Jan. 10. Les plus Grands du Berray rapporterent au Roy qu'il troubloit le repose du publie qu'il S'emparoit contre toute la Justice de son domaine c. Il depublia la Bulledecernee par le Pape pour faire la guerre aux Albegiois auec tant de zele de fruict que plusieurs a sa parole S'y croâ—serent courageusement La guâ—rre eut une issue houreuse car les Heretiques furent tellement deconfits qu'ils ne purrent depuis seremetter on campagne c. Ribadeniera Flures des Vies des Saincts p. 124. Note Note * Page 14. 15. 25. Note * See the Kings Cabinet opened * Officium Beatae Mariae secundum Vsum Sarum Paristis 1919. p. 12. Bishop Jewels Defence of the Apology part 2. c. 18. Divis 1. p. 295. 296. Object 1. Answ 1. Object 2. Answ 1. Object 3. Answ * See his late Libell intituled Innocency and Truth Justified Answ 2. Note Note Note * See the Irish Cabinet * Note f Jer. 31. 23. c. 50. 7. g Deut. 33. 21. h Psal 82. 3. i Iohn Lilburn in his late Libels Englands Birth-right with others k Isa 59. 4. 9. 14 l I say 5. 7. m Eccl 3. 16. n Isa 1 21. o Ier. 9. 22. Ier. 9. 22. q 2 Sam. 8. 15. r Deut. 16. 18. 19. 20. a Plin. Nat. Hist lib. 10. c. 63. a See the Breviate of his Life p. 1. 2. 3. b Se his Conference with Fisher p. 171. A necessary Introduction to his Tryall p. 148. 149. c Annaliuâ—â— Pars posterior p. 680. b Claudian in Eutropium l. 1. p. 67. c Rerum Ang. licarum l. 4. c. 14. d 1 Tim. 3. â—ir 1. 7 8. * Ovid Metam l. 2. * See the Breviate of his life pag. 22. and Diurnall Occurrences pag. 13. and 14. the Commons Journall NOTE f Clandian in Rufinum I. 2. p. g Pag. 23. 24. Master Pyme Speech See the Charge of the Scottish Commissioners against Canterbury * Which Doctor Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wels in his speech to his Clergy to set on this contribution stiled Bellum Episcopale adding that what ever his Majesty had expressed in his Declarations to be the cause of this warre yet in truth this warre is FOR VS Bishops NOTE * NOTE NOTE * Therefore the fitter to make a Popish Priest Prelate Cardinall * He knew he could not have done them half the service by going over from hence to Rome as by staying here to promote their designes and that made him stay * In secular imployments inconsistent with not in preaching and paines in his Calling Note this impudent asseveration here abundantly refuted * In secular imployments inconsistent with not in preaching and paines in his Calling Note this impudent asseveration here abundantly refuted * Belike he was born a Popeling * It was onely by bringing Rome home to them or meeting them more then halfe way in their journey thither * A great Actor in the late Irish Rebellion against the Protestants * All know what a good Protestant he lived and died * Both desperate Apostate Papists Mr Chainels Sermon at his Funerall informe us how good a Protestant he lived and dyed * Cambdens Britannias p. 229. * Artit Orig. 7. Additionall 7. * Artit Orig. 210. 1. His Popish superstitious Innovations in Lambheth Chappell * Bishop Iewels his defence of the Apology of the Church of England 5. Part c. 5. Diuis 1. to 3 p. 551. c. Reply to Harding Artit 14. p. 496. to 518. Thomas Becons Reliques of Rome Catechisme on the second commandement Mr. Fox Acts Monuments vol. 1. p. 167. 168. 255. vol 2. p. 388. 389. 394. 658. 669. 409. 410. vol 3. p. 992. to 993. with infinit others * Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gallicanae lib. 4. Tit. 1. c. 80. p. 556. 557 NOTE * See Ribadeniera Flevers des vies des Sainctes pars â—ap 104. Apres Compline et Matines il visi oit tous les Rutols de 〈…〉 Eglile faisant a chacun vne Prostration et reverence * Apud Bochellum Decreta Eccles Gal. l. 4 Tit. 1. c. 81. p. 558. Salamantinae 1588. 8. 9. 21. * See the Archbishops speech in Star chamber p. 47. 48 49. * De Hey Iyns Cole from the Altar and Antidonum Lincolniense Dr. Pocklington Reeue Shelford and others * See Lame Giles his Haultings Anti-Armianisme p. 191 Appendix and Queeres concerning Bowing at the name of Iesus * Laurentius Surius concil Tom. 3 p. 6. 741. 810. * Platina in vita ejus Volateran Thomas Beacons Reliques of Rome ch Of the Ornaments of the Church Of plain-song Prick-song Organs and singing in Churches Histriomastix p. 283. to 287. * See A Necessary Introduction to his Tryall p. 15â— to 164. * Exod. 20 4 5 Lev. 26. 1. Deut 4. 14. to 25. 1. 5. 8 9. Isay 2. 20 c. 30. 27. c. 31. 7. c. 44. 9. c. Hoses 14. 8. Rom. 1. 23. 24 25. 1 Iohn 5. 21. 2. His Popish Innovations in his Majesties Chapell at White-Hall * Claudian His Popists Innovations at Westminster Abbey at his Majesties Coronation †See the Breviat of his life p. 7. †Page 69. 70. 9. 43. 78. 110. 157 162. 165. 4 His Popish Innovations in the Vniversities of Oxford and Cambridge * Dabis fidem ad observandum statuta istius Vniversitatis c. Statuta selectae Corpore statutum Vniversitatis Oxon Tit. 9. Sect. 6. Paragr 1. p. 114. * Acts and Monuments Edit 16. 40. â— vol. 3. p. 773. Edit 1610. p. 1781. His Popish Innovations in the Vniversity of Cambridge Object Answer * De summo Bono l. 2. c. 20. †Cicero de legibus l. 3. * Gratian distinct 86. * Foutes venero inficere est non tantum contra morem Majorum sed etiam contra fas Deorum Florus Historiae lib. 1. Grotius de Iure Belli lib. 3. c. 4. Sect. 16. p. 444. See 22. H. 8. c. 10. 5. His Popish Innovations and superstitions in Cathedrall Churches NOTE NOTE NOTE * This was then a grosse untruth for it then stood not so in any Cathedralls NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE * See Master Francis Rouse his printed Speech at the Transmission of Master Smarts cause to the Lords Innovations in Canterbury Cathedrall Innovations in VVinchester Cathedrall NOTE Innovations in Litchfield Cathedrall Innovations at Hereford NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE * A notorious untruth of an Arch-Prelate NOTE NOTE * 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 Chappell 's The case of St. Gregories Church NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE 19. 20. 21. NOTE 22. NOTE 23. 24. 18. 19. 20. 21. 21. 22. 23. NOTE 24. NOTE NOTE Note Note
of Lincolne at the Visitation of the Archdeacon there this present year 1637. Printed at London 1637. Artic. 5. Have you adâ—cent Table on a frame for the holy Communion placed at the East end of the Chancell Is it rayled in or inclosed so as Men or Boyes cannot sit upon it or throw their hats upon it Is the said raile or 〈…〉 with sâ—ttles or kneeling hâ—nches at 〈…〉 or bottome thereof no the Communicants way fitly kneele there at the receiving of the holy Communion Artic. 38. Whether any in your Parish have covered his head in time of Divine Service contrary to the â—â— Canon any that do not kneele at the saying of the generall Confession Letany ten Commandements and other prayers read in the said Church â— any that do not stand up at the saying the Beliefe or not how or use reverencâ— when in time of Divine service the name of Iesus is read or 〈◊〉 c. Moreover Dr. Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wels not only prescribes the rayling in of Communion Tables Altarwise under penalties and fines in his Visitation Articles and Courts but likewise appoints Ministers in every Division to see it executed and presents these reasons for it to the Archbishop who endorsed them thus with his own hand Recepi March 9. 1633. L. Bishop of Bath and Wels about placing the Communion Table Reasons why the Communion Table in every Church should be set close under the East-window or wall with the ends North and South and be rayled in 1. It was ordered in Queen Elizabeths Injunctions That the Communion Table should stand where the Altar did 2. There should be some difference between the placing of the Lords Table in the Church and the placing of a mans Table in his house 3. It is not sit the people should sit above Gods Table or he above the Priest when he consecrateth 4. If it stand not thus and he not rayled in it will be subject to many prophanations and abuses Church-wardens will keep their accounts at the Lords Table Parishioners will sit round about it and talk of their Parish businesses whereas the Lords Table is for no other use but only for the Communion and the service and prayers of the Church Schoolmasters will teach their Boyes to write upon this Table and the Boyes will â—ay their Hats Sachels and Books upon it and in their Masters absence sit upon the same and many will sit or learn irreverently against the Lords Table in Sermon time Glasiers will knock it full of mile holes as it is found by experience they have done in many places and Dogs will defile the Lords Table 5. When the Communion Table stands thus the Chancell is the fairer and there â—â— more 〈◊〉 for the Communicants 6. Where the Communion Table stands thus the face of the Priest is seen of all and his voice is 〈◊〉 heard of all which sit on the North side of the Chancel 7. It is sit the Daughters should be like their Mother the Patochiall Churches should be 〈◊〉 the Câ—thedrall Churches that so there may be an uniformity in this respect in every Church At Coventry 〈◊〉 Bishop of that Diocesse by his Chancellour prescribed these Innovations following in the Churches of that City Thursday the 15 of August 1636. at Coventry It is ordered by Mr. Chancellour in the presence of me Henry Archbold principall Register being 〈…〉 by my Lord Bishop to that purpose 1. That the Communion Tables with in S. Michaels and Trinity Churches should be removed up 〈…〉 of the Chancels 2. That the ground at the upper end of the Chancels be handsomely raised by three steps that the 〈…〉 be conspicuous to all the Church 3. That in 〈…〉 which almost stopped up the middle I le be removed according 〈…〉 the Church-wardens in presence 4. That in both Churches all new additions of Seats in the Chancels be taken away 〈…〉 be to the ancient forme 5. 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 of Trinity shall hereafter have any Seat to himself within the Church of S. Michael nor any parishioner of S. Michael have any 〈…〉 such no have sufficient interest by Land in the other 〈◊〉 6. 〈…〉 the Churchyard of S. Trinity may be 〈…〉 restored to the Churchyard And the doores opening into the Churchyard be stâ—pped up and the sink and other 〈…〉 7. That the 〈…〉 wives being in both Churches sufficiently accommodated 〈…〉 hence forth content themselves 〈…〉 â—e disposed of to these Gentlemen of quality within 〈…〉 The Church-wardens of both Parishes are admonished to certifie the performance of the precedent Articles to M. Chancelour by the next Court-day at Lichfield being the 27 of September next And that the Desk in the Chancell in Trinity Church whereon the Books lye be removed to the upper end of the North Isle next the Chancell and a Rayle made with a door in the middle thereof to keep out children from tearing the Books Charles Twysden Henry Archbold Registers After which this Bishop in a better mood Ordering the Communion Table only at the time of administring the Sacrament to be brought into the midst of the Chancell being large without the precincts of its impounding rayles thereupon the Archbishops Creatures gave present secret notice thereof by way of complaint to Sir Iohn Lambe and he to the Archbishop in these ensuing Letters found among Sir Iohn Lambs papers by Mr. Prynne endorsed with Mr. Dels the Archbishops Secretaries hand upon the Archbishops perusall of them The first was this Letter from Mr. Bird to Mr. Latham Good Master Latham Being at Mr. Lessons my Lord Bishops accustomed Inne I was there called and sent for to a private room before Mr. Major and some others of the Fraternity the businesse was concerning the removall of the Communion Table fromits ascent of 3 steps unto the body of the Chancel during the administration of that blessed Sacrament and they fearing me and my thwarting it moved my Lord to command me from either troubling them or altering that But how this can be effected without a great deale of inconveniency both to Minister and people I know not the Table and all other ceremonies necessary then to be used being by this means obscured and taken away from the eares and eyes of the people This is all except his Sermon that his Lordship hath done here and so much I thought good to certifie you desiring you to make what use you can of it provided you ever conceale the name of Your assured loving friend Tho. Byrd Covent 21 March juxta compt Aug. 1636. The second this Letter from Mr. Latham to Sir Iohn Lambe Most worthy Sir Our Lord Bishop at his departure from hence left such a terrible noise behind him of threatning against his Chancelour Mr. Ieffraye Archdeacon of Salop and my Selfe as would make men that were any thing obnoxious much afraid but for mine own part I thank God I fear him not but will and shall be ready to justifie my selfe in any thing
