Canterburys Doom

The second, this Letter from Mr. Latham to Sir John Lamb.

By this it appears, the Archbishop had his Spies and Informers in all places to certify him of the very least oppositions against his Innovations, by Bishops or others: which will be further manifested by three other Letters. The first is a Copy of the Bishop of Lincolns Letter to his Surrogate Mr. Burdin, about S. Martins Communion Table in Leicester, and the placing of it; the copy whereof was presently sent to Sir John Lamb, and by him conveyed to the Archbishop, who endorsed it with his own hand.

After my very heartiest commendations unto you,

The second, is a clause in Dr. Aylets Letter to Sir John Lamb, about railing in Communion Tables.

Here we see the Archbishop made the only common rule and directory of all these Innovations.

The third is a clause in D. Clerks Letter to Sir John Lamb concerning the removal of the Rayle and Communion Table at Northampton during the plague there.

This Archbishop having thus introduced by successive degrees these several popish Innovations, so far as to enforce them generally upon all Ministers, Churchwardens, Parishioners, Cathedrals, Parish-Churches, Chapels, and to receive Informations against those who were opposite to his designs herein; proceeded at last to the highest pitch of tyranny and arbitrary government in this kind, even to question, persecute, censure, ruin Ministers, Churchwardens, and others in the High-Commission, Star-chamber, and elsewhere; who out of conscience refused to submit, or adventured to oppose these his illegal Romish Innovations; for proof whereof were produced several sad and tragical instances, not to be paralleled in any age. We shall begin with Presidents in the High Commission.

The first in this kind, which we shall but name (because so publicly known and fully proved before both Houses this present Parliament) is the case of Master Peter Smart, the ancientest Prebend in the Cathedral at Durham; who for preaching a Sermon in that Cathedral against the several popish Innovations brought into that Church by Dr. Cozens and his confederates, as Images, Copes, Tapers, Crucifixes, bowing to the Altar, praying towards the East, turning the Cōmunion Table of wood standing in the midst of the Choir into an Altar of stone, railed in at the East end of the Choir Altarwise, & adorned after the popish manner with all kind of Romish furniture, was by this Archbishops means (as appears by divers letters between D. Cozens and him found in his Study at Lambeth) first questioned in the High-commission Court at Durham, then brought into the High-commission Court at Lambeth; after that transmitted thence to the High-commission at York; and there for this Sermon of his alone against these illegal Innovations, though a reverend grave Divine, every way conformable to the established doctrine and ceremonies of the Church, deprived of his Prebendary Benefice in Durham, and all his Ecclesiastical preferments, degraded from his Ministry, fined 500 li. and imprisoned divers years, till this present Parliament, to his utter ruin, and above ten thousand pound damage, the Archbishop disposing of his Livings to his own Creatures.

This sentence of his in the High-commission at York, was seconded with another (though not of so high a nature) in the High-commission at Lambeth.

Mr. Charles Chaucy, Minister of Ware in Hertfordshire, within the Diocese of London, was articled against in the High-commission by the Archbishops procurement (when Bishop of London) together w ^th one Humphrey Parker, only for opposing the railing in of the Communion Table at Ware, and speaking against it as an innovation. Mr. Gellibrand testified upon his oath, that at the hearing of this cause, Doctor Merick of council with Mr. Chaucy, endeavored to excuse and justify this his opposition, & dislike of the new Rayle, because it was first set up by some few of the parishioners without any warrant from the Bishop of the Dioces or his Chancellor, as was proved: whereupon the Archbishop grew exceeding angry, and threatened to suspend the Doctor from his practice, for pleading thus in his Cliants behalf: whereupon the Doctor not daring to make any further defense, Mr. Chaucey was suspended from his Ministry, & both he and Parker sentenced to make a public submission and recantation in open Court, condemned in costs of suit (taxed at 40 li.) which they were enforced to pay, & imprisoned till they had performed the order of the Court, or put in bond to do it. This was further manifested by the sentence and recantation it self, 4 Ian. 1635. recorded in the High Commission Register, Lib. A. f. 264. 266. 331. & lib. C. which sentence was read at the Lord's Barre, in form ensuing.

The manner and form of M. Chauncies recantation the next court-day, for speaking against the rail, is thus recorded in the High Commission Register.

This day the said Mr. Chauncey appeared personally, and with bended knees read his submission in Court, which follows.

These two leading cases and censures in the High-commissions, at York and Lambeth, seconded with this enforced submission, struck such a terror into most Ministers and Churchwardens in those parts, that few or none durst oppose those Innovations; and gave such encouragement to the Prelates and popish Clergy, that they proceeded vigorously in the pressing, introducing of them everywhere; and if any man durst oppose or vary from their injunctions, they were presently brought into the High-commission, and there proceeded against with utmost rigor.

This was manifested by the case of Mr. Miles Burkitt, one of the Vicars of Pateshall in Northamptonshire; who for delivering the Sacrament only to some who refused out of conscience to come up to the new Rayle, and removing the Communion Table at the Sacrament time into the midst of the Chancel without the rail, according to the very Letter of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions and the 82 Canon, was apprehended by a Pursuivant in the Year 1638, and thus Articled against in the High-commission at Lambeth, by Sir John Lambes and the Archbishops means, among whose papers his Articles were found, and read at the Lord's Barre, being attested by Master Prynne.

Upon which Articles, this good Minister was for a long time vexed in the Highcommission, and almost ruined.

From Ministers thus persecuted for opposing these Innovations of railing in Communion Tables Altarwise, and administering the Sacrament at the Rayles, we shall proceed to Church-wardens severally prosecuted, excommunicated, and undone, for not railing in Communion Tables only, or removing them out of the rayles.

We shall begin with the Churchwardens of Beckington in the County of Somerset, whose case, by the testimonies of Mr. John Ash (a Member of the House of Commons, and Lord of that Parish) of M. William Long, and M. George Long (who solicited the cause in the Churchwardens behalf) was manifested to be thus. The Communion Table in the Parish-church of Beckington had for 70 years and more stood in the midst of the Chancel, enclosed with a very decent Wainscot-border, and a door, with seats for the Communicants to receive in, round about it: In the year 1633. D. Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wels (a great creature of Canterburies) appointed certain Commissioners to view the Churches within his Diocese, & certify to him the defects thereof: who viewing the Church of Beckington certified among other things, that there was not a decent Communion Table in it, neither was it placed under the East window, nor railed in otherwise then with a Border about it, where the communicants kneel at the holy Communion, and that there were seats above the Communion Table. To which Certificate the Churchwardens and Sidemen of Beckington were ordered by the Bishop to return an answer under their hands before Ascension-day 1634. which they did accordingly. After which the Churchwardens were enjoined by the Bishop by word of mouth, to remove and rail in their Communion Table Altarwise, against the East end of the Chancel: which they refusing to do, conceiving it to be against the Rubric, Q. Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 82 Canon: thereupon James Wheeler, & John Fry, Churchwardens, were on the 9 of June 1635. cited into the Bishops Court at Wels, before William Hunt the Bishops Surrogate, and D. Duck his Chancellor; for that the Communion Table in the Chancel of Beckington was not placed under the East window of the Chancel, nor railed in otherwise then with a Border about it, and that there were seats above the said Table; who admonished them to repair the said defects, and to place the Lord's Table against the East wall of the Chancel, with the ends of it North and South, as it stood in the Cathedral Church at Wels, with a rail about it; and to certify that they had done all this by the 6 of October following; At which day they were excommunicated in open Court by the Bishop himself, for refusing to remove and rail in the Table and pull down the said seats. Whereupon the Churchwardens appealed to the Arches for relief, where after much waiting and solicitation, they procured from Sir John Lamb, Dean of the Arches, a Letter to the Bishop to absolve them for a time, w ^ch he did only for 27 days, admonishing them to submit to what he had formerly enjoined them; for not doing whereof he excommunicated them again in open Court on the 12 of January following. Hereupon the Churchwardens appealed to the Arches the second time, and petitioned the Archbishop for relief, to which Petition this Certificat under the hands of about one hundred of the Parishioners was annexed.

But notwithstanding this Petition and Certificate, the Archbishop refused to admit of their Appeal, threatened them with the High-commission, and to lay their Solicitor by the heels, commanding them to submit to and obey their Diocesan, who sent up all the proceedings in this cause to the Archbishop, with several reasons why this Table should be removed, (found in the Archbishops study by Mr. Prynne, endorsed with his own hand:) Whereupon they were enforced to petition the King himself for relief; informing his Majesty,

Hereupon the poor Churchwardens being destitute of all relief, continued excommunicated about a whole year, after which they were taken and imprisoned in the common Jail, a long time, upon a Capias Excommunicatum: from whence at last they were released by the Bishop, upon this ensuing submission and penance, worse then any imprisonment.

A true Copy of the Penance that James Wheeler and John Frye were enjoined unto by my Lord Bishop of Bath and Wels, examined by those whose names are underwritten; Thomas Isles, John Bailly, George Long, William Webb.

Whereas the right reverend Father in God, William by God's permission Lord Bishop of Bathe and Wels, hath heretofore lawfully required and commanded James Wheeler and John Frye, late Churchwardens of the Parish-church of Beckington, within the Dioces of Bathe and Wels aforesaid, to remove the Communion Table in the Chancel of their said parish-Church; and to place it close under the East wall of the said Chancel, in the same manner and form as the Communion Table standeth in the Cathedral Church in Wells aforesaid, and to remove the seats placed above the said Table. And likewise whereas they the said James Wheeler and John Frye, contemned and willfully disobeyed the command of the said Reverend Father, and have in most contemptuous manner stood excommunicated for their said contempt, for the space of one whole year now last past, or there abouts, not regarding nor fearing the dreadful Censure of the Church. And have likewise some days last past stood aggravated, and have been signified unto the Kings most excellent Majesty for the apprehending their bodies, and committing them to the Common-jail of the County of Somerset, the rather to compel them to their due obedience to the lawful command of the Church: now upon the earnest request and submission of the said Wheeler and Fry, the said Reverend Father hath absolved them from the said sentences, and enjoined unto them, that upon Sunday the 25 day of June, in the year of our Lord God, one thousand six hundred thirty seven, they in their usual apparel shall stand, first in the middle Ally in the Parish-church of Beckington aforesaid, and there immediately after the reading of the Gospel, shall openly and penitently with an audible voice, make this acknowledgement following, repeating the same after the Minister, viz.

We James Wheeler and John Fry, do here before this Congregation assembled, acknowledge and confess, that we have grievously offended the Divine Majesty of Almighty God, and the laws Ecelesiasticall of this Realm of England, in that we have in contemptuous manner refused to remove the Communion Table in the Chancel of the Parish-church of Beckington, and to place it close under the East wall of the said Chancel, in the same manner and form as the Communion Table standeth in the Cathedral Church in Wels, and to remove the seats placed above the said Table, being thereunto lawfully and judicially monished, and warned, by the right reverend Father in God the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wels. And in that for our contempts and disobediences, in not performing the said lawful command of the said reverend Father, we have suffered ourselves to be lawfully excommunicated, and so to stand for the space of one whole year last past, or thereabouts, not fearing nor regarding the dreadful censure of the Church. And in like or rather more contemptuous manner have suffered ourselves to be lawfully aggravated and signified according to the laudable laws • statutes of this Realm, thereby in a legal manner to compel us to our due obedience to the lawful command of the Church. And we do hereby protest, that we are right heartily sorry for the same, and we do faithfully promise, never from henceforth to offend in the like again, but to demean ourselves as shall become good Christians and dutiful subjects: and we do ask God forgiveness for this our sin and offense, and you all here present, for our evil example.

And we do desire you all to pray for us and with us to Almighty God, that it may please him of his infinite goodness to forgive us of this our offense.

And then humbly and penitently kneeling down, must devoutly rehearse the Lord's Prayer, and they must certify hereof at Wels in writing, subscribed to these presents, under the hands of the Minister and Churchwardens of Beckington aforesaid, on Tuesday the 27 day of June aforesaid, together with this Schedule.

And the like penance is to be performed by the within named James Wheeler and John Fry for the same offense in the Parish-church of Froom-felwood, within the Dioces aforesaid, before the Pulpit or Ministers seat there, in manner and form prescribed, on Sunday the 2 day of July Anno predict. And certificate must be made of the due performance thereof as abovesaid, under the hands of the Minister and Churchwardens there, upon Tuesday the fourth day of July aforesaid, subscribed to these presents.

And the like penance is further to be performed by the said James Wheeler and John Fry for the same offense in the Parish-church of S. Peter and Paul's in Bathe, within the Dioces above mentioned, upon Sunday the ninth day of July above written, and certificate is to be made accordingly, the 11 day of July aforesaid.

Ja. Huishe Reg.

