Page  461

The Archbishops several ANSVVERS To the Proofs and Evidence produced to make good the first Branch of his CHARGE, with the Commons Replyes, and Rejoynders thereunto.

VVE have now presented you with the intire evidence of the Com∣mons given in against the Archbishop at the Lords Tribunal, in proof of the first main Branch of his impeachment, to wit, his traiterous endeavours to subvert the true Religion established among us, to introduce and set up Popery, and reconcile us unto Rome, without any diminution, to which I have here and there made some small Additions, not by way of evidence or charge, but only of illustration or amplification of some things given in evi∣dence in the general, briefly pointed at and so passed over, not read at large at the bar for want of time.

We shall next as faithfully, as exactly as our imperfect notes, and frail memo∣ry will assist, relate his several Answers and Replies given to the particular proofs produced against him, both as he delivered them in person after each dayes evi∣dence at the Lords bar, and as he afterwards repeated them in his general de∣fence, with some Additions, in the Lords and Commons House; wherein if I have involuntarily mistaken or misreported his words or answers in any particular as I presume I have not done, his surviving friends must only blame either him, or themselves, not me, who used all the means I could to his Secretary Mr. Dell, his Councel, and others whom he trusted with his Papers, to procure his own Ori∣ginal written Notes, Answers, and Replies, or true Copies of them; that so I might have printed them verbatim, to avoid all calumnies and mistakes; yet could neither by my own intreaties, nor warrants from Authority procure them, or any Copies thereof: Mr. Dell returning me this answer, that he believed the Archbishop himself had burnt all his Notes and Answers in his life time, to prevent their publication after his death.

To avoid prolixity, obscurity, that every Reader may more clearly dis∣cern the insufficiency, falshood, Sophistry of his Answers, and the pregnancy of the Commons proofs, and evidence to make good their impeachment against him in each particular; I shall forbear to relate his Answers and the Commons Replies thereto, intirely together in two distinct continued Relations, as they were delivered at the bar, but subjoyn the Commons distinct Replies to his seve∣rall Answers to each particular proof and part of their evidence, as they lie in order; that so reddendo singula singulis, the pertinency of their evidence, and reality of his guiltinesse, may more perspicuously shine forth to all the world, I aiming only at verity, not victory in this Relation.

The Archbishop began his Answer to the first Branch of the Commons charge, concerning his traiterous endeavours to subvert the true Religion of God by Law established among us, and set up Popish Superstition and Idolatry in its stead, with a general detestation both of the charge and fact, for which presumptuous and unseemly expression, he was justly taxed by the Commons councel, as be∣ing Page  462 a defiance given to them and their proceedings, prosessing it the greatest un∣happinesse that ever besel him, to be thus deeply and criminally charged by the Honourable House of Commons (the representative body of the whole commo∣nalty of England) before the highest Tribunal in the Realm, as being guilty of such a crime as this, in his last dying dayes, when he had one foot already in the grave, which his own conscience pronounced him to have been guiltlesse of, all the dayes of his life: Yet protesting it to be an unspeakable comfort to him in this his infelicity, that he was arraigned for it before so just, so Honourable an As∣sembly of Peers (many of them being privy to the sincerity of his actions and ad∣vices to his Majestie) to vindicate his integrity to all the world, and wash off all those black spots of calumny, of obloquy, wherewith he had for many years by∣past, been most unjustly aspersed by Sectaries on the one hand, by Iesuits and Papists on the other, to ruin him both in his reputation, fortune, and his Maje∣sties most gracious opinion. And so presuming he had sufficiently cleared him∣self in the general from this heavy charge in their Lordships and others opinions by his first dayes speech, the new Canons and Oath prescribed in them and by his Book against Fisher the Iesuite; he would without any further Prologue or Apology discend to Answer the particular evidences, proofs, produced against him by the Commons in their respective order, with as much brevity, perspicuity as the suddainnesse of his preparations, the frailty of his memory, the burthen of 70 yeers, with other natural infirmities then lying heavy upon him, would permit: And to give him his due, he made as full, as gallant, as pithy a defence of so bad a cause, and spake as much for himself, as was possible for the wit of man to invent, and that with so much Art, Sophistry, Vivacity, Oratory, Audacity and confidence, without the least blush or acknowledgement of guilt in any thing (annimated by his seated Panders lying by him) as argued him rather obstinate, then innocent, impudent, then penitent, a far better Orator, Sophister, then Protestant or Christian, yea, a truer Son of the Church of Rome, then of the Church of England in many particulars, as you will anon discern.

He began his defence, where the Commons did their charge, and they their Reply where he began his Answer, to wit, at his publike Chappel at Lam∣beth House.

The first thing the Commons have in their evidence charged against me, is the setting up and repairing of Popish Images and Pictures in the glasse windows of * my Chappel at Lambeth; and amongst others, the Picture of Christ hanging on the Crosse between the two Theeves in the East window; of God the Father in Form of a little old Man, with a Glory, striking Myriam with a leprosie; of the Holy Ghost descending in Form of a Dove; and of Christs Nativity, last Supper, Resurrection, Ascention, and others, the Patern whereof Master Pryn attested I took out of the very Masse Book, wherein he shewed their Portratures.

To which I answer: First, that I did not set these Images up, but found them * there before: Secondly, That I did only repair the windows which were so bro∣ken and the Chappel which lay so nastily before, that I was ashamed to behold, and could not resort unto it, but with some disdain, which caused me to repair it to my great cost: Thirdly, that I made up the History of these old broken Pictures, not by any patern in the Masse Book, but only by help of the fragments and re∣mainders of them, which I compared with the story: Fourthly, though the very resemblances of them be in the Masse Book, yet I protest I never knew they were there, till Master Pryn shewed them in it at this bar: And it is but a meer fallacy, the Pictures which I repaired are in the Masse Book; Ergo, I took the patern of them out of it: Fifthly, Master Calvin himself allows an Historical use of Images, Just, l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 12. where thus he writes, Neque tamenea superstitione teneor, ut nul∣las prorsus imagines serendas censeam; sed quia sculptura et pictura Dei dona sunt, purum et legitimum utriusque usum requiro: Sixthly, our Homilies themselves allow an Historical use of Images, as appears by Page 64, 65. Page  463 Seventhly, The Primitive Christians approved, and had the Pictures of Christ himself: Tertullian recording, that they had the Picture of Christ engraven on their Chalices in form of a Shepherd carrying home the lost sheep on his back. Eightly, I hope the repairing and setting up of these Pictures is no High-Trea∣son by any Law. Ninthly, Images and Pictures in Arras, or Glasse-Windows, are not against the Statute of 3. E. 6. c. 10. but Statues onely.

To this was replyed: First, That he did not finde these Images there compleat or entire, but broken and demolished by vertue of our Statutes, Homilies, * Injunctions forecited, and that at the beginning of Reformation; ever since which time they continued unrepaired, as Monuments of our indignation and detestation against them, like the ruines of our Abbies and Monasteries.

Secondly, We have here confitentem reum, the Archbishop plainly confessing that we charge him with; to wit, the repairing of the broken Images of Christ, the Holy Ghost in Glasse-Windows; and no wayes denying, extenuating, but justifying this Popish-Fact of his against our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Wri∣ters, yea, his own frequent Subscriptions to our Homilies, and Articles of Religion, which confirm them: Nay, Mr. Brown his own Joyner, attested, that he by the Archbishops directions, repaired and new made the broken Crucifix in Croyden Chappel, as well as in Lambeth Chappel; and the Archbishop plainly confesseth, That he had no great devotion to serve God in Lambeth Chappel, nor yet to resort unto it, till these Images were repaired, and now beautified to please his eyes.

Thirdly, That himself took pains, and gave direction to the Glasiers to make up the Stories and Pictures in the Windows, out of the broken fragments remaining, and new made them to his excessive cost, whereas he might have new glased them with unpainted Glasse, for the tenth part of that his Painted Pictures cost him.

Fourthly, He confesseth the very portratures of the new furbished Pictures in his Chappel to be all contained in the Masse-Book, which we made so apparant to your Lordships, that he could not with shame deny it; but protests he knew them not to be in it, and that he took not his patern out of it. To which we must reply, That he having noted his Masse-Book, wherein we shewed them to be portrayed, in every page almost with his own hand, and turning this Book so frequently over, must of necessity see these Pictures in it, which are so large and visible, unlesse we shall suppose him blinde, or such an hater of them, as purposely to turn his eye-sight from them, which is improbable; And therefore, notwithstanding this bold Pro∣testation of his, we hold our Argument both true and solid. The new Images in his Chappel-Windows exactly agree in all things with the Printed ones in his Masse-Book, which he could not but know, and see too, as oft as he noted or perused his Roman Missal. Ergo, He took his patern from the Masse-Book in the repairing, as well as his Popish Predecessors in the first making of them, since no other patern hath been produced by him, by which he gave directions to new make them, but the Roman Missal.

Fifthly, We wonder greatly, that he who hath so much traduced, reviled Mr. Calvin publikely heretofore, should flie thus unto him for shelter now; but as he abused his person and memory then, so he miserably perverts and misapplies his words now, point-blank against his meaning. Mr. Calvin onely affirms, that he is not so superstitious as to think it altogether unlawful to make any Images of men or Beasts for a civil use, since painting is the gift of God: From whence the Arch∣bishop hath inferred. Ergo, Mr. Calvin holds it lawful to make the Pictures of Christs Nativity, last Supper, Passion, Resurrection, coming to Judgement; of God the Father, like an Old Man; of Christ on the Crosse, of God the Holy Ghost, in form of a Dove, and Cloven-Tongues, of the Virgin-Mary, other Saints, and to set them up in Churches, as he did these Images in his Chappel: Whereas Master Calvin in the self same place, in most positive terms, concludes the contrary; Witnesse the very next words following those he objects; Page  464Purum & legitimum utriusque usum require, ne quae Dominus in suam gloriam, & bonum nostrum nobis contulit, ea non tantum polluantur praepostero abusu, sed in nostram quoque perniciem convertantur. Deum effingi visibili specie NEFAS ESSE PƲTAMƲS, quia id vetuit ipse, & fieri siue aliqua gloriae ejus deformatione non potest. Which he proves at large. Then speaking of Images in Churches, he writes, they were introduced thither, bNon judicio aut delectu, sed stulta & inconfide∣rata cupiditate. In the very next Section he debates the very point in question, whether it be lawful for Christians to have any Images at all of Histories, or of mens bodies (not of any persons in the Trinity, the very making whereof he formerly concludes to be a great wickednesse) which he thus propounds and resolves:

Verùm illo quoque discrimine omisso, an ullas omnino imagines, sivè quae res gestas, sive quae hominum corpora figurent, habere in templis Christianis expediat, obiter ex∣pendamus. Principio, si quid nos movet veteris Ecclesiae authoritas, meminerimus quin∣gentis circiter anuis, quibus magisadhuc florebat religio, & syncerior doctrina vigebat, Christiana templa fuisse communiter ab imaginibus vacua. Ergo tunc primùm in or∣namcutum templorum ascita sunt, quum ministerii synceritas nonnihil degenerasset. Non disputabo ecquid rationis habuerint qui primi suerunt ejus rei authores: verùm si atatem cum aetate conferas, videbis illos multum declinasse ab eorum integritate qui imaginibus caruerunt. Quid? an passuros fuisse putamus sanctos illos Patres Ec∣clesiam tandiu ea re carere, quam utilem ac salutarem esse judicarent? At certe quia videbant in ea aut nihil aut minimum utilitatis, plurimum autem subesse peri∣culi, repudiarunt magis consilio & ratione, quam ignoratione aut negligentia praeter∣miserunt. Quod etiam Augustinus claris verbis testatur, Quam his sedibus locantur,*inquit, honorabili sublimitate, ut à praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum, quamvis sensu & anima careant, afficiunt infirmos animos, ut vivere ac spirare videantur, &c.*Et alibi. Hoc enim facit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figura membrorum, ut animus in corpore vivens magis arbitretur sentire corpus, quod suo simillimum videt, &c. Paulo post. Plus va∣lent simula•hra ad curvandam infaelic•m animam, quodos, ooulos, aures, pedes habent: quàm ad corrigendam, quòd non lequuntur, neque vident, neque audiunt, neque ambu∣lant. Haec sanè videtur causa esse, cur*Johannes non tantùm à simulachrorum cultu, sod ab ipsis quoque simulachris cavere nos voluerit. Et nos horribili insania, quae ad totius ferè pietatis interitū orbem ante hac occupavit, plus nimio sumus experti, simul∣at{que} in templis collecantur imagines, quasi signum idololatriae erigi: quia sibi temperare non potest hominum stultitia, quin protinus ad superstitiosos cult•m delabatur. Quòd si nec tantum periculi immineret, quam tumen expendo in quem usum destinata sint tem∣pla, nescio quomodo indignum mihi videtur eorum sanctitate, ut alias recipiant imagi∣nes quàm vivas illas & iconicas, quas verbo suo Domini• consecravit: Baptismum intelligo & Coenam Domini, •um aliis ceremoniis quibus oculos nostros & studiosius de∣tineri, & vividius affici convenit quàm ut alias hominum ingenio fabrefactas requi∣rant. En incomperabile imaginum bonum, quod nulla pensatione resarciri potest, si Pa∣pistis creditur. This Author hath many such like Passages in his other works; and therefore the Archbishops citing of him to justifie his Chappel Images, argues either extreme Ignorance or Falshood.

Sixthly, Whereas he would pray in ayd from our Homilies, to justifie the Histo∣rical use of these Images in his Chappel: The Homilies are so point-blank against it, as we have proved, that Impudency it self would blush to cite them to such a pur∣pose, especially since the Third Part of the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, pag. 41, 42, 43. expresly resolves it unlawful to make the picture of Christ, or any person in the Trinity, much lesse to set them up in Churches.

Seventhly, That the Primitive Christians approved of Images, and had the pi∣cture of Christ in their Churches, and engraven on their Chalices, is a most noto∣rious Falshood: For Justine Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Arnobius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Geegory Nyssan, Athana∣sius, Ambrose, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Hierome, Augustine, Hilary, Chrysostome, Theo∣doret,Page  465Theophylact, and other Ancients unanimously agree, That the Primitive Christians had no Images at all in their Churches, together with the Councels of Eliberis, Constantinople, Toledo, Francford, and Constantine the Great, Constantinus Caballinus, Nicephorus Stauratius, Philipicus, Anthemius, Theodosius the second, Leo Armenus, Valens, Michael Balbus, Theophylus, Charls the Great, with sundry other godly Emperors, utterly demolished and cast them out of Churches, as Ec∣clesiastical Authors, our own cHomilies,d Writers prove at large against the Papsts: eLactantius and other Primitive Christians write expresly, That with∣out doubt there can be no Religion at all in that place wheresoever any Image is; where∣upon Epiphanius rent the Image of Christ or some other Saint, which he found in a Church painted in cloth, out of holy indignation, as contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures. In few words, Our own Homilies against the peril of Idolatry, part, 2. p. 38. expresly resolve, That when Images began to creep into the Church, they were not onely spoken and written against by godly and learned Bishops, Doctors and Clerks, but also condemned by WHOLE COVNCELS OF LEARNED MEN assembled together; yea the said Images, by many Christian Emperors and Bishops were defaced, broken and destroyed. Which Mr. Calvin in the place objected by the Bishop, affirms likewise. And therefore it is a most desperate Impudency in the Archbishop, thus falsly to affirm the contrary, point-blank against our Homilies and his own subscription to them. And whereas he cites Tertullian, to prove, that the Christians in his dayes had the picture of Christ upon their Chalices; We An∣swer, That if the Book de Pvdicitia be Tertullians own, (of which some doubt) yet his words import no such thing, which are these, A parabolis licebit incipias; ubi est evis perdita à Domino acquisita, & humeris ejus revecta; Procedant ipsae PICTƲRAE CALICƲM VESTRORƲM (not nostrorum) si volle nillis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius, utrumne Christiano vel Ethnico pec∣cateri de restitutione colliniet. If this place intimate any thing, it is onely this, That the Phychici and other Hereticks against whom he writ this Book, (not the Ortho∣dox Christians, as this Prelate dreams) had the picture of the lost sheep graven on their cups: will it therefore follow hence, Ergo The Orthodox Christians had Cru∣cifixes and Images of Christ, God the Father, the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary in their Churches, in their Chappelss, as he hath set up in his Lambeth Chap∣pel windows? Certainly this is a grosse Nonsequitur. Yet this is his learned Argu∣ment from this Authority rightly stated. And that he hath most grosly abused Ter∣tullian, your Lordships and his Auditory, in alleadging Tertullian for defence of Images, and their use among the Primitive Christians; certainly Tertullian is so far from any such opinion, that he hath written a whole Book de Idololatria, next before this de Pudicitia, wherein he expresly condemns, not onely the having, but making of any Image or Picture for any use, and the very Arts of carving and painting Ima∣ges, as contrary to the second Commandment (as the * Jews, Iosephus, Philo and others did before him; & the very Turks and Persians at this day.) Take but this Sentence of his insted of many; Omnis forma vel formula Idolum se dici exposcit. Idolum TAM FIERI quam coli Deus prohibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit tantò prius est NE FIAT si coli non licet. Propter hanc causam, ad eradican∣dum scilicet materiam Idololatriae, lex divina proclamat, Ne feceris Idolum: & con∣jungens: Neque similitudinem eorum quae in coelo sunt, & quae in terra, & quae in mari: TOTO MƲNDO EJƲSMODI ARTIBƲS INTER∣DIXIT SERVIS DEI. Artifices statuarum & Imaginum DIABO∣LVS seculo notulit, &c. Which he prosecutes at large throughout this eloquent Book. And therefore his Impudency and Sophistry in citing Tertullian for defence of Images in Churches, who is thus point-blank against the making of any Image whatsoever, even for civil uses, is an intolerable, inexcusable Boldnesse.

Eighthly, Whereas he Answers, That the setting up of these Glasse-Images is no High-Treason by the Statute: We grant it not to be so simply in it self, neither do we urge it to be so, but as it tends to subvert our Religion, Laws, and set up Popery, Page  466 concurs with his other practises of this nature, so it may and will prove High Treason. The second Part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, Page 37. as∣sures us, That the maintenance of Images hath brought in a sea of mischiefs, horrible Schisms, Rebellions, TREASONS, and his maintaining of them hath done the like.

Ninthly, we conceive that the Statute of 3. E. 6. c. 10. which command all Images of Stone, Timber, Alabaster, or Earth, graven, carved, or painted; which heretofore have been taken out of any Church or Chapple, or yet stand in any Church or Chapple to be defaced and destroyed, extend to Images in glasse windowes as well as others, which are but painted Earth; and that which confirms us in this opinion is, That the Homilies against the peril of Jdolatry (the occasion of this Law) and the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth made in pursuance of it, extend in direct terms to Images in glasse windowes, as well as to Images of Stone, Timber and the like, yea, the practise of that time in defacing the glasse Images in Lambeth Chap∣ple-windowes (which he of late repaired) and in most other places, infallibly proves it: Together with the Statute of 3. Jac. c. 5. which reckons up Jmages and Crucifixes, of what matter soever, among the Reliques of Popery, and enjoynes them to be defaced: wherefore the evasion of his is most false and frivolous, espe∣cially since Popery may creep in at a glasse-window, as well as at a door; and our Homilies, Injunctions, writers censure all of them alike, if this Statute do it not: Fi∣nally, by all these Answers he professeth himself a most zealous, real Papist, but false Protestant in pleading thus boldly and falsly for the use of Images of all sorts in Churches, and in repairing of Popish Images formerly defaced by Authority, in∣steed of confessing and craving pardon for this his dangerous error, his most Ido∣latrous, Popish practise.

The second thing objected against me, as a Popish Innovation in my Chapple * at Lambeth, is, b my removing and railing in the Communion Table there Altarwise, with the ends of it North and South against the wall; my furnishing it with Ba∣sons, Candlesticks, and other furniture, and hanging a cloth of Arras behinde it, with the Picture of Christ and his Apostles eating the Lords Supper together.

Ans. To which I Answer, First, That the railing in and placing the Table Al∣tarwise is warranted by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, which prescribe, That * the Holy Table in every Church be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood: Now the Altars generally in all Churches, as all Antiquity ma∣nifests, stood at the East end of the Quire, North and South close to the wall, as the Tables were lately placed, and there were railed in: This therefore is no in∣novation.

Secondly, the furniture on the Altar is no other then such as is in use in the Kings own Chapple at White-Hall, and had been there used ever since and before my time.

Thirdly, that the Arras peece at the back of the Table containing the Story of Christs last Supper, was fit for that place and occasion: That such Images and re∣presentations were lawful, approved by all the Lutheran Churches, yea, by Master Calvin himself, for an Historical use, in the place forecited, Jnst. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 12.

Reply, To this the Commons replied, First, That neither Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, nor the Rubrick in the Common Prayer-Book, nor any Law or Ca∣non * of our Church prescribe the railing in of our Communion Tables, or placing them Altarwise against the wall, with the ends North and South: There is no sillable in any of them to warrant any such Popish innovation, prescribed only by Popish Canons, as we have proved: That it cannot be proved that Altars were generally so placed and railed in anciently, either in England or elswhere: The con∣trary whereof we shall prove anon; That the makers and executers of these Innova∣tions knew best of any, where and how Communion Tables were to be situated by vertue of them, and they generally placed them throughout the Realm, in the midst of the Quire or Chancel, with the ends East and West, standing a convenient di∣stance Page  467 from the East wall, without any rail about it, in which posture they ge∣nerally stood in all Churches, Chapples, and in Lambeth Chapple it self for one, ever since these Injunctions published, till this innovating Arch prelate alter∣ed this their ancient situation. Yet both the Rubrick in the Common Prayer Book, the Queens Injunctions, the 82 Canon, Bishop Jewel, Bishop Babington, Doctor Fulk, and other of our writers agree, that when the Sacrament is administred it ought to stand in the body of the Church or Chancel, of which more hereafter: This therefore is an innovation and that a Popish one too, tending to introduce pri∣vate Masse, to remove the Lords Table as far as possible from the view and audience of the common people, when the Sacrament is celebrated at it.

Secondly, We k have proved, that this Altar-furniture of Candlesticks, Tapers, Basons, Crucifixes, and the like, was originally borrowed from the Roman, Ceremonial, Pontifical, and the Popish Councel of Aix, which injoyn them, That the third Part of our Homilies against the peril of Idolatry, and Queen Eliza∣beths Injunctions (which he cites for the placing of Lords Tables Altarwise) In∣junct. 2. 23. 25. condemn, censure, abolish, as Superstitious, Ethnical; and Po∣pish, all Candlesticks, Trendals, Rolls of wax, and setting up of Tapers, for that they be things tending to Idolatry and Superstition, which of all other offences, God Almighty doth most detest and abhor, for that the same diminish most his honour and glory: Therefore the Kings Altar-Furniture in his Chappel at White Hall, can be no justification nor extenuation of his offence, who should have reformed his Majesties Chappel (whereof he was the Dean and Superintendent, according to our Lawes, Homilies, Injunctions which condemn such Altar-trin∣kets) not conformed his own Chapple, Altar to the Kings, in these meer Popish Superstitious innovations.

Thirdly, The Arras hanging was rather suited to the Crucifixes in the glasse window over it and other Images of Christ in that Chappel, then to the place or Lords Table where it hanged. The Table and Sacramental elements themselves, with the usual participation of them every moneth, being sufficient to minde us of our Saviours last Supper, passion, death too, and l to shew them forth till he come, (who used no such Pictures nor Crucifixes, when he instituted his last Sup∣per) without any such Image or Crucifix: which being condemned by our Sta∣tutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, Writers, as we have formerly evidenced, yea, by all Antiquity, by Mr. Calvin himself, and many Lutherans too, ought not to have been placed there; the rather, because there is no warrant nor pre∣script for it, but only in the mRoman Ceremonial, p. 69. 70. His conformity whereto was the only ground of hanging up those Arras Pictures, which well de∣serves another hanging, especially in an Arch-prelate, who professeth himself a Protestant, and as averse from Popery as any man whatsoever.

The third sort of Innovations in my Chappel charged against me, is the setting * up of a nCredentia or Side-table, my own and my Chaplaines bowing towards the Table or Altar at our approaches to it, our going in and out from the Chap∣pel; my Chaplains with my own using of Copes therein, at the celebration of the Lords Supper and solemn consecrations of Bishops, attested by Dr. Heywood my own Chaplain, who confessed, That he celebrated the Sacrament at Lambeth Chap∣ple in a Cope, that my other Chaplains did the like, and that he thought I was some∣times present when they did it; that the Bread when the Sacrament was administred was first laid upon the Credentia, from whence he took it in his hand and then carried it too, and kneeling down upon his knee presented it, laid it on the Lords Table, on which there were Candlesticks, and Tapers, but not burning, as he had seen them at White-Hall; which Mr. Cordwel once my servant likewise deposed; adding, that I was present sometimes when this was done, and that my Chaplains bowed down thrice towards the Altar at their approaches to it.

To which I Answer: First, that I took my patern of the Credentia from Bi∣shop *Andrews Chappel.

Page  468 Secondly, that this bowing towards the Altar was used in the Kings Chappel, and in many Cathedrals both in Queen Elizabeths and King James their raigns.

Thirdly, that the use of Copes is prescribed by the 24 Canon of our Church Anno 1603. which orders thus, oIn all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the Holy Communion shall be administred upon principal feast dayes, sometimes by the Bishop if he be present, and sometimes by the Dean, sometimes by a Canon or Pre∣bendary, the principal Minister using a decent Cope. This therefore is no Inno∣vation.

To this was retorted in general, that Sir Nathaniel Brent, and Doctor Featly deposed, nor there was no such Credentia, bowing towards the Table, Altar, nor * any Cope at all used in Lambeth Chappel, in his predecessors time; therefore all these are meer Innovations: In particular, it was replied, that it appears not by proof Bishop Andrews had any such utensels, vestments, or bowings in his Chappel; therefore this is a meer groundlesse evasion: But admit he had, yet Bishop Andrews Chappel was no Law, Canon, nor Patern for him to follow, against our Lawes; Common Prayer Book, Homilies, Injunctions, which exclude such inno∣vations: And if the Patern of the Chappel and its Furniture which we gave in evidence were Bishops Andrews, as he avers; it was as grosly Popish and Super∣stitious as the Popes, or any Popish Prelates Chappel whatsoever. As for the Credentia, it is directly taken out of the Roman Ceremonial and Pontifical, as we have p proved, the onely Canons we know prescribing it, and we finde the use of it only in some Popish Churches, and mentioned no wherebut in the Roman Missal, among the Rites of celebrating the Masse: Therefore it is a meer Po∣pish utensel, appropriated to the Masse and a forerunner of it.

Secondly, This bowing to and towards the Altar, was never prescribed by our Statutes, Articles, Homilies, Common Prayer Book, Injunctions, Canons, never practised by any till of late, but some few Popish Court Doctors, and Ca∣thedralists; never used by his Predecessor or his Chaplains, q introduced only by Papists at the first, in honour and adoration of their Breaden God upon the Altar; and enjoyned only by the rRoman Missal, Ceremonian, and Popish Canonists, as we have largely manifested: Therefore not to be justified or excused.

Thirdly, the Book of Common-Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England (the onely Directory what vestments, Ceremonies are to be used, confirmed by our Lawes) prescribes not any of these; warrants not but excludes the use of Copes upon any occasion: Our Homilies and writers of best rank condemn Copes, as Iewish, Popish, Paga∣nish, enjoyned only by the sRoman Ceremonial, and Pontifical, as we have proved, t Injunctions deeming them Popish: Yea the third Part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, hath this memorable passage concerning them, p. 72. And because the whole Pageant must thorowly be plaid, it is not enough thus to deck Images and Idols (with gold, silver, rich, wanton and proud apparel, tempting their paramours to wantonnesse) but at last come in the Priests themselves, likewise decked with gold and pearls, that they may be meet servants for such Lords and Ladies, and fit worshippers of such Gods and Goddesses; and with a solemn pace they passe forth before the golden Puppets, and fall down to the ground on their marrow-bones before the Honourable Idols: (and their gorgious Altars too) Therefore certainly it is impudency for him thus to introduce and justifie them against these Authorities. Now whereas the Archbishop pleads the 24 Canon, made in the yeer 1603. to warrant the use of Copes in his Chappel: we Answer first, That the Canon ex∣tends onely to Collegiat and Cathedral Churches, not Parochial, much lesse to Chappels: Therefore it can no wayes warrant, but condemns this use of Copes in his Chappel: Secondly, it enjoyns onely the chief Minister to use a decent Cope; not a gawdy one with Images, and rich embroidring upon it, such as his Copes were: Thirdly, this Canon was never binding to any, but meerly void in Law, being never confirmed by Parliament, and crossing both the Common Prayer Page  469 Book and Homilies ratified by Parliament: Therefore all these his Answers in justification of these Innovations, display his impudence to the world, in justifying such Popish Reliques as these.

The fourth kinde of Innovations charged against me in my Chappel are, u the * standing at gloria patri, bowing at the name of Iesus, not used in my Predeces∣sors dayes; the setting up of a new Organ, where there was formerly none, and the consecrating of Utensels, Altar-clothes, Flagons, with other Popish-furniture solemnly in a Cope, attested by Mr. Boadman and others, which are objected to be taken out of the Roman Missal, and Pontifical.

To which I give this Answer:

1. That the standing up at gloria patri, though not prescribed by any Canon, * or Rubrick of our Church, is of great Antiquity, and hath been commonly practised in our Churches.

2. That bowing at the name of Iesus, is a thing prescribed in direct termes by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, Num. 12. and the 18 Canon of our Church; there∣fore no Innovation nor offence.

3. That though there were no Organs there before my time, yet they being ap∣proved and generally used in our Church, there could be no Popery in them.

4. That the Consecration of Churches, Communion Tables, Altars, Chalices, Vestments is no fault, nor Innovation; for it is as ancient as Constantine the Great, and have been used in the Church of Christ ever since his time.

5. That such Consecrations are necessary, else the Lords Table could not be cal∣led holy, nor the Church holy, nor those vessels holy vessels, as they usually are: Yea, there is a Holinesse in the Altar, as Christ averreth, which consecrates the gold thereon: And the Statute of 5 and 6. Ed. 6. against quarrelling and fighting in Churches, proves, that they are holy places; and they could not be holy, un∣lesse first consecrated: As for the form of consecrating these vessels, I took it not out of Missale Romanum nor the Roman Pontifical, as is objected; but from Bi∣shop Andrews his Form, as learned, reverend, Orthodox Protestant a Prelate, as ever the Church of England bred.

To this was Replied: *

1. That it is confessed, there is neither Canon nor Rubrick enjoyning any to stand up at every rehearsal of gloria patri in time of Divine service; a most disor∣derly unnecessary and confused Ceremony, wherein men start up and quat down sodainly again, as if they were frighted out of their sleep: And we have proved, that it is enjoyned only by the xRoman Missal, no very good Directory for us Protestants; as for his pretended antiquity and customary usage of this Ceremony in our own and other Protestant Churches, it is meerly fabulous without any Au∣thority to warrant it, but his own asseveration.

2 That bowing at the name of Iesus, was originally introduced, prescribed by y Popes decrees, Popish Councels, Canonists, Writers, of purpose to justifie the adoration of Images and the consecrated Host; that it is no where enjoyned by our Common Prayer Book, Articles of Religion, Homilies, or Book of Ordi∣nation, the only Authentick binding Records of our Church, wherein all Rites and Ceremonies, to which we are bound by Law are prescribed, That the In∣junctions and Canons are no binding Lawes, and their Authority (had they ever any) long since expired, that some of the best Orthodoxest of our writers have professedly writen against this Ceremony, as Thomas Beacon, Dr. Whitaker, Dr. Willet, Dr. Ayry, and others, which was never pressed on any by our Prelates in their visitation Articles, nor generally used till of late, and now quite exploded as super∣stitious, and absurd: Yea, Dr. Featly and Sir Nathaniel Brent directly prove, that it was not used in Lambeth Chappel by his predecessor Abbot, or his Chaplains, servants.

3. For Organs, there were none in that Chappel before his time since the Reformation: Therefore an Innovation there. And though generally received and used in Cathedrals, yet all Authors agree it was a Pope, z(Ʋitalian by name) Page  470 first introduced the use of them into Christian Churches, and all know they are most in use only in Popish Churches beyond the seas.

Fourthly, for the Antiquity and lawfulnesse of consecrating Churches, we have already discussed, and shall further resute it in its due place; for the consecration of Altars, Flagons, Altar-clothes, and other Altar-furniture, the only thing here objected; we have proved the original and derivation of it, to be meerly from the Roman Missal and Pontifical, and from no better nor higher Antiquity: He pretends, but proves not, that he took his immediate president from Bishop An∣drews, a late deceased superstitious, if not Popish Prelate, how ever he applauds him: Therefore certainly from no Antiquity. But from whom did Bishop An∣drews take his patern? doubtlesse from the Roman Missal and Pontifical, since no other sampler can be produced. And are these a fit patern for a Protestant Bi∣shops imitation? As for his objected reason, that Altars, Churches, Flagons, &c. could not be called nor reputed Holy, unlesse thus solemnly consecrated: First, It is but a meer Nonsequitur, it being not any Bishops formal unwarrantable con∣secration, but the peoples appropriation of them to a sacred use that makes them holy, not inherently, but relatively only, with reference to the holy Ordinances therein administred, of which hereafter: For the Statute of 5 and 6. E. 6. c. 5. It hath been not one sillable in it in justification of the consecration of Churches, much lesse of Altars, Flagons, Altar-clothes and the like; neither doth it ever stile the Church or Churches holy, or a holy or consecrated place: nor could it well be so, in respect of their consecration only, they being Hallowed onely by Popish Prelates in times of Popery, with such Popish Reliques, Ceremonies, Chrisms, Exorcisms, Crossings, and washings with holy water, and since then exploded as superstitious and ridiculous: Therefore to justifie these consecrati∣ons from thence, is to make a conclusion without any premises to warrant it. Finally, he discovers a rotten Popish spirit, inclination in the highest degree, in pleading for, and justifying to the utmost such Popish consecrations against the expresse resolutions of our Orthodox b forecited Writers, Prelates, and his own learned predecessour Matthew Parker, who have so severely censured them as Popish, Iewish, and childish tryfles fit to be exploded.

Secondly, having ended with my Chappel at Lambeth, they next pursued me to * my study there.

Where, first they c charge me for having an English Bible with a Crucifix em∣broidered on the Cover of it.

To which I Answer, That I bought it not, but it was sent unto me by a Lady, * and the Crucifix it self is lawful, if there be no adoration of it; as appears by the Christians engraving of it on their Chalices in Tertullians dayes.

To which was replied: First, that his receiving and reserving of this Bible * with a Crucifix on the Cover, (which was so visible to his eyes, and lay upon his study Table) was as great an offence as if he had bought it: And no Lady durst have sent him such a present, had she not been assured of his good affection to such Popish Pictures.

Secondly, whereas he avers the Picture of the Crucifix to be lawful, so it be not adored: He herein expresly contradicts our d Homilies, to which he hath sub∣scribed, our Statutes, Injunctions, Authors forecited, yea, the judgement of all sound Antiquity. And if this Picture of Christ hanging still on the Crosse (as if he had never been taken down thence) be lawful, (as he avers with the Papists against all Orthodox Protestants) then it is lawful to make or reserve it either for a meer civill use to grace his study, or please his eye sight only; which cer∣tainly is an extream dishonour to, disparagement of our most blessed Saviour and his passion, who is e the holy One of God, transcending all civil uses being made for holy ends alone: or for a religious use, to stir up our devotion, and put us in remembrance of his death (which he hath purposely ordained his f word and Sacraments to do) which at best is superstition.

Page  471 Thirdly, the place of Tertullian (already quoted) proves not at all that the Christians had any Crucifixes or Pictures of Christ engraven on their Chalices; there is no such sillable in his writings, but only that the Hereticks against whom he writ, had the Picture of a lost sheep engraven on some of their Cups. And we hope there is a vast difference, between Hereticks and Orthodox Christians, the Picture of a lost sheep, and a Crucifix or Picture of Christ himself hanging on the Crosse.

