Canterburys Doom
Secondly, having ended with my Chapel at Lambeth, they next pursued me to my study there.
Where, first they charge me for having an English Bible with a Crucifix embroidered on the Cover of it.
To which I Answer, That I bought it not, but it was sent unto me by a Lady, and the Crucifix itself is lawful, if there be no adoration of it; as appears by the Christians engraving of it on their Chalices in Tertullian's days.
To which was replied: First, that his receiving and reserving of this Bible with a Crucifix on the Cover, (which was so visible to his eyes, and lay upon his study Table) was as great an offense as if he had bought it: And no Lady durst have sent him such a present, had she not been assured of his good affection to such Popish Pictures.
Secondly, whereas he avers the Picture of the Crucifix to be lawful, so it be not adored: He herein expressly contradicts our Homilies, to which he hath subscribed, our Statutes, Injunctions, Authors forecited, yea, the judgment of all sound Antiquity. And if this Picture of Christ hanging still on the Cross (as if he had never been taken down thence) be lawful, (as he avers with the Papists against all Orthodox Protestants) then it is lawful to make or reserve it either for a mere civil use to grace his study, or please his eye sight only; which certainly is an extreme dishonor to, disparagement of our most blessed Savior and his passion, who is the holy One of God, transcending all civil uses being made for holy ends alone: or for a religious use, to stir up our devotion, and put us in remembrance of his death (which he hath purposely ordained his word and Sacraments to do) which at best is superstition.
Thirdly, the place of Tertullian (already quoted) proves not at all that the Christians had any Crucifixes or Pictures of Christ engraven on their Chalices; there is no such syllable in his writings, but only that the Heretics against whom he writ, had the Picture of a lost sheep engraven on some of their Cups. And we hope there is a vast difference, between Heretics and Orthodox Christians, the Picture of a lost sheep, and a Crucifix or Picture of Christ himself hanging on the Cross.
The second thing charged against me in my study, is a (g) Book of Popish Pictures printed 1623. containing the Portratures of the Life, Passion, and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I Answer, that I kept it only as a Scholar, to peruse and refute it upon occasion, nor to adore or make use of the Pictures in it.
To which was answered, that this Book was (as the Papists style their Images) a mere ignorant Lay-man's, not a learned Archbishops Book, consisting merely of unlawful Pictures: Therefore he had it only to view, not read.
Secondly, his curious gilding of the Book and Pictures in it, argues, that he prized it more then ordinary to help him in his Devotions.
Thirdly, he was so far from refuting it, that he authorized those very Pictures to be reprinted in England, and bound up in our Bibles.
Fourthly, he had many small Popish guilded velome Pictures, curiously guilt inserted into this Book; a pregnant proof he very much doted on these Puppets in his declining age.
The third particular objected against me in my study, is two large folio Mass-books, and that I had noted one of them frequently with my hand: That I had likewise there the Roman Missal, Pontifical, and twenty two Popish hours of our Lady, Breviaries, Manuels, and Books of Popish devotion.
I Answer: First, that it is lawful for every learned man to have those Books to peruse and refute them, as there is occasion, there being no great Scholars but have them in their studies for this end; for which cause alone I both read and noted one of them with my own hand, not out of any love to, or approbation of the Mass itself: And they may as aptly conclude that I am a Turk, because I have the Alcoran in my study; as that I am a Papist or Popishly affected, because I have the Mass-book. The same Answer I shall give to the other objected Books found in my study.
The Reply hereto was: First, that the mere having all or any of these Books in his study, was no convincing argument of his affection and inclination to Popery, no more then his keeping the Alcoran as a Scholar, proves him to be a Turk; neither was it so pressed by us, since many Protestants have them in their studies to peruse, refute; which is no offense, but laudable and necessary in some cases. But we have punctually proved all along, that he bought, perused, and noted them with his own hand; not by way of dislike or refutation, but approbation, yea he pursued them strictly in practice and imitation, as far as the most superstitious Popish Priests or Prelates did at Rome in most particulars.
Secondly, compare his having of these Books, with the extraordinary curiousnesse and costliness of their binding, gilding; the Popish Images, Crucifixes in his study, Chapel, Gallery, and the rest of our following evidence; and then they are a very strong Argument, to prove him a professed Papist in affection, opinion, if not in practice too.
The last objected thing found in my Library is, my private Prayers and Devotions written with my own hand, against which there are three exceptions:
First, that some of these Prayers are extracted out of the Roman Missal, Pontifical, Breviary, and hours of our Lady.
Secondly, that they are digested into Canonical hours of prayer after the Papists Model.
Thirdly, that I make mention of prostration in some of them.
To which I return this general Answer: That this being only a Book for my own private devotions and use alone, ought not to be charged against me. As to the objected particulars excepted against, I Answer: First, that if any such prayers be taken out of the Missal, Pontifical, or Roman Breviary; yet they are devout and pious in themselves, and there is no prayer to Saints or Angels in the Book: Thirdly, the Canonical hours of Prayer are of very great Antiquity in the Church: derived from holy King David's practice, who said Seven times a day will I praise thee, and was taken up and practiced by Christians within two hundred years after Christ, and approved of in preces privatae, in Queen Elizabeth's reign: Thirdly, that prostration in prayer is no crime, but commendable, and a sign of extraordinary humility; Christ himself using this gesture in his prayers before his passion.
Hereunto the Commons Council retorted in general, That his own private devotions did best of all serve to discover his secret intentions and inclinations; therefore they were fit to be given in evidence, for this purpose. In particular: First, that his collecting of Prayers out of such Popish dunghills, when there were purer mines to dig in, was a symptom of a Romish inclination. And whereas he allegeth the matter of those prayers to be good; those we except against are for their very matter merely superstitious: Secondly, that this justification of the Antiquity and lawfulness of Canonical hours of Prayer, was taken verbatim out of Mr. Cozens his hours of Prayer, formerly complained of in Parliament. That Canonical hours of Prayer, are no ways warranted by David's president, who speaks only of Praise, not Prayer, and never digested his Psalms or Prayers into such Canonical houers, nor any other Saint in the Old Testament or New: The most exact pattern of Prayer which Christ himself left both his Disciples and us to imitate, warrants no such practice: nay the Primitive Christians and true Antiquity never knew of any such Models of Prayer, digested into Canonical hours, which Popish monks first introduced, practiced, prescribed: Neither did Queen Elizabeth approve of them as Dr. Cozens pretends in his hours of Prayer, whence the Archbishop borrowed this false answer; as some who answered his Book by public Authority have manifested to his shame: Thirdly, the Archbishop hath quite mistaken the last objection; which was not his prostration to God in Prayer, but, his prostration coram Altare, and dum Altari adsto, in honor and reverence of his idolized Altar: So that the charge rests still upon, and sticks faster to him then before, by this his justification.
Thirdly, From my study at Lambeth they pursued me to my Gallery there, where they charge three Pictures against me; to which I return this Answer.
That the first of them, which is the great one, was given me by a friend, and there can be no harm or Popery in it, being only the Picture of Saint Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the first, which may be lawfully made and reserved. That the two other Pictures were in the Gallery long before my time, and continued there in Archbishop Abbots, Bancrofts, and Whitgifts days; to prove which he produces Mr. Dobson his servant, who affirmed, that he saw these two latter Pictures in the Gallery in Archbishop Bancrofts time, where they continued ever since; and one of them is a Picture against Popery, to wit, of Christ, going into the sheepfold by the door, and of Popish Priests and Friers climbing into it by the window, like thieves and robbers: Besides, the Harmony of confessions of the reformed Churches, holds that Images are in themselves indifferent, so as no adoration be given to them; yea, Mr. Calvin in the place forecited, is of the same opinion: And I have written against the adoration and superstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever: Therefore those Pictures can be no evidence of mine intention to bring in Popery.
To which was rejoined: First, that we believe the first Picture was a present sent unto him from Rome, where the workmanship of it shows it was made; and therefore he did wisely to conceal his name, who bestowed it on him: That we did not except against the mere Pictures of those Fathers; but against the Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove hovering over their heads, and sending forth rays and influences from his beak severally upon each of them; directly contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Writers, which condemn all such Pictures of the Holy Ghost, or any other persons of the Trinity.
Secondly, that one of the other Pictures was a most abominable Idol of Christ newly taken down from his Cross all bloody, with shaven crown Priests, Friers, and Nunns, standing and kneeling round about him; which kind of Pictures by our Laws, Homilies, Injunctions resolutions (as we have already proved) ought to be utterly demolished and not suffered in private Houses or Galleries, no more then in Churches or Chapels, The other was a Picture of Christ himself upon a ladder, not entering in at a door, with Monks and Friers only about him: and therefore as superstitious, Popish as the former, and not tolerable by our Laws, especially in an Archbishops public Gallary, where all sorts of strangers and visitors of quality were entertained; who by this example would be induced, if Protestants, to approve of such superstitious Pictures, and to procure the like by way of imitation; If Papists, would be thereby hardened, confirmed in their superstition, and in giving them adoration, especially when they should behold the like Superstitious and Idolatrous Pictures, as well in his Chapel and study, as in his Gallary, where no such were in his predecessors days, but only broken and defaced ones. As for his predecessors having or leaving these two last Pictures to him, it is no justification, nor mitigation of his crime; their ill actions are no Apology at all for his, who repaired and beautified in his Chapel those very superstitious Images, which they demolished, and never durst repair.
Thirdly, whereas he produceth the Harmony of confessions of the Protestants Churches, for proof of the use and indifferency of these Images, so as they be not adored: He cites neither Section, nor Page, nor sentence therein to prove this assertion, but we must take it on his own bare word; which how false it is, we shall prove by the words of the Harmony itself: Sect. 17. p. 401. Where the latter confession of Helvetia, Cha. 17. determines thus. But yet notwithstanding we must admonish men to take heed, that they count not among things indifferent; such as INDEED ARE NOT INDIFFERENT, as some use to count the Mass, and THE USE OF IMAGES IN CHURCHES. This is the only passage we find in the Harmony of confessions for the indifferency of Images or their use, which is point blank against him. And as for Mr. Calvin's forecited Text, it is as point blank against him, as this of the Harmony, as we have proved. Therefore this charge lies still heavy upon him in each particular, and bewrays both his Popery and falsity in quotations.
Secondly, from Lambeth house, they next pursued me to White Hall, where these particulars were charged against me: First, my own personal bowing to the Altar: and my enjoining of others his Majesty's Chaplains to use it, when I was Dean of the Chapel: Secondly, the hanging up of a glorious large costly Arras Crucifix behind the Altar, on passion week, in his Majesty's own Chapel there, in the years 1636. and 1637. which gave great scandal and offense, as Sir Henry Mildmay attested: Thirdly, my making his Majesty's Chapel a pattern of imitation to all Cathedrals and other Churches: Fourthly, the practice of Dr. Brown, and two Seminary Priests, in bowing to the Altar and Crucifix there; with their speech to Mrs. Charnock.
To the first of these I Answer, that my bowing there was only to worship God, not the Altar, and I hope it is no offense nor treason to worship God in the Kings own Chapel, or to induce others to do the like: The lawfulness of this worship towards the Altar, I have manifested at large in my Speech in Starchamber, and proved it by a Chapter order in the Black book of Windsor, which the Knights of the Honorable Order of the Garter yet observe and practice; therefore it is no Popery, nor Popish Innovation, but a reverence fitting the place which the Homily for repairing and keeping clean Churches commands. And I pray God that under color of casting superstition out of Churches, we bring not in profaneness.
To the third I Answer, that I was not Dean of the Chapel, but Bishop Wren when this Crucifix was set up; that neither Sir Henry Mildmay, nor any other ever complained to me, that they were scandalized by this Crucifix: If Sir Henry took scandal merely at the Crucifix itself, he must have taken scandal at that Crucifix in the old hangings, which stood continually, behind the Altar, as well as at this which was more costly; which since he did not, it seems, he took scandal only at the workmanship, not at the Crucifix itself, in this more costly piece.
(To the third he gave no Answer.)
To the fourth I Answer, that Dr. Browns act is nothing to me, he is old enough and must answer for himself: The same Answer I give to that of the Seminary Priests; only this I shall add, that perchance it might be an act of cunning in them, of purpose to discredit and discountenance all our external worship, of purpose to gain Proselytes to themselves.
To which was replied: First, that to worship God as we ought in the Kings Chapel, is no treason, nor offense; but this kind of worshipping God there or elsewhere towards the Altar, is both Popish, Superstitious, and Idolatrous: For by the Black-book of Windsor which he cites, it was introduced in the very darkest times of Popery in Henry the 5. his reign, or a little before: and that in modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum, a worship derived from Ecclesiastical persons, to wit, Popish Priests and Monks of that age: It was a worship jointly given in one and the self same act and instant Deo & Altari, to God and the Altar, that is, in their interpretation, to the consecrated Host and breaden God (as they deemed it) on the Altar, and to the Altar itself: It was prescribed only by Popish Canons, the Roman Missal, Ceremonial, Pontifical, and introduced purposely to support their Error of Transubstantiation at first, and now revived for that very purpose: as the Archbishop himself defines in his Starchamber Speech; who yields this reason, why we must how towards the Altar, not towards the Pulpit: For there tis, hoc est corpus meum, &c. And a greater reverence no doubt IS DUE TO THE BODY, then to the Word of the Lord: Therefore for him to introduce such an Idolatrous, Superstitious worship, as this into the Kings own Chapel contrary to the Word of God, and Law of the Land, under pretext of God's worship, to corrupt the King and his whole Court in their worship and Religion, and alienate his good Subjects affections from him, will prove little less then Treason in the highest degree: As for his pretended Speech, we have already refuted it. And for the Homily, it hath neither word nor syllable to warrant it, but something against it, since as it condemns, profanes, on the one hand, so it censures all superstition on the other; between which this Prelate would have no medium, as this his prayer imports.
Secondly, That the Archbishop was chief Superintendent of his Majesty's Chapel, as Primate and Metropolitan of all England. The King and Queen where ever they live in England, being his immediate Parishioners, and the whole Kingdom but his Parish; though divided into several Bishoprics, as hath been resolved by all the Nobles in King Henry the first his reign, as our Historians, and his own Predecessour Archbishop Parker record: Therefore Bishop Wren being only Dean of the Kings Chapel, the Archbishops creature, and brought into that office by him, durst not have set up this gaudy Crucifix there, in the passion week, in his presence without his approbation and direction, by which he tacitly confesseth it was done: That it gave public scandal to many well-affected Courtiers, and others, Sir Henry Mildmay deposed, and particularly to himself, who complained of it to the King, and the Archbishop too; who if his heart had been right and fervent to our Religion, would have been most scandalized, offended at this unusual scandalous sight, and never have permitted it successiively two years together, nor justified it so peremptorily as now he did. And whereas he objects, that had Sir Henry been thus scandalized with the Crucifix itself, he would have been as much offended with the old, there constantly hanging, as with the new: We Answer, That the old was hardly visible and scarce observed by any; but this so gross, so great, so gaudy and notorious, that every man in the Chapel took special notice thereof, as if it had been some new blasing Star. And if the old were so visible all the year long, what need the hanging up of this new one only in the passion and Easter weeks, which was never used in the memory of man before? In fine the third Part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, resolves, that the most rich, costly, gaudy Images and Crucifixes, are more dangerous and scandalous, then others not so stately: therefore Sir Henry might well be scandalized with it, more then with the old one not so costly.
Thirdly, he gives no Answer to that which is one main charge from this Innovation in the royal Chapel, to make it the pattern, the Canon to regulate all Cathedral, and Parish Churches by. His silence herein bewrays his guilt.
Fourthly, Dr. Browns, and those Seminaries adorations of this Crucifix and the Altar, were but the mere scandalous fruits of his own exemplary Innovations before, and erections of them there; and their speeches occasioned by his actions. Therefore the guilt of them must rest heaviest on himself, not them. It is his own oft iterated position, That he who gives the occasion of a Schism ought to be repu • ed the Schismatic, not he that separates upon the occasion given: And Tertullian in his Book De Idolatria resolves, That the makers of Idols are the greatest Idolaters, because none would or could worship them, were they not first made that they might be worshipped: His own hanging of up this Crucifix and bowing towards the Altar, and it was the cause that Dr. Brown and these Seminary Priests adored and bowed towards them in the self some manner, as himself there used: Therefore the crime, the scandal of it, must rest most on himself. His pretence, that this might be done and spoken by the Priest, to gain Proselytes, by discountenancing our external worship, is a very strange improbable whimsey, since our Bishops, our Doctors imitation of their Popish worshipping Crucifixes, Altars, was more likely ten thousand to one; to gain them Proselytes, then any discountenancing whatsoever thereof by them could be; yea, it had been a monstrous contradiction and folly in them, to discountenance that very thing themselves practiced and endeavored to draw others to: Therefore the whole weight of this heavy charge concerning his Majesty's Chapel, rests entirely upon him in each particular, without the least diminution.
Thirdly, from White-hall they pursued me to the Kings Coronation at Westminster Abbey, where they charge me.
- 1. With compiling the Form of this Coronation.
- 2. That the unction was in forma crucis.
- 3. That the old Crucifix, inter regalia, was set upon the Altar.
- 4. That divers of the Prayers in it, and this manner of anointing, were taken verbatim out of the Roman Pontifical.
- 5. That after the Coronation, I solemnly offered the Regalia at the Altar in the Kings name.
Ans. To which I shall give this Answer:
1. That the Form of the Kings Coronation was made and agreed on by the whole Committee, according to a former Book I had of my Predecessor; and I was but a Minister to the Committee in what I did.
2. That the anointing in Form of a Cross was made by my Predecessor, not by me, who supplied only the place of the Dean of Westminster.
3. That I was commanded to bring this old Crucifix, being inter regalia, and to place it on the Altar.
4. That admit the Prayer objected, be taken out of the Roman Pontifical; yet if it be good as it is, there is no hurt: we know the story of the cock in the fable, dum vertit stercorarium offendit gommam: And a Pearl is never the worse if raked out of a dunghill.
5. I was to offer the regalia at the Altar by my place, and the Book of Common Prayer approves of offerings.
To which was Replied:
1. That it appears by his own Diary, that he had the chief hand in compiling this Form, and that it was collected, corrected by himself, though other Bishops were joined in consultation with him.
2. That though the Unction were made by his Predecessor, which he makes not appear; yet it was principally by his direction, and himself makes special mention of it, That it was in medum Crucis, in the Margent of his Book.
3. That he makes no command appear from any Supreme Authority for his placing the old Crucifix on the Altar, neither doth he allege who it was that gave him any such command: Therefore it must be interpreted his own voluntary act.
4. That the Prayer itself is not very good, savouring of Papal pride in the Clergy; and it is no such precious Pearl, as that he needed to rake such a dunghill of Popish superstitions as the Roman Pontifical is, to find it out to adorn his Majesty's royal Diadem with at his Coronation.
5. He proves not, that it was his duty thus to offer up the regalia at the Altar, yea, the Form of the Kings Coronation found in his own study, enjoined it not, and he pretends no command at all for it: Therefore it was his own spontaneous act; as for the Common Prayer Book, surely it prescribes neither this, nor any other solemn oblation at all at an Altar: And so this charge remains unavoyded.