This order of penance enjoined unto the within named John Fry and Ja. Wheeler, of the Parish of Beckington, was accordingly performed by them in the Parish-church there, the 25 day of June 1637.

Alexander Huishe Rect. ibid.

The mark of Richard B •• t Churchwarden, Alexander Webb.

This order of penance enjoined unto the within named John Fry and Ja. Wheeler, of the Parish of Beckington, was accordingly performed by them in the Parish Church of Froomfelwod, the 2 day of July 1637.

John Beaument Curat, ibid.

• Thomas Albyn
• John Norfolk

William Cook.

This order of penance enjoined unto the within named John Fry, and Ja. Wheeler, of the Parish of Beckington was accordingly performed by them in the Parish-church of the said S. Peter and Paul in Bathe, the 9 July 1637.

Theoph. Webbe, Rector ibid.

• Richard Duace
• Thomas Parcker

Henry Gaye.

The 〈…〉 submission made against these poor men's consciences did so afflict them, that they never enjoyed themselves afterwards, James Wheeler falling presently after sick and dying, professing often on his death bed, that this penance and submisson, so much against his conscience, had broken his heart, & was the only cause of his sickness and death. The Bishop of Bathe and Wels pretested, that he did nothing herein but by the Archbishops direction, with which Mr. John Ash acquainting the Archbishop since his commitment to the Tower, heacknowledged it to be 〈◊〉 , and that • e did herein like an obedient Dioces •• to his Metropolitan.

What further tyrannical and 〈◊〉 of proceedings were afterwards used by this 〈…〉 the Churchwardens and some of other Parishioners of Beckington for opposing Mr. Huish their Minister in railing in the Communion Table, and raising a new Mount at the East end of the Chancel, in a peaceable manner, we shall further give in evidence in a more proper charge.

The next example we shall instance in, is the case of Ferdinando Adams, one of the Churchwardens of S. Mary Tower Church in Ipswich, who together with his fellow Church-warden Titus Camplin, was excommunicated by Henry Dade (one of the Archbishops Substitutes in his Metropolitical Visitation, and Surrogate to Sir Nathaniel Brent) in the Archbishops own name, For not taking down the seats standing above the Communion Table in this Church, and railing in the Table Altarwise against the wall, as he was enjoined, by Sir Nathaniel Brent the Archbishops Vicargenerall, in his Metropolitical Visitation. This was proved by the Excommunication itself, read in the Lord's House in these following words.

Ferdinando Adams being thus excommunicated, sought to avoid this Excommunication by an Appeale, but could procure no release; and being laid in wait for by Pursevants out of the High-commission for suing Dade in the Star-chamber, where this Excommunication was pleaded in Bar against him, he was enforced to leave the Kingdom, & fly into New England till this Parliament, almost to his utter undoing, as he attested upon oath, and shall be hereafter more fully proved in another charge.

To this we shall subjoin the case of John Premly one of the Church-wardens of Lewis in Sussex, who was prosecuted in the High-commission Court, and there on the 8 of May 1638. censured fined, imprisoned, condemned in costs of suit, and ordered to make a submission, for that when as Sir Nathaniel Brent in the Archbishops Metropolitical Visitation, by injunction from the said Archbishop, had ordered the Communion Table in the Church of Lewis to be placed North and South at the upper end of the Chancel, and there railed in, which was done accordingly, Premly in a contemptuous manner had removed it from thence, unto the place where it formerly stood; whereupon Dr. Nevel himself replacing it at the East end of the Chancel North and South, according to the said Archbishops Injunction, he presumed again to remove and bring it down to its ancient place, to the great affront of his Graces Injunctions, and the ill example of others. All which was manifested by the very sentence itself recorded in the High-commission Register-book, which was read in the House of Peers to the effect aforesaid.

The Committee of the Commons house alleged, that sundry other examples of like nature, and of excommunicating hundreds of conscientious people for refusing to receive the Sacrament at the new rayles, might be produced in most Diocese of Englsand, but they would content themselves with these alone, and that of Mr. Samuel Burrough • of Colchester, which they should make use of upon another occasion; and proceed to such who had been grievously censured in the Star-chamber & High-commission by the Archbishops means for opposing, defacing, or preaching against the use or setting up idolatrous Pictures of God the Father, & Christ, & Saints in Churches, in direct opposition to our Homilies against the peril of idolatry, (confirmed by the 39 Articles) and contrary to our Statutes, Injunctions, Canons, and the current of all our Orthodox writers.

The first president of this nature instanced in, was the case of Mr. Henry Sherfield a Bencher of Lincolns-Inn, the true state whereof was briefly this. M. Sherfield being Recorder of Sarum, a Justice of peace within that City, and an inhabitant of S. Edmond's Parish there, took just offense at some pictures in one of the glass-windows in that Church, near unto his seat, and ever in his eye: in which window was contained in old, rude, rusty painted glass, the History of the Creation, not as it is related by Moses in the first Chapter of Genesis, but after the Painters fancy; who in this window (consisting only of four panes) had made no less then seven picturs of God the Father, in form of a little old man clad in a blew and red coat, with a pouch by his side, about the bigness of a Puppet; and preposterously placed the fourth days work of creation before the third, and made that to be done on the fifth day, which was created on the sixth: and in one place he had represented God the Father creating the Sun and Moon, and squaring them out with a pair of compasses in his hand, as if he had formed them by some Geometrical rules, and the help of a Compass. To these pictures M. Sherfield and others had seen Ema Brown and other old women make low curtesies, who being demanded why they made such curtesies? answered, that they made them to their Lord God, and to God the Father in the Glassewindow, which was proved by divers witnesses upon oath: Wherupon M. Sherfield being persuaded in point of conscience, that these Idolatrous Pictures were directly forbidden by the second Commandment, and many express Texts of Scripture, prohibiting any representations of God the Father, condemned thus by the Homilies of our Church against the Perill of idolatry, Part. 3. • . 40. which determine that. The Image of God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, either severally, or the images of the Trinity, be by the Scriptures expressly forbidden and condemned, as appears by these places, Deut. 4. Isaiah 40. Acts 17. Rom. 1. (there cited at large) By these and many other places of Scripture, it is evident, that no Image either ought or can be made to God. For how can God a most pure spirit, whom man never saw, he expressed by a gross body, or visible similitude? or how can the infinite Majesty and greatness of God incomprehensible to man's mind, much more not able to be compassed with the sense, be expressed in a SMAL and LITTLE IMAGE? (as this of God the Father was:) How can a dead and dumb Image express the living God? &c. Wherefore an Image of God is not only a lie, but a double lie also. But the Devil is a liar, and the Father of lies. Wherefore the lying Images which he made of God, to his great dishonor and horrible danger of his people, came from the Devil. Wherefore they be convict of foolishness and wickedness in making of Images of God or the Trinity; for no Image of God ought or can be made, yea, and once to desire an Image of God, cometh of infidelity, thinking not God here present, except they see some sign or Image of him. And to be abolished out of Churches, by the resolution of Queen Elizabethe Injunctions, the Canons, and Oxthodox Writers of our Church, the Statutes of our Realm, and King James his own resolution in sundry of his Works, moved the Parish at a Vestry where were six Justices of Peace present, that he might have liberty to take down this offensive scandalous Window, being a burden to his conscience, an occasion of much superstition and idolatry to ignorant people, and the Church itself a Donative (as they conceived) belonging to the parishioners, and to set up a new window of white glass in its place; whereupon it was unanimously ordered by the Vestry, about January 1629. and the Order entered, that if M. Sherfield thought fit he might take down the painted old glass of this Window, and set up new. Whereupon not long after, he did with his staff break or pick out some of those pieces of glass representing God the Father, which amounted not to above the value of six pence (the whole glass window not being worth forty shillings when it was new) intending to new glaze the same. Whereupon by the Archbishops means and instigation, an Information was exhibited against him in the Star-chamber, by the Kings Attorney General, for breaking these idolatrous pictures, and that in opposition of the Church-government established by law among us. This cause was prosecuted with all rigor, and at last brought to a hearing on the 8 of February 1632. where this Archbishop, then Bishop of London, (as was proved by the Oaths of Master Tomlins, a Barrister of the Temple, M. Joseph Caryll, Lecturer at Lincolns Inn, and the testimony of M. Robert Nicholas a Member of the Commons House, & a Commissioner in that cause) shown himself very violent against M. Sherfield, made a long speech in defense of Images in Churches, contrary to our Homilies, justified the picturing of God the Father in form of an old man, out of that place of Daniel, where God is called, The ancient of days, which the Earl of Dorset refuted (being an expression only of God's eternity, declaring him to be before all times) and notwithstanding it was proved by four witnesses, that those pictures were adored by divers persons, yet the Archbishop was so violent against Mr. Sherfield, that for breaking of these idolatrous pictures (according to the doctrine of our Church in the Homilies against the peril of Idolatry, Queen Elizabeth Injunctions, and the statute of 3 & 4 E. 6. ca. 10. which were pleaded for his justification) he agravated his offense to the utmost, from his Office, his Age, his profession, and divers other circumstances, instead of mittigating it, fined him a thousand pound to the King, sentenced him to be removed from his Recordership in that City, to make a public acknowledgement of his great fault in the Parish-church where this was done, and in the Cathedral at Salisbury, and to be bound to his good behavior; some of the Temporal Lord's excused his fact, spake much against Images; and thought it fit to impose no fine upon him. This Archbishop then concluded his speech against M. Sherfield, in justification of Images, with these words, I have been the willinger to render this ancount at this time, because some are ready to slander Us, as maintainers of POPISH SUPERSTITION, and I know not what. This sentence gave great encouragement to the setting up of superstitious idolatrous Pictures, Images, and Crucifixes in our Churches, and discouraged most men from opposing the intended introducing of them, which followed thereupon in sundry places.

To this we shall add the Archbishops tyrannical sentence and proceedings against M. John Workman a godly painful Minister, Lecturer in the City of Gloucester, for preaching against Images in Churches. This pious Minister being Lecturer in S. Stephens Church in that City, was prosecuted for preaching publicly in a Sermon there, That Pictures or Images were no more ornaments to a Church, then Stews to a Common wealth: That for a man to have any Image of any Saint, especially of our Savior in his house, is unlawful; and that if any man kept such pictures in his house, if it were not flat Idolatry, yet it was little better. This was the main charge against him: to which was added, that he used some harsh expressions against lacivious mixed dancing, especially on the Lord's day, citing only the words of the Waldenses in their censure against Dancing, (borrowed frō Vincentius Belvacensis, & Gulielmus Peraldus, two Popish Writers of great note; and justified by Bishop Babington in his exposition upon the seventh Commandment) and that he prayed for the States of Holland the King of Sweden, and other Generals beyond the seas in his prayer, before he prayed for the King that now is over us; which was but according to the usual course of all or most Ministers, who first prayed for the whole Catholic Church in general, next for the Protestant Churches and Princes beyond the seas, and then for the Church and King of England, and agreeable to the form of the very Common-prayer-book, in the prayer for the whole state of Christ's Church, &c. which runs thus, We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes and Governors, (which comprehends all foreine Princes in the first place) and especially thy servant Charles our King, &c. who is remembered last of all, but yet in a more special manner. But these two last particulars, though mentioned in his sentence, were no inducements to it, but only the first passage against Images, which M. Workman justified out of divers of our own English Authors, and the very Homilies against the peril of Idolatry, Part. 3. p. 41. to 631. which determine thus: That no Jmage of God, or the Trinity, or of Christ, may or ought to be made; that such Images are not only defects but lies, and teach nothing of God or Christ, but lies and errors. That Images placed publicly in Temples, cannot possibly be without danger of worshipping and idolatry: wherefore they are not publicly to be, or suffered in Temples and Churches, &c.

