Canterburys Doom, branch 1 (2 of 3)

Canterburys Doom · branch 1 (2 of 3)

p. 4694. His Viſitors act in queſtioning thoſe Fellows for not bowing, was his own, and muſt concern him, ſince he did it only in his name and right by his Commiſſion, in purſuit of his Injunctions: and Dr. Frewens words are expreſſe, that the Archbiſhop ſent him to Maſter Corbet, when Proctor, requiring and preſſing him in p. 478his 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 Archbiſhops ſpecial licence being Chancellour, and ſupream Viſitor there, as Archbiſhop, as himſelf both pretended, pleaded; and he muſt needs not only hear of, but ſee it too, when he was in Oxford. Therefore the blame thereof muſt be his alone: As for the bowing and praying to it, Mr. Nixon ſwears it directly, and was not miſtaken, as he would ſurmiſe to excuſe the odiouſneſſe of this new erected Oxford Idol, which gave ſuch publike ſcandal.

7. Its true that Latin Prayers on Aſhwedneſday onelyonly, 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 introduced.

8. This Statute enjoyning reading and chanting in ſolemn Proceſſions, was made in time of Popery, and Popiſh proceſſions, and renewed in theſe New Statutes made by this Archbiſhop. Therefore certainly meant of ſuch proceſſions not of perambulations only, which are not uſed by the Univerſity: And the objected ſubſequent Statute, is but a 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, ccThe Regiſter of the Vniverſity of Oxford, p. 183.quo rectior non ſtat regula, quo prior eſt corrigenda Religio, as they write unto him in their Letter of November 9. 1640. the laſt recorded in their Regiſter.

9. Whereas he would aſſoil himſelf from the Popiſh Innovations in Cambridge 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 procured 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 notorious 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 tranſactions there, and was ſo converſant with the chief Authors of them, is not only improbable, 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 Object. 5.tending to Popery by my viſitors, Injunctions, and new Cathedral Statutes: AsP. 75. to 87

1. Copes.

2. Altars, ſome of them made of Marble ſtone.

p. 4793. 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 introduced by my Injunctions and new Statutes, to make way for them in Pariſh Churches, who muſt imitate theſe their Mother Churches.

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

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

To the third, that my Injunctions for 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 Canterbury, and others, enjoyn the Prebends and Members of the Cathedral, eeP. 52. to 63Summa reverentia adorare Deum verſus Altare; which bowing to worſhip God towards the Altar, as Dr. Bletchenden atteſted upon oath, was uſed before the new Statutes of Canterbury were made, yea, approved, practiſed by Dr. Jackson himſelf, as readily as by any other Prebends, who hath given a greater teſtimony againſt himſelf, then me: After which he produced his Secretary Mr. Dell, to teſtifie without oath, that in the peruſal of the old Statutes for the Cathedral of Canterbury, divers ſuperſtitions were put out by the Archbiſhop, and by name, Prayer for the ſoul of King Henry the 8. after his deceaſe. Then he concluded his Anſwer thus, That the 95 Pſalm did command this 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 Popery: 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 Chapple, 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 Homilies Reply.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 Cathedrals, more then in other Churches, but condemn, ſeclude them alike out of all our Churches, and that the laſt Common Prayer Book in King Edwards dayes, p. 476expreſly 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 onelyonly 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, enjoyned 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 Miniſters: Therefore he exceeded the Canon it ſelf.

