Canterburys Doom, branch 1 (3 of 3)

Canterburys Doom · branch 1 (3 of 3)

p. 4963ly. 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 will dd1 Tim. 5. 8.1 Tim 5:8be worſe then an Infidell: and doubtleſſe he muſt needs be worſe then any Infidell who had the heart to do it upon ſuch a poore pretence, that he might infect others with his opinions, to wit, of the unlawfullneſſe of Images in Churchs, 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 Commiſſion, 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 complained off and voted to be illegall, Popiſh, deſtructive to our Religion. Therewere 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; therefore 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 ſhutting 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 againſt 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 executed 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 ſervant liberty upon Rayle to attend him during his wounds ſet his hand firſt to all the Warrants for ſending them to and cloſe impriſoning them in remote Caſtles, and after that for baniſhing them into 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, p. 497had bin ſo extravagant, ſo unjuſt in their proceedings, Cenſures, Executions againſt them nor their Councell ſo over-awed as they were, nor they denyed liberty 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 altered.

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 complaining 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 privately 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 London, 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 Note.other Pictures in them, but onelyonly 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 notwithſtanding all his evaſions.

Seventhly, They Object againſt me the Conſecration of Churches and Chappells Object. 7.as a Popiſh Innovation; tending to introduce Popery among us, and have **Pag. 114. to 228.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 Anſw:ancient and warranted by Scripture and Eccleſiaſticall ſtories. In the Old Teſtament, wee read that the Tabernacle, with all the Veſſells, Ornaments thereto belonging were ſolemnly conſecrated by eeExod. 4…. 9. 10, 11.Exod 4:9Exod 4:10Exod 4:11Moſes; That afterward when the Temple was built, it was ſolemnly ff1 King. 8. 2 Chro. c. 5. 6, & 7.1 Kgs 82 Chr 5:62 Chr 5:7dedicated and conſecrated to God by King Solomon, and all his Princes and people. After this when the Temple had bin ſhut p. 498up and defiled, the Prieſts and Levites by gg2 Chro. 292 Chr 29Hezekiah his command, ſanctified and cleanſed both it and the Veſſells thereof. So hh2 Chr. 34. 82 Chr 34:8King Joſias purged the Houſe of the Lord. After which when the Temple was re-edified, the Children of Jſrael, the Prieſts and the Levites kept iiEzra. 6 15 16, 17.Ezra 6:15the 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 Canons of ancient Councels and the Canoniſts in their titles De Conſecratione Eccleſiarum, prove at large. Wherefore this can be no Popery, ner Innovation. Yea if Churches were not conſecrated, then I ſay, they could not 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 Orders. As for Biſhop Pilkinton and Archbiſhop Parker, they ſpeake not ſimply againſt 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 taken 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. Secondly, To the particular conſecration of Churches Objected, I anſwer.

Firſt, to that concerning Katherin Creed-Church. It was teſtified, that I came thither in a Pompous manner; I deny it; it was only in a grave and ſeemly manner. It is Objected, that as 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; **Num. 14. 5. c. 16. 22, 45. c. 20. 6.Num 14:5Moſes and Aaron fell down on their faces at the doore of the Tabernacle: **2 Chron. 29. 26. 29, 30.2 Chr 29:262 Chr 29:292 Chr 29:30Hezekiah and the people bowed and worſhiped as I have proved at large in my Speech in Star-chamber: And, **Pſa. 95. 6.Ps 95:6O come let us worſhip and fall downe, and kneell before the Lord our Maker, is the common Introitus in our owne and other Lyturgies. 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 inherent holineſſe in Churches Dedicated to Gods ſervice. Hence wee read in Iuſtinian Codicis, l. 1. tit. 5. this Title DESACROS ANCTIS ECCLESIIS, 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 Roman 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 alleaged, 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 p. 499longitude 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 conſecrations; and though there be no expreſſe forme for conſecrating of Chappells in the Pontificall, nor mention in Eccleſiaſticall ſtory of Chappels conſecrations; 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 Andrews Chappell and furniture (which I cauſed to be written out) as the indorſement 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 conſecration Reply.of Churches, of Chappells, we ſhall returne a full reply. To his Preſidents 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 annoynting the Tabernacle and its Veſſells, implements, with oyle: Therefore no warrant for Biſhops conſecrating Churches, Church-Yards, Chappells Altars, Veſtments, with other ceremonies, without any anoynting them with oyle.

