134 The HISTORY of the PuRITANS. 1 VoL. Il K. CharlesI." Roman mifral, with feveral fuperf1itious motto's and infcriptions. That di44. " be had caufed divers crucifixes to be fet up in churches over the corn- ~ " munion table, in his chapel at Lambeth, at W hitehall, and at the uni– ." verfity of Oxford, of which he was chancellor. That in the parifh of " St. Mary's there was fince his time ereCted a 11atue of rhe Virgin Mary '' cut in fl:one, with a child in her arms, to which divers people bowed " and did reverence as they went along the fireets, which could not be " done without ·his allowance; nay fo zealous was this prelate (fay the " managers) in defence of im;Jges, that he procured Mr. Sherjield to be " f~ntenced in the fiar chamber, for defacing a church window in or near " Salisbury, becaufe there was an im1ge in it of God the father; all " which is contrar.y to the ftatute of the 3d and 4th of Edward VI. and " the injunCtions of queen Elizabeth, which enjoin all piClures, paint– " ings, .images, and other monuments of idolatry andJuperflition to be de– "' firoyed, jo as that there remain no memory of them in walls, glafs ~vindows, " or eljewhere within any church or houfe." /!bp's anfw. The archbifhop anfwered in general, that crucifixes and images in Laud's hill. churches were not limply unlawful; that they were in ufe in Co1!ftantine's p. 3' r. time and long before, and therefore there could be no popery in them. Pryt;;'e, 6 Tertul/icm fays they had the piCture of Chrif1 engraven on th eir chalice in ~7;. 2 ' 4 3 • form of a .fhepherd carryi~g home. a ~olt lheep; and even Mr. Calvin alPrynne. P· 462. lows an 1-uftorical ufe of 1mages, t~:Jttt. I. 1. ea p. I I. feet. I 2. Neque ta. men ea f uperflitione teneor ut nul/as pro1jus imagines f erendas cenfiam, fed quiafcu!ptura & piClura, dei dona jimt, purum& legitimum utriufJue uji1m r·equiro. The archbifhop appeal'd likewife to the homilies, p. 64, 65. for an hiftorical ufe of images; but if it fhould be granted (fay s he) that they are condemned by the homilies, yet certainly one may fubfcribe to the homilies as containing a godly and wholfome doCtrine, neceffary for thofe times, without approving every paffage or lenrence, or fuppo!ing it ne– ceff.rry for all times. I do not approve of images of God the father, rhough fome will juftify them from Dan. vii. 2 2. but as for the images ot things vi!ible, they are of ufe, not only for the beautifying and adorning the places of divine worfhip, but for admonition and inf1ruCtion; an d can be an offence to none but fuch as would have God ferved !lovenly and meanlv, under a pretence of avoiding fuperltition. ' As to the particulars, the arcbbillJOp allowed his repairing the wi ndows of his chapel at Lambeth, and making out the hi!lory as well as he could, but not from the Roman miffid, fin ce he did not know the particulars were in it, but from the fmgments of what remained in the windows fince the reformation; but if they had been originally painted by his order, Laud's hifr. as in the cafe of the new chapel at Weflminfter, he knows no crime in 1.'· 329. it. The image of the virgin Mary in OJf/ord, was [et ·up by bifhop Owen, and there is no evidence that I countenanced the fetting it up, nor 2 that
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=