The second thing charged against me in my study, is a (g) Book of Popish Pi∣ctures printed 1623. containing the Portratures of the Life, Passion, and Death of * our Lord Iesus Christ.

I Answer, that I kept it only as a Scholler, to peruse and refute it upon occasion, nor * to adore or make use of the Pictures in it.

To which was answered, that this Book was (as the Papists stile their Images) a meer ignorant Lay-mans, not a learned Archbishops Book, consisting meerly * of unlawful Pictures: Therefore he had it only to view, not read.

Secondly, his curious guilding of the Book and Pictures in it, argues, that he prized it more then ordinary to help him in his Devotions.

Thirdly, he was so far from refuting it, that he authorized those very Pictures to be reprinted in England, and bound up in our Bibles.

Fourthly, he had many small Popish guilded velome Pictures, curiously guilt inserted into this Book; a pregnant proof he very much doted on these Puppets in his declining age.

The third particular objected against me in my study, is h two large folio * Masse-books, and that I had noted one of them frequently with my hand: That I had likewise there the Roman Missal, Pontifical, and twenty two Popish hours of our Lady, Breviaries, Manuels, and Books of Popish devotion.

I Answer: First, that it is lawful for every learned man to have those Books to peruse and refute them, as there is occasion, there being no great Schollers * but have them in their studies for this end; for which cause alone I both read and noted one of them with my own hand, not out of any love to, or approbation of the Masse it self: And they may as aptly conclude that I am a Turk, because I have the Alcoran in my study; as that I am a Papist or Popishly affected, because I have the Masse-book. The same Answer I shall give to the other objected Books found in my study.

The Reply hereto was: First, that the meer having all or any of these Books * in his study, was no convincing argument of his affection and inclination to Po∣pery, no more then his keeping the Alcoran as a Schollar, proves him to be a Turk; neither was it so pressed by us, since many Protestants have them in their studies to peruse, refute; which is no offence, but laudable and necessary in some cases. But we have punctually proved all along, that he bought, perused, and noted them with his own hand; not by way of dislike or refutation, but appro∣bation, yea he pursued them strictly in practise and imitation, as far as the most su∣perstitious Popish Priests or Prelates did at Rome in most particulars.

Secondly, compare his having of these Books, with the extraordinary curious∣nesse and costlinesse of their binding, guilding; the Popish Images, Crucifixes in his study, Chappel, Gallery, and the rest of our following evidence; and then they are a very strong Argument, to prove him a professed Papist in affection, opinion, if not in practise too.

The last i objected thing found in my Library is, my private Prayers and Devotions written with my own hand, against which there are three exceptions: *

First, that some of these Prayers are extracted out of the Roman Missal, Ponti∣fical, Breviary, and hours of our Lady.

Secondly, that they are digested into Canonical hours of prayer after the Pa∣pists Model.

Thirdly, that I make mention of prostration in some of them.

Page  472 To which I return this general Answer: That this being only a Book for my * own private devotions and use alone, ought not to be charged against me. As to the objected particulars excepted against, I Answer: First, that if any such pray∣ers be taken out of the Missal, Pontifical, or Roman Breviary; yet they are de∣vout and pious in themselves, and there is no prayer to Saints or Angels in the Book: Thirdly, the Canonical hours of Prayer are of very great Antiquity in the Church: derived from holy King Davids practise, who said kSeven times a day will I praise thee, and was taken up and practised by Christians within two hundred years after Christ, and approved of in preces privatae, in Queen Eliza∣beths raign: Thirdly, that prostration in prayer is no crime, but commendable, and a signe of extraordinary humility; Christ himself using this gesture in his pray∣ers before his passion.

Hereunto the Commons Councel retorted in general, That his own private de∣votions did best of all serve to discover his secret intentions and inclinations; * therefore they were fit to be given in evidence, for this purpose. In particular: First, that his collecting of Prayers out of such Popish dunghils, when there were purer mines to dig in, was a symptome of a Romish inclination. And whereas he alleageth the matter of those prayers to be good; those we except against are for their very matter meerly superstitious: Secondly, that this justification of the Antiquity and lawfulnesse of Canonical hours of Prayer, was taken verba∣tim out of Mr. Cosens his hours of Prayer, formerly complained of in Parliament. That Canonical hours of Prayer, are no wayes warranted by Davids president, who speaks onely of Praise, not Prayer, and never digested his Psalms or Prayers into such Canonical houers, nor any other Saint in the Old Testament or New: The most exact patern of Prayer which Christ himself left both his Disciples and us to imitate, warrants no such practise: nay the Primitive Christians and true Anti∣quity never knew of any such Models of Prayer, digested into Canonical hours, which Popish monks first introduced, practised, prescribed: Neither did Queen Elizabeth approve of them as Dr. Cosens pretends in his hours of Prayer, whence the Archbishop borrowed this false answer; as l some who answered his Book by publique Authority have manifested to his shame: Thirdly, the Archbishop hath quite mistaken the last objection; which was not his prostration to God in Prayer, but, his prostration coram Altare, and dum Altari adsto, in honour and reverence of his idolized Altar: So that the charge rests still upon, and sticks faster to him then before, by this his justification.

Thirdly, From my study at Lambeth they pursued me to my Gallery there, * where they charge m three Pictures against me; to which I return this Answer.

That the first of them, which is the great one, was given me by a friend, and there can be no harm or Popery in it, being onely the Picture of Saint Ambrose,*Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the first, which may be lawfully made and reserved. That the two other Pictures were in the Gallery long before my time, and continued there in Archbishop Abbots, Bancrofts, and Whitgifts dayes; to prove which he produces Mr. Dobson his servant, who affirmed, that he saw these two latter Pictures in the Gallery in Archbishop Bancrofts time, where they con∣tinued ever since; and one of them is a Picture against Popery, to wit, of Christ, going into the sheepfold by the door, and of Popish Priests and Friers n clim∣bing into it by the window, like theeves and robbers: Besides, the Harmony of confessions of the reformed Churches, holds that Images are in themselves indif∣ferent, so as no adoration be given to them; yea, Mr. Calvin in the o place fore∣cited, is of the same opinion: And I have written against the adoration and su∣perstitious use of Images as fully as any man whatsoever: Therefore those Pictures can be no evidence of mine intention to bring in Popery.

To which was rejoyned: First, that we beleeve the first Picture was a present * sent unto him from Rome, where the workmanship of it shews it was made; and Page  473 therefore he did wisely to conceal his name, who bestowed it on him: That we did not except against the meer Pictures of those Fathers; but against the Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove hovering over their heads, and sending forth rayes and influences from his beak severally upon each of them; directly contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Writers, which condemn all such Pictures of the Holy Ghost, or any other persons of the Trinity.

Secondly, that one of the other Pictures was a most abominable Idol of Christ newly taken down from his Crosse all bloody, with shaven crown Priests, Friers, and Nunns, standing and kneeling round about him; which kinde of Pictures by our Lawes, Homilies, Injunctions resolutions (as we p have already proved) ought to be utterly demolished and not suffered in private Houses or Galleries, no more then in Churches or Chappels, The other was a Picture of Christ himself upon a ladder, not entring in at a door, with Monks and Friers only about him: and therefore as superstitious, Popish as the former, and not tolerable by our Lawes, es∣pecially in an Archbishops publique Gallary, where all sorts of strangers and vi∣sitors of quality were entertained; who by this example would be induced, if Protestants, to approve of such superstitious Pictures, and to procure the like by way of imitation; If Papists, would be thereby hardned, confirmed in their su∣perstition, and in giving them adoration, especially when they should behold the like Superstitious and Idolatrous Pictures, as well in his Chappel and study, as in his Gallary, where no such were in his predecessours dayes, but only broken and defaced ones. As for his predecessours having or leaving these two last Pi∣ctures to him, it is no justification, nor mitigation of his crime; their ill actions are no Apology at all for his, who repaired and beautified in his Chappel those very superstitious Images, which they demolished, and never durst repair.

Thirdly, whereas he produceth the Harmony of confessions of the Protestants Churches, for proof of the use and indifferency of these Images, so as they be not adored: He cites neither Section, nor Page, nor sentence therein to prove this as∣sertion, but we must take it on his own bare word; which how false it is, we shall prove by the words of the Harmony it self: Sect. 17. p. 401. Where the latter con∣fession of Helvetia, Cha. 17. determines thus. But yet notwithstanding we must admo∣nish men to take heed, that they count not among things indifferent; such as IN∣DEED ARE NOT INDIFFERENT, as some use to count the Masse, and THE USE OF IMAGES IN CHURCHES. This is the only passage we finde in the Harmony of confessions for the indifferency of Images or their use, which is point blank against him. And as for q Mr. Calvins forecited Text, it is as point blank against him, as this of the Harmony, as we have proved. Therefore this charge lies still heavy upon him in each particular, and bewrayes both his Popery and falsity in quotations.

Secondly, from Lambeth house, they next pursued me to White Hall, where these r particulars were charged against me: First, my own personal bowing * to the Altar: and my enjoyning of others his Majesties Chaplains to use it, when I was Dean of the Chappel: Secondly, the hanging up of a glorious large costly Arras Crucifix behinde the Altar, on passion week, in his Majesties own Chappel there, in the yeers 1636. and 1637. which gave great scandal and offence, as Sir Henry Mildmay attested: Thirdly, my making his Majesties Chappel a patern of imitation to all Cathedrals and other Churches: Fourthly, the practise of Dr. Brown, and two Seminary Priests, in bowing to the Altar and Crucifix there; with their speech to Mrs. Charnock.

To the first of these I Answer, that my bowing there was only to worship God, not the Altar, and I hope it is no offence nor treason to worship God in the Kings * own Chappel, or to induce others to do the like: The lawfulnesse of this worship towards the Altar, I have manifested at large in my sSpeech in Starchamber, and proved it by a Chapter order in the Black book of Windsor, which the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Garter yet observe and practise; therefore it is no Page  474 Popery, nor Popish Innovation, but a reverence fitting the place which the Homily for repairing and keeping clean Churches commands. And I pray God that under colour of casting superstition out of Churches, we bring not in prophanesse.

To the third I Answer, that I was not Dean of the Chappel, but Bishop Wren when this Crucifix was set up; that neither Sir Henry Mildmay, nor any other ever complained to me, that they were scandalized by this Crucifix: If Sir Henry took scandal meerly at the Crucifix it self, he must have taken scandal at that Cru∣cifix in the old hangings, which stood continually, behinde the Altar, as well as at this which was more costly; which since he did not, it seems, he took scandal only at the workmanship, not at the Crucifix it self, in this more costly peece.

(To the third he gave no Answer.)

To the fourth I Answer, that Dr. Browns act is nothing to me, he is old enough and must answer for himself: The same Answer I give to that of the Seminary Priests; only this I shall add, that perchance it might be an act of cunning in them, of purpose to discredit and discountenance all our external worship, of purpose to gain Proselytes to themselves.

To which was replied: First, that to worship God as we ought in the Kings Chappel, is no treason, nor offence; but this kinde of worshipping God there or else∣where * towards the Altar, is both t Popish, Superstitious, and Idolatrous: For by the Black-book of Windsor which he cites, it was introduced in the very darkest times of Popery in Henry the 5. his raign, or a little before: and that in modum virorum Ecclesiasticorum, a worship derived from Ecclesiastical persons, to wit, Popish Priests and Monks of that age: It was a worship joyntly given in one and the self same act and instant Deo & Altari, to God and the Altar, that is, in their interpretation, to the consecrated Host and breaden God (as they deemed it) on the Altar, and to the Altar it self: It was prescribed u only by Popish Canons, the Ro∣man Missal, Ceremonial, Pontifical, and introduced purposely to support their Errour of Transubstantiation at first, and now revived for that very purpose: as the Archbishop himself defines in his Starchamber Speech; who yields this reason, why we must how towards the Altar, not towards the Pulpit: For there tis, hoc est corpus meum, &c. And a greater reverence no doubt IS DUE TO THE BODY, then to the Word of the Lord: Therefore for him to introduce such an Ido∣latrous, Superstitious worship, as this into the Kings own Chappel contrary to the Word of God, and Law of the Land, under pretext of Gods worship, to cor∣rupt the King and his whole Court in their worship and Religion, and alienate his good Subjects affections from him, will prove little lesse then Treason in the highest degree: As for his pretended Speech, we x have already refuted it. And for the Homily, it hath neither word nor syllable to warrant it, but some thing against it, since as it condemns, prophanes, on the one hand, so it censures all superstition on the other; between which this Prelate would have no medium, as this his prayer imports.

Secondly, That the Archbishop was chief Superintendent of his Majesties Chap∣pel, as Primate and Metropolitan of all England. The King and Queen where ever they live in England, being his immediate Parishoners, and the whole King∣dom but his Parish; though devided into several Bishopricks, as hath been re∣solved by all the Nobles in King Henry the first his raign, as our Historians, and his * own Predecessour Archbishop Parker record: Therefore Bishop Wren being on∣ly Dean of the Kings Chappel, the Archbishops creature, and brought into that office by him, durst not have set up this gaudy Crucifix there, in the passion week, in his presence without his approbation and direction, by which he tacitly con∣fesseth it was done: That it gave publique scandal to many well-affected Courtiers, and others, Sir Henry Mildmay deposed, and particularly to himself, who com∣plained of it to the King, and the Archbishop too; who if his heart had been right and fervent to our Religion, would have been most scandalized, offended at this unusual scandalous sight, and never have permitted it successiively two yeers Page  475 together, nor justified it so peremptorily as now he did. And whereas he objects, that had Sir Henry been thus scandalized with the Crucifix it self, he would have been as much offended with the old, there constantly hanging, as with the new: We Answer, That the old was hardly visible and scarce observed by any; but this so grosse, so great, so gaudy and notorious, that every man in the Chappel took special notice thereof, as if it had been some new blasing Star. And if the old were so visible all the yeer long, what need the hanging up of this new one onely in the passion and Easter weeks, which was never used in the memory of man be∣fore? In fine the third Part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, resolves, that the most rich, costly, gaudy Images and Crucifixes, are more dangerous and scandalous, then others not so stately: therefore Sir Henry might well be scandalized with it, more then with the old one not so costly.

Thirdly, he gives no Answer to that which is one main charge from this Inno∣vation in the royal Chappel, to make it the patern, the Canon to regulate all Cathedral, and Parish Churches by. His silence herein bewrayes his guilt.

Fourthly, Dr. Browns, and those Seminaries adorations of this Crucifix and the Al∣tar, were but the meer scandalous fruits of his own exemplary Innovations before, and erections of them there; and their speeches occasioned by his actions. There∣fore the guilt of them must rest heaviest on himself, not them. It is his own oft iterated position, z That he who gives the occasion of a Schism ought to be repu•ed the Schismatick, not he that separates upon the occasion given: And Tertullian in his Book De Idolatria resolves, That the makers of Idols are the greatest Idolaters, because none would or could worship them, were they not first made that they might be worshipped: His own hanging of up this Crucifix and bowing towards the Altar, and it was the cause that Dr. Brown and these Se∣minary Priests adored and bowed towards them in the self some manner, as him∣self there used: Therefore the crime, the scandal of it, must rest most on himself. His pretence, that this might be done and spoken by the Priest, to gain Prose∣lytes, by discountenancing our external worship, is a very strange improbable whimsey, since our Bishops, our Doctors imitation of their Popish worshipping Crucifixes, Altars, was more likely ten thousand to one; to gain them Prose∣lytes, then any discountenancing whatsoever thereof by them could be; yea, it had been a monstrous contradiction and folly in them, to discountenance that very thing themselves practised and endeavoured to draw others to: Therefore the whole weight of this heavy charge concerning his Majesties Chappel, rests intirely upon him in each particular, without the least diminution.

Thirdly, from White-hall they pursued me to the Kings Coronation at Westmin∣ster Abbey,a where they charge me. *

• 1. With compiling the Form of this Coronation.
• 2. That the unction was in forma crucis.
• 3. That the old Crucifix, inter regalia, was set upon the Altar.
• 4. That divers of the Prayers in it, and this manner of anointing, were taken ver∣batim out of the Roman Pontifical.
• 5. That after the Coronation, I solemnly offered the Regalia at the Altar in the Kings name.

Ans. To which I shall give this Answer:

1. That the Form of the Kings Coronation was made and agreed on by the * whole Committee, according to a former Book I had of my Predecessor; and I was but a Minister to the Committee in what I did.

2. That the anointing in Form of a Crosse was made by my Predecessor, not by me, who supplied only the place of the Dean of Westminster.

3. That I was commanded to bring this old Crucifix, being inter regalia, and to place it on the Altar.

4. That admit the Prayer objected, be taken out of the Roman Pontifical; yet if it be good as it is, there is no hurt: we know the story of the cock in the fable, Page  476dum vertit stercorarium offendit gommam: And a Pearl is never the worse if raked out of a dunghil.

5. I was to offer the regalia at the Altar by my place, and the Book of Com∣mon Prayer approves of offerings.

To which was Replied:

1. That it appears by his own Diary, that he had the chief hand in compiling * this Form, and that it was collected, corrected by himself, though other Bishops were joyned in consultation with him.

2. That though the Unction were made by his Predecessor, which he makes not appear; yet it was principally by his direction, and himself makes special mention of it, That it was in medum Crucis, in the Margent of his Book.

3. That he makes no command appear from any Supream Authority for his placing the old Crucifix on the Altar, neither doth he alleadge who it was that gave him any such command: Therefore it must be interpreted his own volunta∣ry act.

4. That the Prayer it self is not very good, savouring of Papal pride in the Clergy; and it is no such precious Pearl, as that he needed to rake such a dunghil of Popish superstitions as the Roman Pontifical is, to finde it out to adorn his Ma∣jesties royal Diadem with at his Coronation.

5. He proves not, that it was his duty thus to offer up the regalia at the Altar, yea, the Form of the Kings Coronation found in his own study, enjoyned it not, and he pretends no command at all for it: Therefore it was his own spontaneous act; as for the Common Prayer Book, surely it prescribes neither this, nor any other solemn oblation at all at an Altar: And so this charge remains unavoyded.

Fourthly, from Westminster they proceed to the b Universities, first of Oxford, where I was Chancellor, next of Cambridge: In Oxford they object: *

1. That there were some old Crucifixes repaired, and divers new ones erected in divers Colledges there, since I became Chancellour of the University, whereas there were none before my time.

2. That Communion Tables were railed in Altarwise and bowed to, which they were not before.

3. That I enjoyned all Schollers by a University Statute and Oath to give due reverence, and bow to the Communion Table, and that my Letter required bow∣ing and prostation before the Altar.

4. That my visitor at Merton Colledge enjoyned the Fellows and Schollers there to bow to the Lords Table, and questioned Mr. Chainel, and Mr. Corbet for not bowing.

5. That they used Copes in some Colledges, which they did not before.

6. That there was a very scandalous Statue of the Virgin Mary with Christ in her Arms, set up in the front of the New Church porch of St. Maries next the street, to which Mr. Nixon deposeth he saw one bow, and another pray.

7. That I enjoyned Latin Prayers all the Lent, not used before my Chancellor∣ship, since the Reformation.

8. That I enjoyned by a Statute all Regent Masters, to reade and sing what should be prescribed them in solemn Processions.

I Answer:

1. That there is no proof at all, that I knew of the repairing and setting up of * these Crucifixes, or that any complained of them to me. That the Crucifix in Lin∣coln Colledge was set up by the Bishop of Lincoln, and it would have been thought hard, if I should have opposed it.

2. That the turning and rayling in of the Tables Altarwise is warranted by the Queens Injunctions, as I have proved.

3. That the Statute enjoyne only due reverence when they come to offer at the Lords Table, and that my Letter implies a bowing or prostration only, according to the 95 Psalm.

Page  469 4. That Sir John Lamb only questioned Master Chainel, and Master Corbet, which is nothing to me; and Doctor Frewens words are but a hear-say, besides, they were not punished for not doing it.

5. That Copes are warrantable by the 24 Canon.

6. That the Statue at St. Maries was set up by Dr. Owen, reputed a reverend Orthodox Divine, not by me, nor is there any proof I had notice of it, or of any bowing or praying to it, which might be a mistake in Alderman Nixon.

7. That Latin prayers have been anciently used in the University on Ashwednes∣day, and being among Schollers who understand the Language, there can be no hurt therein.

8. That no Processions are intended in the Statute, but such as our Law al∣lows in nature of perambulations, the Statutes of the University prescribing, That nothing shall be done therein but according to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England.

9. For the Innovations of like nature in the Vniversity of Cambridge, they concern me not, I being not their Chancellor, and not enjoyning them, nor made acquainted with them.

Whereunto was Replied:

1. That all those Crucifixes were erected at Oxford, since he became Chancellor * of it: That his own example in his Chappels at Lambeth and Croyden, where he repaired the old broken Crucifixes at his own cost, were the primary occasions of setting up those in Oxford, by way of imitation. That he could not choose but take notice of them being himself several times at Oxford in person, where he enter∣tained the King, Queen, Prince, and Prince Elector, sundry dayes: Besides, having constant weekly intelligence by Letters, and recourse of Schollers of all sorts to him from the University, who acquainted him with all particulars there transa∣cted, he could not but take notice, and have exact knowledge of them: And he being both Chancellor and Visitor of the University, his not hindring of their set∣ting up at first, not pulling them down, when set up contrary to our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, was in Law both a commanding and approving of them. Nam qui non prohibet malum quod potest, jubet. That none complained to him of them, was his own fault; since none durst complain against that then, as a crime, which himself first practised in his own Chappels, as a commendable action. His Answer to the Crucifix erected in Lincoln Colledge proves clearly he had know∣ledge of it; and truly it could not have been well taken at his hands to pull that down according to Law, unlesse he had pulled them down first in other Colledges, and his own Chappel, the Bishop of Lincoln perchance setting it up, onely to humour his Grace, and manifest to the world, he was but his Ape in this particular.

2. We have already refuted his second Answer as false, and therefore shall re∣peat nothing here.

3. That this due reverence, was interpreted by himself in his Speech in Star∣chamber, to be a bowing to the Altar or Lords Table: For (saith he) THERE IS A REVERENCE DUE TO IT: Namely, of bowing the body, not onely towards, but to the Altar, DEO ET ALT ARI EJƲS, in the dative case, and prostration, not simply to God, but CORAM ALT ARE DEI & Christi ejus, is prescribed by his Letter, as much worship as the Di∣vel himself required of our Saviour, Luk. 4. 7. Si adoraveris CORAM ME; as the vulgar Latin, or fall down BEFORE ME, as the Margin of our Eng∣lish Bibles render it; whereas the 95 Psalm, requires no worshipping and fal∣ling down thus before an Altar, but before the Lord our Maker only, without any mention of an Altar or Lords Table in the Psalm.

4. His Visitors act in questioning those Fellows for not bowing, was his own, and must concern him, since he did it only in his name and right by his Commissi∣on, in pursuit of his Injunctions: and Dr. Frewens words are expresse, that the Archbishop sent him to Master Corbet, when Proctor, requiring and pressing him in Page  478 his name to bow to the Altar in regard of his place, else it would be ill taken. And though these fellows were not punished nor suspended for not bowing, yet they were often questioned, menaced, forced to obscure themselves, and desert the Colledge for a time, and had not the Scottish Troubles intervened, would have been severely punished too.

5. Copes in Colledges, are neither within the words nor meaning of the 24 Canon.

6. Neither the Church-porch, nor statue at St. Maries being the University Church, could or would have been erected there by Dr. Owen, without the Arch∣bishops special licence being Chancellour, and supream Visitor there, as Arch∣bishop, as himself both pretended, pleaded; and he must needs not only hear of, but see it too, when he was in Oxford. Therefore the blame thereof must be his alone: As for the bowing and praying to it, Mr. Nixon swears it directly, and was not mistaken, as he would surmise to excuse the odiousnesse of this new erected Oxford Idol, which gave such publike scandal.

7. Its true that Latin Prayers on Ashwednesday onely, were formerly used in Oxford before the Batchellors of Art, but he enjoyned such Prayers all the Lent long in stead of English, which was never done before, to usher in Latin Service by degrees in an unknown tongue, divers Townsmen resorting to the English Prayers in Lent, who could not understand these new Latin ones which he in∣troduced.

8. This Statute enjoyning reading and chanting in solemn Processions, was made in time of Popery, and Popish processions, and renewed in these New Sta∣tutes made by this Archbishop. Therefore certainly meant of such processions not of perambulations only, which are not used by the University: And the objected sub∣sequent Statute, is but a blinde to delude the simple for the present; the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church (in the Vniversities judgement) being only written in his brest, cquo rectior non stat regula, quo prior est corrigenda Religio, as they write unto him in their Letter of November 9. 1640. the last recorded in their Register.

9. Whereas he would assoil himself from the Popish Innovations in Cambridge Vniversity, the guilt of them must originally rest on him alone, for these reasons.

1. Because they were introduced by his instruments, favourites, creatures there advanced by him: as Dr. Martin, Dr. Cosens, Dr. Beal, Dr. Lany, Dr. Stern.

2. Introduced in imitation of those Crucifixes, Images, Copes, Altar-furniture, Genuflexions, which himself had introduced at Lambeth Chappel, to which they were subsequent, not antecedent.

3. Because though he was not Chancellor, yet he pretended to be Visitor of this Vniversity, and that of Oxford too, as he was Archbishop of Canterbury, and pro∣cured a solemn Decree and Patent for it, to himself and his successors: Therefore since he did not prohibit, correct, suppresse them as Visitor, according to Law and duty, they will prove his proper Innovations; the rather because he permitted, countenanced, nay enjoyned the like at Oxford by new Statutes, where he was both Visitor and Chancellor, which was never done in Cambridge: That he should have no notice of those Popish Innovations there, which were so notori∣ous to all the Kingdom, so publikely spoken of in every place, when as he had constant weekly intelligence from thence (as appears by sundry Letters) of all trans∣actions there, and was so conversant with the chief Authors of them, is not only im∣probable, but impossible: Therefore he still lyes under the guilt of this intire charge concerning the Popish Innovations in our Vniversities.

Fifthly, from the Vniversities, I was next traced to Cathedrals, and Collegiat Churches, where I am charged with introducing, enjoyning sundry Innovations * tending to Popery by my visitors, Injunctions, and new Cathedral Statutes: As *

• 1. Copes.
• 2. Altars, some of them made of Marble stone.
Page  479
• 3. Turning and railing in Communion Tables Altar wise.
• 4. Bowing to and towards the Altar and Lords Table, which I enjoyned to sundry Cathedrals by new Statutes, as namely to the Cathedralists of Canterbury (as Dr. Jackson and Dr. Bletchenden deposed) and divers others.
• 5. Crucifixes and Images.
• 6. Candlesticks, Basons, Altar-clothes, with other Altar Ornaments; and they instanced in sundry particular Cathedrals, as Canterbury, Gloncester, Durham, Winchester, Chichester, Hereford, Worcester; where these Innovations were introdu∣ced by my Injunctions and new Statutes, to make way for them in Parish Churches, who must imitate these their Mother Churches.

To the first of these I Answer, that the use of Copes in Cathedral and Collegiat Churches, is enjoyned by the 24 Canon made in Convocation, An. 1603. therefore * it was lawful, and no Popish Innovation for me to enjoyn them, as I have former∣ly proved.

To the second, that Altars, both the name and thing, were in use among the Pri∣mitive Christians and Churches, who were far from Popery, and long before it; yea, are found both in the Old and New Testament; as divers learned men have large∣ly proved.

To the third, that my Injunctions for rayling in of Altars, and Lords Tables Altarwise, with the sides against the East wall of the Quire, is consonant to the Queens Injunctions, to the practise of approved Antiquity, all Altars and Lords Tables being generally so placed in Churches in ancient times, both in this and other Churches of Christendom, as well East as West; and that there is no matter of Popery in placing and rayling in Lords Tables in this manner, as I have proved at large in my printed Speech in Starchamber.

To the fourth, that I did in the very Statutes for the Cathedral-church of Can∣terbury, and others, enjoyn the Prebends and Members of the Cathedral, eSum∣ma reverentia adorare Deum versus Altare; which bowing to worship God to∣wards the Altar, as Dr. Bletchenden attested upon oath, was used before the new Statutes of Canterbury were made, yea, approved, practised by Dr. Jackson him∣self, as readily as by any other Prebends, who hath given a greater testimony against himself, then me: After which he produced his Secretary Mr. Dell, to te∣stifie without oath, that in the perusal of the old Statutes for the Cathedral of Can∣terbury, divers superstitions were put out by the Archbishop, and by name, Pray∣er for the soul of King Henry the 8. after his decease. Then he concluded his An∣swer thus, That the 95 Psalm did command this kinde of bowing at our entrance into the Church, and that the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Garter were bound by a Chapter-Order, to bow to God towards the Altar, when they offered at it in their solemnities, and did still practise it without guilt or suspition of Po∣pery: Therefore himself might use, enjoyn, and others practise it, without any guilt of Popery at all, as well as they.

To the fifth, that Crucifixes and Images were not simply unlawful, being used in the Kings own Chappel: That Images in Churches had been long in use, even in Constantine the Great his Raign, and long before; therefore no Popery could be couched in them.

To the sixth, that those are no other then what the King used in his own Chap∣ple, and had been long time used in the Church for greater Ornament, lustre, it being a disparagement to our Religion, to have God served slovenly and meanly, as many desired he should be, under pretence of shunning superstition.

To this was Replyed:

1. That neither our Common Prayer Book, nor Book of Ordination, nor Ho∣milies * confirmed by Parliament (the only Canons in force to direct us) nor Queen Elizabeths Injunctions in the first year of Her Raign, enjoyn any Copes in Cathe∣drals, more then in other Churches, but condemn, seclude them alike out of all our Churches, and that the last Common Prayer Book in King Edwards dayes, Page  476 expresly prohibits them: Therefore the 24 Canon (which was never any binding Law confirmed by Parliament, and expired with King Iames, if not before) can be no warrant for their use.

2. That the 24 Canon, enjoyns onely the chief Minister to wear a Cope, and that but at the administration of the Sacrament, not at any other season: But the Archbishop contrary to the Canon, en∣joyned Cathedrals to provide divers Copes, at least four a peece, and prescribed them to be worn, as well when the Sacrament was not administred, as when it was, and that by others, beside the chief Mi∣nisters: Therefore he exceeded the Canon it self.

3. None of his Predecessors in their visitation Articles, or Injun∣ctions, ever prescribed, exacted the providing or wearing of Copes in Cathedrals, but himself alone, and in many Cathedrals they had never any Copes at all, in others but mean ones, as appears by the Abstract of his visitation, under his visitors hand, found in his stu∣dy; yet notwithstanding he enjoyned the providing of new, better and costlier Copes to their great cost, in imitation of the Roman Pon∣tifical, that so they might be like Romish Cathedrals in forraign parts. This allegation therefore of his will not excuse him.

Secondly, we grant, that the name of Altars, together with the thing, are frequent in the Old Testament, to offer Sacrifices and burnt of∣ferings upon, which were but * types and shadows of Christs real Sacrifice for us on the Crosse, needing no iteration, yea, not to be iterated without blasphemy, Hebrew. 7. 27. cap. 9. 26, 27, 28. All Al∣tars therefore vanished at his death as meer Iewish types and Ceremo∣nies; wherefore though in the New Testament, we finde the name of an Altar, yea, thing it self with reference to the f Iewish Altars and Paganish Idolaters onely, yet we never finde the name Altar in any text given to the Lords Table; but Altars, and Priests serving at the Altar, are put in contradistinction to the Lords Table, and Mini∣sters of the Gospel, 1 Corinth. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. to 21. Hebr. 7. 12, 13, 14. Christ him self celebrated, instituted the Sacrament onely at a Table, not Altar, yea, he called it a Supper (which is to be eaten at a Table) not a Sacrifice to be offered at an Altar, Luk. 22. 30. Ioh. 12. 2. 1 Cor. 10. 22. And it is as evident as the Sun at noon-day, by the expresse testimonies of Origen, Contra. Celsum. lib. 4. and 7. Minu∣cius Felix, his Octavius, Cyprian, Contra. Demetriadem, Cyrillus Alex∣andrinus, Contra Julianum. lib. 9. Arnobius Contra Gentes, lib. 6. Lactantius de vero cultu. Cap. 24. (who all lived within 300 yeers of Christ) which Bishop Morton proves at large in his Institution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. London, 1635. lib. 6. c. 3. p. 417, 418, 419, and c. 5. p. 461, to 495. By the current sufferage of the third part of the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, p. 44. (ratified by the 35. Art. of Page  481Religion, to which all Ministers by the Statute of 13. Eliz. c. 12. are to subscribe) Bishop Iewell in his Defence of the Apology, Artic. 3. Divis. 26. p. 145. Thomas Beacon in his Reliques of Rome, Tit. of Gods Church f. 322. Mr. Calfehill his An∣swer to Marshall f. 31. 32. King Edward the 6. and his whole Councell in Mr. Fox Acts and Monuments, p. 1211. with sundry other of our owne Authorized Wri∣ters, That the Primitive Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ, had no Al∣tars at all, but only Lords Tables: Pope Sixtus the second, first introducing Altars into the Church, and that the Fathers which succeeded them, deemed Christ himselfe and his Crosse the only Altar meant and intended. Hebr. 13. 10. which Bi∣shop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 3. p. 417 418 419. &c. 5. p. 461. to 465. fully proves. Therefore the Archbishops bold assertion, that the Scriptures, Fathers, and primitive, Christians practise, Iustifie both the Antiquity use and lawfullnesse of Altars, is a most grosse untruth, though averred by his Creatures Dr. Heylin, & Dr. Pocklington in their late Popish Bookes published by his direction. As for our Church, state in the beginning of Reformation, they were so far from allowing Altars, that they gexplo∣ded, abolished both the name and thing out of our Common Prayer Booke, Articles, Ho∣milies, Statutes, yea by publique Lawes and Injunctions commanded the Altars in all Churches whatsoever to betaken away and removed as Superstitions, Popish, unfit to be tolerated in any kinds, and set up Lords Tables in their stead, which conti∣nued ever since till this Archbishop turned many of them into Altars, to intro∣duce the Popish Sacrifice of the Masse againe.

Thirdly, The Rayling in and placing of Communion Tables Altarwise against the VVall, like a Dresser, or side Table is not consonant to Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, which require the Communion Table (not to be fixed to the Wall or rayled in close prisoner against it; but) to be removed, when ever the Sacrament as distributed, and placed in such sort within the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently board of the communicants in his prayer and administra∣tion, & the communicants may more conveniently, & in greater number communicate with him. If then it were to be thus removed and placed conveniently from time to time, then not to be constantly fixed, impounded Altarwise against the East Wall of the Quire, remotest from the people: but seated in the Body of the Church (where the Chancell is too small or inconvenient) or in the Chancell (where it is capacious) neare the midst, as the Rubrick of the Common prayer Booke; and the 82. Canon Anno 1603. determine.

But the Archbishop objects, that the Injunctions prescribe the Communion * Table in every Church shall be set in the place where the Altar stood.

True; Now (saith he) the Altar (in every Church) stood at the upper end of the Quire, North and South, as appeares by the practise of the Church.

This we deny as most false: Therefore his conclusion from the Injunction; *That the Table in all Churches ought thus to be placed North and South, at the up∣per end of the Quire, is a meer inconsequent. To refute this grosse dotage of his, and display his learned superstitious Ignorance to the world, least any should be deluded with a fond opinion of his great learning, we confidently affirme, that he neither doth nor can produce so much as one President or Authority in all Antiquity, but only his owne groundlesse confidence, to justifie his assertion. On the contrary we shall offer some few punctuall arguments, presidents, Authorities undeniably manifesting, that Altars and Lords Tables anciently, not only among Pagans and Iewes but 〈…〉 the Primitive Christians and learned Papists themselves▪ were not rayled in North & South against the East end of their Quires, but seated in or neare the midst of their Churches or Quires, that all the people might sit, stand, and go round about them:

Not to trouble you with proofes beyond contradiction of the Situation of i Pa¦gan and Iewish Altars in such sort, that the Priests and people might goe, stand, and dance round about them. We shall insist only hath the placing of Christian Page  482 Altars and Lords Tables in this posture. That these were thus generally placed in all Churches, will appeare by these infallible Arguments.