were Pictures of the Holy Ghost in forme of a Dove that in Peter House there was likewise a carved Crosse at the end of every seat and on the Altar a Pot which they usually called the incense pot that the Master Fellows and Schollers of that house at their entring into going out of the Chappell made a low obeysance to the Altar being enjoyned by Doctor Cosens under a penalty as they reported to doe it and none of them might tume their backs towards the Altar going in nor out of the Chappell That divers Schollers of other houses usually resorted thither some out of Curiosity only to behold others to learne and practise the Popish Ceremonies and Orders used in that Chappell and the common report both among the Schollers of that House and others was that none might approach to the Altar in Peter house but in Sandalls and that there was a speciall consecrated Knife there kept upon the Altar to cut the sacramental bread that was to be consecrated Master Lazarus Seman deposed that he left the Vniversity of Cambridge about ten yeares since and that in his time none of the forementioned Innovations were so much as known or used there but of late times they have all beene introduced Many more witnesses were ready to depose the like and more then this but the Innovations of this kinde were so notoriously knowne to all and so fully proved before the Parliament in Master Peter Smarts Articles against Doctor Cosins that the Commons thought to produce more witnesses herein would bee a meere mispence of time to no purpose but to tyre out the Lords and Auditory But perchance the Archbishop will object what are these Innovations in the Vniversity of Cambridge unto me who was neither Chancellor there to councell or countenance them nor immediatly introduced them To which was Answered 1. That his publike example and practise in his own Chappell at Lambheth formerly manifested was both a president precept for this their imitation and one chiefe cause of these Innovations It was a true rule of Isiodor Hispalensis Dupliciter reus est qui apertè delinquit quia agit docet And a just verdict of the Roman Orator Perniciosius de Republica merentur vitiofi Rectores quod non solum vitia concipiunt ipsi sed ea infundunt in Civitatem neque solum obsunt quod illi ipsi corumpuntur sed etiam quod corumpunt Since then his own preceeding Innovations were the occasions of these Corruptions in this Vniversity they must be laid upon his score 2ly His owne Introduction of the selfesame Popish Innovations into the Vniversity of Oxford by Lawes and Injunctions at the selfe-same time or a little before these sprung up in Cambridge is a strong presumption that both of them issued from the very same roote 3ly His owne chiefe Favorites Chaplaines Creatures who were most intimate frequent with him at London and advanced to Headships in Colledges by his meanes were the only active Instruments to bring in and promote these Corruptions therefore questionlesse they had directions at least incouragment from him for their proceedings in this kinde 4ly His not being Chauncellor of this Vniversity was rather an obstacle to the speedy Introduction of these Innovations then otherwise as appeares by Oxford where he prescribed them by publique Laws and Injunctions which was not done in Cambridge because he was not Chauncellor yet he would needs be their Immediate Visitor as Archbishop of Canterbury contesting with them for this Authority before his Majestic and Privie Councell where hee obtained a Decree and Patent to him and his Successors to be their Visitors in regard of which Jurisdiction over this Vniversity as their Visitor and likewise as an High Commissioner hee wanted no authority but only will to prohibit suppresse these Popish Novelties and punish the promotors of them but this for certaine he never did but countenanced advanced them all hee could as shall be manifested in due place Therefore if the old Maxime of Law may take place Qui non vetat peccare cum posset jubet he must bee really guilty of all these Anti-Christian Innovations in both our Vniversities whom he thus miserably corrupted to the unspeakeable prejudice of Church and State since from these two Fountaines these Popish superstitions corruptions diffused themselves over all our Dominions like a most contagious Leprosie It hath alwayes been a Capitall crime and an offence against the Law of God of Nations to poyson common Naturall fountaines how much more then these two publike Fountaines of more transcendent use and excellency From our Vniversities wee shall in the next place pursue this Romish Reinold unto our Cathedrall Churches where hee began his Popish Innovations very early Master Iohn Laugly late Schoole-Master of the City Glocester but now of Pauls Schoole deposed that in the yeare 1616. the now Archb. being made Deane of Glocester and comming downe to the Cathedrall there intended to turne the Communion Table into an Altar and place it Altarwise at the East end of the Quire removing it from its former station in the midst Doctor Smith then Bishop of GLOCESTER opposed it with much earnestnesse and seriously protested to the DEANE and the Prebends that if the Communion Table were removed or any such Innovations brought into that Cathedrall as this Deane intended to introduce hee would never come within the Walls of the Cathedrall more yet notwithstanding the Deane was then so violent that in despite of the Bishops direction and opposition hee caused the Lords Table to be removed and placed Altarwise at the East end of the Quire close under the Wall with the ends North and South with Popish furniture upon it bowed towards it himselfe and commanded the singing-men Choristers and other Officers of the Church to make like obeysance to it Whereat the Bishop was so much offended that hee made good his protestation and never came more within the Cathedrall till his dying day This single testimony of Mr. Langlies we finde seconded with a Letter of this Bishops Chaplaine to the Chancellour at Glocester thus indorsed with the Archbishops owne hand and found at Lambeth among his Papers by Master Prynne Febr. 12. 1616. A Coppy of the Libell against the removing of the Communion Table in the Church of Glocester MAster Chancellour I pray you certifie me how things stand at Gloucester wee heare strange things of late here with us that seeme almost incredible It is reported here for a truth that the Communion Table in your Cathedrall Church is removed by your new Deane and put up close at the upper end in the place where the high Altar heretofore stood and that they make low obeysance to it with great Reverence as if Christ were there upon it and that this hath much offended the whole Citie almost And yet that not any one of the Prebends did so much as offer by word or deed to resist him or
and the Silver extrasted put into the Treasurie of the Church 14. The Kings Schollers being 40. usually coming tumultuously into the Chore ordered to come in bimatim and to doe reverence towards the Altar Moreover the Archbishop in his Injunctions to the Dean Chapter of the Cathedrall Church of Chicester made in his Metropoliticall Visitation there An. 1635. orders thus in his 6. Injunction Item That you provide Copes fitting for the service of your Cathedrall by one a year untill you be sufficiently furnished with them as was proved by the Injunctions found in his own Study attested by Mr. Prynne an Altar with all its furniture and adorations towards it being there likewise provided and used The like Innovations were introduced and prescribed by his Injunctions and new statutes in all or most Cathedralls in England and Wales to the great rejoycing of the Popish Party and scandall of all true zealous Protestants and any default in them was reputed a crime presentable as appeared by this Passage of an Abstract of the Abuses in the Diocesse of Lincolne 1634. in my Metropoliticall visitation endorsed with the Archbishops hand and found in his study Lincolne August 9. 1634. The Communion Table is not very decent and the Raile before it is worse the Organs old and naught The Copes and Vestments are embeselled and none remaine c. And in another Abstract concerning his Metropoliticall Visitation in other Diocesses particulars concerning the same indorsed likewise with his own hand there are these passages Norwich the hangings of the Quire are naught the Copes are fair but want mending In the Cathedrall as Worcester they have no Copes but are ordered to buy some before the feast of the Annuntiation In the Cathedrall at Gloucester many things amisse No Copes c. in Winchester Cathedrall they have no Copes some do not bow when they come into the Quire nor at the blessed name of Iesus Litchfield the furniture of the Altar c. very meane Therefore care must be taken for more costly furniture Whence this Archbishop took his Commission and president for adorning our Cathedrall and Collegeat Churches thus above others with these Romish Ornaments superstitious Innovations which in truth defiled them is worthy our speciall observation it being in taken from the very Roman Ceremoniall set forth reformed by the Command of Pope Clement the 8. lib. 1. cap. 12. De ornatu Ecclesiae p. 64. which prescribes thus Sic MAJOR ETIAM â—VRA adhibenda erit IN ORNATV ECCLESIAE CATHEDRALJS AVT COLLEGJATAE quae numerosum clerum habeat supellectilem amplam que congrué situata suis partibus apté distincta COMMODJOREM ORNANDI PRAEâ—EAT FACVLTATEM after which it prescribes Altars Altar-clothes Candlestickes Tapers Crucifixes Jmages Copes Rich hangings for the Altar and Quire with Jmages of Christ our Lady and Saints bowing to the Altar and Crucifix and that all Altars should have at least two Candlestickes with Tapers and a Crosse of Silver or of some other mettall placed on the midst of the Altar with the Image of Christ crucified on it as you may there read at large This Arch Prelate not content to propagate these Innovations in England like an Vniversall Patriarch over all his Majesties Realms endeavoured the introducing of them with an high hand into all the Cathedralls Churches and Chappell 's in Ireland by the then Lord Deputy Wentworthes power his great Creature of which we shall give you this briefe accompt Dr. Bramhall Chaplaine to this Lord Deputy by his Command August 10. 1633. sent over an Account of the state of the Church of Jreland to this Prelate as he found it and what Alterations hee had already made in it seized in the Archbishops study by Mr. Prynne wherein are these observable clauses RIght Reverend Father My most honoured Lord presuming partly upon your licence but especially directed by my Lord Deputies commandes I am to give your Father-hood a briefe account of the present state of the poore Church of Ireland such as our short Intelligence here and your Lordship weightier imployments there will permit c. In Christ Church the principall Church in Ireland withor the Lord Deputy and Councell repaire every Sunday the Table used for administration of the blessed Sacrament in the MIDST OF THE QVIRE is made an ordinary seat for Maidons and Apprentices J cannot omitte the glorious Tombe in the other Cathedrall Church of saint Patrike in the proper place of the Altar just opposite to his Majesties seat having his Fathers name subscribed upon it as if it were contrived on purpose to gaine that worship and reverence which the Chapter and whole Church are bound by speciall statute to give towards the East and either the soyle it selfe or a Licence to build and bury and make a Vault in the place of the Altar under Sealetant which is tantamount is passed to the Earle and his heires Credimus esse Deos. This being the case in Dublin your Lordship will Judge what we may expect in the Country The Earle of Corke holdes the whole Bishopricke of Lismore at the Rate of fortie shillings or five markes by the yeare For the remedying of these evills next to God and his sacred Majesty I know my Lord depends upon your Fatherhoods wisedom and zeale for the Church my duty binds me to pray for a blessing upon both your good endeavours for the present my Lord hath pulled down the Deputies seat in his owne Chapell and restored the Altar 〈◊〉 ancient place which was thrust out of dores the like is done in Christs Church This testimony I must give of his care that it is not possible for the intentions of a mortall man to be more serious and sincere then his in those things that concerne the good of this poore Church Your Lordships daily â—â—â—dsman and devoted servant Iohn Bramhall Dublin Castle Aug. 10. 1643. Vpon this Information the Archbishop signifyed his dislike of erecting this Monument by the Earle of Corke in the place where the High Altar as was misinformed anciently stood and gave some directions for removing it Whereupon the Earle of Corks and Archbishop of Dublin writ these ensuing Letters to satisfie his Grace in this particular which were seconded with other Letters from Archbishop Vsher and the Deane and Prebends of Saint Patrickes Church to like effect over-tedious to recite My Gracious Lord. I Vnderstand that upon suggestions made unto your Grace you conceive that a Tombe which I have lately caused to be erected in Saint Patrickes Church neere Dublin is prejuditiall to the lights of the Chancell and seated in the place where the High Altar stood And as I have alwayes by my best desires and actions endeavored to invest my selfe in your Graces good opinion and have not willingly done any act that might prejudice me therein So in this particular I make humbly bold to deliver my justification to your Grace as followeth which I
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 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 Distuque 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
