mounsieur St. Giles a Popish Priest at Oxford knowing him to be a Popish Priest 8. That the said Archbishop about foure yeares last past ut Westminster aforesaid said that there must be a blow given to the Church such as hath not beene yet given before it could be brought to conformity declaring thereby his intention to bee to shake and alter the true Protestant Religion established in the Church of England 9. That in or about the month of May 1641. presently after the dissolution of the last Parliament the said Archbishop for the ends and purposes aforesaid caused a Synod or Convocation of the Clergie to be held for the severall Provinces of Canterbury and Yorke wherein were made and established by his meanes and procurement diverse Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall contrary to the Lawes of this Realme the Rights and Priviledges of Parliament the Liberty and propriety of the Subject tending also to seditior and of dangerous consequence And amongst other things the said Archbishop caused a most dangerous and illegall Oath to be therein made and contrived the tenor whereof followeth in these words That I A. B. doe sweare that I do approve the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England as containing all things necessary to salvation And that I will not endeavour by my selfe or any other directly or indirectly to bring in any Popish Doctrine contrary to that which is so established Nor will I ever give my consent to alter the Government of this Church by Archbishops Bishops Deanes 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 Sea of Rome And all these things I doe plainly and sincerely acknowledge and sweare according to the plaine and common sense and understanding of the same words without any equivocation or mentall evasion or secret reservation whatsoever And this I do heartily willing and truely upon the saith of a Christian So helpe mee God in Jesus Christ Which Oath the said Archbishop himselfe did take and caused diverse other Ministers of the Church to take the same upon paine of suspension and deprivation of their livings and other severe penalties And did also cause Godfrey then Bishop of Gloucester to be committed to prison for refusing to subscribe to the said Canons and to take the said Oath and afterward the said Bishop submitting himselfe to take the said Oath he was set at liberty 10. That a little before the calling of the last Parliament Anro 1640. a Vote being then passed and a resolution taken at the Councell Table by the advice of the said Archbishop for assisting of the King in extraordinary wayes if the said Parliament should prove peevish and refuse to supply His Majestie the said Archbishop wickedly and malitiously advised His Majestie to dissolve the said Parliament and accordingly the same was dissolved And presently after the said Archbishop told his Majesty that now he was absolved from all rules of Government and left free to use extraordinary wayes for his supply For all which matters and things the said Commons assembled in Parliament in the name of themselves and of all the Commons of England doe impeach the said Archbishop of Canterbury of high Treason and other crimes and misdemeanours tending to the subversion of our Religion Lawes and Liberties and to the utter ruine of this Church and Common-Wealth And

1643. It is this day Ordered by the Lords in Parliament that the Leiutenant of the Tower of London or his Deputie shall bring in safty the Archbishop of Cant before their Lordships on Tuesday the 16. of this instant Ianuary by one of the Clock in the afternoone At which time this house will proceed against the said Archbishop upon the impeachments brought up from the House of Commons against him for might Treason and high Crimes and misdeameanours and this to be a sufficient Warrant in that behalfe To the Gentleman Vsher c. The next day the Archbishop being brought to the Lords House at the time appointed about 3. of the Clock that afternoone the Lords sent downe this Message to the House of Commons thus entered in their Iournall 16. Ianuary 1643. A Message from the Lords by Sir Robert Rich and Mr. Page to acquaint the House that they are ready to heare the Charge upon the impeachment against the Bishop of Canterbury Vpon this Message the Committee of the House of Commons appointed to mannage the evidence against him went up to the Lords House and then the Archbishop being brought to the Barre after he had there kneeled a little space was commanded to stand up which ceremony ended Mr Maynard one of the Committee desired the Lords that the originall additional Articles of impeachment against the Archbishop might be read Which being read accordingly by the Clerke he then prayed that the Archbishops several Answers to these Articles might likewise be read whereupon the Speaker of the Lords House commanding them to be read the Clerk read only his forementioned Answer to the Additionall Articles but noe answer at all to the Originall there being never any Answer put in unto them the Archbishop having not in al the time of his restraint from the 26. of Feb. 1640. till that houre so much as tendered or put in any Answer to his Originall Articles which was his owne meere default and never so much as once Petitioned in all that space to be brought to his Tryall notwithstanding his frequent