First, from the very defintion of a Quire, which Isidor Hispalensis Orig. l. 6. c. 19. ••banus Maurus, de Universo. l. 5. c. 9. & de Iustit Clericarum l. 1. c. 33. Amalarius Fortunatus, de Ecclesi Officijs l. 3. c. 3. Durandus Rational. Divin: l. 1. c. 1. num: 18. Durantus De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1 c. 17 •um. 1. Barthol•maus Gavantus Com∣ment: in Rubricas Miss. p•rs. 1. Tit. 15. sect. 2. Servius in Virgilium Ae•id. l. 6. Cale∣pine, Galvin, Eliot, Molicks in their Lexicons and Dictionaries Tit. Chorus; and o∣thers thus unanimously define; Chorus est multitudo in sacris collecta, & dictus Cho∣rus, quod intitio IN MODVMCORONAECJRCA ARAS STARENT & ita psaller•ut. If then Quires had their denomination, From the multitudes standing ROVND ABOVT THE ALTARS IN A RING or Circle and so singing; then Altars certainly in the Primitive times were not rayled in against the Wall, as of late they were, but placed in the midst of the Quire in such sort, that all the people might stand and go round about them singing.

The 2d. Argument is drown from the formes of Prayers in ancient Liturgies and Missalls, wherein the Priest standing at the Altar usually prayed. Pro omni∣bus his CIRCVMSTANTJBVS; and makes frequent mention Omnium CIR∣CVMSTANTIƲM M••ui tibi hoc Sacrificium landis offerunt, For proofe whereof you may consult at leisure, Canon Miss, in Cassandri Lyturgica p. 21. 25. 61. 62. 65 66. 72. 94. Romri•s in 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 66. Durandus Rationale Divinorum. l. 4. c. 53. and Mr. Fox in his Acts and Monuments, Edit. ult. vol. 3. p. 3. 11. Hence our old kSa•en Canons prohibited a Priest to celebrate Masse alone, upon this ground: Esse •nim debent qui ei CIRCVMSTENT, quoe ille salutet, a quibus ei respon∣dantur, & 〈…〉 illi 〈◊〉 est ille Dominiens Sermo, ubi cun{que} fuerint, duo vel tres in nomine 〈…〉 illic sum & ego IN MEDJO EORVM. which is taken out of Gregory. lib. Capitul. c. 7. seconded by Regine De Eccles. Officijs. c. •9. and Cassandre Liturgica•. 33. p. 8. Hence Gerardus Lerithicus de Missa Puel preroganda, resolves thus, Ne{que} Canon [Missa] debet nimium tacitè legi, sed expressa voce, ut a CIRCVMSTANTIBVS posst ••diri & percipi, cum CIR∣CVMSTANTES 〈…〉 singular respondere, Amen. Now that all the people usually stood 〈◊〉 about the Altar in St. Chrysostomes daies is evident by two passages in his Operum Tom. 4. Edit. 〈◊〉 Ducaei p. 82. 83. De Sa∣•erdotio l. 3 & 6. where thus he writes: O miracle! He who sits at his Fathers right hand, is at that very instant of time handled with the hands of all [in the Sacrament of the Lords Table] and this is done, not by any juglings, sed apertis & circumspicien∣tibus CIRCVMSTANTJVM OMNIVM O•VLIS, &c. Multitudinem as∣pexisse Altare ipsum CJRCVMST ANTIVM and by his Homil. in Jsai 6. where he writes thus. D•st thou not think that the Angels, stand Round about this dread∣full TABLE and COMPASSE IT ABOVT ON EVERY SIDE? So A∣thanasius in the life of Anthony makes •••tion of Altar• Domini multorum 〈◊〉 CJRCVM•ATVM, & Gregory Na•••nzen. Oratio 21. blames such who intruded themselves unto the holy Misteries with 〈◊〉 hands; & CIRCVM SACRAMMENS 〈…〉 &c. All which, compared with that of the •. * Councel of Constantinople Act. 1. That whiles the Dip•icks were rea∣ding, the people with silence draw together ROVND ABOVT THE ALTAR, and gave •are. Are infallible proofes, that Altars and Lords Tables in the Primitive times, and anciently in Popish Churches where generally so placed that all the people STOOD or might stand ROVND, ABOVT THEM. Therefore not rayled in Altarwayes against the Wall.

The 3d. Argument it taken from the 〈◊〉, of the Priests and Deacons going round about the Altar when they approached to it, and standing round about it when they officiated. In the Lyturgy attributed to St. Peter in the Lyturgy of Saint Iames, in the Lyturgie attributed to St. Basil and St. Cryso••oma in the Aetheo∣p•••, 〈…〉 Missalls, and the Missall of the Christians a∣mongPage  483the Indians, the Priest when he approacheth to the Altar to officiate begins with this sentence of the Psalmist, I will wash my hands in Jnnocency, and so will I, COMPASSE, or go ROVND ABOVT THINE ALTAR. And in the ancient Roman Order in Cassanders works p. 101. 102. 107. 112. 118. 119. I find these pas∣sages, that Bishops when they officiated usually went round about the Altar, and the Sub-Deacons stood behind it, Tunc Acolyti vadunt dextra laeva{que}, post Episco∣pu CIRCA ALTARE. Subdiaconi finito officio vadunt RETRO ALTARE, aspicientes Pontificem stantes erecti, &c. Dionysius Areopagita hath this passage, Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. CIRCVMSTANT autem eum soli cum Sacerdotibus Mini∣stri selecti. And Jsiodor Hispalensis de Ecclesiast. Officijs l. 2. c. 8. with lConcilium Aquisgran: sub Ludovico Pi•, testify: That Deacons heretofore CIRCA ARAM CHRISTI, quasi columnae Altaris assistere it. Most convincing proofes, that Altars generally in all Churches stood a great distance from the Wall, and were not Rayled in Altarwise against it but placed so that the Bishops, Priests, Decons, might go and stand round about and behinde them.

The 4th. Argument is deduced from the manner and forme of Bishops con∣secrating Altars prescribed, used even among the Papists themselves in ancient and late times Durandus in his Rationale Divinorum l. 1. c. 7. num. 15. informes us, that the Bishop when he consecrates any new Altar, Septies ALTARE CIR∣CVIT goes Round about it seaven times, to signifie, that he ought to take care for all, and be vigilant for all, which is signified per CIRCVITVM, by this his go∣ing round about it; which he could not do were it railed in against the Wall, and not set some competent distance from it. In the mRoman Pontificall, we finde the Bishop when he consecrates an Altar, is to go round about it severall times, Pontifex CIRCVIT TER ALTARE ad dextram; CIRCVIT iterum semel Altare ad dextram, CIRCVIT semel Altare ad sinistram. Pontifex CIRCVIT Septies Tabulam Altaris, aspergens eam, &c. CIPCVIT ter Altare: CIRCVIT semel Altare: An unanswerable evidence, that even among the Papists them∣selves, the Atars anciently stood generally in all places, not Altarwise against the Wall, as our Communion Tables were lately placed but a good distance from it, neare the mid'st of the Church or Quire, that the Bishops, Priests, People might stand and walke round about them.

2ly. We shall manifest it by expresse Authorities; not to mention any al∣ready cited, which are punctuall, St. Augustine de verbo Domini secundum Ioan∣nem Serm. 42 saith; Christus quotidie pascit, Mensa ipsius est illa IN MEDIO constituta. Yea Durandus Rationale Divinorum l. 1. c. 2. num. 15. writes thus. By the Altar out heart is signified, which is in the Middest of the body, as the Altar is in the middest of the Church, And lib. 5. he gives this reason why the Priest turneth himselfe about at the Altar, to wit, to fullfill this Scripture, IN ME∣DIO ECCLESIAE aperui os meum.nGentianus Hervetus, &oGenebrard de∣scribing the manner of the Greek Church at this day, expresseth it thus, In Grae∣corum Templis unum tantum est Altare, idque IN MEDIO CHORO, aut Pres∣byterio. From these and the forecited authorities, both forraigne and our owne Domesticke Divines of chiefest note resolve expresly, That the Lords Tables and Altars in the primitive times, till privat Masses were lately introduced, stood in the middest of the Quire, Church, People, who came round about them not at, the East end of the Quire, as of late they were placed. This is in terminis, affirmed by Hos∣pinian; De Origine Altarium. c. 6. p. 135. by learned Phillip de Mar•ix Tableau des Differens part 5. c. 6. p. 307. by the incomperable Lord Mornay, De Missa, l. 2. c. 1. p. 177. by eminent Peter Du Moulin, in his Nauvante du Papisme Contr. 11. c. 17. 18. p. 1022 1026. and sundry other forraigne Protestants: with whom our owne Divines accord: we shall •ite some few of their words very briefly.

In the yeare 1533 There was a short Treatise concerning the Lords Supper, written (as is supposed) by our learned Martyr Mr. William Tyndall, printed with his workes cum privilegio, p. 476. 477. wherein he prescribes; that the BreadPage  484and Wine should be set before the People IN THE FACE OF THE CHVRCH upon the Lords Table, and that the Congregation should sit ROVND ABOVT IT according to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles times. Learned Martin Bucer (sometimes Regins Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Cambridge in King Edward the 6. his Raigne) in his pCensure of our English Liturgie writes thus. Jt appeares by the formes of the most ancient Temples, and Writings of the Fa∣thers, that the Clergy stood in the MIDDEST of the TEMPLES, which were for the most part round, and out of that place did so administer the Sacrament to the People, that they might plainly heare and understand the things there recited by them Eminent Bishop Jewell q one of Queen Elizabeths Visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne when the Jnjunctions were made who had a principall hand in abo∣lishing our Altars and placing Communion Tables as they formerly stood; in his Authorised workes.) enjoyned to bee had and read in every Church; (af∣firmes and proves at large in rsundry places by pregnant Authorities and rea∣sons, That the Holy Table and Altar in and among the primitive Christians and Fathers was not made of stone but wood; and stood Not at the end of the Quire, but in the Middest of the Church among the People who came round about it & that it ought to be so placed; producing the Authorities of Eusebius, Augustine, Durand, the Councell of Constantinople, and others to prove it. Doctor Gervase Babing∣ton, Bishop of Worcester, in his comfortable Notes upon Exodus. c. 22. & 27. p. 275 (in his folio workes) writes and proves expresly: That the Apostles and Primi∣tive Fathers and Christians: had no Altars but Communion Tables only; made not of Stone, but boards, and removeable. SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL. Our laborious Dr. William Fulke in his Answer of a true Christian to a counterfeit Catholike London 1577. Article 15. p. 55. 56. in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament. Notes on 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. and in his Defence against Grego∣ry Martin: c. 17. affirmes in direct words; that the Altar and Lords Table anci∣ently stood In the middest of the Quire or Church, so at the Ministers, Deacons, and people might Stand round about it, and not against a Wall as your Popish Al∣tars now stand, as is easiy to prove, and hath often times bin proved, and it seemes you confesse as much. But so they cannot stand about your Altars, except some of them stand on the top of the Wall, or in the Window: and Mr. Cartwright in his Notes on the Rhemish Testament on the 1 Cor. 11. Sect. 18. writes, That in the premitive Church, the Lords Table was situated IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH AND PEOPLE, not against a Wall. Dr. Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9th. Generall controversie, Quest. 6. Error 53. p 496. expostulates thus with the Papists for placing their Altars at the end of the Quire, contrary to Anti∣quity. Why bring they not their Altars down to the BODY OF THE CHVRCH? we see no reason why the Communion Table may not be set In the body of the Church as well as in the Chancell, if the place be more convenient and fit to receive the Com∣municants. Learned Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament. Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5 Sect. 15. p. 462 writes, That the Table of the Lord anciently stood in the middest of the Chancell, So that they might Compasse it round; which he proves by Eusebius, Dionysius Areopagita, Chrysostome, Athanasins, Augustin, Lindan, and Dr. Fulke; yea Dr. Williams late Bishop of Lincolne now of Yorke, in his Holy Table Name, and thing asserts and proves the same at large for which this Arch-Pre ate fell foule upon him in the latter end of his Speech in Star∣chamber; If then all these Testimonies may be credited before the Archbishops bare affirmation, neither Altars nor Lords Tables anciently stood Altarwise, North, & South against the East end of the Quire in our own or other Churches, as he falsely avers they did. 3ly. We shall evidence this by Presidents abroad & at home. For forraiegn Presidents. In the famous Church of Tyre which surpassed all others in Phaenici•, for its splendor built in the time of Constantine the Great the Altar was placed in the MIDDEST; as Eusebius, Ecclesia. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. records in Page  485 expresse termes. Altari{que} deni{que} tanquam Sancto Sanctorum IN MEDIO SAN∣CTV ARII SITO, &c. It is storied by Socrates Scolasticus. Ecclesiast. Hist. l. 5. c. 22 and Nicephorus: Ecclesiast. Hist. l. 12. c. 34. That in the great Church of An∣tioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the East, but towards the west part of the Church; Sacra Ara, non ad Orientem, sed ad Occidentem versus, collata fuerat: And so not Altarwise as this Archbishop pretend. W•llafridus Strabus, de R•bus Ecclesiastis. l. 4. c. 19. records: That in the Temples only built to God, or clensed from the filthinesse of Idols, the Altars were placed towards divers climates according to the conveniency of the places; there being no place where God is not present: That in the great Church at Ierusalem, built by Constantine the Great and his Mother over the Sepulchre of our Lord, in a Round forme, in the Pantheon at Rome, dedicated by Pope Beniface to all Saints, and in the Church of St. Peter, Altars were placed not only towards the East part, but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of them. Chemnitius in his Examen Concilij Trident. pars 4. avers, and our opposites confesse it. That in the Catacombe at Rome, THE ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDLE; and that in St. Peters Church it selfe in the Vatican, the high Altar stands before the QVIRE, to wit in the middle of the Church or Chancell, as an Italian Author explaines it, in his description of this Church. Platina, in the life of Pope Nicholas the third, records, That the Altar of St Mary in Rome, through the great inundation of Tibur in this Popes dayes, was surrounded with water, ROTVNDE quatuor pedibus; Therefore it stood not a∣gainst a Wall. Anastatius, De vitis Rom. Pontif. p. 68. 69. writes, that Pope Ser∣gins in the yeare 694. made a foure-square vaile about the Altar in Saint Peters Church at Rome having 4. white and 4. Scarlet Curtaines, JN CIRCVITV AL∣TARJS, round about the Altar, which stood not therefore against a wall. In the great Cathedrall of Rome it selfe, Anno Dom. 1547. as William Thomas, an eye witnesse, in his History of Italy and Thomas Beacon out of him, f. 282. attest, the Altar on Christmas day, when the Pope him selfe and all his Cardinalls received the Sacrament, STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHAPELL OR QVIRE, the Pope sitting in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty behinde itsSigismund. the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum, Anno 1483. pars. 1. c. 1. relates, That in the Ancient Cathedrall Church of Augusta, dedicated to Saint Afra, there were two Quires and two Altars standing under two Arches: That in the body of the Church were 4. Altars; the chiefest of them was the Altar of St. Denys pla∣ced, versus OCCIDENTEM in parte Septentrionali, non juxta murum, sed quasi IN MEDIO. Alb. Crantzius Metrop. l. 1. c 9. & Hospinian de Orig. Altarium c. 6. writed that Wit•kind found the face of Charls the Great, full of alacrity after he ap∣proaches, Mensam Templo Mediam, the Lords Table placed in the Middest of the Church, to receive the Sacrament at it: And the same Hospinian in the same Chapter records, that in the Reformation made at Zurick Anno 1523. The High Altar was placed where the Font had anciently stood (neare to the West Doore, not the East end of the Quire.) In briefe, the very Roman Cerimonial l. 1. c 12. p. 70. informes us, that even of late times many Popish Altars stood not against the wall, but distant from it, as these clauses prove: Quod si Altare parieti adhaereat, &c. Si Altare sit A PARIETE SEIVNCTVM, &c. Therefore to rayle in all Altars, Lords Tables and place them Altarwise against the East end of the Quire wall North and South, as this Archbishop did, is to be more Popish, more Super∣stitious then the very Papists themselves, even in forraigne parts.

To come to Presidents nearer home; Our venerable Beda in his Eccles. Hist. l. 2. cap. 3. relates, that the famous great Church of St. Augustins in Canterbury, it selfe (built by Augustin the first Archbishop of that Sea) had an Altar standing almost in THE MIDDEST OF IT and that in the North Isle, not East Habet haec Altare IN MEDIO PENE SUAE: this was with in 700. years of Christ. Yea Everden a Monke, and Master tCambden out of him: re∣cords; That the Monkes of Saint Edmunds Bury in Suffolke, whiles they layd thePage  486foundation of a new Chappell in the reigne of King Edward the first, found the walls of an old Church built ROUND [which we think was first built to Saint Edmonds service] So as the Altar STOOD AS IT WERE IN THE MID∣DEST: In the Church of Carmarthen both the high Altar and Lords Table Anno 1555. Stood in the middest of the Church, as Master Fox Acts and Monu∣ments, Edit: 1610. pag. 1404. 1406. records: and in Saint Patricks Church in Dublin, the High Altar stood about the middest of the Quire under the first Crosse, a Yard and more beneath the Arch where the E: of Corks Tomb now stands; and that on all solemne Feasting dayes, they Went Round about the Altar: as appeares by a Letter written from thence to this Archbishop himselfe (endorsed with his owne hand) by Master Benjamin Culme, dated from Dublin, Aprill 19. 1634. In fine, learned Doctor uFulke informes us, That the Altar usually stood in the MIDEST of the Church, wherof some symptomes remain in our Cathedrall Chur∣ches. Moreover, if you marke the most part of our Churches in England, you shall plainly see, that the Chancels are but additions builded since the Churches, in likelihood by the Parsons, who disdained to have their places, in the midest of the people, as the old manner was. Also you may see some Churches builded round, as at London the Temple, and another is at Cambridge of the same fashion, and some Churches have the Steeple at the East end very unhansomly, and the Rood loft. Again, many Churches have crosse Isles in which the people cannot see the Chancell, when they were builded; For such Churches as are late erected have the Churches and Chancells all of one buil∣ding, and are made of such fashion, that one may see the High Altar in every part of them.

From all these reasons and authorities we may infallibly conclude, that Altars and Lords Tables generally in all Christian Churches were alwayes placed in the midest of the Church, or Quire, not rai•ed in Altarwise (as of late among us) against the wall. Therefore the Archbishops groundlesse surmise to the contrary and his maine Argument, from the Queenes Jnjunctions founded on it, is both false and frivolous.

Now whereas hee Objects, that there can bee no Popery in placing Communion Tables Altarwise, we answer, that if we consider this situation of them simply in it selfe, perchance it may be true. But if we observe that Priests private Masses, brought in this situation of Altars first of all into the Church of Rome, and that the end of this new placing of them is, to turne our Lords Tables into Altars, to imitate the Papists, and make way for private Masses, as all other concurrent circumstances manifest, then it favours of xPopery in the highest degree. Fi∣nally, we shall observe the Archbishops jugling and falshood in this particular. In his Speech in Starchamber he averreth. pag. 53. 14. And yet here is nothing done either by violence, or command, to take off the Indifferency of the standing of the holy Table, either way, but onely by laying it fairely before men how fit it is there should be Order and uniformity. And yet we have proved, that hee by his special Jnjunctions under Seale, and by private Letters to his Vicar General, enjoyned all Lords Tables to be placed and rayled in Altarwise; yea excommunicated, censu∣red, fined in the High Commission such Ministers and Church-Wards as opposed or refused to obey his Injunctions herein, as the Cases of Master Chancy, the Church-Wardens of Beckington, John Premly, Ferdinando Adams, and others evidence.

Fourthly, We reply, that the Archbishop in his Starchamber-speech, p. 45. 46. makes this averment, And yet the Government is so moderate [God grant it be not too loose the while] that NO MAN IS CONSTRAINED, NO MAN QUESTIONED, only religiously called upon, venite, Adoremus, Come let us Worship; that is, bow to, and toward the Altar: Yet here we have himselfe con∣fessing, and others testifying upon Oath, that he enjoyned all Schollers in the University of Oxford, all Officers, Prebends in Cathedrall and Collegiat Chur∣ches by speciall Statutes [to which they were all compelled to sweare Obedience Page  487 and Conformity] to worship God with highest Reverence towards the Altar, to bow devoutly to, towards it at, their approaches thereunto, which none were ever thus strictly obliged to do by speciall Lawes and Oathes in the very darkest times of Popery. That Doctor Jackson did approve, practise this bowing to the Altar for a time, it was by force only of these new Statutes and Oath, as himselfe depo∣seth, for which he professeth his hearty sorrow: and whereas Doctor Blechenden sweares, that some Prebends used to bow before these new Statutes, it was only by reason of this Archbishops Injunctions and daily practise both at Court and in Lambeth Chappell. For his expunging of the prayer for King Henry the 8. after his death, out of these Statutes, it no way justifies nor extenuates his Injunction of such Popish Altar-Adorations. For the 95. Psa. it commands us only, to wor∣ship, fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker; not towards or before an Altar, which is not the Lord our Maker: Neither did the Archbishop himselfe, not the most superstitious Popish Prelate or Clergie man in England ever yet use to Worship and fall down to God, before or towards the Altar, just when this Venite, Adoromus was read; which requiring no such Worship at the very instant it is reading, much lesse exacts it after or before its reading. For the Knights of the Garters Chapter-Order made in times of Popery, in imitation of Popish Priests, it is no binding Law to any but those of that Order, in their solemni∣tie, which being meerely Civill, and if it bee Deo & Altars ejus, joyntly; then certainely superstitious, Popish, nay Idolatrous too, cannot be fit for imi∣tation of Protestants.

Fifthly, We reply, that these Crucifixes, Images being unlawfull to be made. condemned by Our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Writers, Church, and all sound Antiquity, as wee yhave proved; and Constantine the great condemning them: their pretended Antiquity, or use in the Kings Chappell, can no wayes justifie his re-erecting them in Cathedralls. And here we cannot but observe the Arch∣bishops Legerdemain, and grosse abuse of his Majesties Chappell.

First, himselfe introduced Crucifixes with other Popish Innovations into it, which he afterwards by way of imitation prescribed to Cathedralls; And then being charged with this practise in Cathedralls, he justifies himselfe by His Ma∣jesties Chapell, where he takes Sanctuary; just as if a Cutpurse should justifie the cutting of a mans purse in Pauls Cathedrall because hee formerly picked ano∣ther mans pocket in Whit-Hall Chapell, which is nothing else, but to wipe off the present charge by the next preceeding, which lyes so heavy upon him, and to jus∣tify this subseouent crime of his by another anteceeding it. But in truth this is a meere devise 〈◊〉 draw an Odium on His Majesty, and his Chappell, who must Patronize 〈…〉 Popish Traiterly Actions, since we have proved these Innovati∣ons of his in Cathedralls to bee directly taken out of the Roman Ceremoni∣all, Pontificall, and brought in by their prescription; not learned from the Kings own Chappell, as he falsly pretends.

Sixthly, To his Altar Ornaments, and trinkets in Cathedralls which he would justifie by the Kings Chapell too, when expresly taken out of the Roman Pontisical and Ceremoniall in imitation of forraigne Popish Cathedralls; we shall returne the selfe same answer, and close up all with his own sentence in his Star-Chamber Speech, pag. 55. (where he passeth judgment against himselfe in these following words) Nor hath the Kings Chappell any Prerogative (if that may be called one) a∣bove any ordinary Church, to disserve God in any superstitions Rites; Where give mee leave to tell you, that the King and his Chappell, are most wrongfully, and with scorne abused. Undoubtedly they are so by these undutifull answers of his; whereby hee hath justified to the utmost each particular of this his charge, which he hath in no sort extenuated nor taken off from himselfe in any particle.

Sixthly, They proceeded in the next place from Cathedralls, to charge me with Pepish Innovations in *Parish Churches and Chappells; which charge is re∣ducible z to these heads.

Page  488 First, my enjoyning Church-Wardens to remove and rayle in Communion Tables Altarwise; as in the case of Saint Gregories, and other Parishes.

Secondly, Prescribing the people to receive the Communion at the new rayles kneeling.

Thirdly, Enjoyning Ministers to say Second service at the Communion Table rayled in Altarwise.

Fourthly, setting up of Crucifixes and other Images in Churches, Chap∣pells, Glasse-windowes; particularly in the new Chappell by Tuttle-fields, in Westminster.

Fifthly, Prescribing these Innovations in visitation Articles, by Bishop Wren, Bishop Mountague, Bishop Peirce and others; and forcing Church-Wardens up∣on Oath to present all those who submitted not to them.

Sixthly, punishing and censuring those in the Star-Chamber, High Commission and elsewhere, who opposed or submitted not to these Innovations: by name, Master Peter Smart, Master Charles Chancy, Master Miles Burkit, the Church-Wardens of Beckington, Ferdinando Adams, John Premly, Mr. Henry Sherfeild, Mr. John VVorkman Mr. Prynne, Mr. Burton, and Doctor Bastwick.

Seventhly, my Chaplaines purging out a passage against Images taken out of the very Homilies, in Doctor Featlies book.

Eightly, My licensing of Popish Pictures and Crucifixes to be printed in Lon∣don, by one •••ke, and to be bound up with our English Bibles.

To the first, I answer in Generall, that this removing and placing Lords Tables * Altarwise, is warranted by the Queens Injunctions, as I have formerly evidenced: As for the case of Saint Gregories, the Table was not turned by mee, but by the Deane and Chapter of Paules: And when it came to the Councell Table, I did there only deliver my opinion, and oppose the Queens Injunctions against Bishop Jewels opinion and Master Fox, there pressed: and the Order made therein, was made by the King and Councell then present, not by me alone.

Secondly, I pressed none to come up to receive at the Rayles, no further then the Common Prayer Booke prescribes, which enjoynes the people to draw weare and take the Holy Sacrament for their comfort.

3ly. Reading Second service at the Lords table is no Innovation, it hath bin ever since my rememberance constantly practised in Cathedralls, and is warran∣ted by the Rubrick.

4ly. I gave no order for setting up Images or Pictures in any parish Church; nor yet in the new Chappell at Westminster, and Mr. Browne sweares, it was Dr. Nowel that directed and paid him for his work there, not I.

5ly. I made neither Bishop Wrens, nor Mountagues Visitation Articles, nor Oathes, they were their owne, and if they have ostended in making them, they must answer it themselves, some of them having bin particularly questioned for them already.

6ly. For those particular persons cases objected, I shall answer them in order.

1. For Mr. Smart, he was censured by the high Commissioners of Yorke for a Schismaticall and Scandalous Sermon, not by me who had no hand in his cen∣sure.

Secondly, For Mr. Chancy, he spake contemptuous 〈…〉 against the raile, that he would set it up in his Garden: He was suspended only till he did submit, after which he did submit and confesse his fault, and then was absolved.

As for the words I used to his Advocate witnessed by Mr. ••••brand, it was when he was over bold, and it is usuall with Courts to checke Counsell in this kinde, when they oftend in such nature.

Thirdly, For Mr. Burkit, There were 5. Articles against him, besides that which was read, and he was prosecutest, censured for them al, not that only which is objected.

Fourthly, Ferdinando Adams, extreamly interrupted my Visitors, and Bi∣shop Page  491Wrens Visitors too in their Visitation at Ipswich by locking up the Church Doores against them; for which high astront Processe was awarded against him.

Fifthly, Iohn Premly his prosecution was the Act of Sir Nathaniel Brent, and it was for an high contempt.

Sixtly, For Mr. Sherfield, he was censured by the Major voyce of the Court, not by me alone: and Mr. Caryll deposed that the Picture he brake was only con∣ceived to be the Picture of God the Father; not that it was so: But admit it were, yet it was not lawfull for him of his owne Authority to pull it downe and break it, no not though it had bin the Picture of Iupiter himselfe; This I did then affirme, for which I had the Authority of St. Augustine, and Bishop Davenant. Yea in Constantine the Great his time, as Eusebius writes in the third Booke De vita Constantini c. 52. 53. 54. No priuate Christians of their owne heads durst destroy the Jdols that were then worshipped, nor the temple of Aesculapius, wherein the Divel himselfe was adored, til Constantine the Emperour gave expresse command, and appointed certaine men, whom he particularly imployed, to demolish them. It is true he pleaded, that he demolished it by the Authority of the Vestry; but the Ve∣stry had no authority themselves to do it, therefore they could not derive it unto him. But it was Idolized and adored by some. True, but this appeared not till the hearing of the cause, and was unknowne before.

Seaventhly, The purging out of a Passage against Images in Dr. Featlyes Ser∣mons taken out of our Homilies; was no act of mine, but my Chaplaines, who must answer for it, yet there are other passages therein left which are smart∣enough against Images and their adoration: And Dr. Featly never complained hereofto mee.

Eightly, The Bibles wherein these Pictures are shewed were Secretary Win∣debanks and Dr. Ducks which is nothing to me: yea one of them is a Latine Bible printed beyond the seas, at Amsterdam, a place free from superstition, not here Indeed I first saw one of these Bibles in Mistresse Kirkes hands, whereupon I sent for one of them my selfe, and then acquainted the Lords of the Councell with it, who resolved they should not be sold publickly, nor laid upon stalls, for feare of giving scandall, but privatly; whereupon I told Mr. Wally as much, which he hath testified, But yet this is no Innovation, for the old English prin-Bibells are full of Pictures.

Ninthly, Mr. Workman was justly suspected for inconformity; he was censu∣red for other things, as well as for passages against Images, as appeares by his sen∣tence, As first for his words against Dancing. 2ly. For saying Images in Churches were Idolls (though they are not Idolls till they are worshipped) and that they were no better then stewes; an unfitting expression. 3ly. For saying that Drunkards were preferred. 4ly. That the Election of Ministers was in the People. 5ly. For praying for the King of Sweden before our King. 6ly. For preaching against the Govern∣ment of the Church established by Law. 7ly. For speaking against Pictures in privat houses as wel as in Churches. For those of Gloucester questioned for granting him an Annuity, & then sued in the High Commission, they were not many, but only the principall Offendors: & it was lawful to cal them into the High Commission, be∣cause their grant to him was in affront of authority; their Fine was but small 10. • a peece, and that was pardoned: As for Mr. Workman himselfe being put from his Ministry by sentence, he was unfit to teach Schoole, or practise Phisick, for of leavening others with his dangerous opinions.

10ly. For Mr. Pryn, Mr. Burton, and Dr. Bastwick I answer, 1. That the Pro∣secution against them in Starchamber was in a legall way, for seditious Schis∣maticall and libellous Books. 2ly. That the rejecting of their answers under their owne hands and taking them pro confesso was no act of mine, but of the whole Court. 3ly. That the expunging of Mr. Burtons Answer, was not done by mee, but by the two chiefe Iustices, to whom it was referred by the Court, who must answer for it if unjust, and that the Copy of his answer found in my Study in∣terlined Page  492 with black-lead, so far as it should stand, was not intersined by me. 4ly. J gave no sentence against them at all, but only Iustified my selfe and my pro∣ceedings against their calumnies. But it hath bin objected, that Mr. Cockeshut gave an accompt of the proceedings against them to me from time to time: therefore I was the cause thereof. I confesse he gave me such an account, and it was just and fit he should do it, because the cause concerned not only myselfe in some sort in particular, but the Church of England in generall, of which I ought to take care according as my place and duty required: But I was no cause of any irregular proceedings: Yea, but I gave thankes to the Lords in the close of my Speech for their sentence and Iustice on them, though I censured them not my selfe: True and it was no more then I ought to do in behalfe of the Church: But yet after the sentence given in my Epistle to his Majesty, I excited him to put it in exe∣cution. No, I only left it to his Majesties consideration to forbeare or execute it, as he in his justice and wisdome should deeme meet.

To this was replyed, 1. in generall; that the Archbishop in his speech in Star∣chamber, p. 53. hath this expression concerning rayling in Communion Tables Al∣tarwise * in parish Churches: And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way yet whither there be not more reason the Parish should be made conformable to the Cathedrall and Mother Churches, then the Cathedralls to them, I leave to any rea∣sonable man to judge. So as his Innovations begun in Cathedralls, were pur∣posely introduced there first of all, to draw on Parish Churches to Popish con∣formity with them in these Innovations. Next, in particular we reply: that the alteration of the standing of the Lords Table and rayling it in Altarwise, was no wayes warranted by the Queens Injunctions, but contrary to them, as wee have largely manifested. That though this was not done immediately by himselfe, but by the Deane and Chapter of Paules, yet he was the Originall author of it, and justified it when complained of. That he publikely checked the Councell, Pa∣rishioners and sir Henry Martin before the King and Lords for opposing this Innovation, and alleadging Bishop Iewill and Mr. Fox against it: desiring his Majesty to take these Bookes out of the Church, if they made no better use of them then to oppose this Novelty. That he carried himselfe more like an Ad∣vocate then Judge in this Cause, and when the King himselfe was satisfied and would have it stand as formerly, his violence was such, that he over-ruled both King and Councell, and drew up the Order forecited in their names for esta∣blishing this Innovation which favours of his stile and spirit, the guilt whereof must rest principally on him.

2ly. The comming up to the Rayles was pressed by his Visitors, Agents au∣thority, and those excommunicated who refused to come up and receive at the New Rayle; to which certainly it was never the minde of the Common Prayer Book the Communicants should draw neare, since there were no Rayles to draw neare and kneele at till this Archbishop enjoyned them to be set up, in imitation of the Papists, as we have proved: but this drawing neare, is rather a drawing neare to Christ by faith, with our hearts and affections, or else a drawing neare to the body of the Church of Chancell where the Lords Table is to be placed, & to the Minister officiating, as it is expounded by the Q•eens Ju∣junctions; & 28 Canon. The Table when the holy Communion shal be administred shal be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also may more conveniently, and in more number communicate with the Minister.

3ly. We answer, that the Lords Table was ordained only to administer the Sa∣crament a thereat, not to read second service at it, for which the Reading Pew is appointed as the Common-prayer Book, the Homilies of the worthy receiving the Sa∣crament, and reparing Churches; Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, the Canous made 1571. p. 18. and the 82. 83. Canons Anno 1603. resolve. Now this Archbishop en¦joyned Page  493 second service now to bee read at the Lords Table when there was no Communion, and where it was rayled in at the upper end of the Quite, not brought downe into the body of the Church or Chancell; contrary to the Rubrick in the Common Prayer Booke, which expresly determines: That the Epistle and Gospel (chiefe parts of this second service) shall be read where the two Lessons are, with a loud voice, that the people may heare the Minister that readeth them the Minister standing and turning himselfe, as he may best be heard of ALL such as be present (which he cannot be if he read them at the upper end of the Chancell re∣mote from the people, where the Churches are great, or the Ministers voyce low.] This innovation then which was never practised in any Parish Church till of late, though used in some Cathedralls, wherein the Rubrick enjoynes the Com∣munion every Sunday in the yeare at least to be administred; which was wholly omit∣ted, and the second service at the Table left to supply it) is directly contrary to the Rubricke, Homilies, Injunctions, Canon.

4ly. It is evident that Crucifixes were set up in many Parish Churches, Cha∣pells of the Kingdome, which though we cannot prove to be done by his expresse particular Command; yet certainly it was by his example or incouragement, who repaired and set up Crucifixes in his owne Chappells at Lambeth, Croyden, and one over the Altar in Passion week in the Kings owne Chappell at White-Hall. Besides, those who erected them were either his owne Chaplaines or Fa∣verites who knew his minde, and did it for to imitate and please his Grace to gaine some further preferments.

For the Images set up in the New b Chappell in Tuttle fields, we [b] have proved, that the Arch-bishop promised to bestow a new Window on it: that thereupon the old*was taken downe, the Kings Armes removed, and those Images, with the Archbishops owne Armes (as the Donor of it) set up: that his Chaplaine gave directions about the VVindow: and Mr. Sutton sweares that the money for new glasing it was paid since the Archbishops commitment to the Tower by his direction, as he believeth. A cleare evidence, that he was the Author and director of this worke, notwith∣standing all his shifts to elude it.