Mr. Workman, by all these and such other passages in our Homilies (ratified and subscribed unto by all our Ministers in the 35 Article of our Church, as containing a godly and wholesome doctrine necessary for these times; and established by the statute of 13 Eliz. ca. 12. which confirms the Articles) justified every syllable in his Sermons against Images (in which he used only the words of our Homilies) yet notwithstanding by the Archbishops violence against him (who went highest in his sentence) on the 25 of April 1635. in the High Commission held at Lambeth, was Suspended from the execution of his office and function in the Ministry, excommunicated, ordered to make his submission and recantation of his eronious and scandalous doctrine, at Lambeth the next Court day, in such manner and form as should be set down by the Commissioners, and delivered to him in writing under the Registers hand of the Court; and after this submission made publicly in Court, the same to be sent down to Gloucester, and there openly published in the Cathedral Church of Gloucester, and in the Church of S. Michaels immediately after Divine Service ended, when as the Congregation shall be then and there assembled; and condemned in costs of suit to be taxed the next Court day, and likewise imprisoned. Which sentence of his for the cause a foresaid, was proved by the Register-Book of the High Commission, out of which it was read at the Lord's Barre; by the testimonies of Mr. Thomas Pury, a Member of the House of Commons, and of Mr. John Langley, late School master of Gloucester, and now of Paul's- School in London; who further witnessed upon oath, That Mr. Workman having been a most painful diligent Preacher of God's Word in the City of Gloucester for above 15 years, and a man of singular piety, learning, wisdom, and moderation (as the Archbishop himself confessed) the Corporation of Gloucester to help support his great charge of children, in consideration of his great pains in preaching and visiting the sick, about September, 1633. granted him an Annuity of 20 l. per annum, under their Common Seal with one unanimous consent, a little before his troubles in the High Commission. For which act of justice and charity, John Buckston the then Mayor, Master Wise the Town Clerk, and some other of the Aldermen of that City, were by the Archbishops procurement sent for by a Pursuivant, to appear before the Counsel Table as Delinquents; where they appearing, were fully heard concerning the granting of this Annuity, before the King himself and his Council, who seemed fully satisfied, approving of their grant, and were ready to dismiss them from thence, as seeing no just cause for their molestation: Whereupon the Archbishop moved, that they might be transmitted from thence to the High Commission, which by his means was ordered accordingly. After which, in January following, Mr. Pury himself, together with M. Henry Brown, Mr. William Prise, Aldermen, Mr. Anthony Edwards, and others were arrested by a Messenger out of the High Commission, who exacted and received 20 Marks in Fees from them, to whom they gave bonds to appear in that Court the Terme following, which they did: Where they were then articled against, for consenting to the grant of the said Annuity to Mr. Workman, to which Articles they answered; and the cause being brought to hearing not long after their Counsel alleged: That the said grant of 20 l. per annū to M. Workman ought first to be proved illegal, or obtained by illegal practice, and the whole Corporation, whose act it was, & under whose Seal it was granted to be made parties to the suit, before these Defendants, sued only as private men, ought, as they conceived, to be censured for consenting thereunto; or the said deed, made void, and cancelled: yet notwithstanding the said Mr. Edwards & one M. Nelme for consenting to this grant only, were fined 10 l. a piece, and the grant ordered to be cancelled, which was done accordingly; and thereupon a 100. l. expense the rest were dismissed the Court, and M. Workman deprived of his Annuity. After which M. Workman himself being censured and put from his Ministry, and imprisoned by the High-Commission, for Preaching against making and setting up the Images of the Trinity, and of Christ and Saints in Churches; having after some months Imprisonment, with much solicitation obtained his Liberty, to support himself his wife and many small children from perishing, was necessitated to teach children in private, having no other livelihood left him after his former Annuity, granted him by the City of Gloucester, was by the Arch-bishops potency, unjustly wrested from him; of which the Arch-bishop being informed, inhibited him to teach any children at all in public or private, as he would answer the contrary at his peril; whereupon he fell to practice Physic for his necessary support: which being informed of to the Arch-bishop, he thereupon prohibited him likewise to practice Physic: Whereupon he having no means of subsistence left; and being debarred to Preach, teach School, or administer Physic to maintain himself and his charge, was so afflicted with these tyrannical and unjust pressures (of which he oft complained to Master Langley and others,) that they drew on crasinesse and sickness of body upon him; and as his most intimate friends were verily persuaded, shortened his days, and precured his death, to the great grief and loss of that City. So zealous was this Arch-Prelate in defense of Idolatrous Images; as thus most unjustly and tyrannically to ruin a most godly painful Minister with his family, and destroy this living speaking Image of God and Christ, for preaching against dead, false, unlawful, Images, and representations of them according to our Homilies, and the established Doctrine of our Church.

Moreover it was then fully proved at the Lord's Bar, by the oaths of Doctor Featly, and Master Bourne, that the Arch-bishop was so mad upon Images, Pictures, and their worship; That Doctor Featly having Printed by license, 70. Sormons of his, preached upon several occasions, in one whereof he had cited a passage against worshipping Images, out of the Homily against the Perill of Idolatry, in refutation of the Papists; the Arch-bishop sending for the Doctor commanded him to carry his said Sermons to Doctor Bray his Chaplain to peruse, before they were published, least there should beany offensive passages vented in them; which he doing accordingly, the said Doctor purged out of the 788. page thereof, this ensuing clause therein cited out of the very Homely against the peril of Idolatry, as scandalous, and heterodox, causing the whole sheet to be new Printed, which expunction was openly read at the Bar by Doctor Featly himself in these following words.

And howsoever some of late mince the matter, and bear us in hand that the framing, drawing, carving, melting, gilding, erecting, clothing, and censing, bowing down, and praying before Images and Pictures, is but the excrescencie of Romish devotion, and no proper fruit of Idolatry and superstition: yet they who laid the first stone in the happy Reformation of our Church of England and penned the Homilies appointed by Authority to be read in all Churches condemn these practices of the Roman Church, as no less idolatrous than the like of the Heathen. The full proof of that which in the beginning in the first part of this Treatise was touched is here to be made good and performed, to wit, that our Images and the Idols of the Gentiles be all one, as well in the things themselves, as also in that our Images have been before, be now, and ever will be worshipped in like form and manner, as the Idols of the Gentiles were, so long as they be suffered in Churches and Temples: whereupon it followeth, that our Images in Churches have been, he, and ever will be, no other but abominable Idols. And every of these parts shall be proved in order, as hereafter followeth. And first that our Images and the Idols of the Gentiles are all one concerning themselves it is most evident, the matter of them being gold, silver, or other mettle, stone, wood, clay or plaster, as were the Idols of the Gentiles: and so being either melten or cast, either carved, graven, hewer or otherwise formed and fashioned, after the similitude or likeness of man or woman, they be dead and dumb works of men's hands; having mouths and speak not, eyes and see not, hands and feel not, feet and go not, and so as well in form as matter, be altogether like the Idols of the Gentiles: insomuch that all the titles that be given to the Idols in the Scripture, may be verified of our Images. Wherefore no doubt but the like curses which are mentioned in Scriptures, will light upon the makers and worshippers of them both. Secondly, that they have been & be worshipped in our time, in like form and manner as were the Idols of the Gentiles, is now to be proved: and for that idolatry standeth chiefly in the mind, (which shall in this part first be proved) that our Image-maintainers have had and have the same opinion and judgment of Saints, whose Images they have made and worshipped, as the Gentile idolaters had of their God's. And afterwards it shall be declared that our Imagemaintainers and worshippers, have used and use the same outward rites and manner of honoring and worshipping their Images, as the Gentiles did use before their Idols: and that therefore they commit idolatry, as well inwardly as outwardly, as did the wicked Gentile idolaters.

By these two evidences of the Archbishops persecuting Master Workman, for using the very words and expressions of our established Homilies against Images; and his Chaplains purging out of Doctor Featlies printed authorized Sermons, this passage of our Homilies, against the worshipping of Images (no doubt by his direction) it is most apparent, that his designs and intentions were to subvert the established doctrine of our Church, against the setting up and adoration of Images, and to defile our Churches again, not only with these Romish Idols, and Paganish inventions, but to make us all Idolaters in worshipping and adoring them, as the Popish or Gentile Idolaters did their Idol-gods.

To put this out of question, we shall only add one irrefragable evidence more concerning Images and Pictures. We have proved formerly that the Archbishop had in his own private Study a Book of Popish pictures of the Life, Passion, and Death of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Virgin Mary, printed by Boetius à Bolswert in foreign parts, Anno 1623. These very Pictures were all licensed by the Archbishops own Chaplain Doctor Bray; printed by his own printer and Kinsman Badger, in the year 1638. for one Peake a Stationer (now in arms against the Parliament) and publicly sold and bound up in Bibles; as was testified by Mr. Walley Clerk of Stationers Hall, and Michael Sparke Senior. Master Willingham likewise attested upon oath concerning these Pictures and Crucifixes put into the Bibles: that Captain Peak at Holborne Cundit, Bookseller, who printed these pictures for Bibles, did affirm, that he printed them with the good liking, and by the special direction of the Archbishop, and his Chaplain Dr. Bray: which Dr. Bray, as he said, carried him divers times to the Archbishop, to show him the prints thereof, as they were cut and finished, who liked them all well, and gave his consent for the binding them up in Bibles; saying, That the Bibles wherein these pictures were bound up, they should be called THE BISHOP OF CANTERBURIES BIBLES; (styling them after his own name, so much did he own this fact, not the Bibles and Book of God, who abhors such Images:) and further deposed, That he found two Bibles bound up with these Pictures in them, the one among Secretary Windebanks, the other among Sir John Lambes and Dr. Ducks chief papers and treasure (two of the Archbishops bosom friends and favorites) who highly esteemed them: both of which Bibles seized by Mr. Willingham, and richly bound up with these pictures in them, were then produced and shown to the Lord's. Master Walley further deposed, that these pictures bound up in Bibles giving great offense and scandal to many well affected people, himself with some other Stationers repaired to Lambeth to the Archbishop and complained against these pictures, and the binding of them up in Bibles, demanding his Graces direction therein; whether they should seize such Bibles with pictures which gave offense, or suffer them to be sold? To which the Archbishop answered, That they might do well not to lay them out publicly upon their stals to be sold as yet, lest they should give offense; but if any come to ask for them or to buy them in your shops, in God's name sell them freely to them, without any scrupple; adding the second time, sell them to such in God's name, but lay them not upon your stals in public view. Upon which testimony the Archbishop demanded of Mr. Walley, who it was that gave him this direction concerning the sale of those Bibles with pictures? To which he readily replied; Your Grace with your own mouth, as you may well remember. Whereunto the Archbishop answered, it was true, he did so; but the pictures were printed & bound up with Bibles before he knew of it; and that the first time he saw one of these Bibles, was in a Ladies hand in the Chapel at Whitehall; which he looking upon, when he came to Lambeth, sent for one of those Bibles himself; after which, the Stationers coming unto him about the sale of them, he gave them such directions as aforesaid, not to sell them openly for fear of giving offense, but only privately in their shops to such as asked for them: As most evident confession of guiltiness. For if such pictures in Bibles were good & useful, why should they not be exposed to open sale, & the view of all men? if ill and unlawful, why should any of them be printed, or sold to any in private, and not totally suppressed, demolished, burnt? being contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Writers, and the received Doctrine of our Church? These directions then of his, shows his good affection to popish and idolatrous pictures: he had polluted his own English Bible with an embroydred Crucifix on its cover, before these Pictures printed; and now he would corrupt, pollute all our Bibles and New Testaments with these Romish Images bound up in them, to which they are most repugnant. He would suffer no English Bibles to be printed or sold with marginal Notes to instruct the people, all such must be seized and burnt, as we shall prove anon: but himself gives special approbation for the venting of Bibles with Popish pictures taken out of the very Mass book, to seduce the people to popery and idolatry.