complaints of his long Imprisonment the delay of his hearing occasioned by his owne neglect and by his Petitioning for longer time when the Commons hastned his Tryall Hereupon Mr. Maynard spake to the Lords to this effect My Lords it new appeares to your Lordships how unwilling the Archbishop is out of a consciousnesse of his owne guilt to come to his Tryall that in all this space from his first impeachment he hath not so much as put in any Answer to the Originall Articles though he had long since Councell assigned him for that purpose My Lords this is none of the Commons fault but his owne for your Lordships well know that the Commons can take no notice what is done in the House of Peeres in a Parliamentary way but by a Messag from your Lordships who after our Articls exhibited were to cal upon the Archbishop for an answer to them your Lordships sending us several Messages heretofore that the Archbishop had put in his Answer to the Articls that you were ready to heare our Charge against him and appointing this day for his Tryall the Commons thereupon conceived that he had formerly put in his Plea answer in due forme to all 〈◊〉 Articles but the contrary now appearing both to your Lordships and as it is impossible for us to proceed at this time in his tryall there being no issue Ioyned upon the Originall Articles for want of an answer to them to 〈◊〉 upon the Additionalls before my answer given to the originalls will be very preposterous● therefore ●e humbly prey your Lordships to Order that the Archbishop may forthwith put in his Answer ●●th to the Originall and Additionall Articles by the advice of his Councill or otherwise in such sort as he will stand to it and then he shall without any delay joyne 〈◊〉 with him proceed on in his Tryall and evidence against him when your Lordships shall appoint The Archbishop having little to reply hereunto desire the Lords that he might advise with his Councell whether the Articles were certaine and particular enough to be answered unto and that if their Lordships should over-rule him to put in his Answer to them he might have convenient time to do it Vpon this all being commanded to withdraw the Lords after some short debate among themselves and upon reading the Archbishops Petition to have Mr. Gor●●rd of Grayes-Inne assigned for his Councell to joyne with those formerly assigned him made this ensuing Order Die Martis 16. Ian. 1643. Vpon the reading the Petition of William Archbishop of Cant. It is this day Ordered by the Lords in Parliament that Mr. Richard Gerrard of Grayes-Inne be added to the former Councell Assigned to the said Archbishop to be likewise of his Councell It is this day Ordered by the Lords in Parliament that William Arch-bishop of Cant. shall put in his Answer in writing into this House to the first and further Articles of Impeachment brought up from the House of Commons against him by Munday morning next peremptorily and that the same Councell formerly Assigned him shall be of Councell with him On the 19. of Ianuary the Archbishop sent this Petition to the Lords To the Right Honourable the Lords assembled in PARLIAMENT The humble Petition of William Archbishop of Cant Prisoner in the T●wer Sheweth THat whereas your Petitioner having formerly answered the particular Articles exhibited against him by the Honourable House of Commons and now by your Lordships Order of the 16th of this instant is commanded to put in his Answer to the first and further Articles of Impeachment brought up against him by Munday morning next for doing whereof his former Councell is assigned him That your Petitioner having advised with his Councell concerning the first Articles which were exhibited new almost three yeares sithence finding upon perusall and debate of the same that the said former Articles are such that no answer can be made thereunto nor your Petitioner in my wise enabled to prepare for his defence to the same as they now stand That for as much as the said Articles of Impeachment import no lesse than a Charge of High treason and for as much as your Petitioner is by his Councell 〈◊〉 that especially in Cases of life the Defendant is allowed to offer to the Court where the same depends his exceptions by his Councell before any Plea pleaded Your Petitioner most humbly beseecheth your Lordships to appoint a day for the hearing of your Petitioners Councell concerning the same And your Petitioner shall pray c. VV. CANT Die Sabbati 20. Ian. 1643. It is this day Ordered by the Lords in Parliament that the Leiutenant of the Tower of London or his Deputie shall bring in safety William Archbishop of Cant. before their Lordships on Munday the 22th of this instant Ianuary by ten of the clock in the morning to put in his answer to the

