which respect those and all other Ceremonies of the Iewes are by the Fathers said to bee not onely dangerous but deadly to us Christian men The Passion of our Saviour as by the Lords own Ordinance it was prefigured to the Iews in the legall Sacrifices à Parte ante so by Christs institution is it to bee commemorated by us Christians in the holy Supper à Parte post A Sacrifice it was in figure a Sacrifice in fact and so by consequence a Sacrifice in the commemorations or upon the Post-fact A Sacrifice there was among the Iewes shewing forth Christs death unto them before his comming in the flesh a Sacrifice there must bee amongst the Christians to shew forth the Lords death till he come in judgement And if a Sacrifice must bee there must be also Priests to doe and Altars whereupon to doe it because without a Priest and Altar there can bee no sacrifice Yet so that the precedent sacrifice was of a different nature from the subsequent and so are also both the Priest and Altar from those before a bloudy sacrifice then an unbloudy now a Priest derived from Aaron then from Melchisedech now an Altar for Mosaicall sacrifices then for Evangelicall now The Sacrifice prescribed by Christ Qui novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem saith Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. who the same night in which he was betrayed tooke bread And when be had given thankes he brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you Doe this in remembrance of me Likewise also he tooke the Cup when hee had supped saying This Cup is the New Testament in my blood doe this as often as you drinke it in remembrance of mee Which words if they expresse not plaine enough the nature of this Sacrifice to bee commemorative we may take those that follow by way of Commentary For as often as yee eate this bread and drinke this Cup ye doe shew the Lords death till he come Then for the Priests they were appointed by him also even the holy Apostles who being onely present at the Institution received a power from Christ to celebrate these holy mysteries in the Church of God A power not personall unto them but such as was from them to bee derived upon others and by them communicated unto others for the instruction of Gods people and the performance of his service Though the Apostles at that time might represent the Church of Christ and every part and member of it yet this gives no authority unto private men to intermeddle in the sacrifice but unto the Apostles onely and their successours in the Evangelicall Priesthood Our Saviour hath left certaine markes of characters by which each member of the Church may soone finde his dutie For the Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood there is an edite bibite an eating an drinking as private men men of no Orders in the Church but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them onely as they are Priests under and of the Gospell Hoc facite is for the Priest who hath power to consecrate Hoc edite is both for Priest and people which are admitted to communicate and so is the Hoc bibite too by the Papists leave Were it not thus but that the people might hoc facere take bread and breake and â—lesse it and distribute it unto one another wee should soone see a quicke come off of our whole religion The people then being prepared and fitted for it may edere and bibere but they must not facere that belongs onely to the Priests who claime that power from the Apostles on them conferred by our Redeemer Last of all for the Altar wee need not goe farre S. Paul in whom wee finde both the Priest and Sacrifice will helpe us to an Altar also He calleth it once a Table and once an Altar a Table in the tenth of the same Epistle non potestis mensae Domini participes esse yee cannot bee partakers of the Lords Table and the table of Devils an Altar in the last of the Hebrewes Habeâ—â—us Altare wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to â—ate that serve the Tabernacle an Altar in relation to the Sacrifice which is there commemorated a Table in relation to the Sacrament which is thence participated Nay so indiâ—ferent were those words to that blessed spirit that as it seemes he stood not on the choice of either but used the word Table to denote those Altars on which the Gentiles sacrificed to their wretched Idols which he cals mensaâ— Daemoniorum the table of Devils in the Text remembred If wee consult the Fathers who lived next those times wee finde not that they altered any thing in the present businesse for which they had so good authority from the Lords Apostles but without any scruple or opposition that we can meet with used as they had occasion the name of Sacrifice and Priest and Altar in their severall writings Not that they tied themselves to those words alone but that they balked them not when they came in their way as if they were afraid to take notice of them Denys the Areopagite if it were hee that wrote the books de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia hath in one chapter all those names of Priest Altar Sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his native language Sacerdos Altare Sacrificium in the translation the Altar being honoured with the attribute of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or divine the Sacrifice with that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or most pure and holy These workes of Dionysius Monsieur du Moulin doth acknowledge to be very profitable Vtilia sane plena bonae frugis but withall thinkes they are of a later date And therefore on unto Ignatius of whom there is lesse question amongst learned men who in his severall Epistles useth the aforesaid names or termes as being generally received and of common usage First for the Altar the Doctor shewed you in his Coal that it is found there thrice at least 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Magnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Philadelph one altar and one Altar in every Church and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods Altar in his Epistle ad Tarsens what is objected against these we shall see hereafter So for the Minister he cals him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Priest which your good friend Vedelius translates Sacerdos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Excellent or estimable are the Priests and Deacons but more the Bishop In the Epistle ad Smyrâ—enses the same word occurres to signifie the Priest or Minister of Christs holy Gospell as also that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendred by your Vedelius Sacerdotium by us called the Priesthood Last of all for your sacrificâ— the same Ignatius gives it for a rule as the times then were that it is not lawfull for the Priest without the notice of his Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
rule hereafter in that Can-none and triviall law the body of the which we daily looke for of your setting out But â—e the letter his or not you think that you have gained three points First a good ground to change the tenour of your owne charging the Vicar in your printed Copy with an intent of setting up an Altar of stone which was not to be found in all the Manuscript Besides that you have brought him into some disfavour with his friend the Bishop for daring to remove the Communion table without leave from him Next for that slovenly and disgracefull phrase of Dresser given in the Bishops written letter to the Communion table placed Altar-wise and from him borrowed by M r Prynne that is now found out to be a phrase of the rude peoples as you call them and on them fathered in the printed letter to take off that scandall Last of all whereas bowing at the name of JESUS was in the written letter glanced at as if it did procure derision from the lookers on that is now turned wholly on the Vicar and his light gestures in performance of that pious ceremony the printed letter being altered and explained in that particular accordingly Having got thus much by the hand you need say no more but beare your head up bravely and proclaime your victory But as he in Macrobius said Omne mcum nihil meum so may you also say did you deale uprightly all this that you have got is nothing and you may put it in your eye without feare of blinking For how may wee be sure that Monsieur the half-Vicar as you call him p. 70. did of his own head remove the Communion table without authority from the Bishop Chancellour or any of his Surrogates as out of M r Aldermans letter you affirme he did It â—eemes to me that he acquainted the Diocesan with it and found from him if not an approbation a toleration at the least conditioned no umbrages and offence were taken by the Towne against it For thus the letter When I spake with you last I told you that the standing of the Communion table was unto me a thing so indifferent that unlesse offence and umbrages were taken by the towne against it I should never move it or remove it Was not this faire leave think you to make a triall how farre the people would be pleased with the alteration and whether they would think it tended to decency and comlinesse in the officiating of Gods Divine service And on this leave the table was removed to the Altar place and stood so till the Alderman a discreet and modest man and far from any humour of Innovation did by farre lesse authority bring it down againe and was never checked for it Nor can you say that the word last there mentioned when I spake with you last is to relate unto that time when the Vicar and the Alderman encountred at his Lordships house Because it follows in the next words that which I did not then suspect is come to passe viz. the Alderman and better sort of the towne have complained against it The conference then meant wherein his Lordship shewed himselfe so indifferent in the businesse proposed unto him must needs precede the Vicars action as did the Vicars action the Aldermans riot the Aldermans riot the complaint and