Chap. V. Tbe HISTORY of the PuRITANS. plied, that the Gme~1a-bible was only tolerated, not allowed· by autho~ K. Charles I· rity, and deferved to be fuppreffed for the marginal note on Exod. i. 17. ~· which allows difobedience to the king's comm:llld. Ge!librand's almanack had left out all the faints and apomes, and ·put in thofe named by Mr. Fox, and therefore to be cenfured. As to the book of martyrs, it was an abridgment of that book I oppofed (fays his grace), leafl: the book itfelf lhould be brought into difufe, and leafl: any thing material fhould be left out. But the licenfing of books was left in general to my chaplains, for an archbifhop had better grind, than take that work into his own hands; and whereas it has been inferred, that what is done by my chaplain mufl: be taken as my aCt, I conceive no man can by law be punilhed criminally for his fervants faCt, unlefs it be proved that he had a hand in it. The like anfwer the archbifhop gave to the call:rating and licenfing books, his chaplains did it; and fince it was not proved they did it by his exprels command, they mull: anfwer for it. He admits that heal– tered ·the prayers for the sth of Nov. and for the general fafl by his ma– jefly's command; and he is of opinion the expreflions were too harlh, and therefore.ought to be changed. He denied that he ever connived at the importation of popilh books;. and if any fuch were retl:ored to the owners, it was by order of the :high commiffion, and therefore he is not anfwcrable for it. The commons replied, that the decree for regulating the prefs was Managers procured by him with a defign to enlarge his jurifdiCl:ion; and though reply. f"Ome things in it might deferve the thanks of the flationers, they com- Prynne, P· plained loudly that books formerly printed by authority, might not be re- 515 ' printed without a new licence ·from himfelf--As to particulars they affirm, that the Geneva-bible was printed by authority of queen Elizabeth and king James CUm privi/egio; and in the I 5th Jacob. there WaS an impreffion by the king's own printer, notwithfl:anding the note upon Exodus, which is warranted both by fathers and canonifl:s. Gellibrand's almanack was certainly no offence, and therefore did not deferve that the author lhould be tried before the high commiilion; and if the queen and the papifis were offended at it, it was to be liked never the worfe by all good protefl:ants. The archbilhop is pleafed indeed, to cafl: the wh"Ole blame of the prefs on his cbap!ttins; but ·we are of opinion (fay the managers) that the archbilhop is anfwerable for what his <::haplains do in this cafe; the trufl: of licenfing 'books being originally invetl:ed in him, his chaplains _being his deputies he mull: anfwer for them at his peril. When t~e archb1lhop ofYork in the reign of Edward I. was quetl:ioned in parliament, for excommunicating two fervants of the bilhop of Durham, employed in the -king's fervice, the archbifhop threw the blame on his. 2 corn-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=