The last case we shall instance in touching the Archbishops persecuting of such who opposed his Popish Innovations, is the cases of Dr. John Bastwick a Physician, and Mr. William Prynne a Lawyer, Mr. Henry Burton a Divine: who were all brought into the Star-chamber by this Archbishops prosecution, and there most inhumanely censured for opposing his popish Innovations, in Trinity Terme 1637. In which case all the injustice, oppression, and cruelty that could be imagined, were combined both in the proceedings, sentence, and execution, not to be paralleled in any age, as will appear by the ensuing particulars, attested by the several oaths of M. Prynne, M. Burton, Sir William Belfore, M. Tomlins, M. Sap, M. Wickins, Mistress Bastwick and others; backed with the Orders and Decree of the Court itself. First M. Burtons house was broken open by force by a Serjeant at Arms, his Study ransaked, his person appreheaded and committed close Prisoners long before any in formation against him, contrary to Magna Charta, and the Petition of Right, & so continued without Baile, during all the time of the prosecution against him. Secondly, though the information against them three was joint, and license granted them to repair to Counsel with their Keepers, by an Order of the whole Court; yet they were denied liberty to confer one with another, even with their Counsel themselves, or to make a joint answer or defense, and soon after restrained all access to Counsel by a verbal Order. Thirdly, the Counsel assigned to them were so terrified and threatened, that they durst not draw or sign any answer for them: who thereupon petitioning the Court for liberty in their Counsels default to put in their answers under their own hands, according to former presidents & orders of that Court, they were absolutely denied this right and justice, contrary to law and presidents. Dr. Bastwicks answer under his own hand left at the Office, and another copy of it tendered and left in open Court rejected, and he taken pro confesso, for a pretended contempt in not putting in his answer under Counsels hand. Fourthly, Mr. Prynne's Chamber in the Tower, by a special direction from the Archbishop, was searched by Mr. Nicholas Clerk of the Council, and a Pursuivant of the Archbishops, who supervised Mr. Nicholas, and was more active, peremptory then he, not leaving the very Close-stool unsearched; his instructions for his answer seised and carried away by them, himself shut up close prisoner; pen, ink, and paper to draw either his answer or new instructions for his Counsel denied him; his Clerk that solicited his business seized on by a Messenger, and kept close prisoner, of purpose to hinder him from following his Masters business; examined frequently by the Kings Attorney & Sollicitour to pick out some crime or accusation against his Master, and never admitted to return unto him (though he tendered sufficient baile for his forth-coming, and no accusation was then pending against him) no not to attend him during his sores after execution of the sentence on him. Fifthly, M. Prynne was denied all access to Counsel; liberty to draw up and sign his own answer (though a Counselor at Law) in default of Counsel; albeit he twice petitioned the Court to have leave to do it, producing sundry reasons and presidents in that Court to warrant it; yea the very Clerk that writ but a Petition from his mouth by the Lieutenants permission, that he might put in his answer under his own hand, was for this very cause seized on by a Pursuivant, and molested divers weeks after. Sixthly, when Mr. Holt, (Mr. Prynne's assigned Counsel) had by direction of the Court taken his fee, drawn his answer, and given order for the engrossing of it, promising to sign it the next morning, he was privately commanded not to sign it; & thereupon refused the signing of it, contrary to promise, alleging that he had order given him to the contrary, and that he durst not do it for an hundred pieces: After which M. Tomlins another of M. Prynne's Counsel signing his answer, it was refused both at the Star-chamber office & in open Court, where it was tendered, upon pretence it came too late, and Mr. Prynne taken pro confesso, for a supposed contemptuous refusal to answer; when as they would neither permit him to put in an answer under his own hand; and ordered one of his assigned Counsel not to sign his answer when engrossed contrary to his promise, nor accept it, when signed by another of his Counsel, and twice tendered. Seventhly, Mr. Burtons Answer, when drawn, engrossed, and subscribed by M. Holt (his assigned Counsel) by order of the Court, and accepted at the Office without any exception against it, was after nine days space, when perused by the Archbishop, pretended to be scandalous, and thereupon referred to the two chief Justices, Sir John Bramston and Sir John Finch, who gave it such a purgation without calling M. Burton to it, or suffering his Counsel to defend it (whom Sir John Finch threatened with pulling his Gowne over his head and putting him from the Barre) as was never heard of in any Age; expunging no less then 64 whole sheets (containing his justification and defense) out of it, as scandalous, leaving only some three lines in the beginning of it, and two in the end, amounting to a general not guilty, when as he confessed and justified all he was charged with: And because Mr. Burton would not acknowledge this purged answer, directly contrary to that he put in upon oath, and answer to Interrogatories grounded on it, quite contrary to his answer as they had altered it, whereby he must of necessity have been perjured: therefore he was likewise taken pro confesso, and censured for a contempt in not answering, though he had an answer in Court. What the scandalous matter contained in, and expunged out of his answer by the Judges was, is very observable: truly it was no other then the very Oaths of Supremacy & Allegiance, prescribed by several Acts of Parliament; (engaging the Defendants and others who had taken them against popery and popish Innovations;) his Majesty's Declarations before the 39 Articles, and to all his loving Subjects, printed Anno 1628. prohibiting all backsliding to Popery, or any Innovations or alterations in the Religion by law established among us: The Petition of Right, and his Majesty's Answer thereunto, for preservation of the Subjects rights and liberties; (extending as well to secure them against these illegal popish Innovations which the Bishops by an Arbitrary power would obtrude upon them and their consciences by Suspensions, Excommunications, Fines, Imprisonments, and other vexatious courses; as to the liberty of their persons and estates of which they were deprived for opposing their Innovations): the statute of 3 Iac. c. 1. entitled, An Act for a public thanksgiving to Almighty God every year on the 5 of November, for the great deliverance of the King, Kingdom, State and Parliament, from the horrid Gunpowder Treason, (on which day Mr. Burton preached these two Sermons, against the several Popish Innovations and Doctrines mentioned in it, lately brought into the Church by the Archbishop and his confederates, for which he was questioned in the Star-chamber.) The statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. entitled, An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants. The statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. entitled, An Act for the uniformity of Common Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments; which excludes all new Ceremonies and Innovations in God's service, introduced by the Bishops, not comprised in the Book of Common prayer; with an enumeration of those several Innovations, in point of doctrine and ceremonies, (as setting up Altars instead of Communion Tables, removing Lord's Tables from their ancient stations, and railing them in Altarwise against the wall, bowing down to them, reading second Service at them; licensing, printing Popish and Arminian Books, altering and purging the Books for the Gunpowder Treason, for the public Fast, Coronation, and Book of Common prayer, &c.) with other particulars specified at large in his printed Sermons. All this was totally expunged as scandalous out of Mr. Burtons Answer, for fear the proof thereof should have made the Bishops scandalous. Eighthly, these Defendants, when they perceived they should not have liberty to defend themselves, nor to prove or justify the Archbishops and his Confederates popish Innovations by their Answers, exhibited a cross Bill against them under their hands, which they offered to make good at their uttermost perils, Mr. Prynne tendering the same both to the Lord Keeper, and in open Court, defiring it might be admitted, being both for their own just defense, the honor of his Majesty, and preservation of our Religion, and that a Court of public justice which ought to be as open for, as against them: yet this their Bill was twice refused without cause, and delivered over to Mr. Attorney General to draw up a Charge against the defendants out of it, if possible, and to question them for their lives for exhibiting it. Ninthly, at the hearing, the Archbishop and Bishop of London though chief prosecutions of this cause, in which they were specially concerned, professed enemies to the Defendants, and challenged in open Court by Mr. Prynne as unfit to sit Judges there in their own cause, contrary to all law and presidents, were yet admitted to sit in Court as Judges; where the Archbishop himself in a tedious Oration of two hours long (larger then ever any Sermon he preached in the Pulpit) professedly justified all the forementioned Innovations wherewith he was charged; as Setting up Altars, railing in Communion Tables Altar-wise, reading second-Service at them, bowing down towards them, as the Monks and Popish Friars did of old, because there 'tis Hoc est corpus meum, &c. standing up at Glory be to the Father, bowing at the Name of Jesus, altering and purging the Books for the Gunpowder Treason and the public Fast, in favor of Papists, the licensing of Popish and Arminian Books, charged against him, &c. And yet reviled, condemned these Defendants, as Libellers, and thanked the Lord's for their justice against them for falsely objecting these very Innovations to him, which himself in his Speech confessed himself guilty of, justified in open Court, and after that in print to all the World; dedicating this his Speech to his Majesty, and making him the Patron of all these Innovations, contrary to his own royal Protestations. Tenthly, these Defendants, for opposing those very popish Innovations which himself thus publicly confessed, defended, being deprived of their proof and just defense by taking them all pro confesso, for a pretended contempt, in not answering the Information, (which they would not permit them to put in their Answers to, as you heard before) were without any proof or testimony at all produced to prove them guilty of ought objected against them, fined 5000 li. a piece unto his Majesty, adjudged to stand in the Pillory at Westminster, and there to lose their Ears, which was accordingly executed, Mr. Burton was after deprived of his Living. degraded from his Ministry, Mr. Prynne stigmatized on both cheeks, though nothing at all was charged against him; and all of them deprived the liberty of pen, ink and paper; and before their wounds were healed, they were sent away close prisoners to the 3 remote Castles of Lanceston, Lancaster, and Carnarvan, and there shut up close prisoners, neither Wife, nor Child, nor Brother, nor any other but their Keepers having any access unto them: and soon after by extraordinary Letters from the Council Table (to which the Archbishops hand was first) sent close prisoners by Sea in the Winter-season, to the hazard of their lives into the Islands of Sylly, Garnesey and Iarsey, and there mued up close prisoners without pen, ink, paper, or allowance of necessaries, their friends being prohibited all access unto them, & D. Bastwicks & M. Burtons Wives especially restrained so much as to set footing in the Islands where they were close imprisoned, under pain of imprisonment: so penal and fatal was it for them to oppose the Archbishop in these his Innovations, who detained them thus close prisoners in exile till they were released by this present Parliament. That this prosecution was by the Archbishops instigation, was evidenced. First, by the Testimony of Mr. John Cockshute, then servant to Sir John Banks, his Majesty's Attorney General, to whom he committed the prosecution of all Star-chamber businesses; who attested upon oath; that the Arch-bishop gave him direction, for drawing the Information against Doctor Bastwick, Mr. Burton, and Mr. Prynne, and that he was commanded to give an account to him of all the proceedings therein, which he did from time to time, either to himself in person, or to his Chaplains, by his direction. Secondly, by the Copies of Doctor Bastwicks and Mr. Burtons Answers found in his study by Mr. Prynne, the first whereof was disallowed and would not be admitted though twice tendered; the second expunged by the Arch-bishops direction, who had drawn a line with black lead under all that which should stand in Mr. Burtons Answer, as appeared by the Copy itself produced at the Bar, giving Order to expunge the residue, which was done accordingly. Thirdly, by the whole Tenor of his speech in Star-chamber, especially this latter clause thereof, pag. 77. I humbly crave pardon of your Lordships, for this my necessary length, and give You hearty thanks for Your noble patience, and your just and honorable censure upon these men, and your unanimous dislike of them, and defense of the Church. But because the business hath some reflection upon myself, I shall for bear to censure them, and leave them to God's mercy, and the Kings Justice. And by his ensuing Epistle to his Majesty prefixed to this Speech. Fourthly by Subsequent Motions and Warrants under his hand, for their Exile and close Imprisonment, in which he was only active and inexorable.

What great encouragement and hope of a relapse to Popery; the Archbishops introducing of Altars, Crucifixes, and other forementioned Innovations gave to Jesuits, Papists, and what was his real design in promoting them, we shall evidence by two notable passages, in two late English Jesuits printed books.

The first, entitled, A Paraphrasticall and devout Discourse upon the Psalm, Miserere, written by Ch. M. (an English Jesuit, as appears by the Jesuits Badge in the Frontispiece of it) printed and licensed at Douay 30 Maii 1635. wherein there is this passage in the Epistle to the Reader, Thesemy Paraphrasticall, Discourses and pitiful lamentations of King David,

The second book was inscribed, A direction to be observed by N. N. written by an English Jesuit, and printed secretly by him in London (as was supposed) An. 1636. wherein, after some applauses of the Archbishop, whom he propounded as a Pattern of imitation for all others in England, in prohibiting the sale of books tending to Socinianism, p. 14. (which he p. 16. interprets to be Protestantisme,) p. 20. 22. he proceeds thus: And to speak the truth what learned judicious man can after impartial examination embrace Protestantisme:

We shall next proceed to other Innovations of this nature, somewhat different from the former, to wit, to his Consecrating of Churches and Chapels after the popish manner, wherein the case stands briefly thus. The Pope & his Romish Prelates had in times of ignorance & superstition, for their own proper lucre, introduced solemn consecrations of Churches, Chapels, with all furniture belonging to them, & appropriated these Fopperies to Bishops, as a jurisdiction peculiar to them alone; though we read in Scripture, that the Tabernacle & all the furniture thereto belonging was consecrated only by Moses, and the Temple at Jerusalem by King Solomon, the chief temporal Magistrates; not by Aaron or the High Priests, as they were among the Romans by the Senate. These forms of consecrations, full of Ethnicall ridiculous superstitions, exorcisms, & conjurations, were contained only in Roman Pontificals, Missals, Ceremonials, w ^ch were wholly abolished upon the reformation of Religion in King Edwards days, by the express statutes of 3 & 4 E. 6. cap. 1. 5. 5 & 6 E. 6. cap. 1. and after that by the statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. 8 Eliz. cap. 1. which abrogited all rites, ceremonies, and consecrations whatsoever, but those comprised in the Books of Common Prayer and Ordination of Ministers; where there is not one syllable to be found touching consecration of Churches or Chapels, or Church-yards, nor any form of such consecrations retained or prescribed, which by these Acts were wholly discontinued & abolished in our Church, till this Papish Prelate to renew them, and to assume a Papal power of making Churches, Chapels, Altars, and their furniture, holier then other places, by his solemn consecrations of them; as if the mere sequestering of them from a common or profane, to a sacred use, were not a sufficient consecration of them without a Bishops Benediction, and exercising of those creatures suspended thereunto.

