Canterburys Doom, Branch 1 · Evidence 1 · Letter 9 – Letter 11
S. in Chriſto:
My very good Lord;
IT is moſt true, that I have taken offence at a Tombe erected by the Earle of Corke, in the Cathedrall of Saint Patrick, but I did not take that Offence *A notorious untruth of an Arch-Prelate.lately onelyonly, but before ever my Lord Deputy that now is, was named to the place, And I took that offence by a complaint thence ſent unto me (for I was never there) though I cannot recall who it was that complaind. And I am ſure the complaint came then unto mee with a full cry, that it was built in the place where the High-Altar firſt NOTE.ſtood, and the Communion Table afterwards.
Your Lordſhip at the Earles entreaty hath ſignified to me your knowledge (for ſo you ſay) that the Tombe ſtands in a great Arch at the end of the Quire, which was plaiſtered up to keepe out the Winde, and that the High Altar ſtood at the end of the Lady Maries Chappell, which is beyond it, and that the Eaſt Window is at the top of the Arch, and not darkened. My Lord it will be hard for mee to ſpeake any thing contrary to Your Lordſhip, who hath beene ſo often upon that place where I never was; yet I ſhall deale freely, and tell Your Lordſhip what I thinke.
And firſt my Lord, I am ſatisfied that the Tombe darkens none of the Eaſt-Window. But I am no way ſatisfied that the Altar ſtood at the upper end of the Lady Maries Chappell. That an Altar ſtood there I eaſily grant, for in thoſe times, there were NOTE.diverſe Altars in one Cathedrall, and every by Chappell had one at least. But that the High-Altar did ever ſtand in any Cathedrall in other place then the Eaſt end of the Quire, is quite out of my knowledge, nor did I ever heare it till now by Your Lordſhips Letters.
That the place before the Arch was an earthen Floore, and often troubled with a freſh, I doe againe really believe Your Lordſhip. And the Earle hath done very well to raiſe it, and pave it with ſtone. But that the ſwelling of the Tombe: The Iron Grate before it: The taking in of ſome ancient Monuments on either ſide: The erecting of a Skrine, before which you ſay the Communion Table ſhould ſtand, would take off little or no Roome from the Quire; that I muſt confeſſe, I doe not very well underſtand.
Your Lordſhip addes, that when the Skrine is built, and the Communion Table placed before it, it will much beautifie the Quire, and be like other Cathedralls. To that I can ſay nothing, but muſt leave it to their eye-ſight and judgement that are upon the place. And whereas Your Lordſhip ſayes that my Lord had leave of the Deane and Chapter, with their unanimous conſent to erect a Monument in that place, if the place be fit for a Monument; the conſent was very well askt, and given. But if it appeare the place were inconvenient, then my Lord of Corke did not very well to aske a conſent, and the Deane and Chapter did very ill to grant it; and the more unanimous the conſent was, the worſe. And whereas you write that there are other Honourable Perſonages whoſe memory is preſerved in that Monument; to that I ſay, if the Monument ſtand where it ought, God forbid it ſhould be toucht. If it ſtand where it ought not, it may be fairely and decently removed, and ſet up in ſome convenient place upon the ſide of the Quire, or elſewhere, where it will as well preſerve the memory of thoſe Honourable Perſonages which you mention, as now it doth, And God forbid any violence ſhould be offered to that, in any kinde.
