stone, with a child in her arms, to which divers people 'bowed and did reverence as they went along the streets; which could not be done without his allowance; nay, so zealous was this prelate (say the managers) in defence of 'images, that he procured Mr. Sherfield to be sentenced in the star-chamber, for defacing a church window in or 'near Salisbury, because there was an image in it of God the Father; all which is contrary to the statute of the 3d and 4th of Edward VI. and the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, which enjoin all pictures, paintings, images, and other monuments of idolatry and superstition to be destroyed, so as that there remain no memory of them in walls, glass windows, or elsewhere, within any church or house."*

The archbishop answered in general, that crucifixes and images in churches were not simply unlawful; that they were in use in Constantine's time, and long before, and therefore there could be no popery in them. Tertullian says, they had the picture of Christ engraven on their chalice in form of a shepherd carrying home a lost sheep; and even Mr. Calvin allows an historical use of images, Instit. 1. 1, cap. 11, sect. 12. Neque tamen ea superstitione teneor ut nullas prorsus imagines ferendas censeam, sed quia sculptura & pictura, Dei dona sunt, purum & legitimum utriusque usum requiro. The archbishop appealed likewise to the homilies, p. 64, 65, for an historical use of images; but if it should be granted (says he) that they are condemned by the homilies, yet certainly one may subscribe to the homilies as containing a godly and wholesome doctrine, necessary for those times, without approving every passage or sentence, or supposing it necessary for all times. I do not approve of images of God the father, though some will justify them from Dan. vii. 22, but as for the images of things visible, they are of use, not only for the beautifying and adorning the places of divine worship, but for admonition and instruction; and can be an offence to none but such as would have God served slovenly and meanly under a pretence of avoiding superstition.† As to the particulars, the archbishop allowed his repair* Prynne's Cant. Doom, p. 157, 462, &c.

+ Laud's Hist. p. 311. Pryune, p. 462, 463, 479.

ing the windows of his chapel at Lambeth, and making out the history as well as he could, but not from the Roman missal, since he did not know the particulars were in it, but from the fragments of what remained in the windows since the reformation; but if they had been originally painted by his order, as in the case of the new chapel at Westminster, he knows no crime in it. The image of the virgin Mary in Oxford was set up by bishop Owen, and there is no evidence that I countenanced the setting it up, nor that any complaint was made to me of any abuse of it.* As to Mr. Sherfield's case, one of the witnesses says,, it was the picture of an old man with a budget by his side pulling out Adam and Eve, it is not therefore certain that it was the image of God the father; but if it was, yet Mr. Sherfield ought not to have defaced it but by command of authority, though it had been an idol of Jupiter; the orders of the vestry, which Mr. Sherfield pleads, being nothing at all without the bishop of the diocese.§ The statute of Edward VI. has nothing to do with images in glass-windows, the words of the statute are, any images of stone, timber, alabaster, or earth, graven, carved, or painted, taken out of any church, &c. shall be destroyed. So here is not a word of glass-windows, nor images in them.

The managers for the commons replied, that it was notoriously false, that the primitive christians approved of images, for Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, and all the ancient fathers, agree that they had none in their churches. Lactantius says, there can be no religion in a place where any image is. Epiphanius rent in pieces an image painted on cloth, which he found in a church, out of holy indignation. All the ancient councils are against images in churches; and many godly emperors cast them out, after they began to be in use in latter times, as our own homilies expressly declare, Peril of idolatry, part ii. p. 38. As for Tertullian, all that can be proved from him is, that those heretics against whom he wrote had such a chalice, not that the orthodox christians allowed of it. Calvin only says, that he is not so superstitious as to to think it altogether unlawful to make ima† Prynne, p. 462. * Laud's History, p. 329. § Ibid. p. 434. Prynne, p. 463, 464, 465.

ges of men or beasts for civil use, because painting is the gift of God. But he affirms, in the very next section, that there were no images in churches for five hundred years after Christ; and says expressly, that they were not in use till the christian religion was corrupted and depraved. He then adds, that he accounts it unlawful and wicked to paint the image of God, because he has forbidden it. But the homilies are so express that they wonder the archbishop can mention them without blushing; as well as his not knowing that the paintings were according to the massbook, when his own mass-book is marked in those places with his own hand. The images in those windows were broken and demolished at the reformation, by virtue of our statutes, homilies, and injunctions, and remained as monuments of our indignation against Romish idolatry, till the archbishop repaired them. The managers observed further, that the archbishop had confessed the particulars of this part of their charge, and had only excused himself as to the university of Oxford though they conceive it impossible he could be ignorant of those innovations, being chancellor and visitor, and having entertained the king, queen, and elector Palatine, there, for several days. As for Mr. Sherfield's case, they apprehend the authority of the vestry was sufficient in a place exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishop, as St. Edmund's church was. And the managers are still of opinion, that the statute of Edward VI. extends to images in glass-windows; and that which confirms them in it is, that the injunctions of queen Elizabeth, made in pursuance of this law, extend in direct terms to images in glass-windows; and the practice of those times in defac. ing them, infallibly proves it.