We shall begin first with his consecration of Churches, next of Chapels, Anno 1630. St. Katherines Creed-church in London being repaired only by the parishioners, not new built from the ground, when Mountain was Bishop of London, and the Church thought holy enough by him without any new consecration, not requisite in such a case by the very Canon law; this popish Prelate succeeding Mountaiue in the Bishopric of London suspended this new repaired Church for a time from all Divine service, Sermons, and Sacraments, till it was re-consecrated by himself; of which he writ down this special memorial with his own hand in his Diary, read in the Lord's House in manner following; January 16. 1630. Sunday I consecrated S. Katherine Creed-church in London: In what a popish, ridiculous, bedlam manner, was thus attested upon oath by M. Willingham a parishioner there, who then took special Notes of all the passages in short-writing, thinking some good use might be made thereof in after-times, the particulars whereof he thus expressed.

That the Archbishop (then of London) on the 16 of January 1630. being the Lord's day, came in the morning about nine of the clock in a pompous manner to Creedchurch, accompanied with Sir Henry Martin, Dr. Rive, Dr. Duck, and many other High-commissioners and Civillians, there being a very great concourse of people to behold this novelty: the Church doors were guarded with many Halberders; at the Bishops approaching near the West door of the Church, the hangbies of the Bishop cried out with a loud voice, Open, open, ye everlasting doors, that the King of glory may enter in; and presently (as by miracle) the doors flew open, and the Bishop with three or four great Doctors and many other principal men entered in; and as soon as they were in the Church, the Bishop fell down upon his knees with his eyes lifted up, and his hands and arms spread abroad, uttering many words, and saying, This place is holy, and this ground is holy: In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost I pronounce it holy; and then he took up some of the earth or dust and threw it up into the air (as the frantic perseenting Jews did, when they were raging mad against Paul): this was done in the great middle Isle several times as they came up Eastwards towards the Chancel, which Chancel was then paved: when they approached near to the Rayle and Lord's Table, unto which was an ascent of two or three steps, the Bishop lowly ducked and bowed towards it some five or six times; and returning, went round about the Church in Procession on the inside thereof, they saying the 100 Psalm, and after that the 90 Psalm, (prescribed in the Roman Pontifical for this purpose, p. 262.) and then this Prayer.

Lord Jesu Christ, who art the eternal Word, of thy eternal Father, God Almighty to be blessed forever, and diddest at first in the beginning of time create man out of the dust of the earth, to restore and repair in him the ruin and fall of Angels: and when as he by transgression had lost his original state, diddest according to thy threatening return him again unto his dust, but so, that he should not perish everlastingly, but should in due time by an omnipotent power be raised again out of the earth; and therefore in assurance of the resurrection, the bodies of men, the work of thine own hands, are in this place to be deposited in their sepulchers, graves, or vaults, as in a repository or resting place until the end of all things, when that mighty Arch-angel shall sound his last Trumpet, with, Rise ye dead and come to judgment; accept we beseech thee this our holy service, who do give and consecrate this beautiful Church unto thee; and we separate it unto thee and thy Church AS HOLY GROVND, not to be profaned anymore to common use; this we beseech thee to accept at our hands for Christ Jesus sake, &c.

Then was read aloud the 23 chapter of Genesis; which being read, then followed another prayer, taken almost verbatim out of the Roman Pontifical, beginning thus.

Merciful God, the resurrection and the life of all that trust in thee, we most humbly entreat thee, to vouchsafe us of thy grace, that all those thy servants who from hence forth shall come into, or be intered within the Circuit of this holy and sacred place, now by our service HALLOWED unto thee, may so lead their lives in thy fear, that they may leave them in thy favor; and that their bodies resting in their Sepulchers in this Church in peace, until thy coming unto Judgment, may rise again unto immortal life, and live with thee forever in those glorious mantions of eternity: Hear us O Savior for thy passion sake; hear us O Father for thy Christ's sake; hear us O Sanctifying Spirit for thy comforts sake, who livest and reignest one God: &c. Then, The peace of God followed. &c.

After all this, the Bishop betook himself, to sit under a clothe of State in an Isle of the chancell near the Communion Table, and taking a written book in his hand, (in imitation of the Roman Pontifical and the Council of Trents Decrees therein cited pag. 247, &c.) He pronounced many curses upon all those which should hereafter any way profane that holy and sacred place, by any Musters of Soldiers, or keeping any profane Law-courts, or carrying burdens through it; At the end of every curse (which were some 20.: or 30. in number,) he bowed himself lowly towards the East or Table (saying, Let all the people say, Amen). When the Curses were ended, he then pronounced the like number of Blessings to all those that had any hand in the culture, framing and building of that holy, sacred and beautiful Church, and pronounced Blessings to all those that had given any Challices, Plate, Ornaments, or Utensills, and that should here-after give any. At the end of every Blessing he also bowed down himself towards the East, Saying; Let all the people say, Amen.

After this followed the Sermon, which was worthily performed by Dr. Stephen Dennyson, he taking for his theme the 19 of Luke 46. wherein he bitterly inveighed against setting up Pictures and Images in Churches; saying, it was Popish and heathenish Superstition and Idolatry Which Sermon after-wards when Bishop Laud came to the high chair of Canterbury he remembered at Dr. Dennysons censure in the high Commission upon another occasion, and passed a heavy Censure upon the said Dr. under which he hath ever since groaned.

After the Sermon which was but short, the Bishop and two fat Doctors consecrated and administered the Sacrament, with a number of bowings, duckings and cringeings; in manner following.

(As first) when the Bishop approached near the Communion Table, he bowed with his nose very near the ground some six or seven times; Then he came to one of the corners of the Table, and there bowed himself three times; then to the second, third and fourth corners, bowing at each corner three times; but, when he came to the side of the Table where the bread and wine was, he bowed himself seven times, and then, after the reading of many prayers by himself and his two fat chaplins (which were with him, and all this while were upon their knees by him, in their Sirplisses, Hoods and Tippits) he himself came near the Bread, which was cut and laid in a fine napkin, and then he gently lifted up one of the corners of the said napkin, and peeped into it till he saw the bread, (like a boy that peeped after a bird-nest in a bush) and presently clapped it down again, and flew back a step or two, and then bowed very low three times towards it and the Table: when he beheld the bread, then he came near and opened the napkin again, and bowed as before; then he laid his hand upon the gilt Cup which was full of wine, with a cover upon it; so soon as he had pulled the Cupp a little nearer to him, he lett the Cupp go, flew back, and bowed again three times towards it: then he came near again, and lifting up the cover of the Cupp peeped into it, and seeing the wine, he let fall the cover on it again, and flew nimbly back and bowed as before: After these and many other Apish Antic Gesturs he himself received, and then gave the Sacrament to some principal men only they devoutly kneeling near the Table, after which more prayers being said, this Sceane and Enterlude ended.

Mr. Hope likewise deposed the same that Mr. Willingham did, in all particulars touching the manner of the Archbishops consecrating Creed-Church; at which consecration he was present, and took special notice thereof.

Upon which evidence the Committee of the house of Commons observed and urged before the Lord's. First, that it appeared by the prayers used by the Archbishop, that he consecrated this Church rather for a Churchyard or a burying place, then for an Oratory or place of prayer and preaching using the same prayers in substance as are prescribed in the Roman Pontifical, at the consecration of a Churchyard to inter dead bodies in. Secondly, that the consecration of Churches after this sort, is a mere Popish and Superstitious Ceremony, prescribed only by Popes and Popish Councils, Canonists, for their own gains and luchre, and not by any Protestant Canons, Synods, Authors: witness Gratian, De Consecratione Distinct. 1. and the Glosses on it, Summa Hostiensis. lib. 3. Tit. De Consecratione Ecclesiae et Altaris; Angelus De Clavasio, his Summa Angelica. Tit. Consecratio Ecclesiae. Summa Rosella. Tit. Consecratio. Iuo Carnotensis Decretalium. pars. 3. De Ecclesia. C. 8. to. 38. Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gallicanae. lib. 4. Tit. 1. Johannes De Aton: Constitutiones Ecclesiasticae. Tit. 1. De Consecratione Ecclesiarum: with divers other Popish Canonists. Thirdly, that the form and manner of consecrating Churches, was nowhere to be found but in the Roman Pontifical, set out by the Popes authority, wherein it is at large described: P. 209. to 280. Cap. De Ecclesiae Dedicatione, seu Consecratione; and not extant in the Book of Common-prayer, or of the Ordinition of Ministers, or in any other Records or Rituals of our Church; which abolished the Roman Pontifical, and Ceremony of consecrating Churches by the Statutes of 2. & 3. E. 6. C. 1. 3. & 4. E. 6. C. 10. 1. Eliz. C. 1. 8. Eliz. C. 1. Fourthly, That the very form the Archbishop used in consecrating Creed-Church, was taken from the Roman Pontifical published by command of Pope Clement the eight, (found in this study:) P. 214. 217. 219. where the Bishop coming to the door of the Church he is to consecrate Percutit illud semel cum inferiori parte baculi pastoralis super luminare, dicens intelligibili voice. Attollite portas, Principes, vestras, et apperiamini portae aeternales, et introibit Rex gloriae &c. The very words the Archbishop now used: and then entering the Church pronouneeth it holy and blessed, in the name of the Father, Son & holy ghost. After which he useth many Prayers, Psalms, bowings, Ceremonies; and Unus ex Ministris spargit cinerem per pavimentum, in modum crucis; as this Archbishop did; who followed the Roman Pontifical in all the particulars he there practiced; exceeding it in his blessings and cursings (which are not so fully expressed in the Pontifical) and in his reconsecration of this Church, upon the repairing only of the walls, in which case the forecited Canonists all accord, it is not to be reconsecrated but the wall only to be exorcised and sprinkled with holy water. Fifthly, That our own Protestant Bishops and writers condemn the consecration of Churches, Chapels and Church-yards by Bishops, to make them holier then other places, as a mere Popish, Jewish, ridiculous, and absurd practice.

The first, they instanced in, was reverend Dr. Pilkington (a fugitive for Religion in Queen Mary's, and Bishop of Durham in he beginning of Queen Elizabeth reign) in his Exposition of Aggens c. 1. v. 7. 8. & cap. 2. v. 2. 3. where he determines thus.

The second Authority they produced was, Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign; who was of a quite contrary judgment to this his Popish Successor, condemning this manner of consecrating Churches, Altars, &c. as Superstitious, Paganish, childish, ridiculous, in his Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brittannicae. p. 85. 86. 87. in these terms; Legat enim qui volet recentiores et nostro praesertim avo editos Pontificales ac Missales libros, reperiet eos, et Caeremoniarū multitudine, & peragendi difficultate atque taedio, et exorcisationis amentia priores illos longe superare. Quibus enim non dicam verbis sed portentis has et ejus modi a Pontisiciis adhuc adjurantur, &c. Dedicatio recentis Ecclesiae, Altaria, vasa, indumenta, Linteamina et ornamenta Ecclesiastica. Hac omnia, quam solemni ritu sanctarum scripturarum sententiis ad suas decantationes perperā adhibitis, Potificij peragunt paucis videamus, &c. In dedicatione Ecclesiae jam exstructae Episcopus ter' circumiens, ostium bacculo pastorali ferit hoc Psalmi carmine. Attollite Portas, &c. Cui Diaconus intus existens respondet fere exanimatus. Quis est iste Rex gloriae, &c. Deinde ingredicus Episcopus, in fundamento Ecclesiae Cineribus sparso. Alphabetum Gracum et Latinum bacculo describit, tum variis multisque Episcopy Clerique incessibus, rectis, obliquis, retrogradis & transuersis parietes ac pavimenta aqua sparguntur: cruces in parietibus chrismate cum dextro Episcopy pollice depinguntur: & infinitis pene completis caeremoniis ad extremum precatur, ut populus in ea conveniens, per sacerdotum libamina caelesti sanctificatione salvatus, animae salutem perpetuam consequatur: & discedens portam his verbis Episcopus ungit chrismate: porta sis benedicta, sanctificata, consecrata, consignata & Deo commendata, &c. Altaria autem innumeris hujus generis precibus consecrantur, &c. Et sane valde deflenda est hujus temporis conditio quod Ecclesiae Patres eadem mentis acie ab ecclesia resecare has & hujusmodi caeremonias, seu potius nugas, aut nolunt, aut non possunt, qua priora illa Ordalii vitia cernebant atque corrigebant, sed illis ut superstitiosis damnatis & deletis, hac quae mordicus retinent quamvis puerilia & deliria sint, ex illis tamen fabricantur atque struunt. Quanto modernis Pontificibus aequior fuit Gregorius, qui scribit. Quomodo regulae sanctorum Patrum pro tempore, loco, & persona & negotio instant necessitate traditae sunt. Hi autem nulla neque temporis, neque loci, neque negotii, neque personae, neque cujusquàm rei quàm suae voluntatis atque gloriolae rationem habentes, ne pusillis in rebus veritate cedere volunt. A very good character of the Prisoner at the bar, and his proceedings in this kind. To these two Prelates might be added M. William Tyndale, a learned Martyr, his Obedience of a Christian man, p. 136. 152. William Wraughton, his Hunting and rescuing of the Romish Fox; John Bale, Bishop of Osyris in Ireland, in his Image of both Churches; Thomas Beacon, a Prebend of Canterbury, in his Relics of Rome; M. Calfhill, in his book against Marshal, f. 61, 92. 93. M. Fox his Acts and monuments, Edit. 1610. p. 210. 414. with sundry other of our learned Writers, who expressly censure the Consecration of Churches and Church-yards, as superstitious, Jewish, Popish, Antichristian, ridiculous, styling them rather a conjuration then a consecration; invented only by and reserved to Bishops for lucre sake alone. And the Homily for repairing and keeping clean Churches, pag. 78, 79. resolves thus, The Church or Temple is counted and called holy, yet not of it self, but because God's people resorting thereunto are holy, and exercise themselves in holy and heavenly things: Not because it is hallowed by a Bishop, of which the Homilies make no mention.