Fourthly, from Westminster they proceed to the Universities, first of Oxford, where I was Chancellor, next of Cambridge: In Oxford they object:
1. That there were some old Crucifixes repaired, and divers new ones erected in divers Colleges there, since I became Chancellor of the University, whereas there were none before my time.
2. That Communion Tables were railed in Altarwise and bowed to, which they were not before.
3. That I enjoined all Scholars by a University Statute and Oath to give due reverence, and bow to the Communion Table, and that my Letter required bowing and prostation before the Altar.
4. That my visitor at Merton College enjoined the Fellows and Scholars there to bow to the Lord's Table, and questioned Mr. Chainel, and Mr. Corbet for not bowing.
5. That they used Copes in some Colleges, which they did not before.
6. That there was a very scandalous Statue of the Virgin Mary with Christ in her Arms, set up in the front of the New Church porch of St. Mary's next the street, to which Mr. Nixon deposeth he saw one bow, and another pray.
7. That I enjoined Latin Prayers all the Lent, not used before my Chancellorship, since the Reformation.
8. That I enjoined by a Statute all Regent Masters, to read and sing what should be prescribed them in solemn Processions.
I Answer:
1. That there is no proof at all, that I knew of the repairing and setting up of these Crucifixes, or that any complained of them to me. That the Crucifix in Lincoln College was set up by the Bishop of Lincoln, and it would have been thought hard, if I should have opposed it.
2. That the turning and railing in of the Tables Altarwise is warranted by the Queens Injunctions, as I have proved.
3. That the Statute enjoin only due reverence when they come to offer at the Lord's Table, and that my Letter implies a bowing or prostration only, according to the 95 Psalm.
4. That Sir John Lamb only questioned Master Chainel, and Master Corbet, which is nothing to me; and Doctor Frewens words are but a hear-say, besides, they were not punished for not doing it.
5. That Copes are warrantable by the 24 Canon.
6. That the Statue at St. Mary's was set up by Dr. Owen, reputed a reverend Orthodox Divine, not by me, nor is there any proof I had notice of it, or of any bowing or praying to it, which might be a mistake in Alderman Nixon.
7. That Latin prayers have been anciently used in the University on Ashwednesday, and being among Scholars who understand the Language, there can be no hurt therein.
8. That no Processions are intended in the Statute, but such as our Law allows in nature of perambulations, the Statutes of the University prescribing, That nothing shall be done therein but according to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England.
9. For the Innovations of like nature in the University of Cambridge, they concern me not, I being not their Chancellor, and not enjoining them, nor made acquainted with them.
Whereunto was Replied:
1. That all those Crucifixes were erected at Oxford, since he became Chancellor of it: That his own example in his Chapels at Lambeth and Croyden, where he repaired the old broken Crucifixes at his own cost, were the primary occasions of setting up those in Oxford, by way of imitation. That he could not choose but take notice of them being himself several times at Oxford in person, where he entertained the King, Queen, Prince, and Prince Elector, sundry days: Besides, having constant weekly intelligence by Letters, and recourse of Scholars of all sorts to him from the University, who acquainted him with all particulars there transacted, he could not but take notice, and have exact knowledge of them: And he being both Chancellor and Visitor of the University, his not hindering of their setting up at first, not pulling them down, when set up contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, was in Law both a commanding and approving of them. Nam qui non prohibit malum quod potest, jubet. That none complained to him of them, was his own fault; since none durst complain against that then, as a crime, which himself first practiced in his own Chapels, as a commendable action. His Answer to the Crucifix erected in Lincoln College proves clearly he had knowledge of it; and truly it could not have been well taken at his hands to pull that down according to Law, unless he had pulled them down first in other Colleges, and his own Chapel, the Bishop of Lincoln perchance setting it up, only to humor his Grace, and manifest to the world, he was but his Ape in this particular.
2. We have already refuted his second Answer as false, and therefore shall repeat nothing here.
3. That this due reverence, was interpreted by himself in his Speech in Starchamber, to be a bowing to the Altar or Lord's Table: For (saith he) THERE IS A REVERENCE DUE TO IT: Namely, of bowing the body, not only towards, but to the Altar, DEO ET ALT ARI EJUS, in the dative case, and prostration, not simply to God, but CORAM ALT ARE DEI & Christi ejus, is prescribed by his Letter, as much worship as the Devil himself required of our Savior, Luk. 4. 7. Si adoraveris CORAM ME; as the vulgar Latin, or fall down BEFORE ME, as the Margin of our English Bibles render it; whereas the 95 Psalm, requires no worshipping and falling down thus before an Altar, but before the Lord our Maker only, without any mention of an Altar or Lord's Table in the Psalm.
4. His Visitors act in questioning those Fellows for not bowing, was his own, and must concern him, since he did it only in his name and right by his Commission, in pursuit of his Injunctions: and Dr. Frewens words are express, that the Archbishop sent him to Master Corbet, when Proctor, requiring and pressing him in his name to bow to the Altar in regard of his place, else it would be ill taken. And though these fellows were not punished nor suspended for not bowing, yet they were often questioned, menaced, forced to obscure themselves, and desert the College for a time, and had not the Scottish Troubles intervened, would have been severely punished too.
5. Copes in Colleges, are neither within the words nor meaning of the 24 Canon.
6. Neither the Church-porch, nor statue at St. Mary's being the University Church, could or would have been erected there by Dr. Owen, without the Archbishops special license being Chancellor, and supreme Visitor there, as Archbishop, as himself both pretended, pleaded; and he must needs not only hear of, but see it too, when he was in Oxford. Therefore the blame thereof must be his alone: As for the bowing and praying to it, Mr. Nixon swears it directly, and was not mistaken, as he would surmise to excuse the odiousness of this new erected Oxford Idol, which gave such public scandal.
7. Its true that Latin Prayers on Ashwednesday only, were formerly used in Oxford before the Batchellors of Art, but he enjoined such Prayers all the Lent long instead of English, which was never done before, to usher in Latin Service by degrees in an unknown tongue, divers Townsmen resorting to the English Prayers in Lent, who could not understand these new Latin ones which he introduced.
8. This Statute enjoining reading and chanting in solemn Processions, was made in time of Popery, and Popish processions, and renewed in these New Statutes made by this Archbishop. Therefore certainly meant of such processions not of perambulations only, which are not used by the University: And the objected subsequent Statute, is but a blind to delude the simple for the present; the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church (in the Universities judgment) being only written in his breast, quo rectior non stat regula, quo prior est corrigenda Religio, as they write unto him in their Letter of November 9. 1640. the last recorded in their Register.
9. Whereas he would assoil himself from the Popish Innovations in Cambridge University, the guilt of them must originally rest on him alone, for these reasons.
1. Because they were introduced by his instruments, favorites, creatures there advanced by him: as Dr. Martin, Dr. Cozens, Dr. Beal, Dr. Lany, Dr. Stern.
2. Introduced in imitation of those Crucifixes, Images, Copes, Altar-furniture, Genuflexions, which himself had introduced at Lambeth Chapel, to which they were subsequent, not antecedent.
3. Because though he was not Chancellor, yet he pretended to be Visitor of this University, and that of Oxford too, as he was Archbishop of Canterbury, and procured a solemn Decree and Patent for it, to himself and his successors: Therefore since he did not prohibit, correct, suppress them as Visitor, according to Law and duty, they will prove his proper Innovations; the rather because he permitted, countenanced, nay enjoined the like at Oxford by new Statutes, where he was both Visitor and Chancellor, which was never done in Cambridge: That he should have no notice of those Popish Innovations there, which were so notorious to all the Kingdom, so publicly spoken of in every place, when as he had constant weekly intelligence from thence (as appears by sundry Letters) of all transactions there, and was so conversant with the chief Authors of them, is not only improbable, but impossible: Therefore he still lies under the guilt of this entire charge concerning the Popish Innovations in our Universities.
Fifthly, from the Universities, I was next traced to Cathedrals, and Collegiat Churches, where I am charged with introducing, enjoining sundry Innovations tending to Popery by my visitors, Injunctions, and new Cathedral Statutes: As
- 1. Copes.
- 2. Altars, some of them made of Marble stone.
- 3. Turning and railing in Communion Tables Altar wise.
- 4. Bowing to and towards the Altar and Lord's Table, which I enjoined to sundry Cathedrals by new Statutes, as namely to the Cathedralists of Canterbury (as Dr. Jackson and Dr. Bletchenden deposed) and divers others.
- 5. Crucifixes and Images.
- 6. Candlesticks, Basons, Altar-clothes, with other Altar Ornaments; and they instanced in sundry particular Cathedrals, as Canterbury, Gloncester, Durham, Winchester, Chichester, Hereford, Worcester; where these Innovations were introduced by my Injunctions and new Statutes, to make way for them in Parish Churches, who must imitate these their Mother Churches.
To the first of these I Answer, that the use of Copes in Cathedral and Collegiat Churches, is enjoined by the 24 Canon made in Convocation, An. 1603. therefore it was lawful, and no Popish Innovation for me to enjoin them, as I have formerly proved.
To the second, that Altars, both the name and thing, were in use among the Primitive Christians and Churches, who were far from Popery, and long before it; yea, are found both in the Old and New Testament; as divers learned men have largely proved.
To the third, that my Injunctions for railing in of Altars, and Lord's Tables Altarwise, with the sides against the East wall of the Choir, is consonant to the Queens Injunctions, to the practice of approved Antiquity, all Altars and Lord's Tables being generally so placed in Churches in ancient times, both in this and other Churches of Christendom, as well East as West; and that there is no matter of Popery in placing and railing in Lord's Tables in this manner, as I have proved at large in my printed Speech in Starchamber.
To the fourth, that I did in the very Statutes for the Cathedral-church of Canterbury, and others, enjoin the Prebends and Members of the Cathedral, Summa reverentia adorare Deum versus Altare; which bowing to worship God towards the Altar, as Dr. Bletchenden attested upon oath, was used before the new Statutes of Canterbury were made, yea, approved, practiced by Dr. Jackson himself, as readily as by any other Prebends, who hath given a greater testimony against himself, then me: After which he produced his Secretary Mr. Dell, to testify without oath, that in the perusal of the old Statutes for the Cathedral of Canterbury, divers superstitions were put out by the Archbishop, and by name, Prayer for the soul of King Henry the 8. after his decease. Then he concluded his Answer thus, That the 95 Psalm did command this kind of bowing at our entrance into the Church, and that the Knights of the Honorable Order of the Garter were bound by a Chapter-Order, to bow to God towards the Altar, when they offered at it in their solemnities, and did still practice it without guilt or suspicion of Popery: Therefore himself might use, enjoin, and others practice it, without any guilt of Popery at all, as well as they.
To the fifth, that Crucifixes and Images were not simply unlawful, being used in the Kings own Chapel: That Images in Churches had been long in use, even in Constantine the Great his Raign, and long before; therefore no Popery could be couched in them.
To the sixth, that those are no other then what the King used in his own Chapel, and had been long time used in the Church for greater Ornament, luster, it being a disparagement to our Religion, to have God served slovenly and meanly, as many desired he should be, under pretence of shunning superstition.
To this was Replyed:
1. That neither our Common Prayer Book, nor Book of Ordination, nor Homilies confirmed by Parliament (the only Canons in force to direct us) nor Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions in the first year of Her Raign, enjoin any Copes in Cathedrals, more then in other Churches, but condemn, seclude them alike out of all our Churches, and that the last Common Prayer Book in King Edwards days, expressly prohibits them: Therefore the 24 Canon (which was never any binding Law confirmed by Parliament, and expired with King James, if not before) can be no warrant for their use.
2. That the 24 Canon, enjoins only the chief Minister to wear a Cope, and that but at the administration of the Sacrament, not at any other season: But the Archbishop contrary to the Canon, enjoined Cathedrals to provide divers Copes, at least four a piece, and prescribed them to be worn, as well when the Sacrament was not administered, as when it was, and that by others, beside the chief Ministers: Therefore he exceeded the Canon itself.
3. None of his Predecessors in their visitation Articles, or Injunctions, ever prescribed, exacted the providing or wearing of Copes in Cathedrals, but himself alone, and in many Cathedrals they had never any Copes at all, in others but mean ones, as appears by the Abstract of his visitation, under his visitors hand, found in his study; yet notwithstanding he enjoined the providing of new, better and costlier Copes to their great cost, in imitation of the Roman Pontifical, that so they might be like Romish Cathedrals in foreign parts. This allegation therefore of his will not excuse him.
Secondly, we grant, that the name of Altars, together with the thing, are frequent in the Old Testament, to offer Sacrifices and burnt offerings upon, which were but types and shadows of Christ's real Sacrifice for us on the Cross, needing no iteration, yea, not to be iterated without blasphemy, Hebrew. 7. 27. cap. 9. 26, 27, 28. All Altars therefore vanished at his death as mere Jewish types and Ceremonies; wherefore though in the New Testament, we find the name of an Altar, yea, thing itself with reference to the Jewish Altars and Paganish Idolaters only, yet we never find the name Altar in any text given to the Lord's Table; but Altars, and Priests serving at the Altar, are put in contradistinction to the Lord's Table, and Ministers of the Gospel, 1 Corinth. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. to 21. Hebr. 7. 12, 13, 14. Christ himself celebrated, instituted the Sacrament only at a Table, not Altar, yea, he called it a Supper (which is to be eaten at a Table) not a Sacrifice to be offered at an Altar, Luk. 22. 30. John. 12. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 22. And it is as evident as the Sun at noon-day, by the express testimonies of Origen, Contra. Celsum. lib. 4. and 7. Minucius Felix, his Octavius, Cyprian, Contra. Demetriadem, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum. lib. 9. Arnobius Contra Gentes, lib. 6. Lactantius de vero cultu. Cap. 24. (who all lived within 300 years of Christ) which Bishop Morton proves at large in his Institution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. London, 1635. lib. 6. c. 3. p. 417, 418, 419, and c. 5. p. 461, to 495. By the current sufferage of the third part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, p. 44. (ratified by the 35. Art. of Religion, to which all Ministers by the Statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. are to subscribe) Bishop Jewel in his Defense of the Apology, Artic. 3. Divis. 26. p. 145. Thomas Beacon in his Relics of Rome, Tit. of God's Church f. 322. Mr. Calfehill his Answer to Marshall f. 31. 32. King Edward the 6. and his whole Council in Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments, p. 1211. with sundry other of our own Authorized Writers, That the Primitive Christians for above 250. years after Christ, had no Altars at all, but only Lord's Tables: Pope Sixtus the second, first introducing Altars into the Church, and that the Fathers which succeeded them, deemed Christ himself and his Cross the only Altar meant and intended. Hebr. 13. 10. which Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 3. p. 417 418 419. &c. 5. p. 461. to 465. fully proves. Therefore the Archbishops bold assertion, that the Scriptures, Fathers, and primitive, Christians practice, Iustifie both the Antiquity use and lawfulness of Altars, is a most gross untruth, though averred by his Creatures Dr. Heylin, & Dr. Pocklington in their late Popish Books published by his direction. As for our Church, state in the beginning of Reformation, they were so far from allowing Altars, that they exploded, abolished both the name and thing out of our Common Prayer Book, Articles, Homilies, Statutes, yea by public Laws and Injunctions commanded the Altars in all Churches whatsoever to betaken away and removed as Superstitions, Popish, unfit to be tolerated in any kinds, and set up Lord's Tables in their stead, which continued ever since till this Archbishop turned many of them into Altars, to introduce the Popish Sacrifice of the Mass again.
Thirdly, The Rayling in and placing of Communion Tables Altarwise against the Wall, like a Dresser, or side Table is not consonant to Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, which require the Communion Table (not to be fixed to the Wall or railed in close prisoner against it; but) to be removed, when ever the Sacrament as distributed, and placed in such sort within the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently board of the communicants in his prayer and administration, & the communicants may more conveniently, & in greater number communicate with him. If then it were to be thus removed and placed conveniently from time to time, then not to be constantly fixed, impounded Altarwise against the East Wall of the Choir, remotest from the people: but seated in the Body of the Church (where the Chancel is too small or inconvenient) or in the Chancel (where it is capacious) near the midst, as the Rubric of the Common prayer Book; and the 82. Canon Anno 1603. determine.
But the Archbishop objects, that the Injunctions prescribe the Communion Table in every Church shall be set in the place where the Altar stood.
True; Now (saith he) the Altar (in every Church) stood at the upper end of the Choir, North and South, as appears by the practice of the Church.
This we deny as most false: Therefore his conclusion from the Injunction; That the Table in all Churches ought thus to be placed North and South, at the upper end of the Choir, is a mere inconsequent. To refute this gross dotage of his, and display his learned superstitious Ignorance to the world, least any should be deluded with a fond opinion of his great learning, we confidently affirm, that he neither doth nor can produce so much as one President or Authority in all Antiquity, but only his own groundless confidence, to justify his assertion. On the contrary we shall offer some few punctual arguments, presidents, Authorities undeniably manifesting, that Altars and Lord's Tables anciently, not only among Pagans and Jews but 〈…〉 the Primitive Christians and learned Papists themselves▪ were not railed in North & South against the East end of their Quires, but seated in or near the midst of their Churches or Quires, that all the people might sit, stand, and go round about them:
Not to trouble you with proofs beyond contradiction of the Situation of Pagan and Jewish Altars in such sort, that the Priests and people might go, stand, and dance round about them. We shall insist only hath the placing of Christian Altars and Lord's Tables in this posture. That these were thus generally placed in all Churches, will appear by these infallible Arguments.
First, from the very defintion of a Choir, which Isidor Hispalensis Orig. l. 6. c. 19. •• banus Maurus, de Universo. l. 5. c. 9. & de Iustit Clericarum l. 1. c. 33. Amalarius Fortunatus, de Ecclesi Officijs l. 3. c. 3. Durand Rational. Divin: l. 1. c. 1. num: 18. Durantus De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1 c. 17 • um. 1. Barthol • maus Gavantus Comment: in Rubricas Miss. p • rs. 1. Tit. 15. sect. 2. Servius in Virgilium Ae • id. l. 6. Calepine, Galvin, Eliot, Molicks in their Lexicons and Dictionaries Tit. Chorus; and others thus unanimously define; Chorus est multitudo in sacris collecta, & dictus Chorus, quod intitio IN MODVMCORONAECJRCA ARAS STARENT & ita psaller • ut. If then Quires had their denomination, From the multitudes standing ROVND ABOUT THE ALTARS IN A RING or Circle and so singing; then Altars certainly in the Primitive times were not railed in against the Wall, as of late they were, but placed in the midst of the Choir in such sort, that all the people might stand and go round about them singing.