Thirdly, this conſecration was only Temporary, Jewiſh, ceremoniall, aboliſhed 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 kk1 Kings 8 2 Chron. 5. 6. and 7.1 Kgs 82 Chr 5:62 Chr 5:7after hee had brought the Arke, Tabernacle and all the Holy Veſſells into it, with praiſes, thankeſgivings, inſtruments of Muſicke; and after the cloud and glory of the Lord had filled 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 ſpreading forth his hands towards heaven, [uſing no ſuch prayers or ceremonies as the Biſhop uſed:] and all the hallowing that we read of in this ſtory is, Solomons hallowing 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 conſecration p. 500of it at all, 1 King. 8. 6, 10. 2 Chron. 5. 7. Therefore the conſecration made it not moſt holy, but only the uſe to which it was deſigned.

Thirdly, That the Atke, Tabernacle, Veſſells were brought into the Temple, and praiſes, thankſgivings, there ſolemnly ſung to God, who manifeſted his preſence there, filling it with a Cloud and his glory, ſo as the Prieſts could not ſtand to miniſter; before Solomonmade is prayer, which ſome tearme a conſecration; 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 prayers, exorciſmes, Unctions, or Ceremonies, which Offrings being long ſince ceaſed, and not to be uſed by Chriſtians, the conſecration of Churches and Church-Yards muſt likewiſe ceaſe, unleſſe it bee onelyonly by performing publike duties of Gods worſhip in them. Therfore this preſident of Solomon and the Temple under the Law; is no warrant at all for our Biſhops conſecrating of Churches, Church-Yards, Altars, Veſſells or Veſtiments under the Goſpell.

Fifthly, the ſanctifying and cleanſing of the Temple and Veſſells of it preſcribed by Hezekiah, but executed by the Prieſts and Levites; was only the clean, ſing out of the Idols, Jdolatrius Altars, rubbiſh, filth and 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 dedication 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 conſecration of Altars, much leſſe of Churches now.

Finally wee anſwer, that we find no mention in Scripture or Claſſicall Writers, 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 Argument 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, multo p. 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 quoque & Reliquijs, ad divinum cultum explendum utenſilibus DEVOTE ET SOLENNITER SACRARE & non in alijs quam in Domino ſacratis ab Epiſcopis, & non a Corepiſcopis [qui ſa…e prohibiti ſune] niſi ſumma exigente, neceſsitate, Miſſas celebrare nec ſacrificia offerre debemus Domino. You ſee out of what Popiſh quiver this Archbiſhop drew this leaden ſhaft of his.

To his pretended antiquity for the conſecration of Churches, Chappells, Altars, &c. ſince Chriſts time: we anſwer, firſt, that kkCentur. Magd. 3 cap. 6. p. 148.before the raigne of Conſtantine the Great there is no credible preſident or authority at all for dedication of any Churches: And that Euſebius who (De vita Constantini l. 3. c. 24. to 40. 45. 47. 49. 50. 51. lib. 4. c. 39) makes mention of Conſtantines and his Mother 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 Jeruſalem, to ſettle ſome differences in the Church, and that at this meeting he thought best to conſecrate, and thereupon kept the Feaſt of the Dedication of the Temple which he had built at Jeruſalem over our Saviours Sepulchre, which the Prieſts, then Conſecrated, but how? with prayers, diſputations, preachings expoſitions of Scripture, and receiving the Sacrament, as he expreſly defines c. 45. But of any other particular 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 Encauijs ubi que locorum celebratis, writes, that Churches being reedified under Conſtantine, Deinceps celebre ſpectaculum, nobis omnibus optabile & vehementer deſideratum, ante omnium occulis proponebatur, Dedicationum ſcilicet feſtivitates per urbes ſingulas, templorum nuper aedificàtorum conſecrationes: which intimates, that Churches, then new built were mmSee Centur Magd. 4. c. 6. p. 408. Sozom. l. 2. c. 26.ſolemnly 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 conſecration 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 caſting 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 Hallowing of Altars, Altar-clothes, Veſſells, Vestments, Churchyeards, Chappells. Therefore 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, Gratian 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 ooSee here p. 127.O…hobon the Popes, Legat and the Synod held under him here in England in Henry the third his Raigne, acknowledge, that there were many Pariſh Churches and ſome Cathedralls then uncruſecrated although built long before.

p. 502Now 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 preſcribers of this Ceremony of Conſecrating Churches and Altars: preſcribing.

