Canterburys Doom, branch 1 (1 of 3)

Canterburys Doom · branch 1 (1 of 3)

p. 461The Archbiſhops ſeveral ANSVVERS To the Proofs and Evidence produced to make good the firſt Branch of his CHARGE, with the Commons Replyes, and Rejoynders thereunto.

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

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

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

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

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

The firſt thing the Commons have in their evidence charged againſt me, is the ſetting up and repairing of Popiſh Images and Pictures in the glaſſe windows of Object. 1.my Chappel at Lambeth; and amongſt others, the Picture of Chriſt hanging on the Croſſe between the two Theeves in the Eaſt window; of God the Father in Form of a little old Man, with a Glory, ſtriking Myriam with a leproſie; of the Holy Ghoſt deſcending in Form of a Dove; and of Chriſts Nativity, laſt Supper, Reſurrection, Aſcention, and others, the Patern whereof Maſter Pryn atteſted I took out of the very Maſſe Book, wherein he ſhewed their Portratures.

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

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

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

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

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

Fifthly, We wonder greatly, that he who hath ſo much traduced, reviled Mr. Calvin publikely heretofore, ſhould flie thus unto him for ſhelter now; but as he abuſed his perſon and memory then, ſo he miſerably perverts and miſapplies his words now, point-blank againſt his meaning. Mr. Calvin onelyonly affirms, that he is not ſo ſuperſtitious as to think it altogether unlawful to make any Images of men or Beaſts for a civil uſe, ſince painting is the gift of God: From whence the Archbiſhop hath inferred. Ergo, Mr. Calvin holds it lawful to make the Pictures of Chriſts Nativity, laſt Supper, Paſſion, Reſurrection, coming to Judgement; of God the Father, like an Old Man; of Chriſt on the Croſſe, of God the Holy Ghoſt, in form of a Dove, and Cloven-Tongues, of the Virgin-Mary, other Saints, and to ſet them up in Churches, as he did theſe Images in his Chappel: Whereas Maſter Calvin in the ſelf ſame place, in moſt poſitive terms, concludes the contrary; Witneſſe the very next words following thoſe he objects; p. 464Purum & legitimum utriuſque uſum require, ne quae Dominus in ſuam gloriam, & bonum noſtrum nobis contulit, ea non tantum polluantur praepoſtero abuſu, ſed in noſtram quoque perniciem convertantur. Deum effingi viſibili ſpecie NEFAS ESSE PƲTAMƲS, quia id vetuit ipſe, & fieri ſiue aliqua gloriae ejus deformatione non poteſt. Which he proves at large. Then ſpeaking of Images in Churches, he writes, they were introduced thither, bbInſtit. l. 1. c. 11. Sect. 13.Non judicio aut delectu, ſed ſtulta & inconfiderata cupiditate. In the very next Section he debates the very point in queſtion, whether it be lawful for Chriſtians to have any Images at all of Hiſtories, or of mens bodies (not of any perſons in the Trinity, the very making whereof he formerly concludes to be a great wickedneſſe) which he thus propounds and reſolves:

Verùm illo quoque diſcrimine omiſſo, an ullas omnino imagines, ſivè quae res geſtas, ſive quae hominum corpora figurent, habere in templis Chriſtianis expediat, obiter expendamus. Principio, ſi quid nos movet veteris Eccleſiae authoritas, meminerimus quingentis circiter anuis, quibus magisadhuc florebat religio, & ſyncerior doctrina vigebat, Chriſtiana templa fuiſſe communiter ab imaginibus vacua. Ergo tunc primùm in ornamcutum templorum aſcita ſunt, quum miniſterii ſynceritas nonnihil degeneraſſet. Non diſputabo ecquid rationis habuerint qui primi ſuerunt ejus rei authores: verùm ſi atatem cum aetate conferas, videbis illos multum declinaſſe ab eorum integritate qui imaginibus caruerunt. Quid? an paſſuros fuiſſe putamus ſanctos illos Patres Eccleſiam tandiu ea re carere, quam utilem ac ſalutarem eſſe judicarent? At certe quia videbant in ea aut nihil aut minimum utilitatis, plurimum autem ſubeſſe periculi, repudiarunt magis conſilio & ratione, quam ignoratione aut negligentia praetermiſerunt. Quod etiam Auguſtinus claris verbis teſtatur, Quam his ſedibus locantur, * Epiſt. 49. & lib. 4. De Civitate Dei. c. 31inquit, honorabili ſublimitate, ut à praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, ipſa ſimilitudine animatorum membrorum atque ſenſuum, quamvis ſenſu & anima careant, afficiunt infirmos animos, ut vivere ac spirare videantur, &c. **In Pſal. 113.Ps 113Et alibi. Hoc enim facit, & quodammodo extorquet illa figura membrorum, ut animus in corpore vivens magis arbitretur ſentire corpus, quod ſuo ſimillimum videt, &c. Paulo poſt. Plus valent ſimula…hra ad curvandam infaelic…m animam, quodos, ooulos, aures, pedes habent: quàm ad corrigendam, quòd non lequuntur, neque vident, neque audiunt, neque ambulant. Haec ſanè videtur cauſa eſſe, cur **1. Ioan. 5. 21.1 John 5:21Johannes non tantùm à ſimulachrorum cultu, ſod ab ipſis quoque ſimulachris cavere nos voluerit. Et nos horribili inſania, quae ad totius ferè pietatis interitū orbem ante hac occupavit, plus nimio ſumus experti, ſimulat que in templis collecantur imagines, quaſi ſignum idololatriae erigi: quia ſibi temperare non poteſt hominum ſtultitia, quin protinus ad ſuperſtitioſos cult…m delabatur. Quòd ſi nec tantum periculi immineret, quam tumen expendo in quem uſum deſtinata ſint templa, neſcio quomodo indignum mihi videtur eorum ſanctitate, ut alias recipiant imagines quàm vivas illas & iconicas, quas verbo ſuo Domini… conſecravit: Baptiſmum intelligo & Coenam Domini, …um aliis ceremoniis quibus oculos noſtros & ſtudioſius detineri, & vividius affici convenit quàm ut alias hominum ingenio fabrefactas requirant. En incomperabile imaginum bonum, quod nulla penſatione reſarciri poteſt, ſi Papiſtis creditur. This Author hath many ſuch like Paſſages in his other works; and therefore the Archbiſhops citing of him to juſtifie his Chappel Images, argues either extreme Ignorance or Falſhood.