distraction in the Parish of Ware being a great and populous parish by their opposition of the laudable gesture of receiving the holy Communion kneeling and their envying against the Rayle and bench set up by sufficient authority for that purpose about the Communion Table in the Chancel for maintaining of good order and conformity in the Church there as may well appear by M. Chaunceys inveighing against the same and his refusing to administer the holy Communion there whilest he continued Vicar of Ware for the which the said M. Chauncey in partem pâ—nae was by the Court suspended from the execution of his Ministeriall function and every part thereof and ordered so to stand untill by his submission and acknowledgement of his error in broaching the said opinions tending to schisme and faction this Court shall see cause to release him which his submission and his acknowledgement is to be set down prescriptis verbis by the Commissioners at Informations and to be delivered unto him under the Registers hand of this Court and to be by him read and performed here in open Court and then to be intimated and made known in the parish Church of Ware where he hath given such cause of scandall and offence He was further condemned in expences or costs of fuit which are to be moderately taxed by the Commissioners at Informations And the said Humphry Parker was likewise condemned in moderate charges or expences and to make his submission in like manner conceptis verbis as this Court shall appoint Lastly they were both ordered to stand committed till they shall give sufficient bond in a 100 li. a piece to his Majesties use for the performance of the order of the Court. And because it was alleaged and pretended on M. Chauncies behalfe that since his comming to be Person of Marsten-Lawrence in Northamptonshire he had in testofocation of his conformity set up or caused to be set up such a Rayle about the Communion Table in the Chancell of his parish Church there the Court decreed Letters to be sent from this Court to the Lord Bishop of Peterborough to desire his Lordship to enquire of the truth of this allegation and to certifie this Court of the truth thereof the second Session of the next Tearm As also how the said Master Chauncey hath otherwise conformed himselfe there to the orders of the Church of England here by law established The manner and form of M. Chauncies recantation the next court-day for speaking against the rayle is thus recorded in the High Commission Register This day the said Mr. Chauncey appeared personally and with bended knees read his submission in Court which followes Whereas I Charles Chauncey Clerk late Vicar of Ware in the County of Hertford stand by sentence of this honourable Court legally convicted for opposing the setting of a rayle about the Communion Table in the Chancell of the Parish-church of Ware with a bench thereunto affixed for the Communicants to resort unto and to receive the blessed Sacrament there kneeling upon their knees and for using invective speeches against the said rayle and bench saying it was an Innovation â— snare to mens consciences and a breach of the second Commandement an addition to the Lords worship and that which hath driven me out of Towne I the said Charles Chauncey do here before this honourable Court acknowledge my great offence in using the said invective words and am heartily sorry for the same I protest and am ready to declare by vertue of mine Oath that I now hold and am perswaded in my conscience that kneeling at the receiving of the holy Communion is a lawfull and commendable gesture and that a rayle set up in the Chancell of any Church by the authority of the Ordinary with a bench thereunto affixed for the communicants to repaire unto to receive the holy Communion kneeling is a decent and convenient ornament for that purpose and this Court conceiveth that the rayle set up lately in the Parish-church of Ware with the bench affixed is such an one And I do further confesse that I was much to blame for opposing the same and do promise from henceforth never by word or deed to oppose either that or any other the laudable rites and ceremonies prescribed and commanded to be used in the Church of England Charles Chauncey Which submission being thus as aforesaid read and subscribed by the said Master Chauncey his Counsell moved that he might be dismissed but the Counsell for the Office desired that the said M. Chauncey might here receive w judiciall admonition which the Court conceiving very fit and requisite the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of the whole Court did now judicially admonish the said Charles Chauncey from henceforth to carry himself peaceably and conformably to the doctrine and discipline rites and ceremonies established and commanded to be used in the Church of England and neither by word nor deed to oppose or bring into disesteem any of them with this intimation That in case he were convented againe for any opposition or refractorinesse touching the premises that the Court intended to proceed against him with all severity and with this admonition the Court dismissed him the said M. Chauncey from any further attendance touching this cause he first paying the charges of suit taxed against him and the fees of his dismission These two leading cases and censures in the High-commissions at York and Lambeth seconded with this enforced submission struck such a terror into most Ministers and Churchwardens in those parts that few or none durst oppose those Innovations and gave such encouragement to the Prelates and popish Clergie that they proceeded vigorously in the pressing introducing of them every where and if any man durst oppose or vary from their injunctions they were presently brought into the High-commission and there proceeded against with utmost rigour This was manifested by the case of Mr. Miles Burkitt one of the Vicars of Pateshall in Northamptonshire who for delivering the Sacrament only to some who refused out of conscience to come up to the new Rayle and removing the Communion Table at the Sacrament time into the midst of the Chancell without the rayle according to the very Letter of Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon was apprehended by a Pursevant in the Year 1638 and thus Articled against in the High-commission at Lambeth by Sir John Lambes and the Archbishops meanes among whose papers his Articles were found and read at the Lords Barre being attested by Master Prynne Inprimis we Article and object to you the said Miles Burkitt that you doe not bow at the Name of JESUS in time of Divine Service Item we Article and object that you the said Miles Burkitt being enjoyned by the Ordinary or his Surrogates officiate for him to keep within the rayles at the ministring of the Sacrament and to give the Sacrament to none that will not come up to the rayles he the
John Finch who gave it such a purgation without calling M. Burton to it or suffering his Counsell to defend it whom Sir John Finch threatned with pulling his Gowne over his head and putting him from the Barre as was never heard of in any Age expunging no lesse then 64 whole sheets containing his justification and defence out of it as scandalous leaving only some three lines in the beginning of it and two in the end amounting to a generall not guilty when as he confessed and justified all he was charged with And because Mr. Burton would not acknowledge this purged answer directly contrary to that he put in upon oath and answer to Interrogatories grounded on it quite contrary to his answer as they had altered it whereby he must of necessity have been perjured therefore he was likewise taken pro confesso and censured for a contempt in not answering though he had an answer in Court What the scandalous matter contained in and expunged out of his answer by the Judges was is very observable truly it was no other then the very Oathes of Supremacy Allegiance prescribed by severall Acts of Parliament engaging the Defendants and others who had taken them against popery and popish Innovations his Majesties Declarations before the 39 Articles and to all his loving Subjects printed Anno 1628. prohibiting all back-sliding to Popery or any Innovations or alterations in the Religion by law established among us The Petition of Right and his Majesties Answer thereunto for preservation of the Subjects rights and liberties extending as wel to secure them against these illegal popish Innovations which the Bishops by an Arbitrary power would obtrude upon them and their consciences by Suspensions Excommunications Fines Imprisonments and other vexatious courses as to the liberty of their persons and estates of which they were deprived for opposing their Innovations the statute of 3 Iac. c. 1. intituled An Act for a publick thanksgiving to Almighty God every year on the 5 of November for the great deliverance of the King Kingdome State and Parliament from the horrid Gunpowder Treason on which day Mr. Burton preached these two Sermons against the severall Popish Innovations and Doctrines mentioned in it lately brought into the Church by the Archbishop and his confederates for which he was questioned in the Star-chamber The statute of 3 Jac. cap. 4. intituled An Act for the better discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants The statute of 1 Eliz. cap. 2. intituled An Act for the uniformity of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments which excludes all new Ceremonies and Innovations in Gods service introduced by the Bishops not comprized in the Book of Common prayer with an enumeration of those severall Innovations in point of doctrine and ceremonies as setting up Altars instead of Communion Tables removing Lords Tables from their ancient stations and rayling them in Altarwise against the wall bowing downe to them reading second Service at them licensing printing Popish and Arminian Books altering and purging the Books for the Gunpowder Treason for the publick Fast Coronation and Book of Common prayer c. with other particulars specified at large in his printed Sermons All this was totally expunged as scandalous out of Mr. Burtons Answer for feare the proof thereof should have made the Bishops scandalous Eighthly these Defendants when they perceived they should not have liberty to defend themselves nor to prove or justifie the Archbishops and his Confederates popish Innovations by their Answers exhibited a crosse Bill against them under their hands which they offered to make good at their uttermost perils Mr. Prynne tendring the same both to the Lord Keeper and in open Court defiring it might be admitted being both for their own just defence the honour of his Majesty and preservation of our Religion and that a Court of publick justice which ought to be as open for as against them yet this their Bill was twice refused without cause and delivered over to Mr. Attourney Generall to draw up a Charge against the defendants out of it if possible and to question them for their lives for exhibiting it Ninthly at the hearing the Archbishop and Bishop of London though chiefe prosecutions of this cause in which they were specially concerned professed enemies to the Defendants and challenged in open Court by Mr. Prynne as unfit to sit Judges there in their own cause contrary to all law and presidents were yet admitted to sit in Court as Judges where the Archbishop himself in a tedious Oration of two houres long larger then ever any Sermon he preached in the Pulpit professedly justified all the forementioned Innovations wherewith he was charged as Setting up Altars rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise reading second-Service at them bowing downe towards them as the Monks and Popish Fryers did of old because there 't is Hoc est corpus meum c. standing up at Glory be to the Father bowing at the Name of Iesus altering and purging the Books for the Gunpowder Treason and the publick Fast in favour of Papists the licensing of Popish and Arminian Books charged against him c. And yet reviled condemned these Defendants as Libellers and thanked the Lords for their justice against them for falsely objecting these very Innovations to him which himself in his Speech confessed himself guilty of justified in open Court and after that in print to all the World dedicating this his Speech to his Majesty and making him the Patron of all these Innovations contrary to his own royall Protestations Tenthly these Defendants for opposing those very popish Innovations which himself thus publickly confessed defended being deprived of their proofe and just defence by taking them all pro confesso for a pretended contempt in not answering the Information which they would not permit them to put in their Answers to as you heard before were without any proof or testimony at all produced to prove them guilty of ought objected against them fined 5000 li. a peece unto his Majesty adjudged to stand in the Pillory at Westminster and there to lose their Eares which was accordingly executed Mr. Burton was after deprived of his Living degraded from his Ministery Mr. Prynne stigmatized on both cheeks though nothing at all was charged against him and all of them deprived the liberty of pen inke and paper and before their wounds were healed they were sent away close prisoners to the 3 remote Castles of Lanceston Lancaster and Carnarvan and there shut up close prisoners neither Wife nor Childe nor Brother nor any other but their Keepers having any accesse unto them and soone after by extraordinary Letters from the Councell Table to which the Archbishops hand was first sent close prisoners by Sea in the Winter-season to the hazzard of their lives into the Islands of Sylly Garnesey and Iarsey and there mued up close prisoners without pen inke paper or allowance of necessaries their friends being prohibited al accesse unto them D. Bastwicks M.