5ly. Though the Archbishop made not these Bishops Visitation Oathes and Ar∣ticles; yet he made all of them Bishops, who durst do nothing in their Diocesse or Visitations but by his direction; to whom they gave an Annuall Accompt of their proceedings in writing, as we have manifested. Besides, its apparent that all these Visitation Articles were made in pursuance of his owne Archiepis∣copall Injunctions, Instructions, and himselfe approved of these their Oathes, Ar∣ticles, never checking nor questioning them for them, though their Metropolitan: yea himselfe prescribed the selfe same things in his Metropoliticall Visitations, by printed Articles, written Injunctions, or private Jnstructions, as these Bishops did in imitation of him. Therefore hee must Answer for these their Articles, Oathes, proceedings as farre forth as they, who were but his Instruments.

Sixtly For his Answer to the particular Cases, wee shall returne these Re∣plyes.

1. That though Mr. Smart was censured by the High Commission at Yorke, yet he was first imprisoned here at London, and transmitted from the High Commissi∣on here to York by this Archbishops meanes; who complyed with Dr. Cosin in his prosecution, and disposed of his livings after his deprivation, as we can prove by sundry Letters found in his Study; As for Mr. Smarts Sermon, it was neither scandalous nor factions, but Orthodox, and Iuditious, against the Popish Jnno∣vations introduced in the Cathedrall of Durham, where he was the ancientest Prehend, deserving rather applause then any censure, as both Lords and Com∣mons have resolved upon a full hearing, and awarded him reparations and Damages for his unjust censure.

2ly. Mr. Chancy spake no contemptuous words at all against the Rayle, nor of setting it up in his Garden: His suspention was illegall, not only without, but a∣gainst Page  494 Law and Canon; As for his submission, it was forced, and a meere art to deterre others from opposing his Graces Popish Innovasions, the only prose∣cutor appearing against him. And his shaking up or menacing of his advocate, an unlawfull act, to discourage him from making any defence, and subject his Client to a censure. Therefore inexcusable.

3ly. The main Article against Mr. Burkit, was only for his and the Church∣wardens removing of the Table when the Sacrament was administred into the body of the Church without the rayles, according to the Rubrick, Queene E∣lizabeths Injunctions, and the 28. Canon, the other Articles being but frivilous, not insisted on: And for this he was molested in the High Commission, yea a traditio Satana, a turning over of him to Sir John Lamb pronounced against him, who used him like a Lyon a Wolfe in a Lambes Skin.

4ly. For the Churchwardens of Beckingtons most severe, illegall, harbarous prosecution, we have proved by the deposition of Mr. Iohn Ash, a Member of the Commons House, that the Archbishop himselfe since his Imprisonment in the Tower confessed, that Bishop P••res their Dioces•n did do nothing herein, but by his direction. If therefore the rule in Law bee true, Plus peccat Author 〈◊〉 Actor, he must be far more guilty both of their prosecution, Excommunication, and heart-breaking submission, then Bishop Peirce, his Instrument.

5ly. For Ferdinando Adams, he was excommunicated in the Archbishops name by Mr. Dade his Surrogate, and this Excommunication pleaded in Barre of his Bill in Starchamber. The processe, Pursivants sent out to apprehend him, and the imprisonment of his Attorney till he withdrew his 〈◊〉, were all by the Archbi∣shops procurement. His shutting Bishop VVrens Visitors out of the Church at Jpsmich unlesse they derived their Authority by Letters Patens, from the King, was warranted by the Statut of 1 Eliz. c. 1. Therefore his prosecution, only for his duty and allegeance to the King against the Bishops disloyall incroach∣ments, was most unjust and disloyall. 6ly. Iohn Premly, was not prosecuted by Sir Nathaniell Brent, but by the Archbishop himselfe, for opposing his order in the Metropoliticall Visitation, in removing the Lords Table placed Altarwise, to the place and posture wherein it formerly stood; for which he was fined, censured, imprisoned in the High Commission, where the Archbishop sate chiefe Iudge a∣gainst all Law and Iustice, his act being no contempt, nor offence in Law; but the Archbishops order by Sir Nathaniell Brent his Visitor, and Dr. Nevells act, a contempt against Law and Canon.

7ly. Mr. Sherfield was prosecuted principally by the Archbishops procure∣ment, for demolishing according to Law: an Idolatrous blasphemous, false Image of God the Father, which was openly Idolized▪ Hee was then a Justice of Peace, Recorder of Sarum, and had the Warrant of the whole Vestry (wherein were six or seaven Iustices of Peace at that time) to demolish this Image, and take downe the whole Window, which all the Kings Subjects, (and Iustices of Peace especially) have authority to demolish by the Statutes of 3. Ed. 6. c. 10. 3. Iac. c. 5. The Book of Homilies, and Queene Elizabeths Injunctions: n. 23. within their severall Parishes without any speciall order from King or Bishop: yea, God himselfe gives speciall Commands not only to the supreame Majestrate, but to the Common People also, to destroy Idolls, 〈◊〉 Jmages, and Altars Exod. 34 13. 14. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 1. 2. •. Isay 17. 78. In pursuance of which commands, not only King Asa 2 Chron. 14. 3. King Hezechiah 2 Kings 18. 4. King Manass•h 2. Chron. 33. 15. King Josiah and his people, a Chron. 34. to •. demolished and brake in peeces Idolatrous Altars and Jmages: but likewise ALL THE PEOPLE of the Land went into the House of Baal and brake it downe, Altars and Jmages brake they in peeces, and •low Mat•an the Priest of Baal before the Altars: 2 Kings 11. 1• without any speciall Warrant or command from King Ieho•sh or Ieho•ada, (which the Holy Ghost records for their honour.) yet were they never questioned or fi∣ned in Starchamber for it because they had no warrant from either of them. ••. Page  495 after King Hezechiah his Passeover, the Scripture expresly records, 2 Chron. 30 13. 14.—c. 31. 1. That ALL ISRAEL that were present went out to the Ci∣ties of Iudah and brake the Images in peeces, and cut downe the groves; and threw downe the High places and Altars out of all Iudah and Benjamin, in Ephraim also and Manassith, untill they had utterly distroyed them all; which is recorded to their Eternall honour by God himselfe: nor were they ever questioned or fined for a Riot, in any Starchamber, or High Commission or for going out of their owne limits, or doing this without a speciall Commission from the King. There∣fore Mr. Sherfield being a publike Majestrate, both as a Iustice or Peace and Re∣corder of Sarum might much more by the whole Vestries Order, demolish this Idolatrous Picture in his owne Parish Church, in such a privat manner as he did, without blame or censure, having sufficient authority from these Texts and Presidents of Scripture, and from the forecited Statutes and Injunctions; to warrant it every man in such a case being a lawfull Majestrate, without any speci∣all warrant. Thus the common people in Girmany and else where in the beginning of Reformation, brake downe the Popish Images and Altars without any speciall Order from the Superior or Inferior Magistrates, as Mr. cFox and others re∣cord; And therefore, his Doctrine of the Archbishops, that it is unlawfull to break downe the very Image and Temple of Iupiter and Esculapius where the Divell himselfe was worshiped, without the speciall command of the supreame Magistrate, is a most impious Paradox; for if the supreame Magistrate will give no such command, these Idols, Devills shall still be to erated, worshiped to Gods dis∣honour, and Religions slander, in despite of all the people and inferior Magi∣strates. As for the place of Eusebius, it only proves; that Idolatrous Statues, Images, Temples, were demolished by the Emperor Constantines speciall com∣mand; but that the Christians under him, might not lawfully have defaced them without such a speciall command, especially after a Generall Statute and Edicts published by him for their demolishing, without being lyable to a seveer censure [the only thing in question] is no wayes warranted by, nor deducible from Euse∣bius, nor Saint Augustine. Yea had Mr Sherfields zeale out-run his discretion in this act, it deserved rather applause then censure, from a Protestant Prelate, yet this Bishop was so far from excusing, extenuating, that hee aggravated his pretended offence beyond all bounds of Law, Iustice, Conscience, pleaded as zea∣lously for the lawfullnesse of Images in Churches, and of this abominable Idoll of God the Father, as the Pope himselfe could have dont; yea he abused Master Sherfeild in his speech and censured him with the highest, though a Bishop, when some temporall Lords excused, yea acquitted him. And though this cen∣sure was not his alone, but carried by the Major voyce, yet his voyce, Speech, violence occasioned, and aggravated it. For his evasions, that this Picture was conceived to bee the picture of God the Father as Master Caryl deposed; not a picture of him in truth: It is a most childish evasion, for the Scripture is expresse, That God being a spirit, an invisible infinite Essence, can have no true pillure, likenesse, or similitude made of him by any corporall visible representation, Isay 40. 18. to 27. c. 46. 5, 6 Acts 17. 29. Rom. 1. 23. 24, 25. whence every such Image of God is tearmed, a lye in Scripture, Isay 44. 20. Hab. 2. 18. Rom. 1. 25. &c. And if ever any Image of God were a lye, then certainly this, as hath bin proved. Now, whereas he pretends, it appeared not it was adored and idolo∣zed till the hearing, it is certaine it appeared to Mr. Sherfield long before the hearing or demolishing of it as he deposed in his answer, and this appearing by witnesses upon Oath to the Bishop and whole Court when the cause was heard, made his unjust and heavy censure, farre more abominable to God and man.

Eghtly, Mr. Workman was principally censured for his preaching against I∣mages, though his expressions were the very words of our Homilies. The o∣ther particulars vvere all justifiable, true, & no wayes censurable except the sixt, Page  496 which was pretended, but not proved. Therefore his censure most unjust, and his censuring of some of those of Gloucester that joyned in a grant of Annuity to him under the City Seale though the Fine was but small, and afterwards remitted, was far more unjust.

1. Because the grant of this Anpuity was not only an act of Charity, but ju∣stice and equity, punishable by no Law and highly to bee commended.

2ly. Because they were censured in their privat naturall Capacity, for what they acted only in their politique, as Members of the Corporation under their Common Seale, wherein the whole City were engaged as much as they.

3ly. Because they damned this grant of which they had no cognisance, to starve a faithfull Minister and his Family, who had no other Livelyhood. As for his prohibiting him to teach Schoole, to practise Phisick, when he had put him from his Ministry without any just cause it was a treble tyrany and oppression, he being enforced to take this course only to supply himselfe and his family, for which the Law of God and nature enjoynes him to provide, unlesse he willdbe worse then an Infidell: and doubtlesse he must needs be worse then any Infi∣dell who had the heart to do it upon such a poore pretence, that he might in∣fect others with his opinions, to wit, of the unlawfullnesse of Images in Chur∣chs, or private houses the very approved, resolved Doctrine of our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Writers, Church.

9ly. For that he alleageth by way of justification and excuse touching the most barbarous censures of Mr. Prynne, Mr. Burton, & Dr. Bastwick: We reply, 1. That his hand was to all the Warrants for their Illegall commitments, crose imprisenments before their censures. That the Books for which they were questioned were neither scandalous, Seditious nor Schismaticall, but necessary Apologies, Pleas against his unjust tyrannicall proceedings in the High Com∣mission, and Popish Innovations in the Church to subvert our Religion. That himselfe in his Starchamber Speech (and Heylin and Dove after him) confesseth justifieth the truth of these Innovations wherewith those Bookes did charge him: all which the former and this present Parliament have unanimously com∣plained off and voted to be illegall, Popish, destructive to our Religion. There∣were these Bookes were neither Scandalous, nor Libellous.

3ly. Both the proceedings and sentence against them are voted, adjudged by both Houses to be altogether illegall unjust barbarous, contrary to Magna Charta, the Lawes of the Land, and liberty of the Subject, and unparralel'd in any age; there∣fore ordered to be utterly rased and taken off the file, as unfit to remaine upon record to prejudice posterity.

4ly. Their prosecution proceeded principally from him, the Orders for shut∣ting them up close prisoners, denying them pen inke, paper, and speech with one another, were procured by him. The Orders for denying them liberty to put in their Answers under their owne hands, taking them pro confesso, were made when himselfe sate and Voted in Court, being both prosecutor party and Iudge; the sentence was given; He sitting in Court, though particularly excepted a∣gainst though he gave no Vote in the Censure it selfe, yet al knowe he was the cause and contriver of it before it was given, yea he approved and thanked the Lord for it, in his Speech, when it was given caused it to he most seveerly execu∣ted when given against the will of those that gave it instigating his Majesty to the bloudy execution of it; afterwards when executed; denyed Mr. Pryns ser∣vant liberty upon Rayle to attend him during his wounds set his hand first to all the Warrants for sending them to and close imprisoning them in remote Castles, and after that for banishing them into forraigne Islands, where they were so strictly mewed up, that neither freind, Wife, Children could have the least accesse unto them for their releife, nor they procure liberty of pen inke or paper to write unto them for necessaries. Yea, had not he ingaged his extraordinary power and malice in their prosecution, neither the Court, Iudges, Officers, nor Lords, Page  497 had bin so extravagant, so unjust in their proceedings, Censures, Executions against them nor their Councell so over-awed as they were, nor they denyed li∣berty to answer for themselves, and to impeach their Opposites by a Crosse Bil; which if admitted (as it ought of right and justice) it, would have prevented their, heavy Censure, elsewhere, which probably would have falne short of this he is now likely to incurre. All which considered, this part of the charge stickes fast upon him in each particular.

7ly. Himselfe sent for Dr. Featly, and commanded him to carry his Sermons to his Chaplin to peruse, who thereupon expunged this and other passages out of them after they were printed, to please his Lord; and his Chaplains Act in this case is his own. And though other passages against Images remained, yet no reason can be given for expunging this [being the direct words of the Homily,] but his complyancy with the Papists: Yea, Dr. Featlie sweares expresly, that he did complaine of it to Sir Edmond Scot, who told him it would bee bootlesse to complaine to the Archbishop, who would undoe nothing his Chaplaine had al∣tered.

8ly. For the Popish pictures, we have proved them printed in London by the Archbishops own authority and direction, that himselfe saw and approved them whiles in printing, being the very same with those his Chapell windowes, the Masse-Booke, and Boetius a Bolswort, found in his study: That they were ordinarily bound up in Bibles and sold in shops, of which the Stationers com∣plaining to him he thereupon gave them the foresaid answer himselfe. But that the Lords of the Counsel gave any such order he produceth no proofe at all. In few words, if the pictures were lawfull, to bee bound up in Bibles; why then did he give order that they should bee only sold in private, not in publique? If unlawfull, Popish, Idolatrous, or superstitious, contrary to the Scripture, our owne Statutes, Homilies, Jnjunctions, VVriters, as we have proved them, then they ought not by his direction, to sell or binde them up in Bibles, no more pri∣vately these publikely, And whereas he Objects, that the Latine Bible produced wherein some of these pictures were bound, was printed at Amsterdam; wee grant it. But the Pictures in it, were printed and bound up with it here in Lon∣don, not at Amsterdam, and these Pictures by the Archbishops owne direction were bound and sold with many English Bibles; in which act he so much gloried, instead of being ashamed of it, that he would have these Bibles thus bound up with Pictures, called the Arch-Bishops Bibles, by way of distinction. As for the English Bibles printed with Pictures in Queene Elizabeths dayes, they had no * other Pictures in them, but onely of the Arke, Temple and such like, not any Pictures of Christ, the Virgin Mary, or any persons of the Trinity. All which considered, this part of his charge stickes still upon him in each particular not∣withstanding all his evasions.

Seventhly, They Object against me the Consecration of Churches and Chap∣pells * as a Popish Innovation; tending to introduce Popery among us, and have * instanced in my consecrating of Creed-Church, St. Giles Church in the fields; and the Church-yard there; for consecrating whereof the Parish paid me 15. l. The Church of Stanmore Magna, my Chappell at Aberguilly, the forme, and furniture whereof were excepted against as Popish, the Chappell of Hamer-Smith, where they alleadge, I consecrated the first stone when it was layd, the Chappell of Roe-Hampton; and that I would have consecrated other Chapells Cambridge.

To this I answer first in generall; that the Consecration of Churches is very * ancient and warranted by Scripture and Ecclesiasticall stories. In the Old Te∣stament, wee read that the Tabernacle, with all the Vessells, Ornaments thereto be∣longing were solemnly consecrated byeMoses; That afterward when the Tem∣ple was built, it was solemnlyfdedicated and consecrated to God by King So∣lomon, and all his Princes and people. After this when the Temple had bin shutPage  498up and defiled, the Priests and Levites byg Hezekiah his command, sanctified and cleansed both it and the Vessells thereof. So hKing Josias purged the House of the Lord. After which when the Temple was re-edified, the Children of Jsrael, the Priests and the Levites keptithe dedication of the House of God with joy; and offered in the Dedication of the House of God an hundred bullockes, which Feast of Dedication, was observed by the Jewes even in our Saviours time, as wee read in the New Testament, Iohn 10. 22. In the reigne of Constantine the great, when Christian Churches began to be built, or re-edified: wee no sooner read of their building, but of their solemne consecration and Dedication; as of the consecration of the Church of Tyre with sundry others mentioned by Eusebius in his Ecclesiasticall History, l. 10. c. 3. & Devita Constantini, l. 4. c. 40. After which wee finde this practise continued in the Christian Church in all ages, as Ecclesiasticall Histories, the Consecration Sermons of sundry Fathers, the Ca∣nons of ancient Councels and the Canonists in their titles De Consecratione Ec∣clesiarum, prove at large. Wherefore this can be no Popery, ner Innovation. Yea if Churches were not consecrated, then I say, they could not bee termed Holy, for it is the Consecration makes them holy. And if places be not holy then persons also cannot be holy, when they are consecrated and entred into holy Or∣ders. As for Bishop Pilkinton and Archbishop Parker, they speake not simply a∣gainst consecrations in generall, for they were consecrated Bishops and the book of Ordination is confirmed by Parliament, nor yet against consecrating of Churches in generall, but against the Popish consecrations of them used by some moderne Romish Prelates. For my form of consecrating them, it was not ta∣ken out of the Roman Pontificall, but that which was used by Bishop Andrewes, from whom I had it: This forme I followed at Creed Church and the rest. Se∣condly, To the particular consecration of Churches Objected, I answer.

First, to that concerning Katherin Creed-Church. It was testified, that I came thither in a Pompous manner; I deny it; it was only in a grave and seem∣ly manner. It is Objected, that as soone as I came within the Church doore I fell downe upon my knees: True, it was no more then my duty; being an Oratory;*Moses and Aaron fell down on their faces at the doore of the Taberna∣cle:*Hezekiah and the people bowed and worshiped as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber: And, *O come let us worship and fall downe, and kneell before the Lord our Maker, is the common Introitus in our owne and other Ly∣turgies. It is objected, I pronounced the place and ground holy: I did so, and it is an ordinary and legall Speech, there being a relative though not an inhe∣rent holinesse in Churches Dedicated to Gods service. Hence wee read in Iusti∣nian Codicis, l. 1. tit. 5. this Title DESACROS ANCTIS ECCLE∣SIIS, as they are there often stiled: Therefore Churches are holy, and their consecration makes them so. Wheras it was said, I threw up dust into the ayre: This I deny: and where it was alleadged, that this was in imitation of the Ro∣man Pontificall; that is a mistake, for the Pontificall prescribes Cinis, a hes not dust to be cast abroad, and Greek Letters to be made therein, with many other vanities. For my forme of consecration, Bishop Andrewes made it, from whom I desired a Coppy and had it, which I observed. It was objected that the form of prayer I used, is in the Masse Booke and Roman Pontificall; It may bee so, many other very good prayers are in it, yet they be good. It was further allea∣ged, that I objected Doctor Denisons Sermon to him at his censure in the High Commission: I Objected only his extravagances, and that was no hurt. For St. Giles Church, it is true I consecrated first the Church and then the Church-yard which is the usuall manner; as for the fees amounting to 15. l. I returned them againe, and bestowed them on the poore of the Parish.

But it hath bin Objected, that these were no new Churches, but Churches only new repaired: therfore not to be re-consecrated. I answer, that there was some new ground taken in at Saint Giles, and admit there were still the same Page  499 longitude and latitude, yet the walls and structure being for the most part new; the Churches in this respect were new, and to be new consecrated.

Thirdly, to the consecration of the Objected Chappells, I confesse their con∣secrations; and though there be no expresse forme for consecrating of Chap∣pells in the Pontificall, nor mention in Ecclesiasticall story of Chappels conse∣crations; yet seeing they are Oratories, and Eusebius testifying, that Oratories were consecrated in Constantines time, there is the like warrant and Antiquity for consecration of them, as of Churches. For my Chappell at Aberguelle, I consecrated, and put a name upon it, (as Saint Augustine saith, wee dedicate Churches to Saint Peter) for distinction sake; and though I had a relation to the beheading of Saint John Baptist in my Dedication of it, I hope there is no hurt therein. For the patterne and furniture of the Chappell produced, as if it were mine at Aberguelle, it is a mistake: for it is the patterne of Bishop An∣drews Chappell and furniture (which I caused to be written out) as the indorse∣ment of it proves, viz. 1623. Chappell and furniture as it was in use by the Right Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrewes, Lord Bishop then of Winton.

I had no such furniture in my Chappell there. For the Wafer basket and the rest, they concerne not me, yet Wafers have bin alwayes used and are at this day in the Greeke Church and in Westminster Abbey too. Whereas it is objected, that I hold there is a badge of Holinesse put upon our Churches and Chappells by a Bishops breath, I answer no, but there is an awsulnesse, put upon them; For my prayer at the laying of the foundation stone of Hamersmith Chappell, there is no hurt, nor superstition in it. In fine, I hope there is is no High Treason to bee found either in the one or other, in consecrating Churches, Chappells or foundation stones.

To this brave flourish of his for the Antiquity and lawfulnesse of the conse∣cration * of Churches, of Chappells, we shall returne a full reply. To his Presi∣dents taken out of the Old Testament we answer.

1. That Moses had an expresse command from God Himselfe to consecrate the Tabernacle, with all the vessells thereof, by annointing them with consecrated Oyle, Exod. 40. 10. 11, 12. [they being types of Christ to come;] but wee have no such command from God, to consecrate Churches, Church-Yards, Chappels Altars, Vestments; which are no types of Christ, already come.

Secondly, This consecration was made by Moses the Temporall Magistrate (not by Aaron the High Priest) without any other ceremony then meer annoyn∣ting the Tabernacle and its Vessells, implements, with oyle: Therefore no warrant for Bishops consecrating Churches, Church-Yards, Chappells Altars, Vest∣ments, with other ceremonies, without any anoynting them with oyle.

Thirdly, this consecration was only Temporary, Jewish, ceremoniall, aboli∣shed by Christs death, Col. 2. 14. to 23. Heb. 7. 12. c. 9. 1. to the end, and cap. 10 1. to 22.

Fourthly, King Solomon did not consecrate the Temple not the Vessells and Court thereof, with Oyle, as Moses did the Tabernacle; but kafter hee had brought the Arke, Tabernacle and all the Holy Vessells into it, with praises, thankes∣givings, instruments of Musicke; and after the cloud and glory of the Lord had fil∣led the House, he made an heavenly prayer only in the middest of the Court (not in the Temple) before all the Congregation of Israel, kneeling on his knees, and spread∣ing forth his hands towards heaven, [using no such prayers or ceremonies as the Bishop used:] and all the hallowing that we read of in this story is, Solomons hal∣lowing the middle of the Court, that was before the house of the Lord (and how was that?) only by offring burnt offerings and peace offerings, 2 Chron. 7. 7. 1 Kings 8. 64. From which History and practise, of his we shall observe.

1. That if there were any consecration of this Temple, it was made only by King Solomon himselfe, not by the High Priest, Priests, or Bishops, who now appropriate all consecrations of Churches, &c. to themselves alone.

Secondly, That the Oracle of the house where the Arke was placed, is called THE MOST HOLY PLACE, even before and without any consecra∣tion Page  500 of it at all, 1 King. 8. 6, 10. 2 Chron. 5. 7. Therefore the consecration made it not most holy, but only the use to which it was designed.

Thirdly, That the Atke, Tabernacle, Vessells were brought into the Temple, and praises, thanksgivings, there solemnly sung to God, who manifested his pre∣sence there, filling it with a Cloud and his glory, so as the Priests could not stand to minister; before Solomonmade is prayer, which some tearme a conse∣cration; whereas this Archbishop fell to his consecration, before any publike prayers, thanksgiving Psalmes, Service, or Sacraments administred.

Fourthly, That if this prayer were a consecration; it was made only in the outward Court, not in the temple it selfe, whereas the Arch-bishops consecration was made in the Church, not Church-Yard.

Fifthly, That the Hallowing of the Court (and so by consequence of the Temple, if properly consecrated) is by the text ascribed only, to Solomons offering of burnt offrings, meat-offrings, and the fat of the Peace-offerings: not to any other pray∣ers, exorcismes, Unctions, or Ceremonies, which Offrings being long since cea∣sed, and not to be used by Christians, the consecration of Churches and Church-Yards must likewise cease, unlesse it bee onely by performing publike duties of Gods worship in them. Therfore this president of Solomon and the Temple un∣der the Law; is no warrant at all for our Bishops consecrating of Churches, Church-Yards, Altars, Vessells or Vestiments under the Gospell.

Fifthly, the sanctifying and cleansing of the Temple and Vessells of it prescri∣bed by Hezekiah, but executed by the Priests and Levites; was only the clean, sing out of the Idols, Jdolatrius Altars, rubbish, filth and uncleannesse of the Temple, which they found, and carried out thence into the Brooke Kidron; with their scouring of the Vessells, which had beene polluted, as is plaine by the letter of the text, 2 Chron. 29. &c. c. 33. 15, 16. compared together. Therefore it makes nothing for any Episcopall consecration of Churches, but only for keeping them cleane from filth and Idolls.

Sixthly, that of Ezra. 6. 16, 17. is no warrant for the hallowing of Churches or Chappells. For it only mentions; That the Priests, Levites, and Children of Israel kept the Dedication of the house of God with joy; and offered at the dedicati∣on of the house of God an hundred Bullockes, two hundred Rammes, 400. Lambs; and for a sinne offering for all Israel, twelve he-Goates according to the number of the Tribes of Israel. And they set the Priests in their divisions and the Levites in their courses for the service of God. But of any speciall Prayers, Ceremonies, Unctions, and the like, used at this Dedication, by the Priests or people, wee read not one syllable. Therefore this their Dedication of the Temple, was only their offering of burnt offerings, of sinne offerings in it to God, and ordering the services of the Priests and Levites in it. Therefore no President for the consecration of Churches by our Prelates, since such oblations, such courses of Priests, Levites are ceased with Christ, Hebr. 7. 11. 12, 18.

Seventhly, the Feast of Dedication mentioned John 10. 22. was not of the Temples Dedication, but of the Altars, instituted by Iudas Maccabeus and his Brethren, to be annually kept by the space of 8. dayes in the Month Casl•u, 1 Mac. 4. 56 59. as Interpreters and the Margin of our Bibles resolve: which being of no Divine Institution, kept only by the Superstitious Jewes, not by Christ, or his Apostles, (who are not said to observe, but only to be at Jerusalem when it was the Feast of Dedication Iohn 10. 22.) It can be no warrant at all for the con∣secration of Altars, much lesse of Churches now.

Finally wee answer, that we find no mention in Scripture or Classicall Wri∣ters, of any consecration of Iewish Synagogues, to which our Churches properly succeed, but only of their Tabernacle and Temple, in such sort as you have heard; with which our Churches, Chapells have no proper Analogie: That this Argu∣ment of the Archbishop drawne from the presidents in the Old Testament, is borrowed from no Orthodox Ancient Father or Councell, but only from the Popish Canonist, Gratian De Consecratione. Distinct 1. who thus concludes from these presidents. Si enim Judai qui umbrae legis deserviebant, hoc facicbant, multoPage  501magis nos quibus veritas patefacta & gratia per Iesum Christum data est, Templa Domino aedificare, & pro ut melius possumus orare, ea{que} DIVINJS PRECIBVS ET SANCTIS VNCTIONIBVS, suis cum Altaribus & vasis, vestibus quo∣que & Reliquijs, ad divinum cultum explendum utensilibus DEVOTE ET SO∣LENNITER SACRARE & non in alijs quam in Domino sacratis ab Episco∣pis, & non a Corepiscopis [qui sa•e prohibiti sune] nisi summa exigente, necessitate, Missas celebrare nec sacrificia offerre debemus Domino. You see out of what Po∣pish quiver this Archbishop drew this leaden shaft of his.

To his pretended antiquity for the consecration of Churches, Chappells, Altars, &c. since Christs time: we answer, first, that k before the raigne of Constantine the Great there is no credible president or authority at all for de∣dication of any Churches: And that Eusebius who (De vita Constantini l. 3. c. 24. to 40. 45. 47. 49. 50. 51. lib. 4. c. 39) makes mention of Constantines and his Mo∣ther Helenaes building of divers stately Churches at Bethlehem, in the Mount of Olives, in Constantinople, Nycomedia, Mambre in Phaenicia, and elsewhere, & by his Edicts enjoyned Christians to build Churches, yet makes no mention of any Edicts for their hallowing. True it is, that De vita Constantini. l. 4. c. 43. 45. 47. we read, that Constantine summoned a General Councell of Bishops to Jerusa∣lem, to settle some differences in the Church, and that at this meeting he thought best to consecrate, and thereupon kept the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple which he had built at Jerusalem over our Saviours Sepulchre, which the Priests, then Conse∣crated, but how? with prayers, disputations, preachings expositions of Scripture, and receiving the Sacrament, as he expresly defines c. 45. But of any other par∣ticular Church then this thus consecrated by his appointment, we finde no mention. Indeed the same Eusebius in his Ecclesiast Historiae, l. 10. c. 3. De Enca∣uijs ubi{que} locorum celebratis, writes, that Churches being reedified under Con∣stantine, Deinceps celebre spectaculum, nobis omnibus optabile & vehementer desi∣deratum, ante omnium occulis proponebatur, Dedicationum scilicet festivitates per urbes singulas, templorum nuper aedificàtorum consecrationes: which intimates, that Churches, then new built were msolemnly dedicated to God in most places; but what those Dedications of them were, he informes us in the same Chapter, That they were Panygericall Orations in praise of their founders, &c. of which he cites a memorable one made to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre in the next Chapter. These Dedications therefore of Churches then, were farre different from those used by the Papists and this Archbishop now. We read not then of any consecra∣tion of their foundation stones, any pompous processions to them, any knocking at the doores, by the Bishop, crying with a loud voyce, Open, Open ye everlasting doores, &c [a cleare perverting of Scripture;] of no flying open of the doores there-upon; No falling downe upon the marrow bones; and saying: This place is holy, &c. No ca∣sting up of dust in the ayre, no such prayers, processions, round about the Church; bowings to the Altar, pronouncing of cursings and blessings, Peepings, recoylings, and other Antick tricks as this Bishop used at Creed Church, and elsewhere, no Hallow∣ing of Altars, Altar-clothes, Vessells, Vestments, Churchyeards, Chappells. There∣fore these Consecrations in Constantines dayes, are no warrant at all for his, the rather, because not made by Bishops alone, who now monopolize them.

After Constantines time, there is very rare mention of any Consecration of Churches in Ecclesiasticall Histories, or the genuine writings of the Fathers, till Popery overspread the Church, and Popes brought it in by forged decrees, Gra∣tian himselfe, being unable to cite so much as one Fathers Authority for it [Di Consecratione distinct.. 1. where he professedly handles this subject] but only the forged Decrees of Popes, and the Canons of two or three late Popish Councells; there being no Canons concerning it in any ancient genuine Synods: Yea the consecration of Churches was so much neglected even in the very darkest time a of Popery above a thousand yeares after Christ that oO•hobon the Popes, Legat and the Synod held under him here in England in Henry the third his Raigne, ac∣knowledge, that there were many Parish Churches and some Cathedralls then un∣crusecrated although built long before.

Page  502 Now to prove the consecration and meerly Popish [as of late ages it hath beene used at least] it is agreed by Gratian, Platina, the Centuryators, Thomas Beacon, and others, that Pope Hyginus, Gelasius, Iohn, Nicholas, Clemens, Sylvester, Felix and Gregory (whose spurious Decrees are cited by Gratian De Consecratione Distincti: and Surius in his 1. and 2 Tome of Councells) were the first inventors and pre∣scribers of this Ceremony of Consecrating Churches and Altars: prescribing.

1. That no Church should be built or consecrated without the command, Autho∣rity, or consent of the Bishop of Rome.

2ly. That every Church should be consecrated with a Masse, and no Masse said or Sacrament administred [unlesso in case of absolute necessity) but in a consecrated Church, and at a consecrated Altar.

3ly. That these Priests should be deprived who said Masse or officiated in unhal∣lowed places or at unconsecrated Altars.

4ly. That no Altars should be consecrated without the Reliques of Saints, and if any Altars were consecrated without them, they should be pulled downe.

5ly. That all Stone Altars should be anoynted and consecrated with Chrisme.

6ly. That no Church should be consecrated wherein a Pagan was interred, unlesse his corps were first digged up and cast out of it.

7ly. That the Timber of a consecrated Church, and Vestments once consecrated, though worne out & decayed should not be converted to any other good use but burnt to Ashes and these to be laid up safely in some place within the Church, least they should be polluted with the feet of those who passed by.

8ly. That none should touch the consecrated Altars, Vessells, Vestments, or be en∣abled to keep them, but consecrated persons.

9ly. That if the Altar of any Church were renewed; or the walls new built, or defiled with murther, blood-shed, or the meeting or burying of Hereticks therein, that then it should be re-consecrated; otherwise not.

10. That no man whatsover should*presume to build any Church before the Bishop of the City first came to the place, & fixed a Crosse thereon; and the Patron informed him, what stipend he would alow for the finding of Tapers, Gardians to keep it, Priests to Officiat in it, agree to have it consecrated, and to sprinkle the floore and Court thereof with holy water.

Of latter times, many Ethnicall, superstitious Exercismes, Conjurations, Vnctions, Ceremonies, Notions, and frantick inventions have bin added by Popes and Prelates to these consecrations recorded at large in the Roman Cae∣remonialls, Pontificalls, Thomas Beacons Reliques of Rome, Mr. Calfehill and o∣thers: whereby it will appeare to be most Popish, superstitious in the highest de¦gree, whatever is pretended to the contrary. Whereupon it was exploded, con∣demned by our Church, State, Bishops, and other writers in the beginning of Reformation, as Popish, Jewish, Superstitious and by forraigne Protestant writers (See Aretij Problemata Locus 121 De Encaenijs) as we have formerly proved. Therefore it must needs be a Popish designe in this Archbishop to re∣vive it now.

For his Argument, that Churches cannot be called Holy, unlesse consecra∣ted by a Bishop; it being his consecration that makes them so. We answer.

1. That Bishop Pilkinton and others define this very Doctrine of his, to be Po∣pery, as we haye proved, so doth Aretius too.

Secondly, That the most Holy Place, was so stiled, though never consecrated 1 King. 8. 6. 10. So Jerusalem is called very frequently, the Holy City: Matth 4. 5. c. 27. 53. though never consecrated. And God told Moses the place whereon thou standest is holy ground, Exodus 3. 5. though never consecrated by a Bishop.

Thirdly, Our owne (p) Homilies informe us, That the Church is counted and talled Holy, not of it selfe (nor yet for its consecration by a Bishop) but because Gods people resorting thither are holy, and exercise themselves in holy and heavenly things.

Fourthly, The hearing and preaching of Gods Word, Prayer, and receiving the Sacraments therin are sufficient of themselves to sanctifie and make it holy with∣outPage  503any other consecration. See 1 Tim. 45. Centur: Mag: 3. and 4. c. 6. & Aretij Pro∣blemaia Locus, 126. who resolves further against this superstition: Vana est etiam¦illa superstitio, quod dicunt; Nisi dedicatur Templum, non posse ibi preces haberi, non exandiri orantes, non rectè praedicari verbum Dei, nec Sacramenta administrari: quae sententia MANIFESTE JƲDAISMUM RESIPIT; Chri∣stus tamen praemonstravit, Horam nunc esse, ut veri adoratores, nec in monteisto¦nec Jerosolymis, sed ubique lieorum Deum adorent in spiritu & veritate. Athana∣sius sane non erubuit preces habere & populum ad audiendum verbum Dei convo∣care in Templum Alexandrinum majus, quamvis nondum esset Dedicatione conse∣cratum: nondum enim jusserat Imperator. Id nostri hodie magnum nefas ducunt.