The 2d. Argument is drown from the forms of Prayers in ancient Liturgies and Missalls, wherein the Priest standing at the Altar usually prayed. Pro omnibus his CIRCVMSTANTJBVS; and makes frequent mention Omnium CIRCVMSTANTIUM M •• ui tibi hoc Sacrificium landis offerunt, For proof whereof you may consult at leisure, Canon Miss, in Cassandri Lyturgica p. 21. 25. 61. 62. 65 66. 72. 94. Romri • s in 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 66. Durand Rationale Divinorum. l. 4. c. 53. and Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments, Edit. ult. vol. 3. p. 3. 11. Hence our old Sa • en Canons prohibited a Priest to celebrate Mass alone, upon this ground: Esse • nim debent qui ei CIRCVMSTENT, quoe ill salutet, a quibus ei respondantur, & 〈…〉 illi 〈◊〉 est ill Dominiens Sermo, ubi cun{que} fuerint, duo vel tres in nomine 〈…〉 illic sum & ego IN MEDJO EORVM. which is taken out of Gregory. lib. Capitul. c. 7. seconded by Regine De Eccles. Officijs. c. • 9. and Cassandre Liturgica • . 33. p. 8. Hence Gerardus Lerithicus de Missa Puel preroganda, resolves thus, Ne{que} Canon [Missa] debet nimium tacit legi, sed expressa voice, ut a CIRCVMSTANTIBVS posst •• diri & percipi, cum CIRCVMSTANTES 〈…〉 singular respondere, Amen. Now that all the people usually stood 〈◊〉 about the Altar in St. Chrysostom's days is evident by two passages in his Operum Tom. 4. Edit. 〈◊〉 Ducaei p. 82. 83. De Sa • erdotio l. 3 & 6. where thus he writes: O miracle! He who sits at his Fathers right hand, is at that very instant of time handled with the hands of all [in the Sacrament of the Lord's Table] and this is done, not by any jugglings, sed apertis & circumspicientibus CIRCVMSTANTJVM OMNIVM O • VLIS, &c. Multitudinem aspexisse Altare ipsum CJRCVMST ANTIVM and by his Homil. in Jsai 6. where he writes thus. D • st thou not think that the Angels, stand Round about this dreadful TABLE and COMPASSE IT ABOUT ON EVERY SIDE? So Athanasius in the life of Anthony makes ••• tion of Altar • Domini multorum 〈◊〉 CJRCVM • ATVM, & Gregory Na ••• nzen. Oratio 21. blames such who intruded themselves unto the holy Mysteries with 〈◊〉 hands; & CIRCVM SACRAMMENS 〈…〉 &c. All which, compared with that of the • . Council of Constantinople Act. 1. That whiles the Dip • icks were reading, the people with silence draw together ROVND ABOUT THE ALTAR, and gave • are. Are infallible proofs, that Altars and Lord's Tables in the Primitive times, and anciently in Popish Churches where generally so placed that all the people STOOD or might stand ROVND, ABOUT THEM. Therefore not railed in Altarwayes against the Wall.
The 3d. Argument it taken from the 〈◊〉 , of the Priests and Deacons going round about the Altar when they approached to it, and standing round about it when they officiated. In the Liturgy attributed to St. Peter in the Liturgy of Saint James, in the Liturgy attributed to St. Basil and St. Cryso •• oma in the Aetheop ••• , 〈…〉 Missalls, and the Missal of the Christians among the Indians, the Priest when he approacheth to the Altar to officiate begins with this sentence of the Psalmist, I will wash my hands in Jnnocency, and so will I, COMPASSE, or go ROVND ABOUT THINE ALTAR. And in the ancient Roman Order in Cassanders works p. 101. 102. 107. 112. 118. 119. I find these passages, that Bishops when they officiated usually went round about the Altar, and the Sub-Deacons stood behind it, Tunc Acolyti vadunt dextra laeva{que}, post Episcopu CIRCA ALTARE. Subdiaconi finito officio vadunt RETRO ALTARE, aspicientes Pontificem stantes erecti, &c. Dionysius Areopagita hath this passage, Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. CIRCVMSTANT autem eum soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri selecti. And Jsiodor Hispalensis de Ecclesiast. Officijs l. 2. c. 8. with Concilium Aquisgran: sub Ludovico Pi • , testify: That Deacons heretofore CIRCA ARAM CHRISTI, quasi columnae Altaris assistere it. Most convincing proofs, that Altars generally in all Churches stood a great distance from the Wall, and were not Rayled in Altarwise against it but placed so that the Bishops, Priests, Decons, might go and stand round about and behind them.
The 4th. Argument is deduced from the manner and form of Bishops consecrating Altars prescribed, used even among the Papists themselves in ancient and late times Durand in his Rationale Divinorum l. 1. c. 7. num. 15. informs us, that the Bishop when he consecrates any new Altar, Septies ALTARE CIRCVIT goes Round about it seven times, to signify, that he ought to take care for all, and be vigilant for all, which is signified per CIRCVITVM, by this his going round about it; which he could not do were it railed in against the Wall, and not set some competent distance from it. In the Roman Pontifical, we find the Bishop when he consecrates an Altar, is to go round about it several times, Pontifex CIRCVIT TER ALTARE ad dextram; CIRCVIT iterum semel Altare ad dextram, CIRCVIT semel Altare ad sinistram. Pontifex CIRCVIT Septies Tabulam Altaris, aspergens eam, &c. CIPCVIT ter Altare: CIRCVIT semel Altare: An unanswerable evidence, that even among the Papists themselves, the Atars anciently stood generally in all places, not Altarwise against the Wall, as our Communion Tables were lately placed but a good distance from it, near the midst of the Church or Choir, that the Bishops, Priests, People might stand and walk round about them.
2ly. We shall manifest it by express Authorities; not to mention any already cited, which are punctual, St. Augustine de verbo Domini secundum Ioannem Serm. 42 saith; Christus quotidie pascit, Mensa ipsius est illa IN MEDIO constituta. Yea Durand Rationale Divinorum l. 1. c. 2. num. 15. writes thus. By the Altar out heart is signified, which is in the Middest of the body, as the Altar is in the midst of the Church, And lib. 5. he gives this reason why the Priest turneth himself about at the Altar, to wit, to fulfill this Scripture, IN MEDIO ECCLESIAE aperui os meum. Gentianus Hervetus, & Genebrard describing the manner of the Greek Church at this day, expresseth it thus, In Graecorum Templis unum tantum est Altare, idque IN MEDIO CHORO, aut Presbyterio. From these and the forecited authorities, both foreign and our own Domesticke Divines of chiefest note resolve expressly, That the Lord's Tables and Altars in the primitive times, till private Masses were lately introduced, stood in the midst of the Choir, Church, People, who came round about them not at, the East end of the Choir, as of late they were placed. This is in terminis, affirmed by Hospinian; De Origin Altarium. c. 6. p. 135. by learned Phillip de Mar • ix Tableau des Differens part 5. c. 6. p. 307. by the incomparable Lord Mornay, De Missa, l. 2. c. 1. p. 177. by eminent Peter Du Moulin, in his Nauvante du Papism Contr. 11. c. 17. 18. p. 1022 1026. and sundry other foreign Protestants: with whom our own Divines accord: we shall • ite some few of their words very briefly.
In the year 1533 There was a short Treatise concerning the Lord's Supper, written (as is supposed) by our learned Martyr Mr. William Tyndale, printed with his works cum privilegio, p. 476. 477. wherein he prescribes; that the Bread and Wine should be set before the People IN THE FACE OF THE CHURCH upon the Lord's Table, and that the Congregation should sit ROVND ABOUT IT according to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles times. Learned Martin Bucer (sometimes Regins Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge in King Edward the 6. his Rain) in his Censure of our English Liturgy writes thus. Jt appears by the forms of the most ancient Temples, and Writings of the Fathers, that the Clergy stood in the MIDDEST of the TEMPLES, which were for the most part round, and out of that place did so administer the Sacrament to the People, that they might plainly hear and understand the things there recited by them Eminent Bishop Jewell one of Queen Elizabeth's Visitors in the first year of her Rain when the Jnjunctions were made who had a principal hand in abolishing our Altars and placing Communion Tables as they formerly stood; in his Authorised works.) enjoined to be had and read in every Church; (affirms and proves at large in sundry places by pregnant Authorities and reasons, That the Holy Table and Altar in and among the primitive Christians and Fathers was not made of stone but wood; and stood Not at the end of the Choir, but in the Middest of the Church among the People who came round about it & that it ought to be so placed; producing the Authorities of Eusebius, Augustine, Durand, the Council of Constantinople, and others to prove it. Doctor Gervase Babington, Bishop of Worcester, in his comfortable Notes upon Exodus. c. 22. & 27. p. 275 (in his folio works) writes and proves expressly: That the Apostles and Primitive Fathers and Christians: had no Altars but Communion Tables only; made not of Stone, but boards, and removeable. SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL. Our laborious Dr. William Fulke in his Answer of a true Christian to a counterfeit Catholic London 1577. Article 15. p. 55. 56. in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament. Notes on 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. and in his Defense against Gregory Martin: c. 17. affirms in direct words; that the Altar and Lord's Table anciently stood In the midst of the Choir or Church, so at the Ministers, Deacons, and people might Stand round about it, and not against a Wall as your Popish Altars now stand, as is easiy to prove, and hath often times been proved, and it seems you confess as much. But so they cannot stand about your Altars, except some of them stand on the top of the Wall, or in the Window: and Mr. Cartwright in his Notes on the Rhemish Testament on the 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18. writes, That in the premitive Church, the Lord's Table was situated IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AND PEOPLE, not against a Wall. Dr. Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9th. General controversy, Quest. 6. Error 53. p 496. expostulates thus with the Papists for placing their Altars at the end of the Choir, contrary to Antiquity. Why bring they not their Altars down to the BODY OF THE CHURCH? we see no reason why the Communion Table may not be set In the body of the Church as well as in the Chancel, if the place be more convenient and fit to receive the Communicants. Learned Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament. Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5 Sect. 15. p. 462 writes, That the Table of the Lord anciently stood in the midst of the Chancel, So that they might Compass it round; which he proves by Eusebius, Dionysius Areopagita, Chrysostom, Athanasins, Augustine, Lindan, and Dr. Fulke; yea Dr. Williams late Bishop of Lincoln now of York, in his Holy Table Name, and thing asserts and proves the same at large for which this Arch-Pre ate fell foul upon him in the latter end of his Speech in Starchamber; If then all these Testimonies may be credited before the Archbishops bare affirmation, neither Altars nor Lord's Tables anciently stood Altarwise, North, & South against the East end of the Choir in our own or other Churches, as he falsely avers they did. 3ly. We shall evidence this by Presidents abroad & at home. For forraiegn Presidents. In the famous Church of Tyre which surpassed all others in Phaenici • , for its splendor built in the time of Constantine the Great the Altar was placed in the MIDDEST; as Eusebius, Ecclesia. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. records in express terms. Altari{que} deni{que} tanquam Sancto Sanctorum IN MEDIO SANCTV ARII SITO, &c. It is storied by Socrates Scolasticus. Ecclesiast. Hist. l. 5. c. 22 and Nicephorus: Ecclesiast. Hist. l. 12. c. 34. That in the great Church of Antioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the East, but towards the west part of the Church; Sacra Ara, non ad Orientem, sed ad Occidentem versus, collata fuerat: And so not Altarwise as this Archbishop pretend. W • llafridus Strabus, de R • bus Ecclesiastis. l. 4. c. 19. records: That in the Temples only built to God, or cleansed from the filthiness of Idols, the Altars were placed towards divers climates according to the conveniency of the places; there being no place where God is not present: That in the great Church at Jerusalem, built by Constantine the Great and his Mother over the Sepulcher of our Lord, in a Round form, in the Pantheon at Rome, dedicated by Pope Beniface to all Saints, and in the Church of St. Peter, Altars were placed not only towards the East part, but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of them. Chemnitz in his Examen Concilij Trident. pars 4. avers, and our opposites confess it. That in the Catacombe at Rome, THE ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDLE; and that in St. Peters Church it self in the Vatican, the high Altar stands before the QVIRE, to wit in the middle of the Church or Chancel, as an Italian Author explains it, in his description of this Church. Platina, in the life of Pope Nicholas the third, records, That the Altar of St Mary in Rome, through the great inundation of Tibur in this Popes days, was surrounded with water, ROTVNDE quatuor pedibus; Therefore it stood not against a Wall. Anastatius, De vitis Rom. Pontif. p. 68. 69. writes, that Pope Sergins in the year 694. made a four-square veil about the Altar in Saint Peters Church at Rome having 4. white and 4. Scarlet Curtaines, JN CIRCVITV ALTARJS, round about the Altar, which stood not therefore against a wall. In the great Cathedral of Rome it self, Anno Dom. 1547. as William Thomas, an eye witness, in his History of Italy and Thomas Beacon out of him, f. 282. attest, the Altar on Christmas day, when the Pope him self and all his Cardinals received the Sacrament, STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHAPELL OR QVIRE, the Pope sitting in a Throne of wonderful Majesty behind it Sigismund. the Monk in his Chronicon Augustinum, Anno 1483. pars. 1. c. 1. relates, That in the Ancient Cathedral Church of Augusta, dedicated to Saint Afra, there were two Quires and two Altars standing under two Arches: That in the body of the Church were 4. Altars; the chiefest of them was the Altar of St. Denys placed, versus OCCIDENTEM in parte Septentrionali, non juxta murum, sed quasi IN MEDIO. Alb. Crantzius Metrop. l. 1. c 9. & Hospinian de Orig. Altarium c. 6. writed that Wit • kind found the face of Charles the Great, full of alacrity after he approaches, Mensam Templo Mediam, the Lord's Table placed in the Middest of the Church, to receive the Sacrament at it: And the same Hospinian in the same Chapter records, that in the Reformation made at Zurich Anno 1523. The High Altar was placed where the Font had anciently stood (near to the West Door, not the East end of the Choir.) In brief, the very Roman Cerimonial l. 1. c 12. p. 70. informs us, that even of late times many Popish Altars stood not against the wall, but distant from it, as these clauses prove: Quod si Altare parieti adhaereat, &c. Si Altare sit A PARIETE SEIVNCTVM, &c. Therefore to rail in all Altars, Lord's Tables and place them Altarwise against the East end of the Choir wall North and South, as this Archbishop did, is to be more Popish, more Superstitious then the very Papists themselves, even in foreign parts.
To come to Presidents nearer home; Our venerable Beda in his Eccles. Hist. l. 2. cap. 3. relates, that the famous great Church of St. Augustine's in Canterbury, it self (built by Augustine the first Archbishop of that Sea) had an Altar standing almost in THE MIDDEST OF IT and that in the North Isle, not East Habet haec Altare IN MEDIO PENE SUAE: this was with in 700. years of Christ. Yea Everden a Monk, and Master Cambden out of him: records; That the Monks of Saint Edmunds Bury in Suffolk, whiles they laid the foundation of a new Chapel in the reign of King Edward the first, found the walls of an old Church built ROUND [which we think was first built to Saint Edmond's service] So as the Altar STOOD AS IT WERE IN THE MIDDEST: In the Church of Carmarthen both the high Altar and Lord's Table Anno 1555. Stood in the midst of the Church, as Master Fox Acts and Monuments, Edit: 1610. pag. 1404. 1406. records: and in Saint Patricks Church in Dublin, the High Altar stood about the midst of the Choir under the first Cross, a Yard and more beneath the Arch where the E: of Corks Tomb now stands; and that on all solemn Feasting days, they Went Round about the Altar: as appears by a Letter written from thence to this Archbishop himself (endorsed with his own hand) by Master Benjamin Culme, dated from Dublin, April 19. 1634. In fine, learned Doctor Fulke informs us, That the Altar usually stood in the MIDEST of the Church, whereof some symptoms remain in our Cathedral Churches. Moreover, if you mark the most part of our Churches in England, you shall plainly see, that the Chancels are but additions built since the Churches, in likelihood by the Parsons, who disdained to have their places, in the midst of the people, as the old manner was. Also you may see some Churches built round, as at London the Temple, and another is at Cambridge of the same fashion, and some Churches have the Steeple at the East end very unhansomly, and the Rood loft. Again, many Churches have cross Isles in which the people cannot see the Chancel, when they were built; For such Churches as are late erected have the Churches and Chancells all of one building, and are made of such fashion, that one may see the High Altar in every part of them.
From all these reasons and authorities we may infallibly conclude, that Altars and Lord's Tables generally in all Christian Churches were always placed in the midst of the Church, or Choir, not rai • ed in Altarwise (as of late among us) against the wall. Therefore the Archbishops groundless surmise to the contrary and his main Argument, from the Queens Jnjunctions founded on it, is both false and frivolous.
Now whereas he Objects, that there can be no Popery in placing Communion Tables Altarwise, we answer, that if we consider this situation of them simply in it self, perchance it may be true. But if we observe that Priests private Masses, brought in this situation of Altars first of all into the Church of Rome, and that the end of this new placing of them is, to turn our Lord's Tables into Altars, to imitate the Papists, and make way for private Masses, as all other concurrent circumstances manifest, then it favors of Popery in the highest degree. Finally, we shall observe the Archbishops juggling and falsehood in this particular. In his Speech in Starchamber he averreth. pag. 53. 14. And yet here is nothing done either by violence, or command, to take off the Indifferency of the standing of the holy Table, either way, but only by laying it fairly before men how fit it is there should be Order and uniformity. And yet we have proved, that he by his special Jnjunctions under Seal, and by private Letters to his Vicar General, enjoined all Lord's Tables to be placed and railed in Altarwise; yea excommunicated, censured, fined in the High Commission such Ministers and Church-Wards as opposed or refused to obey his Injunctions herein, as the Cases of Master Chancy, the Church-Wardens of Beckington, John Premly, Ferdinando Adams, and others evidence.
Fourthly, We reply, that the Archbishop in his Starchamber-speech, p. 45. 46. makes this averment, And yet the Government is so moderate [God grant it be not too loose the while] that NO MAN IS CONSTRAINED, NO MAN QUESTIONED, only religiously called upon, venite, Adoremus, Come let us Worship; that is, bow to, and toward the Altar: Yet here we have himself confessing, and others testifying upon Oath, that he enjoined all Scholars in the University of Oxford, all Officers, Prebends in Cathedral and Collegiat Churches by special Statutes [to which they were all compelled to swear Obedience and Conformity] to worship God with highest Reverence towards the Altar, to bow devoutly to, towards it at, their approaches thereunto, which none were ever thus strictly obliged to do by special Laws and Oaths in the very darkest times of Popery. That Doctor Jackson did approve, practice this bowing to the Altar for a time, it was by force only of these new Statutes and Oath, as himself deposeth, for which he professeth his hearty sorrow: and whereas Doctor Blechenden swears, that some Prebends used to bow before these new Statutes, it was only by reason of this Archbishops Injunctions and daily practice both at Court and in Lambeth Chapel. For his expunging of the prayer for King Henry the 8. after his death, out of these Statutes, it no way justifies nor extenuates his Injunction of such Popish Altar-Adorations. For the 95. Psa. it commands us only, to worship, fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker; not towards or before an Altar, which is not the Lord our Maker: Neither did the Archbishop himself, not the most superstitious Popish Prelate or Clergy man in England ever yet use to Worship and fall down to God, before or towards the Altar, just when this Venite, Adoromus was read; which requiring no such Worship at the very instant it is reading, much less exacts it after or before its reading. For the Knights of the Garters Chapter-Order made in times of Popery, in imitation of Popish Priests, it is no binding Law to any but those of that Order, in their solemnity, which being merely Civil, and if it be Deo & Altars ejus, jointly; then certainly superstitious, Popish, nay Idolatrous too, cannot be fit for imitation of Protestants.
Fifthly, We reply, that these Crucifixes, Images being unlawful to be made. condemned by Our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Writers, Church, and all sound Antiquity, as we have proved; and Constantine the great condemning them: their pretended Antiquity, or use in the Kings Chapel, can no ways justify his re-erecting them in Cathedrals. And here we cannot but observe the Archbishops Legerdemain, and gross abuse of his Majesty's Chapel.