in Parliament to the subversion of the Property and Liberty of the Subjects which Sermons were preached and printed by this Archbishops speciall solicitation was on the 14. of June 1628. censured by the Lords in Parliament and thereby perpetually disabled from all future Ecclesiasticall preferments in our Church Of this censure the Archbishop took speciall Notice inserting it into his Diary adding that himself was complained of by the house of Commons June 12. for warranting Doctor Manwarings Sermons to the Presse Yet no sooner was this Parliament ended but in high affront of their publike censure in Iuly following by this Prelates assistance Doctor Manwaring as was proved by the Docquet Booke was presented unto the Rectory of Stamford Rivers in the County of Essex voyd by the promotion of Richard Mountague to the Bishopricke of Chichester he who had right thereto was put by and a dispensation granted to Doctor Manwaring to hold it with the Rectory of St. Giles which made this Doctor in the superscription of a Letter of his to this Archbishop when London about the Commission of Fees in London Churches Jan. 28. 1631 indorsed with the Bishops own hand and found in his study to stile him My singular good Lord And so he proved for soon after as was proved by the Docquet Booke in May 1633. the Deanery of Worcester was granted to this Doctor and the grant signified to the signet office by the Bishop of London Laud who procured him this preferment What service Manwaring did in that Church in setting up a Marble Altar introducing Copes with other Popish Innovations and what Account he gave thereof to the Archbishop his Patriot you may formerly read p. 81. under both their hands which was such a Meritorious Work that in few dayes after the Archbishop procured a Conge d'eslier for him to the Bishopricke of St. Davids in Wales which was signed by the Archbishop himselfe as appeares by the Docquet Booke in the signet office produced at the Lords Bar among the entries of December 1635. After which himselfe consecrated him Bishop of that See as was proved by his own Diary wherein he entred this Memento with his owne hand Feb. 28. 1635. I consecrated Doctor Roger Manwaring Bishop of Saint Davids So that this paire of malignant active Popish Prelates Mountague and Manwaring received all their Ecclesiasticall preferments after the proceedings against them in severall Parliaments by his procurement in highest affront of their Authority and Censures who obtained likewise a Royall Pardon procured for them entred in the Docquet Booke Jan. 1628. Both drawne according to his Majesties pardons of Grace granted to his subjects at his Coronation with some particulars for the pardoning of all Errours heretofore committed severally by them either in speaking writing or printing whereby they might be hereafter questioned But to proceed to others August 1628. we finde in the Docquet Booke a Conge d'sliere and Royall Assent by order from the Bishop of London for Doctor Mawe a known Arminian to be Bishop of Bath and Wells and the like in the same Moneth for Doctor Richard Corbet a professed Arminian and one well-affected to Popery to be Bishop of Oxford by order from this Bishop who afterwards promoted him to Norwich In November 1628 A Conge d'slier by his order too was directed to the Deane and Chapter of Yorke to elect Samuell Harsnet then Bishop of Norwich a professed notorious Arminian well inclined to Popery to the Archbishopricke of York Mart. 25. 1632. we find a Conge D'eslire to the Dean and Chapter of Christ-Church to Elect Doctor John Bancroft Bishop of Oxford and in June following a Warrant for the restitution of the temporalities of this Bishoprick to him both subscribed signified by the Bishop of London and what a corrupt unpreaching Popish Prelate Bancroft was is known to all the University of Oxford In Octob. 1632. We find these four severall Conge D'eslires all procured by order of this Prelate then Bishop of London One to the Dean and Chapter of Winchester to Elect Walter Curle Bishop of Bath and Wells to be Bishop of Winchester Alike to the Deane and Chapter of Coventry and Lichfield to Elect Robert Wright Bishop of Bristol to be Bishop of that See Alike to the Deane and Chapter of Peterborough to Elect Doctor Augustine Linsell an Arch-Arminian and very Popish and Superstitious as was attested by Mr. Peter Smart upon Oath and the Author of most of the Innovations in Durham Cathedrall who joyned therin with Doctor Cosins Bishop of that See Alike to Elect Doctor Pierce Bishop of Bath and Wells Now how active all these Prelates were to set up Altars introduce all Popish Ceremonies suppresse Lectures silence Ministers promote the Book of sports advance Arminianisme and Popery hath beene already manifested in the premises And we find that Doctor Lindsell was afterwards translated to the Bishoprick of Hereford Jan. 1633. and this Bishop of Winchester made the Kings chiefe Almoigner in Iune 1637. by Order of this Archbishop In Octob. 1635. we meet with in the Docquet Book a Conge D'eslire and Letter to the Dean and Chapter of Norwich to Elect Mathew Wren Bishop of Norwich both signified by this Archbishop of Canterbury and the like for his translation to Ely March 17. 1637. by Order from this Archbishop Now what an Arminian and Popish Innovator this Prelate was in all particulars the Popish furniture of whose Chappell with Basons Candlesticks Corporalls Altar-cloths A Chalice with a crosse upon it and other Popish Trinkets as appears by his own Book of Accounts costing him 159. l. 4. shil 1. d. and how great a persecutor silencer supresser of Godly Ministers people the world experimentally knows and the premises demonstrate We could instance in sundry English Welsh Bishops more of the same strain who were all advanced by his order means as namely Bi Neal made Archbishop of York by him an Arch promoter of Arminians Popish Clergy men and all Popish Innovations Dr Iuckeson first made Bishop of Hereford afterward of London and Lord Treasurer by this Archbishop A man though of a milde temper yet as Superstitious as Popish as most of the former and his Visitation Articles especially the last enforcing the New Cannons and Etcetera Oath as Superstitious and Vile as any Doctor Duppa Bishop of Chichester a known Arminian and very Superstitious Doctor Skinner Bishop of Bristoll and after of Oxford a man tainted with Arminianisme and very much addicted to Popish Superstitions Innovations with sundry others but these shall suffice Onely we cannot pretermit a notable Letter of Dr. Iohn Towers to Sir Iohn Lamb to be a Mediator to his Grace to confer the Bishopricke of Peterborough upon him which Letter intimates that all Bishopricks and Ecclesiasticall Preferments were then in his disposall Worthy SIR I Intended onely my hearty Thankes to you in this Letter for what I read in your last Letter to my Lord Bishop concerning my selfe and your true Love
the Church of England was ready to ring the Changes and insinuating unto his Auditory that there was cause to fear an Alteration of Religion saying that Religion and the Gospel stood on tiptoes ready to be gone that divers good Ministers were silenced and that they should beware of a relapse unto Popery In this censure the Archbishop had the chiefest hand as was proved by the High Commission Bookes and Mr Wardes Submission which was drawn up by Sir Iohn Lambe and sent to this Archbishop who endorsed it with his owne hand This severe sentence utterly ruined this famous painfull preacher who lay long in prison and soone after ended his dayes in great grief and sorrow In April 1630. Articles were exhibited against Mr Charles Chancy a Reverend learned painfull Minister living at Ware for preaching against the Bacchanales and disorders used by many in the Christmas holy-dayes the increase of Popery Arminianisme and using these expressions in a Sermon of his charged against him in his Articles in Ianuary before That Idolatry was admitted into the Church and that not only the prophets of Baal but Baal himselfe is received and houses multiplyed for the entertainment of them and with all saying that the preaching of the Gospel would be suppressed That there wanted men of courage to tell the Superiours in the Church of their neglect for that there was increase of much Atheisme Popery Arminianisme and Heresie in our Church since the reformation of it as at this time wherein Heresies were not onely broached but maintained whereby he raised a fear among the people and insinuated to them that some alteration of Religion would ensue and be brought in and scandalized the whole Church of England and Government thereof To these Articles Mr Chancy gave in his answer upon Oath in the High Commission the 21 of the same April and the very next day by Order of that Court the whole cause was referred to this Bishop then of London being his ordinary provided that if Mr Chancy did not submit himselfe to performe his Lordships order therein that then his Lordship if it seemed good unto him might transferre the cause backe again to be censured in this Court Whereupon Mr Chancy made a Submission to his Lordship in Latin and soon after was enforced to desert the Kingdome and set sayle for New England to avoyd further persecution All which is manifest by the Originall Articles and Mr Chancyes answer to them found among Sir John Lambes sequestred Writings by Mr Prynne and by the Order of Reference and M. Chancyes Submission endorsed with the Bishops own hand the chiefe Prosecutor of this cause To these we could add M. Cotton M. Hooker M. Davenport M. Wells M. Peters M. Glover and sundry other Ministers driven into New England and other Plantations those that fled over into Holland to avoyd his prosecution with some hundreds of Ministers questioned in the High Commission and else-where by his meanes and there suspended silenced for not publishing the Booke of Sports or not submitting to his Popish Innovations M. Salisbury was questioned and troubled by this Prelate for these passages in his Sermon on Math. 24. 6. How many thousands have made shipwrack of faith a good conscience renounced our true Church stepp'd aside to Arminianisme and from thence as it is the widest gate that opens towards Rome relapsed to Popery Thus are wee scattered in our Jacob and divided in our Israel The Low Countryes not long since if not still sighed as deeply and mourned as strongly to finde herselfe as imperceivably to be overgrowne with Arminianisme And what a faction is like to be in our deplorable England between Popery and Arminianisme together except God be more mercifull and our State the more vigilant and mindfull We shall see sooner then tell and feel sooner then see Doctor Staughton D. Sibbes D. Taylor D. Gouge M. White of Dorchester M. Rogers of Dodham with sundry more of our most eminent preaching orthodox Divines were brought into the High Commission and troubled or silenced for a time by his procurement upon frivilous pretences But in truth because they were principle Props of our Protestant Religion against his Popish and Arminian Innovations But omitting these we shall conclude this head with one memorable instance more which comes very home Mr Nathaniel Bernard Lecturer at Sepulchers in London preaching at Antholins Church in May 3. 1629. used this expression in his prayer before his Sermon Oh Lord open the eyes of the Queenes Majestie that shee may see Iesus Christ whom shee hath peirced with her Infidelity Superstition and Idolatry This Archbishop then of London was presently informed of this passage attested by Walter Kirby an Atturney of Bernards Inne Iohn Browne of Durham Minister and some others Whereupon the Bishop brought him into the High Commission where after long attendance upon his Submission this ensuing Order was framed Die Jovis viz. xxviii die mensis Januarii Anno Domini juxta c 1629. Coram Commissionariis Regiis apud Lambeth Judicialiter sedentibus presente Thoma Mottershed Registrarij Regij Deputat Officum Dominorum contra Nathanielem Bernard Clericum Prima Sessio Termini Hillarij HIS appearance by bond was respited untill this day at which day and place the said Nathaniel Bernard appeared personally and then it being objected unto him by the Court that he had in a Sermon lately by him preached or otherwise delivered some Scandalous and undutiful speeches derogatory to some particular person of most eminent place which the Court desired not to have there repeated and for that the said Mr Bernard had acknowledged his error in that kinde as some of the Commissioners there unto whom he had submitted himself reported and himselfe confessed the Court was inclined upon his submission being a young scholler and a student in Divinity to accept his submission and enclined to deal mercifully and favourably with him yet considering that his scandalous and undutifull speeches were of such high nature as could not be well remitted or pardoned by this Court without the approbation and the good liking of his most Excellent Majestie the Court desired the Lord Bishop of London to acquaint his Majestie therewith and if his Majestie upon understanding of the Cause would be graciously pleased to pardon him and leave it to the Court that then this Court would take such further order for his dismission as they should think meet Mottershed The Copy of this Order with another Paper conteining the words were both endorsed with the Bishops own hand and found among his Papers by Mr Prynne who produced them Mr Bernard not long after upon his submission was dismissed the Court After which repairing to the University of Cambridge to visit his friends he fortuned to preach at Saint Maries Church there on the 6. of May 1632. in the afternoon wherein he let fall divers Passages concerning preaching the purity of Gods Ordinances worship and against the Introducers of