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

2ly. That every Church ſhould be conſecrated with a 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 unhallowed 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 enabled to keep them, but conſecrated perſons.

9ly. That if the Altar of any Church were renewed; or the walls new built, or defiled with 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 **See Friderici Lindebr ogi Gloſſorium. Tit. Crucem ſigere. Capit Caroli et Ludovici. l. 5. c. 229. Iuſtiniani Novella 67. 131.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 Caeremonialls, Pontificalls, Thomas Beacons Reliques of Rome, Mr. Calfehill and others: whereby it will appeare to be moſt Popiſh, ſuperſtitious in the higheſt degree, whatever is pretended to the contrary. Whereupon it was exploded, condemned by our Church, State, Biſhops, and other writers in the beginning of Reformation, as Popiſh, Jewiſh, Superſtitious and by 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 revive it now.

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

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

Secondly, That the moſt Holy Place, was ſo 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 (ppOf Repairing and keeping cleane Churches. p. 78 79.) 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 without p. 503any other conſecration. See 1 Tim. 45. Centur: Mag: 3. and 4. c. 6. & Aretij Problemaia Locus, 126. who reſolves further againſt this ſuperſtition: Vana eſt etiamilla ſuperſtitio, quod dicunt; Niſi dedicatur Templum, non poſſe ibi preces haberi, non exandiri orantes, non rectè praedicari verbum Dei, nec Sacramenta adminiſtrari: quae ſententia MANIFESTE JƲDAISMUM RESIPIT; Chriſtus tamen praemonſtravit, Horam nunc eſſe, ut veri adoratores, nec in monteiſtonec Jeroſolymis, ſed ubique lieorum Deum adorent in spiritu & veritate. Athanaſius ſane non erubuit preces habere & populum ad audiendum verbum Dei convocare in Templum Alexandrinum majus, quamvis nondum eſſet Dedicatione conſecratum: nondum enim juſſerat Imperator. Id noſtri hodie magnum nefas ducunt.

Fifthly, ſanctification in its 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 fallhood and abſurdity. For firſt, it is God and his Spirit only that make perſons holy, not Prelates; who never ſanctifie places as they do perſons. Secondly, Our Church allowes only of the Ordination (not conſecration) of Biſhops and Ministers, confirmed by Statute (many of whom ordained ſuch, are ſo far from being holy, that they are moſt polluted and unclean) but not of conſecrating Churches; utterly exploded by the Common Prayer 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 generall for conſecration of Churches.

Secondly, For the particulars Objected; our witneſſes depoſe, that his comming 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 conſecration of our Popiſh Prelates in times of Popery with ſuperſtitious, Popiſh Ceremonies, conjurations, Exorciſmes, enoylings, proceſſions, ſprinklings with holy water, made them ſo, ſince moſt of them were onelyonly conſecrated in, though none re-conſecrated ſince the times of Popery: And if ſuch Popiſh conſecrations make them legally and really holy, then they are of as great efficacy at his 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 conſecration of Churches, and ſtiles them holy Churches, only in reſpect of the holy duties publikely performed in them. For his throwing up of duſt, two witneſſes expreſly 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 p. 504the reſt, eſpecially his frequent bowings and Jackanapes trickes at the Altar: which he cunningly pretermits and anſwers not. For Dr. Ieniſon, he objected only his preaching againſt Images to him at his cenſure, and that was no extravagancy. As for the conſecrating of Churches only repaired or 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 allow 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 Aberguilly 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 Wafers, 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 affirmed. Perchance he now remembers that Quicquid effecit tale eſt magis tale? and therefore Biſhops cannot make other things holy with their breath who have little or no 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 Popery 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 qqPag. 128. 155.accuſed.Object. 8.