Articles of Impeachment brought up from the House of Commons against him according to the former Order of this House of the 16. of this Instant Ianuary To the Gentleman Vsher c. On the 22. of Ianuary the Archbishop personally appearing at the Lords Barre according to the former Orders did then put in this following Answer both to the Commons Originall and Additionall Articles The Answer of the Archbishop of Cant. to the first and further Articles of the House of Commons dilivered in the 22th January 1643. The humble Answer of William Archbishop of Cant. to the first and farther Articles of Impeachment brought up by the Honourable House of Commons against him and by Order of the right honourable the Lords in Parliament of the 16. of this Instant directed to be put in As to the 13. Article of the said first Articles and the matters therein Charged allmatters or things in the same or any of the rest of the said Articles contained which concern any Act of Hostility whether between the King his Subjects or between Subject Subject or which may be conceived to arise upon the comming of any English Army against Scotland or the comming of the Scotish Army into England or upon any Action attempt assistance Councell or devise having relation thereunto and falling out by the occasion of the late troubles proceding the late Conclusion of the Treaty and returne of the Scottish Army into Scotland this Defendant saith that it is enacted by an Act made during the sitting of this present Parliament that the same and whatsoever hath ensued thereupon whether treuching upon the Lawes and Liberties of the Church and Kingdome or upon his Majesties Honour and Authority in no time hereafter may be called in Question or resented as a wrong Nationall or Personall and that no mention be made thereof in time comming neither in Judgement nor out of Judgement but that it be held and reputed as though never such things had beene thought or wrought as by the said Act may more at large appeare with this that this Defendant doth averre that he is none of the persons excepted by the said Act or the said offences charged upon this Defendant any of the offences excepted by the said Act. And as to all the rest of the said first and further Articles this Defendant saving to himselfe all advantages of exception to the said Articles humbly saith he is not Guilty of all or any the matters by the said Articles charged in such manner and forme us the same are by the said Articles charged against him VV. Cant. The same day I find this entry in the Commons Iournall to wit on the 22. Jan. 1643. The Lords by Sir Robert Rich and Mr. Page sent downe the Answer of William Archbishop of Cant. to the first and further Articles of impeachment brought up by this House against him which was read and ordered to be referred to the Commitmittee appointed to manage the evidence against the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and accordingly delivered to Serjeant Wilde After this the House of Commons to expedite his Tryall on the 22. February 1643. ORdered that the Committee appointed to mannage the evidence at the Tryall of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury doe peremptorily meete this afternoone at three of the Clocke in the Court of Wards upon the distribution of the parts of the evidence The Commons and Lords being all ready for his Tryall and having given him as much convenient time to prepare himselfe and his witnesses as he could desire to prevent all clamours of the Prelaticall and Canterburian party began now to thinke of a peremptory day for his Tryall and thereupon I finde this Order entred in the Commons Journall 4. Marcii 1643. A Message to be sent to the Lords to desire them to appoint a day for the Tryall of the Bishop of Canterbury Master Serjeant Wilde went up to the Lords to appoint a day for the Tryall of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Serjeant Wilde brings answer that the Lords have appointed to morrow senight for the tryall of the Archbishop of Canterbury For which purpose the Lords made this following Order Die Lunae 4. Marcii 1644. Ordered that the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury shall appeare before their Lordships on Tuesday the 12th of this instant March at nine of the Clock in the morning At which time this House will proceed against the Arch-Bishop upon the first and further Articles of Impeachment brought up from the house of Commons against him for high Treason and high Crimes and misdemeanours whereof the said Arch-Bishop is hereby to take notice and provide himselfe accordingly After this the Arch-Bishop Petitioning the Commons House that Sir Henry Midmay a Member thereof might bee examined as a witnesse for him at his tryall this Order was thereupon conceived 9. Marcii 1644. The humble Petition of William Arch-Bishop of Canterbury desiring that Sir Henry Mildmay may be examined as a witnesse in his businesse he being to come to his tryal on Tuesday next was this day read And it is Ordered according to his Petition that he shall be examined as a witnesse at the tryall of the said Bishop accordingly It was likewise then ordered that diverse Members of the House of Commons shal be examined as witnesses against him And that the Lords be moved by Serjeant Wilde that some Members and Attendants of the Lords House be examined at the Arch-Bishops Tryall And that it be referred to the Committee of Sequestrations to consider of some convenient recompence for such Clerks Sollicitors and others as have been or shall bee imployed in the transscribing of breviats and other services done by them to the Committee for the Bishop of Canterbury his tryall On the 12. of March his Tryall according to the former Order was entred upon of which I shall give you this summary account Never was there in any age such a deliberate solemne patient impartiall hearing of any case in the High Court of Parliament nor in any Court of Justice else in our own or any other Kingdom whatsoever as there was of this Archbishops The first day of his Tryall began the twelfth of March 1643. wherein the whole time was spent in reading the Articles of Impeachment his answers to them and introductory Speeches to the charge and evidence against him made by Serjeant Wilde and the Arch-bishop himselfe The first part of the evidence upon the 1 2 3 4. Originall and 2 3 4 10. Additionall Articles was managed by Iohn Maynard Esquire one of the Commons House wherein foure whole dayes namely March 13. 