And laſt of all, whereas Your Lordſhip deſires I ſhould take into conſideration the merits of that Noble Earle, I am very willing to doe that, And firſt I am very glad to heare from Your Lordſhip his zeale for the advancement of true Religion: but I may not conceale from Your Lordſhip, that I have likewiſe heard from others and that ſome yeares ſince, that hee hath gotten into his hands no ſmall proportion of the Churches meanes. And if that be ſo, any man may ſee his end in advancing true Religion, But ſuch a Zeale that poore Church hath little need of, and God bleſſe every part of the Church from it. As for his Lordſhips building of Churches, Schooles, and Hoſpitalls, I know nothing of that, and can ſay as little to it. Only this I can ſay, that if he take from the Church in one place, to build Church, Schoole, or Hoſpitall in another, tis no zeale, nor the way which Chriſtian bounty uſes to tread. And if his Lordſhip hath done any Publike worke for ſtrength and fortification to the Kingdom, I pray God that bee not done with the Churches money too. But howſoever his Lordſhip hath get a very full eſtate in that Kingdome and hee doth very wiſely to fortifie it as well as hee can. But beſides theſe I have long ſince heard, though you now mention it not, that his Lordſhip hath done greater ſervice to the Church in ſome other particulars; as namely to the Biſhoprick of Liſmore, and the Colledge of Yong-Hall, for which it is great pitty, but that his Lordſhips memory, ſhould bee preſerved in the Church.
Thus I have given Your Grace a diſtinct anſwer to all the Particulars in Your Letter. But for the Tombe which occaſioned all the reſt, I will not take upon mee to judge (unleſſe I were upon the place) how fitly, or unfitly it ſtands there, but ſhall wholly leave it to the view, and reſolution which ſhall thereupon bee taken in that place. So I leave you to the Grace of God, and reſt,
Your Lordſhips very loving friend and Brother. Will: Cant. Lamb. March. 1633.
But ſome may perchance inquire, what was the ground of this Archbiſhops introduction of theſe Innovations firſt of all into Cathedrall Churches? Certainly one principall cauſe of this his method was to make theſe Mother Churches (as he ſtiled them) patterns of imitation for all Daughter Churches and Chapells within the the whole Dioceſſe, that ſo the Proverbe in Ezech. 16. v. 44. 45. might be verified of them: Behold every one tht uſeth Proverbes, ſhall uſe this Proverbe againſt thee, ſaying, AS IS THE MOTHER, SO IS HER DAVGHTER: Thou art thy Mothers Daughter.
That this was one chiefe end of his, to corrupt all Pariſh Churches and Chappells by theſe Cathedralls examples; was infallibly manifeſted; Firſt by the very words of the Order, made at the Councell Table at White Hall the third of November, 1633 concerning the ſtanding of the Communion Table in Saint Gregories Church neere Paules, printed in Dr. Heylins, Coale from the Altar, and in his Antidotum Lincolnienſe. Sect. 1. c. 2. p. 62. (which order was thus printed by the Archbiſhops direction, the chiefe ſtickler in the procuring and prime Clerke in the penning of it;) wherein it is poſitively reſolved; That all other Churches ought to be guided by the Cathedrall Mother Church, whereon they depend, and that the Communion Table in Saint Gregories Church, removed from the middle of the Chancell to the upper end, and there placed Altar-wiſe, in ſuch manner as it ſtandeth in the Cathedrall and Mother Church of St. Paul, ſhould ſo continue, that ſo there might be no difference betweene it and the ſaid Cathedrall Mother Church. Secondly, by diverſe bookes publiſhed in print by the Arch-Biſhops ſpeciall direction and app obation, expreſly averring *Doctor Heylyns Antidotum Lincolnienſe: pag. 37. 39. 65. &c. his Coale from the Altar, p. 26 27. with Pocklington, Dow, Reeve, Shelford, Biſhop Pierce and others. Innovations in Pariſh Churches & Chappells. The caſe of St. Gregories Church.That all Parochiall Churches ought to be guided by the patterne of the Mother Church, upon the which they doe depend: The Arch-Biſhop himſelfe in his diſcourſes, and theſe creatures of his in their Bookes, applying and urging this leaden rule of theirs in particular, for the rayling in of Communion Tables, placing them Altarwiſe againſt the Eaſt end of the Quire, and bowing unto them, in all Pariſh Churches becauſe this was done and practiſed in all Cathedrall Churches, by vertue of his New Statutes and Injunctions, though not in former times.
This foundation being layd in our Cathedralls, for the like Popiſh Innovations, in all Parochiall Churches, wee ſhall in the next place proſecute this purſuite of his Innovations, from our Cathedralls to Parochiall Churches and Chappells. Wee ſhall begin with Saint Gregories Church neare Paules; where the caſe was thus.