the complaint that sudden and tumultuary journey to his Lordships house which drew out the learned letter now betweene us And so your first report of the half-Vicars hasty running before hee was sent is for the truth thereof disproved or made very disputable The other branch thereof touching the stone Altar that you talke of is farre more improbable and you are faine to chop change the Bishops letter to make it good and yet cannot doe it For whereas it was charged upon the Vicar in the M. S. Copies that he should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire you have it in the printed letter that he should say he would upon his omne cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of his Quire which is too great a difference to be an errour in the transcripts Secondly instead of that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars you now have made it that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars and so by changing these to theirs have turned a Protestant Table to a Pâ—pish Altar Thirdly and lastly whereas the first section in the written copies concluded thus therefore I know you will not change a table into an Altar you have converted it to this therefore I know you will not build any such Altar As great an alteration in the businesse as the words themselves For had that beene the businesse then in agitation and not the placing of the Table Altar-wise his Lordship might have gone to bed that night as indeed he did ended all his letter with the first section being buâ— 24. lines in your owne printed Copy and that corrupted too to serve your turne whereas there is a large discourse against the placing of the Table Altar wise amounting to above two leaves in your owne edition I trow the writer of the letter was too good an Arti-Zan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to spend himself upon the accessary and let the principall be the least part of his care and study especially considering how he might thereby gratifie the whole towne of Grantham to which he had beene such a friend when he was in place As little truth there is in your invention of the dresser which you have turned upon the rude people rude ones indeed to give so vile and scandalous a name to a thing so sacred in whatsoever posture it was placed or situated What is it I beseech you that you have made the people say that he the Vicar should set up no dressers of stone in their Church Dressers of stone It seemes the people were as rude as you describe them so little conversant in matters which concerned the Church that they were yet to â—eeâ—â— in things which did concerne the kitchin Had the discreet Alderman no more discretion than to informe his L p. of so rude a speech and tell him in his eare a storie of a stone-dresser when as he might aswell have told him a tale of a Tubb Had the rude people as you call them applyed the name of dresser unto the holy table placed along the wall the speech had beene more proper though not lesse prophane But now to put the name of dresser of stone into the mouthes of Country people who never heard of any such thing as a dresser of stone shewes plainly that neither any Altar of stone was ever purposed by the Vicar which might occasion such an idle and absurd expression nor that the writer of the letter tooke up the name of dresser from the Country people but first
is the hint you take to introduce your studied discourse of the power of Kings in ecclesiasticis which neither is ad rem nor Rhombum but that you would doe somewhat faine to be thought a Royalist however the poor people take it to be so deserted For tell mee in good earnest doth the Doctor say that the said Statute 1. of Eliz. was onely confirmative and not declaratorie of the old Doth he not say expressely as you would have him Last of all saith his book it may be argued that the said clause or any thing therein contained is not indeed introductory of any new power which was not in the Crown before but rather declaratorie of the old which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah and amongst others to ours also If afterwards he use the word confirmative you might have found his meaning by his first declaratorie not have falne upon him in so fierce a manner as if he had beene onely for confirmative and for declaratorie not one word But your next prank is worse than this where you affirm with confidence and scorn enough that this right is not united to the Crown of England onely as this scribler seemes to conceive but to all other Christian Crowns and chalenged by all Christian Princes accordingly Proh deum atque hominum fidem that ever man should write thus and beleeve his Creed in that which doth relate to the day of Judgement For sure the Doctor saith as much as all your studied nothing comes to that the said power did anciently belong what to this Crown alone as you make him say No but to all Christian Kings good Sir note this well as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah and amongst others to ours also Not unto ours alone but among others to ours also Or if this yet be no foule dealing we will try once more You tell us with great joy no question That to maintain that Kings have any part of their authority by any positive law of nations as this scribler speaks of a jurisdiction which either is or ought to be in the Crown by the ancient lawes of the Realm and is confirmed by 1 El. c. 1. is accounted by that great personage the L d Chancellour Egerton an assâ—rtion of a treasonable nature But by your leave a little Sir that passage of a jurisdiction which either is or ought to be in the Crowne by the ancient lawes of the Realm is not the Doctors but Sir Edward Cokes and cited from him whoÌ„ you have honoured with the title of a deep learned man in his faculty p. 25. affirming there that he hath stated the whole question rightly as here immediately on the recitall of the words before repeated you take great paines more than you needed to give his words a faire construction If it was rightly said by Sir Edw. Coke why not by the Doctor If no such treasonable matter in the one why doe you charge it on the other This is the thing complained of in the Court-historian Invidiam non ad causam sed ad volunt atem personasque dirigere But yet Gods blessing on your heart for your affection to Sir Edward you deale with him far better and more honestly than with your Lords great Master the L d Chancellour Egerton whose words you chop off with an hatchet as if you wanted patience to heare him out You cite him in your margine thus It was neuer taught but either by Traytors as in Spencers bill in Edw. 2. time or by treasonable Papists as Harding in the Confutation of the Apologie that Kings have their authority by the positive law Why stop you there why doe you not goe forwards like an honest man Have you a squinancie in your throat and cannot I will do it for you Reade on then by the positive law of nations and have no more power than the people hath of whom they take their temporall jurisdiction and so Ficlerus Simanca and others of that crew Or by seditious Puritanes and Sectaries as Buchanande jure regni apud Scotos Penry Knox and such like This is flat felony beleeve mee to rob your Readers of the best part of all the businesse For here we have two things which are worth the finding First what it is which as you say is by that honourable personage made to be of treasonable nature viz. not onely to maintaine that Kings have their authority by the positive law of nations but that they have no more power than the people hath Next who they be that teach this doctrine not onely Traitors and treasonable Papists as you make him say but also seditious Sectaries and Puritanes Buchanan Knox and Penry and such like Nor was it taught by them the leaders onely but as it followeth in that place by these and those that are their followers and of their faction there is in their pamphlets too much such traiterous seed sowne The Puritans are I see beholding to you for lending them so fine a cloake to hide their knavery And hereupon I will conclude how great a Royalist soever you pretend to be you love ' the King well but the Puritans better From the originall and fountaine of the soveraigne power wee must next follow you unto the exercise thereof And here you aske the question How doth the Doctor make it appeare that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter or that there is as he avows any publick order for the same viz for placing the Communion Table Altar-wise To this you answer for you play all parts that he shall make it cock-sure by three Apodicticall demonstrations which are as afterwards you dispose them the practice of his Majesties Chappell the Queenes Injunctions and his most excellent Majesties declaration about S. Gregories But first before we proceed further let mee aske one question Where doe you finde the Doctor say that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter No where most certaine in the booke nor any where that I can tell of but in the mint of your imagination where there is coynage all the yeere of these poore double ones The Doctor saith indeed His sacred Majesty hath already declared his pleasure in the case of S. Gregories and thereby given incouragement to the Metropolitans Bishops and other Ordinaries to require the like in all the Churches committed to them Incouragements are no Command you had best say so howsoever For if they were I could soone tell you in your eare who is a very disobedient subject But let that passe cum coeteris erroribus and see if that be better which comes after next I would faine hope some good of you but I finde no ground for it you misreport him so exceeding shamelesly in every passage The first you say of his three Apodicticall demonstrations as you please to slight them is that it
