Canterburys Doom

The evidence to prove the first general branch of his Charge, concerning the alteration, ub version of Religion.

THe Archbishop in his Speech in Justification of his Innocency and sincerity in matters of Religion, made at the Lord's Barre at the entrance of his Trial, most peremptorily, challenged all that was between Heaven and Hell justly to tax him in any one particular, savoring either of Popish superstition or Idolatry; But on the contrary, the Committee of the House of Commons might more justly have challenged him in their entering upon his Charge, to nominate any person, whether Prelate, Minister, or Laic in any age, professing himself a Protestant, who during his abode on earth twixt Heaven and Hell, was so guilty, so peccant in this nature as they should undeniably manifest him to be: wherefore if they allotted him any place at or after his death, but Hell it self, it must be either a Popish Purgatory, or such a middle place as some Papists assign to that Newter Erasmus, betwixt Heaven and Hell, perchance some losty Gibbet or Pinacle in the Air, whereon his Head and Quarters might be hanged up for a lasting Monument of his Treason in this kind: which they manifested him to be guilty of by these ensuing particular evidences.

First, by his endeavors to set up and introduce all kind of Popish superstitious Idolatrous ornaments, furniture, ceremonies in our church formerly cast out of it upon the reformation: In pursuit whereof, they first trailed this Romish Fox to his own Kennel at Lambeth, where having unkenneled, they chased him from thence by his hot Popish sent, to the Kings own royal Chapel at Whitehal & Westminster Abby, from thence to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge; from thence to Canterbury, Winchester, and most other Cathedrals in England; and from them to our Parish Churches and Chapels, all which he miserably defiled, corrupted with Popish superstitious Crucifixes, Altars, Bowings, Ceremonies, Tapers, Copes, and other Innovations.

To begin with his own Kennel at Lambeth: We shall first lead you by the hand into his public Chapel there, a place devoted to God's worship, and evidence what Popish Superstitious, Pictures, Utensils, Vestments, Ceremonies, Innovations he there introduced, and constantly practiced since his instalment in the Archbishopric of Canterbury, never heard off in any his Predecessors days since the beginning of reformation in King Edward the 6th. and Queen Elizabeth's reigns.

First, we shall manifest what Idolatrous, superstitious Popish Pictures were there newly repaired, furbished, erected by him in this Chapel, to the great scandal of our Religion, and encouragement of Papists in their Idolatry, contrary to our Statutes, Articles of Religion, Homilies, Jnjunctions, Writer • , & the established Doctrine of our Church, wherein the matter of fact stands thus: In the beginning of Reformation by virtue of the Statute of 3. and 4. Ed. 6. c. 10. for the abolishing, defacing, and putting away of divers Books and Jmages then standing in any Church or Chapel; of the several Homilies against the Perill of Jdolatry, then published by Authority, & of Queen Elizabeth's subsequent Jnjunctions (given by her as well to the Clergy as Laity of this Realm, by the advise of her most honorable Council in the first year of her Rain, for the advancement of the honor of Almighty God, and suppression of superstition throughout her Realms, Injunction, 2. 3. 23. 25. and Articles of inquiry thereon: Artic. 2. 45. which enjoined, All Pictures, Paintings, Images, and other monuments of Idolatry, and superstition to be utterly extinct, removed, abolished and distroyed, so that there remain no memory of the same in Walls, Glassewindows, or else where within any Churches or Houses: the Idolatrous superstitious Pictures set up in times of Popery in the Glassewindowes of the Chapel at Lambeth house, were among others defaced, demolished in such sort, that naught but a few broken imperfect fragments of them remained, peeced up with white incoherent Glass, and so continued altogether unrepaired, unfurbished, and utterly neglected, till this superstitious Arch Prelate was translated to the See of Canterbury after the death of Dr. Georg Abbot, as was attested by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Vicar General, Dr. Daniel Featly household Chaplin to Archbishop Abbot, and Mr. Prynne, who had been out in that Chapel, & exactly viewed it in Abbots days and since: But no sooner was the Prisouer at the Bar, W. Laud translated from London to Lambeth, but with all expedition & care, to his great cost [as appears by the Glasiers Bills] he caused these demolished superstitious Pictures in the Glassewindowes to be repaired, furbished, beautified, and made more complete and accurate with new painted Glass, then ever before, setting them up again in fresh lively colors, according to the very Pattern in the great Roman Missal, or Mass Book (which he had diligently noted with his own hand almost in every Page) so as no Chapel in Rome could be more Idolatrous, Popish, superstitious in regard of such offensive Pictures, then his at Lambeth, the particulars whereof, after (a late double serious view) were thus attested before the Lord's upon Oath, by Mr. William Prynne, Mr. Pember (the Glasier who helped to repair and set them up) Mr. Dell the Archbishops own secretary: Mr. Brown (his Ioyner) Sir Nathaniel Brent, and Dr. Featley.

That in the East Window of the Archbishops Chapel at Lambeth just over the high Altar (there newly erected) consisting of five several Panes, there was in the middle pane in painted Glass, a large Crucifix, or Picture of our Savior Christ hanging on the Cross, under which were the Picturs of a Scul, & of dead men's bones, with a Baskit full of Tooles, Nailes, and Round about the Crucifix were the High Priests with their Officers an horseback, and some Soldiers with others who crucified Christ, & the 2. thieves standing on foot; which portrature was taken out of the very express pattern thereof in the Archbishops own Roman Missal printed Salamanticae 1589. p. 304. Under this Pane there were these latin verses in the Glass.

In the two next panes, were the two Thieves hanging on two Crosses on either side of the Crucifix, standing in the midst: Under one was written in the Glass, Domine memento mei, 1634. Under the other: Descendat de Cruce, 1634. signifying the year when the Window was repaired; to wit, the very first year after his translation from London to Canterbury: In the two outtermost panes of this Window, there were the pictures of Abraham offering up his Son Isaac, and of the Brazen Serpent elevated on a Pole in the Wilderness.

In the uppermost Window on the South-side of the Chapel, consisting of three panes of painted Glass newly repaired, there was the picture of Christ rising out of his grave, in the middle Pane, directly taken out of the portraiture of it in his forementioned Roman Missal, p. 326. with the Picture of Jonah, coming forth of the Whales belly, and of Sampson carrying away the Gates of Gaza, in the other Panes.

In the second Window on the South side having three panes, there was in the middlemost of them, the Picture of Christ, in fresh glorious Colours, ascending up into Heaven, with his Disciples and others kneeling down on their knees and praying to him: the pattern whereof was borrowed from this Missal Romanum, pag. 352. where you may view it to the life. In the two other panes was the picture of Enoch translated, and of Elias ascending up into Heaven in a fiery Chariot.

In the third Window on the South side, consisting of three panes, in the midlemost was a glorious radiant Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove, descending on the Apostles in cloven tongues; the exact Idea whereof you may view at your leisure in his foresaid Roman Missal, pag. 360. whence he took this pattern. In the other two adjoining Panes were the Pictures of God's giving the Law to Moses in Mount Sinai; and of fire descending from Heaven, at the prayer of Elisha.

In the fourth Southerne Window of three Panes, standing without the Skreene of the Chapel (for no seats of Civil Judicature, and so not Christ's tribunal, but only Ecclesiastical baudy Courts by this Arch-Prelates Canons must be kept within the body of any Church, under pain of an High-Commission Censure) was the Picture of Christ, with his twelve Apostles, sitting on his judgment seat, and judging the world, with sundry persons kneeling and adoring before him, at the Papists use to paint the same; under which there were these latin verses written.

In the two outward panes were the Picture of King Solomon in his throne, disciding the controversy between the two Harlots, who was the true Mother of the living Child; and of David passing sentence against the Amalekite, who brought him tidings that he had slain King Saul.

In the uppermost window on the North side of the Chapel, having three Panes, there was the Picture of Christ raising up Lazarus out of his Grave, and of God Himself raining down Manna from Heaven: Extracted out of the Popish Book of Pictures found in the Arch-Bishops private study, entitled, Imagines Vitae, Passionis & Mortis, D. N. Jesus Christi, Printed by Boetius a Bolswert: Anno 1623. With the Picture and story of Elias raising the Widdowes, and Elisha the Shunamites Son.

In the second North Window, was the Picture of the Virgin Mary, with Christ a sucking Babe in her Arms, and the Wise-men coming to and adoring Christ; borrowed from the Roman Missal, pag. 39. under which was this Inscription in the Glass, Omnes genetes quascunque fecisti venicut & adorabunt: In the outward panes were the Portraictures of the Queen of Sheba coming to visit Solomon, and of the Tribes of Israel coming up to Hebron to Crown David King with the Picture of Christ administering his last Supper to his Disciples, (which portraiture was derived from the Roman Missal, p. 181.) And the picture of an old man, with a glory round about his head, representing God the Father, striking Miriam with Leprosy.

In the third North window, there was the History of the Annuntiation, gloriously painted, the Picture of the Virgin Mary, and of the Holy Ghost, overshadowing her, and the Angel saluting her, together with the History and Picture of the birth of Christ, both taken out of the Roman Missal; pag. 16. 36, 39. Wherein were likewise the Pictures of the burning-bush, and of Gideon's Fleece. All these Idolatrous superstitious Popish Pictures, (lately broken and defaced by the Soldiers placed in Garison in Lambeth House by reason of the great scandal they gave unto them,) were thus repaired and set up as new by the Arch-Bishops own special direction, at his proper charges, in his Chapel at Lambeth in the Yeare 1634. as appears by the Glasiers Bills found in his own Study at Lambeth, indorsed with the word, Payd. Master Pember the Glasier deposed, that the Archbishop caused his Master to repair the said Chapel Windowes, and set up all those Pictures, paying him for that work: Mr. Dell the Archbishops Secretary at tested, that the Archbishop thought fit to repair them, they being formerly defaced, and thereupon gave order for their reparation; And the Archbish. himself in answering this charge, confessed & justified the fact; alleging, that the Chapel at his coming to Lambeth lay so nastily, and the Windowes were so peeced, and quite out of Order and reparation, that it grieved his very heart to see it in such a condition, so as he could not resort unto it to worship God with any comfort; whereupon he gave Order for repairing, renewing these Glassewindowes, and out of his fragments of the old painted Glass remaining in them, (not by the help of the Pictures in his printed Mass-Book) he made a shift as well as he could, to make up the stories and representations formerly defaced, without any addition, but only of New-Glass in leiu of the old that was demolished.

Besides, Brown his Joyner being examined at the Lord's Barre against his will, confessed upon his Oath, that in the Chapel at Croyden, there was an old broken Crucifix in the Window, which he by the Archbishops direction caused to be repaired, and made complete; which Picture was there remaining very lately; for which work Master Prynne found the Glafiers Bill discharged by the Archbishop himself among other of his Papers.

Now that this Archbishop being by his place Primate and Metropolitan of all Engl. principally entrusted with the care of Religion, who should of all other men be most vigilant against all Popish Idolatrous Innovations, even in his own principal Chapel at Lambeth, (whether many of the Nobility, Judges, Clergy, and persons of all sorts, as well strangers as Natives, usually resorted, and where most of our New Bishop • were commonly Consecrated,) should thus studuously and professedly repair, adore, and set up a fresh those Idolatrous, Superstitious, Blasphemous Romish Pictures, which were by virtue of our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions purposely defaced and broken down, as Monuments of Popish Superstition & Idolatry, contrary to the Word of God, and the established Doctrine of our Church in the very beginning of Reformation, which had thus continued defaced during all his Protestant Predecessors times without the least renovation, restauration, and that by the help and president of the very Mass-Book, making the Pictures in it the very Pattern to shape his Chapel windows by, (even after sundry complaints against such practices in and by sundry late Parliaments, and one Remonstrance in Parliament of this kind against himself, Anno 1628.) in open affront of our Laws, Homilies, Articles, Injunctions, Parliaments, Writers, to the great encouragement of Papists, the infinite scandal of all sincere Protestants, and ill example of diverse others, both Clergy and Laity, (who generally imitated his example in repairing or new erecting in their Churches, Chapels, Colleges, Houses, the like unlawful Popish Idolatrous Images,) it can doubtless proceed from no other root, but a rotten Idolatrous Romish heart, and Traiterous endeavor to alter or subvert own establishd Protestant Religion in a more audacious open way, then ever any Protestant Prelate before him durst attempt.

But was this all the Popish superstition and furniture in this Archbishops Chapel? Truly no, all other parts of it must be suitable to the windows, else there would neither be uniformity nor decency in it, according to his corrupt opinion; Wherefore,

2ly. As he new molded his Chapel Windowes; so he likewise altered the ancient Communion Table; standing with the ends East and West, some distance from the Wall Table-wise, even from the beginning of Reformation till his coming to the Arch-Bishopric without any Rayle about it, into a New Altar placed Altarwise against the Wall, with the ends North and South, hedged in with a new costly Rail. Attested by Doctor Featly, Sir Nathaniel Brent, and Master Prynne.