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 other Biſhops to ſuſpend, ſilence many Godly preaching Miniſters for this cauſe, preſſing this Book, and ordering Churchwardens to preſent ſuch who refuſed to publiſh it, by Viſitation 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 printed Anſwer.and publiſhed by his Majeſties ſpeciall command. Yea I had a Warrant under 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 others p. 505touching the Lords day, whoſe poſitions drew Brabourne into that Error. In Geneva it ſelf (as I have bin ceedibly informed by Travellers) they uſe ſhooting 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 profeſſor there Inſtit. l. 2. c. 8. ſect. 34. blames thoſe who infected the people in former 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 diſhonour 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 Doctrine, 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 reviving of Iudge Richardſons forecited order: Sir Robert Philips and many other Gentlemen of that County complained againſt the order to the King, whereupon 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 Recreations 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 Canterbury, not in my Metropoliticall Viſitation throughout my province; I ſuſpended but three Miniſters in my whole Dioceſſe, who had firſt time of conſideration granted them, to wit, Mr. Wilſon, Mr. Culmer, and Mr. Player, only ſuſpended ob officio for their contumacy being men of factious Spirits. For Mr. Wilſon and others being brought into the High Commiſſion for not reading this Declaration, it was the act of the Court, not mine. As for Mr. Snelling, he was excommunicated by Dr. Woode not me, and he was queſtioned in the High Commiſſion; for not bowing at the name of Ieſus, and as well as not reading this Book, Beſides I was not preſent at his cenſure there neither did I expunge his anſwer. Nor did I 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 divers of the graveſt Clergy in the county of Somerſet certified his Majeſty, who deſired their continuance:

If ſome abuſes crept into them as they did in ſome places, and it 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 Reply.by himſelfe, and republiſhed by his inſtigation and procurement: That himſelfe 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 procured 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. p. 506Beſides the publiſhing of it, juſt when Mr. Prynne was queſtioned for his Hiſtriomaſtix (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 rrSee Sunday a Sabbath The Divine Tragedy and Hiſtriomaſtix.Pathers, 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, borrowed 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, contrary 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 obſervation 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 prophane 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 pretended 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 Miniſters 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 ſilenced 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 Metropoliticall Viſitation, was his Jeſuitical Art and cunning, to conceale his wickedneſſe and prophaneneſſe from publique view, but that he gave private Inſtructions to his Vicar Generall in this his Viſitation, to convent and queſtion ſuch who had not read it, who thereupon did accordingly queſtion divers good Miniſters for this very cauſe, you have heard it proved at large by the very Abſtracts of his 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 (ſ) Page 149. 150.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 Order not to accept either his Anſwer or defence; and threatned to burne it; is cleare by the proofes ttPage 151.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 Cipher, but not inſiſted on at the hearing.

p. 507And 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 ſuppreſſion of his tendred Anſwer and defence, was the onelyonly cauſe of his cenſure; which if received were ſo learned, ſolid, ſatisfactory, that prophaneneſſe and injuſtice 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 Originall: The Feaſt of Dedication of the Altar, inſtituted by Judas Maccabeus was the vvSee Aretii Problemata Locus 126. de Encaeniis.firſt of this kind we read of: Indeed Solomon kept a Feaſt for **2 Cor. 7. 8.2 Cor 7:8ſeven 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 Antiquity. Theſe annuall Feaſts of dedication were firſt invented by the ſpurious popiſh Decrees of Pope Felix and Gregory, thus recorded by wwDe Conſervatione Diſtinct. 1.Gratian; Solennitates dedicationum Eccleſiarum, Epiſsoporum & Saterdotum per ſingulos annos ſunt celebrandae: Solennitates Eccleſiarum dedicationum & Sacerdotum per ſingulos annos ſolenniter ſunt celebrandae, ipſo Domino exemplum dante, qui ad festum dedicationis Templi, omnibus id faciendi dans formam, cum reliquis populis eandem festevitatem celebraturus venit, ſicut ſcriptum eſt; Facta ſunt Encoenia in Hieru olymis, & hyems erat, & ambulabat Jeſus in Temple in porticu Solomonis. Quod autem octo diebus encaenia ſint celebrando in libro Regum perfecta dedicatione Templi cernas. Other Decrees then theſe of theſe two Popes (the latter whereof is built upon cleer miſtakes of Scripture) cannot be produced. Theſe Bacanalian feaſts are thus cenſured by Aretius, Problem. 126. Hodie verò Solennitates instituuntur; tote die bibitur, tote die luditur, ſaltatur, laſcivi cantus audiuntur; quae omnia magis ſpirant Bacchi quoddam festum à Maenadibus celebrandum, quam piam Christianiſmi antiquitatem: And were wholly aboliſhed among us by the Injunctions of King Henry the eighth, and Statute of 6 Edw. 6. c. 3. by reaſon of the 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 miſchiefs enſued, as we have fully proved: So that this whole Charge ſticks ſtill upon him.