Fifthly, sanctification in its owne nature, is nothing else, but a sequestring of any thing from a common or ordinary use, to a religious and sacred purpose. And this may be done without a Bishops exorcisme or conjuration; in w^ch respect the first borne, first fruits, and oblations among the Jewes were termed Holy, though never solemnly consecrated, because appropriated and devoted unto God. For his other Argument, that if places bee not holy persons cannot be so; and our Church allowes of the consecration of persons; Ergo of places. It is both a fall∣hood and absurdity. For first, it is God and his Spirit only that make persons ho∣ly, not Prelates; who never sanctifie places as they do persons. Secondly, Our Church allowes only of the Ordination (not consecration) of Bishops and Mini∣sters, confirmed by Statute (many of whom ordained such, are so far from be∣ing holy, that they are most polluted and unclean) but not of consecrating Chur∣ches; utterly exploded by the Common Prayer Booke, and book of Ordination, comprising all the authorized Rites and Ceremonies of our Church, whereof consecration of Churches is none. And thus much in answer to his defence in ge∣nerall for consecration of Churches.

Secondly, For the particulars Objected; our witnesses depose, that his com∣ming to Creed Church, was pompous, not decent, that he fell downe on his knees to pronounce, the place and ground holy, in the name of the Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost; not to adore and pray to God; which the Examples of Moses, Aaron, and Hezekiah warrant not, who never fell down at the Tabernacle door not bowed the head and worshipped to consecrate either the Tabernacle, Temple, or Altar. And whereas he objects, that his pronouncing of the place holy as soon he entred into it, was legall, &c. we answer.

1. That himselfe avers, that no Church or place is legally holy, before it be consecrated; and when he pronounced it holy upon his entrance to it, hee had not consecrated it; therfore by his own doctrine it was not legally holy, when he pronounced it so.

Secondly, If our Churches be legally holy by their consecration, then the con∣secration of our Popish Prelates in times of Popery with superstitious, Popish Ceremonies, conjurations, Exorcismes, enoylings, processions, sprinklings with holy water, made them so, since most of them were onely consecrated in, though none re-consecrated since the times of Popery: And if such Popish consecra∣tions make them legally and really holy, then they are of as great efficacy at his owne or Bishop Andrewes his forme, and no difference at all between them.

Thirdly, For Iustinian, he makes no mention at all in that Title of consecra∣tion of Churches, and stiles them holy Churches, only in respect of the holy du∣ties publikely performed in them. For his throwing up of dust, two witnesses ex∣presly depose it, which must overballance his own bare negation: and there is so little difference between dust and ashes, that they are usually coupled together as Synonimaes, in Scripture and Authors. That he took his forme from Bishop Andrewes, is only averred by himselfe nor proved by any witnesses; but that it agrees with that in the Pontificall which we found in his Study even in terminis, is most cleare; and therefore we cannot but presume he derived it from thence. However, if Bishop Andrewes imitated the Pontificall, and he Bishop Andrewes, the charge is still alike, both of them imitating and complying with the Pope herein. He grants his prayer taken out of the Pontificall; therefore no doubt Page  504 the rest, especially his frequent bowings and Jackanapes trickes at the Altar: which he cunningly pretermits and answers not. For Dr. Ienison, he objected on∣ly his preaching against Images to him at his censure, and that was no extrava∣gancy. As for the consecrating of Churches only repaired or somwhat enlarged, we know no Law nor Canon in our Church to warrant it: And to take sees for it, is both Symony, and extortion. For the restoring of them, it is only affirmed not proved; and to take them illegally to bestow them on the poore, is but to rob Peter to cloath Paul.

Thirdly, For the consecration of Chappells and meere private Oratoties, there is no president in Antiquity; yea Gratian himselfe and the Roman Pontificall al∣low the use of them, without any consecration: Therefore to consecrate them is to exceed even Popery and Papists in Superstition. As for his Chapell of A∣berguilly his owne Diary proclaimes his Superstition both in its consecration. and denomination of it. For the Patterne and furniture of it, his owne notes and papers clearly prove, it was the same with that of Bishop Andrews, whose forme of conscration himselfe alleageth he punctually pursued. And if this were the true patterne furniture of Bishop Andrews owne Chapell Anno 1623. all the world may justly censure him for a professed Papist, his Chapell Altar, and their furniture being as Popish Superstitious, Idolatrous every way as the Pops in Rome, yea exceeding the very Roman Ceremoniall and Pontificall For Wa∣fers, they are directly contrary to the Rubrick at the end of the Communion in the Book of Common prayer; we wonder therefore with what face this Prelate dares justify them: That a Bishops breath puts only a badge of reverence not holinesse on Churches, is diametrially contrary to what he formerly affir∣med. Perchance he now remembers that Quicquid effecit tale est magis tale? and therefore Bishops cannot make other things holy with their breath who have little or no holinesse at all in their hearts: For his solemne consecration prayer at the laying the first stone of Hammersmith Chappell, it hath neither Scripture, Law, Canon, Antiquity, but the Roman Pontificall to warrant it: Therefore it is meerly Popish Wheras he objects by way of jeare, that he hopes the consecration of Churches and Chapells is no Treason: we answer, that we do not charge it to be so in it selfe. But we have proved it to be a branch of Po∣pery and a grosse one too and being introduced by him among other things to set up Popery, and subvert Religion it will prove Treason in this respect, as we shall manifest in due time. And so this intre charge remaines unavoyded in any the least particle.

8ly. The next Charge urged against me, Is The Kings Declaration for the use of sports on the Lords day, prescribing the observation of Revells, Wakes. Feasts of Dedication likewise, formerly suppressed, where I am q accused. *

1. For causing this Booke to be enlarged, reprinted in his Majesties name to prevent the petition of the Iustices in Somersetshire, and make way for Mr. Prynnes censure.

2. For pressing Ministers to read it in their Churches without any Warrant, suppressing of Sermons censuring those who refused to publish it, (as Mr. Wilson, Master Player, Master Heiron, Mr. Snelling with sundry others) encouraging o∣ther Bishops to suspend, silence many Godly preaching Ministers for this cause, pressing this Book, and ordering Churchwardens to present such who refused to publish it, by Visitation Oathes and Articles.

3ly. For reviving, disorder, by wakes, Revels, and causing the Iudges Orders to be reversed:

To the first of these I answer, That the Kings Declaration for sports was prin∣ted * and published by his Majesties speciall command. Yea I had a Warrant un∣der his hand to see it printed, and there is no proofe at all that it was printed, published or enlarged by my procurement. Besides, the Declaration is but for the use of lawful Sports and that only after evening prayer ended: and the cause of publishing it at that time was partly Barbourous Book of the Sabbath, who would revive the Iewish Sabbath, and the Iewish rigidities positions of o∣thers Page  505 touching the Lords day, whose positions drew Brabourne into that Error. In Geneva it self (as I have bin ceedibly informed by Travellers) they use shoo∣ting in peeces long bowes Crosse Bowes, Musters, and throwing of the bowle too, on the Lords day as well before as after Sermons ended, and allow all honest recreations without reproofe of their Ministers, yea, Mr. Calvin the great pro∣fessor there Instit. l. 2. c. 8. sect. 34. blames those who infected the people in for∣mer ages with a Iudaicall opinion, that the morality of the 4th. Commandement, to wit, the keeping of one day in 7. did still continue; which what else is it then in dis∣honour of the Iews to change the day, and to affix as great a sanctity to it, as the Iewes ever did. And that those who adhored to their constitutions who broached this Doc∣trine, Crassa carnalique Superstitione Judaeos ter superant: Men may be too strict as wel as prophaneherein. Yet I for my part have ever strictly observed the Lords day in point of practise: And whereas it was attested by Mr. Prynne, that this Declaration was published to prevent the Petition of Somersetshire for the re∣viving of Iudge Richardsons forecited order: Sir Robert Philips and many other Gentlemen of that County complained against the order to the King, where∣upon the Iudge was ordered to reverse it, and the Declaration was not published till after the reversall.

2ly. The Declaration was ordered to be published in the Church; and that was sufficient warrant to enjoyne Ministers to publish it there, & although no penalty be prescribed in it to such who should refuse to publish the same, yet it is implyed, otherwise, the command were idle in case of disobedience. That it was published with intent to suppresse afternoon Sermons, that so the people might •ave more time for Sports; This could not be, since none were to use any Re∣creations till after Evening Prayer ended. That I gave my Visitor command to suspend those who refused to read it, was only within my Diocesse of Canterbu∣ry, not in my Metropoliticall Visitation throughout my province; I suspended but three Ministers in my whole Diocesse, who had first time of considerati∣on granted them, to wit, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Culmer, and Mr. Player, only suspended ob officio for their contumacy being men of factious Spirits. For Mr. Wilson and others being brought into the High Commission for not reading this Declara∣tion, it was the act of the Court, not mine. As for Mr. Snelling, he was excom¦municated by Dr. Woode not me, and he was questioned in the High Commission; for not bowing at the name of Iesus, and as well as not reading this Book, Be∣sides I was not present at his censure there neither did I expunge his answer. Nor did I presse the reading of the Declaration in my Visitation Articles, if other Bishops did it, tis nothing to me; themselves must answer for it, not I.

3ly. Feasts of dedication have beene of great Antiquity, and in generall use in some Coutries; and there is a lawfull use of them for Hospitality, and increase of love among Neighbours and friends, as the Bishop of Bath and Wells, with di∣vers of the gravest Clergy in the county of Somerset certified his Majesty, who desired their continuance:

If some abuses crept into them as they did in some places, and it seemes in Somersetshire, yet this was no good reason to take away the feasts and meetings themselves, as Iudge Richardson did by his order (for which there were great complaints made by men of quality) but only to regulate them, and take away their abuses, which this Declaration doth without countenancing any disorders.

To this was replyed. 1. That it is cleare by the evidence given, and his Letter written, to the Bishop of Bath and Wells that this Declaration was enlarged * by himselfe, and republished by his instigation and procurement: That him∣selfe put his Majesty upon the reprinting of it, the warrant being written with his owne hand and being without any date at all makes it probable it was pro∣cured since the Declaration printed. The later end of the Declaration it selfe concerning Wakes and Revells, compared with the juncture of time when it was published, manifests that it was thrust out to crosse Iudge Richardsons order, and forestall the Petition of the Somersetshire Iustices for its continuance, immediatly after its reversall, it having no relation at all to Brabournes Booke. Page  506 Besides the publishing of it, just when Mr. Prynne was questioned for his His∣triomastix (wherein he censures mixt dancing Sports & Pastimes on the Lords day) and reciting it in the very information against him, manifests; that it was likewise reprinted to make way for his first censure in Starchamber. Moreover some of the recreations mentioned in it are not very lawfull upon any day though the Archbishop affirmes the contrary, but certainly unlawfull on any part of the Lords day, even after evening Prayer, as rPathers, Councells, Imperiall Lawes, and both Protestant and Popish writers have resolved. The pretended Practise of Geneva, which he alleageth, is but a Hearesay without proofe, bor∣rowed from Peter Heylins prophane History of the (he should have said, NO) Sabbath. part. 2. c. 6. sect. 6. 8. 9. who yet informes us sect. 9. that Da•noing hath bin condemned by French Synods and writers (as well Protestantas Popish) which yet the Declaration for sports in terminis allowes of on the Lords day, contra∣ry to the practise and judgement of Geneva. As for Mr. Calvin himselfe though he differs in some particulars touching the Morality of the 4th. Commandement from other of our Divines, yet he in expresse words condemnes. Dancing and Pastimes on the Lords day, not deemingita Iewish Superstition or rigidity to prohibit such sports thereon, especially Dancing, as his 71. Sermon upon Iob, proclaimes to all the world; and other Geneva Ministers since him, have done the like. That this Declaration did de Pacto put downe afternoone Sermons on the Lords day in most and forenoone too in many places, by suspending sundry preaching Ministers who durst not publish it out of conscience, is apparent to al. Wherefore to affirme this one part of the Archbishops design in reprinting thereof, is a certaine and more then probable truth; and the words of it, that they should use those Pastimes after Evening Prayer, (not evening Sermon) import as much, some Bishops grounding their suppressing of Afternoone Sermons on this expression; which Sermons Peter Heylin in his History of the Sabbath. part. 2. c. 6. sect. 9. and c. 7. and 8. makes to be meere innovations, as doth Doctor Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath, both published by this Archbishops command and approbation. For his owne strict observa∣tion of the Lords day, it is an averment without truth. Certainly he that made conscience of its strict observation himselfe, would never give way to such a Declaration encouraging others to pro∣phane it, who were apt to do it without such an incitement; nor suspend such Godly Ministers, who durst not publish it out of conscience, for feare of encouraging others to prophane it. Yea, his preten∣ded strictnesse of late times was such, that himselfe and his servants made it an ordinary practise in the Somer to go to Bowles and use other pastimes on it, and he sate constantly thereon at the Councell Table about worldly businesse. 2ly. That there was no warrant at all in the Declaration that Mini∣sters should publish it, or to punish any who refused it, hath bin formerly proved at large, and where there is no penalty prescribed in a Law (much more in a Declaration) no punishment can be inflicted. That he gave expresse order for silensing Mr. Wilson, Mr. Culmer, and Mr. Player, is proved by severall Oathes, and that they were suspended divers yeares not only ab officio, but beneficio, having nothing left to support their Wives and Families. That they were obstinate or sactious is a groundlesse scandall, not proved, they were only conscientious and would not disobey God to humour men. That he si∣lenced only these three in his Diocesse was but casuall, because others submitted to read the Booke; but his command was generall, to suspend all who refused to read it, and those three in speciall. That he put not any Article of Inquiry touching the reading of this Declaration into the Articles for his Me∣tropoliticall Visitation, was his Jesuitical Art and cunning, to conceale his wickednesse and prophane∣nesse from publique view, but that he gave private Instructions to his Vicar Generall in this his Visita∣tion, to convent and question such who had not read it, who thereupon did accordingly question di∣vers good Ministers for this very cause, you have heard it proved at large by the very Abstracts of his Metropoliticall Visitations, under his owne and his Visitors hands. That other Bishops inserted such an Article into their printed Visitation Inquisitions, we have fully proved, as also that they gave an Accompt to him of the Ministers they had suspended for not Reading the Declaration according to his Injunctions. Therefore their Articles of this nature proceeded meerely from him, and must be charged on him, as well as on themselves. That it was the Act of the Court, not his to bring any into the High Commission for not reading this Book, is a most false averment; for Mr. VVilson [now * a Reverend Divine of the Assembly] was brought into the High Commission by his owne expresse command and no others, as himselfe deposeth, who personally suspended him before at Lambheth for that cause both from his Office and Benefice: and Mr. Page was by his speciall order brought into the High Commission as appeares by his owne Subscription to Francis Thompsons Petition. That Mr. Snelling was there questioned, and severely censured by the Archbishops meanes, who gave Or∣der not to accept either his Answer or defence; and threatned to burne it; is cleare by the proofes t forementioned. That his censure was only for not publishing the Declaration, is evident by the sentence it selfe, if well observed, his not bowing at the name of Jesus, being put in only for a Ci∣pher, but not insisted on at the hearing.

Page  507 And whereas he pretends, he was not present at his censure, which he proves not; we know he was vertually, if not personally present thereat; yea, his unjust sup∣pression of his tendred Answer and defence, was the onely cause of his censure; which if received were so learned, solid, satisfactory, that prophanenesse and in∣justice it selfe could not have imposed such a censure on him. Thirdly, annuall Feasts of Dedication of Churches are not so ancient, but that we know their Ori∣ginall: The Feast of Dedication of the Altar, instituted by Judas Maccabeus was thevfirst of this kind we read of: Indeed Solomon kept a Feast for * seven dayes space when the Temple was dedicated: And Constantine the great, with some others in his dayes, when Churches were dedicated, made a great Feast; but that those Feasts continued annuall in perpetuity, I find no mention in any approved Anti∣quity. These annuall Feasts of dedication were first invented by the spurious popish Decrees of Pope Felix and Gregory, thus recorded by wGratian; Solennitates dedicationum Ecclesiarum, Epissoporum & Saterdotum per singulos annos sunt celebrandae: Solennitates Ecclesiarum dedicationum & Sacerdotum per singulos annos solenniter sunt cele∣brandae, ipso Domino exemplum dante, qui ad festum dedicationis Templi, omnibus id faci∣endi dans formam, cum reliquis populis eandem festevitatem celebraturus venit, sicut scrip∣tum est; Facta sunt Encoenia in Hieru olymis, & hyems erat, & ambulabat Jesus in Temple in porticu Solomonis. Quod autem octo diebus encaenia sint celebrando in libro Regum per∣fecta dedicatione Templi cernas. Other Decrees then these of these two Popes (the latter whereof is built upon cleer mistakes of Scripture) cannot be produced. These Bacanalian feasts are thus censured by Aretius, Problem. 126. Hodie verò Solen∣nitates instituuntur; tote die bibitur, tote die luditur, saltatur, lascivi cantus audiuntur; quae omnia magis spirant Bacchi quoddam festum à Maenadibus celebrandum, quam piam Christianismi antiquitatem: And were wholly abolished among us by the Injunctions of King Henry the eighth, and Statute of 6 Edw. 6. c. 3. by reason of the idlenesse, excesse and great mischiefes they produced to mens soules; Yea, many Judges riding the Westerne Circuit, suppressed the Wakes and Revels kept upon them from time to time for these abuses and other weighty Reasons. Yet this prophane Arch-prelate revives, re-establisheth them by this DECLARATION, causeth those Judges Orders to be reversed with a strong Hand, by a Plot and Certificate from Bishop Pierce and others, checks, nay punisheth Chiefe Justice Richardson, removes him from that Circuit, and lets loose the Reines to all Licentiousnesse, prophanenesse, whereby infinite mis∣chiefs ensued, as we have fully proved: So that this whole Charge sticks still up∣on him.

Ninthly, from these ceremoniall and practicall, they proceed to doctrinall in∣novations in matters of Religion, wherein I am charged; First, with an endea∣vour * to introduce and propagate Arminianisme in our Church, the rediest inlet * to Popery and a part thereof, though I knew it to be a plot of the Jesuits to subvert our Religion, as appears by the Jesuits Letter; and that principally; First, in being a common Patriot of Arminians, together with their Books, Te∣nets, and a preferrer of such; by name, of Bishop Mountague, and his Appeale complained of in Parliament, Doctor Jackson and others; for which I was taxed by a Declaration of the Commons in Parliament: Secondly, in censuring the Commons Declaration in Parliament against the Arminians, and their Vote too: Thirdly, in calling in and suppressing Books against Arminianisme, though licensed, and questioning, censuring the Authors, Printers, dispersers of them in the high Commission, as Bishop Carltons and Bishop Downames Books, Doctor Featlies, Doctor Goads, Master Rouses, Doctor Sutcliffes, Master Prynnes, Master Burtons Books, and others; when as the Arminian Authors went unque∣stioned, and their Books printed by authority, as Doctor Jacksons Book, and the Historicall Narration, licensed by my owne Chaplaine Doctor Martin: Fourthly, In abusing his Majesties Proclamation, his Declaration before the 39. Articles of our Church, with the subsequent Instructions, prohibiting controversies Page  508 against the Article, especially in the controverted points of Arminianisme, to suppresse all preaching against Arminian errours, and punish such as durst op∣pose them, by silencing, suspending, censuring them in the high Commission or elswhere, and conniving at the Arminians to vent and preach their errours freely under pretext thereof, without restraint or opposition, both in the Uni∣versity and City: Fiftly, for purging passages against Arminianisme and Armi∣nians out of Books tendred to the Presse, and particularly out of Bishop Hals and Bishop Davenants Letters; with some other incident particulars which fall under these heads: Sixtly, in repealing the Articles of Ireland against Arminia∣nisme, which King James declaimed against as damnable heresie.

To this I answer in generall, that I never endeavoured to introduce Arminia∣nisme * into our Church, nor ever maintained any Arminian opinions. For the Jesuits Letter, it is nothing at all to me, it layes nothing to my charge in parti∣cular, and it was lawfull for me to read and keep it; it containes many strange vile things in it against the Parliament, which I approve not, but detest. To the particulars, I answer; First, that I did neither protect nor countenance the Arminians persons, books or tenets; for Bishop Mountague, I had no hand in his Book, I countenanced it not, it was suppressed and called in by Proclamation; he was preferred by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes, not mine, who was then a stran∣ger to me: True is is, I was in a Declaration of the Commons house, taxed as a favourer, advancer of Arminians and their opinions, without any particu∣lar proofe at all, which was a great slander to me: Secondly, I answer, that being publickly traduced in that Declaration, I did returne an answer to vindi∣cate my owne innocency, as was necessary for me to doe, to free my selfe from that scandall, without any derogation to the Parliaments authority: Neither did I this till I was expresly commanded by the King himselfe, as appeares by the endorsment, whose command it was lawfull, yea necessary for me to obey; and I durst not have done it without such his Royall command: After which I penned it, with all due respect to the Parliament, and it was never published. For my answer to the Parliaments Vote, it was onely a private paper kept in my Study, and communicated to none, written for my owne private satisfaction, and derogating noting from the power of Parliaments, it belonging properly to the Convocation and Church of England by the Lawes and Statutes of the Land, to make Canons and settle controversies in Religion, as the Statute of 25. Hen. 8. c. 19. & 1. Eliz. c. 1. evidence: Thirdly, the calling in and suppressing of these Books, and prosecuting the Authors, Printers of them in the High Com∣mission, was the Courts act, not mine: For Bishop Carltons Book, it was called in by the High Commission, and attested onely by Master Sparke, a single Witnesse; Bishop Downhams Book was called in by the Kings speciall command, both in England and Ireland, because published contrary to the his Royall Proclamation, and Declaration: For Master Prynnes Perpetuity, I doe not know that it was burnt in private; if it were, it was by the censure of the Court, there being some things in it liable to just exceptions: Doctor Sutcliffes Book is not proved to be called in by me: For Master Prynne, Master Burton, and those that printed their Books, they were not censured in the High Commission, but dismissed thence without censure: For Doctor Jackson, he was a learned discreet man, I li∣censed not his Book, nor doe I know he professed himselfe an Arminian: True it is, the Historicall Narration was licensed by my Chaplaine Doctor Martin, without my privity, for which I turned him out of my service, and the Book it selfe was called in and suppressed.

Fourthly, the Kings Proclamation and Declaration before the Articles, were his owne, not mine, both published to settle peace in the Church, by silencing those controversies which disturbed it by printing or preaching, which unquiet spirits would not submit to, and the Authors of the Books forementioned, among Page  509 others, with some other Preachers about the City and University, for which they were justly questioned, suspended, and some that broached Arminian Tenets in Oxford, were brought in question, and ordered to recant, as well as those that preached against it: The censure of Master Ford and his complices in Oxford, was by the King and Counsell upon a solemne hearing at Woodstock, not by me, and they well deserved it, for kindling such a fire in the University, as was like to set all in combustion: For the University of Cambridge, I medled not with it: The considerations was not my paper, but Bishop Harsnets, who drew them; and I did but transcribe them, and the end of them was not to supresse preaching against Arminianisme, but to preserve peace and order in the Church. For the In∣structions, they were the Kings, not mine, and they were sent to me in a Letter by my Predecessor Archbishop Abbot, and brought to me by his Secretary Master Baker, with command to see them put in execution within my Diocesse of London; to prove which, I have produced the testimony of Master Dobson, who affirmed it to be true. Fiftly, for the purging some passages out of Bishop Hals and Bishop Davenants Letter, and imprisoning Master Butter for printing them. I answer, that the same was done by my Chaplaine, as being contrary to his Majesties Pro∣clamation and Declaration, and Bishop Hall himselfe at last consented to it, and was well satisfied upon the reason given him by my Chaplaine, that it was for the quiet of the Church; and therefore for the Printer of his owne head to put it in, deserved exemplary punishment. Sixtly, there is no proofe that the Articles of Irreland were reversed by my procurement, it was done by the Convocation there, where I was not present.

To this was replied in generall, That his endeavours to introduce Arminia∣nisme were so fully cleered by the premised evidence, and his protection both of * the Authors, and fomenters of it, that impudency it selfe would blush to deny it. That the Jesuits Letter which he had in his custody endorsed with his owne hand did fully discover to him, that the planting and introducing Arminianisme here in England, was their Plot and chief Engine to subvert our Religion: And though it makes no particular mention of him, yet it informes their Superiour and others, that the Arminians had locked up the Dukes eares already; a Periphrasis of himselfe (the Dukes Earwig, as he was then stiled) who had his eare more then any: His compliance therefore with the Arminians, notwithstanding they were but the Jesuits instru∣ments to drive on their designes, as he certainly knew by this Letter, much agra∣vates his crime, and makes exceedingly against him: True it is, there are some strange passages, concerning Parliaments in this Letter, but himselfe hath as bad or worse in his Diary, and Answer to the Remonstrance of the Commons Anno 1628. therefore certainly he disliked not these in this Letter.

Particularly, this replication was retorted to these his answers; First, that he was a professed patriot of the Arminians persons, Books, Tenens, and particularly of Bishop Mountagues; of whose cause he was most anxious and inquisitive, whom he acquainted with his Majesties speciall favour to him while he lay under the cloud of the Parliaments displeasure, his receiving all informations or speeches against his Erronious booke; whose proceedings in Parliament, when there questioned, were daily represented to, and reserved carefully by him; whose ill book and opinions were in sundry conferences particularly justified by him, whose preferments proceeded originally from him, and with whom he held most intimate correspondency till his death, as the forecited passages in his owne Di∣ary, and alleaged evidence proves most fully: For his advancement by Sir Dully Carltons meanes, it is but a bare surmise, contrary to the Dockquet Book to excuse himselfe: The Proclamation for calling in his book proceeded from the Parlia∣ments prosecution of him, not from this Bishops care, who ordered it so, that it proved the chiefe instrument of promoting Arminianisme, by hindring all writing and preaching against it what in him lay, he informing the world in the very Proclamation it selfe, that the Author was punished onely with a good Page  510 Bishoprick for writing this Book, & highly advanced maugre three severall Par∣liaments complaints and opposition; In briefe, the Commons Remonstrance is a sufficient evidence of his guilt and no slander at all (as he slanderously tearmes it) being verified by so many proofs: Secondly, his answer to the Remonstrance of the Commons is full of bitternesse, sawcinesse, scandals against the Parlia∣ment, charging them with untruths in the highest degree, onely for speaking that; which was most true: That he was commanded to returne this answer to it by the King himselfe, without any suit of his owne, is very improbable, and rests on him to prove, which he hath not done: However, he proves not that he did exceed his Commission. And whereas he alleageth by way of excuse, that his answer to it was never published, truly this was his griefe, as appeares by his owne endorsment of it, and no act of his, who desired to have it printed then. Whereas he pretends he durst not have answered it, had not the King commanded him; certainly he that durst controll the Kings owne Letters Pa∣tents, under his Seale, (as he did in the case of the collection for the Palatinate, and sundry other particulars given in evidence against him,) revoke the Kings own pardons and prohibitions to the high Commission, saying, they should not serve the turn; yea, deprive the King of his Soveraignty, that he should not re∣lieve nor pardon any man censured in the high Commission, though never so unjustly; that hath presumed so frequently to break off Parliaments, yea, to re∣solve to dissolve them before they were called, In case they prove peevish, &c. and to write so of Parliaments as he hath done in other papers, durst write such an an∣swer as this without any royall mandate to encourage him: And this his an∣swer to the Commons Vote against Arminianisme demonstrates, which is fraught with transcendent contempt of their authority and proceedings therein basely scorned, scoffed at: And the reasons given therin, prove that it was no pri∣vate note to satisfie himself alone, but a paper purposely complied to incense the King & others against the Commons, as the comparing it with some passages of his Diary, and dissolving of that very Parliament in discontent soon after, will easily demonstrate: For the Statutes objected, they prove no such thing as in pretended, our Parliaments in all Ages (not the Convocation, who are but on∣ly assistants to the Houses in matters of Religion, when their advice is required) having been the sole Judges, Law-givers, determiners of all Ecclesiasticall af∣faires, matters of Religion, as we can prove by ainfinite Presidents: Thirdly, the calling in, suppressing, burning of all the forecited books against Arminianisme, with the questioning of the Authors and Printers of them in the high Commis∣sion, is directly sworn, proved to be his act, and the Courts onely mediatly, by his procurement; the Warrants for their Citation, Commitments, were signed with his hand, he was the onely violent man against them in open Court, up∣on all occasions; and though many of them were not censured, but got off, yet it was onely by prohibitions, full sore against his will, for the bringing where∣of he threatned to lay them by the heels: However, those that escaped best were there prosecuted sundry yeers, put to great attendance and expence, many of them imprisoned, and their books all lost or privately burnt by his direction, without any censure of the Court at all; as Bishop Carltons Book against Mounta∣gue, and Master Prynnes Perpetuity, though both publikely licensed by Archbishop Abbots Chaplaines; Bishop Downhams Book (as this Archbishops owne Letter to Bishop Ʋsher manifests) was called in by his instigation onely; to colour which he procured a mandate from the King; and his owne endorsment proves, that Doctor Sutcliffes Book was suppressed in the Presse by his procurement: For Doctor Jackson, he could not but know him to be a professed Arminian, being so reported by all, and declaring himselfe to be one both in his Epistle and Book, which, though complained of, was never suppressed nor questioned, not∣withstanding his Majesties Proclamation and Declaration: For the Historicall Narration (the vilest imposter ever thrust upon our Church) it was licensed by Page  511 his Chaplain Doctor Martin, with his owne privity; the calling of it in was the act of Archbishop Abbot, upon Master Prynnes complaint, and the publike scan∣dall it gave, much against this Bishops will, who hath ever since connived at the sale of them. The turning away this his Chaplaine for it, is but a false sur∣mise, for he promoted him to the Headship of Queens Colledge in Cambridge, and a very great living to boot, instead of bringing him into the high Commission; and was he not then severely punished for so grand a crime? Fourthly, though the Proclamation and Declaration prohibiting preaching and writing on these controversies, were the Kings in name and title, yet they were originally this Bi∣shops meer plot and contrivance, to suppresse all Books, Disputes, Sermons against Arminianisme, to usher it in the faster without any opposition; the Arminians un∣der pretext hereof, having liberty to preach, to print their errors, without check or censure, as our evidence abundantly proves, he making them meer snares to entangle all consciencious, zealous, orthodox men, Ministers and others, whose zeale excited them to appeare against these dangerous disturbers of our Churches and Kingdomes peace, in Presse, Schooles or Pulpit: For Master Fords and his complices severe censures in Oxford, even to expulsion and banishment, they proceeded meerly from his own violent prosecution, as the Evidence unan∣swerably proves; the Kings and Counsels censures being principally steered by his compasse, the chiefe actor, prosecutor, and Judge in this cause: And where∣as he pretends, that those who preached or printed Arminianisme were conven∣ted, censured in the Ʋnversities and elswhere, as well as those who preached against it; let him name but one Scholler, Minister, that was ever imprisoned, deprived, silenced, prosecuted in the high Commission, or cast out of favour for preaching, writing, printing Arminianisme, and then perchance he may be cre∣dited; but surely not one such president can be found: Whereas Master Mounta∣gue was made a Bishop, Doctor Harsnet an Archbishop, Doctor Linsey promoted to two Bishopricks, Doctor Potter, made a Deane, (to omit sundry others) and Doctor Duppa made the Princes Tutor, Deane of Christ-Church, and a Bishop too, because he was an Arminian. True it is, that we find in the University Re∣gister of Oxford, pag. 50. that one Master Robert Rainsford (since a Doctor) tea∣ching divers Arminian Tenents in a Sermon at Saint Maries, in defence of Electi∣on from foreseen Faith, and Ʋniversall Grace; was upon Doctor Prideaux his com∣plaint, not long after the expulsion of Master Ford and Master Hodges, conven∣ted before the Heads, and enjoyned a very slender Recantation, in as partiall terms as might be; not of his Arminian errours (which he hath oft since broched) but of his disobedience to his Majesties Declaration, recorded in these tearmes:

This was all his censure, farre different from Master Fords and Master Hodges,Page  512 though after their punishment, and so his offence farre greater then theirs, who did not begin the quarrell, nor kindle the fire of the Arminian Controversies in Oxford, but their Opposites, who escaped scot-free, and were promoted by this Archbishop himselfe for opposing, when they were thus severely handled for maintaining the truth. So in London the Anti-Arminians were generally silenced, suppressed, the Arminians connived at, advanced, encouraged by this Prelate, under pretext of this Declaration, as the Commons in Parliament complained in their forecited Remonstrance, and as we have proved by sundry instances, to which he returnes no answer, and so stand confessed by his silence. For Cambridge Ʋniuersity, we know he was Visitor there, though not Chancellour, and had as great an influence upon it, if not power and activity in it, as in Oxford, giving all encouragement to the Arminian party there, advancing them to Headships and other preferments. For the Considerations they are written with his owne hand, savour of his stile, spirit: That Bishop Harsnet was the compiler of them, is but his owne averment, without proofe or probability; and admit they were his in the penning, yet certainly they were his owne in the contriving, execu∣ting; and so were the Instructions, though drawne up in his Majesties name, and sent to Archbishop Abbot, who must be ordered to send them inclosed in a Let∣ter unto him, onely to colour the Plot, as if it were not his; whereas the Ori∣ginall under his owne hand discovers the contrary.

Fiftly, the purging of those objected innocent, orthodox passages, even out of two Bishops Letters by his Chaplaine, was certainly by his owne command, else his Chaplaine durst not be so bold with his Superiours of such note and eminency, who if they consented to this purgation at all, it was onely as Mari∣ners consent to throw over some of their goods into the Sea in a storme, least the whole Ship and fraight should be lost; either this must be expunged, or the whole Book suppressed; and all under pretext of his Majesties Declaration and the Churches peace; neither of which could restaine Arminian Books from the Presse: And whether the Stationer, Butter, deserved to be imprisoned without Baile or Mainprize in the Fleet, to be Articled against in the high Commission, to su∣staine the losse of all his Books, and suffer other penalties for printing these pas∣sages, the best part of his Book; (without which, the Letters themselves were meere Ciphers, fragments,) let the indifferent judge, till the Archbishop can produce an Arminian Stationer, punished in this sort for printing Arminian Trea∣tises, contrary to the Kings Proclamation and Declaration.

Sixtly, our Evidence sufficiently proves, that the revocation of the Articles of Ireland proceeded orinally from him, who was virtually, though not corporally present there in Doctor Bramhall, Master Chapple, and his other Arminian instru∣ments, and the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who had neither power nor malice suf∣ficient to effect such an Arch-exploit without his omnipotent concurrence and abuse of his Majesties authority: For that of King James, that he never censu∣red Arminius for an Heretick, nor his opinions for Heresie, but onely Vorstius, the contrary is most apparent by his very words, in his Declaration against Vor∣stius, pag. 15. to 33. where he stiles Arminius, that Enemy of God; Arminianisme HERESIE; Arminians, Heretiks and Atheisticall Sectaries: Bertius his Book of the Apostacy of the Saints, a blasphemous Book, and this his Doctrine a wicked Doctrine, an abominable Heresie: So that all particulars of this his heavy Charge stick still fast upon him.

Tenthly, I am charged b with various attempts and endeavours, to under∣mine * the true Protestant Religion, established in our Churches, and set up Po∣pery in its stead, by maintaining, Printing, publishing all kind of doctrinall points of Popery, and hindering all publike opposition against them; which ge∣nerall was branched forth into sundry particulars; which I shall answer in their Order.