3ly. Upon this new Altar he had much superstitious Romish furniture never used in his Predecessors days, as namely, two great Silver Candlesticks, with Tapers in them, besides Basons and other Silver Vessels (with a costly Common Prayer-Bocke, standing on the Altar, which as some say had a Crucifix on the bosses) with the Picture of Christ receiving his last Supper with his Disciples in a piece of Arras, hanging just behind the midst of the Altar, and a Crucifix in the Window directly over it; expressly taken out of the very Caremoniale Romanum (found in the Archbishops study, who was very well versed in it,) reformed by Pope Clement the 8. Parisijs 1633. l. 1. c. 12. p. 69. 60. which prescribes thus; Supra vero in planitie Altaris adsunt Candelabra argentea, si haberi possunt, sin minus ex Aurichalco, aut Cupro aurato pulchre fabricata, &c. Et super illis Cerei albi, in quorum medio locabitur Crux ex eodem Metallo, & opere praealta, ita ut pes Crucis aequet altitudinem vicinorum candelabrarum, & Crux ipsa tota Candelabris superemineat cum imagine sanctissimi Crucifixi, versa ad anteriorem Altaris faciem. Quod si Altare parieti adhareat, applicari poterit ipsi Parieti supra Altare pannus aliquis caeteris nobilior & speciosior, ubi intextae sint DOMINI NOSTRI JESU CHRISTI, aut gloriosae Virginis, vel Sanctorum IMAGINES, nisi jam in ipso pariete essent depictae, & decenter ornatae, Pag. 71. Habeant quaelibet Altaria DUO CANDELABRA CUM CEREIS, & in medio, CRUCEM, CUM IMAGINE CRUCIFIXI, &c. Out of Pontificale Romanum: set forth by Pope Clement the 8. Antuerpiae, 1626. pag. 57. In the Rubric, De Consecratione Electi in Episcopum. Paratur Altare cum Cruce, & duobus Candelabris, & super illud Missal, & Pontificale, & pluviale album, &c. Page 280. 281. Vestiunt Altare tobaleis, & ornamentis benedictis, ponentes desuper Crucem & alia Ornamenta. And out of the Canons of the Popish Council of Aix, An 1583. (The only Canon I have met with for railing in Altars, from which the Archbishop borrowed both the Railes and furniturne of his Newerected Altar) which prescribes thus, ( ) Unumquoa{que} Altare, ubi Commode Episcopus fieri posse judicarit, SEPI ATUR OMNINO septo ferreo, vel lapideo, vel saltem LIGNEO, Quod septum ab Altari distet saltem polices septem. Nec vero septum illud Laicus ingrediatur, dum Missae sacrificium fit. Habeat unumquodque Altare propriam superlectilem, & ornamenta decentia, tum ad ejus cultum & usum, tum ad Missae sacrificium in eo Religiose decenterque peragendum: Altaria singula ornata sint Cruce in medio collocata, nisi aliquae sit Imago, & CANDELABRIS DUOBUS AD MINUS, uno a dextra, Altero a sinistra parte posito. He who would thus regulate and adorn his Altar, Chapel by the very Roman Ceremonial. Pontifical, and this Popish Council, contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, Writers, condemning Altars, Tapers Crucifixes, must certainly be a Papist, both in judgment, and practice, yea, a professed introducer of Popish superstition and Idolatry. This new Altar furniture of his, was proved and attested upon Oath by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Doctor Featly, Doctor Haywood (his own Popish Chaplain) who justified his Lord, that he did it in imitation of the Kings Chapel at White-Hall, where he had seen not only Tapers and Candlesticks standding, but likewise burnnig (in the day time) on the Altar.

Fourthly, As this Archbishop introduced an Altar, so likewise, a Credentia, or side-Table into his Chapel, covered with a large Towel or Linnin Cloth, never seen, nor heard of there before his time, whereon the bread & wine intended to be consecrated at the Sacrament were first placed with a great deal of solemnity, before they were brought up to the Altar: After which the Archbishops Chaplains being about to Consecrate the Elements usually repaired to this Credentia, and taking them from thence into their hands, made three low bowings or Genuflections to the Altar, and coming up unto it, offered up the Bread and Wine thereat upon their knees, & then laid them on the Altar; which Ceremonies were there used in the Archbishops presence sundry times when the Sacrament was administered if not by his special Direction, yet certainly with his approbation, and without the least reprehension, as was proved by the several Oaths of Sir Nathaniel Brent, Dr. Featley, Mr. Cordwell (once servant to the Archbishop) Dr. Haywood also confessing he used this form of celebrating the Communion, and Consecrating the Elements in the Archbishops presence. Now this Credentia (the very Name his own Chaplains gave it) or diminutive preparatory Altar, whereon the Bread, wine, Paten & Chalice must first be solemnly placed, & from thence removed advanced to & offerred up at the high Altar, is a mere Popish Vtensill, never heard of in any Protestant Church, nor in the Church of England since reformation; the very Name and Thing being prescribed and frequently mentioned in the Roman Caeremoniall, Pontifical, and Missal, but seldom or never in any other Authors; Witnes this description of it. Caeremoniale Episcoporum l. 1. c. 12. p. 72. 73. 74. Restat ut de Mensa, seu Abaco, quam CREDENTIAM vocant pauca subijciamus. Ea vero IN MISSIS TANIVM SOLENNIBVS PREPARARI SOLET, a larere Epistolae in plano Presbiterij, atque a periete parumper disjuncta, &c. Eius mensura regulariter erit palmarum octo in longitudine, in latitudine, quatuor vel circa, in altitudine quinque, vel modicum ultra, lineogue mantuli mundo superstrato usque ad terram circumcirca pendenti, contegetur. Super ea ponentur duo Candelabra cum cereis albis, & in ipsius medio Calix, cum Patena, Palla, purificatorio, & bursa corporalia continens, at que ibi proxince Hostiaria cum hostijs, & pelvicula cum ampullis vini & aquae. Pontistcale Romanum p. 75. Et prope Altare CREDENTIA p. 566. Parabitur Ecclesia, & Capellae, CREDENTIA, &c, and Missal Romanum, Ritus Celebrandi Missam, p. 15. Diaconus amouet Calicem, si est in Altari, vel si est in CREDENTIA, ut magis decet, &c. Now who but a professed Papist in heart and affection durst ever introduce such a gross Popish innovation into his own Chapel, not used in any other place but it, except in Popish Churches in foreign parts, ot the Queens own Chapel here, & that by direction of the Roman Ceremonial, Pontifical, Missal?

5ly. This Archbishop not content to introduce these former innovations, himself & his Chaplains in their ingress and egres used very low incurvations to the Altar, and at their approaches to it to Celebrate the holy Sacrament, or Consecrate Bishops, & in their returns down from it, they used three very low bowings or duckings of their heads and bodies to the Altar, never used in his Predecessors days, as was proved by the Oaths of Sir Nathaniel Brent, Dr. Peatl • y, Mr. Cordwell, and acknowledged by D. Haywood, the Archbishops Popish Household Chapline, a constant practisser of these Ceremonious incurvations; directly derived from Popish Bishops, Priests Munks, Missalls Ceremonials. Pontificalls as is most apparent.

First, by Fryet Raymond of Rochfort, (one of the first inventers and practitioners of these ( ) Altar-Adorations that I have read off,) who in his Summula f. 142. writing of the form of the Priests celebrating the Mass at the Altar prescribes thus.

id est, inclinabis Altari; writes the interliniarie Gloss thereon.

2ly. By Odo Parisiensis in a Popish Synod, (the only Council I have, met with prescribing this Ceremony. * Summareverentia & honor inaximus sacris Altaribus exhibiatur, & maxim vbi sacrosanctum Corpus Domini reservatur, & Missa celebratur.

3ly. By Missal Romanum, Ritus celebrandi Missam; where I find these clauses, De ingressu Sacerdotis ad Altare: Sacerdos si contigorit eum transire ante Altare majus, capite cooperto faciat ad illud reverentiam; si ante locum sacramenti, genuflectat; cum pervenerit ad Altare, stance ante illud in infimo gradis, Altari, seu Imagini Crucifixi desuper posito PROFVNDE INCLIN AT. Si autem in eo sit Tabernaculum sanctissimi sacramenti, genuflectens debitam facit reverentiam. De principio Missae, We have this further Directory, Sacerdos quam primum descenderit ad infimum gradum Altaris, convertit se ad ipsum Altare, ubi stance ante illud junctis manibus ante pectus, detecto capite, facta prius CRVCIVEL ALTARI REVERENTIA, erectus incipit Missam: Deinde caput seque profunde ALTARI INCLINANS, dicit, confiteor Deo, &c. Subdiaconus retro post celebrantem facta ALTARI GENV • LECTIONE, &c. And Ordinarium Missa, p. 256. Sacerdos cum ingreditur INCLINAT CAPVT AD ALTARE.

4ly. By Caeremoniale Romanum, p. 203. Facta prius Altari reverentia, l. 2. c. 17. p. 257. Diaconus celebraturns cum Ministris, & facta reverentia Altari cum genuflexione, si ibi aderit sanctissimum sacramentum, sin minus, cum profunda capitis inclinatione &c. ascendet ad Altare. And p. 67. ante altare majus Caput Cruci profunde inclibit. &c.

5ly, By Missal paruum pro Sacerdotibus in Anglia itinerantibus, Printed Anno. 1623. Ordo Missae, p. 19. Sacerdos paratus cum ingreditur ad Altare, facta illi debita Reverentia, p. 29. Profunde inclinatus ante Altare, &c.

6ly. By the ancient Roman Order, published by George Cassander in his Works, p. 118. to 130. where I find these frequent expressions, Pontifex inclinans se paululum AD ALTARE: Altari inclinans: Adorato Altare: pertransit Pontifex in caput Schole, & in gradu superiore inclinato capite ad Altare: & salutat Altare. Sacerdos quando dicit, supplices te rogamus; humiliato capite inclinat se ante Altare. Subdiaconi ad Altare progredientes simul se inclinant coram eo, &c.

These, with the Black Book of Windfor, made in the darkest time of Popish superstition and Idolatry, were the several presidents and Authorities whence this Arch-Prelate borrowed this Idolatrous Ceremony of bowing to his New erected Altar, and the Crucifix on, or over it in the Glass window, never used nor enjoined before his time in any Protestant Church, nor approved by any ancient Protestant Author that can be produced, ( ) but some late Creatures of his own, whom he set on work to justify it in Print, though condemned by many as Popish and Idolatrous.

7ly. He likewise introduced Gaudy Romish Copes into his Chapel (never used in any his Protestant Prodecessors times,) wherein his Chaplins usual Consecrated and Celebrated the Sacrament there, wearing them likewise at the solemn consecration of Bishops, as was witnessed upon Oath, by Sir Nathaniel Brent, Dr. Featley, and Master Cordwell; Dr. Haywood the Archbishops Chaplin confessing at the Lord's Barre, that himself did usually celebrate the Sacrament in Lambeth Chapel in a Cope; Now these Gaudy Copes were directly derived from the Papists Wardrobes as well as his other Chapel furniture, witness Caeremoniale Romanum, l. 1. c. 16. p. 85. 87. Pontificale Romanum, p. 357. 358. De Benedictione sacerdotalium Iudumentorum and Thomas Beacons Relics of Rome.

8ly. This Archbishop brought in Standing up, at every recital of, Glory be to the Father, &c. after every Psalm and repetition of it, together with, Very lowly bowing of the head and knee at every recital of the name of Jesus, never there practiced in his Predecessors days, as Dr Featley, and Sir Nathaniel Brent deposed. The first of these was derived from Ordo Romanus, de Officio Missae: apud Georgij Cassandri Opera Parisijs 1616. p. 98. The latter ( ) of bowing at the name of Jesus from, Pope Gregory the tenth. who first introduced and prescribed it, Sexti Decretalia lib. 2. Tit. 3. c. 2. from the Popish Councils of Basil, Sennes, Augusta, with others, which enjoin the use of it, and from Caeremoniale Romanum, l. 2. c. 8. p. 206. which directs and prescribes thus, Diaconus prosequitur Evangelim, & cum profert Nomen Jesus, vel Mariae INCLINAT SE, sed profundius cum dicit, Jesus; quod ET OMNES FACIVNT.

8ly. He erected a new beautiful pair of Organs in this Chapel, which had none before: attested by Dr. Featley, and Mr. Pryune, (now Organs were first brought into Churches by ( ) Pope Vitalian, and promoted by other Popish Prelates;) and withal he brought in such chaunting to them as is expressly prescribed is Caeremoniale Episcoporum, set forth by Pope Clement the 8. lib. 1. c 28. De Organo, Organistis, & Musicis seu Cantoribus, & omnia per eos servandain divinis; the only Directory by which his Chapel with all our Cathedral Organ-playing and Chaunting were regulated; as those who will peruse that Chapter, and compare it, with our late Cathedral Music, will at first acknowledge.