both Writ and Statute will hold good against all your Cavills and the poore Doctor may be Lawyer good enough to defend the Writ although there were no Precedents thereof in the booke of Entries You saw the weaknesse of this plea and thereupon you adventure on a further hazard You tell the Doctor elsewhere of his great presumption in offering to correct Magnificat and that being never in such grace as to be made Lord Keeper of the great seale of England he should presume to give a man a call to be a Iudge who died but an Apprentise in the lawes Yet now you fall on both those errours of which you have already pronounced him guilty For you must needs correct the Statute which the whole Parliament wiser I take it than your selfe hath thought fit to stand and tell us of the Writ which yet my Lord B p of Lincoln when he was Lord Keeper had no power to alter that it ought to be issued contra formam Statuti concernentis sacrosanctum Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Dominici whereas the Statute gives no warrant for any such Writ to be issued from the Court of Chancery Had you authority of making either Writs or Statutes I doubt not but your first Statute should be this that it should be lawfull for any man wheresoever or whensoever he saw the holy Table placed Altar-wise to call it a dresser and then a Writ to be awarded against all those that should speak unreverently of your said service of the dresser At least it should and might be lawfull for the rude people so to call it and none so bold as to controule them On them indeed you have trans-ferred it in your new edition of the letter to excuse the Bishop but then you never tell us as you might have done as well in the same Edition how sorely they were reprehended by the Bishop for it Here very unseasonably and by some Susenbrotus figure you have brought it in and seeme exceeding angry as I think you are that it should be so Prynned and pinned on the Bishops sleeve But be not so extreamly angry though mass Prynne may furnish you with as good a note as that when occasion serves and recompence you for the use of your Dresser by some trick of law But where you say that if one Bishop of Lincoln and one Deane of Westminster shall speake irreverently of the Protestants table I thought assuredly it had been the Lords Table calling it oyster-table and oyster-boorde by this new figure of the Doctors all Bishops and Deanes of those two places must till the end of the world be supposed to doe so you make a strange non sequitur which the Doctor meant not Hee knowes there have beene many Bishops and Deanes of either of such a noted piety as no man can suppose it of them All you can thence conclude is this that as there was a Bishop of Lincoln and a Deane of Westminster that called the Lords table standing Table-wise or in the middle of the Chauncell by the name of oyster-boorde so to cry quitts with them there is as you have now discovered him one Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster that calls it standing Altar-wise by the name of Dresser As for Iohn Fox his marginall notes of the blasphemous mouth of D r Weston the Deane of Westminster calling the Lords table an oyster-boorde pag. 85. and Bishop White then Bishop of Lincoln blasphemously calleth the boorde of the Lords Supper an oyster-table those you may either take or leave as your stomack serves you And sure it serves you very well you had not falne else on the B p of Norwich with so good an appetite and furnished some of your good friends out of the Index of your Author with an excellent note against the next Edition of the Newes from Ipswich But this is not the onely thing wherein H. B. and you have imparted notes to one another as may most manifestly be discerned in that generall Parallel which I have elsewhere drawne betweene you At this time I shall onely note how much you are beholding unto your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the back-doors of your books your Indexes Here we are furnished with a note out of the Index of Iohn Fox touching a Bishop of Norwich his sending forth letters of persecution Pag. 129. you certifie us from the authority of the same learned Index that Bishop Ridley ordered the Communion Table to be placed not Altar-wise but as a Table Nor could you enter into the Fathers but by this back-doore and there you found by chance such good luck you have that Sacrificium Altaris was foysted into the Index of S. Austin by the Divines of Lovaine as into others of the Fathers by the Priests and Iesuites We now perceive what helps you had to clog your margin with such a numerous and impertinent body of quotations as serve for very little purpose but to make a shew a generall muster as it were of your mighty reading CHAP. IV. Of taking down Altarâ— in K. Edw. time altering the Liturgie first made and of the 82. Canon The Doctor leaves the Minister of Lincolns Method for this Chapter to keepe close to England Altars not generally taken downe in the fourth of K. Edw. 6. The Minister of Linc. falsifieth the Bishops letter to the Vicar and palters with a passage in the Acts and Mon. to make them