First, himself introduced Crucifixes with other Popish Innovations into it, which he afterwards by way of imitation prescribed to Cathedrals; And then being charged with this practice in Cathedrals, he justifies himself by His Majesty's Chapel, where he takes Sanctuary; just as if a Cutpurse should justify the cutting of a man's purse in Paul's Cathedral because he formerly picked another man's pocket in Whit-Hall Chapel, which is nothing else, but to wipe off the present charge by the next preceeding, which lies so heavy upon him, and to justify this subseouent crime of his by another anteceeding it. But in truth this is a mere devise 〈◊〉 draw an Odium on His Majesty, and his Chapel, who must Patronize 〈…〉 Popish Traiterly Actions, since we have proved these Innovations of his in Cathedrals to be directly taken out of the Roman Ceremonial, Pontifical, and brought in by their prescription; not learned from the Kings own Chapel, as he falsely pretends.
Sixthly, To his Altar Ornaments, and trinkets in Cathedrals which he would justify by the Kings Chapel too, when expressly taken out of the Roman Pontisical and Ceremonial in imitation of foreign Popish Cathedrals; we shall return the self same answer, and close up all with his own sentence in his Star-Chamber Speech, pag. 55. (where he passeth judgment against himself in these following words) Nor hath the Kings Chapel any Prerogative (if that may be called one) above any ordinary Church, to disserve God in any superstitions Rites; Where give me leave to tell you, that the King and his Chapel, are most wrongfully, and with scorn abused. Undoubtedly they are so by these undutiful answers of his; whereby he hath justified to the utmost each particular of this his charge, which he hath in no sort extenuated nor taken off from himself in any particle.
Sixthly, They proceeded in the next place from Cathedrals, to charge me with Pepish Innovations in Parish Churches and Chapels; which charge is reducible to these heads.
First, my enjoining Church-Wardens to remove and rail in Communion Tables Altarwise; as in the case of Saint Gregory's, and other Parishes.
Secondly, Prescribing the people to receive the Communion at the new rayles kneeling.
Thirdly, Enjoyning Ministers to say Second service at the Communion Table railed in Altarwise.
Fourthly, setting up of Crucifixes and other Images in Churches, Chapels, Glass-windows; particularly in the new Chapel by Tuttle-fields, in Westminster.
Fifthly, Prescribing these Innovations in visitation Articles, by Bishop Wren, Bishop Montague, Bishop Peirce and others; and forcing Church-Wardens upon Oath to present all those who submitted not to them.
Sixthly, punishing and censuring those in the Star-Chamber, High Commission and elsewhere, who opposed or submitted not to these Innovations: by name, Master Peter Smart, Master Charles Chancy, Master Miles Burkit, the Church- Wardens of Beckington, Ferdinando Adams, John Premly, Mr. Henry Sherfeild, Mr. John Workman Mr. Prynne, Mr. Burton, and Doctor Bastwick.
Seventhly, my Chaplains purging out a passage against Images taken out of the very Homilies, in Doctor Featlies book.
Eighthly, My licensing of Popish Pictures and Crucifixes to be printed in London, by one ••• ke, and to be bound up with our English Bibles.
To the first, I answer in General, that this removing and placing Lord's Tables Altarwise, is warranted by the Queens Injunctions, as I have formerly evidenced: As for the case of Saint Gregory's, the Table was not turned by me, but by the Dean and Chapter of Paul's: And when it came to the Council Table, I did there only deliver my opinion, and oppose the Queens Injunctions against Bishop Jewels opinion and Master Fox, there pressed: and the Order made therein, was made by the King and Council then present, not by me alone.
Secondly, I pressed none to come up to receive at the Rayles, no further then the Common Prayer Book prescribes, which enjoins the people to draw wear and take the Holy Sacrament for their comfort.
3ly. Reading Second service at the Lord's table is no Innovation, it hath been ever since my remembrance constantly practiced in Cathedrals, and is warranted by the Rubric.
4ly. I gave no order for setting up Images or Pictures in any parish Church; nor yet in the new Chapel at Westminster, and Mr. Brown swears, it was Dr. Nowel that directed and paid him for his work there, not I.
5ly. I made neither Bishop Wrens, nor Montague's Visitation Articles, nor Oaths, they were their own, and if they have ostended in making them, they must answer it themselves, some of them having been particularly questioned for them already.
6ly. For those particular persons cases objected, I shall answer them in order.
1. For Mr. Smart, he was censured by the high Commissioners of York for a Schismaticall and Scandalous Sermon, not by me who had no hand in his censure.
Secondly, For Mr. Chancy, he spake contemptuous 〈…〉 against the rail, that he would set it up in his Garden: He was suspended only till he did submit, after which he did submit and confess his fault, and then was absolved.
As for the words I used to his Advocate witnessed by Mr. •••• brand, it was when he was over bold, and it is usual with Courts to check Counsel in this kind, when they oftend in such nature.
Thirdly, For Mr. Burkit, There were 5. Articles against him, besides that which was read, and he was prosecutest, censured for them all, not that only which is objected.
Fourthly, Ferdinando Adams, extremely interrupted my Visitors, and Bishop Wrens Visitors too in their Visitation at Ipswich by locking up the Church Doors against them; for which high astront Processe was awarded against him.
Fifthly, John Premly his prosecution was the Act of Sir Nathaniel Brent, and it was for an high contempt.
Sixthly, For Mr. Sherfield, he was censured by the Major voice of the Court, not by me alone: and Mr. Caryll deposed that the Picture he brake was only conceived to be the Picture of God the Father; not that it was so: But admit it were, yet it was not lawful for him of his own Authority to pull it down and break it, no not though it had been the Picture of Jupiter himself; This I did then affirm, for which I had the Authority of St. Augustine, and Bishop Davenant. Yea in Constantine the Great his time, as Eusebius writes in the third Book De vita Constantini c. 52. 53. 54. No private Christians of their own heads durst destroy the Idols that were then worshipped, nor the temple of Aesculapius, wherein the Devil himself was adored, til Constantine the Emperor gave express command, and appointed certain men, whom he particularly employed, to demolish them. It is true he pleaded, that he demolished it by the Authority of the Vestry; but the Vestry had no authority themselves to do it, therefore they could not derive it unto him. But it was Idolized and adored by some. True, but this appeared not till the hearing of the cause, and was unknown before.
Seventhly, The purging out of a Passage against Images in Dr. Featlyes Sermons taken out of our Homilies; was no act of mine, but my Chaplains, who must answer for it, yet there are other passages therein left which are smartenough against Images and their adoration: And Dr. Featly never complained hereofto me.
Eighthly, The Bibles wherein these Pictures are shown were Secretary Windebanks and Dr. Ducks which is nothing to me: yea one of them is a Latin Bible printed beyond the seas, at Amsterdam, a place free from superstition, not here Indeed I first saw one of these Bibles in Mistress Kirks hands, whereupon I sent for one of them myself, and then acquainted the Lord's of the Council with it, who resolved they should not be sold publicly, nor laid upon stalls, for fear of giving scandal, but privately; whereupon I told Mr. Wally as much, which he hath testified, But yet this is no Innovation, for the old English prin-Bibells are full of Pictures.
Ninthly, Mr. Workman was justly suspected for inconformity; he was censured for other things, as well as for passages against Images, as appears by his sentence, As first for his words against Dancing. 2ly. For saying Images in Churches were Idols (though they are not Idols till they are worshipped) and that they were no better then stews; an unfitting expression. 3ly. For saying that Drunkards were preferred. 4ly. That the Election of Ministers was in the People. 5ly. For praying for the King of Sweden before our King. 6ly. For preaching against the Government of the Church established by Law. 7ly. For speaking against Pictures in private houses as well as in Churches. For those of Gloucester questioned for granting him an Annuity, & then sued in the High Commission, they were not many, but only the principal Offendors: & it was lawful to cal them into the High Commission, because their grant to him was in affront of authority; their Fine was but small 10. • a piece, and that was pardoned: As for Mr. Workman himself being put from his Ministry by sentence, he was unfit to teach School, or practice Phisick, for of leavening others with his dangerous opinions.
10ly. For Mr. Prynne, Mr. Burton, and Dr. Bastwick I answer, 1. That the Prosecution against them in Starchamber was in a legal way, for seditious Schismaticall and libellous Books. 2ly. That the rejecting of their answers under their own hands and taking them pro confesso was no act of mine, but of the whole Court. 3ly. That the expunging of Mr. Burtons Answer, was not done by me, but by the two chief Justices, to whom it was referred by the Court, who must answer for it if unjust, and that the Copy of his answer found in my Study interlined with black-lead, so far as it should stand, was not intersined by me. 4ly. J gave no sentence against them at all, but only Justified myself and my proceedings against their calumnies. But it hath been objected, that Mr. Cockeshut gave an accompt of the proceedings against them to me from time to time: therefore I was the cause thereof. I confess he gave me such an account, and it was just and fit he should do it, because the cause concerned not only myself in some sort in particular, but the Church of England in general, of which I ought to take care according as my place and duty required: But I was no cause of any irregular proceedings: Yea, but I gave thanks to the Lord's in the close of my Speech for their sentence and Justice on them, though I censured them not myself: True and it was no more then I ought to do in behalf of the Church: But yet after the sentence given in my Epistle to his Majesty, I excited him to put it in execution. No, I only left it to his Majesty's consideration to forbear or execute it, as he in his justice and wisdom should deem meet.
To this was replied, 1. in general; that the Archbishop in his speech in Starchamber, p. 53. hath this expression concerning railing in Communion Tables Altarwise in parish Churches: And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way yet whither there be not more reason the Parish should be made conformable to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, then the Cathedrals to them, I leave to any reasonable man to judge. So as his Innovations begun in Cathedrals, were purposely introduced there first of all, to draw on Parish Churches to Popish conformity with them in these Innovations. Next, in particular we reply: that the alteration of the standing of the Lord's Table and railing it in Altarwise, was no ways warranted by the Queens Injunctions, but contrary to them, as we have largely manifested. That though this was not done immediately by himself, but by the Dean and Chapter of Paul's, yet he was the Original author of it, and justified it when complained of. That he publicly checked the Council, Parishioners and sir Henry Martin before the King and Lord's for opposing this Innovation, and alleging Bishop Iewill and Mr. Fox against it: desiring his Majesty to take these Books out of the Church, if they made no better use of them then to oppose this Novelty. That he carried himself more like an Advocate then Judge in this Cause, and when the King himself was satisfied and would have it stand as formerly, his violence was such, that he over-ruled both King and Council, and drew up the Order forecited in their names for establishing this Innovation which favors of his style and spirit, the guilt whereof must rest principally on him.
2ly. The coming up to the Rayles was pressed by his Visitors, Agents authority, and those excommunicated who refused to come up and receive at the New Rayle; to which certainly it was never the mind of the Common Prayer Book the Communicants should draw near, since there were no Rayles to draw near and kneel at till this Archbishop enjoined them to be set up, in imitation of the Papists, as we have proved: but this drawing near, is rather a drawing near to Christ by faith, with our hearts and affections, or else a drawing near to the body of the Church of Chancel where the Lord's Table is to be placed, & to the Minister officiating, as it is expounded by the Q • eens Jujunctions; & 28 Canon. The Table when the holy Communion shall be administered shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also may more conveniently, and in more number communicate with the Minister.
3ly. We answer, that the Lord's Table was ordained only to administer the Sacrament thereat, not to read second service at it, for which the Reading Pew is appointed as the Common-prayer Book, the Homilies of the worthy receiving the Sacrament, and reparing Churches; Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the Canous made 1571. p. 18. and the 82. 83. Canons Anno 1603. resolve. Now this Archbishop enjoined second service now to be read at the Lord's Table when there was no Communion, and where it was railed in at the upper end of the Quite, not brought down into the body of the Church or Chancel; contrary to the Rubric in the Common Prayer Book, which expressly determines: That the Epistle and Gospel (chief parts of this second service) shall be read where the two Lessons are, with a loud voice, that the people may hear the Minister that readeth them the Minister standing and turning himself, as he may best be heard of ALL such as be present (which he cannot be if he read them at the upper end of the Chancel remote from the people, where the Churches are great, or the Ministers voice low.] This innovation then which was never practiced in any Parish Church till of late, though used in some Cathedrals, wherein the Rubric enjoins the Communion every Sunday in the year at least to be administered; which was wholly omitted, and the second service at the Table left to supply it) is directly contrary to the Rubric, Homilies, Injunctions, Canon.
4ly. It is evident that Crucifixes were set up in many Parish Churches, Chapells of the Kingdom, which though we cannot prove to be done by his express particular Command; yet certainly it was by his example or encouragement, who repaired and set up Crucifixes in his own Chapels at Lambeth, Croyden, and one over the Altar in Passion week in the Kings own Chapel at White-Hall. Besides, those who erected them were either his own Chaplains or Faverites who knew his mind, and did it for to imitate and please his Grace to gain some further preferments.
For the Images set up in the New b Chapel in Tuttle fields, we [b] have proved, that the Arch-bishop promised to bestow a new Window on it: that thereupon the old was taken down, the Kings Arms removed, and those Images, with the Archbishops own Arms (as the Donor of it) set up: that his Chaplain gave directions about the Window: and Mr. Sutton swears that the money for new glasing it was paid since the Archbishops commitment to the Tower by his direction, as he believeth. A clear evidence, that he was the Author and director of this work, notwithstanding all his shifts to elude it.
5ly. Though the Archbishop made not these Bishops Visitation Oaths and Articles; yet he made all of them Bishops, who durst do nothing in their Diocese or Visitations but by his direction; to whom they gave an Annual Account of their proceedings in writing, as we have manifested. Besides, its apparent that all these Visitation Articles were made in pursuance of his own Archiepiscopall Injunctions, Instructions, and himself approved of these their Oaths, Articles, never checking nor questioning them for them, though their Metropolitan: yea himself prescribed the self same things in his Metropolitical Visitations, by printed Articles, written Injunctions, or private Jnstructions, as these Bishops did in imitation of him. Therefore he must Answer for these their Articles, Oaths, proceedings as far forth as they, who were but his Instruments.
Sixthly For his Answer to the particular Cases, we shall return these Replyes.
1. That though Mr. Smart was censured by the High Commission at York, yet he was first imprisoned here at London, and transmitted from the High Commission here to York by this Archbishops means; who complied with Dr. Cosin in his prosecution, and disposed of his livings after his deprivation, as we can prove by sundry Letters found in his Study; As for Mr. Smarts Sermon, it was neither scandalous nor factions, but Orthodox, and Iuditious, against the Popish Jnnovations introduced in the Cathedral of Durham, where he was the ancientest Prehend, deserving rather applause then any censure, as both Lord's and Commons have resolved upon a full hearing, and awarded him reparations and Damages for his unjust censure.
2ly. Mr. Chancy spake no contemptuous words at all against the Rayle, nor of setting it up in his Garden: His suspension was illegal, not only without, but against Law and Canon; As for his submission, it was forced, and a mere art to deter others from opposing his Graces Popish Innovasions, the only prosecutor appearing against him. And his shaking up or menacing of his advocate, an unlawful act, to discourage him from making any defense, and subject his Client to a censure. Therefore inexcusable.
3ly. The main Article against Mr. Burkit, was only for his and the Churchwardens removing of the Table when the Sacrament was administered into the body of the Church without the rayles, according to the Rubric, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 28. Canon, the other Articles being but frivolous, not insisted on: And for this he was molested in the High Commission, yea a traditio Satana, a turning over of him to Sir John Lamb pronounced against him, who used him like a Lyon a Wolf in a Lambes Skin.
4ly. For the Churchwardens of Beckingtons most severe, illegal, harbarous prosecution, we have proved by the deposition of Mr. John Ash, a Member of the Commons House, that the Archbishop himself since his Imprisonment in the Tower confessed, that Bishop P •• res their Dioces • n did do nothing herein, but by his direction. If therefore the rule in Law be true, Plus peccat Author 〈◊〉 Actor, he must be far more guilty both of their prosecution, Excommunication, and heart-breaking submission, then Bishop Peirce, his Instrument.
5ly. For Ferdinando Adams, he was excommunicated in the Archbishops name by Mr. Dade his Surrogate, and this Excommunication pleaded in Barre of his Bill in Starchamber. The process, Pursivants sent out to apprehend him, and the imprisonment of his Attorney till he withdrew his 〈◊〉 , were all by the Archbishops procurement. His shutting Bishop Wrens Visitors out of the Church at Jpsmich unless they derived their Authority by Letters Patens, from the King, was warranted by the Statut of 1 Eliz. c. 1. Therefore his prosecution, only for his duty and allegiance to the King against the Bishops disloyal encroachments, was most unjust and disloyal. 6ly. John Premly, was not prosecuted by Sir Nathaniel Brent, but by the Archbishop himself, for opposing his order in the Metropolitical Visitation, in removing the Lord's Table placed Altarwise, to the place and posture wherein it formerly stood; for which he was fined, censured, imprisoned in the High Commission, where the Archbishop sat chief Judge against all Law and Justice, his act being no contempt, nor offense in Law; but the Archbishops order by Sir Nathaniel Brent his Visitor, and Dr. Nevells act, a contempt against Law and Canon.
7ly. Mr. Sherfield was prosecuted principally by the Archbishops procurement, for demolishing according to Law: an Idolatrous blasphemous, false Image of God the Father, which was openly Idolized▪ He was then a Justice of Peace, Recorder of Sarum, and had the Warrant of the whole Vestry (wherein were six or seven Justices of Peace at that time) to demolish this Image, and take down the whole Window, which all the Kings Subjects, (and Justices of Peace especially) have authority to demolish by the Statutes of 3. Ed. 6. c. 10. 3. Iac. c. 5. The Book of Homilies, and Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions: n. 23. within their several Parishes without any special order from King or Bishop: yea, God himself gives special Commands not only to the supreme Majestrate, but to the Common People also, to destroy Idols, 〈◊〉 Jmages, and Altars Exod. 34 13. 14. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 1. 2. • . Isaiah 17. 78. In pursuance of which commands, not only King Asa 2 Chron. 14. 3. King Hezekiah 2 Kings 18. 4. King Manass • h 2. Chron. 33. 15. King Josiah and his people, a Chron. 34. to • . demolished and brake in pieces Idolatrous Altars and Jmages: but likewise ALL THE PEOPLE of the Land went into the House of Baal and brake it down, Altars and Jmages brake they in pieces, and • low Mat • an the Priest of Baal before the Altars: 2 Kings 11. 1 • without any special Warrant or command from King Ieho • sh or Ieho • ada, (which the Holy Ghost records for their honor.) yet were they never questioned or fined in Starchamber for it because they had no warrant from either of them. •• . after King Hezekiah his Passover, the Scripture expressly records, 2 Chron. 30 13. 14.—c. 31. 1. That ALL ISRAEL that were present went out to the Cities of Judah and brake the Images in pieces, and cut down the groves; and threw down the High places and Altars out of all Judah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manassith, until they had utterly distroyed them all; which is recorded to their Eternal honor by God himself: nor were they ever questioned or fined for a Riot, in any Starchamber, or High Commission or for going out of their own limits, or doing this without a special Commission from the King. Therefore Mr. Sherfield being a public Majestrate, both as a Justice or Peace and Recorder of Sarum might much more by the whole Vestries Order, demolish this Idolatrous Picture in his own Parish Church, in such a private manner as he did, without blame or censure, having sufficient authority from these Texts and Presidents of Scripture, and from the forecited Statutes and Injunctions; to warrant it every man in such a case being a lawful Majestrate, without any special warrant. Thus the common people in Girmany and else where in the beginning of Reformation, brake down the Popish Images and Altars without any special Order from the Superior or Inferior Magistrates, as Mr. Fox and others record; And therefore, his Doctrine of the Archbishops, that it is unlawful to break down the very Image and Temple of Jupiter and Esculapius where the Devil himself was worshiped, without the special command of the supreme Magistrate, is a most impious Paradox; for if the supreme Magistrate will give no such command, these Idols, Devils shall still be to erated, worshiped to God's dishonor, and Religions slander, in despite of all the people and inferior Magistrates. As for the place of Eusebius, it only proves; that Idolatrous Statues, Images, Temples, were demolished by the Emperor Constantine's special command; but that the Christians under him, might not lawfully have defaced them without such a special command, especially after a General Statute and Edicts published by him for their demolishing, without being liable to a seveer censure [the only thing in question] is no ways warranted by, nor deducible from Eusebius, nor Saint Augustine. Yea had Mr Sherfields zeal out-run his discretion in this act, it deserved rather applause then censure, from a Protestant Prelate, yet this Bishop was so far from excusing, extenuating, that he aggravated his pretended offense beyond all bounds of Law, Justice, Conscience, pleaded as zealously for the lawfulness of Images in Churches, and of this abominable Idol of God the Father, as the Pope himself could have dont; yea he abused Master Sherfeild in his speech and censured him with the highest, though a Bishop, when some temporal Lord's excused, yea acquitted him. And though this censure was not his alone, but carried by the Major voice, yet his voice, Speech, violence occasioned, and aggravated it. For his evasions, that this Picture was conceived to be the picture of God the Father as Master Caryl deposed; not a picture of him in truth: It is a most childish evasion, for the Scripture is express, That God being a spirit, an invisible infinite Essence, can have no true pillure, likeness, or similitude made of him by any corporal visible representation, Isaiah 40. 18. to 27. c. 46. 5, 6 Acts 17. 29. Rom. 1. 23. 24, 25. whence every such Image of God is termed, a lie in Scripture, Isaiah 44. 20. Hab. 2. 18. Rom. 1. 25. &c. And if ever any Image of God were a lie, then certainly this, as hath been proved. Now, whereas he pretends, it appeared not it was adored and idolozed till the hearing, it is certain it appeared to Mr. Sherfield long before the hearing or demolishing of it as he deposed in his answer, and this appearing by witnesses upon Oath to the Bishop and whole Court when the cause was heard, made his unjust and heavy censure, far more abominable to God and man.
Eghtly, Mr. Workman was principally censured for his preaching against Images, though his expressions were the very words of our Homilies. The other particulars were all justifiable, true, & no ways censurable except the sixth, which was pretended, but not proved. Therefore his censure most unjust, and his censuring of some of those of Gloucester that joined in a grant of Annuity to him under the City Seal though the Fine was but small, and afterwards remitted, was far more unjust.
1. Because the grant of this Anpuity was not only an act of Charity, but justice and equity, punishable by no Law and highly to be commended.
2ly. Because they were censured in their private natural Capacity, for what they acted only in their politique, as Members of the Corporation under their Common Seal, wherein the whole City were engaged as much as they.
3ly. Because they damned this grant of which they had no cognizance, to starve a faithful Minister and his Family, who had no other Livelyhood. As for his prohibiting him to teach School, to practice Phisick, when he had put him from his Ministry without any just cause it was a treble tyranny and oppression, he being enforced to take this course only to supply himself and his family, for which the Law of God and nature enjoins him to provide, unless he will be worse then an Infidel: and doubtless he must needs be worse then any Infidel who had the heart to do it upon such a poor pretence, that he might infect others with his opinions, to wit, of the unlawfulness of Images in Churchs, or private houses the very approved, resolved Doctrine of our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Writers, Church.
9ly. For that he allegeth by way of justification and excuse touching the most barbarous censures of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Burton, & Dr. Bastwick: We reply, 1. That his hand was to all the Warrants for their Illegall commitments, crose imprisenments before their censures. That the Books for which they were questioned were neither scandalous, Seditious nor Schismaticall, but necessary Apologies, Pleas against his unjust tyrannical proceedings in the High Commission, and Popish Innovations in the Church to subvert our Religion. That himself in his Starchamber Speech (and Heylin and Dove after him) confesseth justifieth the truth of these Innovations wherewith those Books did charge him: all which the former and this present Parliament have unanimously complained off and voted to be illegal, Popish, destructive to our Religion. Therewere these Books were neither Scandalous, nor Libellous.
3ly. Both the proceedings and sentence against them are voted, adjudged by both Houses to be altogether illegal unjust barbarous, contrary to Magna Charta, the Laws of the Land, and liberty of the Subject, and unparralel'd in any age; therefore ordered to be utterly rased and taken off the file, as unfit to remain upon record to prejudice posterity.
4ly. Their prosecution proceeded principally from him, the Orders for shutting them up close prisoners, denying them pen ink, paper, and speech with one another, were procured by him. The Orders for denying them liberty to put in their Answers under their own hands, taking them pro confesso, were made when himself sat and Voted in Court, being both prosecutor party and Judge; the sentence was given; He sitting in Court, though particularly excepted against though he gave no Vote in the Censure it self, yet all know he was the cause and contriver of it before it was given, yea he approved and thanked the Lord for it, in his Speech, when it was given caused it to he most seveerly executed when given against the will of those that gave it instigating his Majesty to the bloody execution of it; afterwards when executed; denied Mr. Pryns servant liberty upon Rayle to attend him during his wounds set his hand first to all the Warrants for sending them to and close imprisoning them in remote Castles, and after that for banishing them into foreign Islands, where they were so strictly mewed up, that neither friend, Wife, Children could have the least access unto them for their relief, nor they procure liberty of pen ink or paper to write unto them for necessaries. Yea, had not he engaged his extraordinary power and malice in their prosecution, neither the Court, Judges, Officers, nor Lord's, had been so extravagant, so unjust in their proceedings, Censures, Executions against them nor their Council so over-awed as they were, nor they denied liberty to answer for themselves, and to impeach their Opposites by a Cross Bil; which if admitted (as it ought of right and justice) it, would have prevented their, heavy Censure, elsewhere, which probably would have fallen short of this he is now likely to incur. All which considered, this part of the charge sticks fast upon him in each particular.
7ly. Himself sent for Dr. Featly, and commanded him to carry his Sermons to his Chaplin to peruse, who thereupon expunged this and other passages out of them after they were printed, to please his Lord; and his Chaplains Act in this case is his own. And though other passages against Images remained, yet no reason can be given for expunging this [being the direct words of the Homily,] but his complyancy with the Papists: Yea, Dr. Featlie swears expressly, that he did complain of it to Sir Edmond Scot, who told him it would be bootless to complain to the Archbishop, who would undo nothing his Chaplain had altered.
8ly. For the Popish pictures, we have proved them printed in London by the Archbishops own authority and direction, that himself saw and approved them whiles in printing, being the very same with those his Chapel windows, the Mass-Book, and Boetius a Bolswort, found in his study: That they were ordinarily bound up in Bibles and sold in shops, of which the Stationers complaining to him he thereupon gave them the foresaid answer himself. But that the Lord's of the Counsel gave any such order he produceth no proof at all. In few words, if the pictures were lawful, to be bound up in Bibles; why then did he give order that they should be only sold in private, not in public? If unlawful, Popish, Idolatrous, or superstitious, contrary to the Scripture, our own Statutes, Homilies, Jnjunctions, Writers, as we have proved them, then they ought not by his direction, to sell or bind them up in Bibles, no more privately these publicly, And whereas he Objects, that the Latin Bible produced wherein some of these pictures were bound, was printed at Amsterdam; we grant it. But the Pictures in it, were printed and bound up with it here in London, not at Amsterdam, and these Pictures by the Archbishops own direction were bound and sold with many English Bibles; in which act he so much gloried, instead of being ashamed of it, that he would have these Bibles thus bound up with Pictures, called the Arch-Bishops Bibles, by way of distinction. As for the English Bibles printed with Pictures in Queen Elizabeth's days, they had no other Pictures in them, but only of the Ark, Temple and such like, not any Pictures of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or any persons of the Trinity. All which considered, this part of his charge sticks still upon him in each particular notwithstanding all his evasions.
Seventhly, They Object against me the Consecration of Churches and Chapels as a Popish Innovation; tending to introduce Popery among us, and have instanced in my consecrating of Creed-Church, St. Giles Church in the fields; and the Church-yard there; for consecrating whereof the Parish paid me 15. l. The Church of Stanmore Magna, my Chapel at Aberguilly, the form, and furniture whereof were excepted against as Popish, the Chapel of Hamer-Smith, where they allege, I consecrated the first stone when it was laid, the Chapel of Roe-Hampton; and that I would have consecrated other Chapells Cambridge.
To this I answer first in general; that the Consecration of Churches is very ancient and warranted by Scripture and Ecclesiastical stories. In the Old Testament, we read that the Tabernacle, with all the Vessells, Ornaments thereto belonging were solemnly consecrated by Moses; That afterward when the Temple was built, it was solemnly dedicated and consecrated to God by King Solomon, and all his Princes and people. After this when the Temple had been shut up and defiled, the Priests and Levites by Hezekiah his command, sanctified and cleansed both it and the Vessells thereof. So King Josiah purged the House of the Lord. After which when the Temple was re-edified, the Children of Israel, the Priests and the Levites kept the dedication of the House of God with joy; and offered in the Dedication of the House of God an hundred bullocks, which Feast of Dedication, was observed by the Jews even in our Savior's time, as we read in the New Testament, John 10. 22. In the reign of Constantine the great, when Christian Churches began to be built, or re-edified: we no sooner read of their building, but of their solemn consecration and Dedication; as of the consecration of the Church of Tyre with sundry others mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, l. 10. c. 3. & Devita Constantini, l. 4. c. 40. After which we find this practice continued in the Christian Church in all ages, as Ecclesiastical Histories, the Consecration Sermons of sundry Fathers, the Canons of ancient Councils and the Canonists in their titles De Consecratione Ecclesiarum, prove at large. Wherefore this can be no Popery, ner Innovation. Yea if Churches were not consecrated, then I say, they could not be termed Holy, for it is the Consecration makes them holy. And if places be not holy then persons also cannot be holy, when they are consecrated and entered into holy Orders. As for Bishop Pilkinton and Archbishop Parker, they speak not simply against consecrations in general, for they were consecrated Bishops and the book of Ordination is confirmed by Parliament, nor yet against consecrating of Churches in general, but against the Popish consecrations of them used by some moderne Romish Prelates. For my form of consecrating them, it was not taken out of the Roman Pontifical, but that which was used by Bishop Andrew's, from whom I had it: This form I followed at Creed Church and the rest. Secondly, To the particular consecration of Churches Objected, I answer.
First, to that concerning Katherin Creed-Church. It was testified, that I came thither in a Pompous manner; I deny it; it was only in a grave and seemly manner. It is Objected, that as soon as I came within the Church door I fell down upon my knees: True, it was no more then my duty; being an Oratory; Moses and Aaron fell down on their faces at the door of the Tabernacle: Hezekiah and the people bowed and worshiped as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber: And, O come let us worship and fall down, and kneell before the Lord our Maker, is the common Introitus in our own and other Liturgies. It is objected, I pronounced the place and ground holy: I did so, and it is an ordinary and legal Speech, there being a relative though not an inherent holiness in Churches Dedicated to God's service. Hence we read in Justinian Codicis, l. 1. tit. 5. this Title DESACROS ANCTIS ECCLESIIS, as they are there often styled: Therefore Churches are holy, and their consecration makes them so. Whereas it was said, I threw up dust into the air: This I deny: and where it was alleged, that this was in imitation of the Roman Pontifical; that is a mistake, for the Pontifical prescribes Cinis, a hes not dust to be cast abroad, and Greek Letters to be made therein, with many other vanities. For my form of consecration, Bishop Andrew's made it, from whom I desired a Copy and had it, which I observed. It was objected that the form of prayer I used, is in the Mass Book and Roman Pontifical; It may be so, many other very good prayers are in it, yet they be good. It was further alleged, that I objected Doctor Denizens Sermon to him at his censure in the High Commission: I Objected only his extravagances, and that was no hurt. For St. Giles Church, it is true I consecrated first the Church and then the Church-yard which is the usual manner; as for the fees amounting to 15. l. I returned them again, and bestowed them on the poor of the Parish.
But it hath been Objected, that these were no new Churches, but Churches only new repaired: therefore not to be re-consecrated. I answer, that there was some new ground taken in at Saint Giles, and admit there were still the same longitude and latitude, yet the walls and structure being for the most part new; the Churches in this respect were new, and to be new consecrated.
Thirdly, to the consecration of the Objected Chapels, I confess their consecrations; and though there be no express form for consecrating of Chapels in the Pontifical, nor mention in Ecclesiastical story of Chapels consecrations; yet seeing they are Oratories, and Eusebius testifying, that Oratories were consecrated in Constantine's time, there is the like warrant and Antiquity for consecration of them, as of Churches. For my Chapel at Aberguelle, I consecrated, and put a name upon it, (as Saint Augustine saith, we dedicate Churches to Saint Peter) for distinction sake; and though I had a relation to the beheading of Saint John the Baptist in my Dedication of it, I hope there is no hurt therein. For the pattern and furniture of the Chapel produced, as if it were mine at Aberguelle, it is a mistake: for it is the pattern of Bishop Andrew's Chapel and furniture (which I caused to be written out) as the indorsement of it proves, viz. 1623. Chapel and furniture as it was in use by the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrew's, Lord Bishop then of Winton.
I had no such furniture in my Chapel there. For the Wafer basket and the rest, they concern not me, yet Wafers have been always used and are at this day in the Greek Church and in Westminster Abbey too. Whereas it is objected, that I hold there is a badge of Holiness put upon our Churches and Chapels by a Bishops breath, I answer no, but there is an awsulnesse, put upon them; For my prayer at the laying of the foundation stone of Hamersmith Chapel, there is no hurt, nor superstition in it. In fine, I hope there is is no High Treason to be found either in the one or other, in consecrating Churches, Chapels or foundation stones.
To this brave flourish of his for the Antiquity and lawfulness of the consecration of Churches, of Chapels, we shall return a full reply. To his Presidents taken out of the Old Testament we answer.
1. That Moses had an express command from God Himself to consecrate the Tabernacle, with all the vessels thereof, by annointing them with consecrated Oil, Exod. 40. 10. 11, 12. [they being types of Christ to come;] but we have no such command from God, to consecrate Churches, Church-Yards, Chapels Altars, Vestments; which are no types of Christ, already come.
Secondly, This consecration was made by Moses the Temporal Magistrate (not by Aaron the High Priest) without any other ceremony then mere anointing the Tabernacle and its Vessells, implements, with oil: Therefore no warrant for Bishops consecrating Churches, Church-Yards, Chapels Altars, Vestments, with other ceremonies, without any anointing them with oil.
Thirdly, this consecration was only Temporary, Jewish, ceremonial, abolished by Christ's death, Col. 2. 14. to 23. Heb. 7. 12. c. 9. 1. to the end, and cap. 10 1. to 22.
Fourthly, King Solomon did not consecrate the Temple not the Vessells and Court thereof, with Oil, as Moses did the Tabernacle; but after he had brought the Ark, Tabernacle and all the Holy Vessells into it, with praises, thankesgivings, instruments of Music; and after the cloud and glory of the Lord had filled the House, he made an heavenly prayer only in the midst of the Court (not in the Temple) before all the Congregation of Israel, kneeling on his knees, and spreading forth his hands towards heaven, [using no such prayers or ceremonies as the Bishop used:] and all the hallowing that we read of in this story is, Solomon's hallowing the middle of the Court, that was before the house of the Lord (and how was that?) only by offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, 2 Chron. 7. 7. 1 Kings 8. 64. From which History and practice, of his we shall observe.
1. That if there were any consecration of this Temple, it was made only by King Solomon himself, not by the High Priest, Priests, or Bishops, who now appropriate all consecrations of Churches, &c. to themselves alone.
Secondly, That the Oracle of the house where the Ark was placed, is called THE MOST HOLY PLACE, even before and without any consecration of it at all, 1 King. 8. 6, 10. 2 Chron. 5. 7. Therefore the consecration made it not most holy, but only the use to which it was designed.
Thirdly, That the Atke, Tabernacle, Vessells were brought into the Temple, and praises, thanksgivings, there solemnly sung to God, who manifested his presence there, filling it with a Cloud and his glory, so as the Priests could not stand to minister; before Solomonmade is prayer, which some term a consecration; whereas this Archbishop fell to his consecration, before any public prayers, thanksgiving Psalms, Service, or Sacraments administered.
Fourthly, That if this prayer were a consecration; it was made only in the outward Court, not in the temple it self, whereas the Arch-bishops consecration was made in the Church, not Church-Yard.
Fifthly, That the Hallowing of the Court (and so by consequence of the Temple, if properly consecrated) is by the text ascribed only, to Solomon's offering of burnt offerings, meat-offerings, and the fat of the Peace-offerings: not to any other prayers, exorcisms, Unctions, or Ceremonies, which Offrings being long since ceased, and not to be used by Christians, the consecration of Churches and Church-Yards must likewise cease, unless it be only by performing public duties of God's worship in them. Therefore this president of Solomon and the Temple under the Law; is no warrant at all for our Bishops consecrating of Churches, Church-Yards, Altars, Vessells or Vestments under the Gospel.
Fifthly, the sanctifying and cleansing of the Temple and Vessells of it prescribed by Hezekiah, but executed by the Priests and Levites; was only the clean, sing out of the Idols, Jdolatrius Altars, rubbish, filth and uncleanness of the Temple, which they found, and carried out thence into the Brooke Kidron; with their scouring of the Vessells, which had been polluted, as is plain by the letter of the text, 2 Chron. 29. &c. c. 33. 15, 16. compared together. Therefore it makes nothing for any Episcopal consecration of Churches, but only for keeping them clean from filth and Idols.
Sixthly, that of Ezra. 6. 16, 17. is no warrant for the hallowing of Churches or Chapels. For it only mentions; That the Priests, Levites, and Children of Israel kept the Dedication of the house of God with joy; and offered at the dedication of the house of God an hundred Bullockes, two hundred Rammes, 400. Lambs; and for a sin offering for all Israel, twelve he-Goats according to the number of the Tribes of Israel. And they set the Priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses for the service of God. But of any special Prayers, Ceremonies, Unctions, and the like, used at this Dedication, by the Priests or people, we read not one syllable. Therefore this their Dedication of the Temple, was only their offering of burnt offerings, of sin offerings in it to God, and ordering the services of the Priests and Levites in it. Therefore no President for the consecration of Churches by our Prelates, since such oblations, such courses of Priests, Levites are ceased with Christ, Hebr. 7. 11. 12, 18.