actions meerly civil before the Magistrate coÌ„trary to the received customs of this kingdom from the first conversion of this Nation they protest that in so doing be exerciseth a tyranny over the Clergie contrary unto the Canons of the Church and the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdome c. Most Illustrious Lords and Reverend Fathers in Christ the aforesaid Priests doe complain that the Illustrious Arch-bishop of Dublin Thomas Flemming of the Order of Saint Francis is accustomed to answer the Clergy complaining of their grievances to him If I doe you wrong you may goe to Rome to complaine In the meane time reporting himselfe so powerfull in the Court of Rome that be feares no adversary And of this that reverend Priest Father Patrick Caâ—ill Doctor of Divinity had experience who for a yeere treating of his injuries and grievances done unto himby the Arch-bishop of Dublin could by no meanes prevaile once to be admitted to the presence and audience of the most eminent Cardinall Ludovifius Vice-Chancellour of Rome which Cardinall notwithstanding is given by his Holinesse unto the Irish at the only Patron and Protector of the Irish Nation These things we may remember with griefe but amend them we cannot but we professe before Almighty God his Holinesse and all faithfull people that this is nothing else but to tyrannize over the Clergie to the dishonour of the Church and no small contempt to the See Apostolick For which and other causes besides to be alleaged and in their due time and place to be proved against the above named Thomas Flemming of the Order of Saint Francis we the aforesaid Priests and hereafter to be named doe set before your eyes most Illustrious and reverend Lords these our grievances as meet and honourable witnesses of this our deed writing and publike instrument and as far as is possible and lawfull for us by the Canons of holy Church declining the jurisdiction of our aforesaid Ordinary by this our present writing and from this time forth we appeale unto the See Apostolicke from all Ecclesiasticall censures hereafter to be inflicted upon us by the same Illustrious Arch-bishop Thomas Flemming of the Order of Saint Francis and in the meane time providing for our innocency and safety according to the example of Saint Paul and Saint Athanasius we doe invocate the ayde of the secular arme for our present remedy against the aforesaid Illustrious Arch-bishop Thomas Flemming of the Order of Saint Francis and all Regulars of what Order soever as well Monks as begging Fryars Abettars Counsellours and Participants with him in the premises as violators and contemners of all Lawes divine and humane and men by the Law excommuicate Humbly beseeching your Lordships in the bowels of the Crucified that you would be pleased to intimate with as much speed as may be this our Protestation and Appeale unto the See Apostolick and the God of peace and love long preserve your Reverend Lordships in safety Dated at Dublin May the third in the yeer of our Lord 1632. Peter Caddell Doctor of Divinity Paul Harris pr. Deacon of the University of Dublin From which Protestation we may observe these considerable particulars First that the Papists in Ireland had their owne popish Archbishops Bishops and a Vicar Apostolicall residing then amongst them as the title and body of this Protestation manifests Secondly that their Archbishop Flemming had a popish Clergy under him in his Province and did exceedingly tyrannize over them usurping jurisdiction even in temporall causes and over the Kings own Courts among the Catholikes of Ireland Thirdly that the popish Bishops in Ireland did usually conferre Orders and exercise all Episcopall jurisdiction there Fourthly that they had a speciall Cardinall at Rome Ludovifius given by the Pope unto the Irish as the onely Patron and Protector of the Irish Nation Fifthly that they were grown extraordinary bold and insolent there so as they openly published this their Protestation and Appeal in print both in Latin and English to all the world and avowed it under their hands subscribed to it Sixthly that they had then erected a popish University in Dublin it self of which Paul Harris professeth himself Deacon or Dean as Bishop Beadle stiles him even in print This Prelat though he knew all this yet for ought we find he never took any severe course at all to prevent the encrease and insolencies of the popish Prelats Priests Fryars Papists there but rather to foment them For first he promoted and sent over divers superstitious popish Clergy-men thither as young Mr. Croxton Doctor Bramball his principall Agent and Informer Chaplain to the Lord Deputy Master Chapple and others who set up sundry popish innovations and brcohed popish Doctrines there to the great encouragement of the Papists Secondly he sent over the Lord Wentworth his grand instrument and confederace to be Lord Deputy of that Kingdome who extraordinarily favoured the popish party there and at last proceeded so far as to make use of them even in Parliament to ballance the Protestants the better to conquer and enslave that Kingdome even by Parliaments witnesse this remarkable clause in A Duplicate of a Dispatch of this Lord Deputies to his Majesty Jan. 22. 1633. with this subscription For my Lords Grace of Canterbury found in his private Study at Lambeth thus endorsed with his own hand Rec. Mar. 2. 1633. Comp. Ang. Reasons for the present calling of a Parliament in Ireland Where thus he writes concerning the Parliament then intended to be there called I Shall endeavoour that the lower House may be so composed as that neither the Recusants nor yet the Protestants shall appear considerably more one then the other holding them as much as may be upon an equall ballance for they will prove thus easier to govern then if either party were absolute Then would I in private discourse shew the Recusant That the contribution ending in December next if your Majesties Army were not imployed some other way before the twelve pence a Sunday must of necessity be exacted upon them Shew the Protestant that your Majesty must not let goe the 20000li. contribution nor yet discontent the other in matter of Religion till the Army were some way else certainly provided for and convince them both that the present quarterly paiments are not so burthensome as they pretended them to be And that by the graces they have had already more benefit then their mony came to Thus poising one by the other which single might perchance prove more unhappy to deal with With this Machiavillian policy he then acquainted this Archbishop and acaccordingly pursued it which what desperate effects it hath of late produced in that Kingdom by making the Irish Papists able to over-master and almost extirpate the English-Irish Protestants and their Religion there we now experimentally feel to our greatest grief and danger Neither did the Archbishop only approve this hellish policy of the Lord Deputy but likewise in the late Scottish
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 at Lambeth is 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 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 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 from 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 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 moneth being sufficient to minde us of our Saviours last Supper passion death too and to 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 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 up of a 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 Andrews Chappel Secondly that this bowing towards the Altar was used in the Kings Chappel and in many Cathedrals both in Queen Elizabeths and King James their raigns Thirdly that the use of Copes is prescribed by the 24 Canon of our Church Anno 1603. which orders thus 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 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 proved the onely Canons we know prescribing it and we finde the use of it only in some Popish Churches and mentioned no wherebut in the Roman Missal among the Rites of celebrating the Masse Therefore it is a meer 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 introduced only by Papists at the first in honour and adoration of their Breaden God upon the Altar and enjoyned only by the 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 onely Directory what vestments Ceremonies are to be used confirmed by our Lawes prescribes not any of these warrants not but excludes the use of Copes upon any occasion Our Homilies and writers of best rank condemn Copes as Iewish Popish Paganish enjoyned only by the Roman Ceremonial and Pontifical as we have proved 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 onely to Collegiat and Cathedral Churches not Parochial much lesse to Chappels Therefore it can no wayes warrant but condemns this use of Copes in his Chappel Secondly it enjoyns onely the chief Minister to use a decent Cope not a gawdy one with Images and rich embroidring upon it such as his Copes were Thirdly this Canon was never binding to any but meerly void in Law being never confirmed by Parliament and crossing both the Common Prayer Book and Homilies ratified by Parliament Therefore all these his Answers in justification of these Innovations display his impudence to the world in justifying such Popish Reliques as these The fourth kinde of Innovations charged against me in my Chappel are the 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 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
as Archbishop as himself both pretended pleaded and he must needs not only hear of but see it too when he was in Oxford Therefore the blame thereof must be his alone As for the bowing and praying to it Mr. Nixon swears it directly and was not mistaken as he would surmise to excuse the odiousnesse of this new erected Oxford Idol which gave such publike scandal 7. It s true that Latin Prayers on Ashwednesday onely were formerly used in Oxford before the Batchellors of Art but he enjoyned such Prayers all the Lent long in stead of English which was never done before to usher in Latin Service by degrees in an unknown tongue divers Townsmen resorting to the English Prayers in Lent who could not understand these new Latin ones which he introduced 8. This Statute enjoyning reading and chanting in solemn Processions was made in time of Popery and Popish processions and renewed in these New Statutes made by this Archbishop Therefore certainly meant of such processions not of perambulations only which are not used by the University And the objected subsequent Statute is but a blinde to delude the simple for the present the Doctrine and Discipline of our Church in the Vniversities judgement being only written in his brest quo rectior non stat regula quo prior est corrigenda Religio as they write unto him in their Letter of November 9. 