serve his turne about the taking downe of Altars A most notorious peece of non-sense in the new Edition of the letter The Altars in the Church of England beaten downe in Germany Altars not beaten downe de facto by the common people but taken downe by order and in faâ—re procâ—eding Matters of fact may be made doctrinall sometimes and on some occasions The Order of the King but a kind of Law The Minister of Linc. takes great paines to free Calvin from having any hand in altering the Liturgie Land markâ—s and bounds 〈◊〉 downe for the right understanding of the 〈◊〉 Calvin excepts against the Liturgy practâ—seth with the D. of 〈◊〉 both when he was Protector and after His correspondence herâ— with 〈◊〉 Hooper and ill affâ—ction to the ceremoniâ—s then by Law â—stablished The plot for altering the Liturgie so strongly laied that it want forward notwithstanding the Dukes attainder The 〈◊〉 ignorance and most apparent falshoods of the Minister of Linc in all this businesse Calvin attâ—mptâ— the King the Counsell and Archb. Cranmen The date of his Letter to the Archb. cleered 〈…〉 given the first Liturgie by K. Edw. 6. asserted from the false construction of the Minister of Linc. as also that given to it by the Parliament Archb. Bancroft and Io. Fox what they say thereof The standing of the Table after the alteration of the Liturgie and that the name of Altar may be used in a Church reformed HItherto we have followed you up and downe according as you pleased to leade the
High-Priest himselfe to partake thereof Of what I pray you Not of the things professed in the Christian Church I hope you will not say but it was lawfull to the Priests to be partakers of the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour Why did the Apostles preach unto the Iewes in case it were not lawfull for them to make profession of the Faith Therefore the Father must needs meane the Christians Sacrifices performed upon the Altar which the Apostle speakes of of which it was not lawfull for the High-Priest continuing as he was High-Priest to bee partaker And this I take the rather to have beene his meaning because Theophylact who followed Chrysostome so exactly that hee doth seeme to have abridged him doth thus descant on it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Having before said v. 9. that no regard was to be had of meats lest our owne Ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might bee thought contemptible as things unobserved hee addes that we have Ordinances of our own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not about meats as were the Iewes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but such as doe concerne the Altar or the unbloody sacrifice of Christs quickning body Of which which sacrifice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is not lawfull for the Priests to bee partakers as long as they doe service to the Tabernacle i. e. the legall signes and shadows The like saith also Oecumenius with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you have Englished Tenets with the like felicitie as you did the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysost. For Oecumenius saying as Theophylact had done before because the Apostle had affirmed That no regard was to bee had of meates c. hee addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and have not we also our owne Ordinances or observations To which hee answers with Theophylact but a great deale plainer Yes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of meats but of our Altar If you goe downe ward to the Latines they are cleare as day Haymo who lived about the yeare â—â—0 affirmes expresly on the place Altare Ecclesiae est ubi quotidie corpus consecratur Christi that is the Altar of the Church whereon the body of Christ is daily consecrated And so Remigius who lived and writ about those times Haâ—emus ergo Altare Ecclesiae ubi consecratur corpus Dominicum the same in sense though not in words with that of Haymo This Doctor Fulk almost as great a Clerke as you conceives to bee so really intended by Oecumenius and Haymo that he reports that they did doate upon the place even as you say the Doctor melts upon the place But say you what you will As long as hee can back it with so good authority the Doctor will make more of Habemus Altare than before hee did though you should raise Iohn Philpot from the dead to expound it otherwise as neare told he did in the Acts and Mon. p. 90. of your holy Table From the Apostles Text both re nomine proceed wee to the Apostles Canons nomine at the least if not re also which if not writ by them are by the Doctor said to be of good antiquity nor doe you deny it Onely you â—ling them off with a Schoole-boyes jest affirming confidently that all good Schollers reckon those Canons but as so many Pot-gunnes Not all good Scholers certainly you are out in that What thinke you of my Lord of Chichester of whom the Doctor and the Minister of Linc. too may well learne as long as they live