Finally this Arch Prelate brought in all manner of Popish Consecrations into his Chapel, never heard off, nor used in his Predecessors days; as Consecrations of all sorts of Altar-furniture, Vestments, Flagons, Chalices, which himself (arrayed in a Gaudy Cope) there solemnly Consecrated; attested upon Oath by Mr. Samuel Bordman a reverend Minister; who deposed at the Bar to this effect. That he having private intelligence of an extraordinary solemn Consecration of some Flagons and Chalices brought from other Churches, intended to be Consecrated by the Archbishop at Lambeth Chapel, repaired thither to see the manner of it, being new and strange to him, which was performed in this manner. Jn the midst of divine service the Archbishop and his two Chaplines in their Surplices, coming out of their seats, and bowing very low, several times one after another to the Altar, went up unto it; where the Archbishop putting on a very gorgeous rich Cope, and bowing several times with his Chaplains to the Altar, read thereat a parcel of scripture, used at the Consecration of the Temple; which done, there were divers Flagons and Cups delivered to the Archbishop; who setting them down upon the Altar, used a form of prayer, wherein he desired God to bless and accept of these Vessells; which he severally touched, and elevated, offering them up to God. Now this form of Consecrating Chalices, Flagons, Altar-clothes, and other furniture of the Altar, is expressly prescribed, in and taken out of the Missal Paruum pro Sacerdotibus in Anglia Jtinerantibus, p. 145. to 152. & Pontificale Romanum p. 355. to 376. in both which there are particular Chapters and setformes, De Benedictione sacrorum vasorum, & aliorum Ornamentorum in genere; De Patenae & Calicis Consecratione: with sundry solemn consecration prayers, and these two special Collects among others for that purpose, which it is likely the Archbishop then used at this consecration.

Exaude, Domine Pater clementissime, precos nostras, & haec purificanda vasa & Ornamenta sacri Altaris, atque Ecclesiae tuae sacri ministerij usui praeparata, benedicere & sanctificare digneris; Per Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, I quo omnia immunda purgantur, & in quo omnia purgata clare scunt, supplices Omnipotentiam tuam invocamus, ut ab his vasis & ornamentis quae tibi offerunt famuli tui, omnis spiritus immundus confusus longe discedat, & per tuam benedictionem ad usum & ministerium sancti Altaris, & Ecclesiae tua, sanctificata permaneant, per Christum Dominum nostrum, Amen.

All these most palpable Idolatrous, Romish superstitions, Innovations, did this Archbishop publicly introduce and practice in his own Chapel at Lambeth, to the great triumphing of the Popish, the vexation, scandal of the Protestant party, though all directly taken out of the Roman Missal, Caremoniall, Pontifical, the Decrees of Popes, of Popish Councils; and how soon he would have there introduced the very Mass it self, had not the Scottish troubles interrupted his designs, his own Notes of approbation written in the Mass book, his framing the Scottish new Liturgy by it, with the ensuing particulars, will abundantly evidence un to all the world, to his most just condemnation and eternal infamy.

At how great cost he was to make these Innovations & Alterations in his Chapel, will be most clearly evident by the Glasiers, Ioyners, Painters, several Bills, seised, in his Study all Lambeth; It appearing by Mr. Butler, the Glasiers Bil that the mending and new painted Glatte of the East window wherein the Crucifix was, amounted to 40. l. 8. s. 6. d. the mending and repairing of two other Windowes in the North and South side of the Chapel, to 72. l. 7. s. 6. d. & of two other Windowes 35. l. 11. • . By Mr. Brownes the Ioyners Bill, that the Altar Table in the Chapel cost him 1. l. and the Rail about it, 15. l. By Mr. Bab the Painters Bill, that the Guilding and Painting of his new Organs there, & of the ledg over the Altar, cost him no less then 17. l. 15. s. besides all the rest of his Altar Furniture, Copes, Hangings, Organ-pipes; so devoted was he to his superstitions, that he would spare no Costs to promote them.

2ly. We shall pursue and trace this Romish Fox from his Chapel and public, to his Study and private devotions: Mr. William Prynne, and Mr. William Bendy of Lincolns-Inn deposed, that they being employed to search the Archbishops study, and private Closet at Lambeth; found these observable particulars therein.

First, An English Bible of the last translation in Quarto, with a rich embroidered Coverlying on his Study Table; having a goodly embroidered Crucifix on the Cover thereof; a fit object for his superstitious eyes, but very incongruously fixed on this sacred Book, which so frequently in the * Old and New-Testament condemns all Images and Crutifixes.

Secondly, A Popish Book neatly bound up in Turkey Leather with guilt leaves, entitled, Imagines Vitae, Passionis & Mortis, D. N. Jesu Christi, printed by Boetius a Bolswert, 1623. Cum gratia & Privilegio: beginning with the Picture of the Annuntiation, and concluding with the Assumption of the blessed Virgin containing in all 74. Idolatrous superstitious Pictures of Christ, and the Virgin Mary (all which were licensed by the Archbishops Chaplain, yea bound up in our English Bible, and New Testaments by this Archbishops privity and consent, as shall be hereafter attested in its place:) Between the leaves of this Book, there were 12. several loose Pictures in fine Vellom, about the bigness of playing Cards of the largest size, gloriously and curiously guilded, and set forth with most exquisite colors, some having one, others, two or three Pictures a piece in them of Christ and the Virgin Mary in several shapes and forms, with glories about their heads, and sometimes Crosses on their backs, and the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove; pretty Babies for young children to play with, but most insufferable Puppets, for an Old childish superstitious Archbishop seriously to dote on, if not to reverence, adore, and kindle his private devotions by.

Thirdly, two great Folio Roman Missalls, or Mass-Books of the largest size neatly guilt and bound up: the one of them printed Antuerpiae 1630. having two guilded Crucifixes on the outside of the Cover, with many Idolatrous Pictures of Christ, Crucifixes, &c. printed within it accurately cut, in Copper pieces; The other printed Salamanticae: 1589. with a Gregorian Calendar. Which Calendar of this Roman Missal, the Archbishop had much noted with his own hand, adding diverse new Saints-days unto each month out of Caluifius his Chronicle; to which he likewise referred the times of his own advancement, of King Charles his voyage into Spain, and his return from thence: Noting almost every page of his Roman Missal with his own hand, and quoting Micrologus to it by way of approbation, observing wherein they accorded or varied; no Book in his Study, being so diligently noted with his own hand as it; A sufficient manifestation of his good affection to and approbation of it. A grand Encomium for a Protestant Archbishop.

Fourthly, A Pontificale Romanum, in a large Folio Volume, Clementis 8. Pontificis Maxims jussu restitutum at que editam, Antuerpiae 1627. curiously guilt and bound up in Turkey Leather: and a Caremoniale Episcoporum, Jussu Clementis 8. Pontificis Maximi reformatum, in a large Folio, neatly bound, printed Parisijs 1633. out of which two Books and Missalls the Archbishop borrowed all his late Popish superstitious Pictures, Ceremonies, Innovations, imitating their directions to an hairs breadth, as his principal Canons and directories.

Fifthly, twenty two small Popish Houres of our Lady, Breviaries, Manualls, and Prayer Books, standing all together in a blind corner of his study, many of them curiously bo • d and guilt with Crucifixes on their Covers: answering the exact number of h • 22. pretended Converts to our Religion, who for their own private advantage could easily close with such a Romish Prelate; who came so near unto them • n all the forementioned and subsequent particulars.

Sixthly, A B •• of his own private prayers and devotions, all writ with his own hand, many of them extracted out of the Roman Missal; Breviary and Howers of our Lady, all of •• em reduced under Canonical Howers of Prayer, after the Romish Garbe, witness •• ge 1. to 8. thus entitled over head: Officium quotidianum; and Hora prima; • ra tertia, Hora sexta, Horanona, Vespers, Completorium, Bed-time, & Nocte si Vig • s, pag. 8. to 104. (seven times over a piece, for every day of the week:) his p • yer for the sick, p. 210. 114. Noted by him to be In missa pro infirmis, page 88. His prayer at the laying of the first stone in a Chapel, pag. 220. His prayer at the Altar when he Consecrated Priests, page 155. Another prayer, Dum Altari adsto, a • the Sacrament; and whiles he fell down and lay prostrate before it, with others o • this nature.

All these compared together are a sufficient demonstration that this Archbishop Studies, affections, intentions, devotions, were altogether superstitious, Romish, Idolatrous, f •• lie symbolizing with the Church of Rome, but wholly discrepant from out own a •• all other reformed Churches.

Thirdly We shall follow him from his study and private Closet unto his public Gallery, wherein, among others, there were these three superstitious Pictures, seized and brought into the Lord's House, attested by Mr. Prynne, and Master Vaughan, who found them in his Gallery. First, a glorious costly Picture in a very large frame of the four Fathers of the Church, Saint Ambrose, Saint Chrysostom, Saint Austin and St. Herom, all in their Pontificalibus, with the Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Love, hovering over their heads, and from his beak distilling the rays streams, and influences of his graces severally upon them.

Secondly, The Picture of the Cross, and of our Savior Christ all bloody, newly taken down from his Cross, with many shaven-Crown Friars, and Nuns in their Habits standing and kneeling round about him.

Thirdly, Another Picture of Christ on a Ladder, with Priests, Munkes and Popish Prelates about him.

In few words, He who had so much Popish Idolatry and Superstition of all sorts in his Chapel, Study, Gallery, as all these forementioned particulars amount unto, must doubtless have not only some sparks but flames of Popery, and Romish affections, intentions in his heart.

Secondly, Having hunted this Popish Vermin from place to place in his own Kennell, and bolted him out thence, we shall next pursue him from Lamb cross the Thames, to the Kings own Royal Chapel at White-Hall; where upon his coming to be D •• e of his Majesty's Chapel, and after that Archb. of Canterbury, he introduced, bowing to the Altar, himself there constantly practicing this Ceremony, at his ingress, egress, (a Lane being made for him to see the Altar, and do his Reverence to it) and at all his approaches towards or to the Altar; which bowing and Veneration his Majesty's Chaplains were there likewise enjoined by him to practice: and by his means in Passion week in the years 1636. 1637. &c. a rich large Crucifix, imbroydered with Gold & Silver, in a fair piece of Arras, was hung up in his Majesty's Chapel over the Altar, to the great scandal and offense of many. For proof whereof (so experimentally known to most of the Lord's and Courtiers, who were eye-witnesses of and disliked it,) Sir Henry Mildmay, Knight, a Member of the House of Commons, and Master of the Jouell House, was produced; who deposed as followeth.

That before the Archbishop came to be Dean of his Majesty's Chapel, there was little or no bowing at all used by any to or towards the Altar, except only at St. George his Peast, when the Knights of the Gartor, going up to offer at it, made a civil kind of obeisance towards it, not out of any religious respect, but at a 〈◊〉 Ceremony anciently used by them only at this solemnity, and by those of the Garter 〈◊〉 : But after he came to be Dean of the Chapel, he constantly used bowing to the 〈◊〉 at his ingress, egress, and approaches to the Altar, causing his own and His Masties Chaplains to do the like: That after he become Dean of the Chapel, for two three years together or more, there was in Passim work a piece of Arras with a 〈◊〉 embroidered Crucifix, the full length of a man, hanged over the Altar on 〈…〉 Chapel at White-Hall, which was never done before in his memory, nor in the memory of any Courtier that he could hear of which Crucifix he believed was never there • used since King H. the 8. his Reign, till of late, That this gross notorious Innovation • ave great scandull and general offense to many well-affected Courtiers, who spake mu •• against it, and to himself in particular, who openly complained of it to the King, and sp • ke to the Archbishop himself about it; yet it continued there sundry Passion weeks. And to manifest the truth hereof more clearly to all the world, the very Crucifix it self was by special order sent for, and brought into the Lord's House by the • erjeant of the Vestry at White-Hall; who likewise attested the hanging of it up • ver the Altar in His Majesty's Chapel in the Passion Weekes; It was very large rich, naked, scandalous, offensive, never used since the Reformation, but only in ti • es of Popery; yet this most scandalous Idol did this Arch-Prelate cause to be tha • hanged up in His Majesty's Chapel as a pattern of imitation for all others, well nowing the ancient Proverb to bean experimental truth.