Seventhly, the Feast of Dedication mentioned John 10. 22. was not of the Temples Dedication, but of the Altars, instituted by Judas Maccabeus and his Brethren, to be annually kept by the space of 8. days in the Month Casl • u, 1 Mac. 4. 56 59. as Interpreters and the Margin of our Bibles resolve: which being of no Divine Institution, kept only by the Superstitious Jews, not by Christ, or his Apostles, (who are not said to observe, but only to be at Jerusalem when it was the Feast of Dedication John 10. 22.) It can be no warrant at all for the consecration of Altars, much less of Churches now.
Finally we answer, that we find no mention in Scripture or Classical Writers, of any consecration of Jewish Synagogues, to which our Churches properly succeed, but only of their Tabernacle and Temple, in such sort as you have heard; with which our Churches, Chapells have no proper Analogy: That this Argument of the Archbishop drawn from the presidents in the Old Testament, is borrowed from no Orthodox Ancient Father or Council, but only from the Popish Canonist, Gratian De Consecratione. Distinct 1. who thus concludes from these presidents. Si enim Judai qui umbrae legis deserviebant, hoc facicbant, multo magis nos quibus veritas patefacta & gratia per Iesum Christum data est, Templa Domino aedificare, & pro ut melius possumus orare, ea{que} DIVINJS PRECIBVS ET SANCTIS VNCTIONIBVS, suis cum Altaribus & vasis, vestibus quoque & Reliquijs, ad divinum cultum explendum utensilibus DEVOTE ET SOLENNITER SACRARE & non in alijs quam in Domino sacratis ab Episcopis, & non a Corepiscopis [qui sa • e prohibiti sune] nisi summa exigente, necessitate, Missas celebrare nec sacrificia offerre debemus Domino. You see out of what Popish quiver this Archbishop drew this leaden shaft of his.
To his pretended antiquity for the consecration of Churches, Chapels, Altars, &c. since Christ's time: we answer, first, that before the reign of Constantine the Great there is no credible president or authority at all for dedication of any Churches: And that Eusebius who (De vita Constantini l. 3. c. 24. to 40. 45. 47. 49. 50. 51. lib. 4. c. 39) makes mention of Constantine's and his Mother Helenaes building of divers stately Churches at Bethlehem, in the Mount of Olives, in Constantinople, Nycomedia, Mambre in Phoenicia, and elsewhere, & by his Edicts enjoined Christians to build Churches, yet makes no mention of any Edicts for their hallowing. True it is, that De vita Constantini. l. 4. c. 43. 45. 47. we read, that Constantine summoned a General Council of Bishops to Jerusalem, to settle some differences in the Church, and that at this meeting he thought best to consecrate, and thereupon kept the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple which he had built at Jerusalem over our Savior's Sepulcher, which the Priests, then Consecrated, but how? with prayers, disputations, preachings expositions of Scripture, and receiving the Sacrament, as he expressly defines c. 45. But of any other particular Church then this thus consecrated by his appointment, we find no mention. Indeed the same Eusebius in his Ecclesiast Historiae, l. 10. c. 3. De Encauijs ubi{que} locorum celebratis, writes, that Churches being reedified under Constantine, Deinceps celebre spectaculum, nobis omnibus optabile & vehementer desideratum, ante omnium occulis proponebatur, Dedicationum scilicet festivitates per urbes singulas, templorum nuper aedificàtorum consecrationes: which intimates, that Churches, then new built were solemnly dedicated to God in most places; but what those Dedications of them were, he informs us in the same Chapter, That they were Panygericall Orations in praise of their founders, &c. of which he cites a memorable one made to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre in the next Chapter. These Dedications therefore of Churches then, were far different from those used by the Papists and this Archbishop now. We read not then of any consecration of their foundation stones, any pompous processions to them, any knocking at the doors, by the Bishop, crying with a loud voice, Open, Open ye everlasting doors, &c [a clear perverting of Scripture;] of no flying open of the doors there-upon; No falling down upon the marrow bones; and saying: This place is holy, &c. No casting up of dust in the air, no such prayers, processions, round about the Church; bowings to the Altar, pronouncing of cursings and blessings, Peepings, recoylings, and other Antick tricks as this Bishop used at Creed Church, and elsewhere, no Hallowing of Altars, Altar-clothes, Vessells, Vestments, Churchyeards, Chapels. Therefore these Consecrations in Constantine's days, are no warrant at all for his, the rather, because not made by Bishops alone, who now monopolize them.
After Constantine's time, there is very rare mention of any Consecration of Churches in Ecclesiastical Histories, or the genuine writings of the Fathers, till Popery overspread the Church, and Popes brought it in by forged decrees, Gratian himself, being unable to cite so much as one Fathers Authority for it [Di Consecratione distinct.. 1. where he professedly handles this subject] but only the forged Decrees of Popes, and the Canons of two or three late Popish Councils; there being no Canons concerning it in any ancient genuine Synods: Yea the consecration of Churches was so much neglected even in the very darkest time a of Popery above a thousand years after Christ that O • hobon the Popes, Legat and the Synod held under him here in England in Henry the third his Rain, acknowledge, that there were many Parish Churches and some Cathedrals then uncrusecrated although built long before.
Now to prove the consecration and merely Popish [as of late ages it hath been used at least] it is agreed by Gratian, Platina, the Centuryators, Thomas Beacon, and others, that Pope Hyginus, Gelasius, John, Nicholas, Clemens, Sylvester, Felix and Gregory (whose spurious Decrees are cited by Gratian De Consecratione Distincti: and Surius in his 1. and 2 Tome of Councils) were the first inventors and prescribers of this Ceremony of Consecrating Churches and Altars: prescribing.
1. That no Church should be built or consecrated without the command, Authority, or consent of the Bishop of Rome.
2ly. That every Church should be consecrated with a Mass, and no Mass said or Sacrament administered [unlesso in case of absolute necessity) but in a consecrated Church, and at a consecrated Altar.
3ly. That these Priests should be deprived who said Mass or officiated in unhallowed places or at unconsecrated Altars.
4ly. That no Altars should be consecrated without the Relics of Saints, and if any Altars were consecrated without them, they should be pulled down.
5ly. That all Stone Altars should be anointed and consecrated with Chrism.
6ly. That no Church should be consecrated wherein a Pagan was interred, unless his corps were first digged up and cast out of it.
7ly. That the Timber of a consecrated Church, and Vestments once consecrated, though worn out & decayed should not be converted to any other good use but burnt to Ashes and these to be laid up safely in some place within the Church, least they should be polluted with the feet of those who passed by.
8ly. That none should touch the consecrated Altars, Vessells, Vestments, or be enabled to keep them, but consecrated persons.
9ly. That if the Altar of any Church were renewed; or the walls new built, or defiled with murder, blood-shed, or the meeting or burying of Heretics therein, that then it should be re-consecrated; otherwise not.
10. That no man whatsoever should presume to build any Church before the Bishop of the City first came to the place, & fixed a Cross thereon; and the Patron informed him, what stipend he would alow for the finding of Tapers, Guardians to keep it, Priests to Officiat in it, agree to have it consecrated, and to sprinkle the floor and Court thereof with holy water.
Of latter times, many Ethnicall, superstitious Exercismes, Conjurations, Unctions, Ceremonies, Notions, and frantic inventions have been added by Popes and Prelates to these consecrations recorded at large in the Roman Caeremonialls, Pontificalls, Thomas Beacons Relics of Rome, Mr. Calfehill and others: whereby it will appear to be most Popish, superstitious in the highest degree, whatever is pretended to the contrary. Whereupon it was exploded, condemned by our Church, State, Bishops, and other writers in the beginning of Reformation, as Popish, Jewish, Superstitious and by foreign Protestant writers (See Aretij Problemata Locus 121 De Encaenijs) as we have formerly proved. Therefore it must needs be a Popish design in this Archbishop to revive it now.
For his Argument, that Churches cannot be called Holy, unless consecrated by a Bishop; it being his consecration that makes them so. We answer.
1. That Bishop Pilkinton and others define this very Doctrine of his, to be Popery, as we haye proved, so doth Aretius too.
Secondly, That the most Holy Place, was so styled, though never consecrated 1 King. 8. 6. 10. So Jerusalem is called very frequently, the Holy City: Matth 4. 5. c. 27. 53. though never consecrated. And God told Moses the place whereon thou standest is holy ground, Exodus 3. 5. though never consecrated by a Bishop.
Thirdly, Our own ( ) Homilies inform us, That the Church is counted and talled Holy, not of it self (nor yet for its consecration by a Bishop) but because God's people resorting thither are holy, and exercise themselves in holy and heavenly things.
Fourthly, The hearing and preaching of God's Word, Prayer, and receiving the Sacraments therein are sufficient of themselves to sanctify and make it holy without any other consecration. See 1 Tim. 45. Centur: Mag: 3. and 4. c. 6. & Aretij Problemaia Locus, 126. who resolves further against this superstition: Vana est etiamilla superstitio, quod dicunt; Nisi dedicatur Templum, non posse ibi preces haberi, non exandiri orantes, non recte praedicari verbum Dei, nec Sacramenta administrari: quae sententia MANIFESTE JUDAISMUM RESIPIT; Christus tamen praemonstravit, Horam nunc esse, ut veri adoratores, nec in monteistonec Jerosolymis, sed ubique lieorum Deum adorent in spiritu & veritate. Athanasius sane non erubuit preces habere & populum ad audiendum verbum Dei convocare in Templum Alexandrinum majus, quamvis nondum esset Dedicatione consecratum: nondum enim jusserat Imperator. Id nostri hodie magnum nefas ducunt.
Fifthly, sanctification in its own nature, is nothing else, but a sequestering of anything from a common or ordinary use, to a religious and sacred purpose. And this may be done without a Bishops exorcism or conjuration; in w ch respect the first borne, first fruits, and oblations among the Jews were termed Holy, though never solemnly consecrated, because appropriated and devoted unto God. For his other Argument, that if places be not holy persons cannot be so; and our Church allows of the consecration of persons; Ergo of places. It is both a fallhood and absurdity. For first, it is God and his Spirit only that make persons holy, not Prelates; who never sanctify places as they do persons. Secondly, Our Church allows only of the Ordination (not consecration) of Bishops and Ministers, confirmed by Statute (many of whom ordained such, are so far from being holy, that they are most polluted and unclean) but not of consecrating Churches; utterly exploded by the Common Prayer Book, and book of Ordination, comprising all the authorized Rites and Ceremonies of our Church, whereof consecration of Churches is none. And thus much in answer to his defense in general for consecration of Churches.
Secondly, For the particulars Objected; our witnesses depose, that his coming to Creed Church, was pompous, not decent, that he fell down on his knees to pronounce, the place and ground holy, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; not to adore and pray to God; which the Examples of Moses, Aaron, and Hezekiah warrant not, who never fell down at the Tabernacle door not bowed the head and worshipped to consecrate either the Tabernacle, Temple, or Altar. And whereas he objects, that his pronouncing of the place holy as soon he entered into it, was legal, &c. we answer.
1. That himself avers, that no Church or place is legally holy, before it be consecrated; and when he pronounced it holy upon his entrance to it, he had not consecrated it; therefore by his own doctrine it was not legally holy, when he pronounced it so.
Secondly, If our Churches be legally holy by their consecration, then the consecration of our Popish Prelates in times of Popery with superstitious, Popish Ceremonies, conjurations, Exorcismes, enoylings, processions, sprinklings with holy water, made them so, since most of them were only consecrated in, though none re-consecrated since the times of Popery: And if such Popish consecrations make them legally and really holy, then they are of as great efficacy at his own or Bishop Andrew's his form, and no difference at all between them.
Thirdly, For Justinian, he makes no mention at all in that Title of consecration of Churches, and stiles them holy Churches, only in respect of the holy duties publicly performed in them. For his throwing up of dust, two witnesses expressly depose it, which must overballance his own bare negation: and there is so little difference between dust and ashes, that they are usually coupled together as Synonimaes, in Scripture and Authors. That he took his form from Bishop Andrew's, is only averred by himself nor proved by any witnesses; but that it agrees with that in the Pontifical which we found in his Study even in terminis, is most clear; and therefore we cannot but presume he derived it from thence. However, if Bishop Andrew's imitated the Pontifical, and he Bishop Andrew's, the charge is still alike, both of them imitating and complying with the Pope herein. He grants his prayer taken out of the Pontifical; therefore no doubt the rest, especially his frequent bowings and Jackanapes tricks at the Altar: which he cunningly pretermits and answers not. For Dr. Ienison, he objected only his preaching against Images to him at his censure, and that was no extravagancy. As for the consecrating of Churches only repaired or somewhat enlarged, we know no Law nor Canon in our Church to warrant it: And to take sees for it, is both Simony, and extortion. For the restoring of them, it is only affirmed not proved; and to take them illegally to bestow them on the poor, is but to rob Peter to clothe Paul.
Thirdly, For the consecration of Chapels and mere private Oratoties, there is no president in Antiquity; yea Gratian himself and the Roman Pontifical allow the use of them, without any consecration: Therefore to consecrate them is to exceed even Popery and Papists in Superstition. As for his Chapel of Aberguilly his own Diary proclaims his Superstition both in its consecration. and denomination of it. For the Pattern and furniture of it, his own notes and papers clearly prove, it was the same with that of Bishop Andrew's, whose form of conscration himself allegeth he punctually pursued. And if this were the true pattern furniture of Bishop Andrew's own Chapel Anno 1623. all the world may justly censure him for a professed Papist, his Chapel Altar, and their furniture being as Popish Superstitious, Idolatrous every way as the Pops in Rome, yea exceeding the very Roman Ceremonial and Pontifical For Wafers, they are directly contrary to the Rubric at the end of the Communion in the Book of Common prayer; we wonder therefore with what face this Prelate dares justify them: That a Bishops breath puts only a badge of reverence not holiness on Churches, is diametrically contrary to what he formerly affirmed. Perchance he now remembers that Quicquid effecit tale est magis tale? and therefore Bishops cannot make other things holy with their breath who have little or no holiness at all in their hearts: For his solemn consecration prayer at the laying the first stone of Hammersmith Chapel, it hath neither Scripture, Law, Canon, Antiquity, but the Roman Pontifical to warrant it: Therefore it is merely Popish Whereas he objects by way of jeer, that he hopes the consecration of Churches and Chapells is no Treason: we answer, that we do not charge it to be so in it self. But we have proved it to be a branch of Popery and a gross one too and being introduced by him among other things to set up Popery, and subvert Religion it will prove Treason in this respect, as we shall manifest in due time. And so this intre charge remains unavoyded in any the least particle.
8ly. The next Charge urged against me, Is The Kings Declaration for the use of sports on the Lord's day, prescribing the observation of Revells, Wakes. Feasts of Dedication likewise, formerly suppressed, where I am accused.
1. For causing this Book to be enlarged, reprinted in his Majesty's name to prevent the petition of the Justices in Somersetshire, and make way for Mr. Prynne's censure.
2. For pressing Ministers to read it in their Churches without any Warrant, suppressing of Sermons censuring those who refused to publish it, (as Mr. Wilson, Master Player, Master Heiron, Mr. Snelling with sundry others) encouraging other Bishops to suspend, silence many Godly preaching Ministers for this cause, pressing this Book, and ordering Churchwardens to present such who refused to publish it, by Visitation Oaths and Articles.
3ly. For reviving, disorder, by wakes, Revels, and causing the Judges Orders to be reversed:
To the first of these I answer, That the Kings Declaration for sports was printed and published by his Majesty's special command. Yea I had a Warrant under his hand to see it printed, and there is no proof at all that it was printed, published or enlarged by my procurement. Besides, the Declaration is but for the use of lawful Sports and that only after evening prayer ended: and the cause of publishing it at that time was partly Barbourous Book of the Sabbath, who would revive the Jewish Sabbath, and the Jewish rigidities positions of others touching the Lord's day, whose positions drew Brabourne into that Error. In Geneva itself (as I have been ceedibly informed by Travelers) they use shooting in pieces long bows Cross Bows, Musters, and throwing of the bowle too, on the Lord's day as well before as after Sermons ended, and allow all honest recreations without reproof of their Ministers, yea, Mr. Calvin the great professor there Instit. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. blames those who infected the people in former ages with a Judaical opinion, that the morality of the 4th. Commandment, to wit, the keeping of one day in 7. did still continue; which what else is it then in dishonor of the Jews to change the day, and to affix as great a sanctity to it, as the Jews ever did. And that those who adhored to their constitutions who broached this Doctrine, Crassa carnalique Superstitione Judaeos ter superant: Men may be too strict as well as prophaneherein. Yet I for my part have ever strictly observed the Lord's day in point of practice: And whereas it was attested by Mr. Prynne, that this Declaration was published to prevent the Petition of Somersetshire for the reviving of Judge Richardsons forecited order: Sir Robert Philip's and many other Gentlemen of that County complained against the order to the King, whereupon the Judge was ordered to reverse it, and the Declaration was not published till after the reversall.
2ly. The Declaration was ordered to be published in the Church; and that was sufficient warrant to enjoin Ministers to publish it there, & although no penalty be prescribed in it to such who should refuse to publish the same, yet it is implied, otherwise, the command were idle in case of disobedience. That it was published with intent to suppress afternoon Sermons, that so the people might • ave more time for Sports; This could not be, since none were to use any Recreations till after Evening Prayer ended. That I gave my Visitor command to suspend those who refused to read it, was only within my Diocese of Canterbury, not in my Metropolitical Visitation throughout my province; I suspended but three Ministers in my whole Diocese, who had first time of consideration granted them, to wit, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Culmer, and Mr. Player, only suspended ob officio for their contumacy being men of factious Spirits. For Mr. Wilson and others being brought into the High Commission for not reading this Declaration, it was the act of the Court, not mine. As for Mr. Snelling, he was excommunicated by Dr. Woode not me, and he was questioned in the High Commission; for not bowing at the name of Jesus, and as well as not reading this Book, Besides I was not present at his censure there neither did I expunge his answer. Nor did I press the reading of the Declaration in my Visitation Articles, if other Bishops did it, tis nothing to me; themselves must answer for it, not I.
3ly. Feasts of dedication have been of great Antiquity, and in general use in some Coutries; and there is a lawful use of them for Hospitality, and increase of love among Neighbors and friends, as the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with divers of the gravest Clergy in the county of Somerset certified his Majesty, who desired their continuance:
If some abuses crept into them as they did in some places, and it seems in Somersetshire, yet this was no good reason to take away the feasts and meetings themselves, as Judge Richardson did by his order (for which there were great complaints made by men of quality) but only to regulate them, and take away their abuses, which this Declaration doth without countenancing any disorders.