From these Authorities they concluded; the Arch-bishops consecration of Churches (especially of this but newly repaired) to be both Popish and Superstitious, by the received Doctrine, Writers of our Church, and Statutes of our Realm, which abandon and condemn the same.

Yet notwithstanding this Arch-Bishop was so zealously bent upon it, that he rested not in the consecration of Creed-Church, but proceeded further to consecrate Saint Giles Church in the fields; where the case stood thus:

The Church of Saint Giles being in decay, was re-edified and part of it new built and finished in Bishop Mountains time, Divine Service, Preaching, and Administration of the Sacraments after its repair having been used therein for 3. or 4. years space together without any exceptions: After which Bishop Laud being advanced to the Bishopric of London, by a solemn process under his Episcopal seal interdicted this Church, and suspended Divine Service, Sermons, and Sacraments in it for 2. or 3. weeks together, so as the Church doors were shut up even on Lord's Days, and the Parishioners forced to repair to other Churches, only because the Church had not been re-consecrated after its reparation: some of the Parish opposed the consecration of it in respect of the charge and Fees, but at last they were enforced by the Bishop to submit, else they must have no Divine Service, Sermons, nor Sacraments in it, after all their costs bestowed thereon: Whereupon the Bishop the very next Lord's Day after he had consecrated Creed Church, repaired to Saint Giles Church, and there consecrated it in the self-same manner, with the self-same gestures, bowings, prayers, ceremonies, as he consecrated Creed Church: After which he likewise consecrated the Church-yard, and a piece of ground which was bought and added to it; for consecration whereof the Parish paid ten pound fees to the Bishop himself, to wit, 5 l. for consecrating the Church, and 5 l. for hallowing the Churchyard, besides fees to his Officers, and a Dinner which cost the Parish near 30 l. more; all which was attested upon oath, by Master Hope, and some others: and likewise proved by the Archbishops own Diary, wherein he registered this special memorial of this Consecration with his own hand, Sunday January 20. 1630. I consecrated the Church of S. Giles in the Fields.

Upon which evidence the Committee of the Commons made these Observations. First, That this Church was used three or four years together in B. Mountains time after its repair without any new Consecration, and thought holy enough by him: but this Popish Prelate after all this space was of another judgment, and must needs suspend and re-consecrate it, contrary to the very Canon law, and the resolution of the fore-cited Canonists. Secondly, that he and his Officers extorted unreasonable excessive fees from the Parish besides their costly Dinner, for this pious work on the Lord's day; himself taking no less then 10 l. fees for consecrating the Church and Churchyard, which is direct Symonie by the Canon Law, and extortion by the Commonlaw, there being no fees due by either law for such a Consecration. Thirdly, that this Prelate was so willful and superstitious in this Innovation, that God must lose his public worship in this Church, and the whole Parish the use of it for the benefit of their souls, for two or three whole weeks during its interdiction, rather then this Prelate not enjoy his popish ends & exorbitant fees for the re-consecration of it.

After this, July 17. 1632. he consecrated another Church in Middlesex, in the same manner as he had done the former two: of which he makes this special Memento in his own Diary: July 17. 1632. I consecrated the Church at Stanmore Magna, in Middlesex, built by Sir John Wolstenham.

As this Arch-prelate was thus superstitiously and popishly active in consecrating Churches, so likewise in consecrating Chapels, for which these instances were produced.

The first Chapel he consecrated, was a Chapel built by himself at Aberguilla in Wales, whiles he was Bishop of S. David's, dedicated by him to S. John the Baptist, concerning which he registers this passage in his own Diary.

August 28. 1625. Dies erat Solis: consecravi Capellam sine Oratorium propriis sumptibus extructum, in demo me a communiter vocata Aberguille-House. Nomen indidi, Capella S. Joh. Baptistae, in gratam memoriam Collegii S. Joh. Baptistae, Oxford cujus primo socius, & dein Praeses fui. Et hoc consulto feci. Intervenit autem aliud non mali ominis spero (it seems he then little dreamed of his own beheading, or that the decollation of the Baptist, to whose memory he dedicated this Chapel could be any ill Omen of his own decapilation afterwards) de quo nunquam cogitavi, hoc fuit. Die Sabbati vesperi, immediate praecedente consecrationem celebrandam, dum procibus eram intentus, nescio quàm violenter in mientem me am irruit, adesse diem DECOLLATIONIS S. JOHANNIS BAPTISTAE. Finitis precibus fasta consului; reperio diem illum in diem Lunae, 29 scilicet Augusti, non in diem Solis incidere. Optassem, diem ipsum; sed gavisus sum me CONSECRATIONEM SOLENNEM peracturum VIGILIA SALTEM ILLIVS DIEI. Nam illa die Serenissimus Rex Jacobus, causam meam circâ electionem in Presidentem Collegii S. Joh. Baptistae Oxford: per tres integras horas ad minimum audivit, & me e manu inimicorum potentum justissime liberavit; No doubt to preserve him to a • ar other doom and censure.

Mr. Prynne deposed, that he found in the Archbishops Study this paper indorsed and corrected with his own hand, concerning the consecration of this his Chapel.

The form of the Act, where a Bishop consecrates a Chapel of his own Dedication.

In Dei nomine Amen. Cum Nos Gulielmus permissione divina Menevensis Episcopus, pia ac religiosa devotione ducti, hanc Capellam sive Oratorium intra aedes nostras communiter vocatas Aberguilli-house, infra Parochiam de Aberguillye in Com. Carmarthen nostrarum Menevensis Dioces. & Iurisdictionis, continent. inter muros ejusdem, in longitudine ab Oriente ad Occidentem 30 pedes, & in latitudine ab Aquilone versus Austrum 17. pedes cum dimidio, super terris nostris, & cum propriis nostris sumptubus noviter erigi, & extrui procuravissimus; Eandemque suggesto, mensa Sacra seu Altari, Sedilibus convenientibus, aliisque necessariis ad divinum cultum decenter & sufficienter ornaverimus. Ad Consecrationē ejusdem Capellae authoritate nostra ordinaria & Episcopali jam procedentes, eandem Capellam divino cultui, & divinorum celebrationi, ac tam ad Sacramenta, & Sacramentalia, tum Caenae Dominicae, tum etiam Baptismatis sacri in eadem ministranda, & ad matrimonium solemnizandum, quam ad divinas preces Deo fundendas, & verbum Dei pure & sincere proponendum & predicandum, ac caetera omnia sacra & divina perficienda in eadem quae de Iure divino, ac etiam legibus, sanctionibus, & Constitutionibus Ecclesiae nostrae Anglicanae in ea parte sunt requisita & necessaria, ac si sigistatim essent in presentibus specificata, modo & forma in similibus jam de Iure visitatis in Dei honorem & usum nostrum & Successorum nostrorum, aliorumque nobiscum in aedibus nostris praedictic, sive cum Successoribus nostris imposterum ibidem commorantium sive inhabitantiū consecramus & dedicamus; pernomen Capellae Sancti Johannes Baptistae. Et sic consecratam, dedicatam & assignatam esse, & in futuris perpetuis temporibus remanere debere, palam & publice pronuntiamus & declaramus; & pernomen predictum perpetuis futuris comporibus nominandum & appellandum fore decernimus & sic nominamus. Privilegiis insuper omnibus & singulis in ea parte usitatis, & requisitis & Capellis abantiquo fundatis competentibus hujusmodi Capellam sive Oratorium ad omnem Iuris effectum munitum esse volumus, & quantum in nobis est & de Iure possumus, sic munimus & stabilimus per presents. Salvo semper Iure & interesse Matricis Ecclesiae in cujus Parochia dicta Capella sive Oratorium predict scita, & scituata est, in omnibus & singulis decimis, oblationibus, vadiis, proficuis, privilegiis, Iuribus & emolumentis quibuscumque ordinariis & extraordinariis ad dictam Ecclesiam matricem Iure vel consuetudins quoquo modo debitis vel consuetis, aut spectantibus sive pertinentibus. Quae quidem omnia & singula praemissa quantumus in nobis est, & de Iure possumus, pro Nobis & Successoribus nostris sic decernimus & stabilimus per praesentes. In nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, Amen.

With this Instrument, he likewise found a note of the dimensions of this Chapel, written with the Bishops own hand,

My Chapel at Aberguilly is 5. yards and a half broad at the East end. MY ALTAR FRAME, besides the thickness of the Table, is a yard and 3. inches high. And the Table is a yard and three quarters long; and in breadth it wants three inches of a yard; the foot-pace is two yards broad.

This note was enclosed and wrapped up within these two following Papers found together with it, thus indorsed with the Arch-bishops own hand. 1643. Chapel and furniture as it was in use by the right Reverend Father in God, Lancelot Andrew's, Lord Bishop then of Winton: From whom the Arch-Bishop confessed at the Bar, he took his pattern of consecrating and furnishing Churches, Chapels, Altars. By which two papers publicly read and shown in the Lord's House; the Popish furniture both of Bishop Andrew's and this Arch-bishops Chapels at Aberguilly, London-house, and Lambeth, will most evidently appear to all the world.

The portraiture of the first of these two papers, with the Popish furniture of the Altar in the Arch-bishops and Bishop Andrew's Chapels, is expressed to the life in the following Copper piece.

Loe here in this Peece and Chapel, you have first AN ALTAR. Secondly, strange Popish furniture on this Altar: viz. two silver Candlesticks with Tapers in them, (expressly prohibited by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, Anno 1559. Injunct. 3. 23. which prohibit setting up of Candles; ordering all Candlesticks, Trindals, and Rols of Wax, to be taken aWay and extinct, as Monuments of superstition and Idolatry; by the Homily against the Perill of Idolatry, Part 3. pag. 50, 51. which condemns the use of Tapers and Candle Religion, as foolish, superstitious Ethnicall and Idolatrous, and generally censured by all our Orthodox Writers as Popish and Heathenish.) A Bason for Oblations: a silver and gilt Candlestick for WAFERS. A Chalice with the Picture of Christ engraven on it: An Air; A Tricanale or pot with three pipes for the Water of mixture; (that is, for water to mix with the Wine, and for Holy-water.) A Credertia or side Table: a Bason and Ewer, (for the polluted Priests and Prelates to wash in) before consecration, and a towell to wipe their unhollowed fingers: A Censor to burn Incense in, at the reading of the first Lesson, as in the Popish Mass and Churches. A little Boat out of which the Frankincense is poured, &c. (which Doctor Cozens had made use of in Peter house, where he burned Incense:) Furniture directly borrowed from the Roman Ceremonial, Missab, and Pontifical, nowhere to be found but in Popish Chapels and Churches. You may judge of this Prelates Chapel and Popish Inclination, by this Romish furniture thereto belonging: and that mentioned in this next ensuing, being an Inventory of his Chapel furniture and Plate, found with the former, attested by Master Prynne.