The first is, The authorizing, printing, dispersing of sundry popish Doctrines, Page  513 Books, and the prohibiting the contary impressions to refute them, c by vertue of a Decree made in Star-Chamber by my Procurement, the 1. of July 1637. by colour whereof, it is objected, divers old printed Books were prohibited to be reprinted, imported; as the English Geneva Bible with marginall Notes, the prin∣ting whereof I endeavoured to suppresse abroad in the Netherlands, as well as at home: The questioning of Master Gellibrand in the high Commission for his mans publishing an Almanack according to Master Fox his Calander in the Book of Martyrs, wherein our English Martyrs names were inserted in stead of popish Saints, whom Doctor Pocklington abused in print; my checking, threatning of Mistris Griffin for reprinting Thomas Beacons Display of the Poposh Masse; my cal∣ling in of the Palsgraves Religion; the deniall of reprinting Master Fox his Acts and Monuments, Bishop Jewels Works, and some part of Doctor Willets; for refusing to license new Books against Popish errours, and calling in of M^r. Prynnes, Ma∣ster Burtons, and others Books against popery, yea questioning them with sun∣dry Printers and Stationers, in the high Commission, for printing, publish∣ing Books against the Papists and Arminians; my licensing, countenancing di∣vers popish bookes, lately printed, dispersed, to infect and poyson his Maje∣sties people with popish errours, as Francis Sales his Book, Christs Epistle to a de∣vout Soule, Bishop Mountagues, Doctor Pocklingtons, Doctor Heylins, Doctor Law∣rences, Reeves, Shelfords, Chownaeus, Staffords Books and Sermons; The lives of the Emperours, the popish Index Biblicus, my owne Speech in Star-chamber, and others, wherein divers grosse points of popery and superstition, mustered up under di∣vers heads, are comprized; many of which were complained of by Master Prynne in his Crosse Bill in Star-Chamber, suppressed by my meanes, and by Master Burton in his For God and the King; for which they were unjustly censured in the Star-Chamber; to which Master Croxtons Letter to me, with a crosse in the front, approving most grosse Auricular confession in the open Church, is sub∣joyned.

To which I answer; First, That the Decree in Star-Chamber was the act of the whole Court, who likewise ordered it to be printed, not mine: That it was * made onely to regulate the abuses of printing: That the Stationers themselves desired, approved, and gave me thanks for it. Secondly, That the English Bi∣ble with Geneva Notes, was onely tolerated and connived at, not allowed hereto∣fore; that some passages in it were abused, and very ill use made of them; as among others, that in the first of Exodus, which teacheth men not to obey the commands of Kings. King James himselfe in the Conference at Hampton Court, pag. 47. publikely declared his dislike of this translation, as the worst of all, and thereupon took care for a new translation to be made, but withall gave this Caveat, that no marginal Notes should be added to it, having found in them annexed to the Geneva translation some Notes very partiall, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traite∣rous conceits: As for example; the first chapter of Exodus, and the 19. verse, where the marginall Note alloweth disobedience unto Kings: The endeavour to suppresse it in the Netherlands, was not any extent of my power thither, but the act of Sir Will. Boswell the Kings Agent there, who did but his duty therein. Thirdly, for Master Gellibrands Book, it was printed not in forme of a Calender but Almanack; it was published to discountenance the old Saints, and was a meer innovation, contra∣ry to all former Almanacks in use among us, and to that in the Common-prayer book: That the Queen sent to me about it, I could not help that: That I told Master Gellibrand he laboured to raise a faction in the Court, I remember not the words; and if he did so, he deserved to be censured for it: That the Papists burnt it, I could not help that: Neither did it agree with Master Fox his Calender, but he abused it, in leaving out divers Saints allowed by the Church of England, as the Epiphany and Annunciation of our Lady: For Doctor Pocklingtons Book, wherein he abused our Martyrs, it was licensed by his Chaplain, Doctor Bray, who was censu∣red for it, as was Doctor Pocklington too, in the Lords House.

Page  514 But it is objected, that my Chaplaines act is in law mine owne: I answer not, * unlesse I command it: But the Book it selfe was found in my Study, and I pre∣ferred Doctor Pocklington for it. I know no such thing, and though I had the Book, yet I knew not of this passage in it. Fourthly, for the calling in of Beacons Book, printed by Mistris Griffin, it is nothing to me what a Jesuit said of it; and if called in, it was because she reprinted it contrary to the Star-chamber Decree. Fiftly, for the Palsgraves Religion, I remember it not, and if called in, it was be∣cause it was contrary to the Kings Declaration, and touched upon some points of controversie prohibited by it. Sixtly, the hindring of the reprinting of Master Fox, Bishop Jewell, and Doctor Willet, was no act of mine. Seventhly, I hinde∣red the printing of no new Books against Popery. Eightly, the questioning of Master Prynne, Master Burton, and the rest in the High Commission, was no act of mine, but the Courts; nor were they censured, but got off without censure: Master Burton said, he was questioned before the Counsell Table for one of his Books, as a Libell: If it were a Libell, there was cause to doe it. He added, he could not be quiet for being troubled in the high Commission; nor could the Church be quiet for him, which was the cause of his trouble. He affirmed, I committed him to the Fleet, and denied him the benefit of the Petition of Right. I answer, there was cause enough for his commitment, for printing of Books without license, and for disturbing the peace of the Church, and he had the be∣nefit of the Petition of Right, because the reason of his commitment was expressed in the Warrant. Ninthly, I licensed none of the particular books forecited my selfe, nor any of my Chaplains to my knowledge, I am certaine not by my com∣mand, and if any of them have transgressed herein, themselves must answer for it, not I; who having many other weighty publike affaires to look after, had no time to peruse or license Books my selfe, and was enforced to commit this trust to their care. Tenthly, to the particular books I answer, First, that though Sales his book was licensed by my Chaplaine, yet he was abused therein, by the Translator & Printer, who was punished for it in Star-chamber: The book it self was called in and burnt by Proclamation, and I dismissed the Doctor for licensing it out of my house and service: For Christs Epistle to a devout Soule, it was licensed at London House, by Doctor Weeks, the Bishop of Londons Chaplain, not mine, and so nothing to me; besides, it was suppressed before it was published: For Doctor Heylins Books, they are nothing to me, I had no hand in them, nor yet in Doctor Pocklingtons, who hath been censured for them himselfe: For Bishop Mountagues Impressions, they concerne not me, I did neitheir advise nor authorize them: For the Lives of the Emperours, which commend the Councell of Trent, the Book was not licensed, and I know not of it. For the Popish Index Biblicus printed in England, it is nothing to me, it was without my privity and direction: For the severall popish passages objected out of some newbooks, the Authors themselvs must answer them at their perill, they concerne not me: For the rejecting of Master Prynnes Crosse Bill in Star-chamber, complaining of these popish Books and Doctrines, it was none of my act, but the Courts and Lord Keeper Coventries; and so was M^r. Burtons censure for his Book, in which I gave no Vote: For Master Croxtons Letter to me with a Crosse, enjoyning Auricular confession, I could not hinder it, nor his practise of confession being in Ireland: And for the passages objected out of mine owne Speech in Star-chamber, that they imply and necessarily inferre the popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and the giving of divine worship to the Altar, even the same that is given to God. I answer, that neither of these can be inferred from thence; for my words onely imply, that Christs body is truly and really present in the Sacrament; yet not corporally, but in a spirituall manner, and so is received by us; which is no more then Master Calvin himselfe affirmes on the 1 Cor. 11. 24. where thus he writes: Neque enim mortis tantum & Resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus suum in quo passus est & Resurrexit: Concludo, REALITER (ut vulgo loquuntur) id est, VERE Nobis in Coena datur Christi corpus, ut sic A•imisPage  515Nostris in Cibum salutarem; and Master Perkins himselfe faith as much. For my words, that we should bow DEO ET ALTARI, which are coupled both to∣gether with a Conjunction Copulative, yea both bowed to at the self-same time, in one and the same act, and the worship directed to, and terminated in both alike: Ergo, divine worship is given to the Altar herein as well as to God, which is flat Idolatry, or but such civill reverence given to God as is rendred to the Altar; which is to dishonour God, and gives him no greater worship in his house then is due unto a creature: I answer, that though the act of bowing be the same to both, yet the object, mind and intention being different, the worship must be so too; There is a double worship and bowing, one of the body, the other of the heart, as Master Perkins himselfe distinguisheth; which is properly called Ve∣neration, when done but to a creature in a civill respect, and worship onely when given to God himself.

To this was replied, Ferst, that this Decree of Star-chamber concerning printing was onely his owne act originally, who projected and put that Court upon it, * (whereof he was an over-potent Member) theirs onely Ministerially, to satisfie his importunity therein, as the forecited Passages in the Decreee it selfe, and our Witnesses attest: Yea, the printing of it was by his own command, to enlarge his Jurisdiction, which it much advanced: We grant that some things in the Decree were good, approved of by the Stationers, who desired the same, of which we com∣plain not, and some particulars very usefull, had a right use been made of them. But the prohibiting reprinting of all Orthodox Books formerly printed by au∣thority, unlesse re-licensed by him or his Agents; the deniall of any old book to be reprinted even against Popery it selfe, with the suppressing or purging most new Books against Popery, under pretext of this Decree, and the arbitrary pu∣nishing such who transgressed herein both in the Star-chamber and High Commis∣sion, was a transcendent crime, of which this Arch-prelat and his Confederates (not the whole Court of Star-chamber) were onely culpable: Yea, the Stationers were so farre from being well pleased with, or returning him thanks for this, that they complained to the chiefe Justice, and groaned under the pressure there∣of. Secondly, the English Bible with the Geneva Notes, was not onely tolerated but printed and reprinted among us in England, Cum Privilegio, during Queen Elizabeths and King James Reignes; and in 15. Jacobi there was an Impression of them printed here by the Kings own Printer; since which time, the new Transla∣tion without Notes being most vendible (the Kings Printers forbearing to print them for their private lucre, not by vertue of any publike restraint) they were usually imported from beyond the Seas, and publickly sold without any inhi∣bition or punishment, till this Archbishops time, who made it no lesse then an High Commission crime, to vend, bind or import them. For the Notes, they are generally approved by all our Protestant Divines, which fled hence for Religion in Queen Maries dayes, who dedicated the same to Queen Elizabeth. For the Note on Exodus 1. it is both sound and Orthodox, condemning onely obedience to the arbitrary, tyranicall, unjunst (not lawfull) commands of Kings, contrary to the Lawes of God, nature, men, being warranted by the example of the Midwives, who disobeyed King Pharaohs bloody Mandate, in not murdering all the male Children of the Israelites, by sundry other dScripture Texts; yea, warranted by the Fathers and e Canonists themselves, who speake as much or more then this Annotation doth. For King James his censure of this Translation and Notes upon it, no doubt it proceeded from some Prelats mis-information: However, we are cer∣tain that his own inserting of popish Pictures of the Birth, Life, Passion, Resurre∣ction and Ascention of Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Apostles, yea the very Assumption of the Virgin Mary, and the like, into our English, and of a Popish Index into our Latin Bibles, was farre worse, more dangerous then any Geneva Notes; and the prohibition of inserting Marginall Notes into the Bible, a policy learned from our English Prelats in King HRNRY the eighth his Page  516 Reigne, who when they could not hinder the printing of the Bible it selfe in English, of Master Tyndals Translation; yet procured an Act of Parliament for the Obliterating of his Notes thereon; as the Statute of 35. Hen. VIII. cap. 1. and Master fFox informes us: And his endeavour to hinder the importation of Bibles with Notes from Holland, of which he had information by two Letters sent from thence, discovers his vigilance, yea, spite against this Translation and the Notes upon it.

Thirdly, for Master Gellibrands Almanacke, set forth by his servant, it was agreeable to Master Foz his Calender; onely inserting our English Martyrs in the place of popish Saints; no High Commission crime by any knowne Law; That it differed from other Almanacks herein, is no greater offence, then for one Almanack-maker to vary from another in calculating the Weather, or other Astronomicall Observations, who better deserve an High Commission censure for re∣taining the names of sundry Popish Saints, (yea arrant Traytors, as Becket, An∣selme, with sundry others) omitted in the Calender of the Common-Prayer Book, and agreeing Verbatim with the Calender in the Roman Missall, then he, for omitting the names of Romish Saints, whom God never Canonized, but the Pope alone, for their zeale or sufferings for the Papall Cause and Romish Su∣perstitions. The Queens sending to him about this Almanack, shewes, that the Papists took it to be a great blow to their Religion; and though he could not hinder the message, yet certainly he might have surceased all prosecution of M^r Gellibrand upon the Queens and Papists complaints for this act of his, where as he pursued him with al violence to gratifie them. For the words he remembers not, our Witnesse swears them precisely, and his threatning Master Gellibrand upon a meere groundlesse supposition, that he had raised a faction in the Court, because they acquitted him full sore against his will; argues both his violence and injustice: That the Papists burnt it, when he could not attaine the burning of it in the High Commission, argues their malice, and his owne readinesse to comply with them against so good a work, in honour of our owne English Protestant Martyrs. For his omission of some Saints, viz. the Epiphany and Anunciation, no man knew them to be Saints till now, but onely Festivals, which other Almanacks mentioned, and it is onely alleaged not proved that he omit∣ted them. For Doctor Pocklingtons Altare Christianum, it was licensed by his owne Chaplaine Doctor Bray, yea published by his owne command, without the Authors privity, if we beleeve his Petition to the Lords; and their two punish∣ments, censures in the Lords House for this Book, adjudged to the fire and burnt, is no extenuation, but aggravation of his guilt, the most culpable of all three: Himselfe confesseth, that his Chaplaines act is his owne in Law, if he command it, and this Doctor himselfe affirmes, that he did command its print∣ing; therefore the act is his more then the Authors or his Chaplains, who did but obey his superiour command. That Doctor Pocklington did present him with both the printed Impressions of this Book, curiously gilt, he cannot deny, they being found in his Study endorsed with his owne hand: That he knew not of this passage in it against our Martyrs, and in honour of Popish Saints, is not proba∣ble, yea, impossible, since generally complained of in print, and particularly by Master Prynne at the Pillory, who desired all to take notice of it; of which the Archbishop had present information, yet neither recalled the book nor oblite∣rated the passage.

Fourthly, the calling in of M^r Beacons book against the Masse, upon the complaint of a Priest or Jesuit, with his words and threats to Mistris Griffin, for reprinting it at such a time as this, reflect as fouly upon him as possible yet he puts it off with this impudent common shift, It is nothing to me: For the reprinting and his calling of it in, it is directly sworne to be before the Star-chamber Decree, there∣fore not done in pursuance of it; and were it done after, yet not justifiable without highest impudency by any true Protestant Prelate.

Page  517 Fiftly, for the Palsgraves Religion, it is proved to be called in by him, who hath the happinesse to forget all the evil deeds which he cannot justifie, though others sweare them: And it was not contrary to the Kings Declaration (which him∣selfe originally contrived) in the Kings intention, but in his owne perverting of it, to suppresse the truth. Sixtly, the hindering of the reprinting of Master Fox, Bishop Jewel and Doctor Willets Works, was certainly his owne act, because done by colour of this Star-chamber Decree, procured by himselfe for this very purpose, and the reprinting of them was stopped by his owne Officers, creatures meanes, who knew his mind, if not received his command herein: Seventhly, himselfe, if not immediatly, yet originally and mediatly hindered the printing of all the new Books against Popery, refused at the Presse, and denied license by his Instruments, Chaplaines, Doctor Bray, Doctor Haywood, Doctor Weekes, Do∣ctor Baker, unlesse first purged by them.

Ninthly, the questioning of Master Prynne, Master Burton, with their Printers and Stationers in the High Commission, for their Books against Doctor Cosins his popery, Babel no Bethel, Baiting of the Popes Bull, and the like, was originally his act alone, not the Courts, which did naught in it but by his instigation: Their getting off thence was by Prohibitions, sore against his will, where else he resolved to ruine them. Master Burtons answering the Popes Bull by license, deserved no questioning at the Counsell Table, and was certainly no Libell at all, unlesse the Pope or his Partisans deemed it such to them: His Books then were no trouble to the Church, and therefore it was strange and most unjust he should be trou∣bled for them; yea, his imprisonment without Baile (which he tendered) when bailable by Law, was contrary to Magna Charta and the Petition of Right, though the cause of it (not warranted by Law) was expressed in the Warrant. Tenth∣ly, his owne Chaplaines oversights and offences in licensing popish Books, even with this speciall Encomium, that there was nothing in them contrary to faith and sound Doctrine (the forme of licensing himselfe prescribed them under his owne hand) is certainly both in law and justice, his owne crime more then theirs, who must answer for it much more then they; the trust of licensing books being originally reposed in himselfe by the State, and in his Chaplaines onely by his owne Depu∣tation, for gwhom he must answer at his perill: To prove this, and take away this poore evasion, which he so much insists on, we shall put but these few cases g ad∣judged in Law; hIf a Bailiffe, under Jaylor, or under Sheriffe suffer a prisoner to escape, or any way to misdemeane themselves in their office, an action of escape, debt (an fine in cases of felony and treason,) and action of the case lyeth against the high Sheriffe and chiefe Jaylor for it, who must undergoe the penalty and blame, because they are their servants, entrusted by themselues: And to put a case, which comes neerer home, and is farre stronger then this of a Chaplaine, 21. E. 1. membr. 3. Dorso Clauso, and in the Pleas of that Parliament, placit. 17. John Archbishop of Yorke was questioned in Parliament, for excommunicating William of Willicon, and John Rowman, servants to the Bi∣shop of Durham, then imployed in the Kings service; the Archbishop pleaded just as this Archbishop doth now, That they were not excommunicated by himselfe, but onely by his Commissary, who must answer for it, and so no act of his for which he ought to answer: But yet notwithstanding, it was upon serious debate resolved in Parliament, that the Act of his Commissary being his owne immediate Officer, was his owne act, for whose misdemeanour he must answer, and thereupon he was fined 4000. markes to the King, and forced to pay it, (a great fine in those times for such an offence) yea gladed to make many friends to the King to avoid a further censure: which is farre stronger then the case of this Arch∣prelate: For this iCommissary was an Officer established by Law, which the Archbishop could not remove at pleasure without just cause; but his Chaplaines were no Officers by Law, but meer meniall servants, under his immediate com∣mand, and removable at pleasure; therefore certainly, they durst license nothing especially against our established Religion, without his privity and command: Besides, there were never any such popish Books authorized since the beginning Page  518 of Reformation in any of his Predecessors times, by themselves or their Chap∣laines, neither durst such erronious pamphlets appeare publickly amongst us, till he grew great to patronize them; yea, when they were thus licensed, and publickly complained against, as Popish, erronious, and destructive to our Religion, he censured, persecuted such who durst complaine or write against them, never que∣stioning nor punishing the Licensers, Printers or Authors of them exemplarily as he should have done, to discharge the trust reposed in him, and vindicate his sincerity herein; whereas if any new Book against Arminians or Popish Innovations did but privily passe the Presse by license of his Predecessors Chaplaines (as Bi∣shop Carltons Book against Mountague, Master Prynnes Perpetuity, his Survey of Master Cozens his Cozening Devotions, Histriomastix, with other forenamed Impressi∣ons did) he presently suppressed, burnt them, questioned the Authous, Printers, Dispersers, Licensers of them, both in the High Commission and Star-chamber too, where Master Prynne by his meanes, was censured in the highest degree of extre∣mity for his Histriomastix, a licensed Book, and Master Buckner too, who licensed it, fined by this Archbishop himselfe and that Court; therefore this act of his Chaplaines must rest upon his own head, and the guilt thereof lye heaviest upon him, whose fault it was to make choyce of such, and to entrust them in this kind. As for his excuse of his many other grand imployments, which so en∣grossed his time, that he had no leisure to peruse what Books were tendred and licensed for the Presse, it is so farre from being any excuse, that it aggavates his crime: Certainly the preservation of our Religion in its purity, the keeping out all Popish innovations in Ceremony, Doctrine, Worship, and the suppression of Popish errours, Books, Doctrines, were the principall things of all others, which his Place, Calling, yea, his Majesties trust engaged him to look unto; for him then to neglect this principall part of his Episcopall duty, the frequent prea∣ching of Gods Word (he seldome appearing in the Pulpit after he became Arch∣bishop and a Privy Counsellour) to drowne himselfe in all manner of secular imployments in the Star-chamber, Counsel-Chamber, Exchequer, spending his time in proling about Tobacco; Licenses, illegall Taxes, Projects, Monopolies of all sorts, contrary to the Lawes and Liberties of the Subjects, in undermining Parliaments, oppressing the people every where, and managing the Kings Reve∣nues, (things no way suitable to his spirituall Function;) is so farre from exte∣nuating, that it puts the highest degree of aggravation upon this his negligence and Chaplaines misdemeanours, which he should have better looked too: But admit the reall duties of his Place alone had been overburthensome to him, he should then have intrusted, imployed such in Licensing and perusing Books, who would have discharged the trust reposed in them, in farre better manner then his knowne Popish and Arminian Chaplains did. Tenthly, to his excuses touching the particular Popish Books objected: We answer, first, that Sales his Booke was Licensed by Doctor Haywood, his own Chaplain: that he was not abused in it, but the Printer, whom he checked for complaining to him of the Popish pas∣sages in the Booke, and encouraged to proceed in the printing of it, which other∣wise he durst not have printed. That it was afterwards called in and publickly burnt, was no thanks to him or his Chaplain, but to Master Prynnes crosse Bill against him and his Chaplaine in Star-Chamber for licensing it; As for the Pro∣clamation for calling it in, it was but a meere device to abuse the King, King∣dome, to justifie or excuse his peccant Chaplain and himselfe, by a most false relation of the carriage of the businesse. Besides, if his Chaplain was innocent, Why then doth he pretend, he punished him by turning him out of his service? If guilty, Why doth he justifie him to the King and Kingdome by this Proclama∣tion? But indeed this pretended punishment was but a meere pretence; for he punished him onely with a good Living, to wit, Saint Giles in the Fields, sending him from Lambeth thither to infect that Parish with his Popish Leprosie, or to please the Papists, Priests, Jesuits, of which there were more residing in that Pa∣rish Page  519 alone, then in all the Parishes about London. For Christs Epistle to a Devout Soule, that it was licensed by Doctor Weekes at London-house the self-same day that Sales was at Lambeth; is true, but yet it is as true that Doctor Weeks was this Arch∣bishops owne Chaplaine, and the Bishop of London his meer creature Servant, yea it appears there was a strong confederacy between the Chaplaines of Lambeth and London-house in licensing both these Popish Books for the same Stationer the self-same day, to propagate and license Popery with a witnesse, even just at that very season, (which makes it more remarkable) when Master Prynne, Master Burton, and Doctor Bastwicke were prosecuted by their good Lord and Master Canterbury in the Star-chamber, for opposing their Popish Innovations, Impositions, Do∣ctrins, and just when the gaudy Crucifix was erected by him at White-hall in the Kings owne Chappell in Passion week, they then thinking all cock-sure on their side: That this Epistle was suppressed, we may thank, not the Archbishop, but Master Prynn's Crosse-bill, who but a few weeks after was ill requited with a bloody barbarous censure for his paines, and sent away hence close prisoner, first, into North-Wales, then into Jersey, where none must have accesse unto him, to prevent any more such oppositions, discoveries of popish Bookes and Bils against them. For Doctor Heylins Books complained of, they were some of them purposely written by the Archbishops owne command, as he hath confessed (to wit, that against M^r. Burton & Antidotum Lincolnienses) & licensed by his own Chap∣laines; therefore they concerne him much: For Doctor Pocklingtons Popish Im∣pressions, they were perused by himselfe, yea, published by his direction without the Doctors privity, as his Petition manifests; therefore his censure for writing them, will be no excuse for his owne publishing, or his Chaplaines authorizing them without the Doctors knowledge or desire: For Bishop Mountagues Books, they were all bound up (most of them with his Armes very rightly gilt) and pre∣sented to him by Mountague himselfe; after that, entertained by him in his Study, justified by him in private conferences, yea, the later of them expresly submitted to his judgement, dispose, and licensed by his Chaplaines; and yet are they nothing to him? For the Epitome of the Lives of the Emperours, it was licensed by his owne Chaplaine Doctor Weekes, at London-house, as the license and entry of it in the Stationers Hall (which we have here ready to produce) attests: That he took no notice of it, nor of what was in it, was his owne voluntary negligence, who could take notice of any the least pretended Puritannicall, Anti-episcopall, or Anti-Arminian passages in all new printed Books whatsoever; yea, of any harsh passages against the Pope, Papists, Jesuits, and cause them to be suppressed, ex∣punged, and the Authors of them sometimes to be deeply censured: For the Popish Index Biblicus, being printed here in London, then publikely bound up with our Latin Bibles of Junius and Tremelius translation (with which they as well accorded as Fire doth with Water, or Popery with Protestanisme) it concerned him most of any thing to take notice of, and have most severely punished: But this vigilant Argus against Protestanisme, or any thing that trenched upon Epis∣copacy, Popish Ceremonies, Arminianisme, or the High Commission, was here as blind as a Beetle, and could espye no Books at all (though never so grosse) that made for Popery and popish Innovations, or else fell fast asleep, when he should watch against these popish enemies, who sowed their Tarts so fast among us.

For the objected popish passages out of these now Authorized Printed Au∣thors, himselfe must answer for them:

First, because many of them were particularly complained against by Master Burton in his Sermon for God and the King; by Master Prynne in his Crosse Bill, which he read, and by sundry printed Books, which he could not but take notice of; yet he neither suppressed the Books, nor questioned the Authors, Printers or dispersers of them. Secōdly, because never any such large crop or harvest of Popish Books and Tares appeared or sprung up in our English Church before his time, since the beginning of Reformation; it being the chiefe part of his place and Page  520 Office as Archbishop of Canterbury to suppresse and extirpate, whereas he autho∣rized and propagated them all he could. For the rejecting of Master Prynnes Crosse Bill in Star-chamber against him, his Chaplaines and Confederates for Writing, Licensing, Publishing these Popish Books and Passages, it was princi∣pally his owne Act, who stopped it at the Lord Keepers; was present when it was rejected in open Court (where he sat as one of the most swaying Judges) and endeavoured to have brought him in danger of his life, onely for preferring it in a Legall manner; whereas had he, his Chaplaines, Confederates been Innocent, they would have Petitioned the Court it might have been received, that so they might legally have cleared themselves (if they could) of that, which now (bles∣sed be God) we have fully proved before an Higher Tribunall, for which this cause by Gods providence was reserved, as the fittest Court both to heare and censure it. For Master Croxtons Letter; he was his owne creature, specially re∣commended by him to the Lord Deputy Wentworth, who preferred him for his sake: and he that durst preferre such a Popish Priest in that Popish Kingdome, who dared thus openly to put the Masse-Priests, yea Jesuits badge of a Crosse in the Front of his Letter to him, and acquaint him with this open practice of Auricular Confession; must doubtlesse be no wel-wisher to our Religion, and assured of the Archbishops readinesse to concur with him in the approbation of his courses, else he durst not write thus to him.

As for that passage in his Speech in Star-chamber; we have k already proved, that it necessarily implyes a Transubstantiation, or corporall presence of Christ on the very Altar. For, there (saith he, not in and to the beleevers heart, receiving him spiritually by faith) tis, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. and A greater reverence no doubt is due TO THE BODY, then to the word of the Lord. Its true, our 28. Article re∣solves, That in the Lords Supper, to such as rightly, worthily and with faith receive the same, the bread which we breake is a partaking of the Body of Christs which is given, taken and eaten in the Supper, ONLY after an heavenly and spirituall manner. And the meane whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. And in this sence Master Calvin writes, that the very Body of Christ wherein he suffered and rose againe, is offered to us, & REALLY & TRƲLY given unto us in the Supper, in a spirituall man∣ner onely. But did ever our Articles, M^r Calvin, or any Prorestant writers hold, That Christs body was really or truly present upon the Altar (where it is, saith he, usually present, and the greatest place of Christs residence upon earth) or more present then in his Word. Cer∣tainly, never any Protestant Author, but only Papists writ so before himself. And where doth Master Calvin say Christs body is, which we really and truly receive in the Lords Supper? What? on the Altar? there is no such syllable in him; but the very next words, which the Bishop purposely concealed, resolve us, that it is in heaven; lChristum IN CAELO MANENTEM ô Nobis recipi, sine ut in celesti sun gloria maneat, & illuc aspici, & inde se tibi communicet. The like our Common*Prayer-Booke and Homilies also resolve. Therefore they call on us, Sursum corda, to lift up our hearts and faith to heaven, and feed upon Christ there; not on the Altar. This Cobweb distinction therefore of his (especially if compared with the mAl∣terations and Additions made by him in the Scottish Common-Prayer-Booke; where he cleerly maintains a Transubstantiation) will no wayes cover his shame, or take off his guilt. As for his DEO & Altari, the Argument pressed against him from it is still unanswered: since one and the selfe-same worship in one and the selfe-same act, instance, is given joyntly to both. And whereas he saith, the object di∣stinguisheth the worship; it is most false; since nDivine worship is and may be gi∣ven to an Altar, an Image, a creature, a peece of Bread (as among the Pagans and Pa∣pists) as well as to God himselfe. So that this whole part of our Evidence re∣maines unanswered, unshaken in any particular, and is onely aggravated by his poore evasions, his impudent justifications, of what he hath cause to be most ashamed, if not confounded, before such a great Tribunall and judicious Au∣ditory.

Page  521 The eleventh charge against me is, the expunging of sundry passages against * Popery, Arminianisme, &c. out of severall printed Books and Sermons, by me and others, before they could passe the Presse, which Passages have been reduced to severall heads: I shall not recapitulate the charges of this kind, but answer them severally in their order.

The first of them is my own opurging out of Doctor Sibthops Sermon sundry passa∣ges against Popery, evil Counsellours and prophaners of the Sabbath.*

To which I answer, First, that the King committed the perusall of this Ser∣mon to four Bishops, whereof I was but one, and these expunctions were made by their consent, not by me alone: Secondly, the first of them seemed to lay an aspersion on the Emperour, the King of Spaine and France, the Duke of Bavaria and Archdutchesse, as if they had a designe to extirpate the Protestant Religion; therefore it was not thought fit it should passe the Presse, for feare of giving offence to them: Thirdly, the second of them seemed to cast an aspersion upon the Kings Counsell, and was therefore crossed out: The third gives the name of the Sabbath to the Lords day, which is never so termed in the new Testament; appropriated to the Jewish Sabbath only on the Saturday, now wholly abbroga∣ted; and likewise makes Popery to trench upon the breach of the first Comman∣dement: which being a thing doubtfull and disputable, was thought fit to be expunged.

To which was replied, First, that the committing of this Sermon to three other Bishops besides himselfe to be examined, is a bare averment of his owne * without any proofe; that any other perused it besides himselfe, appeares not: All the additions, purgations in it, are made with his owne hand onely, and none others, therefore his alone; yea, if he did it jointly with others, this will not extenuate his fault, since as we must not doe evill alone, so we must pnot fol∣low a multitude to doe it. His answers to these expunged particulars, are most ab∣surd and false: For the first of them was so farre from being a scandall, that it was then (and yet is) a mostqapparent truth, published to all the Kingdome in the Kings owne Letters to every County throughout the Realme, concerning the Loane in February 1627. to draw it on, and the Doctor in his Sermon to set on this Loane, did but transcribe it out of the Kings owne Letter; if then it were a reall truth, why was it blotted out of his Sermon, more then out of the Kings owne Letter? If a scan∣dall and untruth, why did the King and his Counsell then publish it in their Letters, to delude the people and draw on the Loane? But the truth is, our Reli∣gion must be rooted out abroad by the Emperour, Kings of Spaine, France, with their Confederates, and undermined by the Prelaticall and popish party at home, yet we must have no liberty to speak of it our selves, or publish it to others, for feare of preventing the designe: For the second clause, he thought it might re∣flect on, or rise up in judgement one day against himselfe, therefore it was wis∣dome for him to rase it out; the Kings evill Counsellours by this meanes must neither be reprehended nor punished: For the third passage, it is true, that the Lords day is not directly stiled the Sabbath in the New Testament, yet it is term∣ed the firstrof the SABBATHS oft times in it; but admit it were not, yet seeing all dayes of sacred rest and worship whatsoever, are stiled sSabbaths, both in the Old and New Testament, and the Sabbath in its proper Definition, is no∣thing else, but a weekly day of sacred rest from worldly labours, pleasures, imployments, de∣voted wholly to Gods publique and private worship; and the Lords day is such a Sab∣bath as this, and so termed by t Councels, Fathers, forraigne writers of all sorts, and more especially by our owne EnglishvStatutes, Homilies, Proclamations, Letters-Patents, Canons, Bishops visitation Articles, and Writers of all sorts; why this passage concerning the Lords day Sabbaths sanctification, and the prophanation of it, should be obliterated by him, no reason can be rendred, but onely the prophane Anti-sabbatarian Disposition of his owne heart, which soon after more publiquely displayed it selfe, in the re-publishing and pressing the Declaration for Lords-day sports: Page  522 sports: For the latter clause of this deleted period, concerning connivance at Popery, which trencheth upon the first and second Commandement, and making the Lawes concerning it, meer Engines of State, to draw reward for toleration, dispensation and connivance, &c. his excuse is most miserable and ridiculous: For first, it is generally agreed by all Protestant Writers, that Popery trencheth upon the first Commandement, by advancing the xVirgin Mary, Pope (to omit the Bredden Wafer) into the very Throne of God himselfe, and Deifying them both with divine Titles, Adorati∣ons, Attributes, Epithites, Orisons, and the like; therefore no reason to de∣lete this clause, that it trencheth on the first Commandement: the rather, because Paul himselfe affirmes it in direct termes, 2 Thes. 2. 3, 4. as all orthodox Exposi∣tors resolve: Secondly, its agreed by all Protestants, yea, by this Arch-Prelat himselfe (in shew at least, when his reputation seemed to be somewhat blasted, as if he were devoted to Popery) and expresly resolved by our Homilies against the perill of Idolatry, that Popery expresly trencheth upon the second Commandement sundry wayes, as by adoring Crucifixes, Images, Saints, Angels, Reliques, Altars, the consecrated Hoast, yea, by invocation of Saints departed, and introduction of sundry Idolatrous Superstitious Rites, Ceremonies, formes of Worship, invented by Popes, Priests, Fryars, into the Worship of God: Therefore had he deleted its intrenchment upon the first Commandement as dubious, yet since there is no question of their transgressing the second in all these particulars, his abolition thereof is inexcusable, and dis∣playes his popish disposition: Thirdly, however had he deleted this likewise, yet his obliterating that which followes, against connivance at, and suspention of Lawes against Popery and Papists for luchre sake, least God make the gaine gotten by this di∣viding betwixt him and Idols, to be like that of Solomons, which was recompenced with the losse and dividing of his Kingdome betwixt his Sonne and a Stranger, &c. (the sad ef∣fects whereof we have lately felt) with all other passages whatsoever against Po∣pery (especially at this juncture of time, when all forraigne popish Princes had confederated to extirpate the Protestant Religion in forraigne parts, as the first deleted passage informes us) is such an unsufferable execrable crime, in one who pretends himselfe a Protestant Bishop, and had then no legall authority to cor∣rect or license Books for the Presse, as deserves the highest censure; yea, displays to all the world the hidden Popery of his heart, if not his secret correspondency with the Romish party to replant their false superstitious Religion and Idola∣try in our Church; and from this originall purgation of his, we may visibly discover, that all succeeding expunctions of this kind made by his owne chap∣lains and other Agents at Lambeth or London-house, proceeded primarily from him∣self, as the originall cause and Author of them.

The second Objection of this kind is, my alterations of the Prayers y appoin∣ted for the fift of November, in some particular causes in the Impression of them, *Anno 1635.

To this I answer, First, that these alterations were not made by me, but the * Prayers were sent unto me altered by the King himselfe, who commanded me to see them printed according to those alterations; and I have here the Books, with his Majesties hand and Warrant to each of them for what I did: Secondly, that the expressions were somewhat overharsh, and fit to be altered, terming their very Religion, Rebellion, being but the Christian Religion, and the same with Ours, as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber, to which I must referre, where I have rendred reasons for it, which gave generall satisfaction then, and I hope will doe so to your Lordships now.