3. None of his Predeceſſors in their viſitation Articles, or Injunctions, ever preſcribed, exacted the providing or wearing of Copes in Cathedrals, but himſelf alone, and in many Cathedrals they had never any Copes at all, in others but mean ones, as appears by the Abſtract of his viſitation, under his viſitors hand, found in his ſtudy; yet notwithſtanding he enjoyned the providing of new, better and coſtlier Copes to their great coſt, in imitation of the Roman Pontifical, that ſo they might be like Romiſh Cathedrals in 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 offerings upon, which were but **Hebr. 8. 5. … 10. 1. to 6.Heb 8:5Heb 8:10Heb 8:1–6types 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 Altars therefore vaniſhed at his death as meer Iewiſh types and Ceremonies; wherefore though in the New Teſtament, we finde the name of an Altar, yea, thing it ſelf with reference to the ffMat. 5. 23. c. 23. 20, 35. Luk. 1. 11. Rom. 11. 3. 1 Cor. 9. 13. …hp. 80. 1. 8. Heb… 7. 13. …am. 2. 21. Reu. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. …9. 13. c. 11. 1. …. 14. 8.Matt 5:23Luke 1:11Rom 11:31 Cor 9:13Heb 7:13Rev 6:9Iewiſh Altars and Paganiſh Idolaters onelyonly, 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 Miniſters 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 onelyonly 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. Minucius Felix, his Octavius, Cyprian, Contra. Demetriadem, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum. lib. 9. Arnobius Contra Gentes, lib. 6. Lactantius de vero cultu. Cap. 24. (who all lived within 300 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 p. 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 Anſwer 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 Writers, That the Primitive Chriſtians for above 250. yeares after Chriſt, had no Altars 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 Biſhop Morton in his Inſtitution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 3. p. 417 418 419. &c. 5. p. 461. to 465. fully proves. Therefore the Archbiſhops bold aſſertion, that the Scriptures, Fathers, and primitive, Chriſtians 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 ggSee the Quench Col… where this is fully provedexploded, aboliſhed both the name and thing out of our Common Prayer Booke, Articles, Homilies, 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 continued ever ſince till this Archbiſhop turned many of them into Altars, to introduce 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 adminiſtration, & the communicants may more conveniently, & in greater number communicate with him. If then it were to be thus removed and placed conveniently from time to time, then not to be conſtantly fixed, impounded Altarwiſe againſt the Eaſt Wall of the 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 Objection.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; Anſwer:That the Table in all Churches ought thus to be placed North and South, at the upper 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 iiSee the Quenchcole. p. 16. to 23. Purchas Pilgrimage l. 4.Pagan 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 p. 482Altars 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 Comment: in Rubricas Miſſ. p…rs. 1. Tit. 15. ſect. 2. Servius in Virgilium Ae…id. l. 6. Calepine, Galvin, Eliot, Molicks in their Lexicons and Dictionaries Tit. Chorus; and others thus unanimouſly define; Chorus eſt multitudo in ſacris collecta, & dictus Chorus, quod intitio IN MODVMCORONAECJRCA ARAS STARENT & ita pſaller…ut. If then Quires had their denomination, From the multitudes ſtanding ROVND 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 omnibus his CIRCVMSTANTJBVS; and makes frequent mention Omnium CIRCVMSTANTIƲM 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 kkHenrici Spelmanni Concil. Tom. 1 p. 589.Sa…en Canons prohibited a Prieſt to celebrate Maſſe alone, upon this ground: Eſſe …nim debent qui ei CIRCVMSTENT, quoe ille ſalutet, a quibus ei reſpondantur, & … 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 CIRCVMSTANTES … 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 & circumſpicientibus CIRCVMSTANTJVM OMNIVM O…VLIS, &c. Multitudinem aſpexiſſe Altare ipſum CJRCVMST ANTIVM and by his Homil. in Jſai 6. where he writes thus. D…ſt thou not think that the Angels, ſtand Round about this dreadfull TABLE and COMPASSE IT ABOVT ON EVERY SIDE? So Athanaſius in the life of Anthony makes …tion of Altar… Domini multorum … CJRCVM…ATVM, & Gregory Na…nzen. Oratio 21. blames ſuch who intruded themſelves unto the holy Miſteries with … hands; & CIRCVM SACRAMMENS … &c. All which, compared with that of the …. **S…rius Concil: Tom. 2. l Iewels Reply to Harding, … 19.Councel of Conſtantinople Act. 1. That whiles the Dip…icks were reading, 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 Aetheop…, … Miſſalls, and the Miſſall of the Chriſtians among p. 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 paſſages, that Biſhops when they officiated uſually went round about the Altar, and the Sub-Deacons ſtood behind it, Tunc Acolyti vadunt dextra laeva que , poſt Epiſcopu CIRCA ALTARE. Subdiaconi finito officio vadunt RETRO ALTARE, aſpicientes Pontificem ſtantes erecti, &c. Dionyſius Areopagita hath this paſſage, Eccleſ. Hierarch. c. 3. CIRCVMSTANT autem eum ſoli cum Sacerdotibus Miniſtri ſelecti. And Jſiodor Hiſpalenſis de Eccleſiaſt. Officijs l. 2. c. 8. with llSurius Concil. Tom… 3. p. 298.Concilium 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 conſecrating 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 CIRCVIT 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 going round about it; which he could not do were it railed in againſt the Wall, and not ſet ſome competent diſtance from it. In the mmDe Eccleſiae Conſecratione p. 260. 