When he hath thus introduced these Romish Innovations into hs Majesty's Chapel; then the Altar, Crucifix, & other Innovations in his Royal Cha •• el must be made the Canon whereby to regulate all Cathedral and Parochial Churches, and so declared publicly in print, by himself & his Confederates both in an Order made at the Council Table concerning the placing of the Table in Saint Gregonies Church Altarwise, 3. Novemberis 1633. by this Archbishops own procurement, (published by Doctor Heylen his Greature, in his C • ale from the Altar, page 62. and Antidotum Lincolniense, cap. 2. page 62, 63.) by Peter Heylin in his Coale p. 27. Antidotum Lincolni: cap. 2. p. 29. to 67. his Moderate answer to Henry Burton p. 57. 176. by Christopher Dewe in his answer to Mr. Henry Burton cap 20. p. 191. & the New Canons 1640. can. 7. Now what a capital transcendent offense this was in this Arch-Prelate (principally entrusted with the care of Religion,) contrary to his trust and duty to introduce these scandalous Innovations into His Majesty's own Royal Chapel will appear by these particular. First, that hereby he made the world believe. His Majesty was a public countenancer of these Popish Innovations and 〈◊〉 , making him a Royal open Patron of them, as much as in him lay: contrary to his own printed Declarations to all his loyal Subjects before the 39. Articles, and after the dissolution of the Parliament, Anno 16 • 8, Wherein he professed, he would never 〈…〉 in the least degree to Popery, or superstition. Secondly, That he hereby give just occasion both to Protestants and Papists at home and in foreign parts, openly to report and believe that we were now relapsing to those ancient Romish superstitions, Idolatries, corruptions we had formerly spired one. 3ly. That hereby he endeavored to corrupt his Majesty; his Nobles, Courtiers, Chaplain, and by consequence all his dominions in their Religion, Fourthly, That by this means he perverted, seduced many thousands of His Majesty's subjects, who from this pattern fell to a studious practice of bowing to Altars. •• erecting; Altari 〈◊〉 in most Chapels Churches by degrees. Fifthly, That hereby he scandalited, discouraged, grieved the well affected Protestants, both at home and abroad; encouraged, hardened Papists in their superstitions, and gave them great hopes of a speedy alteration of religion, 〈◊〉 they seconded with all their power and policy: Sixthly, That by this practice he engendered great discontents, 〈…〉 misunderstanding 〈◊〉 • is Majesty and his subjects; which could never yet be, cordially reconciled since that time, but have grown wider every day almost to the utter ruin of our three whole kingdoms.

To the former evidence, this further memorable testimony was subjoined by way of corroboration and aggravation.

Mistress Charnock (a Gentlewoman of good quality) and her Daughter jointly deposed before the Lord's, that on Maundy Thursday, about 6. years since, they being at Whitehall with some other of their friends, whereof one was a Papist, went into the Kings Chapel there to see it, where they saw an Altar with Tapers, & other Furniture, on it, & a Crucifix over it: whiles they were in the Chapel Dr. Brown of Saint Faiths Church under Paul's, (then a Dean, & one of the King's Chaplains,) with his Curate came together into the Chapel, and bowed three several times almost to the ground, to the Altar and Crucifix, as they all conceived, and then kneeled down on their knees before them. A little after there came two Semenary Priests into the Chapel, and bowed down very low three several times to the Altar and Crucifix over it (as they apprehended) just in the very same manner as Dr. Brown and his Curate did, and then kneeled down before the Altar and Crucifix, for a little space, as they had done. At which strange sight, Mistress Charnocke very much admiring, said to those in her company; J never thought to have seen such a sight, that our own Ministers and Popish Priests should thus repair one after another into the Kings Chapel, and use the self-same bowings, gestures to the Altar and Crucifix, as if they were both agreed: Whereunto the Papist presently answered, there is no such odds and difference between you and us as is conceived; which one of the Semenary Priests over-hearing, used the like words; adding further, Gentlewoman, you need not wonder at our bowing and kuteling, (to the Altar and Crucifix) for you see that Ministers of your own Coat and Religion do the like: and so they departed.

Now what a Capitall Crime, & Treason this is for an Archbishop, entrusted with the care of Religion, to bring in such Crucifixes, Ceremonies, Innovations into his Majesty's own royal Chapel, as should invite even his Majesty's Chaplains, and Popish Semenary Priests thus openly and promiscously to resort into it to commit Idolatry with them; and there to use the very self same bowings, adorations to the Altar, Crucifix, as Priests themselves usually exercised, and openly upbraid us with, to the great offense and scandal of his Majesty's Protestant Subjects, was humbly submitted to the saddest consideration of his Judges, and all that heard this evidence,

3. lie. We shall next follow this Romish Fox from White-Hall to Westminster Abby; where in January 1625. he exercised the Office of Doane of Westminster at his Majesty's Coronation putting Bishop Williams (then real Dean thereof) from this Royal service incident to his place. In this solemnity of high concernment, we shall give you a short information what he did with reference only to Popish superstition and Innovation: In general, he compiled the form of his Majesty's Coronation different from that of K. Edward the 6th. and King James: inserting some prayers & Ceremonies into it out of the Roman Pontifical. That himself compiled it, appears by his own Diary, and the original Copy corrected with his own hand, of which hereafter in its proper place: In particular.

First, he caused all the R • bricks in this New form of Coronation to be written in red Letters, as they are in the Roman Pontifical para 1. p. 163. &c. whereas all formet, manuscripts of Coronations, found in his Study, were written only with black Inke, as appeared by the Books themselves, (writ in times of Popery & since) and by Master Prynne's attestation, who perused them all.

2ly. He specially inserted this Note into the Margin of the Coronation Book. All this Unction was performed IN FORMA CRVCIS, AND THE OLD CRVCIFIX among the Regalia, STOOD ON THE ALTAR of which no mention •• made in the Coronation of K. Edward the 6th. or King James: Which form of anointing the King after the form of a Cross, is directly taken out of the Roman Pontifical. parts. De Benedictione & Coronatione Regis: p. 167. Post hoc Metropolitanus intinget pollic ••• dextrea manus in 〈…〉 & INVNGIT IN MODVM CRVCIS illius brachium dexterum, &c. And that the old Cross, used only in times of Popery, should it this royal solemnity be placed on the high Altar, among the Kings Regalia (as its usual in foreign Popish Cathedrals and Altars if we may credit, Ceremoniale Episcoporum, and the several Portraitures in it) was a sad Omen at the consecration of a Protestant King, to inure, if not enamor him with such Popish superstitions in the very beginning of his reign.

3ly. The Oil wherewith he was anointed (as appears by the marginal Notes) was solemnly consecrated by a Bishop: which Consecration of the Oil is a mere Popish Relique, as appears by Pontificale Roman • de Benedictione & Coronatione Pegis; Thomas Beacons, Relics of Rome, Bochellus, Decreta, Eccles. Gal. l. 5. Tit. 2. & l. 2. Tit. 6.

4ly. He inserted divers Prayers into the form of the Kings Coronation taken verbatim out of the Roman Pontifical; Among others, this ensuing Prayer (which you shall find in Latin in the Roman Pontifical. p. 171.) used at the Kings inthronization after his unction, tending to the advancing of the Bishops and Clergy above the Laity.

4ly. Popish Master John Cozens (as appears by the Marginall Notes) when the Prayers appointed for the Coronation, were there read, kneeled behind the Bishops, giving direction to the Choir when to answer: acting the Office of the Master of Ecclesiastical Ceremonies; whose Office you may read at large described in Caeremeniale Epescoporum: Lib. 1. c. 5. p. 19. De Officio Magistrarum Caremoniarum.

5ly. After the Coronation ended, this Archbishop voluntarily of his own accord offered the Kings Regalia on the Altar in a Popish man, without any Rubric or direction, as appears by this passage in his Diary written with his own hand Feb. 2. 1625. Solemnbus fiuitis in •• ield magis West • con. quum tradidit mihi in manus Regalia quae in Ecclesia B. Petri West •• on servantur: de novo dedis Gladium Cortanam dictum, & duos alos qui coram Ree • eo die deferbantur ut servar • utur cum reliquis infignibus; in Ecclesiam Redij, ET, AD ALTARE SOLENNITER O • TVLI NOMINE REGIS, & cum alijs reposui.

Certainly had this Archprelate been inflamed with any such extraordinary reale to the Protestant Religion, as he pretended, he would not have introduced so many Popish Caeremonies out of the Roman Pontifical, into his Majesty's solemn Coronation, but utterly excluded them out of the form of Coronation he then compiled: Ex Cauda Draconem you may take a scanding of this Dragon by his Taile, who endeavored to poison his Majesty as much as in him lay, with Romish superstitions in his very Inauguration to his Crown the sad effects whereof, we have since experimentally discerned to our sorrow and greatest grief.

4ly. We shall in the next place follow this little Fox in his Romish Procession, from Westminster, to our two famous Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, whose Crystal Fountaines he extraordinarily poisoned with Popish superstitions, Innovations, Caeremonies of all 〈◊〉 , and in them our Church and State.

Before this pragmatical Arch-Prelates advancement to be a Prime Favorite in Court and supreme, Comptroller of all Ecclesiastical affairs in our Church, our Universities had neither Crucifixes, nor Jmages, nor Altars, nor bowing to Altars, nor Copes, nor Latin service, nor any such Relics of Rome to pollute them, or corupt young Scholars with the superstitious Rites and Caeremonies of the Babylonish Strumpet; but no sooner was he become a Royal favorite, Privy Counselor of state, and Dominus factetum in Church and Republik, but by his pestiferous influence, practices, and example these Popish weeds sprung up a pace by degrees in these choicest Seminaries of Piety and literature, till they quite over-spread them at the last.

We shall begin with the University of Oxford, whereof by indirect means this Prelate procured himself to be elected Chancellor, upon the death of the Right Honorable Will. Earl of Pembroke, in Apr. 1630. whose Noble brother (now Chancellor thereof) was then really elected by most voices, though miscalculated by practice in the scrutiny by this Prelates Creatures. What alterations were there made upon his advancement, and Chancellorship, will appear by these subsequent depositions given viva voice against him at the Lord's Barre.

Sir Nathaniel Brent deposed; that before this Archbishop came to have power in this University and to be Chancellor thereof, there were no Copes, Altars, nor Communion Tables turned and railed about Altarwise in Churches or Colleges, nor any bowing to or towards the Altar, nor any Crucifixes but such as were either defaced, or covered over with dust, and quite neglected; but since his being Chancellor the Tables in all or most Churches, Colleges were turned into Altars, or railed in Altarwise, and usually bowed unto; the old Crucifixes repaired, adored, and new Crucifixes set up where there were none before; yet he never heard that the Archb. disliked or reproved the same, though he was Chancellor, and saw these Innovations, but liked them very well: That since the Archb. was Chancellor there was a New Church-Porch built to St. Mary's Church, (at the charge of Dr. Owen, since made a Bishop;) where was none before, standing in the very heart of the University towards the street, to which Church all the University resorted; in the front of which Porch was a statue of the Virgin Mary cut in stone, with the Picture of a child in her Arms, commonly taken to be the Picture of Christ.

Master Corbet, a Fellow of Merton College deposed; that in the Yeare 1638. the Arch-Bishop being Visitor of that College began his Visitation there, by Sir John Lamb his Deputy that one Article propounded to the Warden and Fellows was this; Whether they made due Reverence (by bowing towards the Altar or Communion Table,) when they came into the Chapel? That himself and Master Channell were enjoined by the Visitors and Commissioners to use this Ceremony; but they refused to do it: Whereupon Sir John Lamb pressed them very much to practice it; but they still refused, propounding their reasons against it; then he threatened him for it in particular. After this Dr. Frewin Vice-Chancellor of the University told him, that he was sent to him from the Archb. he being then Proctor, pressing and requiring him as from the Archb. to use this Ceremony in regard of his place else it would be ill taken. Afterwards the Archb. sent injunctions to Merton College whereof this was one: Habeant debitam Reverentiam ad mensam Domini; where by he meant this bowing to the Altar, as the Visitors and common practice expounded it: the Visitors afterwards questioning those who bowed not; That this course continued till this present Parliament, and was generally practiced at Saint Mary's, and throughout the University. He further testified, that in Magdalene College, there was a Crucifix placed over the Communion Table, and Pictures in the Windowes; and a new Crucifix set up in Christ-Church; none of which Innovations were there heard of before this Archbishops time.

Master William Bendy, witnessed upon Oath, that in the Yeare 1637. Since the Archbishop was Chancellor of Oxford, there was a statue of the Virgin Mary With a Child in her Arms, set up in the front of Saint Mary's Church-Porch towards the open street; which gave great offense to many: That there was a Crucifix set up in Lincoln College and a Picture of the Holy Ghost another Crucifix in Christ-Church; another in New-College, and the like in diverse other Colleges, That Latin Prayers were enjoined to be used in Lent, and Studients to be present at them: That the Tables in most Churches, Colleges were turned into Altars railed in Altarwise and bowed to: That in some Colleges they used Copes, and he heard a stranger who had been a Travailer say, that one of the Copes he saw at Oxford was just like that he had seen at ROME on the POPES back.