He a geod Scholler in your own confession doth not alone call them the Apostles Canons but cites the 40 of them as a full and strong authority to prove that by the ancient Canons Church-men had leave to give and bequeath their Goods and Chattels by their last Will and Testament And this in his reply unto Io. Selden whom he knew too well to thinke hee would give back at the report or blow of a School-boyes Pot-gunne Next where those three Canons that the Doctor cited doe speake so clearly of the Altar and that by the same name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used by the Apostle to the Hebrewes that there is no deniall of it you flie unto your wonted refuge a scornfull and prophane derision Hee that shall read say you what is presented on these Altars for the maintenance of the Bishop and his Clergie will conceive them rather to bee so many Pantries Larders or Store-houses than consecrated Altars O Curvae in terris animae coelestium inanes So dead a soule so void of all coelestiall impressions did I never meet with I am confirmed now more than ever for the first Author of the Dresser otherwise you had never beene allowed and licensed to call it as you doe a Pantrie or a Larder and a Store-house I see there is good provision towards and as much devotion Your Pigâ—on-house wee have seene already and Pottage you will serve in presently if we can bee patient Larders we have and Store-houses and Pantries which portend good cheare Thinke you a man that heares you talke thus would not conceive your Kitchin were your Chappell the Dresser in the same your High-Altar and that your Requiem Altars were your Larder Pantrie and Store-house Get but a Cooke to bee your Chaplaine and on my life Comus the old belly god amongst the Gentiles was never sacrificed unto with such propriety of Vâ—ensils and rich magnificence as you will sacrifice every day to your god your Belly Nor need you feare that your estate will not hold out I hope you are a provident Gentleman and make your Altars bring you in what your Altars spend you For say you not in that which followeth that Iudas his bagge may with as good reason as these Tables bee called â—n Altar I wonder what fine adjunct you will finde out next You cannot probably goe on and not set downe ad mensâ—m daemoniorum that Table of Devils which Saint Paul speakes of Iudas his bagge Just so yet you would shift this off unto Baronius as you have done the Dresser on the rude people of Grantham Baronius as you say implieth it Doth he so indeed All that Baroniâ—â— saith is this that those who ministred in the Church did from the first beginnings of the Church receive their maintenance from the oblations of the faithfull Immo cum adhuc dominus supeâ—stes c. And that the Lord himselfe when he preached the Gospell used from these offerings to provide for himselfe and his For Iudas saith S. Iohn bearing the bagge Ea quâ—â— mittebantur portabat did carrie up and downe that store which was sent in to him What say you doth the Cardinall imply in this that Iudâ—s his bagge may with good reason any how be called an Altar Take heed of Iudas and his â—agge of Iudas and his qualities for feare you come unto that end that Iudas did Your answers to the Doctors allegations
Writers But go we after you in your vagaries As you have brought the Priest to be inferior to the Deacon â—o you will do your best to bring him under the Churchwarden God help poore Priests that must be under so many Masters Churchwardens Deacons and who else soever you shall please to set above them But this you say is no new matter Churchwardens having beene of old the Bishops hand to put all mandates in execution that may concerne the utensils of the Church For proofe of this your Margin tels us Oeconomus est cui res Ecclâ—siastica gubernanda mandatur ab Episcâ—pâ— that the Churchwarden is an Officer to whom the government of Ecclesiasticall matters is committed by the Bishop A very honorable office You could not have bestowed a greater power upon the Chancellour himselfe And the Church-wardens are to thanke you that to advance their place and credit sticke not to 〈◊〉 your Authors and to straine your conscience and that too in so foul a manner that in my life I never knew an equall impudence There 's no such thing in Lindwood whom you have â—ited for your Author That adjunct ab Episcopo is yours not his then the Oâ—conomus there mentioned is no Church-warden but either a Farmour or a Bayliffe and last of all the Res Ecclescasâ—ica which is therein mentioned hath no relation unto the utâ—nsils of the Church but meerely to the Tithes and profits I must lay downe the caâ—e at large the better to detect your most shamelesse dealing â—he constitution is as followeth First for the title Rectores non residentes nec Vicarios habentes 〈…〉 That Parsons not being reâ—ident nor having any 〈◊〉 upon their 〈◊〉 shall by their 〈◊〉 be they as they prove 〈…〉 The body of the 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉 though