15

MATTHEW W R E N, D. D.

1 be Bishop, after all this Violence, was never brought to a Trial, for Rea-sons best known to his Prosecutors ; so that the noble Defence he had pre-par’d for himself was not made publick ; however, here some few Remarksnvay be made on the Articles against him, recited chiefly from the Answersoccasionally given by Arch-bifhop Laud , whose Cafe was much the fame.—■The Speech of Sir Lhomas Widdrington to the Lords, on the Transmission ofthe Impeachment (which is fubjoin’d) in another Place displays in some Mea-sure, the Spirit of Puritanism, with the fantastical, canting Oratory, so muchin Vogue at the Bar and Pulpit, in those Times of Hypocrisy, Faction,and Schism,

The Substance of this preceding Charge, seems to have been taken fromMr. Prynn 's Libel against the Bisop, when in the See of Norwich, intitled,News from Ipswich.

1 he putting the Laws in Execution, and nothing but what was warrantableby Law, against Preachers of Schism and Sedition (who contended withObstinacy and affected Sanctity, to seduce the People from the orthodox Re-ligion establisti’d in England, and to withdraw the Hearts of the Subjectsfrom their Love and Allegiance to their Sovereign) was, in the Language ofthose Times interpreted, the persecuting godly, painful Ministers ; restrain-ing powerful Preaching, and the advancing of Popery and Superstition.

But what gave most grievous Offence to the Puritans and Sectaries, wasthe placing the Communion-Lable Altar-wife, inclosing it with a Rail; kneelingand bowing before the same ; which in their Sense, was to advance and usher inPopery and Superstition. To this Arch-bilhop Laud in his excellent Speechin the Star-Chamber, made Answer, " That it is no Popery to set a Rail to" keep Profanation from that Holy Table, nor is it any Innovation to place“ it at the upper End of the Chancel as the Altar stood. And this appears" both by the Practice, and by the Command and Canon of the Church of" England.

Some Obser-vations onthese Articlesagainst BishopWren, and inhis Defenceand 'Justifica-tion.

See Article z<

snnei6,i6z7.Rustiworth’jColl. Part. II.Vol. II. Ap-pendix, p.

116.

" First, by the Practice of the Church of England. For in the King’s Royal P . 127.

Chapels, and divers Cathedrals, the Holy Table hath ever since the Refor-“ mation stood at the upper End of the Choir, with the large or full Side" towards the People.

“ And though it stood in most Parish Churches the other Way, yet whe-" ther there be not more Reason, the Parish Churches should be made con-“ form able to the Cathedral and Mother Churches, than the Cathedrals to

« them, I leave to any reasonable Man to judge.

" And yet here is nothing done either by Violence or Command, to take p . 128." off the Indifferency of the standing of the Holy Table either Way, but“ only by laying it fairly before Men, how fit it is there should be Order and" Uniformity ; I say, still reserving the Indifferency of the standing.

" But howsoever, I would fain know, how any discreet moderate Man" dare lay, that the placing the Holy Table Altar-wife (since they will needs" call it lo) is done either to advance or ulher in Popery ? For did Queen Eli-" zabeth ban iff Popery, and yet did she all along her Reign from first to last,

" leave the Communion-Table so standing in her own Chapel Royal in St.

" Paul 's and Wejhninfter, and other Places; and all this of Purpose to advance" or usher in that Popery which Ibe had driven out ?

« And since her Death, have two gracious Kings kept out Popery all theirTimes/ and yet left the Holy Table standing, as it did in the Queen’s" Time, and all of Purpose to advance or usher in Popfcry which they kept“ out ? -

“ Or, what is the Matter ? May the holy Table stand this Way in the" King’s Chapel, or Cathedrals, or Bishops Chapels, and not elsewhere ?

" Surely,