About tenne yeares ſince, this Church was repaired by the Pariſhoners to their great coſt, at which time the Deane and Chapter of Pauls under whoſe juriſdiction it is cauſed the Picture of Saint Gregory to bee ſet up in the Church, and the Communion Table to bee removed, rayled about and ſet Altarwiſe againſt the Eaſt-end of the Chancell, Whereupon Maſter Wyan, and diverſe of the Pariſhioners being offended at it, appealed from the Deans and Chapters Order, as being againſt Law, to the Arches; upon which by the Archbiſhops means, an Order came from Secretary Windebank, to call the Pariſhioners to the Councell Table concernning this Appeale & the removing of the Table; where they appeared at the appointed time with their Councell: The King himſelfe, the Arch-Biſhop and many of the Lords were then preſent, where the buſineſſe being debated before them, the Archbiſhop ſtood up, and with great earneſtneſſe (more like an Advocate then Judge) juſtified, maintained this removing and rayling in the Table, reading Queene Elizabeths Injunctions to warrant it; but left out this moſt materiall clauſe, NOTE.that made quite againſt him: Saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be adminiſtred: at which time the ſame ſhall be ſo placed in good ſort within the Chancell as whereby the Miniſter may bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer and miniſtration, and the Communicants alſo more conveniently, and in greater number communicate with the ſaid Miniſter, And after the Communion done, from time to time, the ſaid holy Table to be placed where it ſtood before, The King ſaid, hee liked it well, that the Table ſhould ſtand as it uſed to do heretofore: to which the Archbiſhop anſwered, that if it ſtood ſo, the Miniſter could not ſo well ſee who kneeled at the Sacrament, and who kneeled not: To which the King replied, then let the ſeates bee pulled downe, Then the Councell for the Pariſh alleadged, that Biſhop Jewell in his Reply to Harding, Artic. 3. Diuiſ. 26. and Artic. 13. Diuiſ. 6. and Maſter John Fox in his Acts and Monuments, Edit. 1610. pag. 1211. 1212. (both which Books were enjoyned to be kept in every Church for the people to read in as containing the Doctrine and Diſcipline of the Church of England, and nought repugnant thereunto) maintained and aſſerted, That the Communion Table ought to ſtand in the MIDST OF THE CHVRCH AMONG THE PEOPLE, and not Altar-wiſe againſt the wall. Hereupon the Archbiſhop ſtood up in an angry manner, and ſayd, If this be the uſe they make of theſe Books Jewell & Fox, I deſire they may be taken out of Churches; and Sir Henry Martin ſaying merrily, that this Table NOTE.placed cloſe along the wall, would make a good Court-cupboord: The Archbiſhop therupon replied, that Sir Henry was a ſtigmaticall Puritan in his boſome. All which particulars were proved upon oath by Maſter Wyan, Mr. Clearke, and Captain Stackhouſe. Wherupon by the Archbiſhops violence this Order was then made againſt the Pariſhioners for the ſtanding of that Table Altar-wiſe, as it was ſituated by the Deanes and Chapters Order and appointment.
At Whitehall the third day of Novemb: 1633.
Preſent, the KINGS moſt Excellent Maiestie.
Lord Archbiſhop of Canterbury,
Lord Keeper,
Lord Archbiſhop of Yorke,
Lord Treaſurer,
Lord Privy Seale,
Lord Duke of Lenox,
Lord Chamberlaine,
Earle of Bridgwater,
Earle of Carlile,
Lord Cottington,
Maſter Treaſurer,
Master Comptroller,
Lord High Chamberlain,
Earle Marſhall,
Maſter Secretary Cooke,
Master Secretary Windebanke.