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

Seventhly, That the Primitive Chriſtians approved of Images, and had the picture of Chriſt in their Churches, and engraven on their Chalices, is a moſt notorious Falſhood: For Juſtine Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Origen, Arnobius, Cyprian, Lactantius, Geegory Nyſſan, Athanaſius, Ambroſe, Epiphanius, Euſebius, Hierome, Auguſtine, Hilary, Chryſoſtome, Theodoret, p. 465Theophylact, and other Ancients unanimouſly agree, That the Primitive Chriſtians had no Images at all in their Churches, together with the Councels of Eliberis, Conſtantinople, Toledo, Francford, and Conſtantine the Great, Conſtantinus Caballinus, Nicephorus Stauratius, Philipicus, Anthemius, Theodoſius the ſecond, Leo Armenus, Valens, Michael Balbus, Theophylus, Charls the Great, with ſundry other godly Emperors, utterly demoliſhed and caſt them out of Churches, as Eccleſiaſtical Authors, our own ccSee the 2. and 3. part of the Homily againſt the peril of Idolatry.Homilies, ddHiſtriomaſtix, p. 894. to 915. Biſhop Uſhers Anſwer to the Ieſuits challenge, pag. 491. Rutherfurds Divine Right of Church-Government.Writers prove at large againſt the Papſts: eeDe Origine Erroris. c. 2. & 17.Lactantius and other Primitive Chriſtians write expreſly, That without doubt there can be no Religion at all in that place whereſoever any Image is; whereupon Epiphanius rent the Image of Chriſt or ſome other Saint, which he found in a Church painted in cloth, out of holy indignation, as contrary to the Authority of the Scriptures. In few words, Our own Homilies againſt the peril of Idolatry, part, 2. p. 38. expreſly reſolve, That when Images began to creep into the Church, they were not onelyonly ſpoken and written againſt by godly and learned Biſhops, Doctors and Clerks, but alſo condemned by WHOLE COVNCELS OF LEARNED MEN aſſembled together; yea the ſaid Images, by many Chriſtian Emperors and Biſhops were defaced, broken and deſtroyed. Which Mr. Calvin in the place objected by the Biſhop, affirms likewiſe. And therefore it is a moſt deſperate Impudency in the Archbiſhop, thus falſly to affirm the contrary, point-blank againſt our Homilies and his own ſubſcription to them. And whereas he cites Tertullian, to prove, that the Chriſtians in his dayes had the picture of Chriſt upon their Chalices; We Anſwer, That if the Book de Pvdicitia be Tertullians own, (of which ſome doubt) yet his words import no ſuch thing, which are theſe, A parabolis licebit incipias; ubi eſt evis perdita à Domino acquiſita, & humeris ejus revecta; Procedant ipſae PICTƲRAE CALICƲM VESTRORƲM (not noſtrorum) ſi volle nillis perlucebit interpretatio pecudis illius, utrumne Chriſtiano vel Ethnico peccateri de reſtitutione colliniet. If this place intimate any thing, it is onelyonly this, That the Phychici and other Hereticks againſt whom he writ this Book, (not the Orthodox Chriſtians, as this Prelate dreams) had the picture of the loſt ſheep graven on their cups: will it therefore follow hence, Ergo The Orthodox Chriſtians had Crucifixes and Images of Chriſt, God the Father, the Holy Ghoſt and the Virgin Mary in their Churches, in their Chappelss, as he hath ſet up in his Lambeth Chappel windows? Certainly this is a groſſe Nonſequitur. Yet this is his learned Argument from this Authority rightly ſtated. And that he hath moſt groſly abuſed Tertullian, your Lordſhips and his Auditory, in alleadging Tertullian for defence of Images, and their uſe among the Primitive Chriſtians; certainly Tertullian is ſo far from any ſuch opinion, that he hath written a whole Book de Idololatria, next before this de Pudicitia, wherein he expreſly condemns, not onelyonly the having, but making of any Image or Picture for any uſe, and the very Arts of carving and painting Images, as contrary to the ſecond Commandment (as the * Jews, Ioſephus, Philo and others did before him; & the very Turks and Perſians at this day.) Take but this Sentence of his inſted of many; Omnis forma vel formula Idolum ſe dici expoſcit. Idolum TAM FIERI quam coli Deus prohibet. Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli poſſit tantò prius eſt NE FIAT ſi coli non licet. Propter hanc cauſam, ad eradicandum ſcilicet materiam Idololatriae, lex divina proclamat, Ne feceris Idolum: & conjungens: Neque ſimilitudinem eorum quae in coelo ſunt, & quae in terra, & quae in mari: TOTO MƲNDO EJƲSMODI ARTIBƲS INTERDIXIT SERVIS DEI. Artifices ſtatuarum & Imaginum DIABOLVS ſeculo notulit, &c. Which he proſecutes at large throughout this eloquent Book. And therefore his Impudency and Sophiſtry in citing Tertullian for defence of Images in Churches, who is thus point-blank againſt the making of any Image whatſoever, even for civil uſes, is an intolerable, inexcuſable Boldneſſe.