16. 18. Anno 1643. and March 28. 1644. were spent the forenoons of them in the evidence and proofs the after-noons in the Arch-bishops Answers and Master Maynards replyes unto them The second part of the evidence was prosecuted by Robert Nicholas Esquire a Member of the House of Commons which took up three whole dayes viz. Aprill 16. and May 4. 16. morning and evening in

to which we shall onely adde That the Arch-bishop having stopt the English Presses to all Orthodox Books against his Popish Innovations at home endeavoured to hinder the Printing of them abroad in Forraign parts to which end by Sir William Boswels means then Leager Ambassador at the Hague and the assistance of one Iohn le Maire preacher in Amsterdam his constant Spie and Intelligencer to give notice of all English and Scottish Books there printing as appears by sundry Originall Letters under his hand and seal found in the Arch-bishops studdy he procured the States of the United Provinces in the Low Countries to make a generall Proclamation in Aprill 1639. against the Printers and spreaders of Libellous and Seditious Books against the Church and Prelates of England and obtained a Proclamation or Order from the Townes of Amsterdam and Roterdam for the apprehending and punishing of Master Can and other English men who Printed such English and Scottish Books which is evident by divers coppies thereof and Letters from Sir William Boswell and others to the Arch-bishop By meanes whereof the Presses both in England and the Netherlands were all closed up against Orthodox English Books under the notion of Libellous and Seditious Pamphlets and could neither be Printed nor imported without great danger and censure On the contrary divers Popish books of all sorts as well in English as Latin French and other Languages were Printed and dispersed in London by Priests Jesuits Papists and their Agents without any restaint or search made after them or punishment inflicted on the Printers or dispersers of them yea many thousands of them were dayly imported by help of the Queens Priests and Capucins who dispersed them and if the searchers or others seized them at the Custome house according to the Statute of 3. Iacobi c. 5. which Enacts That no person or persons shall bring from beyond the seas nor shall print buy or sell any Popish Primers Ladies Psalters Manuels Rosaries Popish Catechismes Missals Breviaries Portals Legends and Lives of Saints conteining any superstitious matter Printed or Written in any Language whatsoever nor any other superstitious Books Printed or Written in the English tongue upon pain of forfiture of 40. s. for every such Booke c. The Arch-bishop or his Chaplains would presently send to the Searchers and enjoyn them to restore these Books to the owners that claimed them or else command them to bring them in to the High Commission Office upon pretence to proceed against the Importers and to have the Books themselves publikely adjudged to be burnt where after a little space they were delivered out from thence to the Importers without any penalty or confiscation and then freely dispersed among the Roman Priests and English Catholiques to foment them in their Idolatry Superstition and seduce others unto Popery as one Iohn Egerton a searcher deposed and others attested of which more hereafter Which compared with the premised Licensing of Popish and purging Orthodox Books against Popery will most perspicuously discover his impious designes to advance and set up Popery among us by degrees The fifth particular branch of the Evidence to prove the first Generall Charge against the Arch-bishop of Canterbury WEE shall in the next place proceed to the eighth and ninth Originall Article which we shall addresse our selves to prove and make a fifth Generall Proof of his Trayterous Endeavours to subvert Gods true Religion by Law established in our Church and to set up Popish superstition and Idolatry in its steed and that is His countenancing commending fomenting and preferring of divers Clergy-men who were most addicted to and greatest Writers sticklers for Arminian Errors and Superstious Popish Doctrines Ceremonies Innovations to the best Ecclesiasticall Dignities Promotions Benefices and making some of them Chaplaines to his Majesty to the Princes Highnesse and Heads of Colledges in our Vniversities to poyson those Fountaines of Religion Seconded with his contrary discountenancing suppressing suspending censuring imprisoning persecuting and driving forth of this Kingdome such zealous Orthodox Preaching Ministers who were most bold and resolute to oppose them For pregnant proof of the former Branch of this particular First it is clear and undenyable not onely by known experience and divers Letters found in his study but by the Docquet Bookes and privy Signets on record that this