THis Day was Debated before His Majeſty ſitting in Councell, the queſtion and difference which grew about the removing of the Communion Table in St. Gregories Church, neere the Cathedrall Church of St. Paul, from the middle NOTE.of the Chancell to the upper end, and there placed Altar-wiſe, in ſuch manner as it ſtandeth in the ſaid Cathedrall and Mother Church (as alſo in all other Cathedralls, and in His Majeſties own Chappell) and as it is conſonant to the practiſe of approved Antiquity: which removall and placing of it in that ſort, was done by order from the Deane and Chapter of St. Pauls, who are Ordinaries thereof, as was avowed before His Majeſty by Doctor King, and Doctor Montfort, two of the Prebends there; yet ſome few of the Pariſhioners, being but five in number, did complaine of this Act, by Appeale to the Court of Arches, pretending, that the Booke of Common Prayer, and the 82 Canon, do give permiſſion to place the Communion Table where it may ſtand with moſt fitneſſe and couveniencie. Now His Majeſty having heard a particular Relation made by the Counſell of both parties, of all the carriage and proceedings in this Cauſe, was pleaſed to declare His diſlike of all Innovation and receding NOTE.from ancient Constitutions, grounded upon juſt and warrantable Reaſons, eſpecially in matters concerning Eccleſiaſticall order and Government, knowing how eaſily men are drawne to affect Novelties, and how ſoone weake judgments in ſuch caſes may be overtaken and abuſed. And He was alſo pleaſed to obſerve, that if theſe few Pariſhioners might have their wills, the difference thereby from the foreſaid Cathedrall Mother Church, by which all other Churches depending thereon, ought to be guided, would be the more notorious, and give more ſubject of Diſcourſe and Diſputes NOTE.that might be ſpared, by reaſon of S. Gregories ſtanding cloſe to the wall thereof. And likewiſe for ſo much as concerns the liberty given by the ſayd Communion Book or Canon, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with moſt conveniency; that liberty is not ſo to be underſtood, as if it were ever left to the diſcretion of the Pariſh, much leſſe to the particular phanſie of any humorous Perſon, but to the Iudgment of the Ordinary to whoſe place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing it ſelfe, and for the time, when and how long, as he may finde cauſe. VponUpon which conſideration his Majeſty deciared himſelfe, That he well approved and confirmed the Act, of the ſaid Ordinary, and alſo gave Command that if thoſe few Periſhioners before mentioned, doe proceed in their ſaid Appeale, then the Deane of the Arches (who was then attending at the hearing of the cauſe) ſhall confirme the ſaid Order of the aforeſaid Deane and Chapter.
This Order being thus obtained, and afterwards publiſhed in Print by Doctor Heylyn in his Coale from the Altar, and Antidotum Lincolnienſe; the deſigne of removing, rayling in and turning Communion Tables into Altars in Parcohiall Churches, Chappells, was much promoted by coulor of it, & of the reaſon of conformity to Cathedrall Mother Churches expreſſed in it: And to haſten this worke the more (to which the people and Church-wardens in many places were very averſe) the Archbiſhop being to keep a Metropoliticall Viſitation in all Dioceſſes and places exempt, and not exempt with in the Province of Canterbury, by Sir Nathaniell Brent his Vicar Generall & others his Commiſſioners, though he made no mention in his printed Viſitation Articles of removing and rayling in Communion Tables Altar wiſe, to avoyd the peoples clamours againſt him, yet hee writ a private Letter to Sir Nathaniell Brent after his departure hence, to enjoyne him to remove and raile in the Communion Tables in all Pariſh Churches, and gave him order to ſee it executed. With which practiſe the Archbiſhop being charged at the Lords Barre by Serjeant Wilde, who mannaged this part of the evidence; he peremptorily denied it, and proteſted ſolemnly before the Lords, that he never gave Sir Nathaniell Brent any ſuch order or directions by letter or otherwiſe; and that he could prove by ſufficient teſtimonies, Sir Nathaniell had openly acknowledged, that this Alteration was made by Sir Nath. himſelfe of his own head, without any order from him; adding that he cold not be ſo unworthy as to deny it. Wherupon he deſired Sir Nath. might