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

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

The ſecond thing objected againſt me, as a Popiſh Innovation in my Chapple Object. 2.at Lambeth, is, bbSee here Pa. 62, 64.my removing and railing in the Communion Table there Altarwiſe, with the ends of it North and South againſt the wall; my furniſhing it with Baſons, Candleſticks, and other furniture, and hanging a cloth of Arras behinde it, with the Picture of Chriſt and his Apoſtles eating the Lords Supper together.

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

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

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

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

Secondly, We kkSee p. 62.have proved, that this Altar-furniture of Candleſticks, Tapers, Baſons, Crucifixes, and the like, was originally borrowed from the Roman, Ceremonial, Pontifical, and the Popiſh Councel of Aix, which injoyn them, That the third Part of our Homilies againſt the peril of Idolatry, and Queen Elizabeths Injunctions (which he cites for the placing of Lords Tables Altarwiſe) Injunct. 2. 23. 25. condemn, cenſure, aboliſh, as Superſtitious, Ethnical; and Popiſh, all Candleſticks, Trendals, Rolls of wax, and ſetting up of Tapers, for that they be things tending to Idolatry and Superſtition, which of all other offences, God Almighty doth moſt deteſt and abhor, for that the ſame diminiſh moſt his honour and glory: Therefore the Kings Altar-Furniture in his Chappel at White Hall, can be no juſtification nor extenuation of his offence, who ſhould have reformed his Majeſties Chappel (whereof he was the Dean and Superintendent, according to our Lawes, Homilies, Injunctions which condemn ſuch Altar-trinkets) not conformed his own Chapple, Altar to the Kings, in theſe meer Popiſh Superſtitious innovations.

Thirdly, The Arras hanging was rather ſuited to the Crucifixes in the glaſſe window over it and other Images of Chriſt in that Chappel, then to the place or Lords Table where it hanged. The Table and Sacramental elements themſelves, with the uſual participation of them every monethmonth, being ſufficient to minde us of our Saviours laſt Supper, paſſion, death too, and ll1 Cor. 11. 26. Gal. 3. 1.1 Cor 11:26Gal 3:1to ſhew them forth till he come, (who uſed no ſuch Pictures nor Crucifixes, when he inſtituted his laſt Supper) without any ſuch Image or Crucifix: which being condemned by our Statutes, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, Writers, as we have formerly evidenced, yea, by all Antiquity, by Mr. Calvin himſelf, and many Lutherans too, ought not to have been placed there; the rather, becauſe there is no warrant nor preſcript for it, but only in the mmSee p. 62.Roman Ceremonial, p. 69. 70. His conformity whereto was the only ground of hanging up thoſe Arras Pictures, which well deſerves another hanging, eſpecially in an Arch-prelate, who profeſſeth himſelf a Proteſtant, and as averſe from Popery as any man whatſoever.