1640. the last recorded in their Register 9. Whereas he would assoil himself from the Popish Innovations in Cambridge Vniversity the guilt of them must originally rest on him alone for these reasons 1. Because they were introduced by his instruments favourites creatures there advanced by him as Dr. Martin Dr. Cosens Dr. Beal Dr. Lany Dr. Stern 2. Introduced in imitation of those Crucifixes Images Copes Altar-furniture Genuflexions which himself had introduced at Lambeth Chappel to which they were subsequent not antecedent 3. Because though he was not Chancellor yet he pretended to be Visitor of this Vniversity and that of Oxford too as he was Archbishop of Canterbury and procured a solemn Decree and Patent for it to himself and his successors Therefore since he did not prohibit correct suppresse them as Visitor according to Law and duty they will prove his proper Innovations the rather because he permitted countenanced nay enjoyned the like at Oxford by new Statutes where he was both Visitor and Chancellor which was never done in Cambridge That he should have no notice of those Popish Innovations there which were so notorious to all the Kingdom so publikely spoken of in every place when as he had constant weekly intelligence from thence as appears by sundry Letters of all transactions there and was so conversant with the chief Authors of them is not only improbable but impossible Therefore he still lyes under the guilt of this intire charge concerning the Popish Innovations in our Vniversities Fifthly from the Vniversities I was next traced to Cathedrals and Collegiat Churches where I am charged with introducing enjoyning sundry Innovations tending to Popery by my visitors Injunctions and new Cathedral Statutes As 1. Copes 2. Altars some of them made of Marble stone 3. Turning and railing in Communion Tables Altar wise 4. Bowing to and towards the Altar and Lords Table which I enjoyned to sundry Cathedrals by new Statutes as namely to the Cathedralists of Canterbury as Dr. Jackson and Dr. Bletchenden deposed and divers others 5. Crucifixes and Images 6. Candlesticks Basons Altar-clothes with other Altar Ornaments and they instanced in sundry particular Cathedrals as Canterbury Gloncester Durham Winchester Chichester Hereford Worcester where these Innovations were introduced by my Injunctions and new Statutes to make way for them in Parish Churches who must imitate these their Mother Churches To the first of these I Answer that the use of Copes in Cathedral and Collegiat Churches is enjoyned by the 24 Canon made in Convocation An. 1603. therefore it was lawful and no Popish Innovation for me to enjoyn them as I have formerly proved To the second that Altars both the name and thing were in use among the Primitive Christians and Churches who were far from Popery and long before it yea are found both in the Old and New Testament as divers learned men have largely proved To the third that my Injunctions for rayling in of Altars and Lords Tables Altarwise with the sides against the East wall of the Quire is consonant to the Queens Injunctions to the practise of approved Antiquity all Altars and Lords Tables being generally so placed in Churches in ancient times both in this and other Churches of Christendom as well East as West and that there is no matter of Popery in placing and rayling in Lords Tables in this manner as I have proved at large in my printed Speech in Starchamber To the fourth that I did in the very Statutes for the Cathedral-church of Canterbury and others enjoyn the Prebends and Members of the Cathedral Summa reverentia adorare Deum versus Altare which bowing to worship God towards the Altar as Dr. Bletchenden attested upon oath was used before the new Statutes of Canterbury were made yea approved practised by Dr. Jackson himself as readily as by any other Prebends who hath given a greater testimony against himself then me After which he produced his Secretary Mr. Dell to testifie without oath that in the perusal of the old Statutes for the Cathedral of Canterbury divers superstitions were put out by the Archbishop and by name Prayer for the soul of King Henry the 8. after his decease Then he concluded his Answer thus That the 95 Psalm did command this kinde of bowing at our entrance into the Church and that the Knights of the Honourable Order of the Garter were bound by a Chapter-Order to bow to God towards the Altar when they offered at it in their solemnities and did still practise it without guilt or suspition of Popery Therefore himself might use enjoyn and others practise it without any guilt of Popery at all as well as they To the fifth that Crucifixes and Images were not simply unlawful being used in the Kings own Chappel That Images in Churches had been long in use even in Constantine the Great his Raign and long before therefore no Popery could be couched in them To the sixth that those are no other then what the King used in his own Chapple and had been long time used in the Church for greater Ornament lustre it being a disparagement to our Religion to have God served slovenly and meanly as many desired he should be under pretence of shunning superstition To this was Replyed 1. That neither our Common Prayer Book nor Book of Ordination nor Homilies confirmed by Parliament the only Canons in force to direct us nor Queen Elizabeths Injunctions in the first year of Her Raign enjoyn any Copes in Cathedrals more then in other Churches but condemn seclude them alike out of all our Churches and that the
though it stood in most Parish Churches the other way yet whither there be not more reason the Parish should be made conformable to the Cathedrall and Mother Churches then the Cathedralls to them I leave to any reasonable man to judge So as his Innovations begun in Cathedralls were purposely introduced there first of all to draw on Parish Churches to Popish conformity with them in these Innovations Next in particular we reply that the alteration of the standing of the Lords Table and rayling it in Altarwise was no wayes warranted by the Queens Injunctions but contrary to them as wee have largely manifested That though this was not done immediately by himselfe but by the Deane and Chapter of Paules yet he was the Originall author of it and justified it when complained of That he publikely checked the Councell Parishioners and sir Henry Martin before the King and Lords for opposing this Innovation and alleadging Bishop Iewill and Mr. Fox against it desiring his Majesty to take these Bookes out of the Church if they made no better use of them then to oppose this Novelty That he carried himselfe more like an Advocate then Judge in this Cause and when the King himselfe was satisfied and would have it stand as formerly his violence was such that he over-ruled both King and Councell and drew up the Order forecited in their names for establishing this Innovation which favours of his stile and spirit the guilt whereof must rest principally on him 2ly The comming up to the Rayles was pressed by his Visitors Agents authority and those excommunicated who refused to come up and receive at the New Rayle to which certainly it was never the minde of the Common Prayer Book the Communicants should draw neare since there were no Rayles to draw neare and kneele at till this Archbishop enjoyned them to be set up in imitation of the Papists as we have proved but this drawing neare is rather a drawing neare to Christ by faith with our hearts and affections or else a drawing neare to the body of the Church of Chancell where the Lords Table is to be placed to the Minister officiating as it is expounded by the Qâ—eens Jujunctions 28 Canon The Table when the holy Communion shal be administred shal be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel as thereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also may more conveniently and in more number communicate with the Minister 3ly We answer that the Lords Table was ordained only to administer the Sacrament thereat not to read second service at it for which the Reading Pew is appointed as the Common-prayer Book the Homilies of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and reparing Churches Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Canous made 1571. p. 18. and the 82. 83. Canons Anno 1603. resolve Now this Archbishop enjoyned second service now to bee read at the Lords Table when there was no Communion and where it was rayled in at the upper end of the Quite not brought downe into the body of the Church or Chancell contrary to the Rubrick in the Common Prayer Booke which expresly determines That the Epistle and Gospel chiefe parts of this second service shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loud voice that the people may heare the Minister that readeth them the Minister standing and turning himselfe as he may best be heard of ALL such as be present which he cannot be if he read them at the upper end of the Chancell remote from the people where the Churches are great or the Ministers voyce low This innovation then which was never practised in any Parish Church till of late though used in some Cathedralls wherein the Rubrick enjoynes the Communion every Sunday in the yeare at least to be administred which was wholly omitted and the second service at the Table left to supply it is directly contrary to the Rubricke Homilies Injunctions Canon 4ly It is evident that Crucifixes were set up in many Parish Churches Chapells of the Kingdome which though we cannot prove to be done by his expresse particular Command yet certainly it was by his example or incouragement who repaired and set up Crucifixes in his owne Chappell 's at Lambeth Croyden and one over the Altar in Passion week in the Kings owne Chappell at White-Hall Besides those who erected them were either his owne Chaplaines or Faverites who knew his minde and did it for to imitate and please his Grace to gaine some further preferments For the Images set up in the New b Chappell in Tuttle fields we b have proved that the Arch-bishop promised to bestow a new Window on it that thereupon the old was taken downe the Kings Armes removed and those Images with the Archbishops owne Armes as the Donor of it set up that his Chaplaine gave directions about the VVindow and Mr. Sutton sweares that the money for new glasing it was paid since the Archbishops commitment to the Tower by his direction as he believeth A cleare evidence that he was the Author and director of this worke notwithstanding all his shifts to elude it 5ly Though the Archbishop made not these Bishops Visitation Oathes and Articles yet he made all of them Bishops who durst do nothing in their Diocesse or Visitations but by his direction to whom they gave an Annuall Accompt of their proceedings in writing as we have manifested Besides its apparent that all these Visitation Articles were made in pursuance of his owne Archiepiscopall Injunctions Instructions and himselfe approved of these their Oathes Articles never checking nor questioning them for them though their Metropolitan yea himselfe prescribed the selfe same things in his Metropoliticall Visitations by printed Articles written Injunctions or private Jnstructions as these Bishops did in imitation of him Therefore hee must Answer for these their Articles Oathes proceedings as farre forth as they who were but his Instruments Sixtly For his Answer to the particular Cases wee shall returne these Replyes 1. That though Mr. Smart was censured by the High Commission at Yorke yet he was first imprisoned here at London and transmitted from the High Commission here to York by this Archbishops meanes who complyed with Dr. Cosin in his prosecution and disposed of his livings after his deprivation as we can prove by sundry Letters found in his Study As for Mr. Smarts Sermon it was neither scandalous nor factions but Orthodox and Iuditious against the Popish Jnnovations introduced in the Cathedrall of Durham where he was the ancientest Prehend deserving rather applause then any censure as both Lords and Commons have resolved upon a full hearing and awarded him reparations and Damages for his unjust censure 2ly Mr. Chancy spake no contemptuous words at all against the Rayle nor of setting it up in his Garden His suspention was illegall not only without but against Law and Canon As for his submission it was forced and a