To which was replied, First, that the Archbishop shewes his great undutiful∣nesse here in casting this and other his unwarrantable popish actions on the King * himselfe: Secondly, that for ought appeares he procured from the King this Warrant since the alterations were printed, yea complained of, and that by cir∣cumvention: Thirdly, that it had been his duty to have disswaded the King from giving way to such scandalous alterations in favour of Jesuits, Papists, Page  523 Traitors, and their bloody Religion. Fourthly, that himselfe in his Speech, page 33, 34. confesseth, he made the Alterations himselfe by the Kings command: Therefore the Book was not sent him altered by the King or any other, as now he falsly pretends. Fiftly, as for the grounds of the most grosse alteration men∣tioned in his Speech, we have z already refuted them at large in the Charge; there∣fore we shall not actum agere, but refer you thereunto.

The third a objected Purgation made by my selfe is, of some clauses appointed in the Book for the Fast, Anno 1636. *

To which I answer, First, that it is not proved that I made these Purgations: Secondly, that I have given a full answer to, and shewed there was reason for the making of them, in my SPEECH in Star-chamber, where they were ob∣jected.

To this was replied, First, that himselfe doth both confesse and justifie thèse * purgations in his said Speech, to be made by himselfe, and his confederated brethren, to whom the care of this Fast was committed; therefore he much forgets himselfe here in denying it to be proved, when we undeniably evidenced it, by his owne printed Confession: Secondly, we have already b refuted his reasons for those purgations mentioned in his Speech, discovering their absurdity, and fully pro∣ving, that they were made meerly in favour of Popery, to which he hath not re∣turned the least shadow of answer; therefore we shall acquiesse therein without further reply.

The c fourth objected alterations and purgations ascribed to my selfe, are in * Doctor Potters Book, entituled, Want of Charity, &c. the second Edition.

To which I answer, First, that he writ to me of his own accord, to alter or cor∣rect any thing I thought meet in the second Impression of his Book, and what I did therein * was upon his owne request: Secondly, that the expressions I advised him to amend, were either such as were very harsh, as Beleeve in the Pope; or somewhat obscure, as The Idol of Rome, &c. Thirdly, that his exposition of Matth. 18. 17, 11. Dic Ecclesiae, &c. concernes not the Parliament, but the Sanhedrin, or Civill Court of the Jewes: And whereas it is urged, that I writ, his Exposition of it, seemes to give as much power to the Parliament, as to the Church (or Convocation) in Church affaires, which is a derogation to the Parliaments Jurisdiction; I conceive it to be none, since it appeares by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 1. that the Parliament cannot determine any thing in matter of Religion, without assent of the Clergy in their Convocation; this Act, providing, That the High Commissioners shall not in any wise adjudge any matter to be Heresie, but onely such as hath beene heretofore determined, or∣dered or adjudged to be Heresie by the authority of the Canonicall Scriptures, or by the first foure generall Councels, or any of them, &c. or such as shall be hereafter ordered, judged or de∣termined to be Heresie by the high Court of Parliament in this Realme, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE CLERGY IN THEIR CON∣VOCATION. Fourthly, that I did not alter or rase out those passages, but onely left them to the Doctors owne consideration, who thereupon of him∣self amended and left them out.

To this was replied, First, that Doctor Potter writ to him onely to correct or alter by his servant Master Dell or others, any thing in his Booke OFFENSIVE * TO HIM: To which he returned this answer; I have done that which you have so desired, &c. So as these very passages against the Pope and Papists were offensive to him, as well as to them; at which (as it seems by the Doctors Letter) he had formerly taken some offence, else why should he thus write to him, to alter and correct any thing in his Booke offensive to his GRACE? It seemes by this, that what∣ever offended the Pope or Papists (be it but an harsh expression) offended his Grace too, who was all for Charitable expressions towards them, who are so uncha∣ritable towards us.

Secondly, for the expressions themselves: The first of them is not so harsh, as true and fitting, since Papists not onely beleeve the Pope,dbut beleeve in him too;Page  524 viz. That his Exposition of Scripture is infallible; that he cannot erre in his chaire; that this Lord God the Pope, cannot onely pardon sinnes, and release soules out of purgatory at his plea∣sure, but infallibly save all such who adhere to, beleeve in, and trust upon him for salvation. The latter of them, the Idol of Rome, is a proper Periphrasis or Character of the Pope himselfe, who is there eidolized, adored sundry wayes.

Thirdly, the deleting his exposition on Matth, 18. 17, 18. upon the reason rendred by him, is both derogatory and destructive to the Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction of Parliaments, in Ecclesiasticall causes and affaires, which four Parliaments have al∣wayes judged, setled, established in all Ages, oft times without, yea against the Clergies con∣sent, the Convocation onely propounded, advised, and submitted wholly to the Parliaments judgement: Yea, our Parliaments have made Lawes concerning Heresie, its punish∣ment, and matters of Religion, sometimes without the Clergies consent, as it is evident by the Statutes of 25 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 28 Hen. VIII. c. 10. 35 Hen. VIII. c. 5. 1 Edw. 6. c. 1. 2. & 12. with others: Sometimes upon their Petition and earnest request, as 5 Ric. II. c. 5. 2. Hen. IV. c. 15. (repealed, though never truly a Statute, since the Commons never consented to them) 2 Hen. V. c. 7. Sometimes by their request and advice too, as 31 Hen. VIII. c. 14. 34 Hen. VIII. c. 1. 1 k 2 Ph. & Mary, c. 6. As for the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 1. it no wayes inferres, that the Par∣liament it selfe cannot adjudge or determine any Ecclesiasticall matters without the assent of the Clergy in the Convocation (for then they had never cast our Popery and the Popes usurped authority which the Clergy still maintained, nor wrought any reformation of Religion in our present or former Parliaments) but onely Enacts, That the High Commissioners shall adjudge nothing to be Heresie, not formerly resolved to be so (as this Act expresseth) but what the Parliament shall adjudge •rder and determine to be Heresie by assent of the Clergie in their Convocation; from whence no argument can be deduced, but this Nonsequitur; The High Commissioners can judge no new opinion to be, nor punish it as Heresie, unlesse the Parliament of England first adjudge it to be Heresie with the assent of the Clergy in Convoca∣tion, by the expresse provision of this Act: Ergo, the Parliament can make no Ecclesiasticall Lawes, meddle with no Church affaires, nor determine ought to be Heresie unlesse the Clergy in Convocation first assent thereto. Pretty in∣coherent Logick, and Anti-parliamentary Divinity.

Fourthly, that Doctor Potter himselfe voluntarily corrected them upon his Letter, appeares not; but if he did, it was to please this Archbishop, in deleting those passages which he signified to be displeasing to him, the better to ob∣taine the Prebendary he sued for to him in this Letter: Wherefore these purga∣tions must rest still upon his score.

To the Popish Alterations and Delections, under his owne hand made in the SCOTTISH COMMON-PRAYER BOOKE, which the Commons desi∣red to presse, he pleaded the ACT OF PACIFICATION AND OBLI∣VION, against the very reading of them: Whereupon they did forbeare, and wave the reading of them for the present, though cleane out of the ACT, alleaging onely, that this Plea of his was a plaine confession of his Guilt.

The fifth sort of purgations g objected to me are those in SIR ANTHONY HUNGERFORDS Books, which DOCTOR BAAR my Chaplaine would * have expunged: Of which SIR EDWARD HUNGERFORD his Sonne complained to me, as he deposeth, after he had expostulated with my Chap∣laine, who would crosse them out, or not license the Bookes: Whereupon I told him, I having many other imployments had trusted my CHAPLAINES with those things, which I wholly referred to them, therefore what they thought fit to leave out, you must Submit to: And thereupon would not redresse his Grievance herein.

To this I Answer, First, that if there were any Errour herein, it was Page  525 not mine but my Chaplaines, since dead, who if he were alive, and might have been heard to speake for himselfe, would doubtlesse have given a good account and reason to your Lordships, why he thought these passages unfit to be printed. Saint Augustine saith, that oft times infinite harme did accrew to the Church, per temera∣rios veritatis assertatores; and every Treatise written against Papists is not so satis∣factory, but that it may prove so disadvantagious to the Cause, as to be unfit to be printed: It may be these were such; however, God be thanked, the Books were printed with those passages in them, and so no harme done by my Chap∣laine. Secondly, for my answer to Sir Edward; it was true, I had so many pub∣lick businesses then upon me, that I had no leisure to peruse Books for the Presse, and thereupon referred that trust wholly to my Chaplaines; therefore if they offended, they onely must answer for it, not I: and should I herein controll what my Chaplaines had done in this kind, it would have so discouraged them, that none of them have undertaken the office of a Licenser afterwards: Besides, I should have been perpetually troubled with clamours against that which my Chaplaines thought fit to be blotted out of Books tendred to them to be licen∣sed, for them every man would have appealed from them to me in this kind, so as I should have had no quiet.

To this was replied, First, that we have formerly proved at large, that his Chaplaines errours and delinquencies in this kind are his owne, because the care * of licensing Books was originally vested in himselfe, and they were but his en∣trusted servants, for whom he must be responsible at his perill; and the rather in this case, because he confesseth his Chaplaine is dead and cannot be punished for it, who if alive, could give no reason for not licensing those Books, unlesse these passages against popery were expunged; but onely this, that it was by his Lords owne speciall directions, who would suffer no harsh passages against popery or Papists to passe our Presses unexpunged; as appeares by those himselfe purged out of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon, the Prayer for the Fast, Doctor Potters Treatise; and that himselfe was every way as Popish, as good a friend to Popery as his Grace. Secondly, for Saint Augustines saying, we approve it, confessing, that every Pam∣phlet weakly written against Popery is not fit to passe the Presse: But this con∣cernes not those two Treatises, written by a converted Papist of eminent rank, with excellent solidity, judgement, learning, which must not be licensed; not upon any pretext of weaknesse or want of solidity in them (never so much as once objected;) but onely because Sir Edward Hungerford would not condiscend that the forecited clauses against the Pope and Popery (some of them taken out of Popish Authors themselves) should be expunged out of his Fathers Works, to martilate them. That these Books were since printed without those purga∣tions, is no thanks to the Archbishop nor his Chaplaine, who would not license them vnlesse first purged, and the licensing of them without such purgations by others, proves strongly, that there was no just grounds of purging them, but one∣ly •• gratifie the Pope and popery. Fourthly, we beleeve his answer true, that he intruded himselfe out of a polypragmaticall humour into so many secular im∣ployments, as he had little time to peruse Books or preach the Gospell; but this is only his crime, not his excuse: However, since he could find so much leisure upon all occasions to persecute godly Ministers, suppresse Orthodox Books, Le∣ctures, Prayers, advance Arminianisme, Popery, and popish designes, he might by like reason have found out time enough to have perused these small Treatises or at least the clauses excepted against by his Chaplaine upon Sir Edward Hunger∣ford's complaint, being a Gentleman of quality and fortune. Fiftly, the latter part of his answer proves, that it was altogether bootlesse for any man to com∣plaine to him of his Chaplaines abuses in purging out passages against Popery, and that he was resolved to heare no complaints of this kind, much lesse not to redresse them: His reasons rendred for it are most absurd. The first is, because this would discourage his Chaplaines from being Licensers: It seemes by this Page  526 they were so really, so realously popish, that they must not be checked or con∣trolled in the least kind for purging out ought against Popes, Popery, Papists, for feare of discouragement, no, not by himselfe; or so waspish and self-willed (like himselfe) that they would fling up their very Office of licensing, if they might not have their wils, to obliterate what they pleased, without any superi∣our controll: But this is but a pretence, for Doctor Bray himselfe rendred this as the true reason of hie refusall to license these clauses to Sir Edward; That they would offend those of the Roman Religion, against whom no harsh phrases must be used, we be∣ing now in a faire way to win them (viz. by reconciling our selves to them, not them to us) therefore they must be either expladed, or the Book left unprinted. The second rea∣son is yet more absurd, taken from his owne case and quiet, that he should have been perpetually troubled with imployments and clamours of this nature, &c. It seems it was his Chaplaines constant practice by his owne direction, to purge out all sharpe passages against the Pope, popery, and popish Innovations out of new licensed Books, os else the reason would not hold; for did they it but rare∣ly, not usually, he should not have been perpetually disturbed with such com∣plaints as this of Sir Edwards: But be it so or not, yet certainly it was no more then his place and duty required, to heare and redresse all just complaints of this kind against his Chaplains when they did amisse, else Authors, Stationers, Prin∣ters, might be most injuriously handled by them, without knowing where to complaine or seek reliefe; for to whom else should they complaine, but unto him, whose Chaplaines they were, whose place, trust, they herein executed by his own appointment? Or who else should or durst right them herein if injured, but himselfe? and if it were no trouble for him to spend whole dayes, weeks, yeers, in advancing unlawfull oppressive Loane, Monopolies, Projects, Imposi∣tions, Texes, to oppresse the Subjects, contrary to, and inconsistent with his Archiepiscopall function; with what face could he deem it any trouble or vexa∣tion to spare one hour or two each moneth or yeer in hearing, examining such just complaints against his Chaplaines, when they so grosly offended? This an∣swer therefore plainly remonstrates, that he was inflexibly resolved his Chap∣laines should purge out all notable passages against the Pope, Popery, and po∣pish errours, no doubt by his owne speciall direction given to them: Therefore let who would complaine thereof, he must goe without redresse, and submit to his Chaplaines pleasure, else his whole Volume must goe unlicensed, be it never so usefull, so necessary for our Religions just defence; which manifests the trans∣cendent height of his and his Chaplaines resolutions, their arbitrary, uncon∣trolable proceedings to set up popery without opposition, by these Pur∣gations.

The fixt purged Book is Doctor Featlies Sermons, ordered by my command (after they were printed by an ancient License) to be carried to my Chaplain Do∣ctor *Bray, who gelded out of them divers of the smartest and most masculine pas∣sages against Popery, Arminianisme, toleration of Papists, Priests, Jesuits, and a passage against Adoration of Images by Papists, taken out of the very Homily against the pe∣rill of Idolatry; whereof he complained to Sir Edmond Soot, desiring him to ac∣quaint me with it; who told him, he conceived it would be in vaine, because he thought my Chaplaine had directions from me for what he did, and that I would not alter any thing in this kind done by my Chaplaines.

To this I answer: First, that though it be the place and office of the Archbi∣shop of Canterbury to have a care what Books are Licensed, yet Doctor Featly him∣selfe * (who hath been a Chaplaine and Licenser of Books under my Predecessor) can attest, that the Archbishop himselfe did seldome or never use to peruse or li∣cense Books in person, but onely by his Chaplaines. Secondly, these purgati∣ons were made by my Chaplaine, who is dead and cannot answer for himselfe; not by me: and Doctor Featly never complained to me of them; neither did Sir Edmond Scot ever acquaint me with any complaint the Doctor made to him about Page  527 it. Thirdly, though some few smart Passages of this kinde are expunged, miti∣gated, and left out; yet there are in his Sermons, yea in those very Pages complai∣ned of, many sharpe passages against Popery left in (two or three whereof he read) as one against Prayer to Saints, p. 787. where he compares the Papists with the Baalists, p. 808. where he avers, that the Pope is Antichrist; and p. 810. where he cals the Pope, the whore of Babylon. Therefore these could not be thought to be crossed out in favour of Papists and Popery, but because the expressions in them were such as might give just occasion of distaste. Fourthly, I shall by your Lord∣ships favour demand of Doctor Featly himselfe two questions, and desire his an∣swer to them. First, Whether when he was a Licenser in my Predecessors time, it was not usuall for his Chaplaines to qualifie or rase out some unfitting expres∣sions when they saw cause, out of Books tendered to them to license? and whe∣ther they were not liable to censure, if any such escaped them, upon complaint? Secondly, Whether himselfe, since the sitting of this Parliament, hath not writ∣ten a Book, afterwards licensed? and whether the Licenser did not alter and blot something out of it? what was it, and who did it?

To which sodaine questions the Doctor being commanded by the Lords to give an answer; replyed to the first Question; That he and his fellow-Licen∣sers did sometimes use to qualifie or obliterate some passages savouring of Puri∣tanisme, or in favour of it, (especially after the burning of Doctor Mockets Booke, for which the Licenser was reprehended) and that himselfe was once questioned before King James for a Booke licensed, about a passage concerning the calling of the Jewes, and for Master Eltons Booke upon the Commandements, savouring of Puritanisme; but he never knew in his time of any Passages against the Papists, Popery, Arminianisme, or the like, expunged out by Archbishop Abbot, or his Chaplaines; nor any one questioned for licensing any such, but rather encoura∣ged, till of late times. To the second, he confessed that he and Master Rouse did joyntly write and publish a Booke fince this Parliament, intituled Ʋertumnus Ro∣manus, and that Master Rouse caused him to strike out a Passage in it that was som∣what sharpe against the Separatists, which he did at his desire. Whereupon the Archbishop urged, that then he hoped his Chaplaines might have the same liber∣ty to crosse what they thought fitting out of the Books they licensed, though it were against Popery.

To this was answered: First, that by Queene Elizabeths Injunctions, Numb. 51. The Archbishops of Canterbury, York & Bishop of London themselves (not their Chaplains) *are appointed to License Books, and trusted with this charge: which they personally per∣formed, as appeares by sundry Entries of Books licensed by them in the Stationers Register of Entries: And why their Successours in these dayes should not perso∣nally license Books and discharge this trust, as well as their Predecessours, making 〈◊〉 of their Chaplains onely for their assistance, to report the substance of the 〈◊〉 unprinted to them, no reason can be given, but either their carelesnesse, 〈◊〉, or overmuch intermedling with secular affaires, no wayes concerning or beseeming them. Secondly, that his Chaplaine made these Purgations, not himselfe, is no excuse, since he did it by his speciall command and direction, as Sir Edmond Scots words, and Doctor Featlies testimony evidence. Thirdly, his Chaplains death is no excuse of his own guilt. That Doctor Featly complained not to him of these Purgations, is no excuse; for if he had, Sir Edward Hunger∣fords example, his owne answer to him then, his present expressions at the Barre now, and Sir Edmond Scots words to Doctor Featly clearly prove, it had been boot∣lesse and he remedilesse; Legem sibi dixerat ipse, he was resolved to admit and re∣dresse no complaints of this nature against his Chaplaines. Fourthly, the per∣mitting of some Passages against Popery to stand in the Doctors Sermon, is an ag∣gravation of his Chaplaines crime in purging out others of the same nature; for why should not all stand as well as some, especially that against Popish worship∣ing of Images taken verbatim out of our Homilies there quoted, and the very words Page  528 of the Scriptuze it selfe against conniving at Popish Seducers to Idolatry? Indeed those that remained are more generall; these obliterated more particular, sharpe, pier∣cing, and more concerned our present times, practises; therefore lesse reason to be expunged. Fiftly, these expunctions out of the Doctors Sermons were so many that the Printer was enforced to new print some 16. or 18. sheets in folio, to his great prejudice. That those Passages he cites escaped their purgation, was because the Booke being large, they passed undiscerned till after its publication, else doubtlesse the Archbishop and his Chaplaines would have crossed them out in Doctor Featlies Sermons, as well as in Doctor Sibthorps, or in Doctor Potters, Bishop Hals owne Booke, Doctor Jones and Doctor Clerke; and not have permitted his Bro∣ther Pontiffe of Rome, to be stiled Antichrist, and the whoore of Rome, and his Priests compared unto Baalists. Sixtly, Doctor Featlies testimony is a very strong evi∣dence against the Archbishop; for before his time, there were never any such Purgations made, but onely of Passages in favour of Puritanisme, nor any Books questioned, or Passages deleted that were against the Pope, Popery, Arminia∣nisme, Jesuits, Seminary Priests, or Papists, which the Archbishop and his Chap∣laines first introduced. As for his Vertumnus Romanus, being joyntly written by Master Rowse and himselfe; it was just that Master Rowse should have liberty to crosse out by the Doctors consent any passage he disliked, and the Doctor con∣sented to have this deleted; this Passage therefore not being obliterated by any Licenser, but by the Authors themselves by joynt consent, and being not against Popery or Papists, but Separatists onely (who professe the same Doctrine with us, and were then ready to joyne with us in one way of Worship, of Government) is no extenuation or justification of his and his Chaplaines purging this Doctors Booke so grosely as they did of Passages against the Pope, Popery and Armi∣nianisme.

The next Purgations i objected, were made in Doctor Clerks, Doctor Jones, and Ma∣ster *Wards Books, by Doctor Heywood, Doctor Baker, Doctor Weeks.

To this I answer: First, that there are divers sharpe Passages yet remaining in Doctor Clerkes Sermons against Papists: that they were licensed part of them by * Doctor Weekes (none of mine but the Bishop of Londons houshold Chaplain) and part of them by Doctor Heywood my Chaplain: That Master White distinguished not what Sermons were Licensed by the one, what by the other. Besides, Master White is but a single witnesse. Secondly, Doctor Jones his Commentary on the Hebrewes was licensed and purged by Doctor Baker, the Bishop of Londons Chap∣laine, and Master Wards Booke by Doctor Weeks, not by me or my Chaplaines; therefore they concerne me not.

To this was replyed: First, that the most pungent and pregnant Passages in Doctor Clerkes Sermons against the Popes Authority, tyranny, pride, Jesuits, * Priests, Papists, Arminians, Arminianisme, Popery and Popish errours, are 〈◊〉 tally wiped out by the Licensers, and very few such escaped their spunge 〈…〉 leaving therefore of a few inconfiderable Passages against them unexpung•••〈…〉 no more excuse the obliterating of the rest; then a thiefes leaving of a true mans cloathes on his backe, or sparing his life, will justifie or extenuate the taking a∣way of his purse, or the leaving a few Cottages standing excuse the burning of a whole City besides. That Doctor Weekes and Doctor Heywood joyned in expung∣ing these Sermons, proves their confederacy onely, not lessens but aggravates their iniquity. As for Doctor Weekes he was his owne Chaplaine as well as the Bishop of Londons, as appeares by his owne hand and Diary; therefore he must an∣swer for his misdemeanours in this kinde, for purging both Doctor Clorkes Ser∣mons and Master Wards Commentary: For Doctor Baker, he was his owne great favourite, advanced by him to a Prebendary, as appeares by the Docquet Booke; Therefore his Index Expurgatorius on Doctor Jones his Commentary (proceeding doubtlesse from this Archbishops antecedent directions) must remaine upon his score, notwithstanding all his shifting evasions. To the particular passages purg∣ged Page  529 out of these Authors, he returned no answer at all; onely by these his seve∣rall answers to these Purgations, all the world may clearly discover his shame∣lesse impudence and Popery in justifying them, his brain-sick folly in his exte∣nuations of them, his palpable Romanizing in practising many of them himselfe, and the whole weight of all the Branches in this charge falling heavily upon him, notwithstanding all his shifts to ward them off.

The twelfth charge k objected against me is, my connivance at the importati∣on of popish Books, and restoring them to the owners, when seized by the Cu∣stomers * and Searchers, contrary to the Statute of 3. Jacobi e. 5.

To this I answer, I never connived at their importation, and that the restoring of them when seized, was not by any direction of mine, but by order of the High * Commission Court.

To which was replied, First, that he doth not so much as once alleage, he ever gave any order for seizing any Popish Books imported, whereas the Customers, * Searchers, Pursivants, and other Officers had strict Warrants and speciall Com∣mands from him to seize all imported Bibles with Notes, with all Books savour∣ing any way of Puritanisme, as he deemed it, or tending against Arminianisme and popish Innovations. Secondly, he confesseth, that popish Books when sei∣zed, were usually restored by order of the High Commission Court to the owners, contrary to the Statute, whereas that Court never restored any Bibles with Notes, or Books against Arminianisme or popish Innovations seized by their order, but burnt them privately, or otherwise destroyed them. Thirdly, he proves not that any of them were restored by Order of Court, whereas Egerton sweares, that Mot∣tershead averred, they were restored by the Archbishops owne order, without the Courts: But be it by order of Court, yet his crime is still the same, since himself sate President and chiefe Controller in the High Commission, and consen∣ted to these Orders, if not commanded them to be made; whereas in duty he should have crossed them; that Court not daring to make any such Orders of Restitution without his consent, who had such an over-ruling power in it.

The thirteenth particular l objected against me is, my advancing of Arminians and Clergy-men superstitiously and popishly affected, to Bishopricks, Deaneries, Headships*of Houses, Prebendaries, and all other Ecclesiasticall preferments, yea Chaplain∣ships, not onely about my selfe, but about his Majesty, and the Prince: with my encroachments herein upon the Lord Keeper, the Lord High Chamberlaine, Ma∣ster of the Court of Wards and Liveries; and my disgracing, persecuting godly Orthodox Ministers, and keeping them from preferment, for opposing Armini∣anisme, popery and popish Innovations; of both which they have given sundry particular instances, to the chiefe whereof I shall returne such answers as I am •ble in due place.

〈◊〉 this I shall answer something in generall, First, that to my remembrance *〈◊〉 preferred no such persons to Bishopricks, or any Ecclesiasticall livings and preferments; secōdly, if any of those preferred by me were such at the time of their preferments, it was unknown to me; and if they turned such afterwards, I could neither foresee nor prevent it: Thirdly, on the contrary, I have preferred divers worthy orthodox Ministers, free from all exceptions; as Master Taylor of Clap∣ham, now one of the Assembly, Master John Downham, Bishop Hall, and sundry others.

To which was replied, First, that we had proved the generallity of those he preferred, to be addicted, inclined to Arminianisme, Popery, or both, and so * knowne to be when he advanced them, no doubt to himselfe better then others, and this their inclination was one chiefe cause of their preferment. Secondly, that his preferment of Master John Downham and Master Taylor, orthodox men, to petty Benefices, and no higher preferments, was but a meer stale to blind some peoples eyes, or stop their mouths, for his advancing of so many rotten, corrupt, Page  530 popish Clergy-men to Bishopricks, Deanaries, Prebendaries, Arch-deaconries, Masterships of Colledges, and the fattest Benefices; but no justification nor exte∣nuation of his preferring of so many such. Thirdly, for his advancement of Bishop Hall (viz. from one Bishoprick to another) it is yet a meer non liquet to us, onely averred not proved by himselfe; but if true, it was rather to corrupt and draw him over to his party, then preferre him for his owne or the Churches be∣nefit; and how that worthy Prelate hath degenerated, declined since, in case of Episcopacy, the Scottish Warres, the new Canons, the Et cetera Oath, popish Ceremonies, Innovations of all sorts, and pressing the book of Sports upon the Lords day, we have already manifested by his owne Letters in part, and the resi∣due is so experimentally knowne to most of his Diocesse, that it needs no proofe. However, his preferring of above twelve Judas-Bishops to one true Apostle, is a grand disservice to our Church, our Religion, and no justification nor extenuation of his offence therein.

For particulars, the m first thing I am charged with, is for advancing Master Mountague, Doctor Manwaring, Bishop Neale, Bishop Wren, Doctor Lindsey, and * others, to Bishopricks, men publikly complained against, one of them censu∣red in Parliament, and disabled from all preferments in our Church, which was proved by the Docquet Books.

To this I answer, First, that Master Mountague was not preferred by me to any Bishoprick, neither is the Docquet Book any good proofe thereof, but he was * preferred to it by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes; true it is, I was at his consecration, but that was by command, and I could not refuse or resist it: Besides, he was a great Scholler, therefore thought worthy of preferment by the King. Second∣ly, for Doctor Manwaring, I did not preferre him, but it was his Majesties pleasure to bestow a Deanary, and after that a Bishoprick on him in regard of his suffer∣ings for his service, notwithstanding his sentence, and he commanded me to consecrate him, which command I had no power to withstand or oppose, being bound by Law and the duty of my Place to obey it. Thirdly, for Bishop Neale he was a worthy man, free from Popery and Arminianisme, who in King James his Reigne, before his preferment to Winchester and York had been preferred to sun∣dry Dignities, Bishopricks, and was in office and good esteem at Court, both with King James and King Charles. Fourthly, For Bishop Wren, when I first preferred him, he was a worthy man, who waited upon his Majesty when he was in Spaine, and did good service there; if he hath misdemeaned himselfe since, it is his owne fault, not mine, he is still alive, and must answer for himselfe, to the charge and impeachment exhibited against him. Fiftly, Doctor Lindsey was a very great Scholler, who deserved well, neither did I know him to be an Armi∣nian; 'tis true, he was preferred to two Bishopricks successively, but it was by Bishop Neale, whose Chaplaine he was, not by me; there is no Oath nor clea•• evidence it was by my meanes, the Docquet book being no sufficient 〈…〉 for it mentioned onely the Kings pleasure and order for it, signified by 〈…〉 Signet to me, as a servant, but not that I was the author of his preferments; the King may signifie his pleasure to the Signet Office by whom he pleaseth; as for Master Smarts testimony of him, there were some quarrels and differences at Durham, between Master Smart and him, which may cause him to speak the worse of him: Master Walker saith onely, he was reputed a great Arminian, which is no Heresie. Sixtly, however these were affected, yet none can charge me with any Popery or Arminianisme.

To this was replied, First, that we have as cleerly proved as the Sunne at noon day, that Mountague was protected, advanced by him, and that in contempt of * the Parliament, by his owne Diary, the Docquet Book, Bishop Mountagues owne Letter of thanks to him for his favour and preferments, which he hath no way answered; as for his preferment, that it was by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes, it is but a bare surmise of his owne, without proofe or colour; and for his presence Page  531 at his consecration, it was meerly voluntary to countenance him, not by com∣mand for ought appeares. Secondly, it appeares most cleerly by the Evidence given, that Doctor Manwaring was advanced both to his Deanary and Bishoprick by his means & recommendations alone, for the disservice he had done the King∣dome by those Sermons for which he was justly sentenced in Parliament, and the ill offices he had since done our Church, by introducing Stone-Altars, Copes, with other Popish Reliques, Ceremonies thereinto; that he was thus advanced and con∣secrated a Bishop by him in direct affront of the Parliaments censure, disabling him from all future preferments, we have fully proved: And whereas he layes the Odium of his preferments onely upon the King to excuse himselfe, it is but his owne bare allegation, without any shadow of proofe, and that in his owne case, for his owne defence, therefore not to be credited: But admit it true, yet since himselfe was present at his censure in the Lords House, upon the Commons im∣peachment of him, recorded it in his Diary, and was accused for having a finger in his Sermons, and licensing them for the Presse, it was his duty to have ac∣quainted his Majesty with, and minded him of this his censure, disabling him for ever from all such preferments in our Church, to have opposed his preferment, and withstood his consecration and Mountagues too; the rather, because every man before any Bishops consecration, hath free liberty to put in any just exceptions against him, there being a publike Instrument solemnly posted up in the Arches at Bow, before every Bishops consecration (as a necessary formality) giving pub∣like notice, That such a one is to be consecrated the Bishop of such a Diocesse such a day, and signifying, that if any person can take any just exceptions against him, and shew good cause why he should not be consecrated, he shall be heard. In regard whereof, this Archbishop ex Officio, might, yea ought to have shewed the Lords publike censure of Manwa∣ring, as a just legall Plea, why he should not be consecrated a Bishop (as Master Jones the Printer did in a legall way object Bishop Mountagues Popish and Armi∣nian Books, with the proceedings pending against him in Parliament for the same, is a just cause why he should not be made a Bishop, yet he could not be heard nor prevaile therein:) therefore the neglect of this his trust, duty, contra∣ry to Law, and his recommending, consecrating him to be a Bishop, in affront of the Parliaments Judgement which disabled him, must needs be a transcendent crime, no wayes mittigated, but aggravated, by his false disloyall excuses. Thirdly, for Bishop Neale, he was ever reputed a Popish and Arminian Prelate, a per∣secutor of all orthodox, godly Ministers, a preferrer of popish Arminian Clergy∣men, making choyce of such for his Chaplaines, for such a one was he accused to his Majesty by the House of Commons in their Remonstrance Anno 1628. and complained of in sundry Parliaments before his advancement to Winchester or Yorke: For his pretended worth, all the Court knew very well he had little worth or learning in him, being unable to preach, write, dispute, not preach∣ing once in a dozen yeers or more: For his preferments and Court-offices, they were gained, maintained by flattery, symony, and his base temporizing servility, he serving as a ready Instrument upon all occasions to introduce anypopish Inno∣vasions in the Church, and set on foot any oppressing projects in the State: Ther∣fore his preferment of such an ill Instrument (who first advanced and brought this Arch-Prelat into favour at Court) is no wayes excusable. Fourthly, Do∣ctor Wren was before his advancement to a Bishoprick, a professed Arminian, a superstitious, popish, dissolute, impious, corrupt Clergy-man, and so reputed by all; therefore a fit Chaplaine to promote the Spanish Match and Designe, to seduce his Majesty, when in Spaine, from our Religion; and his tyrannicall, super∣stitious, popish proceedings since he was made Bishop, have more fully discovered what he was before: All or most of which being in pursuance of the Archbishops Instructions, Injunctions to him (as his Annuall Account of his proceedings to him evidence) himselfe who promoted him and them, must be more guilty of, and responsible for them, then Wren himselfe, who yet may suffer for them in due Page  532 time. Fiftly, Doctor Linseys schollership is not in question, but his Arminian, popish inclination and opinions, which were so much the more dangerous, by reason of his great reputed learning and schollership; the greatest Schollers, if unsound, being the most pernicious seducers, and unfittest to be preferred of all others: That he was promoted by Bishop Neales meanes, is a bare allegation of his owne without proofe; that himselfe preferred him is cleere by the Docquet Booke; how much he was tainted with Popery and Arminianisme, Master Smart and Master Walker have deposed upon Oath, and his presumption in bringing Sancta Clara to him, even when he was about to publish his Book, to acquaint him with his person and designe of reconciling us thereby to the Church of Rome, (which himselfe records under his owne hand) is a sufficient confirmation of their testimony and his intimacy with him, after which he yet preferred him; For Master Smarts quarrell with him at Durham, it was onely for his Arminia∣nisme, popish Tenets, and Innovations there broached, introduced, and so his te∣stimony the more credible, he then complaining against him in Parliament for it; for the Docquet Booke, it is not simply, that the King signified his pleasure by this Archbishops for Doctor Linseys, and those others preferments, but that it was by Order from the Archbishop of Canterbury, therefore no doubt by his procure∣ment, consent and approbation, who had engrossed the sole disposall of all pre∣ferments Ecclesiasticall. Sixtly, to that he objects, that however these were af∣fected, yet none can object any Arminianisme or Popery to him: We reply, that his constant advancing and favouring of such persons, is a very strong evidence of his inclination to both; and our evidence already produced to prove it, is so full, that it unavoidably manifests him guilty in the highest Degree of both. Fi∣nally, he gives no answer to the other popish and Arminian Bishops preferments by himselfe, and so confesseth it.

The second thing I am n charged with, is the preferring of Doctor Potter and * Doctor Jackson, both Arminians, and Popish Doctor Cosins to Deanaries.

I answer, First, that Doctor Potter was a learned man, an there was no proofe * he is an Arminian, but by hear-say. Secondly, for Doctor Cosins, I named foure to the King for the Deanary of Peterborough, whereof he was one, and the King pitched upon him by reason of his poverty and losses by the Scots. Thirdly, for Doctor Jackson, he was a learned man and honest, for which cause I did prefer him.

To which was replied, First, that we proved directly Doctor Potter was a pro∣fessed Arminian, by Doctor Featlies testimony, and so known, reputed to be by all * in the University of Oxford, so as none can deny it; yea he preferred him as he was thus inclined, not as a learned man; his learning making him onely capable of doing more mischiefe in propagating his Arminian errours. Secondly, that he recommended Doctor Cosins to the King, and th Deanary, is cleer by the Doc∣quet Book and his own confession; that he put any other in competition with him▪ Is uncertaine: Aowever, he carried the Deanary by his recommendation; and for him to advance a person so popish, so supersttitious, so infamous, so oft com∣plained against in Parliament for popery, as this Doctor was, who had done so much mischiefe in our Church, upon any pretext, was, no doubt, a grand of∣fence. Thirdly, Doctor Jacksons civill conversation and learning, made his er∣rous and preferment more dangerous, more pernicious; his Arminian errours, not his Learning or Honesty being the ground of his advancement to this dig∣nity, and of those other Deanes preferments, to which he hath given no an∣swer.