Archbishop contrary to the use of his Predecestors incroached usurped to himselfe from the year of our Lord 1627. when he first grew potent at Court and became Bishop of Bath Wells afterwards of London before he was Archbishop and ever since he mounted to the See of Canterbury the disposition and donation of all or most Bishopricks Deaneries Prebendaries and Benefices of note in his Majesties gift or in the gift of the Lord Keeper and Master of the Court of Wards not onely within the Kingdomes of England but of Scotland and Ireland too and that he usurped the power of nominating Chaplaines in ordinary to his Majesties and the Princes Highnesse contrary to all former Presidents belonging time out of mind to the Lord High Chamberlaines Office who had the nomination of these Chaplaines and swore and invested them in their office as Master Oldesworth a Member of the House of Commons Secretary to the late High Chamberlaine the Honourable Earle of Pembrooke attested upon Oath and the Noble Earle himselfe averred upon his Honour a thing so notorious to all old Courtiers and Chaplaines in ordinary to the King as to doubt of it were a Solecisme To make this apparent by punctuall proofes we shall instance in such particular persons which were advanced by him to Bishopricks even for their erronious Arminian opinions or dangerous Popish Tenets and Practises We have formerly proved that Richard Mountague was questioned and voted against in the Commons House in Parliament April 13. 1626. for his Arminian and Popish Tenets published in his Gagge and Appeale and endeavouring as much as in him lay to reconcile us to Popery which complaint was revived against him in the ensuing Parliament An. 1627. No sooner was that Parliament dissolved but this Prelate then Bishop of London who fomented protected him against the Parliament all he could in stead of discountenancing punishing advanced him to the Bishoprick of Chichester in the place of Bishop Carlton who writ against him This was evidenced by the Docquet Book it selfe wherein this entry of the Privy Signet and Election is recorded Iuly 18. 1628. His Majesties Royall assent for Richard Mountague Batchelour in Divinity to bee Bishop of Chichester signified By order of the LORD BISHOP OF LONDON Laud And by the Record it selfe of the Kings Royall Assent produced at the Bat by Master Prynne and there Read in these Words CHARLES R. REX c. Reverendissimo in Christo Patri perdilecto perquam fideli Nostro Domino Georgio providentia divina Cantuar Archiepiscopo ac totius Angliae Primati Metropolitano ac aliis quibuscunque Episcopis quorum in hac

he purged it out because it intimated the Pope to be Antichrist and subjection to him an Antichristian Yoke of bondage both which compared with his Purgations out of Bishop Hals Book of Episcopacy to the same effect proves him a Papist with a witnesse and a speciall friend to the Popes Holinesse of whose honour among us he is extraordinary tender That the Pope is the Antichrist all Forraign Domestick Protestant Divines and some Papists too unanimously agree except Mountague and Shelford his creatures And whereas he pretends no Councill hath so determined We answer that the Synod of Gape in France Anno 1603. the whole Synod and Convocation in Ireland Ann. 1615. in the very Articles of their Religion Num. 80. with the whole Convocation and Parliament of England in the Act for the Subsidy of the Clergy 30 Jacobi to omit others define the Pope to be the Antichrist and Popery Antichristian more fully then those Letters-Patents and why these new Letters-Patents should not determine them to be such as well as the old ones both in King James and in King Charles their Reignes but must now be revoked after they had passed the great Seale of England because this Archbishop would have it so transcends any mans capacity to guesse at any other probable reason except onely this Prelats affection both to the Pope and Popery or enmity against the reformed Churches and their Religion For his incivilities to Master Ruly by reason of this clause our Witnesses testimoniall will outsway his bare deniall of them Fiftly the premises abundantly manifest to all that the Archbishop invaded diminished the ancient Immunities and Priviledges of the Dutch and Walloon Churches in all parts not their pretended encroachments onely upon our Churches Priviledges and that he was so farre from being their friend that they esteemed him then their greatest enemy If they formerly returned him any thanks by way of Court-complement for not taking away all their priviledges as well as some of them after many yeers hot contest we are certaine they justly complained of him ten times more for invading depriving them of sundry of their ancient Immunities which almost brought their Churches to utter ruine In few words his owne forecited Papers and Monsieur Bulteels Booke of the manifold troubles of those Churches by this Arch-Prelats prosecution will abundantly falsifie this his pretended friendship towards them and remaine as a lasting Record against him to Posterity All which considered the whole Bulk and every particle of all the proofs and evidences produced by us to make good the first branch of the Commons first generall Charge of High-treason against him remaine altogether unshaken unavoyded maugre all his sophisticall evasions protestations and shifting answers to them And so much for the first branch of his first generall Charge The Archbishops Defence and Answers to the COMMONS Evidence in the maintenance of the Second Branch of their first Generall Charge touching his Endevours to reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome and the Commons Reply thereunto I Proceed now to the Archbishops Defence against the Second Branch of the Commons first Generall Charge to wit his Endevours to reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome To this he gave some general Answers in his Generall Defence at the Lords Barre Septemb. 