be called to teſtify the truth upon his Oath: who appearing at the Lords Bar for this purpoſe, the Archbiſhop demanded of him; whether ever hee gave him any command or direction, by word or writing in his Metropoliticall Viſitation, to remove or raile in Communion Tables at the Eaſt end of the Chauncell, telling him, hee was now upon his Oath, and wiſhing him to ſpeake nothing but the truth herein: whereunto Sir Nathaniell anſwered: My Lords upon the Oath I have taken, I received an expreſſe direction & command from the Archbiſhop himſelfe to do what ever I did in this or any other kind, elſe I durſt not have don it; To which the Archbiſhop confidently replyed; My Lords, I proteſt I never gave him any ſuch command or directions, & I wonder Sir Nathaniell dares be ſo bold & unworthy as to affirm it here upon Oath ſince I can prove he hath formerly denied it: To which Sir Nathaniell replyed: My Lords, ſince the Archbiſhop ſo confidently denies that he ever gave me any ſuch command and directions, I ſhall humbly deſire that this Letter of his ſent unto me when I was viſiting at Maidſtonin Kent, ſigned with his own hand, may be read; which will end the controverſie, and manifeſt by whoſe Authority and command I did it; whereupon a Letter under the Arch Biſhops owne hand, directed to Sir Nathaniell was delivered to the Clarke and openly read, to the Arch-Biſhops great ſhame, and diſparagment of all his Proteſtations, which after this (& ſome other paſſages wherein he was taken tripping in like manner) were reputed meere vaporing impoſtures, to delude the vulgar, voyd of truth and credit. The Letter was to this effect. Sir, I require you to command the Communion Table at Maidſton to be placed at the Eaſt or upper end of the Chauncell, and there railed in, and that the Communicants there ſhall come up to the Raile, to receive the bleſſed Sacrament, and the like you are required to doe in all Churches, in all other placse where you are to viſit Metropolitically, &c. W. Cant.
This letter being read, much daunted, diſcredited the Arch-Biſhop in the opinion of all the Auditors, he having nothing to reply, but that he had forgotten he writ him any ſuch letter. VponUpon the receipt whereof Sir Nathaniell Brent confeſſed he did give order throughout his Metropoliticall Viſitation, that all the Communion Tables ſhould be removed, and railed in at the upper end of the Chauncell in all Pariſh Churches, and all ſeates above the Table, or equall with it in any Chancell pulled downe, and that the Communicants ſhould goe up to the Raile and there receive the Sacrament kneeling; which he preſſed as ſpatingly as he might, it being againſt his owne judgment; and thereupon obedience was yeelded in moſt places, and ſuch as refuſed to Raile in their Tables, were queſtioned and proceeded againſt by others, but as for himſelfe he never troubled any for it.
That the Archbiſhop himſelfe gave both command and approbation for theſe Innovations, was proved by this enſuing Petition, to which an Anſwer was underwriten by Maſter Dell, ſubſcribed with the Archbiſhops owne hand, found among Sir Iohn Lambes ſequeſted Papers, by Maſter Prynne.
To the right Reverend Father in God William Lord Archbiſhop of Cant. his Grace, Primate of all England and Metropolitan.
The Petition of Philip Davies Clerke, Hunry Demery, and Abrah am Cobb, Churchwardens of the Pariſh Church of Hill, alias Hull, in the Dioces of Glocester.
Humbly ſheweth,
THat your Petitioners in obedience to your Graces ſpecial directions in your Graces Metropolitan Viſitation, did take care and order for the rayſing of the Chancell NOTE.and Rayling in the High Altar or Communion Table in the ſaid Church, for the doing of which with the neceſſary beautifying of the ſaid Church, there were divers rates made by the Churchwardens for the time being and major part of the Inhabitants of that Church for to defray the Charge thereof. In which aſſeſements one Henry Heathfield who was, and is commonly reputed and taken to be of that Pariſh, was rated after the uſuall manner as he and his Predeceſſors had alwayes beene, his divers rates amounting to 28. ſhillings ſix pence. To avoyd the payment of which the ſaid. Henry Heathfield appealed to your Graces Court of the Arches, where the cauſe hath depended for theſe eleven Monethes laſt paſt, to your Petitioners great Charge and hinderance.