more full in words 〈…〉 Now that we may the better know what is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 we are thus instructed in the 〈…〉 What 〈◊〉 Episcopo No such matter not one word of that That 's an old tricke of yours and most 〈◊〉 yours of all the men I ever deale with How then why by the Rector onely Is he not called both in the title and the Text 〈…〉 his owne 〈◊〉 So alâ—o in the Glosse Dicitur 〈…〉 And what to do Either to farme their profits of them or to collect and manage their profits for them 〈…〉 sic bona Ecclâ—siastica administrent So that you have at oncâ— imposed foure falshoods â—n your Readers For first here 's no Churâ—hwarden but a Bayliffe or a Farmour nor he appointed by the Bishop but by the Parson and being appoinâ—â—d medleth not in any thing which doth concerne the 〈◊〉 of the Church but the profits of the Parsonage nor finally is here any word of executing 〈◊〉 but onely of maintaining hâ—spitalitie If this bâ— all you have to say I hope the 〈◊〉 may hold his owne without being over-awed by the 〈◊〉 of the Parish how great soever you would make them O but this iâ— not all say you for the Churchwarden iâ— an Ancient Gentleman come of a great pigge-house and coâ—en Germâ—n to the Bishop at most once removed For you conceive our Latine Canons now in force by calling him Oâ—conoâ—us make him relate uâ—to that 〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticall Officer famous in the 〈◊〉 and Latinâ— Councels next that of old he was as now a Lay-man some domesticke or kinâ—â—aâ— of the Bishops that managed all things belonging to the Church according to the direacion of the Bishop still you are out quite out in every thing you say The 〈◊〉 are not now in fâ—rcâ— as to the phraâ—e and Latine of them For they were paâ—â—ed in English in the Convocation and confirmed in English by King Iames the Latine translâ—â—ion of them is of no authoritie of no force at all And if you will needs borrow arguments from an identitie of names you should have first consulted the Civill Lawyâ—â—s who would have told you that Gardiâ—â—â—â— Ecclesiâ— is a more proper appellation of and for the Churchwarden then your 〈◊〉 Nor do the Authors whom you cite informe you that the old Oeconâ—â—â—â— was at first a Lay-man a friend or kinsâ—â—â— of the Bishops but a Church-man meerely 〈◊〉 unto whom you send us tels us plainly that at the first the Bishop hâ—d the absolute and sole disposing of the revenews of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no man nor friend nor kinsman nor domesticke for ought there appeares being priviâ— to iâ— Which when it brought some â—eandall and complaint upon the Bishop it was ordained in the Councâ—ll of Chalâ—edon Can. 26. that the supreme administration of the Churches treasurie should still remaine in him as before it was but that â—e should appoint some one or otheâ—â—o be of counsell with him in his actions And from what ranke of men should they take that choice Not saith your Author from their domesticks or their kinsmen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but from the Clergie of the Diocesse Finde you in this that anciâ—ntly these Oeconomi were Lay-men of the Bishops kindred I thought you had beâ—ne better at a petigree then I see you are Otherwise you would never have derived our present Churchwardens from those old Oeconoâ—i those Clergâ—eâ—men Churchwardens as you please to call them of which if there be anything remaining in the Church of England you have it in the Treasures of Cathedrall Câ—urches The Deacons and the Churchwardens being thus advanced it is no wonder that the Priest be left to his medâ—tations as one that is no more then a dull spectatour and hath no sphere of activitie to move in O Godblesse say you all good holy Church-men from such a misadventure with contempt enough God blesse them too say I from all such merciâ—esse and hard-hearted men by whomsoever they are licensed who labour to advance in this sort the authoritie of Churchwardens or any other of that nature so high above their Minister Never did Clergie-man so licensed and allowed of speake so contemptiblie of the Ministerie as this man of Lincolnshire who though he bragges else-where of his buenas entranas as the Spaniards speake those good and tender bowels which he hath within him yet the shews little pitie of these poore mens cases which hee exposeth thus unto scorne and laughter But it is true and alwayes was that a mans enemies are those of his owne house and wee may speake it in the words though not the meaning of the Prophet Perditio tua exte est that thy destruction is from thy selfe O house of Israel This crie like that about the Pietie of the times being taken up we shall be sure to meete withall in every corner of your booke as if there were no life in the game you follow if pietie and the true promoters of it should not be kept upon the sent Nay you goe so farre at the last that you disable Clergie-men in a manner from being Executors and Over seers