2. 1644. to this effect My Lords said he I am charged for endevouring to introduce Popery and reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome I shall recite the sum of the Evidence and Arguments given in for to prove it First I have in my first Speech nominated divers persons of Eminency whom I reduced from Popery to our Church And if this be so then the Argument against me is this I converted many from Popery Ergo I went about to bring in Popery and to reconcile the Church of England to the Church of Rome Secondly I am charged to be the Author of the c. Oath in the New Canons parcell of which Oath is to abjure Popery and that I will not subject the Church of England to the Church of Rome A more strict Oath then ever was made against Popery in any age or Church And then the argument against me is this I made and tooke an Oath to abjure Popery and not to subject the Church of England to the Church of Rome Therefore I was inclinable to Popery and endeavoured to subject the Church of England to the Church of Rome Thirdly the third Canon of the late New ones was made by me which is against Popery and then the Argument is I made a Canon against Popery Ergo I was inclinable to and endevoured to introduce it Fourthly I was twice seriously offered a Cardinalship and I refused it because I would not be subject to the Pope and Church of Rome Ergo I was addicted to Popery and endevoured to reduce the Church of England into subjection to the Church of Rome Fiftly I writ a Booke against Popery in Answer to Fisher the Jesuit and then the Argument is this I writ a Book against Popery Ergo I am inclinable to Popery and laboured to introduce it Sixtly it is alledged I concealed and cherished the Plot of the Jesuits discovered by Habernfeild and therefore I intended to bring in Popery and reduce the Church of England to the Church of Rome I amswer either this Plot was not reall and if so then Romes Masterpeece is quite blowne up and published in vaine Or else it was reall then I was really in danger of my life for opposing Popery and this Plot. Then the Argument from it must be this I was in danger of my life for cherishing the Jesuites Plot of reducing the Church of England to the Church of Rome Ergo I cherished and endevoured to effect this Plot. Seventhly I laboured to make a reconciliation between the Lutherans and Calvinists Ergo I laboured to introduce Popery and make a reconciliation between the Church of England and the Church of Rome This generall defence and scoffing answer of his at the Lords Barre seemed very specious to some ignorant Auditors who took these feined objections of his owne forging to be the arguments and maine strength of the Commons Evidence produced to convict him of a serious endeavour to subvert the Protestant Religion introduce popery and reconcile the Church of England unto Rome when as the Commons made no such objections from the Evidence and proofs against him Wherupon they replyed that he did but fight with his owne shadow and absurd arguments of his owne framing as he did in his Sear-chamber Speech instead of repeating and answering their reall Objections and proofs against him transforming his owne defence into their Charge and Evidence a meer sophisticall Jesuiticall practice of which he made use throughout his Tryall to which we shall reply in order First the Commons never objected that ever he reduced any from popery but that many were seduced

Prince and Bishop of Conchen when in Spaine the Articles of the Duke of Buckingham against the Lord Digby and the Lord Digbies against him in full Parliament Anno 1626. To which they Object I was privy because I was Confessor to the Duke and his Cabinet Counsell at that time and because my Letter to Bishop Hall my owne Diary and Letters to and from the Duke whiles in Spaine with the Note in my Masse Booke discover and confirme it Secondly by the French Match with the Queen promoted purposely to usher in Popery and to reconcile us unto Rome to which they Object I was privy and assistant as my Letters to the Duke my intimacy and compliance with the Queen my inhibitng Ministers to pray and punishing them for praying for the Queens conversion my censuring of Master How for praying That the young Prince might not be brought up in Popery with my magnifying of Queen Maries dayes and depressing King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths demonstrate Secondly by sundry particular instances as First Ludovicus a Sancta Maria his Conclusiones Theologicae Secondly the Plot discovered to me by Haberufield Thirdly the Dedicating of Fastidius his Works to the King by Cardinall Barbarino Fourthly Sancta Clara his Deus Natura Gratia writ of purpose to reconcile us to Rome with which I was acquainted