To this was replied. 1. That it is clear by the evidence given, and his Letter written, to the Bishop of Bath and Wells that this Declaration was enlarged by himself, and republished by his instigation and procurement: That himself put his Majesty upon the reprinting of it, the warrant being written with his own hand and being without any date at all makes it probable it was procured since the Declaration printed. The later end of the Declaration it self concerning Wakes and Revells, compared with the juncture of time when it was published, manifests that it was thrust out to cross Judge Richardsons order, and forestall the Petition of the Somersetshire Justices for its continuance, immediately after its reversall, it having no relation at all to Brabournes Book. Besides the publishing of it, just when Mr. Prynne was questioned for his Histriomastix (wherein he censures mixed dancing Sports & Pastimes on the Lord's day) and reciting it in the very information against him, manifests; that it was likewise reprinted to make way for his first censure in Starchamber. Moreover some of the recreations mentioned in it are not very lawful upon any day though the Archbishop affirms the contrary, but certainly unlawful on any part of the Lord's day, even after evening Prayer, as Pathers, Councils, Imperial Laws, and both Protestant and Popish writers have resolved. The pretended Practice of Geneva, which he allegeth, is but a Hearesay without proof, borrowed from Peter Heylins profane History of the (he should have said, NO) Sabbath. part. 2. c. 6. sect. 6. 8. 9. who yet informs us sect. 9. that Da • noing hath been condemned by French Synods and writers (as well Protestantas Popish) which yet the Declaration for sports in terminis allows of on the Lord's day, contrary to the practice and judgment of Geneva. As for Mr. Calvin himself though he differs in some particulars touching the Morality of the 4th. Commandment from other of our Divines, yet he in express words condemns. Dancing and Pastimes on the Lord's day, not deemingita Jewish Superstition or rigidity to prohibit such sports thereon, especially Dancing, as his 71. Sermon upon Job, proclaims to all the world; and other Geneva Ministers since him, have done the like. That this Declaration did de Pacto put down afternoon Sermons on the Lord's day in most and forenoon too in many places, by suspending sundry preaching Ministers who durst not publish it out of conscience, is apparent to all. Wherefore to affirm this one part of the Archbishops design in reprinting thereof, is a certain and more then probable truth; and the words of it, that they should use those Pastimes after Evening Prayer, (not evening Sermon) import as much, some Bishops grounding their suppressing of Afternoone Sermons on this expression; which Sermons Peter Heylin in his History of the Sabbath. part. 2. c. 6. sect. 9. and c. 7. and 8. makes to be mere innovations, as doth Doctor Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath, both published by this Archbishops command and approbation. For his own strict observation of the Lord's day, it is an averment without truth. Certainly he that made conscience of its strict observation himself, would never give way to such a Declaration encouraging others to profane it, who were apt to do it without such an incitement; nor suspend such Godly Ministers, who durst not publish it out of conscience, for fear of encouraging others to profane it. Yea, his pretended strictness of late times was such, that himself and his servants made it an ordinary practice in the Somer to go to Bowles and use other pastimes on it, and he sat constantly thereon at the Council Table about worldly business. 2ly. That there was no warrant at all in the Declaration that Ministers should publish it, or to punish any who refused it, hath been formerly proved at large, and where there is no penalty prescribed in a Law (much more in a Declaration) no punishment can be inflicted. That he gave express order for silensing Mr. Wilson, Mr. Culmer, and Mr. Player, is proved by several Oaths, and that they were suspended divers years not only ab officio, but beneficio, having nothing left to support their Wives and Families. That they were obstinate or sactious is a groundless scandal, not proved, they were only conscientious and would not disobey God to humor men. That he silenced only these three in his Diocese was but casual, because others submitted to read the Book; but his command was general, to suspend all who refused to read it, and those three in special. That he put not any Article of Inquiry touching the reading of this Declaration into the Articles for his Metropolitical Visitation, was his Jesuitical Art and cunning, to conceal his wickedness and profaneness from public view, but that he gave private Instructions to his Vicar General in this his Visitation, to convent and question such who had not read it, who thereupon did accordingly question divers good Ministers for this very cause, you have heard it proved at large by the very Abstracts of his Metropolitical Visitations, under his own and his Visitors hands. That other Bishops inserted such an Article into their printed Visitation Inquisitions, we have fully proved, as also that they gave an Account to him of the Ministers they had suspended for not Reading the Declaration according to his Injunctions. Therefore their Articles of this nature proceeded merely from him, and must be charged on him, as well as on themselves. That it was the Act of the Court, not his to bring any into the High Commission for not reading this Book, is a most false averment; for Mr. Wilson [now a Reverend Divine of the Assembly] was brought into the High Commission by his own express command and no others, as himself deposeth, who personally suspended him before at Lambeth for that cause both from his Office and Benefice: and Mr. Page was by his special order brought into the High Commission as appears by his own Subscription to Francis Thompsons Petition. That Mr. Snelling was there questioned, and severely censured by the Archbishops means, who gave Order not to accept either his Answer or defense; and threatened to burn it; is clear by the proofs forementioned. That his censure was only for not publishing the Declaration, is evident by the sentence it self, if well observed, his not bowing at the name of Jesus, being put in only for a Cipher, but not insisted on at the hearing.
And whereas he pretends, he was not present at his censure, which he proves not; we know he was virtually, if not personally present thereat; yea, his unjust suppression of his tendered Answer and defense, was the only cause of his censure; which if received were so learned, solid, satisfactory, that profaneness and injustice it self could not have imposed such a censure on him. Thirdly, annual Feasts of Dedication of Churches are not so ancient, but that we know their Original: The Feast of Dedication of the Altar, instituted by Judas Maccabeus was the first of this kind we read of: Indeed Solomon kept a Feast for seven days space when the Temple was dedicated: And Constantine the great, with some others in his days, when Churches were dedicated, made a great Feast; but that those Feasts continued annual in perpetuity, I find no mention in any approved Antiquity. These annual Feasts of dedication were first invented by the spurious popish Decrees of Pope Felix and Gregory, thus recorded by Gratian; Solennitates dedicationum Ecclesiarum, Epissoporum & Saterdotum per singulos annos sunt celebrandae: Solennitates Ecclesiarum dedicationum & Sacerdotum per singulos annos solenniter sunt celebrandae, ipso Domino exemplum dante, qui ad festum dedicationis Templi, omnibus id faciendi dans formam, cum reliquis populis eandem festevitatem celebraturus venit, sicut scriptum est; Facta sunt Encoenia in Hieru olymis, & hyems erat, & ambulabat Jesus in Temple in porticu Solomonis. Quod autem octo diebus encaenia sint celebrando in libro Regum perfecta dedicatione Templi cernas. Other Decrees then these of these two Popes (the latter whereof is built upon clear mistakes of Scripture) cannot be produced. These Bacanalian feasts are thus censured by Aretius, Problem. 126. Hodie vero Solennitates instituuntur; tote die bibitur, tote die luditur, saltatur, lascivi cantus audiuntur; quae omnia magis spirant Bacchi quoddam festum à Maenadibus celebrandum, quam piam Christianismi antiquitatem: And were wholly abolished among us by the Injunctions of King Henry the eighth, and Statute of 6 Edw. 6. c. 3. by reason of the idleness, excess and great mischiefs they produced to men's souls; Yea, many Judges riding the Western Circuit, suppressed the Wakes and Revels kept upon them from time to time for these abuses and other weighty Reasons. Yet this profane Arch-prelate revives, re-establisheth them by this DECLARATION, causeth those Judges Orders to be reversed with a strong Hand, by a Plot and Certificate from Bishop Pierce and others, checks, nay punisheth Chief Justice Richardson, removes him from that Circuit, and lets loose the Reines to all Licentiousness, profaneness, whereby infinite mischiefs ensued, as we have fully proved: So that this whole Charge sticks still upon him.
Ninthly, from these ceremonial and practical, they proceed to doctrinal innovations in matters of Religion, wherein I am charged; First, with an endeavor to introduce and propagate Arminianism in our Church, the rediest inlet to Popery and a part thereof, though I knew it to be a plot of the Jesuits to subvert our Religion, as appears by the Jesuits Letter; and that principally; First, in being a common Patriot of Arminians, together with their Books, Tenets, and a preferrer of such; by name, of Bishop Montague, and his Appeale complained of in Parliament, Doctor Jackson and others; for which I was taxed by a Declaration of the Commons in Parliament: Secondly, in censuring the Commons Declaration in Parliament against the Arminians, and their Vote too: Thirdly, in calling in and suppressing Books against Arminianism, though licensed, and questioning, censuring the Authors, Printers, dispersers of them in the high Commission, as Bishop Carltons and Bishop Downames Books, Doctor Featlies, Doctor Goads, Master Rouses, Doctor Sutcliffe's, Master Prynne's, Master Burtons Books, and others; when as the Arminian Authors went unquestioned, and their Books printed by authority, as Doctor Jacksons Book, and the Historical Narration, licensed by my own Chaplain Doctor Martin: Fourthly, In abusing his Majesty's Proclamation, his Declaration before the 39. Articles of our Church, with the subsequent Instructions, prohibiting controversies against the Article, especially in the controverted points of Arminianism, to suppress all preaching against Arminian errors, and punish such as durst oppose them, by silencing, suspending, censuring them in the high Commission or elsewhere, and conniving at the Arminians to vent and preach their errors freely under pretext thereof, without restraint or opposition, both in the University and City: Fifthly, for purging passages against Arminianism and Arminians out of Books tendered to the Press, and particularly out of Bishop Hals and Bishop Davenants Letters; with some other incident particulars which fall under these heads: Sixthly, in repealing the Articles of Ireland against Arminianism, which King James declaimed against as damnable heresy.
To this I answer in general, that I never endeavored to introduce Arminianism into our Church, nor ever maintained any Arminian opinions. For the Jesuits Letter, it is nothing at all to me, it lays nothing to my charge in particular, and it was lawful for me to read and keep it; it contains many strange vile things in it against the Parliament, which I approve not, but detest. To the particulars, I answer; First, that I did neither protect nor countenance the Arminians persons, books or tenets; for Bishop Montague, I had no hand in his Book, I countenanced it not, it was suppressed and called in by Proclamation; he was preferred by Sir Dudly Carltons means, not mine, who was then a stranger to me: True is is, I was in a Declaration of the Commons house, taxed as a favourer, advancer of Arminians and their opinions, without any particular proof at all, which was a great slander to me: Secondly, I answer, that being publicly traduced in that Declaration, I did return an answer to vindicate my own innocence, as was necessary for me to do, to free myself from that scandal, without any derogation to the Parliaments authority: Neither did I this till I was expressly commanded by the King himself, as appears by the endorsment, whose command it was lawful, yea necessary for me to obey; and I durst not have done it without such his Royal command: After which I penned it, with all due respect to the Parliament, and it was never published. For my answer to the Parliaments Vote, it was only a private paper kept in my Study, and communicated to none, written for my own private satisfaction, and derogating noting from the power of Parliaments, it belonging properly to the Convocation and Church of England by the Laws and Statutes of the Land, to make Canons and settle controversies in Religion, as the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. c. 19. & 1. Eliz. c. 1. evidence: Thirdly, the calling in and suppressing of these Books, and prosecuting the Authors, Printers of them in the High Commission, was the Courts act, not mine: For Bishop Carltons Book, it was called in by the High Commission, and attested only by Master Sparke, a single Witness; Bishop Downhams Book was called in by the Kings special command, both in England and Ireland, because published contrary to the his Royal Proclamation, and Declaration: For Master Prynne's Perpetuity, I do not know that it was burnt in private; if it were, it was by the censure of the Court, there being some things in it liable to just exceptions: Doctor Sutcliffe's Book is not proved to be called in by me: For Master Prynne, Master Burton, and those that printed their Books, they were not censured in the High Commission, but dismissed thence without censure: For Doctor Jackson, he was a learned discreet man, I licensed not his Book, nor do I know he professed himself an Arminian: True it is, the Historical Narration was licensed by my Chaplain Doctor Martin, without my privity, for which I turned him out of my service, and the Book it self was called in and suppressed.
Fourthly, the Kings Proclamation and Declaration before the Articles, were his own, not mine, both published to settle peace in the Church, by silencing those controversies which disturbed it by printing or preaching, which unquiet spirits would not submit to, and the Authors of the Books forementioned, among others, with some other Preachers about the City and University, for which they were justly questioned, suspended, and some that broached Arminian Tenets in Oxford, were brought in question, and ordered to recant, as well as those that preached against it: The censure of Master Ford and his complices in Oxford, was by the King and Counsel upon a solemn hearing at Woodstock, not by me, and they well deserved it, for kindling such a fire in the University, as was like to set all in combustion: For the University of Cambridge, I meddled not with it: The considerations was not my paper, but Bishop Harsnets, who drew them; and I did but transcribe them, and the end of them was not to supresse preaching against Arminianism, but to preserve peace and order in the Church. For the Instructions, they were the Kings, not mine, and they were sent to me in a Letter by my Predecessor Archbishop Abbot, and brought to me by his Secretary Master Baker, with command to see them put in execution within my Diocese of London; to prove which, I have produced the testimony of Master Dobson, who affirmed it to be true. Fifthly, for the purging some passages out of Bishop Hals and Bishop Davenants Letter, and imprisoning Master Butter for printing them. I answer, that the same was done by my Chaplain, as being contrary to his Majesty's Proclamation and Declaration, and Bishop Hall himself at last consented to it, and was well satisfied upon the reason given him by my Chaplain, that it was for the quiet of the Church; and therefore for the Printer of his own head to put it in, deserved exemplary punishment. Sixthly, there is no proof that the Articles of Irreland were reversed by my procurement, it was done by the Convocation there, where I was not present.
To this was replied in general, That his endeavors to introduce Arminianism were so fully cleared by the premised evidence, and his protection both of the Authors, and fomenters of it, that impudency it self would blush to deny it. That the Jesuits Letter which he had in his custody endorsed with his own hand did fully discover to him, that the planting and introducing Arminianism here in England, was their Plot and chief Engine to subvert our Religion: And though it makes no particular mention of him, yet it informs their Superior and others, that the Arminians had locked up the Dukes ears already; a Periphrasis of himself (the Dukes Earwig, as he was then styled) who had his ear more then any: His compliance therefore with the Arminians, notwithstanding they were but the Jesuits instruments to drive on their designs, as he certainly knew by this Letter, much agravates his crime, and makes exceedingly against him: True it is, there are some strange passages, concerning Parliaments in this Letter, but himself hath as bad or worse in his Diary, and Answer to the Remonstrance of the Commons Anno 1628. therefore certainly he disliked not these in this Letter.
Particularly, this replication was retorted to these his answers; First, that he was a professed patriot of the Arminians persons, Books, Tenens, and particularly of Bishop Montague's; of whose cause he was most anxious and inquisitive, whom he acquainted with his Majesty's special favor to him while he lay under the cloud of the Parliaments displeasure, his receiving all informations or speeches against his Erronious book; whose proceedings in Parliament, when there questioned, were daily represented to, and reserved carefully by him; whose ill book and opinions were in sundry conferences particularly justified by him, whose preferments proceeded originally from him, and with whom he held most intimate correspondency till his death, as the forecited passages in his own Diary, and alleged evidence proves most fully: For his advancement by Sir Dully Carltons means, it is but a bare surmise, contrary to the Dockquet Book to excuse himself: The Proclamation for calling in his book proceeded from the Parliaments prosecution of him, not from this Bishops care, who ordered it so, that it proved the chief instrument of promoting Arminianism, by hindering all writing and preaching against it what in him lay, he informing the world in the very Proclamation it self, that the Author was punished only with a good Bishopric for writing this Book, & highly advanced maugre three several Parliaments complaints and opposition; In brief, the Commons Remonstrance is a sufficient evidence of his guilt and no slander at all (as he slanderously terms it) being verified by so many proofs: Secondly, his answer to the Remonstrance of the Commons is full of bitterness, sauciness, scandals against the Parliament, charging them with untruths in the highest degree, only for speaking that; which was most true: That he was commanded to return this answer to it by the King himself, without any suit of his own, is very improbable, and rests on him to prove, which he hath not done: However, he proves not that he did exceed his Commission. And whereas he allegeth by way of excuse, that his answer to it was never published, truly this was his grief, as appears by his own endorsment of it, and no act of his, who desired to have it printed then. Whereas he pretends he durst not have answered it, had not the King commanded him; certainly he that durst control the Kings own Letters Patents, under his Seal, (as he did in the case of the collection for the Palatinate, and sundry other particulars given in evidence against him,) revoke the Kings own pardons and prohibitions to the high Commission, saying, they should not serve the turn; yea, deprive the King of his Sovereignty, that he should not relieve nor pardon any man censured in the high Commission, though never so unjustly; that hath presumed so frequently to break off Parliaments, yea, to resolve to dissolve them before they were called, In case they prove peevish, &c. and to write so of Parliaments as he hath done in other papers, durst write such an answer as this without any royal mandate to encourage him: And this his answer to the Commons Vote against Arminianism demonstrates, which is fraught with transcendent contempt of their authority and proceedings therein basely scorned, scoffed at: And the reasons given therein, prove that it was no private note to satisfy himself alone, but a paper purposely complied to incense the King & others against the Commons, as the comparing it with some passages of his Diary, and dissolving of that very Parliament in discontent soon after, will easily demonstrate: For the Statutes objected, they prove no such thing as in pretended, our Parliaments in all Ages (not the Convocation, who are but only assistants to the Houses in matters of Religion, when their advice is required) having been the sole Judges, Law-givers, determiners of all Ecclesiastical affairs, matters of Religion, as we can prove by infinite Presidents: Thirdly, the calling in, suppressing, burning of all the forecited books against Arminianism, with the questioning of the Authors and Printers of them in the high Commission, is directly sworn, proved to be his act, and the Courts only mediately, by his procurement; the Warrants for their Citation, Commitments, were signed with his hand, he was the only violent man against them in open Court, upon all occasions; and though many of them were not censured, but got off, yet it was only by prohibitions, full sore against his will, for the bringing whereof he threatened to lay them by the heels: However, those that escaped best were there prosecuted sundry years, put to great attendance and expense, many of them imprisoned, and their books all lost or privately burnt by his direction, without any censure of the Court at all; as Bishop Carltons Book against Montague, and Master Prynne's Perpetuity, though both publicly licensed by Archbishop Abbots Chaplains; Bishop Downhams Book (as this Archbishops own Letter to Bishop Usher manifests) was called in by his instigation only; to color which he procured a mandate from the King; and his own endorsment proves, that Doctor Sutcliffe's Book was suppressed in the Press by his procurement: For Doctor Jackson, he could not but know him to be a professed Arminian, being so reported by all, and declaring himself to be one both in his Epistle and Book, which, though complained of, was never suppressed nor questioned, notwithstanding his Majesty's Proclamation and Declaration: For the Historical Narration (the vilest imposter ever thrust upon our Church) it was licensed by his Chaplain Doctor Martin, with his own privity; the calling of it in was the act of Archbishop Abbot, upon Master Prynne's complaint, and the public scandal it gave, much against this Bishops will, who hath ever since connived at the sale of them. The turning away this his Chaplain for it, is but a false surmise, for he promoted him to the Headship of Queens College in Cambridge, and a very great living to boot, instead of bringing him into the high Commission; and was he not then severely punished for so grand a crime? Fourthly, though the Proclamation and Declaration prohibiting preaching and writing on these controversies, were the Kings in name and title, yet they were originally this Bishops mere plot and contrivance, to suppress all Books, Disputes, Sermons against Arminianism, to usher it in the faster without any opposition; the Arminians under pretext hereof, having liberty to preach, to print their errors, without check or censure, as our evidence abundantly proves, he making them mere snares to entangle all conscientious, zealous, orthodox men, Ministers and others, whose zeal excited them to appear against these dangerous disturbers of our Churches and Kingdoms peace, in Press, Schools or Pulpit: For Master Fords and his complices severe censures in Oxford, even to expulsion and banishment, they proceeded merely from his own violent prosecution, as the Evidence unanswerably proves; the Kings and Counsels censures being principally steered by his compass, the chief actor, prosecutor, and Judge in this cause: And whereas he pretends, that those who preached or printed Arminianism were convented, censured in the Unversities and elsewhere, as well as those who preached against it; let him name but one Scholar, Minister, that was ever imprisoned, deprived, silenced, prosecuted in the high Commission, or cast out of favor for preaching, writing, printing Arminianism, and then perchance he may be credited; but surely not one such president can be found: Whereas Master Montague was made a Bishop, Doctor Harsnet an Archbishop, Doctor Linsey promoted to two Bishoprics, Doctor Potter, made a Dean, (to omit sundry others) and Doctor Duppa made the Princes Tutor, Dean of Christ-Church, and a Bishop too, because he was an Arminian. True it is, that we find in the University Register of Oxford, pag. 50. that one Master Robert Rainsford (since a Doctor) teaching divers Arminian Tenants in a Sermon at Saint Mary's, in defense of Election from foreseen Faith, and Universal Grace; was upon Doctor Prideaux his complaint, not long after the expulsion of Master Ford and Master Hodges, convented before the Heads, and enjoined a very slender Recantation, in as partial terms as might be; not of his Arminian errors (which he hath oft since broached) but of his disobedience to his Majesty's Declaration, recorded in these terms:
WHeras I Robert Rainsford preaching at Saint Mary's in Oxford the 12. day of August 1632. and falling upon some prynts, which by reason of the agitation of them, have caused trouble in the Church, have been forbidden to be preached on, both by his Majesty's Declaration, and by his express Order to the Vice-Chancellor at Woodstock, (whereof having left the University for the space of two years and upwards, I was altogether ignorant) have thereby incurred his Majesty's displeasure, and was therefore worthily convented by the Vice-Chancellor; I do freely and humbly acknowledge my disobedience, and am heartily sorry for the same, desiring those that are to be my Judges, upon my promise of better behavior hereafter, to accept this my unfeigned acknowledgement, and to be favorable unto me.