Furniture belonging to the Chapel.
• BEhind the Altar: A piece of Hangings 11. foot deep, and 5. yards ¾ long. Another piece of Hangings. The story of Abraham and Melchisadeck; part of the story of David.
• A Table with a frame of deal used for the Altar, 1. yard ¼ high▪ 1. yard ¾ long 1. yard broad.
• A Back-piece of Crimosinand Violet Damaske paned. 1. yard ½ deep, 3. yards long.
• A Front piece of the like. 1. yard ¼ deep, 3. yards long.
• A Pall of Violet Damaske. 1. yard ¼ broad. 3. yards ¼ long.
• A Cushion of Violet and Crimosin Damaske. ½ yard broad, 1. yard long.
• A Rail of Wainscot bannisters before the Altar.
• Two Traverses of Taffeta Crimosin and Violet paned 3. yards ¼ deep, 4. yards ¾. broad.
• A foot-pace with two ascents of Deal, underneath the Altar, 3. yards ¾ long, 1. yard 31\4 • broad.
• A Turkey Carpet to it 4. yards ¾ long, 2 yards 11\4 • wide.
• Two low stools to kneel on at each end of the Altar, stuffed and covered with purple Bayes.
• A square Pulpit of wainscot, 1 yard ¾ high, 1 yard square.
• A Pulpit clothe of Crimosin and Violet damaske paned, 1. yard ¼ deep, 3. yards long.
• A Musique Table of Deal.
• 3. Forms to it covered with purple Bayes.
• A Carpet of purple Broad-clothe, 3. yards long.
• A Carpet of purple Bayes. 3. yards long, and ¾ broad.
• A foot-pace with three Ascents, 2. yards ½ square. And thereupon a Lectern with the Great Bible.
• A cloth to the Lecterne of purple broad cloth, 3. yards long.
• Another of purple Bayes. 3. yards long, 1. yard, ¾ broad.
• A Faldstory of wainscot, 1. yard 1. neile high, 1. yard lacking a neile broad at top 1. yard lacking two nails breadth below.
• A clothe to it of purple broad-clothe, 2. yards, ¾ long, 1. yard ½ broad.
• Another of Purple Bayes, 2. yards ¾ long, 1. yard, ¼ broad.
• Over the Bishops seat.
• A Canopy of Crimosin and Violet Damask paned, 2. yards 11/48 long. 2. breadth.
• The Valens to it, 3. yards compass 11/4 • deep.
• A Cushion to it of Violet Damaske, 1. yard long, 11/28 yard broad.
• A folding Table of wainscot near the Altar.
• A Carpet of Bayes on it, 1. yard 1/ • wide, 1. yard 1/ • long.
• 4, Folding chairs of Leather.
• Plate for the Chapel.

  Two Candlesticks gilt for tapers	60. ounces	at 5. s.	6. d. the ounce.
  A round Bason for Offerings, gilt and chased	31 ½	6.	8.
  A round Bason for Alms gilt, and chased	30.	6.	0.
  An Ovall Bason and Ewer, gilt and chased	51.	6.	0.
  Two Patens gilt	36.	10.	0.
  For cutting the figure 13. s. 4. d.
  A Chalice and cover gilt	43.	10.	0.
  For making the star on the Challice	3. s.
  A Tun gilt	47. 3. d. weight.	6.	11.
  A Cradle to it gilt	18. ¾	6.	11.
  A Funnell to it gilt	3.	6.	11.
  A Canister gilt	5 ¾	10.	0.
  A triquetrall Censor	85. lack 6. d.	7.	0.
  For gilding it at 16. d. the ounce.
  A Laton pan for it	5. s.
  For making the knob of it	2. s.
  A Crewet gilt with 3. spouts	10. 11/28	7. s.	9.
  Another gilt with a Birds bill	4. less. 5. d. weight	6.	8.

• Five Copes. Five Surplices.
• Two Altar-clothes.
• Two Towels thereto.
• A clothe to lay over the Chalice wrought with coloured silk called the Air.

To which I shall only add this Passage of like nature of Doctor Wrens Proposalls found in the Archbishops studdy, thus indorsed with his own hand, and presented by him to his Majesty, touching the furnishing of the Altar at Windsor Chapel.

September. 22. 1628. Doctor Wren Dean of Windsor, his Proposalls to his Sacred Majesty, concerning that Church, and the Order of the Garter.

Touching the Divine Service in his Majesty's Chapel of Windsor.

To which the Arch-bishop writ this Answer in the Margin with his own hand: These and all that concern the Order are to be remembered at the next Chapter.

Certainly were there no other Evidence to prove this Archbishop a direct Papist in heart and practice, but the consecration and Popish furniture of his Chapel with that forementioned in the windows at Lambeth it were abundantly sufficient to satisfy all the world, and the greatest Patriots of his sincerity to the Protestant Religion; but we shall proceed to further proofs.

The next Chapel we find the Archbishop consecrated, was the Chapel at Hamer-Smith; of which there was this memorial read out of his Dairy June. 7. 1631. Tuesday J consecrated the Chapel of Hamer-Smith; It was done with like Popish Ceremonies as he used at Creed-Church; and Sr. Nicholas Crisp setting two great silver Flagons with wine on the Communion Table when the Chapel was consecrated, without any intent to bestow them on the Chapel; the Archbishop told him after the consecration they were now dedicated unto God, and it would be Sacrilege for him to commit them to his private use again: and so enforced him to bestow them on the Chapel.

There was great suite made to the Bishop, and a composition with Dr. Cluet Minister of Fulham and his successors, before way would be given by him, for the building of this Chapel of case. At last all parties being agreed, and provisions made to build the Chapel; the Archbishop solemnly laid and consecrated the first stone thereof, using the ensuing prayer at its consecration; as was proved by his Book of Prayers written with his own hand (ceased by Mr. Prynne in his Chamber at the Tower) where page 220. was written in the Margent. Hamer-Smith Chapel March 11. 1629. with this superscription and Prayer.

Now this Ceremony of consecrating and laying the first stone of a Chapel or Church by the Bishop, is expressly taken out of the Roman Pontifical, pars 2. cap. De Benedictione & impositione primarij lapidis pro Ecclesia edificanda. p. 199. &c. Where all the solemnity of this consecration is at large prescribed, and the substance of the Prayer the Bishop used upon this occasion, thence derived.

This ceremony of consecrating and laying the first stone of a Church or Chapel is severely censured as ridiculous, Popish, Superstitions, by Matthew Parker, his predecessor Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Antiquitates Ecclesia Britannicae, p. 85. Quibus enim non dicam verbis sed portentis, haec & hujusmodi à Pontificiis adorantur Q. Primarius lapis & caementum per Ecclesia aedificanda: Lapis cum caemento Episcopy manibus primum aqua benedicta sparsus insculpto Gracis signo his sententiis in fundamento positus est, lapidem quem reprobaverunt aedifieantes, hic factus est in caput Anguli Devide, tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram, &c. postea precabantur, ut qui ad perficiendam, Ecclesiam auxilium dederunt, corporis & animae salutem consequantur, &c. Yet notwithstanding the Popish Prelate, in contempt of his Predecessors Judgment, needs must introduce this Popish Innovation, not only at Hammersmith, but even at the Cathedral of Paul's it self; where he consecrated and laid the first stone at its reparation, with many prayers and Ceremonies: And not content herewith caused a second Edition of Sir Tho. Ridlyes View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Law to be re-printed at Oxford, Anno 1634. Cum Privilegio, with some Marginall Additions added to it by J. G. Master of Arts p. 51. 52, 191, 192, 193. Wherein he justifies the consecrating of Churches, Chapels, and the foundation-stone thereof, by the Bishop in these words: The Bishop with Prayer is to lay the first stone of a Church or Monastary, and lift up his hands to heaven, and consecrate the place to God by prayer, and there erect the symbol of our Salvation, we mean the venerable and truly precious Rood. That this Ceremony of laying the first stone, hath been of ancient use in the Greek Church, may be observed out of their Euchologue, where it is said, That the Bishop after some other Rites performed, standing in the place where the holy Altar shall be set, saith a prayer, which being ended he giveth the Ita missa est, and then taking up one of the stones, and having cut a cross upon it himself with his own hands layeth it upon the groundwork; then he pronounceth the, &c. and so the workmen begin the building. That which followeth in the Euchologue, discovereth the form and manner of setting up the Crucifix which the Law calleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The like ceremonies are used in the Latin Church as this day, as may be seen in their Pontifical page 281. of that which Clement the 8. set out at Rome in the year 1565. The crucifix must be sent to the place where the Church is to be erected; and there the Bishop useth certain prayers, fumeth the ground with his Incense circular-wise, crosseth the corner stone, which he layeth for the foundation, and when he maketh the consecration, the cross must he set up behind the holy Altar, there being prepared for it some lofty structure, &c. Which addition was patched to Doctor Ridley, merely to countenance and justify the Arch-bishops consecrations of this kind; of which we shall produce some other Instances.

We read in his Diary under his own hand this Memoriall following, May 26. 1632. Saturday, Trinity Sunday Eve, I consecrated the Lord Treasurers Chapel at Roe-hampton: And in an Abstract of the Arch-bishops Metropolitical Visitation, Anno 1635. (found in his studdy) we find his Visitor and Vicar General interdicted the Chapel of Buckston and of Down in Derbyshire. (though long used) for want of consecration, and in some Visitation Articles this inquiry made, Whether any Chaplains did Preach or administer the Sacrament in any Chapel not consecrated?

In the year 1636. there was a great contestation between the Arch-bishop and the University of Cambridge, heard before his Majesty and his Privy Council at Hampton Court, whether the Archbishop merely as Metropolitan, or the King alone as King and founder of the University should have the Visitation thereof: where it was ruled for the Arch-bishop, against the King and University. At which time the Arch-bishop declared, that one principal cause why he desired to visit the University of Cambridge was, because there were some Chapels belonging to Colleges where Divine Service had been used, and the Sacrament administered divers years, though they were never consecrated by any Bishop; as namely Immanuel College Chapel, built in the year, 1584. And Sidney Sussex College Chapel built in the year, 1598. And ever since used as Chapels without any Bishops consecration, no Archbishop or Bishop, of the Diocese taking any exceptions at it; yet now forsooth, the Archbishop as Metropolitan must become Visitor to the University of Cambridge to consecrate these Chapels; as if they were profane before, and the holy Ordinances used in them not sufficient to hallow them, without his Popish Episcopal consecration-ceremonies, Bishop Pilkington, Walter Haddon, Mr. Fox, and others, much jeer and deride the madness, folly, and superstition of Cardinal Poole, and his Deputy Visitors of this very University of Cambridge, for digging up Mr. Bucer's, and Paulus Fagius bones, out of S. Mary's Church in Cambridge, 3. years after they were interred, and interdicting and new consecrating the Church again, as profaned by them for fear their Masses and Divine Service there used, should be nothing worth, the place being made profane and unholy by these heretics funerals as they judged them, when as the Church was holy enough to say Mass in for three years space before; and all that would not hear it must be imprisoned, burned, although the parties lay there buried.

And is it not then a far greater madness, superstition, and ridiculous frenzy for this domineering Arch-Prelate to deem these two Chapels profane places, unfit to administer the Sacraments, and celebrate divine Service in, because never yet consecrated by a Bishop, not only after three, but almost three-score years use and practice of divine Service, Sermons, Sacraments in them? When as neither his predecessors Whitgift, Bancroft, and Abbot (men very ceremonious, and two of them much addicted to superstition) ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration: Especially since there is no such Canon, Law, to enforce the consecration of them now, as was to justify the re-hallowing of S. Mary's Church in Queen Mary's time, which the Popish Canon Law then approved, in the case of Bucer and Fagius. We read in the Ecclesiastical Constitutions of Otho, the Popes Legat, made in an English Synod in the Rain of King Henry the third, that even in those dark times of Popery, there were not only divers Parish Churches, but some Cathedrals in England, which were used as such for many years, yet never consecrated by a Bishop, as appears by these words of the Constitution itself; Multas invenimus Ecclesias, & aliquas Cathedrales, quae licet fuer unt ab antiquo constructae, nondum tamen sunt sanctificationis Oleo consecrate: Whereupon this Popish Legat for his own lucher, Enjoyned all Churches then built or to be built, to be consecrated within two years space, under pain of interdiction, from having Mass said in them; unless some reasonable cause were shown to the contrary. By color of which Popish constitution, this Prelate (it seems) urged the consecration of these ancient Chapels; there being no other shadow of reason, Canon, or authority for it.

After this Archbishop had thus procured a power to himself to visit the University of Cambridge; Matthew Wren Bishop of Eli, Decemb. 1. 1639. Sent him up an account signed with his own hand, of some things amiss within his Diocese and that University, which he left to his Graces consideration to amend: which account was seized by Master Prynne in his study at Lambeth, and thus indorsed with the Arch-bishops own hand. My Lord of Eli’s Account: 1639. In which there were these two Passages, concerning consecration of Chapels. The first concerning a Chapel in Sir John Cuts house, in the town of Childerley; which Chapel the Knight said, was consecrated by Bishop Heton, producing an Instrument under seal, purporting that on such a day, at Childersly, Bishop Heton did consecrate a Chapel, by saying Service there himself, and having a Sermon: (this was all the Solemnity of its Consecration) I questioning the whole matter have required him to waiteupon your Grace, to see whether that consecration must be allowed of? The second concerning some Chapels in Colleges never yet consecrated; which is thus expressed in this Account: It was presented unto me, That in the Colleges of Immanuel, Sidney, and Corpus Christi, there have been Roomes built within the memory of man, which are used for common Chapels, wherein they have daily prayers and do Preach there, without any faculty or license granted unto them so to do; And wherein also they ordinarily celebrate the holy Communion, The said places never having been consecrated thereunto.