May it therefore pleaſe your Grace (for the better incouragement of your Petitioners in performing your Graces Commands, which we have hitherto done in preſerving the decency and ornaments of the ſaid Church as much as in us lyes) to give order, that the ſaid Cauſe may be ſpeedily determined, and that your Petitioners may not be unneceſſarily vexed and moleſted for endeavouring to performe what in your Graces Viſitation was publikely enjoyned, but ſo farre as truth ſhall appears, we may ſhroud our ſelves under your Graces Protection.
And your Petitioners ſhall ever pray, &c.
I deſire Sir John Lambe, in caſe he finde the Suggeſtions true, to take care that this Cauſe may come to hearing with all convenient ſpeed poſſible.
Febr. 9. 1637. W. CANT.
By anſwering of which Petition, the Archbiſhop acknowledgeth, that the rayling in of Communion Tables, and impoſing illegall Rates for the ſame, was done by HIS GRACES SPECIALL DIRECTION in his Metropoliticall Viſitation; and thereupon he thus deſired Sir John Lambe, to expedite the hearing of the Cauſe; yet he had ſo Little Grace as openly to deny it with ſolemne proteſtations: The falſity whereof was further evidenced by this Copy of Injunctions given in his Metropoliticall Viſitation to the Cathedrall Church of Wincheſter, 19. July An. 1635. by Sir Nathaniell Brent his Vicar Generall; found in his owne Study at Lambheth, (ſo as he could not be ignorant of them) & atteſted by Maſter Prynne; the laſt whereof was this. Deinde Dominus injuaxit Gardianis Eccleſiae parochialis ſancti Mauritij infra Civitatem Wintoniae, quod duo ſedilia ex utraque parte Cancellorum ibidem removeantur; & quod nullum ſedile ibidem collocatur aut erigatur. Distu que Dominus ad Petitionem Willielmi Newton, unius Parochianorum praefatae Eccleſiae Parochialis decrevit Menſam ſacram Euchariſtiae decenter circum-ſepiendam, viz. TO BEE RAYLED ABOVT IN DECENT MANNER, citra festum Omnium Sanctorum proximè ſequens.
Moreover, A paper of Informations of divers Abuſes in the City and Dioceſſe of London, was found in the Archbiſhops Study, atteſted by Maſter Prynne, whereof this was one. There are many Communion Tables in ſeverall Churches of the City of London that are not rayled in, and ſome of them are placed in the middle of the Church, when as they may be placed more conveniently at the Eaſt end thereof. At the Chappel at Highgate, the Boyes uſe to leane on the Communion Table in the time of Divine ſervice: under which Mr. Dell the Archbiſhops Secretary Writ this direction to Sir Nathaniel Brent, his Viſiter, ſubſcribed with the Archbiſhops owne hand.
I require you that (beſides my other Instructions) you give me an account of all particulars within named. Whereupon an Account was given to him in writing accordingly, thus entituled. An Account of the Metropoliticall Viſitation of the Dioceſſe of London, Aano. 1636. found in his Study with the foreſaid Informations, and indorſed thus with his owne hand: 1636. March, The Courſe of my Viſitation in London Dioceſe: Wherein are theſe Particular Paſſage, touching the railing in of Communion Tables. Mr. Rogers of Maſſing (mentioned in your Graces Paper) came not to me for an order for the ſetting up of a Raile about his Communion Table: But I GAVE A GENERALL ORDER FOR IT BOTH THERE AND IN ALL OTHER PLACES WHERE I PASSED. The Communion Table in the Chappell of Highgate (mentioned in your Graces paper) is already placed at the upper end of the Quire, and a decent Raile made about it, as J am informed by divers, (To which the Archbiſhop with his owne hand adds this Note in the Margin; See it be don:) In the Pariſh Church of Edmonton, a fair Monument is ſet at the upper end of the Chancell, which I have ordered to be taken downe without delay, and the Communion Table to be ſet in the place of it, with a comely raile about it. Yet had this Archbiſhop the Impudency to proteſt to the Lords he never gave any order to Sir Nathaniell Brent, for removing or railing in Communion Tables; that it was done without his Privity or direction. O portet mendacem eſſe memorem. Adde to this, that in an Abſtract of this Archbiſhops Metropoliticall Viſitation endorſed by himſelfe and found among his papers; there were theſe obſervable informations given to him by his Viſitor, Sir Nathaniel Brent July 16. 1635. At Lyn in the principall Church called St. Margarets, the Communion Table wanted a rayle, which I have ordered. At Northampton, no man boweth at the pronouncing of the name of Ieſus; in all the Churches in Shrewsbury many things were out of Order, eſpecially about the Communion Table: But the Officers in every Pariſh Church moſt willingly ſubmitted to what I ordered Mr. Speed of Saint Pancroſſe in Chiceſter is very willing the Gallery in his Church ſhould be pulled down which was built to receive strangers, as alſo to remove the ſeates which ſtand even with the Altar. Beſides, it appeares by a letter of Wil. Kingſley Arch-deacon of Cant. to this Archbiſhop, dated Aprill 13 16 6. that he gave him order to ſurvay all the Churches in Canterbury, and to certine him, what Monuments placed the Eaſtland Galleres were in them, to the end they might be removed; who gave him this account thereof in writing, found among the Archbiſhops Papers.