The third ſort of Innovations in my Chappel charged againſt me, is the ſetting Object. 3.up of a nnHere pag. 63, 64.Credentia or Side-table, my own and my Chaplaines bowing towards the Table or Altar at our approaches to it, our going in and out from the Chappel; my Chaplains with my own uſing of Copes therein, at the celebration of the Lords Supper and ſolemn conſecrations of Biſhops, atteſted by Dr. Heywood my own Chaplain, who confeſſed, That he celebrated the Sacrament at Lambeth Chapple in a Cope, that my other Chaplains did the like, and that he thought I was ſometimes preſent when they did it; that the Bread when the Sacrament was adminiſtred was firſt laid upon the Credentia, from whence he took it in his hand and then carried it too, and kneeling down upon his knee preſented it, laid it on the Lords Table, on which there were Candleſticks, and Tapers, but not burning, as he had ſeen them at White-Hall; which Mr. Cordwel once my ſervant likewiſe depoſed; adding, that I was preſent ſometimes when this was done, and that my Chaplains bowed down thrice towards the Altar at their approaches to it.

To which I Anſwer: Firſt, that I took my patern of the Credentia from Biſhop Anſw.Andrews Chappel.

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

Thirdly, that the uſe of Copes is preſcribed by the 24 Canon of our Church Anno 1603. which orders thus, ooSee p. 63.In all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the Holy Communion ſhall be adminiſtred upon principal feaſt dayes, ſometimes by the Biſhop if he be preſent, and ſometimes by the Dean, ſometimes by a Canon or Prebendary, the principal Miniſter uſing a decent Cope. This therefore is no Innovation.

To this was retorted in general, that Sir Nathaniel Brent, and Doctor Featly depoſed, nor there was no ſuch Credentia, bowing towards the Table, Altar, nor Reply.any Cope at all uſed in Lambeth Chappel, in his predeceſſors time; therefore all theſe are meer Innovations: In particular, it was replied, that it appears not by proof Biſhop Andrews had any ſuch utenſels, veſtments, or bowings in his Chappel; therefore this is a meer groundleſſe evaſion: But admit he had, yet Biſhop Andrews Chappel was no Law, Canon, nor Patern for him to follow, againſt our Lawes; Common Prayer Book, Homilies, Injunctions, which exclude ſuch innovations: And if the Patern of the Chappel and its Furniture which we gave in evidence were Biſhops Andrews, as he avers; it was as groſly Popiſh and Superſtitious as the Popes, or any Popiſh Prelates Chappel whatſoever. As for the Credentia, it is directly taken out of the Roman Ceremonial and Pontifical, as we have ppHere p. 63.proved, the onelyonly Canons we know preſcribing it, and we finde the uſe of it only in ſome Popiſh Churches, and mentioned no wherebut in the Roman Miſſal, among the Rites of celebrating the Maſſe: Therefore it is a meer Popiſh utenſel, appropriated to the Maſſe and a forerunner of it.

Secondly, This bowing to and towards the Altar, was never preſcribed by our Statutes, Articles, Homilies, Common Prayer Book, Injunctions, Canons, never practiſed by any till of late, but ſome few Popiſh Court Doctors, and Cathedraliſts; never uſed by his Predeceſſor or his Chaplains, qqSee the Quench-cole, p. 24. &c.introduced only by Papiſts at the firſt, in honour and adoration of their Breaden God upon the Altar; and enjoyned only by the rrPa 63, 64.Roman Miſſal, Ceremonian, and Popiſh Canoniſts, as we have largely manifeſted: Therefore not to be juſtified or excuſed.

Thirdly, the Book of Common-Prayer, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England (the onelyonly Directory what veſtments, Ceremonies are to be uſed, confirmed by our Lawes) preſcribes not any of theſe; warrants not but excludes the uſe of Copes upon any occaſion: Our Homilies and writers of beſt rank condemn Copes, as Iewiſh, Popiſh, Paganiſh, enjoyned only by the ſſSee. p. 64.Roman Ceremonial, and Pontifical, as we have proved, ttSee Queen Elizabeths Injunctions, Num. 47.Injunctions deeming them Popiſh: Yea the third Part of the Homily againſt the peril of Idolatry, hath this memorable paſſage concerning them, p. 72. And becauſe the whole Pageant muſt thorowly be plaid, it is not enough thus to deck Images and Idols (with gold, ſilver, rich, wanton and proud apparel, tempting their paramours to wantonneſſe) but at laſt come in the Prieſts themſelves, likewiſe decked with gold and pearls, that they may be meet ſervants for ſuch Lords and Ladies, and fit worſhippers of ſuch Gods and Goddeſſes; and with a ſolemn pace they paſſe forth before the golden Puppets, and fall down to the ground on their marrow-bones before the Honourable Idols: (and their gorgious Altars too) Therefore certainly it is impudency for him thus to introduce and juſtifie them againſt theſe Authorities. Now whereas the Archbiſhop pleads the 24 Canon, made in the yeer 1603. to warrant the uſe of Copes in his Chappel: we Anſwer firſt, That the Canon extends onelyonly to Collegiat and Cathedral Churches, not Parochial, much leſſe to Chappels: Therefore it can no wayes warrant, but condemns this uſe of Copes in his Chappel: Secondly, it enjoyns onelyonly the chief Miniſter to uſe a decent Cope; not a gawdy one with Images, and rich embroidring upon it, ſuch as his Copes were: Thirdly, this Canon was never binding to any, but meerly void in Law, being never confirmed by Parliament, and croſſing both the Common Prayer p. 469Book and Homilies ratified by Parliament: Therefore all theſe his Anſwers in juſtification of theſe Innovations, diſplay his impudence to the world, in juſtifying ſuch Popiſh Reliques as theſe.