Master Nixon one of the Aldermen of Oxford deposed viva voice, that there was a Picture of Stone set up in the New-Church porch at Saint Mary's Church towards the high Street, of a Woman holding a Babe in her Arms, which they called the Picture of the Virgin Mary and Christ, (standing almost opposit to his House) which was very scandalous, offensive both to him & others: that himself had seen some passengers as they rode along by it, to bow very low to their Horses manes, and put off their Hats unto it: that he observed one Passenger, both going and returning to bow thus unto it, and put off his Hat, who (as he heard) belonged to the Portugal Embassador, and was a Papist; that there was one who kneeled down before this Image, and held up his hands as if he prayed unto it. He further deposed, that not only in sundry Colleges, but in the Parish Church of Carfolks. (the principal Church for the City, whether the Major and Aldermen resorted;) there was a great large Crucifix with the Picture of Christ upon it, set up in the Window by Giles Widdowes who was Parson there, and one whom the Archbishop countenanced.

That this Archbishop was both the Author, and encourager of all these innovations not heard of there since the Reformation; is evident: because they sprung up there in the time of his Chancellorship, and were introduced, by those who were his greatest Creatures, enjoined by his Visiters (as you heard before) and most of them prescribed in the University Statutes, made by himself, which all were bound by Oath to observe. To clear this we shall produce this Memorable passage. Sect 1. paragr. 2. De Precibus solennibus, & Oblationibus in Die Comitiorum. (which you may find in the select Statutes of Oxford, there printed in a small volume, Anno 1638. p. 79.) In die Comitiorum Moris est, ut post pulsationem parvae campanae, circa hor am nonam matutinam, omnes Inceptores in qualibet facultate, per Bedellos suae Facultatis à Collegijs & Aulis deducti, in Capella orientali Ecclesiae B. Mariae Virginis unà conveniant, ijsque sic congregatis, preces Divinae ab ejusdem Ecclesiae paraecialis Vicario aut illius Deputato solenniter habeautur. Quibus peractis, primum Vice-Cancellarius, posteà singuli Inceptores in Facultatibus, deinde Procuratores, Bedellis praecuntibus, ad Mensam Eucharistiae sacram, CVM DEBITA REVERENTIA (which they by words and practice interpreted to be a lowly bowing to, or towards it) OBLATIONES FACIANT. Quod si quis I Precibus sole nuibus & OBLATIONIBVS absens fuerit, aut praesens CUM DEBIT A REUERENTIA AD MENS AM EUCHARISTIAAE SACRAM accedere recusaverit, puniatur pro arbitrio Vice-Cancellarij, ac insuper mulctetur. 5s.

Here we have bowing to the Table or Altar prescribed by a Law, as a REVERENC DVE VNTO IT, AND OBLATIONS at it enjoined to all Graduates whatsoever of any kind of faculty, to be acted solemnly in the University Church of St. Mary's in the Act time under pain of such arbittary punishments, as the Vice-Chancellor should inflict, & 5. s. Fine, upon such who refused or neglected this solemn oblation at or bowing to the Altar, both which they were bound by Oath, to perform and observe, being one of the Statutes of the University, to which ( ) all Graduates swore obedience: Yea this their ceremony of bowing to, and prostration before the Altar, was so well pleasing, & well known to the Archbishop himself, that in one of his letters sent to the University of Oxford, (Dated at Lambeth 28. January 1639. recorded in their Public Register: f. 166.) he importunes them to pray for him, as oft as they should prostrate themselves before the Altar, in these very terms, Quoties CORAM ALTARE DEI & Christi ejus PROCIDATIS, videte sitis inter orandum memores mei Peccatoris: sed & Amici & Cancellarij vestri, W. Cant. Whence the Archbishop took his Pattern for enjoining Graduates thus by new University Statutes, and the Fellowes, Scholars of Merton College, by his Visiters, to bow, and yield due Reverence to the Altar, is worthy special observation: doubtless it was from none other but his own Popish Predecessor. Cardinal Poole, Archbishop of Canterbury in Queen Mary's days, who reduced reconciled our Kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Popes obedience and superstitions which they had formerly cast off in King Edwards days. For this Cardinal Archbishop. Visiting the University of Cambridge by his substitutes [whereof Ormanet the Popes Datary was one] among other Laws and Injunctions, (as Mr. Jo. Fox Records) prescribed every Scholar there AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOVLD BOW HIMSELFE TO THE ALTAR: there being no other ancient president extant in any of our own Universities Statutes (nor for ought I find in foreign Academies) prescribing bowing to the Altar, unto any Academians, but this of Cardinal Poole alone. And must not he be a mere Popish Prelat, and Chancellor in good earnest, who thus makes his Popish Cardinal Predecessors Injunctions in Queen Mary's bloody Reign, the sole Rule whereby to reform the University of Oxford in King Charles his days?

Finally, this Archbishop, in hope that solemn Popish Processions might in short time creep up into use again, in our Universities, as well as Crucifixes, Copes, Latin service, and bowing to Altars, among other his new Oxford Statutes, continued, and revived this, whereby all Regent Masters were bound to read and sing in solemn Processions, as the Proctors should assign them, be it right or wrong: witness this Clause in the large Leger Parchment Book of this Universities new Statutes. Tit. 9. Sect. 1. paragr. 5. Iurabis, quod Leges & Cantabis IN SOLENNIBVS PROCESSIONIBVS secundum assignationem & dispositionem Procuratorum, vel si recusaveris, solves Vs. in usum Vniversitatis, per Procuratores exigendos: Resp. Iuro. which was read.

Now thus to oblige men by Oath to read and Chaunt in Processions, what the Proctors should appoint, (be it the very Mass it self, or a Popish hymme or prayer taken out of the Roman Missal, Caeremoniall or Pontifical) how far it trencheth upon the liberty of men's consciences, extends to the Alteration of Religion, and conduced to corrupt the University, was humbly submitted to the serious considerations of the Lord's, and all others.

We have thus given you a brief account of this Arch-Prelates, Popish Innovations in the University of Oxford, where he was then a real Chancellor, and ought in duty to have suppressed them; the sum whereof is this; that in most Churches Colleges, Chapels both in this University and City, during the time of his Government, Communion Tables were turned, railed in Altarwise, changed into Altars; scholars of all sorts and degrees enjoined by Statutes and Oaths, (especically in the puplique Act solemnities) to bow themselves down and yield due reverence to the Altar, to present their oblations thereat, which they must neither refuse nor neglect under pain of 5. s. fine and other Arbitrary punishments; Latin service with the Chaunting of it, and solemn Precessions, introduced, enjoined; Copes used, Crucifixes repaired, beautified where formerly defaced, and new erected where none were before: a New Statue of the Virgin Mary with Christ a babe in her Arms set up in the most public noted place of all the University, where all passengers might behold it; yea public adoration, Capping, bowing, kneeling yielded to it, without the least check, dislike, yea with the highest approbation of this pretended zealous Protestant Chancellor, to the poisoning of many Graduates, Students in this most famous Academy. What Romish Alterations, Innovations of like nature he by his Instruments, Favorites, Chaplins brought into the University of Cambridge, (of which he was more then half Chancellor in reality, though the Earl of Holland had the Title, and afterwards sole Visitor by a Decree at Council Table, as mere Archbishop of Canterbury;) we shall in the next place evidence by substantial Proofes.

In the University of Cambridge, the Archbishop since his greatness by his extraordinary power brought in divers of his Creatures, Chaplains to be heads of houses and Vice-Chauncellors (as Dr. Martin, Dr. Cosins, Dr. Beale, Dr. Laney, with others Popishly affected) who within the space of ten years introduced the several Popish Innovations, Ceremonies, specified in the following depositions

Mr. Wallis a Scholar and Graduate of this University, deposed: That Altars, Pictures, Crucifixes were there of late set up in most College Chapels, and in some Churches; particularly, that in Peter house Chapel there was a glorious new Altar set up, & mounted on steps, to which the Master, Fellowes, Scholars bowed, & were enjoined to bow by Doctor Cozens the Master, who set it up; that there were Basons. Candlesticks, Tapers standing on it, and a great Crucifix hanging over it. That in the University Church of St. Mary's there was an Altar raised in, to which the Doctors, Scholars and others usually bowed: That these Altars, Crucifixes, Candlesticks, Tapers, and bowing to Altars, continued till after this Parliament, and were brought in since the Archbishops time by means of Bishop Wren, Doctor Cozens, Dr. Martin and others, all Canterburies great favorites.

Master Nicholas le Greise, (late Student in Cambridge) witnessed upon Oath • that in St John's College, Kings College, Trinity College, and Peter house there were Altars, Candlesticks, Tapers, and Crucifixes, newly set up: That in St. John's, and Peter House Chapels, there were Pictures of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove; that in Peter House there was likewise a carved Cross at the end of every seat, and on the Altar a Pot, which they usually called the incense pot: that the Master, Fellows, and Scholars of that house at their entering into, & going out of the Chapel, made a low obeisance to the Altar, being enjoined by Doctor Cozens under a penalty (as they reported) to do it; and none of them might tume their backs towards the Altar going in nor out of the Chapel: That divers Scholars of other houses usually resorted thither, some out of Curiosity only to behold, others to learn and practice the Popish Ceremonies and Orders used in that Chapel: and the common report both among the Scholars of that House and others, was, that none might approach to the Altar in Peter house but in Sandalls and that there was a special consecrated Knife there kept upon the Altar, to cut the sacramental bread that was to be consecrated.

Master Lazarus Seman deposed, that he left the University of Cambridge about ten years since, and that in his time none of the forementioned Innovations were so much as known or used there; but of late times they have all been introduced.

Many more witnesses were ready to depose the like, and more then this, but the Innovations of this kind were so notoriously known to all, and so fully proved before the Parliament in Master Peter Smarts Articles against Doctor Cosins, that the Commons thought to produce more witnesses herein, would be a mere misspense of time to no purpose, but to tire out the Lord's and Auditory.

But perchance the Archbishop will object; what are these Innovations in the University of Cambridge unto me, who was neither Chancellor there to council, or countenance them, nor immediately introduced them?

To which was Answered, 1. That his public example and practice in his own Chapel at Lambeth (formerly manifested) was both a president, precept for this their imitation and one chief cause of these Innovations. It was a true rule of Isiodor Hispalensis; Dupliciter reus est qui aperte delinquit quia & agit & docet. And a just verdict of the Roman Orator Perniciosius de Republica merentur vitiofi Rectores, quod non solum vitia concipiunt ipsi, sed ea infundunt in Civitatem; neque solum obsunt quod illi ipsi corumpuntur sed etiam quod corumpunt. Since then his own preceeding Innovations, were the occasions of these Corruptions in this University, they must be laid upon his score. 2ly. His own Introduction of the selfsame Popish Innovations into the University of Oxford, by Laws and Injunctions, at the self-same time, or a little before these sprung up in Cambridge is a strong presumption, that both of them issued from the very same root. 3ly. His own chief Favorites, Chaplains, Creatures, who were most intimate, frequent with him at London, and advanced to Headships in Colleges by his means, were the only active Instruments to bring in and promote these Corruptions; therefore questionless they had directions, at least incouragment from him for their proceedings in this kind. 4ly. His not being Chancellor of this University, was rather an obstacle to the speedy Introduction of these Innovations then otherwise, as appears by Oxford where he prescribed them by public Laws and Injunctions, which was not done in Cambridge, because he was not Chancellor; yet he would needs be their Immediate Visitor, as Archbishop of Canterbury, contesting with them for this Authority before his Majestic and Privy Council, where he obtained a Decree and Patent to him and his Successors to be their Visitors; in regard of which Jurisdiction over this University as their Visitor, and likewise as an High Commissioner, he wanted no authority but only will to prohibit, suppress these Popish Novelties, and punish the promoters of them; but this, for certain, he never did, but countenanced, advanced them all he could (as shall be manifested in due place:) Therefore, if the old Maxim of Law may take place: Qui non vetat peccare cum posset, jubet, he must be really guilty of all these Anti-Christian Innovations in both our Universities, whom he thus miserably corrupted to the unspeakable prejudice of Church and State, since from these two Fountaines these Popish superstitions, corruptions, diffused themselves over all our Dominions, like a most contagious Leprosy. It hath always been a Capitall crime, and an offense against the Law of God, of Nations, to poison common Natural fountains; how much more then these two public Fountaines of more transcendent, use and excellency.

From our Universities we shall in the next place pursue this Romish Reinold unto our Cathedral Churches, where he began his Popish Innovations very early.