The third thing o objected against me, is my encroachment upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, and preferring Popish and Arminian Chaplains in ordi∣nary * to the King and Prince.

For this, I deny I did ever encroach upon the Lord Chamberlaines Office, or that I preferred any such Chaplaines in ordinary to the King or Prince, neither is Page  533 there any proofe that they were preferred by me; as for Doctor Heylin he was preferred by the Earle of Danby, Doctor Cosins by the Archbishop of Yorke, Do∣ctor Baker by the Bishop of London, Doctor Pocklington and the rest, by I know not whom; as for Doctor Weekes he was none of my Chaplaine, but the Bishop of Londons, and by him preferred.

To which was replied, First, that Master Oldsworth expresly deposed, and the Earle of Pembroke himselfe averred the contrary, that he encroached on the Lord*Chamberlaines Office, and preferred these Chaplaines to the King. Secondly, that many of them were his owne Chaplaines, therefore doubtlesse specially recom∣mended to the King by himselfe, and no other. Thirdly, the King entrusting him with all Ecclesiasticall affaires and preferments, no man else but himselfe could preferre any to be Chaplaines to the King, but by his approbation or assi∣stance first obtained; yea, no other person durst encroach upon the Lord Cham∣berlaines Office in this kind but he. Fourthly, we shall prove Doctor Weekes to be his owne Chaplaine, by a Catalogue of his Chaplaines, written with his owne hand, affixed to the end of his Diary, which was produced and read; in which Catalogue Doctor Weekes his name was found Registred among others of his Chaplaines; therefore his impudency and falshood in denying it, was most into∣lerable: Hereupon the Archbishop being so confounded, that he could not deny it; confessed he was his Chaplain, but he had quite forgotten it, by reason he lived at London-house, and was that Bishops houshold Chaplaine, which the Commons Counsell said, was a very poore excuse for so palpable, so grosse an untruth, aver∣red with so much confidence.

The fourth thing p objected against me is, my preferring of Arminians, and persons popishly affected, in the Universities; as Doctor Jackson and others in *Oxford, Doctor Martin in Cambridge, and Master Chapple in Ireland.

I answer; First, that Doctor Jackson was a learned man, and honest, and for ought I know orthodox. Secondly, Doctor Martin was my houshold Chaplain * for a time, but not knowne to me to be an Arminian. Thirdly, Master Chapple had a great name in the University of Cambridge for a great Scoller, which made me preferre him; what he did maintaine in Ireland is but by hear-say, since I pre∣ferred him, and there was no complaint ever made to me against him, by Doctor Hoyle or any other.

To which was replied; First, that he answered not to the maine charge, against him, in making ill Vice-Chancellours as well as Heads of houses in Ox∣ford:* To that to which he offers an answer, we give this Reply; that Doctor Jackson was a professed Arminian, though learned and honest, therefore no fit man to be President of so famous a Colledge as Corpus Christi. Secondly, that Doctor Martin was a professed Arminian, and declared himselfe so by licensing Arminian Books, and maintaining Arminian errous in his Sermon at Pauls-Crosse when he was his owne houshold Chaplaine; all which was knowne and com∣plained of to himselfe; therefore unfit to be made Master of a Colledge in Cam∣bridge, or any other of his straine, to which he gives no answer. Thirdly, that Master Chapple had a great name in the University of Cambridge and in London is true, but it was onely for a most dangerous Arminian, who leavened the whole Colledge wherein he lived, and many of the University with his pestilent errors; therefore a most unfitting man for him to make Provost and chiefe Governour of the Ʋniversity and Colledge in Dublin, where Doctor Hoyle expresly deposeth, that he broached not onely Arminian, but dangerous Popish Errours, of which it was in vaine to complaine to the Archbishop, who advanced and countenanced him herein.

The fift q objection is, my encroachment upon the Lord Keepers and Master of the Wards Rights, of presenting to the Kings livings, with my preferment of * divers Arminians, and persons popishly affected to Prebendaries and Benefices of best value; as Doctor Heylin, Doctor Weekes, Doctor Baker, Doctor Bray, Doctor Hey∣wood, and others.

Page  534 To this I answer; First, that I encroached not upon either of their rights: True it is, there being a difference between the Lord Keeper Coventry and the Lord *Cottington, Master of the Court of Wards, about the presentation towards livings in the Kings gift; I took occasion thereupon to informe his Majesty, that till the controversie were decided between them, he might doe well to dispose of these livings himselfe, for the encouragement and reward of such young Schol∣lers that went to Sea as Chaplaines in his Ships, who had nothing to live on af∣ter their returne from Sea, till they went forth againe; which motion the King approving of very well, committed the disposing of these livings according∣ly to my charge, without my desire or suit. Secondly, I disposed of livings to divers good and orthodox men, as to Doctor Jackson of Canterbury, and others, as well as to the persons objected, who were not all preferred by me; for Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings by the Earle of Danby, Doctor Baker and Do∣ctor Weekes were preferred by the Bishop of London.

To which was replyed; First, that most of the living belonging to the Lord Keeper, and Master of the Wards, were bestowed by him, of which both of them oft * complained; therefore he encroached upon both, which none of his Predecessors did: For those belonging to the Mastership of the Wards, he confesseth he dis∣posed of them by the Kings appointment, but that it was upon the pretended oc∣casion, without his seeking or desire (though occasioned onely his motion) we know not how to credit his bare word, without better evidence, who hath had the impudency to deny his owne hand-writing very often since his Tryal, and af∣terwards been enforced to confesse it. Secondly, his collation of Livings upon or∣thodox good men are so few, that he names but one [Doctor Jackson of Canterbury] and that when he had so farre prevailed upon his weaknesse, by a new Cathedrall Statute and Oath, as to induce him to Bow to the Altar, &c. as frequently as other Prebends (which he hath deposed) to his great shame, and re-greet since; this one Swallow therefore will prove no Spring, no proofe of his ordinary prefer∣ring orthodox godly men to livings, which he commonly bestowed on the most rotten Arminians and popish Clergy-men he could cull out. Thirdly, the Doc∣quet Booke is expresse, that Doctor Heylin was promoted to his livings and Preben∣dary by himselfe, not by the Earle; that Doctor Baker and Weekes too were pre∣ferred by him, not by the Bishop of London; and Weekes being his owne Chap∣laine, and Baker made a Prebend of Canterbury (where no man durst interpose but he) no doubt they were both preferred by him, as the DOCQUET witnesseth on Record, against his impudent Deniall, without other proofe or truth.

The fixt Objection is, that I usurped to me the conferring of most Bishopricks and Ecclesiasticall preferments in Ireland.*

I answer; first, that I preferred none there, but at the request of the Primate of Armagh, and others of that Kingdome, who first recommended them to me * by their Letters. Secondly, that I was a meanes, at their request, to recover the Patrimony of the Churches in that Kingdome, which had been long defrauded of it; to restore Impropriations, and increase the Revenues of Bishopricks and Church-livings there, for the encouragement of Learning, and better main∣tenance of Preaching; in which regard, they were desirous I should be acquain∣ted with the persons they thought meet to have recommended to them. This ap∣pears by the substance of most of the Letters that passed between the Lord Pri∣mate and other Bishops of Ireland and me.

To which was replied: First, that we instanced in his bestowing Bishopricks, Deaneries and other Church-preferments in Ireland, onely to demonstrate the *Papall usurpation, and Patriarchicall Jurisdiction he there encroached even whiles he was Bishop of London; and to evidence his power in disposing of all Ecclesiastical preferments then at home, since he disposed of these in Ireland, where he had no Episcopall or Archiepiscopall Jurisdiction. Secondly, that most of those he there preferred, were never recommended from thence, though some of them per∣chance Page  535 were. Thirdly, that although the recovery of the usurped depopulated Patrimony of that Church in Ireland was a commendable worke, if done in a Le∣gall way; yet to recover it, per fas & nefas, as he did it, by the meere arbitrary power of the Lord Deputy & Councell Table there, by oppressing, ruining, dispossessing men of what they had lawfully purchased against their wils, without any con∣sideration or legall proceeding, was a most unjust and wicked act. Fourthly, justly to recover and get in Impropriations to maintaine Preaching, was a very good worke; had this beene his end; but certainly this was but a meere pretence; for would he, thinke you, set up sincere Preaching in Ireland; who suppressed it all he could in England? Would he who subverted the Feoffees for purchasing in Im∣propriations to the Church, to support Preaching and Preaching Ministers in Eng∣land, recover and get in Impropriations to the Church in Ireland, to support Preach∣ing and Preaching Ministers there? No verily: He did it onely to maintain the Pompe, Power, Pride, State of the Prelates and Clergy there; as he did in Eng∣land; not to maintain, or set up godly Preaching Ministers, which he both here and there suppressed all he could.

The fourteenth thing objected against me is, my prosecution and severe pro∣ceedings * against godly Ministers, for Preaching against Arminianisme, Pope∣ry, and its dangerous increase among us; as namely against Master Samuel Ward, Master Chauncy and Master Bernard.

To this I answer; first, that these persons Censures were the Act of the whole * High-Commission (which is but one body aggregate, for whose Act no one parti∣cular man is liable to be questioned, but the whole Court;) not mine alone (as an Act of Parliament is the Act of both Houses, not of any particular Member) who gave my voyce alwayes last, or last but one; and so could not sway the Court with my opinion, not knowne to the Court till I delivered it, after all had declared theirs. Secondly, that the Act of Parliament which lately abolished the Star-chamber and High-Commission hath no retrospect to nullifie the Sentences given in them, but admits them good and valid in Law, not subjecting the Judges who gave them to any punishment. Thirdly, their Sentences appeared to me to be just, upon just grounds; and admit the Sentences or Proceedings unjust, yet it is but a misdemenour in others of the Commissioners that gave them; therefore no Treason in me. Fourthly, the Passages and Sermons for which they were Sen∣tenced were, partly Schismaticall against the laudable Ceremonies of the Church and the Kings Declaration; partly Seditious, to infuse feares and jealousies of the increase of Popery into the peoples mindes, and casting aspersions up∣on the Governours of the Church; For Master Bernards prosecution it was upon the Complaint of Doctor Cumber, Vice-Chancellour of Cambridge. Fiftly, for other Ministers that were questioned, or fled from hence to New-England; they were Non-conformists, questioned upon just complaints; and most of them fled hence, out of a consciousnesse of guilt or of a panick feare, before they were que∣stioned or pursued.

To this was replyed; first, that we tmust not follow a multitude to doe evill; and * injustice done by a whole Court, is a greater crime in every particular person who votes or concurres in it, then if he had done an act of Injustice alone; be∣cause more dangerous, more inexcusable, a greater perverting of Justice; vfra∣ming of mischiefe by a Law, and making the very throne of Justice, a throne of wicked∣nesse: Yea, since the injustice of the whole Court flowes from the injustice of each particular Members vote, and is the Act of each particular man who con∣curres in, or consents to it, he may no doubt be justly censured for it; and others concurrence with him will be no excuse. If twenty men joyne in a Treason, Felony, or Trespasse,xany one of them may by Law be severally arraigned and condemned for it, as well as all of them together: We have a notable President to prove this in the Judges censured and condemned in Parliament in King Richard the seconds time, for delive∣ring their opinions contrary to Law against the Members of Parliament, and in the Judges Page  536 questioned, impeached this present Parliament for their false Judgement given in the case of Ship-money; who might have pleaded as well as the Archbishop, each for himselfe, the judgement we gave in these cases was the Act and Judge∣ment of the whole Bench; therefore we ought not to be severally impeached for it; but none of them were so inconsiderate, as to make such a childish plea, which himselfe refused to admit in the High-Commission in the case of the men of Glouce∣ster, censured for granting an Annuity to Master Workman their Minister, under the City Seale; an Act of the whole Corporation; yet they were there Sentenced for it in their naturall capacities, as single men. And if this Plea should be ad∣mitted, no corrupt Judges in any Court of Justice should be severally proceeded against for any illegall Judgement or proceedings of the Court, which would be the very bane of publicke Justice, and encourage ill Judges to doe what they list. Secondly, the objected Act of Parliament leaves the Judgments of both Courts as it found them, neither better nor worse; and the Judges that gave them in the same condition as before, not in a better. If the Judgment be unjust, it leaves both them and the Judges, as far forth liable to examination, repeal, censure, as formerly; as appeares by divers of them now questioned in Parliament for unjust Sentences therein given. Thirdly, the Proceedings, Sentences against these per∣sons were certainly most unjust, being onely for Preaching necessary Truths; and that which is but a Misdemeanour in others, simply considerated as a single offence; may prove high-treason in him, being conjoynedwith, and done in pur∣suit of his other Treasonable practises to subvert Religion, Lawes, Liberties, intro∣duce popery & an arbitrary tyrannicall government, which we have fully mani∣fested. Fourthly, the passages for which they were censured, were neither scismati∣cal nor seditious, nor scandalous, but necessary for those secure times, to mind the people of the dangerous covert encrease of popery, Arminianisme, and under∣mining of our Religion, which all now visibly discerne, but few then observed; and to ruine godly Ministers for discharging their consciences, duties, in warn∣ing men of those dangers and speaking for the safety of that endangered Religi∣on, which we all professe, was a most unjust and monstrous misdemeanour, espe∣cially in an Arch-prelat, who should have encouraged, rewarded, advanced them for this their faithfulnesse: as for the aspersions pretended to be cast upon the Go∣vernours of the Church therein, they were in truth meer generall censures, with∣out particularizing of such who justly deserved them: And it is no calumny, but a necessary duty for Ministers to tell negligent or unfaithfull Prelates of their du∣ties, and reprehend them for their supinesse when they are faulty, as well as other men. For Master Bernard and the rest, they were prosecuted onely by this Archbishops own instigation: for all the passages and proceedings against them were found in his study, endorsed with his own hand; he was the person to whom they made their humble addresses though without relief, and the only inexorable enemy they met with; their unjust censures therfore must rest principally on him, who though he voted last in their condemnation, yet appeared first in their pro∣secution, and pre-directed their censures in private, before they were given in open Court. Fiftly, all the forementioned godly Ministers were unjusty mole∣sted by him, and few fled from hence, but such who were actually prosecuted or threatned with ruine ere they left the Kingdom; most of them being then confor∣mable to all Rites and Ceremonies by Law established in our Church, though not to his popish Innovations, Ceremonies, and Book of Sports, against our Lawes and their consciences too: This charge therefore still rests entirely upon him, notwithstanding his evasions.

The fifteenth charge objected against me is, my endeavours, practises, procee∣dings to suppresse preaching, Lecturers, Lectures on Lords-dayes and week-days; * and that first, by a paper of Considerations which I tendred to the King. Second∣ly, by Instructions extracted out of them, and sent as the Kings, in his name and authority to both the Archishops and all Bishops of the Realm, to be put in strict Page  537 execution; by colour whereof many Lectures, Lecturers were suppressed in my owne Diocesse of London, and in other Diocesses, especially by Bishop Mountague, Bishop Wren, and Bishop Peice; as appeares by their Articles and proceedings. Third∣ly: orders for Combination Lectures. Fourthly, the Kings Letters that none should be ordained without a Title. Fiftly, the silencing of Master Leigh and o∣thers by my own direction and Letters signed by me. Sixtly, by suppressing the Feoffees for Impropriations, alledged to be my act and project.

To this I answer; first, that these Considerations were originally drawne by Bishop Harsnet, not me, who onely transcribed them out of his Copy. Secondly, that these Instructions of the King were before I was made Archbishop, and were sent unto me by my Predecessour in the Kings name to be put in execution in my Diocesse; whereupon I was bound in duty to see them executed, being good and necessary; the intent of them being principally to bring all Lecturers to con∣formity, to suppresse single Lecturers where there were Preaching Ministers, to preserve peace between the Minister and people, betwixt whom Lecturers in ma∣ny places made great contentions, alienating the peoples affections from their Ministers person, Ministry, and raising divers Schismes, to the disturbance of the Churches peace. As for the Articles, Proceedings and Misdemeanours of Bishop Wren, Bishop Mountague and Bishop Peirce, they are nothing to me; they must answer for themselves. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures were none of mine, and tended onely to bring men to conformity. Fourthly, the Kings Letter, that none should be made without a Title, was to prevent un∣worthy Ordinations, agreeable to ancient Canons, and no harme therein. Fiftly, for Master Leigh, I received many complaints against him, that he was a scismaticall & seditious person, wherupon I writ thus to my Vicar generall; If you can fasten any thing on him, whereby he may be justly censured, then to proceed against him, and he finding just cause did suspend him for his non-conformity; so as in this I did but discharge my duty, and deserve no blame. Sixtly, as to the Feoffees for impropriations, there was great complaint made to me against them, that their end was to take away the right of patronages from the Church to make those Ministers they preferred independent on the Bishops, & dependent wholly on them, and to engrosse most Ecclesiasticall preferments into their own hands, which I conceiving to be true in it selfe, and that it would prove mischie∣vous to the Church, did thereupon by the Kings command, cause an Informati∣on to be exhibited against them, in a legall way, in the Exchequer; where upon a full and faire hearing, they were suppressed, not by me, but by the Judges of that Court, who gave sentence against them; which sentence was either legall or illegall, just or unjust; if just and legall, then there was no wrong nor injustice at all done in the case, and so no cause of accusation or complaint against me, or those who gave it; if illegall and unjust, the Judges who gave the sentence must answer for it, not I, who prosecuted them onely in a legall way, and left them to judge according to Law and Justice: Besides, some of the profits of the pur∣chased impropriations, were bestowed towards the maintainance of Lecturers at Saint Antholins, contrary to the trust and intention, and Parsons not wholly con∣formable to the Church of England were put into some of them; therefore I concei∣ved that I did but my duty in questioning & suppessing them as I did: For Doctor Heylins Sermon, it concernes not me, he spake therein of the Feoffees, according as he conceived of them, and if any thing be mistaken he must answer for it: As for Master Foxly, I did onely check him for his forwardnesse in this work, which I conceived would prove mischievous to the Church.

To which was replied; First, that the originall draught of these Considera∣tions was produced under his owne hand; that it was but a transcript out of Bi∣shop *Harsnets Copy, the originall Author of them, is but his owne bare surmise, without any proofe or colour: But admit Harsnet first contrived them, yet he was the onely man that presented them to the King, and caused them to be put Page  538 in execution, to the suppression of Lecturers, Lectures, preaching; therefore the mischiefe produced by them must rest on him alone. Secondly, it is true, the In∣structions were sent to him by his Predecessor Abbot, as from the King; but we have proved, that himselfe first procured, contrived, presented them to the King, to be put in execution, and caused the King to send them to Archbishop Abbot, to com∣municate them to all the Bishops of his Province; and so zealous was he in the pursuit of them in his owne Diocesse of London, that he suppressed many Lectures and Lecturers by colour of them; yea, such was his activity in their originall contrivance and subsequent execution, that the Deane and Chapter of Canterbu∣ry certified all their proceedings on them, not to Archbishop Abbot, but to him, being then but Bishop of London, and complained to him of the Archbishops re∣misnesse in seeing them duly executed in such sort as they desired, as we have fully manifested: Therefore all the mischiefe in suppressing of Lectures and preach∣ing, by meanes or colour of them, must light upon his head, the originall con∣triver and chiefe prosecutor of them; yea, all Bishop Wrens, Bishop Mountagues, and Bishop Pierces Visitations Articles, and suppressions of preaching, Lecturers and Lectures, must be attributed to & charged upon him, because they originally sprang from these Injunctions of his contrivance; because he was acquainted with, and countenanced, approved them in all their wicked proceedings, of which they gave a particular annuall account to him in writing, found in his Study under their owne hands, and never checked but animated them in their persecu∣tions, suppressions of godly Ministers, Lectures, Preaching, Et qui non prohibet ma∣lum quod potest, jubet, is the very resolution of the Canon Law. Thirdly, the Orders for Combination Lectures, tending to suppresse or make them meerly superstiti∣ous or ceremoniall uselesse Ordinances, though not made immediately by him, did yet spring originally from him, were sent up to, and not revoked, but appro∣ved by him, and Sir John Lambe his creature, and no Bishops durst to have made or enjoyned them without his previous approbation or direction; therefore he must beare the blame and guilt of them. Fourthly, for the Kings Letter touching Ordination of Ministers, we have proved it to be his owne (the Originall there∣of being penned, corrected by himselfe) not the Kings, whom he over-reached, abused in it: For though the pretence and letter of it seemed very faire and necessary, yet the intention and execution of it by the Archbishop, was most im∣pious, detestable, to suppresse Lecturers, Lectures, Preaching, and deter all pi∣ous, conscientious Schollers from the Ministery, as we have plentifully manife∣sted, to which he hath offered no reply; nor yet to his pressing of the Book of Sports, for the like purpose. Fiftly, for his silencing Master Leigh and others Le∣cturers, his answer is very defective, since he cannot prove him factious or scisma∣ticall, nor yet Master Randall, they being known to be orthodox and conformable: The onely crime they were guilty of was, that they were diligent, painfull Prea∣chers, and did much good among the people; and therefore his Letter concern∣ing Master Leigh is positive, That if nothing can be fastened on him, whereby he may be censured; HOWEVER let him not obtaine any license to Lecture there, &c. for the*Church hath not need of such men: And Master Randalls fault was onely this, that he preached long Sermons on Sundayes in the afternoon, and for this they must be and were suspended from preaching. Sixtly, for the Feoffees to purchase in im∣propriations, it was a most pious work, to the great benefit of the Church and peoples soules, approved generally by the worst of men and Bishops; that the overthrow of it was his owne act and designe, we have undeniably proved it by his owne DIARY, and sundry witnesses from his owne mouth; that any ever complained to him thereof as dangerous to the Church, is but his owne bare al∣legation, void of truth; he naming neither the persons complaining, nor the time of their complaint: That it would introduce a Ministery independent on the Bishops, is a false surmise, since none were recommended to officiate or preach at any of the purchased Impropriations, but by speciall license of the Bishops in Page  539 whose they were, and none were presented to them but conformable men, free from all just exceptions, & if he could justly except against ought in their procee∣dings, Master White deposeth, he offered that he himselfe should rectifie it, so as the work might proceed; but this would not content him, but they must be sup∣pressed and criminally proceeded against: That he did it in a legall way, is no justification nor excuse, since those who work and accomplish mischiefe by co∣lour of Law, are worse then open Tyrants: For the sentence, no doubt it was most unjust, and so the Earle of Dorset, who was present at it, told the King him∣self, affirming the buying in of Impropriations to be the best work that ever was set on foot, for the Churches good; his owne beging the Impropriations in Ireland from the Crowne, for the pretended good of the Church, proves it infal∣libly against himselfe: But that the Judges onely must answer for this unjust sen∣tence, not he, is a meer Nonsequitur; because the Law resolves, that Plus peccat Author quàm Actor; and the Judges had never given such an unjust sentence in this cause, had not he by his violence, power, fraud, interressing the King himselfe against the Feoffees, over-awed, swayed the Judges to swarve from the rules of Piety and Justice: That some of the revenues of purchased Impropriations were contributed towards the maintainance of Saint Antholins Lecturers, is true; but that it was a mis-imploying by them contrary to trust, or that any unworthy or unconformable Ministers were put into them, is a grosse falshood, disproved by Master White upon Oath: However, had it been true, he should then have re∣formed the abuse, not utterly destroyed the good work, so much conducing to Gods glory, and the peoples edification: For Heylins Sermon, it was presented to, retained, approved, yea himselfe advanced by him, and no doubt he preached it by his direction: As for Master Foxly, he did not onely check, but persecute, imprison, and most barbarously handle him to his undoing, onely for his pro∣moting this pious project, even after he had quite overthrowne it, and openly vaunted of this his wickednesse: All which considered, each branch of this charge sticks most immovably upon him, notwithstanding all his evasions to shake it off.

The sixteenth charge urged against me is, That I have endeavoured to cause division and discord between the Church of England and other reformed Chur∣ches, * and endeavoured to suppresse the Priviledges & Immunities of the reformed Dutch and French Churches in this Kingdome; wherein it was objected: First, that I esteemed them no Churches of God or Christ at all, because they ••nted Bishope which they endeavoured to prove by mine owne Conference with Fisher, Bishop Hals Propositions, approved by me, and Bishop Mountagues Book, au∣thorized by my Chaplaine. Secondly, that I deemed their Religion and ours not to be one, but different, and their Religion not to be the true Religion: Upon which ground I grew angry with Master Ruly, and caused the Letters-Patents granted by the King for a Collection for the Palatinate Ministers, to be revoked after they had passed the great Seale, and a clause in them to be expunged, to their great injury and scandall, as Master Wakerly and Master Hartlib attested. Thirdly, that I caused the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Pals∣〈◊〉 Church to be called in and suppressed. Fourthly, That I molested the DUTCH, FRENCH and WALLOONE reformed Churches in England sundry yeers, and infringed their ancient Priviledges by my Injunctions in divers parti∣culars.

To this I answer in generall, that I deny both the Charge and Article, and that I have endeavoured to promote and preserve peace between the Protestant * Churches abroad, and encouraged Master Dury, who was imployed to make a re∣conciliation between the Calvinists and Lutherans beyond the Seas, as I could evidence by sundry of his Letters; therefore I had a good affection to these Churches, and no intent to make any discord between them: To the objected particulars I answer;

Page  540 First, that in my Conference with Fisher, I cite only S^t Jeroms words, to prove a difference in order and degree, between a Bishop and ordinary Presbyter, and inferre from his words, as his opinion, not mine; so even with him, no Bishop, no Church. But it hath been objected, that Bish. Mountagues Book determines expresly, that there can be no Church without Bishops, nor Ministers but such who are or∣dained by Diocesian Bish. distinct from an ordinary Minister, and that no Minister (no not in case of necessity) can be ordained by any other; therefore the forraign Protestant Churches, which have no such Bishops, and their Ministers, being not ordained by Bishops, but other Presbyters, can be no Churches nor Ministers: I answer, that this Book and opinion of his concernes not me, being none of mine but the Authors: Yea, but I maintained and approved the same opinion in effect in Bishop Hals Propositions touching Episcopacy, to which I endeavoured to pro∣cure a generall subscription, pressing it upon others; and therein I determine, That there was no Church of Christ upon earth ever since the Apostles times governed other∣wise then by Bishops; and that this government is unalterable, and ought to be perpetuated in the Church to the end of the world: Which doth wholly unchurch all the reformed Churches, and resolve them to be no Churches of Christ. I answer, that these Pro∣positions were sent me by Bishop Hall, of his owne accord, that what I did in them was by his consent, neither were any pressed to subscribe them, nor they propounded concludingly: And though Episcopacy be not alterable, yet it may be regulated: That it is unalterable, Bishop Bilson hath proved it long since, it continuing so in all Churches at least fifteen hundred yeers after Christ, and is allowed, approved by the Book of Ordination; yea Master Calvin himselfe on that of John, As my Father sent me, so send I you, acknowledgeth the perpetuity of Bishops in the Church.

Secondly, I deny that I esteem the Reformed Churches Religion & ours not to be the same; true it is, we & they differ in some particular points of Doctrin as wel as in Disciplin; but this makes us not wholly to differ in Religion, nor did I deny their Religion to be true: As for Master Ruly, I used him very civilly with all re∣spect, and promoted the Collection for the Palatinate all I could, having recei∣ved a Letter from the Queen of Bohemia for that purpose: True it is, I caused the objected clause in the first Patent of the Collection to be altered, but it was by the Kings direction, who gave order for it, upon my acquainting him therwith; and I conceive there was ground enough to doe it: First, because some of the Palatinate Divines (as Paraus upon the Romans) differed from our Church in some points of Doctrine touching the Kings Supremacy, concurring therein with the Papists;) for which his Book was here publickly condemned, burnt, and like∣wise in some other points,) therefore it could not be properly said that their Re∣ligion and ours was the same in all particulars: Secondly, it seemed to determine a great controversie between Protestant Divines among themselves, and like∣wise between them and the Church of Rome; whether the Pope be Antichrist? which was never yet determined by any Councell, and of which there is great doubt and difference in opinion even among the learned: Now I conceived it a very unfitting thing to determine such a doubtfull controversie definitively by Letters. Patents under the great Seale, which is not yet resolved in the Schooles. Upon these grounds the King thought fit to revoke the Patent, though it were under the Great Seale, which I had no power to recall, but the KING onely.

Thirdly, I deny that I called in the Declaration of the Palsgraves Religion, neither doe I rememeber any such thing: Fourthly, it is true, that I questioned the Dutch and Walloone Churches, but not for any ancient Priviledges, but onely for their encroachments beyond their priviledges, to the prejudice of our English Chur∣ches and Parishes wherein they lived; yet my Injunctions and proceedings to∣wards them in this kind, were so faire and just, that they rested satisfied with them, and returned me speciall thanks for my favour towards them and their Page  541 Congregations; therefore I much mervaile that this my carriage should be so much blamed, as to make it a CAPITALL CRIME and CHARGE a∣gainst me.

To this was replyed in the generall, that the premised proofes, with his late military proceedings against the Scots, for complying with those Churches in * their Doctrine, Discipline, Government, sufficiently evidence his enmity to, his opposition against those forraigne Protestant Churches, because they had no Bi∣shops; insomuch that he blamed Bishop Hall for dealing so mildly with them in his Book for Episcopacy, which he submitted to his censure, where on the contra∣ry he is so zealous of the Popes honour, that he could not but complaine to the King of some harsh passages in it, bestowing the Title of Antichrist on his Holi∣nesse, and procured a speciall command from his Majesty to the Bishop to ex∣punge them, to gratifie the Pope; yea, his purging out the objected clause in the Kings Patent, and suppressing of the Declaration of Palatinate Churches Faith and Religion, argues little affection in him to those Churches, and much inward rancour against them, but a very high esteem of Rome: As for his encouraging of Master Dury in his designe of reconciling the Calvinists and Lutherans, Master Dury undertook this worke without his privity or advice, and found so small encou∣ragement from him, that he oft complained thereof to his friends, as we are cre∣dibly informed.

To the particulars we reply; First, that in his Conference with Fisher, he doth not recite, but misrecite and pervert Saint Jeroms words and opinion; who dogmati∣cally resolves in his very Epistle to Evagrius, which this Archbishop quotes, and elswhere; That Bishops and Presbyters Jure Divino, are both one and the same, as well in Ju∣risdiction as Office, and that Presbyters have the power of Ordination as well as Bishops: Therefore his appropriating of the word Sacerdos and Jeroms saying, Ʋbi non est Sacerdos non est Ecclesia; to Diocesian Bishops, which he cleerly meanes of Priests and Ministers in generall, is a grosse perverting of Jeroms meaning; and his in∣ferene thence: So even with him, NO BISHOP and NO CHƲRCH, is on∣ly a Declaration of his owne private opinion, not of Jeroms, who held no such Prelaticall Paradox: For Bishop Mountagues Book, it was licensed by his Chap∣laine, presented to, received, approved by himselfe: Bishop Hals Propositions were not onely interlined with, but allowed under his owne hand, as fit for a generall subscription, and now he justifies them not onely by Bishop Bilsons opini∣on, but likewise by Master Calvins, as great an enemy to Bishops as Saint Jerome, whose words he wilfully perverts as he did his, in applying that to Diocesian Bi∣shops, which he spake onely of ordinary Ministers, who succeeded the Apostles in their Ministeriall Function: In briefe, his owne Conference, together with Mounta∣gues Book, and Bishop Hals Propositions, approved by him, doe necessarily un∣church all the reformed Protestant Curches, un-minister all their Ministers, and make them no Churches no Ministers of Christ; whereas he averres the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and her Priests to be true Ministers, as we have for∣merly proved; therefore he must needs be guilty of the extreamest malignity and anmity against them, what ever he pretends to the contrary.

Secondly, he denies, and yet at last justifies and maintains what we charge him with, to wit, that he denies the Religion of forraign Protestant Churches to be the same with ours, or to be true Religion; & he instanceth in the opinion of Paraeus, whose Commentary on the Romans he caused to be burnt as erronious, when as he writes no more then Bilson did before him (whom himself hath cited in defence of Episcopacy) & other orthodox Writers of our Church have maintained publickly for truth before & since: As for the burning of Paraus his Book, being of a forraign Nation and no Subject to our King, without summoning him to defend himselfe, it was an unjust, rash, inconsiderate action, to say no more, as his Son hath mani∣fested to the world in print, who hath justified his Fathers opinion to the full, as orthodox: However, the extravagant opinion of one Palatinate Divine, in Page  542 point onely of the Kings Supremacy (not about any Article of Faith) cannot make the reformed Churches and ours to be of different Religions, especially since he argues in his Star-chamber Speech, that the Papists Religion and ours are both one, though we differ in some private Tenets: Yea, his deniall of the Protestants Religion in forraigne parts to be the true Religion, when as he con∣tends that Rome is a true Church, argues his virulency against the one, and good af∣fection to the other. Thirdly, the calling in of the Declaration of the Palsgraves Re∣ligion, is directly and punctually proved to be his act; its impudency therefore in him to deny it, and policy not to remember it. Fourthly, for the purgation and revocation of the Letters-Patents, he not onely confesseth, but shamelesly justifies it (most undutifully laying the blame, the scandall of it on the King himselfe, who did naught therein but by his instigation) and that upon two false, scanda∣lous grounds: First, that the Religion of the forraigne Palatinate Churches and ours differ and are not the same: then which falshood nothing can procure a greater scisme and juster ground of scandall between us and those Churches. Se∣condly, that no Councill had defined the Pope to be Antichrist, of which there was great variety of opinions amongst Protestant Divines touching the same, un∣fit to be decided by the Kings Letters-Patents. Therefore he purged it out be∣cause it intimated the Pope to be Antichrist, and subjection to him an Antichristi∣an Yoke of bondage; both which compared with his Purgations out of Bishop Hals Book of Episcopacy to the same effect) proves him a Papist with a witnesse, and a speciall friend to the Popes Holinesse, of whose honour among us he is ex∣traordinary tender: That the Pope is the Antichrist, all a Forraign & Domestick Protestant Divines (and some Papists too) unanimously agree, except Mountague and Shelford, his creatures: And whereas he pretends, no Councill hath so deter∣mined: We answer, that the b Synod of Gape in France, Anno 1603. the whole Sy∣nod and Convocation in Ireland, Ann. 1615. in the very Articles of their Religion, Num. 80. with the whole Convocation and Parliament of England, in the Act for the Subsidy of the Clergy, 30 Jacobi, to omit others, define the Pope to be the Antichrist, and Popery Antichristian, more fully then those Letters-Patents; and why these new Letters-Patents should not determine them to be such, as well as the old ones both in King James and in King Charles their Reignes, but must now be revoked after they had passed the great Seale of England, because this Archbishop would have it so, transcends any mans capacity to guesse at any other probable reason, except onely this Prelats affection both to the Pope and Popery, or enmity against the reformed Churches and their Religion: For his incivilities to Ma∣ster Ruly by reason of this clause, our Witnesses testimoniall will outsway his bare deniall of them. Fiftly, the premises abundantly manifest to all, that the Archbishop invaded, diminished the ancient Immunities and Priviledges of the Dutch and Walloon Churches in all parts, not their pretended encroachments onely upon our Churches Priviledges, and that he was so farre from being their friend, that they esteemed him then their greatest enemy: If they formerly returned him any thanks (by way of Court-complement) for not taking away all their priviledges, as well as some of them, after many yeers hot contest, we are certaine they justly complained of him ten times more for invading, depriving them of sundry of their ancient Immunities, which almost brought their Churches to ut∣ter ruine: In few words, his owne forecited Papers, and Monsieur Bulteels Booke of the manifold troubles of those Churches by this Arch-Prelats prosecution, will abundantly falsifie this his pretended friendship towards them, and remaine as a lasting Record against him to Posterity. All which considered, the whole Bulk and every particle of all the proofs and evidences produced by us to make good the first branch of the Commons first generall Charge of High-treason a∣gainst him, remaine altogether unshaken, unavoyded, maugre all his sophisticall evasions, protestations and shifting answers to them. And so much for the first branch of his first generall Charge.