nine Articles as they stood. Bancroft burst in with a somewhat ineffectual attempt to pour contempt upon the Puritans by a far-fetched jest: "I conclude you are of Master Cartwright's mind, who affirmed that we ought in ceremonies rather to conform to the Turks than the Papists; otherwise, why do ye come here in your Turkey gowns instead of your proper habits?" The humour of phrase was ill-timed. The stout objectors sat on in their rich gowns, and the King demanded that the objection should be formally answered. Bancroft was more successful in his theology than in his wit. He had little difficulty in persuading the King that it would be rash indeed to tie down the Church of England by the bonds of the Lambeth Articles to a rigid Calvinism such as he had never favoured. James himself would have, he said, Predestination "tenderly handled." Common sense, it would appear, was not out of court in the long theological discussion that followed. Such bitter questions as intention were debated by Dr. Reynolds, and one of the prime points in the controversy between Laud and Fisher twenty years later was touched by the King with a smart onslaught of practical application: "Why, this is like one Master Craig in Scotland, with his I renounce and I abhor, his multiplied detestations and abrenuntiations, which so amazed simple people that they fell back to Popery. You would swell the Book of Articles into a volume as big as the Bible: and I must carry my confession of faith in my table-book, not in my head."