Master John Laugly, late School-Master of the City Gloucester, but now of Paul's School, deposed, that in the year 1616. the now Archb. being made Dean of Gloucester, and coming down to the Cathedral there, intended to turn the Communion Table into an Altar; and place it Altarwise at the East end of the Choir, removing it from its former station in the midst; Doctor Smith then Bishop of GLOCESTER opposed it with much earnestness; and seriously protested to the DEANE and the Prebends, that if the Communion Table were removed, or any such Innovations brought into that Cathedral as this Dean intended to introduce, he would never come within the Walls of the Cathedral more: yet notwithstanding the Dean was then so violent, that in despite of the Bishops direction and opposition, he caused the Lord's Table to be removed, and placed Altarwise at the East end of the Choir close under the Wall, with the ends North and South, with Popish furniture upon it, bowed towards it himself, and commanded the singing-men, Choristers, and other Officers of the Church to make like obeisance to it: Whereat the Bishop was so much offended, that he made good his protestation, and never came more within the Cathedral till his dying day; This single testimony of Mr. Langlies we find seconded with a Letter of this Bishops Chaplain to the Chancellor at Gloucester; thus indorsed with the Archbishops own hand, and found at Lambeth among his Papers by Master Prynne.

A Copy of this Letter (which this Archbishop styled a Lible) was soon after found in the Pulpit of Saint Michaels Church, and sent up to the Deans own hands; who made much stir at Gloucester, and the Court about it as appears by these three Letters, sound in his Study by Master Prynne, and endorsed with his own hand.

The first is a Letter sent by two of the Prehends to the Now Archbishop when he was Dean of Gloucester, upon this occasion:

The second is a Letter writ by him on this occasion, to the Bishop of Gloucester, to this effect.

The third was a letter writ by him to the Bishop of Lincoln (Dr. Neal) his great Patron, then at Court.

So soon did this Prelate begin to introduce these Popish Innovations into our Cathedrals only at first, against Law, to the great scandal of well affected Protestants, and encouragement of Papists.

In the Yeares 1626: and 1627. Master John Cozens a great acquaintance and Camrade of this Archbishops, set up a goodly stone Altar (railed in Altarwise, adorned with Pictures, Candlesticks, Tapers, Basons, Altarcloths having superstitious Images upon them) instead of a Communion Table, & bowed constantly to it; repaiting and erecting diverse unlawful Images (some of Christ Himself) in that Cathedral; where the likewise introduced Copes and Chalices (having Crucifixes and Pictures of the HOLY GHOST upon them,) together with many other Popish trinkets, setting up a multitude of Candles & Tapers in that Church on Candlemasseday, after the Popish manner. Against which Innovations Master Peter Smart, (the ancientest Prebend of that Church) preaching openly in the Cathedral, and then complaining in Parliament, Anno 1628. after the dissolution of that Parliament, by this Arch-Innovators means (as appears by sundry Letters concerning this business between Dr. Coseus and him found in the Archbishops Study) he was successively brought into the High Commission Courts, both a Durham, Lambeth, and Luke, for vexation; and at last there most unjustly deprived of all his Ecclesiastical livings, fined imprisoned diverse years, and his livings conferred upon others by this Arch-Prelates means, as his own Letters manifest. All which particulars having been lately heard, proved by sundry depositions before the Commons and Lord's; and published in Print to the World by Master Smart himself, in his Catalogue of Superstitious Innovations brought into Durham Cathedral. London 1642. and in his Cantus Epithalamicus) were only mentioned not insisted on, by the Commons; as were his several Innovations in the Cathedral of Paul's whiles he was Bishop of London as notoriously visible to most, as his very repairing of Paul's, at other men's costs.

These Innovations in these 3. Cathedrals were introduced, somented by him, before his advancement to the Archi-Episcopal Sea of Canterbury, after which he became more bold and violent, enforcing them by new Injunctions, Statutes, Oaths, upon all or most Cathedrals; of which the ensuing Instances were produced, instead of many more.

No sooner was this active Prelate promoted to the Archbishop ricke of Canterbury, but presently he began to pollute the Cathedral of Canterbury with his popish Innovations; First he caused an Altar to be there erected by the Dean and Chapter, and much monies to be expended by them upon Basons, Candlesticks, Altar-Cloaths, and other furniture to adorn it, as appears by a Letter written to him from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury (found in his study by Master Prynne) under their hand and Seal, dated the 4. July 1634. wherein among other things they write thus:

After this new Altar was thus erected, and furnished, some of the Prebends and other Officers belonging to this Church, had private instructions given them to how unto it: but this not sufficing, that this Ceremony might be there perpetually observed under pain of Perjury, in the Yeare 1634 the Archbishop compiled New Statutes for the Government of that Cathedral, which were sent thither under the Great Seal, with his own hand subscribed to every leaf, wherein there was this Statute among others, w ^ch the Prebends, Chapter and Officers there were bound by Oath to observe, that they should, SUMMA REVERENTIA ADORARE DEUM VERSVS ALTARE: as was manifest by the Statutes themselves; and attested upon Oath by Doctor Thomas Blechenden one of the Prebends there, at the Lord's Barre; who confessed he was sworn to observe all the statutes of that Cathedral, and this among the rest; that himself used this kind of Adoration, which he said was practiced there before these Statutes.

Doctor Thomas Jackson, the ancientest Prebend of this Cathedral, witnessed upon Oath, viva Voce, That this Archbishop of Canterbury sent down Statutes to their Cathedral, subscribed with his own hand, to the observation of which they were all sworn; that by one of these Statutes they were enjoined to bow unto the Altar at their coming in, and going out of the Quite, and approaches to the Altar; the words were, that they should ADORARE VERSVS ALTARE: That this bowing was there of late constantly practiced by the Prebends, among others by himself; w ^ch he hath left since better information, it being a great grief to his soul, & giving much scandal; for which he was heartily sorrowful, and desired God to forgive him; That these Statutes were made about seven years since and that before this Archbishops time, there was no such bowing to the Altar used in that Cathedral.

What a Glorious Altar-Cloth with other furniture was provided for this New Altar of late times by Doctor Brayes (the Archbishops Chaplains) direction, what Popish Images, Crucifixes, and Relics of Superstition, were lately standing in Canterbury Cathedral, till demolished by Order of Parliament (not given in evidence to husband time,) is at large related by Master Culmer, in his Cathedral news from Canterbury; to which the Reader may repair for satisfaction.

From Canterbury, we shall next hunt this Romish Fox to the Cathedral of Winchester, where keeping a Visitation in the Yeare 1635. by Sir Nathaniel Brent, his Vicar General; he did by his Injunctions under Seal, enjoin them to provide four Copes, to Rayle in the Communion Table, and place it Altarwise, to bow unto it, and daily to read the Epistles and Gospel's at it: This was attested by Sir Nathaniel Brent himself; manifested by his own Injunctions to that Church, and by his Articles proposed to the College of Winchester, produced and read in the Lord's House.

In this Cathedral these Injunctions were not only obeyed, Copes provided, an Altar with all Popish furniture erected, bowed to, and second service read thereat, but likewise a large naked Crucifix set up over it, to the great scandal of many, by Doctor Lewis Master of Saint Cross, and a Prebend there, the Arch-Prelates Minion and Creature. The like was done at the Cathedral at Litchfield, where a very large Crucifix, with a Picture of Christ on it almost as big as a Giant, was hanged over the High-Altar, with the Pictures of men and women kneeling down before it and praying to it: attested by Master Prynne, for speaking and writing against which most scandalous Idol, the Lady Davis was committed to prison diverse year, and ordered to be sent to Bedlam.

In 12. Caroli new Statutes made by the Archbishop of Canterbury subscribed with his own hand in every page, were sent down by him under the Kings broad seal, to the Cathedral Church at Hereford to be there sworn to and observed, which enjoined these following Ceremonies, not required by the old Statutes, nor there practiced till the receiving of these new ones and then strictly put in use.

1. Every Residentiary is bound to officiate twice every year himself under the pain of paying 40s. to be laid out upon the Ornaments of the Church: Cap. 7. qui vero.

2. That they shall officiate on Sundays and Holy days in their Copes Cap. eodem praecipue.

3. That they are to stand no at the Creeds, and the Gospel, and doxologies, and to bow so as often as the name of Jesus is mentioned, and that no man be covered in the Church, cap. eodem, Litania.

4. That everyone is to bow versus Altare, Cap. eodem, singuli vero.

5. Prayer before Sermons enjoined according to the 55th. Can. Cap. 9. Huic autem.

The like Statutes were sent to most other Cathedrals, and put in practice with all diligence by this Archbishops means.

What Innovations were made in the Cathedral Church of Worcester, and by whom, will appear by this accompt of Doctor Manwaring, Dean thereof, under his hand, given to the Archbishop, of the alterations there made, endorsed with the Arch-Bishops own hand thus, Recepi September 24. 1635. Concerning the Church of Worcester; from Doctor Manwaring Dean there; and his SERVICES done there, (found in his study, and attested by Master Prynne.)

Moreover the Archbishop in his Injunctions to the Dean & Chapter of the Cathedral Church of Chicester, made in his Metropolitical Visitation there, An. 1635. orders thus in his 6. Injunction; Item, That you provide Copes fitting for the service of your Cathedral, by one a year, until you be sufficiently furnished with them, as was proved by the Injunctions found in his own Study, attested by Mr. Prynne, an Altar with all its furniture and adorations towards it, being there likewise provided and used.

The like Innovations were introduced and prescribed by his Injunctions, and new statutes in all or most Cathedrals in England and Wales, to the great rejoicing of the Popish Party, and scandal of all true zealous Protestants, and any default in them was reputed a crime presentable, as appeared by this Passage of an Abstract of the Abuses in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1634. in my Metropolitical visitation, endorsed with the Archbishops hand and found in his study. Lincoln August 9. 1634. The Communion Table is not very decent, and the Rail before it is worse: the Organs old and naught, The Copes and Vestments are embeselled, and none remain, &c. And in another Abstract concerning his Metropolitical Visitation in other Dioceses, & particulars concerning the same, indorsed likewise with his own hand, there are these passages. Norwich, the hangings of the Choir are naught, the Copes are fair, but want mending. In the Cathedral as Worcester they have no Copes, but are ordered to buy some before the feast of the Annuntiation. In the Cathedral at Gloucester many things amiss. No Copes &c. in Winchester Cathedral they have no Copes: some do not bow when they come into the Choir, nor at the blessed name of Jesus. Litchfield, the furniture of the Altar &c. very mean; Therefore care must be taken for more costly furniture.

Whence this Archbishop took his Commission and president for adorning our Cathedral and Collegeat Churches thus above others with these Romish Ornaments, & superstitious Innovations, which in truth defiled them, is worthy our special observation, it being in taken from the very Roman Ceremonial set forth & reformed by the Command of Pope Clement the 8. lib. 1. cap. 12. De ornatu Ecclesiae, p. 64. which prescribes thus: Sic MAJOR ETIAM • VRA adhibenda erit IN ORNATV ECCLESIAE CATHEDRALJS, AVT COLLEGJATAE, quae & numerosum clerum habeat, & supellectilem amplam, que congrue situata, & suis partibus apt distincta COMMODJOREM ORNANDI PRAE • EAT FACVLTATEM: after which it prescribes Altars, Altar-clothes, Candlesticks, Tapers, Crucifixes, Jmages, Copes, Rich hangings for the Altar and Choir, with Jmages of Christ, our Lady, and Saints; bowing to the Altar and Crucifix; and that all Altars should have at least two Candlesticks with Tapers, and a Cross of Silver, or of some other metal placed on the midst of the Altar, with the Image of Christ crucified on it, as you may there read at large.

This Arch Prelate not content to propagate these Innovations in England, like an Universal Patriarch over all his Majesty's Realms endeavored the introducing of them with an high hand into all the Cathedrals, Churches and Chapels in Ireland, by the then Lord Deputy Wentworthes power, (his great Creature) of which we shall give you this brief accompt.

Dr. Bramhall Chaplain to this Lord Deputy, by his Command, August 10. 1633. sent over an Account of the state of the Church of Jreland to this Prelate, as he found it, and what Alterations he had already made in it (seized in the Archbishops study by Mr. Prynne) wherein are these observable clauses.

Upon this Information, the Archbishop signified his dislike of erecting this Monument by the Earl of Corke, in the place where the High Altar (as was misinformed) anciently stood, and gave some directions for removing it: Whereupon the Earl of Corks, and Archbishop of Dublin writ these ensuing Letters to satisfy his Grace in this particular, (which were seconded with other Letters from Archbishop Usher, and the Dean and Prebends of Saint Patrickes Church, to like effect, overtedious to recite.)

To which Letter of the Archbishop of Dublin, this Arch-Prelate returned this waspish insolent answer, writ with Master Dells, but endorsed with his own hand, found in his Study with the former Originalls, in the very beginning whereof you may discern his most palpable dissimulation and falsehood.

But some may perchance inquire, what was the ground of this Archbishops introduction of these Innovations first of all into Cathedral Churches? Certainly one principal cause of this his method was to make these Mother Churches (as he styled them) patterns of imitation for all Daughter Churches and Chapells within the the whole Diocese, that so the Proverb in Ezech. 16. v. 44. 45. might be verified of them: Behold everyone tht useth Proverbs, shall use this Proverb against thee, saying, AS IS THE MOTHER, SO IS HER DAVGHTER: Thou art thy Mothers Daughter.