21. August 1632.
Robert Rainsford.
This was all his censure, far different from Master Fords and Master Hodges, though after their punishment, and so his offense far greater then theirs, who did not begin the quarrel, nor kindle the fire of the Arminian Controversies in Oxford, but their Opposites, who escaped scot-free, and were promoted by this Archbishop himself for opposing, when they were thus severely handled for maintaining the truth. So in London the Anti-Arminians were generally silenced, suppressed, the Arminians connived at, advanced, encouraged by this Prelate, under pretext of this Declaration, as the Commons in Parliament complained in their forecited Remonstrance, and as we have proved by sundry instances, to which he returns no answer, and so stand confessed by his silence. For Cambridge Uniuersity, we know he was Visitor there, though not Chancellor, and had as great an influence upon it, if not power and activity in it, as in Oxford, giving all encouragement to the Arminian party there, advancing them to Headships and other preferments. For the Considerations they are written with his own hand, savor of his style, spirit: That Bishop Harsnet was the compiler of them, is but his own averment, without proof or probability; and admit they were his in the penning, yet certainly they were his own in the contriving, executing; and so were the Instructions, though drawn up in his Majesty's name, and sent to Archbishop Abbot, who must be ordered to send them enclosed in a Letter unto him, only to color the Plot, as if it were not his; whereas the Original under his own hand discovers the contrary.
Fifthly, the purging of those objected innocent, orthodox passages, even out of two Bishops Letters by his Chaplain, was certainly by his own command, else his Chaplain durst not be so bold with his Superiors of such note and eminency, who if they consented to this purgation at all, it was only as Mariners consent to throw over some of their goods into the Sea in a storm, least the whole Ship and freight should be lost; either this must be expunged, or the whole Book suppressed; and all under pretext of his Majesty's Declaration and the Churches peace; neither of which could restaine Arminian Books from the Press: And whether the Stationer, Butter, deserved to be imprisoned without Baile or Mainprize in the Fleet, to be Articled against in the high Commission, to sustain the loss of all his Books, and suffer other penalties for printing these passages, the best part of his Book; (without which, the Letters themselves were mere Ciphers, fragments,) let the indifferent judge, till the Archbishop can produce an Arminian Stationer, punished in this sort for printing Arminian Treatises, contrary to the Kings Proclamation and Declaration.
Sixthly, our Evidence sufficiently proves, that the revocation of the Articles of Ireland proceeded orinally from him, who was virtually, though not corporally present there in Doctor Bramhall, Master Chapel, and his other Arminian instruments, and the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who had neither power nor malice sufficient to effect such an Arch-exploit without his omnipotent concurrence and abuse of his Majesty's authority: For that of King James, that he never censured Arminius for an Heretic, nor his opinions for Heresy, but only Vorstius, the contrary is most apparent by his very words, in his Declaration against Vorstius, pag. 15. to 33. where he stiles Arminius, that Enemy of God; Arminianism HERESY; Arminians, Heretiks and Atheistical Sectaries: Bertius his Book of the Apostasy of the Saints, a blasphemous Book, and this his Doctrine a wicked Doctrine, an abominable Heresy: So that all particulars of this his heavy Charge stick still fast upon him.
Tenthly, I am charged with various attempts and endeavors, to undermine the true Protestant Religion, established in our Churches, and set up Popery in its stead, by maintaining, Printing, publishing all kind of doctrinal points of Popery, and hindering all public opposition against them; which general was branched forth into sundry particulars; which I shall answer in their Order.
The first is, The authorizing, printing, dispersing of sundry popish Doctrines, Books, and the prohibiting the contary impressions to refute them, by virtue of a Decree made in Star-Chamber by my Procurement, the 1. of July 1637. by color whereof, it is objected, divers old printed Books were prohibited to be reprinted, imported; as the English Geneva Bible with marginal Notes, the printing whereof I endeavored to suppress abroad in the Netherlands, as well as at home: The questioning of Master Gellibrand in the high Commission for his man's publishing an Almanac according to Master Fox his Calander in the Book of Martyrs, wherein our English Martyrs names were inserted instead of popish Saints, whom Doctor Pocklington abused in print; my checking, threatening of Mistress Griffin for reprinting Thomas Beacons Display of the Poposh Mass; my calling in of the Palsgraves Religion; the denial of reprinting Master Fox his Acts and Monuments, Bishop Jewels Works, and some part of Doctor Willets; for refusing to license new Books against Popish errors, and calling in of M r . Prynne's, Master Burtons, and others Books against popery, yea questioning them with sundry Printers and Stationers, in the high Commission, for printing, publishing Books against the Papists and Arminians; my licensing, countenancing divers popish books, lately printed, dispersed, to infect and poison his Majesty's people with popish errors, as Francis Sales his Book, Christ's Epistle to a devout Soul, Bishop Montague's, Doctor Pocklingtons, Doctor Heylins, Doctor Lawrences, Reeves, Shelfords, Chownaeus, Staffords Books and Sermons; The lives of the Emperors, the popish Index Biblicus, my own Speech in Star-chamber, and others, wherein divers gross points of popery and superstition, mustered up under divers heads, are comprised; many of which were complained of by Master Prynne in his Cross Bill in Star-Chamber, suppressed by my means, and by Master Burton in his For God and the King; for which they were unjustly censured in the Star-Chamber; to which Master Croxtons Letter to me, with a cross in the front, approving most gross Auricular confession in the open Church, is subjoined.
To which I answer; First, That the Decree in Star-Chamber was the act of the whole Court, who likewise ordered it to be printed, not mine: That it was made only to regulate the abuses of printing: That the Stationers themselves desired, approved, and gave me thanks for it. Secondly, That the English Bible with Geneva Notes, was only tolerated and connived at, not allowed heretofore; that some passages in it were abused, and very ill use made of them; as among others, that in the first of Exodus, which teacheth men not to obey the commands of Kings. King James himself in the Conference at Hampton Court, pag. 47. publicly declared his dislike of this translation, as the worst of all, and thereupon took care for a new translation to be made, but withal gave this Caveat, that no marginal Notes should be added to it, having found in them annexed to the Geneva translation some Notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits: As for example; the first chapter of Exodus, and the 19. verse, where the marginal Note alloweth disobedience unto Kings: The endeavor to suppress it in the Netherlands, was not any extent of my power thither, but the act of Sir Will. Boswell the Kings Agent there, who did but his duty therein. Thirdly, for Master Gellibrands Book, it was printed not in form of a Calender but Almanac; it was published to discountenance the old Saints, and was a mere innovation, contrary to all former Almanacs in use among us, and to that in the Common-prayer book: That the Queen sent to me about it, I could not help that: That I told Master Gellibrand he labored to raise a faction in the Court, I remember not the words; and if he did so, he deserved to be censured for it: That the Papists burnt it, I could not help that: Neither did it agree with Master Fox his Calender, but he abused it, in leaving out divers Saints allowed by the Church of England, as the Epiphany and Annunciation of our Lady: For Doctor Pocklingtons Book, wherein he abused our Martyrs, it was licensed by his Chaplain, Doctor Bray, who was censured for it, as was Doctor Pocklington too, in the Lord's House.
But it is objected, that my Chaplains act is in law mine own: I answer not, unless I command it: But the Book it self was found in my Study, and I preferred Doctor Pocklington for it. I know no such thing, and though I had the Book, yet I knew not of this passage in it. Fourthly, for the calling in of Beacons Book, printed by Mistress Griffin, it is nothing to me what a Jesuit said of it; and if called in, it was because she reprinted it contrary to the Star-chamber Decree. Fifthly, for the Palsgraves Religion, I remember it not, and if called in, it was because it was contrary to the Kings Declaration, and touched upon some points of controversy prohibited by it. Sixthly, the hindering of the reprinting of Master Fox, Bishop Jewell, and Doctor Willet, was no act of mine. Seventhly, I hindered the printing of no new Books against Popery. Eighthly, the questioning of Master Prynne, Master Burton, and the rest in the High Commission, was no act of mine, but the Courts; nor were they censured, but got off without censure: Master Burton said, he was questioned before the Counsel Table for one of his Books, as a Libell: If it were a Libell, there was cause to do it. He added, he could not be quiet for being troubled in the high Commission; nor could the Church be quiet for him, which was the cause of his trouble. He affirmed, I committed him to the Fleet, and denied him the benefit of the Petition of Right. I answer, there was cause enough for his commitment, for printing of Books without license, and for disturbing the peace of the Church, and he had the benefit of the Petition of Right, because the reason of his commitment was expressed in the Warrant. Ninthly, I licensed none of the particular books forecited myself, nor any of my Chaplains to my knowledge, I am certain not by my command, and if any of them have transgressed herein, themselves must answer for it, not I; who having many other weighty public affairs to look after, had no time to peruse or license Books myself, and was enforced to commit this trust to their care. Tenthly, to the particular books I answer, First, that though Sales his book was licensed by my Chaplain, yet he was abused therein, by the Translator & Printer, who was punished for it in Star-chamber: The book itself was called in and burnt by Proclamation, and I dismissed the Doctor for licensing it out of my house and service: For Christ's Epistle to a devout Soul, it was licensed at London House, by Doctor Weeks, the Bishop of London's Chaplain, not mine, and so nothing to me; besides, it was suppressed before it was published: For Doctor Heylins Books, they are nothing to me, I had no hand in them, nor yet in Doctor Pocklingtons, who hath been censured for them himself: For Bishop Montague's Impressions, they concern not me, I did neitheir advise nor authorize them: For the Lives of the Emperors, which commend the Council of Trent, the Book was not licensed, and I know not of it. For the Popish Index Biblicus printed in England, it is nothing to me, it was without my privity and direction: For the several popish passages objected out of some newbooks, the Authors themselves must answer them at their peril, they concern not me: For the rejecting of Master Prynne's Cross Bill in Star-chamber, complaining of these popish Books and Doctrines, it was none of my act, but the Courts and Lord Keeper Coventries; and so was M r . Burtons censure for his Book, in which I gave no Vote: For Master Croxtons Letter to me with a Cross, enjoining Auricular confession, I could not hinder it, nor his practice of confession being in Ireland: And for the passages objected out of mine own Speech in Star-chamber, that they imply and necessarily infer the popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the giving of divine worship to the Altar, even the same that is given to God. I answer, that neither of these can be inferred from thence; for my words only imply, that Christ's body is truly and really present in the Sacrament; yet not corporally, but in a spiritual manner, and so is received by us; which is no more then Master Calvin himself affirms on the 1 Cor. 11. 24. where thus he writes: Neque enim mortis tantum & Resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus suum in quo passus est & Resurrexit: Concludo, REALITER (ut vulgo loquuntur) id est, VERE Nobis in Coena datur Christi corpus, ut sic A • imis Nostris in Cibum salutarem; and Master Perkins himself faith as much. For my words, that we should bow DEO ET ALTARI, which are coupled both together with a Conjunction Copulative, yea both bowed to at the self-same time, in one and the same act, and the worship directed to, and terminated in both alike: Ergo, divine worship is given to the Altar herein as well as to God, which is flat Idolatry, or but such civil reverence given to God as is rendered to the Altar; which is to dishonor God, and gives him no greater worship in his house then is due unto a creature: I answer, that though the act of bowing be the same to both, yet the object, mind and intention being different, the worship must be so too; There is a double worship and bowing, one of the body, the other of the heart, as Master Perkins himself distinguisheth; which is properly called Veneration, when done but to a creature in a civil respect, and worship only when given to God himself.
To this was replied, Ferst, that this Decree of Star-chamber concerning printing was only his own act originally, who projected and put that Court upon it, (whereof he was an over-potent Member) theirs only Ministerially, to satisfy his importunity therein, as the forecited Passages in the Decreee it self, and our Witnesses attest: Yea, the printing of it was by his own command, to enlarge his Jurisdiction, which it much advanced: We grant that some things in the Decree were good, approved of by the Stationers, who desired the same, of which we complain not, and some particulars very useful, had a right use been made of them. But the prohibiting reprinting of all Orthodox Books formerly printed by authority, unless re-licensed by him or his Agents; the denial of any old book to be reprinted even against Popery it self, with the suppressing or purging most new Books against Popery, under pretext of this Decree, and the arbitrary punishing such who transgressed herein both in the Star-chamber and High Commission, was a transcendent crime, of which this Arch-prelat and his Confederates (not the whole Court of Star-chamber) were only culpable: Yea, the Stationers were so far from being well pleased with, or returning him thanks for this, that they complained to the chief Justice, and groaned under the pressure thereof. Secondly, the English Bible with the Geneva Notes, was not only tolerated but printed and reprinted among us in England, Cum Privilegio, during Queen Elizabeth's and King James Reignes; and in 15. Jacobi there was an Impression of them printed here by the Kings own Printer; since which time, the new Translation without Notes being most vendible (the Kings Printers forbearing to print them for their private lucre, not by virtue of any public restraint) they were usually imported from beyond the Seas, and publicly sold without any inhibition or punishment, till this Archbishops time, who made it no less then an High Commission crime, to vend, bind or import them. For the Notes, they are generally approved by all our Protestant Divines, which fled hence for Religion in Queen Mary's days, who dedicated the same to Queen Elizabeth. For the Note on Exodus 1. it is both sound and Orthodox, condemning only obedience to the arbitrary, tyranicall, unjunst (not lawful) commands of Kings, contrary to the Laws of God, nature, men, being warranted by the example of the Midwives, who disobeyed King Pharaohs bloody Mandate, in not murdering all the male Children of the Israelites, by sundry other Scripture Texts; yea, warranted by the Fathers and Canonists themselves, who speak as much or more then this Annotation doth. For King James his censure of this Translation and Notes upon it, no doubt it proceeded from some Prelates mis-information: However, we are certain that his own inserting of popish Pictures of the Birth, Life, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, yea the very Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and the like, into our English, and of a Popish Index into our Latin Bibles, was far worse, more dangerous then any Geneva Notes; and the prohibition of inserting Marginall Notes into the Bible, a policy learned from our English Prelates in King HRNRY the eighth his Reign, who when they could not hinder the printing of the Bible it self in English, of Master Tyndals Translation; yet procured an Act of Parliament for the Obliterating of his Notes thereon; as the Statute of 35. Hen. VIII. cap. 1. and Master Fox informs us: And his endeavor to hinder the importation of Bibles with Notes from Holland, of which he had information by two Letters sent from thence, discovers his vigilance, yea, spite against this Translation and the Notes upon it.
Thirdly, for Master Gellibrands Almanac, set forth by his servant, it was agreeable to Master Foz his Calender; only inserting our English Martyrs in the place of popish Saints; no High Commission crime by any known Law; That it differed from other Almanacs herein, is no greater offense, then for one Almanac-maker to vary from another in calculating the Weather, or other Astronomical Observations, who better deserve an High Commission censure for retaining the names of sundry Popish Saints, (yea arrant Traitors, as Becket, Anselm, with sundry others) omitted in the Calender of the Common-Prayer Book, and agreeing Verbatim with the Calender in the Roman Missal, then he, for omitting the names of Romish Saints, whom God never Canonized, but the Pope alone, for their zeal or sufferings for the Papal Cause and Romish Superstitions. The Queens sending to him about this Almanac, shows, that the Papists took it to be a great blow to their Religion; and though he could not hinder the message, yet certainly he might have surceased all prosecution of M r Gellibrand upon the Queens and Papists complaints for this act of his, where as he pursued him with all violence to gratify them. For the words he remembers not, our Witness swears them precisely, and his threatening Master Gellibrand upon a mere groundless supposition, that he had raised a faction in the Court, because they acquitted him full sore against his will; argues both his violence and injustice: That the Papists burnt it, when he could not attain the burning of it in the High Commission, argues their malice, and his own readiness to comply with them against so good a work, in honor of our own English Protestant Martyrs. For his omission of some Saints, viz. the Epiphany and Anunciation, no man knew them to be Saints till now, but only Festivals, which other Almanacs mentioned, and it is only alleged not proved that he omitted them. For Doctor Pocklingtons Altare Christianum, it was licensed by his own Chaplain Doctor Bray, yea published by his own command, without the Authors privity, if we believe his Petition to the Lord's; and their two punishments, censures in the Lord's House for this Book, adjudged to the fire and burnt, is no extenuation, but aggravation of his guilt, the most culpable of all three: Himself confesseth, that his Chaplains act is his own in Law, if he command it, and this Doctor himself affirms, that he did command its printing; therefore the act is his more then the Authors or his Chaplains, who did but obey his superior command. That Doctor Pocklington did present him with both the printed Impressions of this Book, curiously gilt, he cannot deny, they being found in his Study endorsed with his own hand: That he knew not of this passage in it against our Martyrs, and in honor of Popish Saints, is not probable, yea, impossible, since generally complained of in print, and particularly by Master Prynne at the Pillory, who desired all to take notice of it; of which the Archbishop had present information, yet neither recalled the book nor obliterated the passage.
Fourthly, the calling in of M r Beacons book against the Mass, upon the complaint of a Priest or Jesuit, with his words and threats to Mistress Griffin, for reprinting it at such a time as this, reflect as foully upon him as possible yet he puts it off with this impudent common shift, It is nothing to me: For the reprinting and his calling of it in, it is directly sworn to be before the Star-chamber Decree, therefore not done in pursuance of it; and were it done after, yet not justifiable without highest impudency by any true Protestant Prelate.
Fifthly, for the Palsgraves Religion, it is proved to be called in by him, who hath the happiness to forget all the evil deeds which he cannot justify, though others swear them: And it was not contrary to the Kings Declaration (which himself originally contrived) in the Kings intention, but in his own perverting of it, to suppress the truth. Sixthly, the hindering of the reprinting of Master