263. 264. De Altaris Conſecratione p. 290. 295. 298. 300.Roman 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 themſelves, the Atars anciently ſtood generally in all places, not Altarwiſe againſt the Wall, as our Communion Tables were lately placed but a good diſtance from it, 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 already cited, which are punctuall, St. Auguſtine de verbo Domini ſecundum Ioannem 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 MEDIO ECCLESIAE aperui os meum. nnEpiſt. Lector. p. 115. before his tranſlation of the Greek Lyturgy.Gentianus Hervetus, & ooDe Graecorum Ritibus Bibl. Patrum. Tom. 18. p. 771.Genebrard deſcribing the manner of the Greek Church at this day, expreſſeth it thus, In Graecorum Templis unum tantum eſt Altare, idque IN MEDIO CHORO, aut Preſbyterio. From theſe and the forecited authorities, both 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 Hoſpinian; 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 Bread p. 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 ppIn his Scripta Anglicana p. 457.Cenſure of our Engliſh Liturgie writes thus. Jt appeares by the formes of the moſt ancient Temples, and Writings of the Fathers, that the Clergy ſtood in the MIDDEST of the TEMPLES, which were for the moſt part round, and out of that place did ſo adminiſter the Sacrament to the People, that they might plainly heare and underſtand the things there recited by them Eminent Biſhop Jewell qqSee his life before his workes. Sect. 25.one of Queen Elizabeths Viſitors in the firſt yeare of her Raigne when the Jnjunctions were made who had a principall hand in aboliſhing our Altars and placing Communion Tables as they formerly ſtood; in his Authoriſed workes.) enjoyned to bee had and read in every Church; (affirmes and proves at large in rrAnſwer to Hardings Preface: Reply to Harding Article 3. Diviſ. 36. Article 13. Diviſ. 6.ſundry places by pregnant Authorities and reaſons, That the Holy Table and Altar in and among the primitive Chriſtians and Fathers was not made of ſtone but wood; and stood Not at the end of the 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 Babington, 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 Primitive Fathers and Chriſtians: had no Altars but Communion Tables only; made not of Stone, but boards, and removeable. SET IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL. Our laborious Dr. William Fulke in his Anſwer of a true Chriſtian to a counterfeit 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 Gregory Martin: c. 17. affirmes in direct words; that the Altar and Lords Table anciently 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 Altars 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 Antiquity. 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 Communicants. Learned Biſhop Morton in his Inſtitution of the Sacrament. Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5 Sect. 15. p. 462 writes, That the Table of the Lord anciently ſtood in the 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 Starchamber; 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 p. 485expreſſe termes. Altari que deni que tanquam Sancto Sanctorum IN MEDIO SANCTV ARII SITO, &c. It is ſtoried by Socrates Scolaſticus. Eccleſiaſt. Hiſt. l. 5. c. 22 and Nicephorus: Eccleſiaſt. Hiſt. l. 12. c. 34. That in the great Church of Antioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the Eaſt, but towards the weſt part of the Church; Sacra Ara, non ad Orientem, ſed ad Occidentem verſus, collata fuerat: And ſo not Altarwiſe as this Archbiſhop pretend. W…llafridus Strabus, de R…bus Eccleſiaſtis. l. 4. c. 19. records: That in the Temples only built to God, or 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 againſt a Wall. Anastatius, De vitis Rom. Pontif. p. 68. 69. writes, that Pope Sergins 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 ALTARJS, 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 it ssRerum Germ. Script. Tom. 1. p. 590. 591.Sigiſmund. 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 placed, verſus OCCIDENTEM in parte Septentrionali, non juxta murum, ſed quaſi IN MEDIO. Alb. Crantzius Metrop. l. 1. c 9. & Hoſpinian de Orig. Altarium c. 6. writed that Wit…kind found the face of Charls the Great, full of alacrity after he approaches, 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 Superſtitious 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 ttIn his Britani Edit. ult: p. 409,Cambden out of him: records; That the Monkes of Saint Edmunds Bury in Suffolke, whiles they layd the p. 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 MIDDEST: 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 Monuments, 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 uuAnſwer of a true Chriſtian to a counterfeit Catholike printed at London, 1577. Artic. 15. pag. 55. 56.Fulke informes us, That the Altar uſually ſtood in the MIDEST of the Church, wherof ſome ſymptomes remain in our Cathedrall Churches. 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 building, and are made of ſuch faſhion, that one may ſee the High Altar in every part of them.