That this was one chief end of his, to corrupt all Parish Churches and Chapels by these Cathedrals examples; was infallibly manifested; First by the very words of the Order, made at the Council Table at White Hall the third of November, 1633 concerning the standing of the Communion Table in Saint Gregory's Church near Paul's, printed in Dr. Heylins, Coale from the Altar, and in his Antidotum Lincolniense. Sect. 1. c. 2. p. 62. (which order was thus printed by the Archbishops direction, the chief stickler in the procuring and prime Clerke in the penning of it;) wherein it is positively resolved; That all other Churches ought to be guided by the Cathedral Mother Church, whereon they depend, and that the Communion Table in Saint Gregory's Church, removed from the middle of the Chancel to the upper end, and there placed Altar-wise, in such manner as it standeth in the Cathedral and Mother Church of St. Paul, should so continue, that so there might be no difference between it and the said Cathedral Mother Church. Secondly, by diverse books published in print by the Arch-Bishops special direction and app obation, expressly averring That all Parochial Churches ought to be guided by the pattern of the Mother Church, upon the which they do depend: The Arch-Bishop himself in his discourses, and these creatures of his in their Books, applying and urging this leaden rule of theirs in particular, for the railing in of Communion Tables, placing them Altarwise against the East end of the Choir, and bowing unto them, in all Parish Churches because this was done and practiced in all Cathedral Churches, by virtue of his New Statutes and Injunctions, though not in former times.

This foundation being laid in our Cathedrals, for the like Popish Innovations, in all Parochial Churches, we shall in the next place prosecute this pursuit of his Innovations, from our Cathedrals to Parochial Churches and Chapels. We shall begin with Saint Gregory's Church near Paul's; where the case was thus.

About ten years since, this Church was repaired by the Parishioners to their great cost, at which time the Dean and Chapter of Paul's under whose jurisdiction it is caused the Picture of Saint Gregory to be set up in the Church, and the Communion Table to be removed, railed about and set Altarwise against the East-end of the Chancel, Whereupon Master Wyan, and diverse of the Parishioners being offended at it, appealed from the Deans and Chapters Order, as being against Law, to the Arches; upon which by the Archbishops means, an Order came from Secretary Windebank, to call the Parishioners to the Council Table concernning this Appeale & the removing of the Table; where they appeared at the appointed time with their Council: The King himself, the Arch-Bishop and many of the Lord's were then present, where the business being debated before them, the Archbishop stood up, and with great earnestness (more like an Advocate then Judge) justified, maintained this removing and railing in the Table, reading Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions to warrant it; but left out this most material clause, that made quite against him: Saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be administered: at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the Chancel as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer and ministration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in greater number communicate with the said Minister, And after the Communion done, from time to time, the said holy Table to be placed where it stood before, The King said, he liked it well, that the Table should stand as it used to do heretofore: to which the Archbishop answered, that if it stood so, the Minister could not so well see who kneeled at the Sacrament, and who kneeled not: To which the King replied, then let the seats be pulled down, Then the Council for the Parish alleged, that Bishop Jewell in his Reply to Harding, Artic. 3. Diuis. 26. and Artic. 13. Diuis. 6. and Master John Fox in his Acts and Monuments, Edit. 1610. pag. 1211. 1212. (both which Books were enjoined to be kept in every Church for the people to read in as containing the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, and naught repugnant thereunto) maintained and asserted, That the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDST OF THE CHURCH AMONG THE PEOPLE, and not Altar-wise against the wall. Hereupon the Archbishop stood up in an angry manner, and said, If this be the use they make of these Books Jewell & Fox, I desire they may be taken out of Churches; and Sir Henry Martin saying merrily, that this Table placed close along the wall, would make a good Court-cupboard: The Archbishop thereupon replied, that Sir Henry was a stigmaticall Puritan in his bosom. All which particulars were proved upon oath by Master Wyan, Mr. Clearke, and Captain Stackhouse. Wherupon by the Archbishops violence this Order was then made against the Parishioners for the standing of that Table Altar-wise, as it was situated by the Deans and Chapters Order and appointment.

This Order being thus obtained, and afterwards published in Print by Doctor Heylin in his Coale from the Altar, and Antidotum Lincolniense; the design of removing, railing in and turning Communion Tables into Altars in Parcohiall Churches, Chapels, was much promoted by color of it, & of the reason of conformity to Cathedral Mother Churches expressed in it: And to hasten this work the more (to which the people and Church-wardens in many places were very averse) the Archbishop being to keep a Metropolitical Visitation in all Dioceses and places exempt, and not exempt with in the Province of Canterbury, by Sir Nathaniel Brent his Vicar General & others his Commissioners, though he made no mention in his printed Visitation Articles of removing and railing in Communion Tables Altar wise, to avoid the people's clamours against him, yet he writ a private Letter to Sir Nathaniel Brent after his departure hence, to enjoin him to remove and rail in the Communion Tables in all Parish Churches, and gave him order to see it executed. With which practice the Archbishop being charged at the Lord's Barre by Serjeant Wilde, who managed this part of the evidence; he peremptorily denied it, and protested solemnly before the Lord's, that he never gave Sir Nathaniel Brent any such order or directions by letter or otherwise; and that he could prove by sufficient testimonies, Sir Nathaniel had openly acknowledged, that this Alteration was made by Sir Nath. himself of his own head, without any order from him; adding that he cold not be so unworthy as to deny it. Wherupon he desired Sir Nath. might be called to testify the truth upon his Oath: who appearing at the Lord's Bar for this purpose, the Archbishop demanded of him; whether ever he gave him any command or direction, by word or writing in his Metropolitical Visitation, to remove or rail in Communion Tables at the East end of the Chauncell, telling him, he was now upon his Oath, and wishing him to speak nothing but the truth herein: whereunto Sir Nathaniel answered: My Lord's upon the Oath I have taken, I received an express direction & command from the Archbishop himself to do what ever I did in this or any other kind, else I durst not have don it; To which the Archbishop confidently replied; My Lord's, I protest I never gave him any such command or directions, & I wonder Sir Nathaniel dares be so bold & unworthy as to affirm it here upon Oath since I can prove he hath formerly denied it: To which Sir Nathaniel replied: My Lord's, since the Archbishop so confidently denies that he ever gave me any such command and directions, I shall humbly desire that this Letter of his sent unto me when I was visiting at Maidstonin Kent, signed with his own hand, may be read; which will end the controversy, and manifest by whose Authority and command I did it; whereupon a Letter under the Arch Bishops own hand, directed to Sir Nathaniel was delivered to the Clarke and openly read, to the Arch-Bishops great shame, and disparagement of all his Protestations, which after this (& some other passages wherein he was taken tripping in like manner) were reputed mere vaporing impostures, to delude the vulgar, void of truth and credit. The Letter was to this effect. Sir, I require you to command the Communion Table at Maidston to be placed at the East or upper end of the Chauncell, and there railed in, and that the Communicants there shall come up to the Rail, to receive the blessed Sacrament, and the like you are required to do in all Churches, in all other placse where you are to visit Metropolitically, &c. W. Cant.

This letter being read, much daunted, discredited the Arch-Bishop in the opinion of all the Auditors, he having nothing to reply, but that he had forgotten he writ him any such letter. Upon the receipt whereof Sir Nathaniel Brent confessed he did give order throughout his Metropolitical Visitation, that all the Communion Tables should be removed, and railed in at the upper end of the Chauncell in all Parish Churches, and all seats above the Table, or equal with it in any Chancel pulled down, and that the Communicants should go up to the Rail and there receive the Sacrament kneeling; which he pressed as spatingly as he might, it being against his own judgment; and thereupon obedience was yielded in most places, and such as refused to Rail in their Tables, were questioned and proceeded against by others, but as for himself he never troubled any for it.

That the Archbishop himself gave both command and approbation for these Innovations, was proved by this ensuing Petition, to which an Answer was underwriten by Master Dell, subscribed with the Archbishops own hand, found among Sir John Lambes sequested Papers, by Master Prynne.

By answering of which Petition, the Archbishop acknowledgeth, that the railing in of Communion Tables, and imposing illegal Rates for the same, was done by HIS GRACES SPECIALL DIRECTION in his Metropolitical Visitation; and thereupon he thus desired Sir John Lamb, to expedite the hearing of the Cause; yet he had so Little Grace as openly to deny it with solemn protestations: The falsity whereof was further evidenced by this Copy of Injunctions given in his Metropolitical Visitation to the Cathedral Church of Winchester, 19. July An. 1635. by Sir Nathaniel Brent his Vicar General; found in his own Study at Lambeth, (so as he could not be ignorant of them) & attested by Master Prynne; the last whereof was this. Deinde Dominus injuaxit Gardianis Ecclesiae parochialis sancti Mauritij infra Civitatem Wintoniae, quod duo sedilia ex utraque parte Cancellorum ibidem removeantur; & quod nullum sedile ibidem collocatur aut erigatur. Distu{que} Dominus ad Petitionem Willielmi Newton, unius Parochianorum praefatae Ecclesiae Parochialis decrevit Mensam sacram Eucharistiae decenter circum-sepiendam, viz. TO BEE RAYLED ABOUT IN DECENT MANNER, citra festum Omnium Sanctorum proxime sequens.

Moreover, A paper of Informations of divers Abuses in the City and Diocese of London, was found in the Archbishops Study, attested by Master Prynne, whereof this was one. There are many Communion Tables in several Churches of the City of London that are not railed in, and some of them are placed in the middle of the Church, when as they may be placed more conveniently at the East end thereof. At the Chapel at Highgate, the Boys use to lean on the Communion Table in the time of Divine service: under which Mr. Dell the Archbishops Secretary Writ this direction to Sir Nathaniel Brent, his Visiter, subscribed with the Archbishops own hand.

I require you that (besides my other Instructions) you give me an account of all particulars within named. Whereupon an Account was given to him in writing accordingly, thus entitled. An Account of the Metropolitical Visitation of the Diocese of London, Aano. 1636. found in his Study with the foresaid Informations, and indorsed thus with his own hand: 1636. March, The Course of my Visitation in London Diocese: Wherein are these Particular Passage, touching the railing in of Communion Tables. Mr. Rogers of Massing (mentioned in your Graces Paper) came not to me for an order for the setting up of a Rail about his Communion Table: But I GAVE A GENERALL ORDER FOR IT BOTH THERE AND IN ALL OTHER PLACES WHERE I PASSED. The Communion Table in the Chapel of Highgate (mentioned in your Graces paper) is already placed at the upper end of the Choir, and a decent Rail made about it, as J am informed by divers, (To which the Archbishop with his own hand adds this Note in the Margin; See it be don:) In the Parish Church of Edmonton, a fair Monument is set at the upper end of the Chancel, which I have ordered to be taken down without delay, and the Communion Table to be set in the place of it, with a comely rail about it. Yet had this Archbishop the Impudency to protest to the Lord's he never gave any order to Sir Nathaniel Brent, for removing or railing in Communion Tables; that it was done without his Privity or direction. O portet mendacem esse memorem. Add to this, that in an Abstract of this Archbishops Metropolitical Visitation endorsed by himself and found among his papers; there were these observable informations given to him by his Visitor, Sir Nathaniel Brent July 16. 1635. At Lyn in the principal Church called St. Margaret's, the Communion Table wanted a rail, which I have ordered. At Northampton, no man boweth at the pronouncing of the name of Jesus; in all the Churches in Shrewsbury many things were out of Order, especially about the Communion Table: But the Officers in every Parish Church most willingly submitted to what I ordered Mr. Speed of Saint Pancrosse in Chicester is very willing the Gallery in his Church should be pulled down which was built to receive strangers, as also to remove the seats which stand even with the Altar. Besides, it appears by a letter of Will. Kingsley Arch-deacon of Cant. to this Archbishop, dated April 13 16 6. that he gave him order to survey all the Churches in Canterbury, and to certine him, what Monuments placed the Eastland Galleres were in them, to the end they might be removed; who gave him this account thereof in writing, found among the Archbishops Papers.

To which Letter the Archbishop returned this answer, sound in his study thus endorsed, The Copy of my Letters to the Arch-Deacon of Canterbury, April 29. 1636. concerning the taking down of Galleries, and Monuments in some Churches of Canterbury, &c.

By these two Letters it is apparent, that the Archbishop gave special directions not only to Sir Nathaniel Brent, but to the Arch-Deacon of Canterbury to take down Galleries and Monuments at the East end of Chancells near the Communeon-Tables; and to place the Tables there, at in their proper place; as likewise to obliterate the memorial of our happy deliverance from the Spanish Armado in 88. out of that Church, where it had long continued.