The fourth kinde of Innovations charged againſt me in my Chappel are, uuhere p. 64. 65.the Object. 4.ſtanding at gloria patri, bowing at the name of Ieſus, not uſed in my Predeceſſors dayes; the ſetting up of a new Organ, where there was formerly none, and the conſecrating of Utenſels, Altar-clothes, Flagons, with other Popiſh-furniture ſolemnly in a Cope, atteſted by Mr. Boadman and others, which are objected to be taken out of the Roman Miſſal, and Pontifical.

To which I give this Anſwer:

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

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

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

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

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

To this was Replied:Reply.

1. That it is confeſſed, there is neither Canon nor Rubrick enjoyning any to ſtand up at every rehearſal of gloria patri in time of Divine ſervice; a moſt diſorderly unneceſſary and confuſed Ceremony, wherein men ſtart up and quat down ſodainly again, as if they were frighted out of their ſleep: And we have proved, that it is enjoyned only by the xxPa. 64.Roman Miſſal, no very good Directory for us Proteſtants; as for his pretended antiquity and cuſtomary uſage of this Ceremony in our own and other Proteſtant Churches, it is meerly fabulous without any Authority to warrant it, but his own aſſeveration.

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

3. For Organs, there were none in that Chappel before his time ſince the Reformation: Therefore an Innovation there. And though generally received and uſed in Cathedrals, yet all Authors agree it was a Pope, zzPlatina, Balaeas and others in his life, Polidor Vergil. dc Invent. Rerum. lib. 6. c. 2. The. Beacons Reliques of Rome c. 76, 77. Hiſt. Maſtix. p. 282, &c.(Ʋitalian by name) p. 470firſt introduced the uſe of them into Chriſtian Churches, and all know they are moſt in uſe only in Popiſh Churches beyond the ſeas.

Fourthly, for the Antiquity and lawfulneſſe of conſecrating Churches, we have already diſcuſſed, and ſhall further reſute it in its due place; for the conſecration of Altars, Flagons, Altar-clothes, and other Altar-furniture, the only thing here objected; we have proved the original and derivation of it, to be meerly from the Roman Miſſal and Pontifical, and from no better nor higher Antiquity: He pretends, but proves not, that he took his immediate preſident from Biſhop Andrews, a late deceaſed ſuperſtitious, if not Popiſh Prelate, how ever he applauds him: Therefore certainly from no Antiquity. But from whom did Biſhop Andrews take his patern? doubtleſſe from the Roman Miſſal and Pontifical, ſince no other ſampler can be produced. And are theſe a fit patern for a Proteſtant Biſhops imitation? As for his objected reaſon, that Altars, Churches, Flagons, &c. could not be called nor reputed Holy, unleſſe thus ſolemnly conſecrated: Firſt, It is but a meer Nonſequitur, it being not any Biſhops formal unwarrantable conſecration, but the peoples appropriation of them to a ſacred uſe that makes them holy, not inherently, but relatively only, with reference to the holy Ordinances therein adminiſtred, of which hereafter: For the Statute of 5 and 6. E. 6. c. 5. It hath been not one ſillable in it in juſtification of the conſecration of Churches, much leſſe of Altars, Flagons, Altar-clothes and the like; neither doth it ever ſtile the Church or Churches holy, or a holy or conſecrated place: nor could it well be ſo, in reſpect of their conſecration only, they being Hallowed onelyonly by Popiſh Prelates in times of Popery, with ſuch Popiſh Reliques, Ceremonies, Chriſms, Exorciſms, Croſſings, and waſhings with holy water, and ſince then exploded as ſuperſtitious and ridiculous: Therefore to juſtifie theſe conſecrations from thence, is to make a concluſion without any premiſes to warrant it. Finally, he diſcovers a rotten Popiſh ſpirit, inclination in the higheſt degree, in pleading for, and juſtifying to the utmoſt ſuch Popiſh conſecrations againſt the expreſſe reſolutions of our Orthodox bbhere p. 115. 116.forecited Writers, Prelates, and his own learned predeceſſour Matthew Parker, who have ſo ſeverely cenſured them as Popiſh, Iewiſh, and childiſh tryfles fit to be exploded.