love among Neighbours and friends as the Bishop of Bath and Wells with divers of the gravest Clergy in the county of Somerset certified his Majesty who desired their continuance If some abuses crept into them as they did in some places and it seemes in Somersetshire yet this was no good reason to take away the feasts and meetings themselves as Iudge Richardson did by his order for which there were great complaints made by men of quality but only to regulate them and take away their abuses which this Declaration doth without countenancing any disorders To this was replyed 1. That it is cleare by the evidence given and his Letter written to the Bishop of Bath and Wells that this Declaration was enlarged by himselfe and republished by his instigation and procurement That himselfe put his Majesty upon the reprinting of it the warrant being written with his owne hand and being without any date at all makes it probable it was procured since the Declaration printed The later end of the Declaration it selfe concerning Wakes and Revells compared with the juncture of time when it was published manifests that it was thrust out to crosse Iudge Richardsons order and forestall the Petition of the Somersetshire Iustices for its continuance immediatly after its reversall it having no relation at all to Brabournes Booke Besides the publishing of it just when Mr. Prynne was questioned for his Histriomastix wherein he censures mixt dancing Sports Pastimes on the Lords day and reciting it in the very information against him manifests that it was likewise reprinted to make way for his first censure in Starchamber Moreover some of the recreations mentioned in it are not very lawfull upon any day though the Archbishop affirmes the contrary but certainly unlawfull on any part of the Lords day even after evening Prayer as Pathers Councells Imperiall Lawes and both Protestant and Popish writers have resolved The pretended Practise of Geneva which he alleageth is but a Hearesay without proofe borrowed from Peter Heylins prophane History of the he should have said NO Sabbath part 2. c. 6. sect 6. 8. 9. who yet informes us sect 9. that Daâ—noing hath bin condemned by French Synods and writers as well Protestantas Popish which yet the Declaration for sports in terminis allowes of on the Lords day contrary to the practise and judgement of Geneva As for Mr. Calvin himselfe though he differs in some particulars touching the Morality of the 4th Commandement from other of our Divines yet he in expresse words condemnes Dancing and Pastimes on the Lords day not deemingita Iewish Superstition or rigidity to prohibit such sports thereon especially Dancing as his 71. Sermon upon Iob proclaimes to all the world and other Geneva Ministers since him have done the like That this Declaration did de Pacto put downe afternoone Sermons on the Lords day in most and forenoone too in many places by suspending sundry preaching Ministers who durst not publish it out of conscience is apparent to al. Wherefore to affirme this one part of the Archbishops design in reprinting thereof is a certaine and more then probable truth and the words of it that they should use those Pastimes after Evening Prayer not evening Sermon import as much some Bishops grounding their suppressing of Afternoone Sermons on this expression which Sermons Peter Heylin in his History of the Sabbath part 2. c. 6. sect 9. and c. 7. and 8. makes to be meere innovations as doth Doctor Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath both published by this Archbishops command and approbation For his owne strict observation of the Lords day it is an averment without truth Certainly he that made conscience of its strict observation himselfe would never give way to such a Declaration encouraging others to prophane it who were apt to do it without such an incitement nor suspend such Godly Ministers who durst not publish it out of conscience for feare of encouraging others to prophane it Yea his pretended strictnesse of late times was such that himselfe and his servants made it an ordinary practise in the Somer to go to Bowles and use other pastimes on it and he sate constantly thereon at the Councell Table about worldly businesse 2ly That there was no warrant at all in the Declaration that Ministers should publish it or to punish any who refused it hath bin formerly proved at large and where there is no penalty prescribed in a Law much more in a Declaration no punishment can be inflicted That he gave expresse order for silensing Mr. Wilson Mr. Culmer and Mr. Player is proved by severall Oathes and that they were suspended divers yeares not only ab officio but beneficio having nothing left to support their Wives and Families That they were obstinate or sactious is a groundlesse scandall not proved they were only conscientious and would not disobey God to humour men That he silenced only these three in his Diocesse was but casuall because others submitted to read the Booke but his command was generall to suspend all who refused to read it and those three in speciall That he put not any Article of Inquiry touching the reading of this Declaration into the Articles for his Metropoliticall Visitation was his Jesuitical Art and cunning to conceale his wickednesse and prophanenesse from publique view but that he gave private Instructions to his Vicar Generall in this his Visitation to convent and question such who had not read it who thereupon did accordingly question divers good Ministers for this very cause you have heard it proved at large by the very Abstracts of his Metropoliticall Visitations under his owne and his Visitors hands That other Bishops inserted such an Article into their printed Visitation Inquisitions we have fully proved as also that they gave an Accompt to him of the Ministers they had suspended for not Reading the Declaration according to his Injunctions Therefore their Articles of this nature proceeded meerely from him and must be charged on him as well as on themselves That it was the Act of the Court not his to bring any into the High Commission for not reading this Book is a most false averment for Mr. VVilson now a Reverend Divine of the Assembly was brought into the High Commission by his owne expresse command and no others as himselfe deposeth who personally suspended him before at Lambheth for that cause both from his Office and Benefice and Mr. Page was by his speciall order brought into the High Commission as appeares by his owne Subscription to Francis Thompsons Petition That Mr. Snelling was there questioned and severely censured by the Archbishops meanes who gave Order not to accept either his Answer or defence and threatned to burne it is cleare by the proofes forementioned That his censure was only for not publishing the Declaration is evident by the sentence it selfe if well observed his not bowing at the name of Jesus being put in only for a Cipher but not insisted on at
true mans cloathes on his backe or sparing his life will justifie or extenuate the taking away of his purse or the leaving a few Cottages standing excuse the burning of a whole City besides That Doctor Weekes and Doctor Heywood joyned in expunging these Sermons proves their confederacy onely not lessens but aggravates their iniquity As for Doctor Weekes he was his owne Chaplaine as well as the Bishop of Londons as appeares by his owne hand and Diary therefore he must answer for his misdemeanours in this kinde for purging both Doctor Clorkes Sermons and Master Wards Commentary For Doctor Baker he was his owne great favourite advanced by him to a Prebendary as appeares by the Docquet Booke Therefore his Index Expurgatorius on Doctor Jones his Commentary proceeding doubtlesse from this Archbishops antecedent directions must remaine upon his score notwithstanding all his shifting evasions To the particular passages purgged out of these Authors he returned no answer at all onely by these his severall answers to these Purgations all the world may clearly discover his shamelesse impudence and Popery in justifying them his brain-sick folly in his extenuations of them his palpable Romanizing in practising many of them himselfe and the whole weight of all the Branches in this charge falling heavily upon him notwithstanding all his shifts to ward them off The twelfth charge objected against me is my connivance at the importation of popish Books and restoring them to the owners when seized by the Customers and Searchers contrary to the Statute of 3. Jacobi e. 5. To this I answer I never connived at their importation and that the restoring of them when seized was not by any direction of mine but by order of the High Commission Court To which was replied First that he doth not so much as once alleage he ever gave any order for seizing any Popish Books imported whereas the Customers Searchers Pursivants and other Officers had strict Warrants and speciall Commands from him to seize all imported Bibles with Notes with all Books savouring any way of Puritanisme as he deemed it or tending against Arminianisme and popish Innovations Secondly he confesseth that popish Books when seized were usually restored by order of the High Commission Court to the owners contrary to the Statute whereas that Court never restored any Bibles with Notes or Books against Arminianisme or popish Innovations seized by their order but burnt them privately or otherwise destroyed them Thirdly he proves not that any of them were restored by Order of Court whereas Egerton sweares that Mottershead averred they were restored by the Archbishops owne order without the Courts But be it by order of Court yet his crime is still the same since himself sate President and chiefe Controller in the High Commission and consented to these Orders if not commanded them to be made whereas in duty he should have crossed them that Court not daring to make any such Orders of Restitution without his consent who had such an over-ruling power in it The thirteenth particular objected against me is my advancing of Arminians and Clergy-men superstitiously and popishly affected to Bishopricks Deaneries Headships of Houses Prebendaries and all other Ecclesiasticall preferments yea Chaplainships not onely about my selfe but about his Majesty and the Prince with my encroachments herein upon the Lord Keeper the Lord High Chamberlaine Master of the Court of Wards and Liveries and my disgracing persecuting godly Orthodox Ministers and keeping them from preferment for opposing Arminianisme popery and popish Innovations of both which they have given sundry particular instances to the chiefe whereof I shall returne such answers as I am â—ble in due place 〈◊〉 this I shall answer something in generall First that to my remembrance 〈◊〉 preferred no such persons to Bishopricks or any Ecclesiasticall livings and preferments secoÌ„dly if any of those preferred by me were such at the time of their preferments it was unknown to me and if they turned such afterwards I could neither foresee nor prevent it Thirdly on the contrary I have preferred divers worthy orthodox Ministers free from all exceptions as Master Taylor of Clapham now one of the Assembly Master John Downham Bishop Hall and sundry others To which was replied First that we had proved the generallity of those he preferred to be addicted inclined to Arminianisme Popery or both and so knowne to be when he advanced them no doubt to himselfe better then others and this their inclination was one chiefe cause of their preferment Secondly that his preferment of Master John Downham and Master Taylor orthodox men to petty Benefices and no higher preferments was but a meer stale to blind some peoples eyes or stop their mouths for his advancing of so many rotten corrupt popish Clergy-men to Bishopricks Deanaries Prebendaries Arch-deaconries Masterships of Colledges and the fattest Benefices but no justification nor extenuation of his preferring of so many such Thirdly for his advancement of Bishop Hall viz. from one Bishoprick to another it is yet a meer non liquet to us onely averred not proved by himselfe but if true it was rather to corrupt and draw him over to his party then preferre him for his owne or the Churches benefit and how that worthy Prelate hath degenerated declined since in case of Episcopacy the Scottish Warres the new Canons the Et cetera Oath popish Ceremonies Innovations of all sorts and pressing the book of Sports upon the Lords day we have already manifested by his owne Letters in part and the residue is so experimentally knowne to most of his Diocesse that it needs no proofe However his preferring of above twelve Judas-Bishops to one true Apostle is a grand disservice to our Church our Religion and no justification nor extenuation of his offence therein For particulars the first thing I am charged with is for advancing Master Mountague Doctor Manwaring Bishop Neale Bishop Wren Doctor Lindsey and others to Bishopricks men publikly complained against one of them censured in Parliament and disabled from all preferments in our Church which was proved by the Docquet Books To this I answer First that Master Mountague was not preferred by me to any Bishoprick neither is the Docquet Book any good proofe thereof but he was preferred to it by Sir Dudly Carltons meanes true it is I was at his consecration but that was by command and I could not refuse or resist it Besides he was a great Scholler therefore thought worthy of preferment by the King Secondly for Doctor Manwaring I did not preferre him but it was his Majesties pleasure to bestow a Deanary and after that a Bishoprick on him in regard of his sufferings for his service notwithstanding his sentence and he commanded me to consecrate him which command I had no power to withstand or oppose being bound by Law and the duty of my Place to obey it Thirdly for Bishop Neale he was a worthy man free from Popery and