(2.) Another popish innovation charged on the archbishop was, "his superstitious manner of consecrating chapels, churches, and church-yards; they instanced in Creedchurch, of which the reader has had an account before; and St. Giles's in the fields, which, being fallen to decay, was in part re-edified and finished in bishop Mountaine's time, divine service, and administration of sacraments having been performed in it three or four years before his 'death; but no sooner was the archbishop translated to the

§ Peril of Idol. p. 41, 42, 43.

< see of London, than he interdicted the church, and shut up the doors for several weeks, till he had re-consecrated it, after the manner of Creed-church, to the very great cost and charge of the parish, and contrary to the judg ment of bishop Parker, and our first reformers."§

"They objected further, his consecrating of altars with all their furniture, as pattens, chalices, altar-cloths, &c. even to the knife that was to cut the sacramental bread; and his dedicating the churches to certain saints, together with his promoting annual revels, or feasts of dedication, on the Lord's-day, in several parts of the country, whereby that holy-day was profaned, and the people encouraged in superstition and ignorance.”

The archbishop answered to the consecration of churches, that the practice was as ancient as Moses, who consecrated the tabernacle, with all its vessels and ornaments; that the temple was afterwards consecrated by king Solomon; that as soon as christian churches began to be built, in the reign of Constantine the great, they were consecrated, as Eusebius testifies concerning the church of Tyre, in his Ecclesiastical History, l. 10, cap. 3, and so it has continued down to the present time. Besides, if churches were not consecrated, they would not be holy; nor does archbishop Parker speak against consecrations in general, but against popish consecrations, which mine were not (says the archbishop) for I had them from bishop Andrews.t

As to the manner of consecrating Creed-church, St. Giles's, &c. his grace confessed, that when he came to the church door, that passage in the psalms was read, Lift up your heads, O ye gates, even lift them up, ye everlasting doors, that the King of glory may come in ; that he kneeled and bowed at his entrance into the church, as Moses and Aaron did at the door of the tabernacle; that he declared the place holy, and made use of a prayer like one in the Roman pontifical; that afterwards he pronounced divers curses on such as should profane it, but denied his

S Prynne, p. 113, 114, 497.

† Laud's History, p. 339, 340. Prynne, p. 115.

The archbishop alledged, that this place of scripture had been ABciently used in consecrations; and that it referred not to the bishop, but to the true King of glory. Dr. Grey. Ed.

throwing dust into the air, in which he said, the witnesses had forsworn themselves, for the Roman pontifical does not prescribe throwing dust into the air, but ashes; and ⚫he conceives there is no harm, much less treason in it. The practice of giving the names of angels and saints to churches at their dedication, for distinction sake, and for the honor of their memories, (says his grace) has been very ancient, as appears in St. Austin, and divers others of the fathers; but the dedication, strictly speaking, is only to God; nor is the observing the annual feasts of dedication less ancient; the feast of the dedication of the Temple was observed in our Savior's time, and though, no doubt, it was abused by some among the Jews, yet our Savior honored it with his presence. Judge Richardson, indeed, had made an order in his circuit, for putting down these wakes, but he was obliged to revoke it by authority, and under favor (says the archbishop) I am of opinion that the feasts ought not to be put down for some abuses, any more than all vines ought to be rooted up because some will be drunk with the juice of them.* The feasts are convenient for keeping up hospitality and good neighborhood; nor can there be a more proper time for observing them than on Sundays, after divine service is ended.

And as the consecrating of churches, and dedicating them to God, has been of ancient usage, so has the conse eration of altars and their furniture, and such consecrations are necessary, for else the Lord's table could not be called holy, nor the vessels belonging to it holy, as they usually are; yea, there is an holiness in the altar which sanctifies the gift, which it could not do, except itself were holy; if there be no dedication of these things to God, no separation of them from common use, then there can be no such thing as sacrilege, or difference between an holy table and a common one. And as to the form of consecrating these things, I had them not from the Roman pontifical, but from bishop Andrews.

The managers for the commons replied, that if the temple was consecrated, it was by the king himself, and not by the high-priest; and if the tabernacle was consecrated, it was by Moses the civil magistrate, and not by Aaron the

Prynne, p. 498. * Laud's Hist. p. 269. † Ibid. P. 313.