Finally, it was proved by the testimony of Master Sutton, Master Brown, and others, that in the year 1640. in the new Chapel at WEST MINSTER, the Kings Arms were set up in the East Window, which was first glased with white Glass; afterward the Archbishop promising to bestow a new window instead of it, the Kings Arms were thereupon taken down by direction of Doctor Haywood, the Archbishops Chaplain, and Brown this Joyner, and placed in another obscure window, and the Archbishops Arms (supported by Seraphim) put up in its place to signify, that he was the sole donor of this new Window, where instead of the white Glass, there was set up in coloured glass, the Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove, with the Images of the Virgin Mary, Christ, Angels, and Ceraphins, for which the Glasier was paid since the Archbishops commitment to the Tower by the Archbishops direction (as the Glasier verily believed,) this new painted Window being set up about the beginning of this Parliament, but since demolished by order of Parliament; which manifests the Archbishops perseverance in his Popish Innovations notwithstanding the Scottish troubles, and the many late complaints against them in the last dissolved and present Parliament.

When this Arch-Prelate had in his Metropolitical Visitation by private instructions only to his Vicar General and other Agents, set on these Innovations, and introduced them into many Parish-Churches in most Diocese, he then by his subordinate Suffragans and Creatures, began to enforce them universally upon all Ministers Church-Wardens, Parishes, by Visitation Oaths and Articles, upon which such Ministers, Church-Wardens and others who opposed them were presented yea prosecuted as Delinquents. Among others Dr. Pierce Bish. of Bath and Wells, Matthew Wren, Bish. of Norwich, Bish. Lindsy of Peterborough, Bish. Montague of Chichester and Skinner, Bishop of Bristall, were the chief promoters of his Innovations especially of railing in Communion Tables Altarwise, bowing to and towards them, saying second service at them, and coming up to the new rayles to receive the Sacrament, prescribing these particulars in their several Visitation Articles: Witness Rich: Montague Bishop of Chichester, his printed Visitation Articles there, 1635. which after his translation to Norwich, he enlarged with some printed additions for that Diocese Anno 1638. of which there were two impressions.

On all which Articles Church-wardens and Sidemen were obliged to present Non-conformists to them, by this strict ensuing Oath.

Matthew Wren Bishop of Norwich, in his first Visitation of that Diocese among other Articles to be inquired of within that Diocese, prescribed these ensuing Articles upon Oath, printed by Richard Baiger 1636. concurring in substance with Bishop Montague's.

To these Articles, this Bishop annexed divers particular Injunctions, prescribing, Rayling in of Communion-Tables Altar-wise, bowing towards them, reading second Service at them, that every Combination Lecturer, should in his Surplice and Hood, begin the second Service at the Communion Table before he went up into the Pulpit, into which he should ascend, after the reading of the Nicene Creed, using no other prayer than that prescribed in the 55. Canon, nor Preaching above one hour; that he should not give the blessing out of the Pulpit, but should descend again to the Table, and read the Prayer for the universal Church, and so dismiss the Congregation with the Peace of God, &c. That all Communicants should come up by files, and receive the Sacrament at the new Rayles, kneeling, &c. As appears by his Injunctions, annexed to his Articles in writing, and his Account to the Archbishop, for the year 1636. both found in the Archbishops study, and attested by Mr. Prynne.

In this Diocese of Norwich (by means of these Visitation Articles.) Bishop Montague, in his Account to the Archbishop for the year, 1638. informs him under his own hand, That all Courches were furnished with the ALTAR, standing close to the East-wall, all Rayled about the Altar: But withal he certifies him, that many of the people complained they were troubled, and Excommunicated by his Predecessor (Bishop Wren) for not coming up to receive at the Rayls, about the Altar, in this manner.

This Account of Bishop Montague being shown Bishop Wren, by the Arch-Bishop, he returned this Answer in writing thereunto, which he delivered to the Archbishop, in whose Study Mr. Prynne seized it.

This is spoken unto in the precedents.

After which, Bishop Montague in a Synod at Ipswitch, Octob. 8. 1639. gave these ensuing directions to his Clergy, concerning the people's coming up to the Rayles to receive. A Copy whereof he sent to the Archbishop, who received it the 21th. of the same Moneth, as appears by his endorsement thereof.

As these Popish Innovations, Ceremonies were thus set on and prescribed in the Diocese of Chichester, and Norwich, by Montague, and Wren: so were they by Doctor Divenant Bishop of Salisbury, (of whose direction and determination concerning the placing of the Communion Table, the Archbishop took much advantage in his Star-chamber speech, pag. 13, 14.) by the Bishop of Lincoln, Williams, and his Officers in his Diocese, notwithstanding he seemed afterwards to oppose them, and Canterburies proceedings herein, in his Holy Table, name, and thing.

This is undeniably evident by the ensuing Acts, for railing in all Lord's Tables in every Church and Chapel made, in his Visitation, 1635.

Acta habita facta, &c. in Ecclesia Parochiali Beatae Mariae Leic' die Martis. 25. Aug. 1635. per reverend. in Christo Patrē & Dom: Dom. Johannē Providentia Divina Lincoln. Episc. pro tribunali sedentem tunc & ibid. in Visitatione sua triennali, praesente me Edwardo Lake in legibus Bac. & Notario publico Regist. suo in hac parte assumpt.

Quibus, &c. Dict. Reverend. Pater palam & publice enjunnie & admonuit omnes & singulos gardianos corumque assistent. infra Decanat. de Goodlaxton, Akley & villam Leicestr. infra Arch. Leicest. una cum gard. sanctae Margaretae infra villam Leic. quatenus Mensam illam sacram pro sanctae Eucharistiae administratione in qualibet Ecclesia et Capella infra Decanat. et loca praerecitat. respective vacerris vel C • ncellis decenter muniri procurarent, et inde ad proximam Visitationem dom. Archidiaconi Leic. pro Decanat. et locis pred. infra Arch. Leic. pred. tenend. debite certificand.

Similiter in omnibus acta &c. die Mercurii 26 August. 1635. in Ecclesia beat Mariae Leic. praed. quoad Mensas sacras, &c. infra Docanat. de Sparken hoc et Gartrie Arch. Leic. praed.

Similiter in omnibus acta, &c. die Jovis 27. die. Augusti 1635. in Ecclesia de Meltonmobrey infra Archidiac. Leic. pred. quoad Mensas saeras, &c. infra Decanat. de Frūlandet Goscot Archidiac. Leic. pred.

Acta habita, &c. in Synodo fine Visitatatione veneralis viri Willielmi Warye sacrae Theology profess. Archidiac. Leic. tent • in Capella in Markatharborow die Martis 13. Octobris 1635. per Magistrum Reginald Burdin, Clericum in artibus Magistrum Surrogatū venerabilis viri Johannes Farmeris legū Dacteris praefati Reverend. P •• ris Dom. Episcopy Lincolnien. Vicarij generalis, &c. present me Edward Lake Regist. antedicio.

Quibus, &c. dictus magister Burdin Com. Certificat • pro omnibus Gard. et assistent infra Decanat. de Gartree et Goodlaxton quoad septa Mensarum sacrarum, &c. 〈◊〉 vacerris juxta monitionē reverend. Pairi • dom. Episc. • irdolnien. pred in prox. post festum Omnium Sanctorum, prox. futur. pro Commiss. or offic. Archid. Leic. in Ecclaesia beata Mariae Leic. tenend.

Similiter in omnibus acta, &c. dis Jovis 14 Octobris 1635. in Ecclaesia paroch. de Meltonmowbrey quoad Mensas facrat, &c. infra Decanat. Framland et Goscot.

Similiter in omnibus acta, &c. die Veueris 15▪ Octobris 1635. in Ecclaesia beata Mariae Leicest. quoad Mensat sacras, &c. infra 〈◊〉 Sparken hoc, Akley et Uillae Leicest.

Concord. 〈◊〉 original. penes reg. reman •• d. facta collatione per me Jo. Fowler Notar publicum Regist. deput,

And by Articles to be inquired of within the Archdeaconry of Buckingham, (in the Diocese of Lincoln) at the Visitation of the Archdeacon there, this present year 1637. Printed at London 1637.

Artic. 5. Have you ad • cent Table, on a frame for the holy Communion, placed at the East end of the Chancel? Is it railed in or enclosed, so as Men or Boys cannot sit upon it, or throw their hats upon it? Is the said rail or 〈…〉 with s • ttles or kneeling h • nches, at 〈…〉 or bottom thereof, no the Communicants way fitly kneel there at the receiving of the holy Communion?

Artic. 38. Whether any in your Parish have covered his head in time of Divine Service, contrary to the •• Canon; any that do not kneel at the saying of the general Confession, Litany, ten Commandments, and other prayers read in the said Church • any that do not stand up at the saying the Beliefe, or not how or use reverenc • when (in time of Divine service) the name of Jesus is read or 〈◊〉 ? &c.

Moreover Dr. Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wels, not only prescribes the railing in of Communion Tables Altarwise, under penalties and fines in his Visitation Articles and Courts, but likewise appoints Ministers in every Division to see it executed, and presents these reasons for it to the Archbishop, who endorsed them thus with his own hand. Recepi. March 9. 1633. L. Bishop of Bath and Wels about placing the Communion Table.

Reasons why the Communion Table in every Church should be set close under the East-window or wall, with the ends North and South, and be railed in.

1. It was ordered in Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, That the Communion Table should stand where the Altar did.

2. There should be some difference between the placing of the Lord's Table in the Church, and the placing of a man's Table in his house.

3. It is not sit the people should sit above God's Table, or he above the Priest when he consecrateth.

4. If it stand not thus, and he not railed in, it will be subject to many profanations and abuses; Church-wardens will keep their accounts at the Lord's Table, Parishioners will sit round about it, and talk of their Parish businesses (whereas the Lord's Table is for no other use but only for the Communion; and the service and prayers of the Church) Schoolmasters will teach their Boys to write upon this Table, and the Boys will • ay their Hats, Sachels, and Books upon it, and in their Masters absence sit upon the same; and many will sit or learn irreverently against the Lord's Table in Sermon time. Glasiers will knock it full of mile holes (as it is found by experience they have done in many places) and Dogs will defile the Lord's Table.

5. When the Communion Table stands thus, the Chancel is the fairer, and there •• more 〈◊〉 for the Communicants.

6. Where the Communion Table stands thus, the face of the Priest is seen of all, and his voice is 〈◊〉 heard of all which sit on the North side of the Chancel.

7. It is sit the Daughters should be like their Mother, the Patochiall Churches should be 〈◊〉 the C • thedrall Churches, that so there may be an uniformity in this respect in every Church.

At Coventry 〈◊〉 Bishop of that Diocese by his Chancellor prescribed these Innovations following in the Churches of that City.

Thursday the 15 of August 1636. at Coventry.

It is ordered by Mr. Chancellor in the presence of me Henry Archbold, principal Register, being 〈…〉 by my Lord Bishop to that purpose.

1. That the Communion Tables with in S. Michaels and Trinity Churches, should be removed up 〈…〉 of the Chancels.

2. That the ground at the upper end of the Chancels be handsomely raised by three steps, that the 〈…〉 be conspicuous to all the Church.

3. That in 〈…〉 which almost stopped up the middle I will, be removed according 〈…〉 the Church-wardens in presence.

4. That in both Churches, all new additions of Seats in the Chancels be taken away, 〈…〉 be to the ancient form.

5. 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Trinity shall hereafter have any Seat to himself within the Church of S. Michael, nor any parishioner of S. Michael have any 〈…〉 such no have sufficient interest by Land in the other 〈◊〉 .

6. 〈…〉 the Churchyard of S. Trinity may be 〈…〉 restored to the Churchyard. And the doors opening into the Churchyard be st • pped up, and the sink and other 〈…〉 .

7. That the 〈…〉 wives being in both Churches sufficiently accommodated 〈…〉 hence forth content themselves 〈…〉 • e disposed of to these Gentlemen of quality within 〈…〉 .

The Church-wardens of both Parishes are admonished to certify the performance of the precedent Articles to M. Chancellor, by the next Court-day at Lichfield, being the 27 of September next.

And that the Desk in the Chancel in Trinity Church whereon the Books lie, be removed to the upper end of the North Isle next the Chancel; and a Rayle made with a door in the middle thereof to keep out children from tearing the Books.

Charles Twysden.

Henry Archbold, Registers.

After which, this Bishop in a better mood, Ordering the Communion Table only at the time of administering the Sacrament to be brought into the midst of the Chancel (being large) without the precincts of its impounding rayles, thereupon the Archbishops Creatures gave present secret notice thereof by way of complaint to Sir John Lamb, and he to the Archbishop in these ensuing Letters (found among Sir John Lambs papers by Mr. Prynne) endorsed with Mr. Dels, the Archbishops Secretaries hand upon the Archbishops perusal of them. The first was this Letter from Mr. Bird to Mr. Latham.