Secondly, having ended with my Chappel at Lambeth, they next purſued me to Object. 2.my ſtudy there.

Where, firſt they ccPa 66, &c.charge me for having an Engliſh Bible with a Crucifix embroidered on the Cover of it.

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

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

Secondly, whereas he avers the Picture of the Crucifix to be lawful, ſo it be not adored: He herein expreſly contradicts our ddSee here p. 59. 102. to 110.Homilies, to which he hath ſubſcribed, our Statutes, Injunctions, Authors forecited, yea, the judgement of all ſound Antiquity. And if this Picture of Chriſt hanging ſtill on the Croſſe (as if he had never been taken down thence) be lawful, (as he avers with the Papiſts againſt all Orthodox Proteſtants) then it is lawful to make or reſerve it either for a meer civill uſe to grace his ſtudy, or pleaſe his eye ſight only; which certainly is an extream diſhonour to, diſparagement of our moſt bleſſed Saviour and his paſſion, who is eeLuk. 1. 35. Act. 4 30.Luke 1:35Acts 4:30the holy One of God, tranſcending all civil uſes being made for holy ends alone: or for a religious uſe, to ſtir up our devotion, and put us in remembrance of his death (which he hath purpoſely ordained his ffGal. 3 1. 1 Cor. 11. 26.Gal 3:11 Cor 11:26word and Sacraments to do) which at beſt is ſuperſtition.

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

The ſecond thing charged againſt me in my ſtudy, is a (g) Book of Popiſh Pictures printed 1623. containing the Portratures of the Life, Paſſion, and Death of Object. 2. (q) Pa. 66, 10. ….our Lord Ieſus Chriſt.

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

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

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

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

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

The third particular objected againſt me in my ſtudy, is hhPage 66.two large folio Object. 3.Maſſe-books, and that I had noted one of them frequently with my hand: That I had likewiſe there the Roman Miſſal, Pontifical, and twenty two Popiſh hours of our Lady, Breviaries, Manuels, and Books of Popiſh devotion.

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

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

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

The laſt iiPage 67.objected thing found in my Library is, my private Prayers and Devotions written with my own hand, againſt which there are three exceptions:Objection.

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

Secondly, that they are digeſted into Canonical hours of prayer after the Papiſts Model.

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

p. 472To which I return this general Anſwer: That this being only a Book for my Anſw.own private devotions and uſe alone, ought not to be charged againſt me. As to the objected particulars excepted againſt, I Anſwer: Firſt, that if any ſuch prayers be taken out of the Miſſal, Pontifical, or Roman Breviary; yet they are devout and pious in themſelves, and there is no prayer to Saints or Angels in the Book: Thirdly, the Canonical hours of Prayer are of very great Antiquity in the Church: derived from holy King Davids practiſe, who ſaid kkPſ. i. 9. 164.Ps 1:9Ps 1:164Seven times a day will I praiſe thee, and was taken up and practiſed by Chriſtians within two hundred years after Chriſt, and approved of in preces privatae, in Queen Elizabeths raign: Thirdly, that proſtration in prayer is no crime, but commendable, and a ſigne of extraordinary humility; Chriſt himſelf uſing this geſture in his prayers before his paſſion.

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

Thirdly, From my ſtudy at Lambeth they purſued me to my Gallery there, Object. 3.where they charge mmPage 67.three Pictures againſt me; to which I return this Anſwer.

That the firſt of them, which is the great one, was given me by a friend, and there can be no harm or Popery in it, being onelyonly the Picture of Saint Ambroſe, Anſw.Auguſtine, Jerome, and Gregory the firſt, which may be lawfully made and reſerved. That the two other Pictures were in the Gallery long before my time, and continued there in Archbiſhop Abbots, Bancrofts, and Whitgifts dayes; to prove which he produces Mr. Dobſon his ſervant, who affirmed, that he ſaw theſe two latter Pictures in the Gallery in Archbiſhop Bancrofts time, where they continued ever ſince; and one of them is a Picture againſt Popery, to wit, of Chriſt, going into the ſheepfold by the door, and of Popiſh Prieſts and Friers nnIoh. 10. 1, 2, 3.John 10:1John 10:2John 10:3climbing into it by the window, like theeves and robbers: Beſides, the Harmony of confeſſions of the reformed Churches, holds that Images are in themſelves indifferent, ſo as no adoration be given to them; yea, Mr. Calvin in the ooInſt. l. 1. c. 11. ſect. 12, 13.place forecited, is of the ſame opinion: And I have written againſt the adoration and ſuperſtitious uſe of Images as fully as any man whatſoever: Therefore thoſe Pictures can be no evidence of mine intention to bring in Popery.