To the moſt Reverend Father in God, the Lord Archbiſhop of Canterbury, His Grace, Primate of all England, and Metropolitan, one of His Majeſties moſt Honourable Privy Councell, My very good Lord.
May it pleaſe Your Grace;
I Have according to Your Graces direction ſurvayed the Churches of Your Graces Arch-Deaconry in the Citie of Canterbury, In ſome of which I find Galleries and ſeates raiſed from the ground three or foure aſcents; as likewiſe monuments with diverſe Inſcriptions, erected without authority at the Eaſt-end of the Chancells, And in Saint Gregories Church of the ſame City, one other Monument in which is deſcribed the Gunpowder Treaſon, with this Motto or Inſcription in Capitall letters, IN PERPETVAM PAPISTARVM INFAMIAM. This he held him ſelfe in all humility bound to acquaint Your Grace withall, who is ready to execute what Your Grace ſhall Command for the ordering of theſe particulars, or any other thing Your Grace ſhall be pleaſed to enjoyne him, and never ceaſeth to pray for Your Graces prosperitie and welfare, Resting,
Your Graces moſt humble Servant, VVilliam Kingſley. April 13. 1636.
To which Letter the Archbiſhop returned this anſwer, ſound in his ſtudy thus endorſed, The Copy of my Letters to the Arch-Deacon of Canterbury, Aprill 29. 1636. concerning the taking downe of Galleries, and Monuments in ſome Churches of Canterbury, &c.
S. in Chriſto.
SIR;
YOur Letters of Aprill 13. I have received, and I thanke you for your care and paines in Viſiting the Churches of your Arch-Deaconry within the City of Canterbury, in which I have often heard there are ſome things amiſſe, and finde by your report, that the Information given me was true. And becauſe you certifie me of ſome things of greater moment then ordinary, I thought it very fit to acquaint His Majeſtie with all the contents of your Letter, and did ſo: By which NOTE.meanes, I ſhall with more freedome give you the fuller anſwer to the three particulars mentioned by you.
For the firſt, which is the raiſing of Galleries and Seates from the ground three or foure aſcents, His Majeſtie hath commanded mee to write unto you, that they be taken down, and the Seates left orderly in the Church. But you are to take care to acquaint the Miniſter and Church-wardens with it, and to ſee it done, in a faire, and peaceable manner. The like Courſe you are to take with the ſecond, for it is no way fit that any Monument whatſoever, ſhould be ſet up at the East end of the Chancell, thereby, ſtanding equall at leaſt, if not above the Communion Table, and fit for nothing but to caſt it out of its proper place. Therefore if any ſuch be in any Church within your juriſdiction, you are to ſpeake with them that are next of Kinne, or NOTE.whom ſuch Monuments may moſt concerne. And if they will remove them, and ſet them up in any other place, on the ſides of the Church, you are to give them leave ſo to do; but if they will not, you are then to take them downe, in an orderly way, and not to ſuffer any to ſtand at the Eaſt end of the Chancell.