and maintained the Author of it Saint Giles a most dangerous seducing Priest in the University of Oxford Fifthly the proffers of Cardinalships to English men and twice to my selfe Sixthly the strange encrease and proceedings of Papists Priests Jesuits and the Popish Hierarchy in Ireland to which I was privy yet denied it and incensed the King against the Commons for complaining of it Seventhly the Popes sending of divers Nuncioes successively into England where they resided and were publickly entertained with our reciprocall sending and maintaining Agents at Rome to work a Reducement of us back to that Antichristian See To this I answer First that I was neither the Author nor Fomenter of the Spanish Match nor of the Kings Voyage into Spaine which was charged on the Duke and the Lord Dighy It is true my Lord Duke was pleased to enter into a neer familiarity with me and to make me his Confessor and that I writ Letters to him into Spaine and received Letters from him thence but this proves not that I was privy to that Plot as for the Popes Letters to the Prince and the Bishop of Conchen in Spaine to pervert him in his Religion they are nothing to me and my Letter to Bishop Hall was many yeers after that Match broken off Secondly there is no proofe of my furthering the Match with France or that the end of it was to reduce us back to Rome the respects and services I did for the Queen were no more then in civility and duty I ought to performe out of the duty I bare to the King my Master whose Consort and Wife she is her gracious favour towards me proceeded only from her owne gracious disposition not from my deserts or seeking and I had no reason to reject it because it would be a meanes for me to work the more effectually upon her Majesty For my giving Order in my Metropolitical Visitation to my Visitor to inhibit Ministers to pray for the Queens conversion or questioning any for praying for it I absolutely deny it and for Master How he was justly censured for his prayer it being scandalous to his Majesty in questioning his care of the Princes education in the true Religion and infusing jealousies into the peoples heads of his education in Popery and inclination to it As for my pretended magnifying of Queene Maries dayes and depressing of King Edwards and Queene Elizabeths in the Preface to the OXFORD STATUTES I answer that that Preface is none of mine nor proved to be so and if it were yet the words relate to the State and Statutes of the Vniversity of Oxford only in their dayes not of our Church and Religion Secondly to the particular Instances I answer that the first second and third of them concerne not me I was neither the cause nor author of nor privy to them nor could I hinder them and the second of them is a strong evidence for me For the fourth of them Sancta Clara his Book it was printed at Lyons not at London and Saint Giles was not the Author of it but another Fryar I had no hand in it nor was privy to it yet it was disliked by many of the Papists because it gave much advantage to our Church and Religion For his being at Oxford it was much against my will by the Kings speciall Warrant for which I have his hand and I maintained him not there but the King To the fifth the proffer of Cardinals Caps to others is nothing to me and for the offer of a Cardinalship to my selfe two severall times as I could not hinder the offers so I rejected them and acquainted the King both with the person and thing which is all I could doe expressing the cause of my refusall thereof to be That something dwelt within me that would not suffer that till Rome were other then it is as appeares by my owne Diary The strongest Evidence that can be to acquit me from any compliancy with Rome To the sixth I answer that the encrease and proceedings of the Papists in Ireland mentioned in the Objected Letters and Papers are nothing to me I was not the cause nor author thereof the Monasteries and Nu●meries mentioned in them were but poor little houses My answer to the Cōmons Remonstrance was penned by the Kings speciall command as appears by the endorsment I knew not of these Irish papers nor of the encrease of popery there whē I returned an answer to the Remonstr An. 1628. these Proclamations letters papers being dated since that time for the Deputies letters they are nothing to me I could not hinder the writing and directing of them to me and himselfe hath already been impeached condemned for his Actions for which I am not to answer To the seventh I say it was not in my power to hinder the Popes sending his Nuncioes hither which the King condiscended to upon the Queens earnest desire to accommodate and satisfie her Majesty in some things which concerned her in her Religion For the Agents sent and residing in Rome they were hers not mine sent thither by her Majesty without my privity and against my liking To this was replied First that the forementioned Evidence fully demonstrats that the Archbishop was both privy consenting assisting to the Spanish Match Voyage and to the very Instructions given to the Prince before he went into Spaine how he ought to satisfie the Pope about King James his proving him to be the Antichrist in his publique writings therefore the Popes Letter to the Prince and Bishop of Conehen to pervert the Prince in his Religion with the Dukes and Lord Digbies attempts there to