ton's " An Apology for an appeal to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, with two sermons for God and the King," " The News from Ipswich," and " The Divine Tragedy, recording God's fearful judgment against Sabbath Breakers." "The Divine Tragedy" contained a pass age which reflected on the late AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Wm. Noy, who had con ducted the former prosecution against Prynn. "Who," said Mr. Littleton, the King's Soli citor, "was most shamefully abused by a slander laid upon him, as if God's judg ment fell upon him for so eagerly prose cuting Mr. Prynn for His Histrio Mastix, which judgment was this : that he, laughing at Mr. Prynn while he was suffering upon the pillory, was struck with an issue of blood in his privy parts, which could not be stopped till the day of his death, which followed soon after." Mr. Littleton said: "But the truth of this, my Lords, you shall find to be as probable as the rest, for we have here three or four gentlemen of good credit and rank to testify upon oath that he had that issue long before." He called out for room to let the gentlemen come forward, but none appeared. The " News from Ipswich " vindicated the honor of Matthew Moren, Bishop of Nor wich, " as being a learned, pious and reve rend father of the church." Prynn himself, in his petition for relief to the-Cromwellian parliament afterwards, thus described the books : — "Denying the prelates' jurisdiction over other min isters to be jure divino, — charging them with many errors and innovations in "religion, usurpation of his Majesty's prerogative and subjects' liberty, abuses and extortions in the high commission, and other ecclesiastical courts, suppressing preaching and pain ful ministers without a cause, licensing Papists, Arminian, and other erroneous books against the Sabbath, setting up altars, images and crucifixes, removing the railings in communion tables, and bowing down to them, altering the book of common prayer, the books for the gunpowder treason, and late fast, in some material passages in favor of
Popery and Papists; which things (though very notorious, and oft complained against by this Hon orable House in former and late parliaments) were yet reputed scandallous."
The defendants (before answering) put in a cross-bill, under all their hands, against the Archbishop of Canterbury and others of the prelates, charging them with usurping the royal prerogative, with unlawful inno vations in church worship, the licensing of Popish and Arminian books, and other mis conduct, and also setting forth their answers to the information. Their counsel dared not sign the bill, and Prynn tendered it to Lord Keeper Finch, praying it might be ac cepted without counsel's signature. Finch, having read it, refused to admit it, and delivered it to the King's attorney. Laud was exceedingly wroth at this evidence of the defendants' defiance, and demanded of the judges their opinion whether the de fendants could not be punished as libellers for the matter contained in the cross-bill. They decided (but one judge dissenting) in the negative, " for it was tendered in a legal way, and the King's courts are open to all men." Thereupon the defendants prepared their answers to the information, but having again set forth an array of defiant and scandalous matters, their counsel refused to sign them. They then petitioned the court for leave to sign the answers themselves, but this was denied, and the court decided that they "put in their answers by Monday sevennight under their counsel's hands, or else the matters of the information to be taken pro confesso." At the end of this time Prynn again petitioned " that having been for above a week debarred access to his counsel, and his servant, who should solicit for him, be ing detained close prisoner in the messen ger's hands, and it being difficult to get his counsel to repair to him during the term, he, having been a barrister-at-law . . . might . . . have liberty to put in his answer under his own hand, and not under his counsel's, who