Declaration before the 39 Articles wrested to propagate Arminianism and suppresse truth p. 120 to 164. His Proclamation for calling in and suppressing Sales his Popish Book how procured mistaken to abuse the world and justifie Laud and Heywood p. 186 187. His Instructions concerning Lectures and preaching how procured abused p. 370 to 474. 478 to 488 His Letter to the Archbishop and Bishops concerning Ordination penned by Laud how much abused to suppresse preaching and keep out good men from the Ministry p. 382 to 385. 537 538 539 His Voyage into Spain of purpose to seduce him in his Religion which was there attempted by the Pope his Nuncio the Jesuits Buckingham and Digby and King James his Instructions to him before he went concerning his writing that the Pope was Antichrist Lauds privity and assistance to the Voyage Match Instructions and the Match with France plotted by the Popish party to seduce the King p. 416 to 419 547 to 550 His command to judge Richardson to St. revoke his Order against Wakes and Revels p. 151 c. St. Clara his Book Dedicated to him to reconcile him and us to Rome p. 423. Ana Fustidius Dedicated to him by Cardinal Barbarino Ibid. Bishop of Calcedon Lauds intimacy with him and Windebanks use of him p. 454 455. Catechizing in the Afternoon a meer pretence to suppresse Preaching and what form must be used p. 368 369 370 372 374 376 378 Chaplains in private houses suppressed p 369 371 372. Mistris Charnocks testimony p. 69. Christs Epistle to a devout Soul a Popish Book Licensed p. 186 187 195 c. Church maintained to be alwayes visible The Church of Rome to be a true Church to have the same Religion with in not to have erred in Fundamentals the Reformed Protestant Churches to be no Churches if they want Lord Bishops and not to be of our Religion by Laud and his adherents who endeavoared to suppresse the Dutch French and Walloon Churches here and purged out clauses concerning the Church and building Churches East and West p. 27 30 207 293 296 to 300 388 to 409. 441. 530 531 532. High Commission Lauds design to advance its power p. 369. St. Clara his intimacy with Canterbury and Book to reconcile us to Rome p. 39 423 to 432 550 557 to 560. Dr. Clerks Sermons miserably gelded purged by Lauds Chaplains p. 254 to 376 John Cooks testimony against Canteroury p. 452 453. Mr. Cooks recantation in Oxford p. 176 Consecrations of Flagous Altar-clothes Churches Chappels Church-yards meerly Popish introduced used justified by Canterbury whose Arguments for them are examined refuted p. 65 114 to 128 217 218. 497 to 506. Considerations compiled and presented by Laud to the King to suppresse Preaching Lectures Lecturers p. 368 to 376. 536 537 477. Con the Popes Nuncio p. 413 440. Contrition Popish passages against it expunged p. 308. Copes introduced enjoyned by Laud p. 64 71. 76 80 81. 468 469 476 to 490. Mr. Corbets testimony and trouble for not bowing to the Altar by Bishop Laud and his Visitor p. 71. 477. Earl of Corks Tomb in Ireland ordered by Laud to be taken down for standing in the place of the Altar and Letters thence concerning it p. 82 to 88. Dr. J. Cosin a Popish Innovator at Durham Cambridge advanced protected by Laud p. 72 73 78 355 356. 532. Councels Evangelical to perfection justified in new printed Books p. 209 210. Passages against them expunged p. 300. Councellors that are ill passages against them purged out of new Books by Laud and his Agents p. 245 301 302. Creed-Church how consecrated by Laud p. 113 114 598 503. Credentia a Popish Innovation and Vtensil introduced by Laud in his Chappel p. 63 464 468. Crowlyes Answer to Champenyes p. 69 Croxton recommended by Laud to the Lord Deputy Wentworth by him advanced in Ireland his Letter to the Archbishop and practise of auricular confession publiquely there p. 194 195. Crucifixes erected by the Archbishop and his Agents in his own and the Kings Chappels Cathedrals and elsewhere p. 59 to 57. 205 205 216. 462 to 490. Iustified by him p. 464 465. Mr. Culmer suspended by Laud for not reading the Declaration for Sports on the Lords day p. 146. 506. Dr. Cumber his justification of Auricular Confession and Letter to Laud with his Answer thereunto touching Mr. Bernards Sermon p. 193. 363 364. 535. D Dancing and other Pastimes on the Lords day justified in late printed Books condemned by Fathers Councels Calvin others p. 222 to 226 372. 504 505 506. Davis his Petition to Laud concerning Contributions to rail in the Altar p 90. Deans Arminian and Popish preferred by Laud p. 356 532 533. Declaration for Sports enlarged reprinted and pressedon Ministers by Lauds Practise p. 128 156 382. Decree of God passages concerning it deleted p. 333 364 365. Decree of Star-chamber concerning licensing and reprinting Books illegall procured abused by Laud to the prejudice of our Religion and the advancement of Poperty and Arminianisme p. 198 to 210 512. to 516. Barron Denham his Orders against Wakes Revels Churchals p. 126 127 153 154 513 515. Master Dell Lauds Secretary his Letter to silence Master Leigh p. 388. His intimacy with Priests and Jesuits and answer to the Pursevants p. 450 451 453. Master Deuxels testimony of Priests liberty in their prisons p. 450. Master Dow advanced his popish Booke p. 207 357. Bishop Downhams Book against the Arminians and falling from Grace called in by Lauds meanes both in England and Ireland p. 171 172 508 510. His Protestation against toleration of popery in Ireland p. 434. Doctor Duppa an Arminian made Vice-Chancellour of Oxford and promoted by Laud 176 p. 354 359 360. Master Dury his reordination and attempts to reconcile the Calvinists and Lutherans p. 340 539 541 Dutch and French reformed Churches in England prosecuted and deprived of their priviledges by Laud accounted no true Churches nor of our Religion p. 27 33 388 to 409 539 to 543. E King Edward VI. his Patent to the Dutch and French to enjoy Churches of their owne Discipline in England p. 394 395. his times depressed p. 420 421. Election Universall and from foreseen Faith and Works maintained passages against it deleted p. 303 to 307 309 to 312. Egerton his testimony against Laud p. 453. Equivocation clauses against it expunged p. 307. F Faith alone doth not justifie but Charity and Works maintained passages against it the nature of faith and growth in it deleted p. 209 307 314 315 341. Falling from Grace maintained in many late printed Books and passages against it expunged p. 219 279 to 287 314 315 316 425. Fast Booke purged of passages against popery by Laud p. 250. Passages against popish Fasting deleted p. 307. Fastidius his Booke printed and dedicated to the King by Cardinall Barbarino p. 423 Feares carnall passages against them and the feare of God expunged p. 388 341. Dr. Featlies testimony against Laud and the purging of his Sermons
Note Note Note Note Note Note Note Note Note Note Note M. Burdits case Note Note The Church-wardens of Beckingtons case Nota. Note Note Note Note Ferdinando Adams his case Note Nota. Ioh. Premly his case M. Hen. Sherfields case * Mr. Peter Thatcher Minister of the Parish and three others * Dan. 9. M. Iohn Workmans case * Hist of the Waldens par 3. l. 2. c. 9. * Speculum morale l. 3. p. 9. dist 9. * Summa virtutum vitiorum tom 2. Tit. de luxuria c. 3. Note 1 Cor. 6. 1 Cor. 4. Heb. 13. 1 Joh. 5. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 14. Levit. 17. 10. Numb 25. Deut. 31. Barach 6. Acts 17. Rom. 1. Psal 32. Wisd 13. 14. Deut. 4 Deut. 4. Aug. in Ps 36. 113. l. 4. c. 3. De ci vitate Dei Isay 42. 8. Deut. 27. 1 Cor. 3. * Homily against the perill of Idolatry Part. 3. Nota. Note Note Dr. Bastwicks Mr. Prynnes and Mr. Burtons Cases Note * Sunday no Sabbath printed 1636. His Innovations in consecrating Churches Chappels after the Popishmanner The Arch-bishops Innovations in consecrating Churches and Chappels His manner of consecrating Creed-Church Note * Were not their spiritual Bawdy-courts commonly kept in Churches such Note Acts 17. 24. John 4. 23 24. 1 Tim. 2. 8. Note John 4. Nota. * Nota. His Consecration of Saint Giles Church * See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit. Symonia * Ormerod his Pagano Papis semblance 37. 123 124 125. Francis de câ—â—y his first conformity c. 25. Dr. Remolds his conference with Hart. c. 8. divis 4. p 492. to 514. Artic. of Ireland Artic. 52. Bishop Latimer in sundry of his Sermons Linnen Hammer-Smith Chappell March 11. 1629. * Articles to be inquired of in the Visitation of the Arch-Deacon of Buckingham Anno 1625. Artic. 27. touching the Ministry * See Speeds Hist of Great Britain p. 1067 1068. a Expos in Aggeus c 1. and 2. De Vita Ob tu Mar. Buceri c Acts and Monuments Edit 1610. p. 1777. to 1788. * See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit. Consecratio Ecclesiae * Joan. de Aten Constit Dom. Othonis De consecâ— Ecclesia f. 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Tom. 2. p. 382. Fox Acts and Monuments a His Communion Book Chatechisme expounded b History of the Sabbath A Moderate Answer to H. Burton p. 50. to 56. 76. 80. 81. 110. 111. 112. c Innovations unjustly charged c. 10. 11. 12. p 73. 108. The Declaration for sports on the Lords Day c. New Printed published pressed by the Archbishops procurement Lond. ss NOTE NOTE NOTE They were the deboystest and worst in the Country NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE Mr. Culmers Mr. Players and Mr. Hierons cases Mr. Thomas VVilsons case Mr VVraths Mr. Erberies and Mr. Iones cases NOTE NOTE Mr. Snellings Case * There was no such command of his Majesties NOTE NOTE These were but meere additements to his Charge he being only questioned and excommunicated for not reading the Booke of Sports NOTE NOTE NOTE In his Metropoliticall Visitation Articles The Archbishops proceedings to subvert Religion by introducing Doctrinall Points of Popery * De Ordine Vitae lib. * Homil. 47. in Matth. NOTE * Thus endorsed by him April 18. 1615 The Copy of a Letter which I sent to the Lord Bishop of Lincolne concerning a Sermon in which Dr. Abbots had wronged me in the Vniversity NOTE * Declaration against Vorstins NOTE Note NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE * See a necessary Introduction to the Archbishops triall p. 89. 90. Note NOTE NOTE NOTE * It was a very sore punishment to advance him from a Batcheâ—lor of Divinity to be a Bishop for Writing so ill a Booke NOTE See a necessary Introduction to the Arch-Bishops Tryall pag. 90 to 94. NOTE NOTE NOTE See a necessary Introduction to the Arch-Bishops Tryall pag. 93 94 95. NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE Fol. 531. 532. NOTE NOTE NOTE Mr. Madyes case Mr. Hillâ— Case NOTE Mr. Fords Mr. Thornes and Master Hodges Cases NOTE NOTE The Archbishops various Attempts and Endeavours to undermine our established Protestant Religion and introduce Doctrinall Popery into our Church NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE * Iohn Lanspergius a Carthu sign A Catalogue of Popish Doctrines Positions Errors licensed and Printed by the Archbishops and his Chaplaince meanes NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE Master Adams Case NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE Num. 26. Moses and â—aron fell upâ—n their saâ—â—s atthe doore â—f the Tabernacle only for â—â— pray not â—â— Worship Erâ— we must alwayes bow â—o the Altar at our approaches â—oit is no good consequence out rather Ergo we must alwayes fall on our faces at and towards the Church doore had bin a better sequens The Altar stood without the Doore of the Tabernacle and the Laver betweene it and the Tent Exod 40. 7. 8. 29. 30. Therefore if Moses fell on his face at the Tabernacle doore his worship was not with his face to but from the Altar and his bowing not towards but fromwards it quite crosse to your bowing * This solemnity and the bowing used in it is only civill not Religious 2ly Peculiar to the Knights of this Order Therefore no rule for others in matter of their worship 4 This is a meere groundlesse fallâ—â—iâ— God Christ being most present in the middest of his peoples hearts and soules not on the Altar Mat. 18. 20. c. 28. 20. Eph. 4. 17. Gal. 2. 20. 1 Cor. 6. 19. 20. d Christs body is not God nor his naturall body on the Altar but only the Elements which represent it Now Christs word makes the Bread his representative not reall body and the word expresseth his Divinity Ioha 1. 1. the Consecrated Bread his Body and humanity only Therefore our reverence is no doubt more due to his word than to his body And so St. Augustine expresly resolves it to be as due to it HOMIL 26. Jnterrogo vos sratres vel sarores dicite mibâ— quid vobis plus esse videtur verbum Dei an corpus Christiâ—si verumvultis respondere hoc utique dicere debetis quod non sit minus Verbum quà m corpus Christi et ideo quanta solicitudone observamus quando nobis corpus Christi ministratur ut nihil ex ipso de nostris manibus in terram cadat tanta solicitudinc observamus ne verbum Dei quod nobis erogatur dum aliquid out cogitamus out loquimur de corde nostro pereat quia non minus reus erit qui Verbum Dei negligente raudierit quam ille qui corpus Christi in terram cadere negligentia sua permiserit e Not so because not commended True we agree it f You are no such but a rich Arch-Prelate g This is in the Copulative you give one and the same adoration at the same time both to God and the Altar in one Act of