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

Secondly, that one of the other Pictures was a moſt abominable Idol of Chriſt newly taken down from his Croſſe all bloody, with ſhaven crown Prieſts, Friers, and Nunns, ſtanding and kneeling round about him; which kinde of Pictures by our Lawes, Homilies, Injunctions reſolutions (as we ppPage 102. to 108.have already proved) ought to be utterly demoliſhed and not ſuffered in private Houſes or Galleries, no more then in Churches or Chappels, The other was a Picture of Chriſt himſelf upon a ladder, not entring in at a door, with Monks and Friers only about him: and therefore as ſuperſtitious, Popiſh as the former, and not tolerable by our Lawes, eſpecially in an Archbiſhops publique Gallary, where all ſorts of ſtrangers and viſitors of quality were entertained; who by this example would be induced, if Proteſtants, to approve of ſuch ſuperſtitious Pictures, and to procure the like by way of imitation; If Papiſts, would be thereby hardned, confirmed in their ſuperſtition, and in giving them adoration, eſpecially when they ſhould behold the like Superſtitious and Idolatrous Pictures, as well in his Chappel and ſtudy, as in his Gallary, where no ſuch were in his predeceſſours dayes, but only broken and defaced ones. As for his predeceſſours having or leaving theſe two laſt Pictures to him, it is no juſtification, nor mitigation of his crime; their ill actions are no Apology at all for his, who repaired and beautified in his Chappel thoſe very ſuperſtitious Images, which they demoliſhed, and never durſt repair.

Thirdly, whereas he produceth the Harmony of confeſſions of the Proteſtants Churches, for proof of the uſe and indifferency of theſe Images, ſo as they be not adored: He cites neither Section, nor Page, nor ſentence therein to prove this aſſertion, but we muſt take it on his own bare word; which how falſe it is, we ſhall prove by the words of the Harmony it ſelf: Sect. 17. p. 401. Where the latter confeſſion of Helvetia, Cha. 17. determines thus. But yet notwithſtanding we muſt admoniſh men to take heed, that they count not among things indifferent; ſuch as INDEED ARE NOT INDIFFERENT, as ſome uſe to count the Maſſe, and THE USE OF IMAGES IN CHURCHES. This is the only paſſage we finde in the Harmony of confeſſions for the indifferency of Images or their uſe, which is point blank againſt him. And as for qqPage. And ſo in his Inſt. l. 2. c. 8. ſect. 17.Mr. Calvins forecited Text, it is as point blank againſt him, as this of the Harmony, as we have proved. Therefore this charge lies ſtill heavy upon him in each particular, and bewrayes both his Popery and falſity in quotations.

Secondly, from Lambeth houſe, they next purſued me to White Hall, where theſe rrPage. 69, 70, 71.particulars were charged againſt me: Firſt, my own perſonal bowing Objection.to the Altar: and my enjoyning of others his Majeſties Chaplains to uſe it, when I was Dean of the Chappel: Secondly, the hanging up of a glorious large coſtly Arras Crucifix behinde the Altar, on paſſion week, in his Majeſties own Chappel there, in the yeers 1636. and 1637. which gave great ſcandal and offence, as Sir Henry Mildmay atteſted: Thirdly, my making his Majeſties Chappel a patern of imitation to all Cathedrals and other Churches: Fourthly, the practiſe of Dr. Brown, and two Seminary Prieſts, in bowing to the Altar and Crucifix there; with their ſpeech to Mrs. Charnock.

To the firſt of theſe I Anſwer, that my bowing there was only to worſhip God, not the Altar, and I hope it is no offence nor treaſon to worſhip God in the Kings Anſw.own Chappel, or to induce others to do the like: The lawfulneſſe of this worſhip towards the Altar, I have manifeſted at large in my ſſPage 39. &c.Speech in Starchamber, and proved it by a Chapter order in the Black book of Windſor, which the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Garter yet obſerve and practiſe; therefore it is no p. 474Popery, nor Popiſh Innovation, but a reverence fitting the place which the Homily for repairing and keeping clean Churches commands. And I pray God that under colour of caſting ſuperſtition out of Churches, we bring not in prophaneſſe.

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

(To the third he gave no Anſwer.)