Your third buſineſſe, is of greater conſequence, it is, that there is another Monument in Saint Georges Church, in which there is deſcribed in Capitall Letters, the GUN-POUDER TREASON, with this motto, In perpetuam Papiſtarum infamiam, &c. I hope this ſtands not at the Eaſt end of the Chancell, for if it doe, you muſt ſee it removed to ſome other place, but if it ſtand upon any ſide of either Chancell, or Church, then you are with the knowledge of the Miniſter and the Church-Wardens, or any other whom that Monument may concerne, to take ſome Painter to you and cauſe him to put out of the Monument, all that NOTE.concernes the Fleet in 88. becauſe that belongs to a Forreigne Nation: And though your Letters make no mention of 88. yet the Picture of the Monument, which you ſent me up doth, which I ſhewed His Majeſtie as well as Your Letter. So having here given you a cleare direction in all your three particulars, I ſhall expect your care in the execution of them according to it, So I leave you to the grace of God, and reſt,
Your very loving Friend. Will: Cant,
By theſe two Letters it is apparent, that the Archbiſhop gave ſpeciall directions not only to Sir Nathaniell Brent, but to the Arch-Deacon of Canterbury to take down Galleries and Monuments at the Eaſt end of Chancells neare the Communeon-Tables; and to place the Tables there, at in their proper place; as likewiſe to obliterate the memoriall of our happy deliverance from the Spaniſh Armado in 88. out of that Church, where it had long continued.
Finally, it was proved by the teſtimony of Maſter Sutton, Maſter Browne, and others, that in the yeare 1640. in the new Chappell at WEST MINSTER, the Kings Armes were ſet up in the Eaſt Window, which was firſt glaſed with white Glaſſe; afterward the Archbiſhop promiſing to beſtow a new window inſtead of it, the Kings Armes were thereupon taken downe by direction of Doctor Haywood, the Archbiſhops Chaplaine, and Browne this Joyner, and placed in another obſcure window, and the Archbiſhops Arms (ſupported by Seraphins) put up in its place to ſignifie, that hee was the ſole donor of this new Window, where inſtead of the white Glaſſe, there was ſet up in coloured glaſſe, the Picture of the Holy Ghost in form of a Dove, with the Images of the Virgin Mary, Chriſt, Angells, and Ceraphins, for which the Glaſier was payd ſince the Archbiſhops commitment to the Tower by the Archbiſhops direction (as the Glaſier verily believed,) this new painted Window being ſet up about the beginning of this Parliament, but ſince demoliſhed by order of Parliament; which manifeſts the Archbiſhops perſeverance in his Popiſh Innovations notwithſtanding the Scotiſh troubles, and the many late complaints againſt them in the laſt diſſolved and preſent Parliament.
When this Arch-Prelate had in his Metropoliticall Viſitation by private inſtructions only to his Vicar Generall and other Agents, ſet on theſe Innovations, and introduced them into many Pariſh-Churches in moſt Dioceſſe, hee then by his ſubordinate Suffragans and Creatures, began to enforce them univerſally upon all Miniſters Church-Wardens, Pariſhes, by Viſitation Oaths and Articles, upon which ſuch Miniſters, Church-Wardens and others who oppoſed them were preſented yea proſecuted as Delinquents. Among others Dr. Pierce Biſh. of Bath and Wells, Mathew Wren, Biſh. of Norwich, Biſh. Lindſy of Peterborough, Biſh. Mountague of Chicheſter and Skinner, Biſhop of Briſtall, were the chiefe promoters of his Innovations eſpecially of rayling in Communion Tables Altarwiſe, bowing to and towards them, ſaying ſecond ſervice at them, and comming up to the new rayles to receive the Sacrament, preſcribing theſe particulars in their ſeverall Viſitation Articles: Witneſſe Rich: Mountague Biſhop of Chicheſter, his printed Viſitation Articles there, 1635. which after his tranſlation to Norwich, he enlarged with ſome printed additions for that Dioceſſe Anno 1638. of which there were two impreſſions.