From all theſe reaſons and authorities we may infallibly conclude, that Altars and 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 xxSee the Quenchcole p. 201. to 208Popery in the higheſt degree. Finally, 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 onelyonly 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, cenſured, fined in the High Commiſſion ſuch Miniſters and Church-Wards as oppoſed or refuſed to obey his Injunctions herein, as the Caſes of Maſter Chancy, the Church-Wardens of Beckington, John Premly, Ferdinando Adams, and others evidence.

Fourthly, We reply, that the Archbiſhop in his Starchamber-speech, p. 45. 46. makes this averment, And yet the Government is ſo moderate [God grant it be not too looſe the while] that NO MAN IS CONSTRAINED, NO MAN QUESTIONED, only religiouſly called upon, venite, Adoremus, Come let us Worſhip; that is, bow to, and toward the Altar: Yet here we have himſelfe confeſſing, and others teſtifying upon Oath, that he enjoyned all Schollers in the Univerſity of Oxford, all Officers, Prebends in Cathedrall and Collegiat Churches by ſpeciall Statutes [to which they were all compelled to ſweare Obedience p. 487and 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 depoſeth, 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 worſhip, fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker; not towards or before an Altar, which is not the Lord our Maker: Neither did the Archbiſhop 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 ſolemnitie, which being meerely Civill, and if it bee Deo & Altars ejus, joyntly; then certainely ſuperſtitious, Popiſh, nay Idolatrous too, cannot be fit for imitation 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 yyPag. 59. 103. to 108.have 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 Archbiſhops 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 Majeſties 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 another 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 juſtify 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 Innovations of his in Cathedralls to bee directly taken out of the Roman Ceremoniall, 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) above 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 Object. 6.Pariſh Churches and Chappells; which charge is reducible zzPag. 87. to 114.to theſe heads.

p. 488Firſt, 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, Chappells, 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 upon Oath to preſent all thoſe who ſubmitted not to them.

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

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 Biſhop p. 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 conceived 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 Veſtry had no authority themſelves to do it, therefore they could not derive it unto him. But it was Idolized and adored by ſome. True, but this appeared not till the hearing of the cauſe, and was unknowne before.

Seaventhly, The purging out of a Paſſage againſt Images in Dr. Featlyes Sermons 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 ſmartenough againſt Images and their adoration: And Dr. Featly never complained hereofto mee.

Eightly, The Bibles wherein theſe Pictures are ſhewed were Secretary Windebanks 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 cenſured for other things, as well as for paſſages againſt Images, as appeares by his ſentence, 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 Government 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, becauſe 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 Proſecution againſt them in Starchamber was in a legall way, for ſeditious Schiſmaticall 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 interlined p. 492with 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 proceedings 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 execution. 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 Starchamber, p. 53. hath this expreſsion concerning rayling in Communion Tables Altarwiſe Replyin 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 reaſonable man to judge. So as his Innovations begun in Cathedralls, were purpoſely introduced there firſt of all, to draw on Pariſh Churches to Popiſh conformity with them in theſe Innovations. Next, in particular we reply: that the alteration of the ſtanding of the 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, Pariſhioners 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 Advocate 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 eſtabliſhing 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 authority, 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 Jujunctions; & 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 Sacrament aaSee the Quenchcole. … 9. to 235thereat, not to read ſecond ſervice at it, for which the Reading Pew is appointed as the Common-prayer Book, the Homilies of the worthy receiving the Sacrament, and reparing Churches; Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, the Canous made 1571. p. 18. and the 82. 83. Canons Anno 1603. reſolve. Now this Archbiſhop enjoyned p. 493ſecond 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 remote 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 Communion every Sunday in the yeare at leaſt to be adminiſtred; which was wholly omitted, 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, Chapells 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 Faverites 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 Page 93.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, notwithſtanding all his ſhifts to elude it.

5ly. Though the Archbiſhop made not theſe Biſhops Viſitation Oathes and Articles; 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 Archiepiſcopall Injunctions, Inſtructions, and himſelfe approved of theſe their Oathes, Articles, 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 Replyes.

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 Commiſſion 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 Jnnovations introduced in the Cathedrall of Durham, where he was the ancienteſt Prehend, deſerving rather applauſe then any cenſure, as both Lords and Commons have reſolved upon a full hearing, and awarded him reparations and Damages for his unjuſt cenſure.

2ly. Mr. Chancy ſpake no contemptuous words at all againſt the Rayle, nor of ſetting it up in his Garden: His ſuſpention was illegall, not only without, but againſt p. 494Law and Canon; As for his ſubmiſſion, it was forced, and a meere art to deterre others from oppoſing his Graces Popiſh Innovaſions, the only proſecutor 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 Churchwardens removing of the Table when the Sacrament was adminiſtred into the body of the Church without the rayles, according to the Rubrick, Queene Elizabeths 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 Archbiſhops 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 incroachments, 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 againſt 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 procurement, 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 fined in Starchamber for it becauſe they had no warrant from either of them. …. p. 495after 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 Cities 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. Therefore Mr. Sherfield being a publike Majeſtrate, both as a Iuſtice or Peace and Recorder 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 ſpeciall 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. ccActs and Monu mean vol. 2. Edit. 1640. p. 86. to 98.Fox and others record; 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 diſhonour, and Religions ſlander, in deſpite of all the people and inferior Magiſtrates. As for the place of Euſebius, it only proves; that Idolatrous Statues, Images, Temples, were demoliſhed by the Emperor Conſtantines ſpeciall command; 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 Euſebius, 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 zealouſly 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 cenſure 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 idolozed 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 Images, though his expreſſions were the very words of our Homilies. The other particulars vvere all juſtifiable, true, & no wayes cenſurable except the ſixt, p. 496which 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 juſtice 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.