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

To which was replied: Firſt, that to worſhip God as we ought in the Kings Chappel, is no treaſon, nor offence; but this kinde of worſhipping God there or elſewhere Reply.towards the Altar, is both ttSee the Quench cole p. 240. to 330. A pleaſant purge for a a Roman Catholike, p. 140. to 182. where this is largely proved.Popiſh, Superſtitious, and Idolatrous: For by the Black-book of Windſor which he cites, it was introduced in the very darkeſt times of Popery in Henry the 5. his raign, or a little before: and that in modum virorum Eccleſiaſticorum, a worſhip derived from Eccleſiaſtical perſons, to wit, Popiſh Prieſts and Monks of that age: It was a worſhip joyntly given in one and the ſelf ſame act and inſtant Deo & Altari, to God and the Altar, that is, in their interpretation, to the conſecrated Hoſt and breaden God (as they deemed it) on the Altar, and to the Altar it ſelf: It was preſcribed uuSee here p. 63, 64.only by Popiſh Canons, the Roman Miſſal, Ceremonial, Pontifical, and introduced purpoſely to ſupport their Errour of Tranſubſtantiation at firſt, and now revived for that very purpoſe: as the Archbiſhop himſelf defines in his Starchamber Speech; who yields this reaſon, why we muſt how towards the Altar, not towards the Pulpit: For there tis, hoc eſt corpus meum, &c. And a greater reverence no doubt IS DUE TO THE BODY, then to the Word of the Lord: Therefore for him to introduce ſuch an Idolatrous, Superſtitious worſhip, as this into the Kings own Chappel contrary to the Word of God, and Law of the Land, under pretext of Gods worſhip, to corrupt the King and his whole Court in their worſhip and Religion, and alienate his good Subjects affections from him, will prove little leſſe then Treaſon in the higheſt degree: As for his pretended Speech, we xxPage 200. 201.have already refuted it. And for the Homily, it hath neither word nor ſyllable to warrant it, but ſome thing againſt it, ſince as it condemns, prophanes, on the one hand, ſo it cenſures all ſuperſtition on the other; between which this Prelate would have no medium, as this his prayer imports.

Secondly, That the Archbiſhop was chief Superintendent of his Majeſties Chappel, as Primate and Metropolitan of all England. The King and Queen where ever they live in England, being his immediate Pariſhoners, and the whole Kingdom but his Pariſh; though devided into ſeveral Biſhopricks, as hath been reſolved by all the Nobles in King Henry the firſt his raign, as our Hiſtorians, and his Antiq. Eccle. Brit. p. 33. 102.own Predeceſſour Archbiſhop Parker record: Therefore Biſhop Wren being only Dean of the Kings Chappel, the Archbiſhops creature, and brought into that office by him, durſt not have ſet up this gaudy Crucifix there, in the paſſion week, in his preſence without his approbation and direction, by which he tacitly confeſſeth it was done: That it gave publique ſcandal to many well-affected Courtiers, and others, Sir Henry Mildmay depoſed, and particularly to himſelf, who complained of it to the King, and the Archbiſhop too; who if his heart had been right and fervent to our Religion, would have been moſt ſcandalized, offended at this unuſual ſcandalous ſight, and never have permitted it ſucceſſiively two yeers p. 475together, nor juſtified it ſo peremptorily as now he did. And whereas he objects, that had Sir Henry been thus ſcandalized with the Crucifix it ſelf, he would have been as much offended with the old, there conſtantly hanging, as with the new: We Anſwer, That the old was hardly viſible and ſcarce obſerved by any; but this ſo groſſe, ſo great, ſo gaudy and notorious, that every man in the Chappel took ſpecial notice thereof, as if it had been ſome new blaſing Star. And if the old were ſo viſible all the yeer long, what need the hanging up of this new one onelyonly in the paſſion and Eaſter weeks, which was never uſed in the memory of man before? In fine the third Part of the Homily againſt the peril of Idolatry, reſolves, that the moſt rich, coſtly, gaudy Images and Crucifixes, are more dangerous and ſcandalous, then others not ſo ſtately: therefore Sir Henry might well be ſcandalized with it, more then with the old one not ſo coſtly.

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

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

Thirdly, from White-hall they purſued me to the Kings Coronation at Weſtminſter Abbey, aaPa. 69 70.where they charge me.Object. 3.

1. With compiling the Form of this Coronation.

2. That the unction was in forma crucis.

3. That the old Crucifix, inter regalia, was ſet upon the Altar.

4. That divers of the Prayers in it, and this manner of anointing, were taken verbatim out of the Roman Pontifical.

5. That after the Coronation, I ſolemnly offered the Regalia at the Altar in the Kings name.

Anſ. To which I ſhall give this Anſwer:

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

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

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

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

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

To which was Replied:

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

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

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

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

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

Fourthly, from Weſtminſter they proceed to the bbPage 70. to 75.Univerſities, firſt of Oxford, where I was Chancellor, next of Cambridge: In Oxford they object:Object.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Anſwer:

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

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

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

p. 4694. That Sir John Lamb only queſtioned Maſter Chainel, and Maſter Corbet, which is nothing to me; and Doctor Frewens words are but a hear-ſay, beſides, they were not puniſhed for not doing it.

5. That Copes are warrantable by the 24 Canon.

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

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

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

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

Whereunto was Replied:

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

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

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