Ma. Eli.

The Scottish troubles, it seems, prevented his consecration of these Chapels, which were sufficiently hallowed before by the Divine Duties exercised in them. The last Chapel we find consecrated, was that in Covent Garden, which was hallowed or rather profaned with all Popish Ceremonies expressed in the Roman Pontifical, and far more than were used at Creed-Church.

The Arch-bishop having thus far advanced his Popish designs in consecrating Churches, Chapels, and Church-yards, proceeded one step further, even to set up the exploded Annual Baccanalian feasts of Dedication, whereon Churches were hallowed, prescribed at first only by the Decrees of Pope Felix, & Pope Gregory recorded by Gratian, De Consecratione, Distinct 1. who Decreed thus: Solennitates Ecclesiarum dedicationem per singulos annos solemniter sunt celebrandae. Those Feasts of Dedication, turned by the people into mere Bacchanals, were exceedingly declaimed against, as necessary to be suppressed by Nicholaus de Clemangiis in his Tract, De Novis Celebritatibus non instituendis; suppressed by the Injunctions of King Henry the S. An. 1536. As the occasion of much idleness, excess, riot, and pernicious to the Souls of men; Whereupon they were all of them restrained to the first Sunday in the month of October, not to be kept on any other day; and afterwards totally abolished by the statute of 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 3. Of holy-days. Which being revived again by degrees, with their Baccanalian disorders in sundry places of this Realm, under the names of Wakes or Revels, and suppressed by some Judges in their Circuits and Justices of Peace in Sessions: this Arch-bishop in the year of our Lord 1633. by a Declaration compiled by himself, but published in his Majesty's Name, entitled; The Kings Majesty's Declaration concerning Lawfull Sports to be used; revived and enjoined the Observation of these Wakes and Feasts of Dedication, never formerly established by any Christian Prince; together with the use of divers Sports and pastimes on the Lord's own Sacred day, after Divine Service ended; to the great Dishonor of God, of his Majesty, of our Religion, the disturbance of the Civil Government, increase of all Licensiousnesse, profaneness, impiety, and great grief of all godly people's Souls. This Book he enjoined all Ministers to read and publish openly in the Church, in time of Divine Service, though not commanded by the King; and those who out of conscience refused to read it in this kind, were by his means suspended, excommunicated, prosecuted in the High-Commission, Sequestred from their Livings, yea many of them enforced to desert their Cures and depart the Kingdom; this book being made a snare only to entrap or suppress most of the painful, godly, preaching Ministers throughout the Realm, who were all more or less prosecuted about it: Yet such was this Arch-Prelates unparalleled impiety, transcending all examples in former Ages, that he not only caused his Instruments Edmond Reeve, Dr. Heylin, Christopher Dowe and others, to defend the Lawfulnesse and usefulness of this profane licentious Declaration, but also to justify the persecution, silencing, suspending, depriving of those Godly Ministers who out of Conscience refused to publish it, in sundry Printed Books authorized by him and his Chaplains, for the Press. Quis talia fando, temperet à Lachrymis? at leastwise can refrain from the heaviest censures against this profane Arch-bishop.

That this Declaration (since ordered to be publicly burnt by the common hangman, by Order of both Houses of Parliament) was Printed published by the Archbishops procurement, and upon what Occasion, was thus attested upon Oath by Master Edward Richardson, and Master Prynne.

Sir Thomas Richardson Lord chief Justice of England and Baron Denham, riding the Western Circuit in the Lent Vacation, 7 ^o Caroli, there being at the Assizes in the County of Sommerset, many persons indicted for murthering Bastard children begotten at Wakes and Revels, with sundry other grand disorders occasioned by these intemperate meetings, the Justices of that County earnestly importuned the Judges to make a severe Order for the suppression of these disorderly Wakes and Revels, as divers of their Predecessors had done, without which they could never keep the Country in good Order, nor prevent the multitude of Bastards, murders, bloodsheds, drunkenness, quarrels, and other disorders occasioned by them; whereupon these Judges made this ensuing Order in the public Assizes.

The now Arch-Bishop being informed of this good Order, was very much nettled at it, both in regard of the subject matter of it, (the suppression of Church-Ales, Wakes, Revels, commonly kept on the Lord's Day) and likewise of the manner of publishing it, by the Ministers in the Church, which he conceived to be an Usurpation upon the Bishops Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and an injury to the Church. Upon which grounds he had formerly quarrelled with Sir Nicholas Rainton when he was Lord Mayor of London, for prohibiting an Apple-woman to sell Apples on the Lord's Day within Paul's Church-yard, threatening to complain of him to the King and his Council for usurping on his Jurisdiction; and telling him she should sell Apples there on the Sunday, notwithstanding his Command to the contrary, and let him punish her if he durst; as he likewise excepted against this pious Order of Richard Dean, Lord Mayor of London, Anno 1629. (found in his study by Master Prynne) thus endorsed with his own hand, April 20. 1629. The Lord Mayor of London his Warrant against breakers of the Sabbath, MY JVRISDICTION INTERESSED.

The Arch-bishop much vexed at the Judges forementioned Order against Ales and Revels, complained of the Judges and it to his Majesty (as he had formerly done of the Lord Mayor of London) and procured a Commission to some Divines of that County, and Bishop Pierce, to inquire of the manner of publishing this Order in Churches, and what was done therein, and of the Lord Chief Justice Richardsons carriage in this business. Notwithstanding which Commission this chief Justice the next Assizes gave a strict charge against these Ales, and Revels, required an Account of the publication and execution of the foresaid Order, and punished some disorderly persons for breach thereof: Wherewith the Archbishop (then of London) being acquainted by Sir Robert Philip's and others, he thereupon complained again to the King of the Judges, and writ the ensuing letter to the Bishop of Bath and Wels, to make the better way for the public authorizing of Wakes and Revels, even on the Lord's own Day, and his Majesty's subsequent Declaration for sports and Ales to be kept thereon: of which Christopher Dowe his Champion, in his Innovations unjustly charged upon the present Church and State, or, An Answer to the most material passages of a Libellous Pamphlet made by Mr. Henry Burton, and Intituled, An Apology of an Appeal, &c. London, 1637. chap. 5. p. 75. writes thus: I believe his Grace holds it no dishonor to be the means of procuring or urging obedience, to any Act, that so just, and religious a King shall avow to be His. Propounding and justifying these five Propositions at at large concerning this Declaration, and the urging of it, p. 77. &c.

1. That the Declaration is no inlet to profaneness, or irreligion, or hindrance of the due Sanctification of the Lord's Day.

2. That ehe sports permitted by it to be used, are Lawfull, and are not prohibited either by God's Law, or the Law of the Land.

3. That it is no means of breaking the fifth Commandment, nor doth alow any contempt of Parents, or Masters Authority over their children and servants.

4. That the reading of it by Ministers, in their several Congregations, was enjoined and intended by his Majesty, and that it is a thing that may lawfully be done by them.

5. That such as refuse to publish it accordingly, are justly punished, and their punishment no cruelty or unjust persecution.

The Extract of the Letter sent to the Bishop of Bath and Wels, was as followeth.

To which Letter, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, made this return, thus endorsed with the Archbishops own hand. Rece November 11: 1633. My Lord of Bathes Certificate, about the Wakes and other Feasts in Somersetshire, &c. found in his Study with his own forecited Letter.

The next Assizes after this Certificate, the Archbishop sent for Chief Justice Richardson, and commanded him to revoke the former Order made at the Assizes, against Wakes, telling him, it was His Majesty's pleasure he should reverse it: But he having no such command from the King Himself, neglected to do it; whereupon the Archbishop made a new complaint to His Majesty against the Judge; who thereupon sent for the Judge, and commanded him publicly to Reverse that Order the next Assizes, as he would answer the controay at his peril; notwithstanding he alleged, he had done it at the request of the Justices of Peace in the County, with the general consent of the whole Bench, and upon view of diverse ancient presidents in that kind: Whereupon Judge Richardson the next Summer Assizes 1634. in his charge, informed the Justices, Grand-Jury, and Country; That he at their Request, together with his Brother Denham, had made a very good Order for suppressing unruly Wakes, and Revells, wherein he thought he had done God, the King and Country good service; but some ill affected persons had misinformed His Majesty concerning this Order, who had given him an express command to reverse it; which he conceived was hardly in his power to do because it was no Order made by himself, but by the joint consent of the whole Bench, and a mere confirmation and enlargement of diverse Orders made by the Judges and Justices in that Circuit, in Queen Elizabeth's, King James, and King Charles their Reignes, before ever he came into those parts: for which he produced these following Presidents.

The first was an Order made at a Sessions in Somersetshire in the 38. of Queen Elizabeth.

The second was this Order of Sessions made at the same place, whereto he found the name of one Thomas Philip's, subscribed; but he knew not who he was (at which Sir Robert Philip's, his Son, who sticled for these Wakes, was much incensed, as conceiving it a mere jeer against him.)

The third was an Order of Sessions made in the County of Devon, Anno 1599.

The fourth was this following Order made at the Assizes in Devonshire, Anno 1615.

The fifth was an Order made in the same County, Anno 1627.

Per me Simon Spatchurst Clericum Asiisor.

The 6. an Order made by Baron Denham at the Assizes in Somersetshire, Anno 1627. upon a Petition of divers Ministers.

Which former Order being warranted by so many Presidents, Judge Richardson said, he conceived he had no power absolutely to reverse; but being commanded to do it, by His Majesty, he did as much as in him lay revoke it; but yet doubted not, that if the Justices of Peace would truly inform His Majesty of the grounds of the former Order, and of the great disorders occasioned by Wakes, and Churchales His Majesty would give Order to revive it; but how ever, he must make this Order for the present, which he caused he Clerk of Assizes to enter.

WHereas divers Orders have been heretofore made by the Judges of Assize, for the suppressing of Church-ales, Clerks-ales, Wakes, Revells and such like within this County of Somerset, which were formerly made by the Judges, by reason of many disorders and misdemeanors arising upon the meeting of multitudes of people out of other Parishes. It is now Ordered by his Lordship, that all former Orders heretofore made by any Judges or Justices, for the suppressing of Church-ales, Clerks-ales, Wakes and Revells be revoked [as much as in him lieth] and made utterly void. And that it may be lawful for all persons freely to use any lawful Recreation or Exercise at such meetings, but with this advice, that they be careful that no outrages or misdemeanors commonly arising at such Church-ales, Clerk-ales, Wakes and Revells be done or committed.

Hereupon, all the Justices of Peace then present, immediately after they had dined, drew up this Petition to His Majesty, which they Signed with all their hands, and then sent it up to London by John Harrington Esquire, then Custos Rotulorum in that County, with order to deliver it to the Right Honorable Earl of Pembrook, Lord Lieutenant of the County, to present it to His Majesty. Who repairing to London accordingly, shown the Petition to Master Prynne, and the Earl being then in the Country, whence he would not return in twelve days space, he advised with him what course to take for presenting the Petition to His Majesty in the mean time, lest the Archbishop hearing of it, should prevent the same: The Archbishop having notice of this Petition from Sir Robert Philip's and Bishop Pierce, to prevent the delivery and expected good effect thereof; presently caused the Declaration for Sports published by King James, with some additions of his own at the end concerning Wakes, and Feasts of Dedication, relating the Order of Judge Richardson for suppressing them, to be reprinted and published in His Majesty's Name, before the Petition delivered, the Copy whereof, is here subjoined.

The delivery and good effect of this Petition, was prevented by the publishing of this Declaration by this Archbishops means; who to justify himself herein, ex post facto procured this ensuing Warrant, without any Date at all, (written with his own hand, and found in his Study by Mr. Prynne, together with the Printed Declaration for Sports, endorsed with his own pen) to be Signed by His Majesty, to justify himself, if questioned for it upon any future occasion.

CHARLES. R.

CAnterbury, See that Our Declaration concerning Recreations on the Lord's day after Evening Prayer, be Printed.

By all these Premised evidences, it is most apparent, that the Archbishop was the principal Actor in the publication of this Licentious Book, to God's, and his Majesty's dishonor, which we shall further evidence by this writing under his own hand.

The Declaration concerning Lawfull sports on the Lord's day, His Majesty Commanded me to se it Printed. The motives to it were, 1. A general and superstitious opinion conceived of that day. 2. A Book set out by Theophilus Brabourne, 1628. Judaism upon Christian principles, and perverted many. 3. A great distemper in Somerset-shire, upon the forbidding of the wakes, in the sowernesse of this opinion; an Act of a Judge that rid that Circuit, March.