Ninthly, from theſe ceremoniall and practicall, they proceed to doctrinall innovations in matters of Religion, wherein I am charged; Firſt, with an endeavour Object. 10.to introduce and propagate Arminianiſme in our Church, the redieſt inlet z Pag. 154. to 178.to Popery and a part thereof, though I knew it to be a plot of the Jeſuits to ſubvert our Religion, as appears by the Jeſuits Letter; and that principally; Firſt, in being a common Patriot of Arminians, together with their Books, Tenets, and a preferrer of ſuch; by name, of Biſhop 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 unqueſtioned, 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 p. 508againſt the Article, eſpecially in the controverted points of Arminianiſme, to ſuppreſſe all preaching againſt Arminian errours, and puniſh ſuch as durſt oppoſe 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 Univerſity and City: Fiftly, for purging paſſages againſt Arminianiſme and Arminians 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 Arminianiſme, which King James declaimed againſt as damnable hereſie.

To this I anſwer in generall, that I never endeavoured to introduce Arminianiſme Anſwer.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 particular, 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 ſtranger to me: True is is, I was in a Declaration of the Commons houſe, taxed as a favourer, advancer of Arminians and their opinions, without any particular 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 vindicate 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 onelyonly 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 Commiſſion, was the Courts act, not mine: For Biſhop Carltons Book, it was called in by the High Commiſſion, and atteſted onelyonly 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 licenſed 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 p. 509others, 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 Inſtructions, they were the Kings, not mine, and they were ſent to me in a Letter by my Predeceſſor Archbiſhop Abbot, and brought to me by his Secretary Maſter Baker, with command to ſee them put in execution within my 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 Proclamation 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 Arminianiſme were ſo fully cleered by the premiſed evidence, and his protection both of Reply.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 inſtruments to drive on their deſignes, as he certainly knew by this Letter, much agravates his crime, and makes exceedingly againſt him: True it is, there are ſome ſtrange paſſages, concerning Parliaments in this Letter, but 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 Diary, 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 Parliaments 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 onelyonly with a good p. 510Biſhoprick for writing this Book, & highly advanced maugre three ſeverall Parliaments 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 Parliament, charging them with untruths in the higheſt degree, onelyonly 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 Patents, 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 relieve nor pardon any man cenſured in the high Commiſſion, though never ſo unjuſtly; that hath preſumed ſo frequently to break off Parliaments, yea, to reſolve to diſſolve them before they were called, In caſe they prove peeviſh, &c. and to write ſo of Parliaments as he hath done in other papers, durſt write ſuch an anſwer as this without any royall mandate to encourage him: And this his anſwer 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 private 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 only aſſiſtants to the Houſes in matters of Religion, when their advice is required) having been the ſole Judges, Law-givers, determiners of all Eccleſiaſticall affaires, matters of Religion, as we can prove by aaSee Truth Triumphing over Falſhood where this is largely proved.infinite 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 Commiſſion, is directly ſworn, proved to be his act, and the Courts onelyonly mediatly, by his procurement; the Warrants for their Citation, Commitments, were ſigned with his hand, he was the onelyonly violent man againſt them in open Court, upon all occaſions; and though many of them were not cenſured, but got off, yet it was onelyonly by prohibitions, full ſore againſt his will, for the bringing whereof 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 Mountague, 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 onelyonly; 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, notwithſtanding his Majeſties Proclamation and Declaration: For the Historicall Narration (the vileſt impoſter ever thruſt upon our Church) it was licenſed by p. 511his 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 ſcandall 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 ſurmiſe, 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 Biſhops meer plot and contrivance, to ſuppreſſe all Books, Diſputes, Sermons againſt Arminianiſme, to uſher it in the faſter without any oppoſition; the Arminians under pretext hereof, having liberty to preach, to print their errors, without check or cenſure, as our evidence abundantly proves, he making them 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 unanſwerably proves; the Kings and Counſels cenſures being principally ſteered by his compaſſe, the chiefe actor, proſecutor, and Judge in this cauſe: And whereas he pretends, that thoſe who preached or printed Arminianiſme were convented, 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 credited; but ſurely not one ſuch preſident can be found: Whereas Maſter Mountague 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 Regiſter of Oxford, pag. 50. that one Maſter Robert Rainsford (ſince a Doctor) teaching divers Arminian Tenents in a Sermon at Saint Maries, in defence of Election from foreſeen Faith, and Ʋniverſall Grace; was upon Doctor Prideaux his complaint, not long after the expulſion of Maſter Ford and Maſter Hodges, convented 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: