all to make Puritans odious to your Majesty being the only men that keep both your Crowne and Religion safe J shall therefore humblie beseech your Majesty when ever you heare any Legends or Declamations against Puritans hereafter to consider from what kinde of Persons they proceed and to put them that utter them to make proofe of what they say or else to brand them with an hot-iron in the cheekes or forehead with an S for slaunderers And then you will never heare any more fables of Puritans with which your Royall eares are now so oft abused by the Iesuite Contzens Disciples VVho gives this as one chiefe rule how to usher Popery into any Christian State to slaunder and disgrace the Puritans and zelots to make them odious both to Prince and people and then Popery will breake in without any opposition or noyse at all 2. Secondly By this perverting of this Prayer the chiefe Odium against Iesuites Priests and Papists the chiefe Authourâ— of this horrid treason is mittigated and taken off that so they may take roote among us againe to the ruine both of Church State and without Gods speciall protection of your Sacred Majesty to whom they will ever be treacherous as they have alwayes been to all Christian Princes and Republikes that would not be their slaves and Vassals to yeild universall obedience to them in what ever they should commaund 3. Thirdly By this Metamorphosis of whose Religion is Rebellion whose Faith is Faction c. into Those workers of iniquity who turne Religion into Rebellion and Faith into Faction The Romish Religion is acquitted and purged from that damnable treasonable Rebellious factious Doctrine of the lawfulness of deposing and murthering Christian Kings and Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or enemies to the Roman Church and Faith Of which the first prayer the Statute of 3. Iacobi c. 4. in the forme of the Oath of Supremacy the Homilies and Writers of our Church and among others Dr. John White in his Defence of the way to the true Church c. 6. c. 10. Sect. 5 6. 7. 8. and Dr. Richard Crakanthrop in his Treatise of the Popes Temporall Monarchie c. 1. and 11. Which Authours chapters I shall humblie desire your Majesty and all that love either your safety or Religion seriously to read over at their best leisure and then let them love Popery Priestes and Iesuites if they can or dare prove them deeply guilty both in pointâ— of Theory and Practise And if all these fayle yet their obstinate refusall of the Oath of Supremacy which only enjoynes them to renounce this Doctrine of King-killing proves them deeply guilty of it and can your Majesty trust such neare about you who will by no meanes sweare they will not murther nor deprive you Now for any thus farre to gratify Traytours and Rebels as to acquit them from that very Doctrine which makes them such even then when they are quilty of it must needs be a danegrous if not a Trayterous Act perillous to your Majesty and the whole Realme 4. Fourthly This Alteration extenuates the greatnes and execrable odiousnes of that horrid Treason both in respect of the Actors and that desperate Doctrine which moved them to committ it And to mince or extenuate such an unparalleld treason as this so execrable to all the world Is nothing else but to turne Traytour and become guilty of the same treason or of another as bad as it Yea it is to be feared that those who wil be so perfidious as after thus many Yeares to goe about to extenuate and lessen such a Treason have a minde to turne Traytours themselves atleast wise to favour Treason and Traytours and have treasonable hearts within them 5. Fiftly This corruption is a large step to the abolishing of the memory of this never to be forgotten Treason and of that solemne Holy-day on the 5. of November instituted by Act of Parliament for this very end that our unfained thankfulnes for our happy deliverance from this Hellish designe might NEVER BE FORGOTTEN but be had in A PERPETUALL REMEMBRANCE that ALL AGES TO COME may yeeld prayses to the Divine Majesty and have in memory THIS IOYFULL DAY OF DELIVERANCE they are the words of the Act. For when such a treason begins once to be blanched slighted and the solemne gratulatory Prayers instituted for its remembrance thus miserablie to be corrupted the next step can be no other but the abrogating both of the Booke itselfe and the solemnity kept in remembrance of the treason And then when this is effected the next newes we shall heare of from Rome will be the deniall of the Fact that there was ever any such treason plotted though sundrie Histories specifie it As they have long since published in print that Henry Garnet the Iesuite and Arch-plotter of it had no hand therein And that there was never any Pope Ione though above 20 ancient Popish Writers record there was such a one and shee a Pope a strumpet a most say an English woman 6. Sixtly It is apparant that this alteration was made only to gratify the Priests the Jesuites Papâ—sts and men Trayterously affected Since all loyall Subjects and true-bred English spirits cannot but abhor it Therefore who-ever were the Authours or occasions of it be they either Arch Prelates Bishops Priests or other for J cannot yet certainly discover the parties neither have I any sufficient meanes or Commission to doe it it being a thing worthy your Majesties owne Royall Discoverie as the Powder-plot itselfe was your Fathers KING JAMES his owne ever-blessed detection if it be not Arch-Traytours and Rebels yet J dare proclaime them no friends to your Majesty nor yet to the Church or State of England or to the Religion we professe but enemies to them all and friends to none but Rome whose iustruments they were in this particular 3. The third corruption and forgery is in the very Articles of Religion of the Church of England at first compiled in King Edward the 6. his raigne Anno 1552. Revised and re-established Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeths dayes after that Anno 1571. confirmed by Act of Parliament 13. Eliz. c. 12. and printed both in Latine and English the same yeare by the Queens Authority The 20 Article in all these ancient Editions and all others in Queen Elizabeths raigne as likewise in the Articles of Ireland taken verbatim out of the English printed at Dublin Anno 1615. and twice reprinted at London An. 1628. 1629. Artic. 75. of the Authority of the Church runs thus It is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Words c. But the Bishops to advance their owne usurped Authority gaine some colour to arregate to themselves a power of prescribing new rites and Ceremonies have forged a New Article of Religion and added it unto this without either your Majesties or
thereby hath given encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishop other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets of the Counsell-Table â—earing date the 3. of November 1633. the Author of the Coale from the Altar who ends with it bath at large relaved To this I answer first that this concernes only one particular Church no more and the reason of this order drawen from the example of the Cathedrall of Paules Sant Gregories proximitâ—e there to is not communicable to other Churches peâ—nliar to this alone Therefore it can be no president for others Secondly It was not here resolved that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise as the Colier argues neuber is there mention of any example save â— at of Pauls 〈◊〉 and that of late times sinde King Iames nor any Canon Rubrick Statute authority or writer produced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table for all heir pretence of the practise of approved antiquity foisted in to the order where as the other side produced good antiquity authorityes for them as I am informed among others The Rubrike before the Communion the Queenes Injunctions the 82. Canon Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington Doctor Fulke with the Fathers quoted by them and an un interrupted presciption in all Parish Churches most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation 3. Though his May stey ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Deane Chapter of Pauls direction upon this groud cheifly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church as not only the persons then present can depose but the order inselfe insinuates in these words Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation made by the Councill of both parties of all the cariage proceedings in this cause was pleased to declare HIS DISLIKE OF ALL INNOUATIONS receeding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITVTIONS grounded upon just warrantable reasons especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall orders goverment knowing how easily men are drawen to affect Novelties how soone in such cases weake judgments may be overtaken abused the insuing words which seeme to give particular reasons why this being but a Nouelty was tolerated passed over when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innouation declaring thus his dislike of all Innouations this order is so farre from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them as the Author of the Coale infers that unlesse he will apply that ancient verse Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata To the Metropolitane Bishops other ordinaries that they love are incouraged to affect set up these Innouations which his Mayestey dislikes they must rather be discouraged then animated by this order to require the like in any much lesse in all the Churches committed to them And truly if al things be well considered they have little cause to be thus incouraged to require make this Innouation as they generally doe not being ashamed or afrayed to give it in charge to Church-wardens Ministers in their Visitation printed Articles and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not removing rayling in the Lords-Table Altar-wise as appeares by the Church-wardens of Ipswich Beckington Colchester and others For first the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enasts vpon the Prelates Clergies joint Petition in Parliament That they the sayd Clergie in their Convocations Synods any of them in their severall Diocesse visitations Consistories or Iurisdictions from henceforth shall presume to attempt alleage claime or put in vre any Constitutions or ordinances Provinciall Synodals or any other Canons nor shall enact promulge or execate any such Canons Constitutions or ordicances provinciall by what soeuer name or names they may be called in their Conuocations in time coming which alway shal be assembled by authority of the Kings writ vnlesse the same clergie may have the Kings most royall assent to make promulge execute such Canons Constitutions ordinances provinciall or Synodall and the kings most royall assent vnder his great Seale he had to the same all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully expresse manifest Vpon peine of every one of the sayd Clergie doing contrary to this being thereof conuict to suffer imprisonment make fine at the Kings will The penalty of which Law every Metropolitane Bishop ordinary hath incurred some say a Praemineere to by printing making visitation Articles Injunctions in their owne names for altering rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise many such Innouations without his Mayesteyes royall assent approbation under his great Seale of England had to the same 2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordaines this who soever shall hereafter affirme that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers lay persons or either of them and Bishops with other ordinaries are certainly with in this number to joyne to gether make Rules Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall without the Kings authority shall submit themselves to beruled governed by them let them be excommunicate ipso facto not be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke those their wicked Anabapsticall Errors But our Bishops Arch-deacons other Ordinaries with the nameles Iudicious Learned Divine who writ the Coale from the Altar affirme that in print to all the world that it is lawfull for them either of them to make printe visitation Oathes Articles Injunctions Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall for the rayling in of Communion Tables turning them Altarwise other Nouell Ceremonies as standing vp at Gloria Patri the Gospell Athanasius the Nicene Creed bowing at the name of Iesus to Communion Tables Altars c. Yea to keep Consistories visitations without the Kings Authority vnder his great Seale licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles Constitutions Ordinances or to keep any Court or Consistorie and they enforce by visitations excommunications fines imprisonments the power of the High Commission divers of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit them selves to be ruled gouerned by them Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then owne Canon so irregular all their proceedings nullities neither are they to be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke these their wicked and their Anabaptisticall Errors Articles Oathes Constitutions which they have thus audasiosly imposed vpon his Mayesteyes loyall Subjects 3. His Mayestey in his Declaration to his louing Subjects of the causes which moued him to dissolve the last Parliament published by his Majesteyes speciall commaund Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemne protestation We call God to record before whom wee stand that it is and
another Woman believe me the time is come whâ—n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem nor in this hill but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth So is it now said the place makes not the man holy but the man makes the place hâ—ly and ye shall not worshippe your Jdols Stockes and Stones neither at Wilsingham Ipswich Canterbury nor Sheve for God chuses not the people for the places sake but the places for the peoples sakeâ— But iâ— ye be in the middest of the feild God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers as in any Abbey or Burrey yea a thousand times more for the one place he hates as defiled with Idolatry and the other he loves as undefiled and cleane If the good man lye in prison tyed in chames or at the stake burned for Gods cause That place is holy For the holinesse of the man and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him As Tertullian saith yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in to praise our God c. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard nor Christen moldes as they be called when it it is no better then other Earth but rather worse for the conjuring that Bishops use about it It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves the Widdows Sonne going to buriall Christ buried without the city c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city which custome remaineth to this day in many godly places As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead so it is now and one place is as holy as another to be buried in saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall be glorified at the last day againe but seemely to be buried and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts and unreverent using of the same for the same purpose IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed as they say with their conjured water crossings censings processions c. But blessed be that God our Lord which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies which they devise to fill their bellies and maintaine their authority by Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament nor yet commanded now either to us oâ—â— them but forbidden to be used of all both of us and them We be no longer under shaddowes but under the truth Christ hath fulfilled all and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Churchâ— to continue to the end Thus and much more this Bishop who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops tearming these creatures ravening Wolves Lyâ—ns Beares and such other ravening Beasts for mercilesnes rapâ—ne and cruelty If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Sâ—â—tutes Commonâ—prayerâ— boâ—ke Hâ—milies Canons Articleâ— Injunctions Writers and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himselfe in a Booke printed at Lordâ— n◠〈◊〉 An 1562. the same yeare he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them to consecrate Churches Chappels Church yards and Altars accounting them alltogether prophane unlesse they have defiled conjured I should have said consecrated them with their new devised Ceremonies Orisons Consecration Rites and Ceremonies takenout of Popist Masse-bookes Ceremonials Rituals at large related in Summa Rosella Summa Angelica Bochellous Gratian Ivo Lyderwood Hostrensis with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars and treatises of this subject deserving rather derision then imitation If they have no Law at all for it but only the Popes Canon Law as they have not aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament is derogatory to the Kings prerogative the subjects liberties and the Lawes and Statuâ—es of the Realme Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations as things of infinite moment How hotte they have beene upon consecration of Altars appeares not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton of which before but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches in Mâ—gaâ—len Colledge 〈◊〉 Oxford in Clare-hall Petorhouse Queenes Collâ—dgâ— with diâ—en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration adorned with Tapors Candlestickes Basons Crucifixes Crosses rich Altar-clothes clasped brave Bookes with Crosses in steed of Bosses Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions rich hangings and dayly adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations to the great greife of all good Christians who mourne to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened disguised with the Reliques Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. Câ—llins in 〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much extâ—lled like an Apostazing Pander preaching openly in S. Maries Churchâ— That it is sitt wâ—e should meet the Papists halfeway both in preaching and practise Which he and others there have not oâ—â—â— done but almost if not quite râ—nâ—honâ—â— unto them as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara that moderne Reconciler vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke To the great incouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction Who vauâ—â— thatâ— they need no step one foote to us who are running withal speed to come home to them unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome to drive us home againe for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree with all their migâ—â— and man How earnest and zealous our Prelates have bâ—â—â— in their consecration of Churches Chappels and Church-yards placing great holinesse in this Ceremony yea and necessity too And evident not only by their late visitation Articles wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets that it be by no meanes prophaned but likewise by sundrie late consecrations and contests about this Ceremonie I shall instance only in â— particulars omitting all the rest together with the solemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones then men whom he can finde
spare howres to curse excommunicate imprison dismember and what not but not to blesse or preach to The first instance I shall pitch on is that of S. Giles Church in the Feildes This Church about 9. yeares since was new repaired in some of the wals leds and seats all divine offices SacrameÌ„ts preaching of divine service was celebrated in it after its repair for two yeares space or more time enough one would think to consecrate it if prayer preaching of Gods Word holy exercises and Sacraments can make places holy All this time it was thought holy enough without any such consecration by D. Mountaine then Bishop of London But his Successour after a yeares space I know not upon what grounds or humour much lesse by what law or authority would needs have the Church consecrated though not new built but repaired â—n which case by the Canon Law there needes no fresh conseâ—ration The Parish at first oppose it but the present Bishop will not be foyled in this Laudable worke whereupon he sequeâ—ters the Church for a month or 3 weekes space lockes up the â—oores suffers neither divine service nor Sermons nor Sacraments except Baptisme all that while to the great disturbance of the Parishioners At last afâ—er much adoe and the expence of 50. or 60â—â— in fees and entertainment the Bishopp solemnely consecrates it after the old Romish manner there being no Protestant forme prescribed by our Church a crucifix condemned expresly by our Homiles being first sett up in the glasse window to hâ—llâ—w it in a legall forme though the fees for consecration were Symony by the Canon Law and extortion by the Common Law and so illegall by both The 2. instance is that of the new Chappel in the Kings Bench prison builâ— by St. Iohn Lentall After it had been built used as a Chappel aboue a yeares space I know not by what Law it must needs be consecrated or else threatnâ—d to be sequestred and interdicted The present Archbishoppes surrogate Bishop Wren by late delegation under the Archbishop forsooth would doe the feat but not under 30â— fees at least that was the lowest they would stoop to So pure and innocent are these holy Consecrations and Consecratours from Symony and extortion This price being in a manner agreed upon hough somewhat an overhigh rate for so short a workâ— D. Cuâ—le Bishop of Winchester hearing of it alledged it was within his 〈◊〉 and tâ—e ofâ— reit belonged not to them but to him to consecrate And because he would be sure to prevayle he profered to hallow it gratis and take nothing but a dinner for his paines which the other would have besides their 30â— Hereupon Sâ— Iohn Lentall yeelds that he should have the hâ—nour to consecrate it A weeke or two before this consecration some Popishly affected person or other had caused the picture of Christ and his 12 Apostles to be hung up in thâ— Chappel contrary to the Homilies and Doctrine of our Church the which some more honest minded persons rased and defaced The Bâ—shop comming to consecrate the Chappel since Easter last esples the defacing of these Images was very angrie at it Telling Sr. Iohn that had he knowne of the defacing of these holy Images which ought to be respected before he came thither hâ— would not have consecrated the Chappel till they had beene repaired and beautefied againe Yeâ— since he was come he would consecrate it as it was but gave Sr. Iohn a speciall charge to see these holy Reliques of Rome repaired with all speed which thereupon being done hath driven many from the Chappel By which true relation of this Consecration we may see what an holy câ—re our devout Prelâ—tâ— have of preserving setting up these Images and Pictures which the very Homilies and subscribed Doctrine of our Church injoyne them in all especiall manner to deface pull downe and cast out of all our Churches as things that doe not adorne or consecrate but most filâ—hely defile idulterate and prophane them Exâ—ungue Leonem you may know what and whose creatures they are and what they ayme at by their clawes The third instance J shall nominate is now very fresh in memory D. Lawde Archbishop of Canterbuâ—y contested lately with the Vniversity of Cambridgâ— pretending that he by his Metropoliticall authority ought to visit them The Vniversity on the other side alledged That their Vniversity it selfe and many of their Colledges were of the Kings foundation and so of right exempt from all Episcopall juâ—isdiction That they were not under the Bishop of the Diocesse his visitation therefore not under the Arch-bishops That every Colledge had its proper visitours appointed by the Charters of their foundation with his Majesties and his Royall ancestours speciall appointment therefore ought to be visited by no other That the power and right of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State and personsâ— especially of the Vniversities was a cheefe flower of the Crowne united to it by expresse words in two severall Actâ— of Parliament to witt 26. H. 8. c. 1. 1. Eliz. c. 1. And also by 37. H. 8. c. 17. 8. Eliz. c. 1. That the Kings Majestie alone by the Canon Law and those statutes was the sole visitour of the whole Realme That no Bishop could keepe any visitation no not in his owne Diocesse but by speciall Pateâ—t and Commission under the Kings broad Seale authorising him and that in the Kings name and right alone not his owne as these Statutes of Ed. 6. c. 2. and all the Bishops Patents in Edward the 6. time made according to this Act expresly define That they were bound by their oath of Supremacy and allegiance to his Majestie to defend this right of his to the uttermost of their powers and by their oath to maintaine his Priviledges That no Archbishop since 25. H. 8. c. 1. except Cardinall Poole by a Commission from the Pope as his Legate and Delegate in Queen Maries time had ever attempted and presumed to visit the Vniversity in his owne Metropoliticall right and that it was never visited before that time by any B. as Metropolitan but only as the Popes Legate and by vertue of his Buls That King Henry the 8 King Edward the 6. Queene Elizabeth and King Iames did visit it by their Commissioners no Archbishop in their time durst presume to visit it by his Archiepiscopall power only That Robert Holgate Archbishop of Yorke in King Henry the 8. his dayes with other Bishops and all the Bishops what soever in King Edward the 6. time were forced to talâ—e speciall Patents and Licenses from the King enabling and authorising them in precise words to visit their Diocesse and execute Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and that only Nomine vicè autoritate Regis which they could not do without such Patents That no Bishop or Ordinary without a speciall Patent or Commission can or dares to visit any one of
plurimos Ministros sed impudentes Clericos sed raptores subditos Pastores ut dicuntur sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos quippe non commoda plebi providentes sed proprij plenitudinem vontris quaetentes Ecclesiae domus habentes sed turpis lucri gratia eas adeuntes rarâ— sacrificantes nunquam puro corde inter ALTARIA stantes Praecepta Christi spernentes suas libidines rebus omnibus implere curantes Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus usurpantes sed merito cupiditatis in Iudae traditoris pestilentem Cathedram decidentes Veritatem pro inimico odientes ac mendatijs ac si charissimis fratribus faventes Iustos innopes immanes quasi angues torvis vultibus consicantes sceleratos divites absque velo verecundiae respectu sicut coelestos Angelos venerantes c. Cuius 〈◊〉 CARBONE IGNITO DE ALTARI forcipe Cherâ—â—â—â— advcâ—o â—abia Isaiâ— inundata suâ—â— A Note vpon 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order Tending to search out the truth in this Question Whether it be Lavvfull for Church-Covernours to Command indifferent decent things in the administration of Gods Worship VVritten by a judicious divine and pertinent to the matters debated in the Quench-Coale ALL I conceive that this place houldeth forth touching the point of Decency and Order may be summed up in these particulars 1. First that the whole Church and every member thereof are to performe all the duties of Gods worship in a decent orderly maner 2. Secondly what the Church and Members thereof are to doe in this kind That the Church-Governours may and ough to see it done Thirdly that it being the duty of Church-Governours to see that all things in the Cougregation be done decently orderly It is therefore their part in eminent measure to be able to discerne and judge what is decent and undecent what is orderly disorderly Now when I say it is their part I meane it is their duty Their place and authority requireth it not that they alwayes have a power and Spirit of discerning to judge a right in this case For it seemeth the High-Priest with the rest of his Brethren and Prophets yea and David himselfe all of them thought it decent to bring backe the Arke of the Lord upon a New-Cart which afterward David himselfe saw and confessed it was not done after due order 1. Chron. 15. 13. From whence it appeareth since they also are subject to errours in this kind that it will not be safe for them to judge and declare the decency of things by no better a rule then their owne wisdome judgement pleasure But even they also as well as the people must be guided by such rules as the Holy Ghost directeth us unto in this case which are the holy and infallible Scriptures and with Scripture Nature and Civill-Customes Yea and I willingly also admit the lawfull Custome of the Church or Congregation in which a man liveth For to judge of Decency by all these Rules we have warrant in Scripture as 1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Cor. 11. 14. 16. And indeed they who are to approve themselves in all their proceedings as Paul dia and as all Church-Masters ought to doe to every Mans conscience in the sight of God ought to be seriously guided by these patterns It is not fitt for them I say to give for the ground of their proceedings their owne wisdome and pleasure but it be hooves them to justifie their doings therein froÌ„ such rules as every good Conscience may see approveable 2. Cor. 1. 12. 13. Fourthly lastly this place in hand houldeth-foarth also farther this truth that whatsoever thing the Church seeth by those former rules to be indifferent and decent or which Church-Governours shall by these rules declare so to be those things may and ought lawfully to be done For farther clearing whereof and the better describing of the power of Church-Governours in these matters It may be observed that of decent things lawfull to be done in Gods Church some are Indifferent and decent As to preach in a Gowne or Cloake whereof the one is no more necessary or expedient then the other But now they are become Laudable Ceremonies whereas before they were but Ceremonies alone Now are they become necessary rites godly Institutions seemly ordinances when as afore they had no such names Iohn Bales Image of both Churches on Apoc 13. f. 108. 1. 2. Decent and Expedient As to abide in single life or to enter into marriage Of which though marriage in time of persecution be indifferent yet single life is more expedient to prevent the troubles of the Flesh 1. Cor. 7. 3. Necessarie and decent either allwayes As a Woman to keepe silence in the Church Or at least Hic Nunc in some places and at some times so as the neglect thereof would be uncomely and unexpedient by light of 1. Nature 2. Scripture 3. Custome As a Woman to be unvailed in the Congregation in Easterne Countries so to abstaine from bloud whilst the eating of it was offensive to the Iewes Now for such things as are necessary and 〈◊〉 Church-Governours have power to give order and commandement concerning them As did the Sinod at Ierusalem touching those things which they called Necessary to wit Necessary during the time of the offence of the Jewes VVhich was necessary to be avoyded Acts. 15. 28. Of such things as are decent and expedient Church-Governours also have power 〈◊〉 declare the Decency and Expediency of them yea and to advise and perswade the practise of them But not to give an Order or Law to bind the people thereunto farther then themselves shall find it expedient and decent for themselves Thus in point of abiding in Single-life in time of the Churches Distresse the Apostle gives his advise and judgement 1. Cor. 7. 25. 40. Yea and perswaded to it for avoyding trouble in the flesh Vers. 26. 28. but would not bind them to it neither in point of Conscience nor of outward practiseâ— as having no command for it from the Lord V. 25. In which respect he calleth such a commandement if he had given it a Snare V. 35. And herein the power of the Church-Governours falleth short of the authority of Civill Magistrates who may in civill-matters make binding Lawes for any thing expedient for publike-weale which subjects are readily to submit 〈◊〉 1. Pet. 2. 13. But Church-Governours have not the like power in matters Ecclesiasticall to make binding Lawes for any thing expedient in the Churches behoofe unlesse Necessity be joyned with expediency Objection Against this it may be objected Paul had power to commaund Philemon that which was convenient Therefore he might make a Law commanding the Church some expedient decent things Answer It followes not For first it s one thing to give a Commaundement for once another thing to make a Law to bind One alwayes to doe the like Secondly it is one thing
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
they have once overswolm'd the bankes of due moderation or growen impudent and unrulie especially in Bishops Having thus represented to your Majesties Royall view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions give me leave I humblie beseech your Highnes to adde to these two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England 1. The first by Dr. then Mr. Iohn Cosens and his confederates Who Anno 1628. the same yeare your Majesties Declarations were published sett forth a Booke intiteled A collection of private Devotions or the Howers of Prayer Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprized and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained to countenance all which in the Title and Epistle of this Booke he writes That these Devotions of his were after this maner published by Queen Elizabeth and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority to witt in the Preces of Horary sett forth by her Royall Authority Anno 1573. VVhen as there is no Analogie at all either in matter forme or method between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty nor any of his points of Popery in them as hath been proved by two particular Answers to his Devotions in print Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed but publikely sold among us approved by a Bishops license and now reprinted to abuse your Majesties poore Subjects encourage Papists and scandalize that ever-blessed pious Queen as the Authour and Patronesse of his grosse Popery An abuse not tollerable in a Christian State 2. The second is as bad or worse Anno 1631. One Iohn Ailward not long before a Popish Priest published a Booke intiteled An Historicall Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning Gods Election Affirming the Errours of the Arminians to be the Iudgement and Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes This Booke though written in professed opposition to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles to Suppresse Arminianisme yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppresse the truth was licensed by Mr. Martyn then Chaplaine to the Bishop of London now Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The whole Booke except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Coppy ef an Answer to a Letter wherein the Answerer purged himselfe and others from Pelagian Errours c. This Master-peece forsooth is pretended to be sett out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeths raigne by publike Authority and the Doctrine then taught and professed When this new Booke was printed no Coppies must come abrode as the Stationer then affirmed before the Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty and gained your Royall approbation thereof Not long after this it flies abrode ouer all the Realme to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects One of them comming to that learned Knights hands Sir Humphry Lynde better read in Fathers and Popish Authours then English Antiquities he was so much stumbled and greiued at it that he presently repaired with it to a Gentlemans study of his acquaintance Telling him there was a new Booke freshly published which proued the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians and that this was the Doctrine publikely taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne Saying withall it would doe infinite harme and desiring him to take some paines to answer it The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Booke but he presently discovered the grand Imposture Informing the Knight that this Coppy of a Letter c. was written by one Champenies whom Iohn Venon Divinity Lecturer of Paules in the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth expresly affirmed to be then a ranke Papist and a Pelagian and that in answer to this Verons Lectuâ— es of Predestination then publikely preached at Paules dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and printed by Authority in the second yeare of her Highnes raigne He likewise acquainted him that this Coppy of his Letter was printed about the third yeare of her Dominion without any Authours or Printers name thereto or place where or yeare when it was printed or any intimation at all that it was ever licensed All which were plaine evidences that it was printed in a corner without any license at all And whereas sayd he you desire a speedy Answer to it if you will give me but a paire of gloves I will show you two Answers to it already in print above â—0 yeares since by publike Authority and one of the first printed Coppies of this Letter to boote To which the Knight replied J am sure you doe but jest with me No sayd the other I am in good earnest wil you give me or wager a paire of gloves hereupon That answered he I will doe with all my heart Then sayd the Gentleman reach me hither those three Bookes he pointed to He did so The first was a Coppy of the Letter without name of Authour Printer date of time or place Which compared with that in this new Booke proved the same verbatim Now sayd the Gentleman you have seen the Originall I will shew you the Authour of it which he did in Verons Apology f. 37. and likewise two severall Answers in print The first by Iohn Veron himselfe fore-named intitled An Apologie in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and imprinted at London by Iohn Tisdale in the fourth yeare of her Raigne Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered The second by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Maries dayes Robert Crowly In his Apologie of those English Preachers and Writers which Cerberus the three-headed Dogg of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine under the name of Predestination Seen and allowed according to Her Majesties Injunctions and printed at London by Henry Denham Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in severall Sections and then answered Verbatim This Booke being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by publike Authority As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established When the Gentleman had shewed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Booke He likewise turned to some passages in Bishop Latymer which answered and cleared his words cited in this Booke from any such sence as it would fasten on them And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commaundements He shewed him first the Confession and Protestation of the Bishops Faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament and printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. Secondly A briefe and cleare Confession of the Christian Faith containing 100 Articles London 1584. Thirdly An Exposition upon certaine Psalmes London 1510. Jn all
abuses forgeries Innovations I answer that although it may prove dangeroos to me to nominate them in particular before your Majesty shall commaund me so to doe by reason of their over-swaying power Yet for your Majestiâ—s satisfaction herein who can judge of the Catt by her Claw I shall give your Highnes a Register of the names of some of the chiefe under-instruments by which you may easily discrie the heades and Grandes of this disloyall crew One of the first and chiefe instruments your Majesty in your Royall Declaration and Proclamation hath pointed out and nominated to my hands To witt Richard Mountague then Bachiâ—er of Divinity since that time punished with the fatt Bishopricke of Chichester for his notorious Schismes and Innovations whose Booke intituled Apello Caesarem published in the yeare 1625. as the words of your Highnes determine did open the way to those Schismes and Divisions which have since ensued in our Church For remedie and redresse whereof and for Satisfaction of the consciences of your good people your Majesty did not only by publike Proclamation call in that Booke of his which ministred matter of offence but to prevent the like danger for hereafter reprinted the Articles of Religion established in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory a plaine resolution that your Majesty intended to establish only the originall Coppy of the Articles confirmed in Parliament by Queen Elizabeth in which there is no such forgery or addition to the 20 Article as is before discovered not any other corrupted Coppy since and by a Declaration before those Articles did tie and restraine all opinions to the sence of those Articles that nothing might be left for private fancies and Innovations Yet notwithstanding this your Rayall care this Booke of his because not burn'd and the Authour rewarded advanced to be a governour in our Church before any publike recantation of his Errours is bought and sold And he not only in a new Latine Booke but likewise in a Court-Sermon at White Hall in Lent last in your Majesties Sacred presense forgetfull both of his duty and your Highnes Declaration hath presumed to plead not only for a Limbus Patrum bowing to Altars and rayling in Lords-Tables Altarwise but likewise for Altars Priests and unbloody Sacrifices offred upon Altars toe in professed defiance to this your Declaration For which some of your Majesties Courtiers who heard his Sermon then openly protested that he deserued to be hanged up in White Hall gate it were a goodly signe the signe of such a Bishops skin and Rochet thus exalted and that they wondred how the Arch-Bishops could sit by and heare such a Sermon and not commaund him out of the Pulpit So insolent is this first grand Agent growen because not punished but preferred for his first offences The next chiefe Fâ—ctor is Dr. Iohn Cosens whom I have formerly nominated a man likewise much honoured enriched aduanced euen to your Majesties service and the next in some mens voyce to be recommended to a Bishopricke if your Majesty reserve not the disposition of Bishoprickes to your selfe but suffer others to have a finger in their disposall and all for the good Seruice he hath done the Church of Rome the affronts he hath offred to the Church of England and using such reproachfull words against your Majesties Supremacy for which another happily might have had his head and quarters aduanced as high as London bridge ere this in Leiw of all â—ther preferments The happy successe of these two leading Instruments hath since encouraged many others to the like attempts as Dr. Lawrence Mr. Robert Shelford Priest Mr. Edmond Reeue Dr. Iohn Pocklington Dr. Peterâ— Heylin the Authour as most conclude of A Coale from the Altar Chownaeus and others in late printed Bookes and Sermons in hope of like preferments to broach many Arminian and Popish Doctrines Ceremonies Innovations coÌ„trary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England and in high contempt of your Majesties Declarations Which Bookes were licensed by William Bray and William Harwood Chaplaines to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that now is by Samuel Baker and Mr. Weekes Chaplains to the now Bishop of London and by Dr. Beale late Vice-Chancellour of the University of Cambridge Yea one of them denying your Majesties Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastiaâ—all and affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church and not have erred in fundamentals even in the worst times dedicated to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was liceÌ„sed by his Chaplaine William Harwood yea justified publikely by the Arch-Bishop in the High Commission in the Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Quid facient Domini audent cum talia Servi When the Chaplains dare license such Doctrines Bookes and Novelties by their Lords Authority it is much to be feared that their Lords themselves dare doe as much or more then this amounts to If your Majesty will but inquire of these new Authours and Licensers who are the men that cherish and countenance them By whose Privity and Authority they have presumed to attempt the writing and Licensing of such Bookes you may easily by these Rivulets trace out the Fountaines from whence all these Enormities Corruptions Forgeries and Innovations flow And if you shall vouchsafe with all to cast your Royall eye upon the Remonstrance touching the encrease of Popery Arminianisme and the decay of Religion presented to your Majesty by the Commons house the last Parliament it is a thousand to one but you will soone discover the very parties not only by guesse but by name Besides if your Majestie will once more cast your prying eye upon the late Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Bishop Peirce Bishop Monntague and other your Prelates and Arch-Deacons visiting in their owne names and by their owne Authority Or cause a diligent inquiry to be made in all places where Altars Images Crucifixes bowing to Altars Tapers rayling Communion-Tables Altar-wise reading Second-Service at the Altar Consecrations of Altars Churches Chappels are introduced urged and many godly conformable Ministers excommunicated silenced suspended persecuted for not submitting to these with other such Innovations and New-Doctrines By whose Authority and commaund these things are done and inforced Or by what Authority some Schollers Ministers and Lecturers have been refused to be admitted to holy Orders Benefices and Lectures for not subscribing to certaine New-Doctrines Ceremonies underhand propounded to them And with all take this into your Royall consideration that in three late printed Treatises Arch-Bishops Bishops and Cathedrall Churches are made the Originall Patternes by which all other Persons and Churches must be regulated in these very Innovations Your Majesty without any further helpe or character may infalliblie discover both the roots the fountaines and Seminaries from whence all the premises issue More particular light then this is neither yet safe for me to give nor necessary for your Majesty to require
into our Church againe yet secretly by degrees with as little noyse as might be by those severall Stratagemes and meanes which that cunning-pated Iesuite Adam Contzin in his Booke of Politickes printed at Mentz Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose Which they prosecute and follow to an haires-breadth To effect this Plot the better according to the Popes consultation and direction in his Conclave they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Bookes Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard have now under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kinde quite silenced the truth itselfe Being now publikely printed and preached every where without controll contrary to his Majesties Proclamation concerning the inhibiting and calling in of Mountagues Booke which led the Dance in his Declaration before the 39. Articles And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates contrary to his Majesties pious intention to suppresse the truth and bring those into trouble who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenents either by printing or preaching Next after this they began to crie up practise and enjoyne mâ—ny superstitious Popish Ceremonies especially bowing at the name of Iesus both in time of Divine Service and Sermons to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes with adoration of the Sacramentall bread and wine Which Ceremonie getting head by violence many suffring for opposing it and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it though not prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images Altars yea Crusifixes in Churches directly contrary to our Homilies To call Lords-Tables Altars To turne them Altar-wise or into Altars and bow downe unto them And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose they next begin to tearme themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priestes Yea Priestes to dance attendance on these new Altars both in their Sermons Bookes and VVritings VVhich being done but secretly in corners as every Evill is bashfull at first and creepes up but by degrees these new devises also gotâ— ground by litle and litle some potent Bishops setting them on and countenancing them under hand Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere And having thus by publike Censures and these underâ—and Devises given open countenance to them and disheartned people from opposing them they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages Altars Priestes turning of Communion-Tables Altar-wise bowing to them and at the name of Iesus reading of Second Service at them standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell c. and that not only in the Pulpit but in the High-Commission and in print setting some shallow-pated fellowes as Giles Widdowes Reeve and Shelford in the fore-front to breake the Ice to see how the people would relish them And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while and the strangenes of the things was almost vanished seconding them with others of better note and parts to give greater Countenance to them that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations VVhich being thus once pleaded for in print our Bishops the chiefe Plotters and fomenters of them begin first more covertly under-hand by way of persuasion and intreatie and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptorie commaund one pragmaticall impudent Prelate giving the first onset and then others seconding him in their fore-plotted order to enjoyne all these Innovations Popish Practises and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocesse And now they are growen so impudent as to excommunicate suspend yea Censure in the High Commission all such Church-wardens and Ministers who out of Conscience towards God Obedience to his Majesties Lawes and Declarations or love to Religion dare oppose or not subâ—â—ie unto 〈◊〉 many Church-wardens being excommunicated for not 〈◊〉 in the Table Altarwise And many Ministers suspended excommunicated put from their Livings if not field 〈◊〉 imprisoned too especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop 〈◊〉 Diocesse for not bowing to the Altar and as the names Iesus not reading Second Service at the High Altar 〈◊〉 Lords-Table for opposing the rayling in of the Table Altar-wise without Lawfull Authority or preaching against or not yeelding to these Popish Proceedings VVhich have lately gotten such head in most places that now all thing except Latine Service are prepared for the Masse in many Churches which added to these Novelties will make us perfect Papists For we have Altars with Altar-clotheâ—â— Tapers Bisons and other Romish furniture on them Priestes Crucifixes bowing to Altars coming up to the Altar and there kneeling downe to receive all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies Copes Organs Vestments especially in our Cathedrals which now must be Patternâ— of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocesse all which being but meere Preparations for the Masse how soone that also may steale in upon us if his Majesties pious care with other our Magistrates vigilancie and inferiour Minister out-cries who are over-silent in such an exigent prevent 〈◊〉 not with speed by these active hot-spurs machinations who have made such a swift progresse in all the other particulars which they impudently presse and justice with braâ—eâ— faces and obdurate hearts not fearing already to stile thâ— Lords Supper an unbloody Sacrifice the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and to maintaine a corporall presence in the Eucharist I feare to divine And when Masse is once installed and sett up the next thing these Novellers are to effect Popery wil be perfectly restored with it and then face well all our Religion which we have enjoyed with all externâ— peace and felicity attending it Now 〈◊〉 it is plaine according to the moderne Papists and these Innovatours Doctrine that there can be no Masse without an Altar or Super-Altar No Altar but at the East end of the Church as remote from the people as they he for the better officiating of private Masse And neither Masse nor Altar without a Sacrifice a Sacrament of the Altar and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it The oppugning of these Innovations the immediate Harbengers and fore-runners both of Masse and open Poperie without which there can be no Masse and Poperie can never get head among us and by conniving at which without â—â—ong and sodaine Opposition both Masse and Popery the things principally aâ—med at without which these other are to no purpose will presently perke up and get quiet possession among us to the utter overthrow of our Religion must needs be of great consequence 〈◊〉 know that when a Ciety is beleaguerd whiles the 〈◊〉 and Out workes are safe and defended the Citty is in no danger of surprisall But if the Enemies once get them all is in danger to be lost Our Lords-Tables Ministers Lords
middest of all the people Thus this Jewell of the Church From whose words it is apparant that the Communion Table in the Apostles times and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ stood in the middest of the Church or Chancel not at the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches beinge thus placed in his time Which bookes of his beinge A defence both of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England against the Papists Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie that men of our owne Church as they pretend should bee soe impudent as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him and justifie the Papists doctrine is a cleere demonstration to mee That by the very doctrine and practice of the Church of England the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVNCELL especially when the Sacrament is administred and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell like a Dresser a side Table or Popish Altar to the end it maye not bee thence removed and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The namelesse Author of the Coale from the Altar takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell yea then Bishop Baâ—ington D. Fulke M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers is bold to write without blushinge That the authorities of Eusebius Augustine Durandus and the 5. Councell of Constantinople doe not prove that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church or Chauncell that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge and shapes severall answeares for to shift them To that of Eusebius hee sayth This proves not necessarily that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church or in the middle of the same as the Epistoler doth intend when hee sayth the middle The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall yet it maye bee well interpreted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South as since it hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the middest of the Temple the better to conforme unto them To which I answeare 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell that is sayth he in the East end of it or in the middest of the East end as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe or the midst of it the middest of the Church or Chancell But these beinge distinct and different things the midst of the Church or Chancell can bee not more interpreted to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them then the East wall or midst of the East end of the Quire can bee the midst of the Church So that this evasion is but a meere nonsence Bull And had Eusebius intended any such thinge he woulde have thus expressed himselfe that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire not in the midst of the Church or Quire and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving 2. I answeare that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied and not only soe but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other one denyinge that it was in the midst the other confessinge and provinge the contrary Nowe whereas hee writes that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria I answeare that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest The greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it and havinge the Altar in the midst like this In the edifying whereof Paulinus Bishop of Tyre whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts was the chiefe meanes and director And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes either before or not long after this wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise as nowe they are situated which hee can never doe I shall take it as a generall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell That which hee adds that it was done perchance to please the Jewes is but his owne fancie no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge And admitt it true yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple though not out of any Iewish fancie or conceit but by Gods owne direction is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe then any Popish Altars fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire only by a bold Friers or Popes direction without Reason Scripture president or divine direction to warrant it To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople he replies that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth signifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar soe as there was no parte thereof that was not compassed by the people noe more then if a man shoulde saye that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne and all his Nobles about him it needs or could bee thought that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare First That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Circle as hee confesseth soe the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle and to hemne it in on every side If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill as all must acknowledge good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence and not improperly 2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.
them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâ—edecke or any of Christs Tribe Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it and that those Archbishops Bishops Preists and Ministers who will needs have set up Altars plead write dispute for Altars likewise waite on serve give attendance at the Altar are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal of their Tribe not Ministers of Iesus Christ nor any of his sacred Tribe none of which gave any attendance at the Altar This is the Apostles reason inference the very drife of his argumentation not mine let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it and evade or answer it as they may 6. Christians have no such sacrifices incense-offrings or oblations which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar All their Sacrifices now as prayer prayse liberality to the poore mortifying their lusts the offring up of their soules and bodyes â—living Sacrifice unto God are spirituall requiring neither a Preist much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hâ—sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâ—or 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. as Bishop Hooper and King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue Therfore they neither have nor ought to hâ—re any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine or the Lords Supper itselfe and a meanes to consecrate them This reason is fully warranted by our Saviours owne resolution Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty Yee fooles and blind for whether is greather the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they even as Christ our spirituall altar consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sacrifices Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine or the Lords Supper itselfe though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it and when they have the Sacrament itselfe in their hand to which they give no such adoration imply it to be so or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it for what need then any prayer or words of consecration therfore it is no Altar 8. Every Altar was and ought to be dedicated solemnly consecrated unto God with speciall oyntments sprinkling of blood and solemnities specially the Altar of incense and attonement and those Altars placed in the Temple else they were not to be used or reputed Altars Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to â—0 c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10 c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others of which more anon But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated nor solemnely dedicated sprinkled enoyled neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God or of our Church and State Therfore they neither are nor can be Altars 9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists and to usher Popery Masse Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting defiling of Gods house Sâ—crament the setting up of grosse Idolatrie must needs be sinnefull unlawfull to be abandoned of us But the erecting of Altars in our Churches the calling of Communion Tables Altars and turning of them Altarwise so reading second service administring at them will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists will usher Popery Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe c. as Bishop Hooper others forequoted authorities evidence and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull unlawfull to be abandoned of us now as they have been heretofore both in King Edward the 6. in Queen Elizabeths dayes 10. That which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive Church for above the 250. yeares after him either had or used in their Churches administration of the Sacrament that we who ought to imitate their example 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6. ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches But neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitive Church in her purest times for above 250. yeares after Christ either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. his Counsell against Altars Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table and not at an Altar as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion the comming unto the Lords Supper and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion Wherfore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church then the forme of an Altar therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale and some what blurred obseured I shall produce some few authorities to cleare it The third part of our owne incomperable Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie confirmed both by Statute the Articles of our Church and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us That all Christians in the Primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also Aâ—nobius doe
the Primative Church But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ the Sonne of God and of the virgine Mary of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner Heb. 13 We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate which serve in the Tabernacle Our Altar is not of stone but of God Not Worldly but Heavenly not visible but invisible Not dead but living upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Father it can none otherwise be but most thankfully and most acceptable And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body blood to his Disciples sat downe at the Table So likewise his Giustes that is so say his Apostles sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except they first of all kneele downe with great humility reverence that they may by this their gesture declare shew evidently to such as are present that they worship honour that bread for a God which is so great so notable wickednesse as none can exceed when it is plaine evident by the ancient writers that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table So farre is it of that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up or after the custome of the Papists kneeled when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body blood of Christ. So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus Father What thinkest thou is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table or at an Altar Sonne At a Table Father Why so Sonne For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table And what can be more perfect then that which Christ and his Apostles have done All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table Ye can not be partakers sayth he of the Lordes Tables and of the Devills also Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ almost 300. years after Christ universally and in some places longer as Histories make mention So that the use of Altars is but a new invention and brought in as some write by Pope Sixtus the second of that name Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God to offer Sacrifice upon them But all those Sacrifices doe now cease for they were but shadowes of things to come therfore the Altar ought to cease with them Christ alone is our Altar our Sacrifice our Preist Our Altar is in Heaven Our Altar is not made of stone but of flesh blood of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars while they had such confidence in them that without an Altar or in the stead thereof a Super-altare they were perswaded that they could not duely truly and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar likewise must be consecrate have prints and charactes made therein washed with oyle wine and water be covered with a cloth of hayer and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes other costly apparell or els whatsoever was done thereon was counted vaine unprofitable The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresie which the Papistes hold concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse while they teach that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe and cast out of the Temples of the Christians then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal So far is it of that they be meet to be used at the Celebration of the Lords Supper Finally who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table not to offer bloody Sacrifices to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars but to eate and drinke and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father yea and that once for all Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies soules who seeth not that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper then an Altar Father Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table Shall we receave those Holy mysteries kneeling standing or sitting Sonne Albeit I know confesse that gestures of themselves be indifferent yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded as have outwardly any appearance of evill according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce And first of all forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament thorow the doctrine of the Papistes although of it selfe it be indifferent to be or not to be used yet would I wish that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers Father Why so Sonne For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God then gave they in Commandment streight wayes that all people should with all reverence kneele unto it worship honour it And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God and Saviour Whence M. Roger Cutchud in his 1. 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio Anno 1560. writes Many comming to the Lords Table doe misbehave themselves so doe the lookers on in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling bowing their bodies knocking their breasts with Elevation of their hands If it were to be elevated served to the standers by as it hath beene used Christ would have elevated it above his head He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples bidding them to eate it not to hold up their hands
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â— E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ— shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ— this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâ—ented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved rectified supplied before a new Parliament might be called to d ee it or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament All which questions in conveniences defests would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified without any need of future alierations Rites or Ceremonies or continuing this power to her Heyres Successors which are purposely omitted in this clause This appeares most clearly by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes HER HEIRES and Successors and though the 2. clause saith that he who shall be convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles omitting her Heires abolissing all forraigne power repugnent to the same and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors their Commissioners power only to punish all Heresies Errors Scismes contempts offences Abuses enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes Statutes not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes so new He resies Errors Ecclesiasticall offences not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or Inâ—isdiction before These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld And here I wonder much that the Colier should alleadge and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. which enacts that all Ecclesiasticall power together with all such Iurisdictions priviledges superiorities preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State persons for reformation order correction of the same and of all manner Errors heresies scismes abuses offences contempt enormites shall for ever by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme c. was not an Jntroductions of a New Law but confirmative of an old annexing no newâ— but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State persons be as he truly confesseth for ever united to the Crowne to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name appoint from time to time only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe I wonder with what faces our arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in from by under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall correct vice sinne what soever to all such persons as his Majestey to witt by speciall Patent Commission shall appoint thereunto As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis can or dare affirme their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters Patents or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale to keepe visitations Consistories to make and imprint visitation Oathes Articles in their owne names impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names rights or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales in they owne names alone not his Majesteyes contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne Dioces had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne dignity and his Loyall subjects Liberties or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute this grand objection to maintaine his Altars new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction The S. Objection is this That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity the matter shal be referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church and there it ought to stand I answer first the Argument followes not For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing but only when and wher there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parrish concerning the use practise of the said Booke not whenâ— and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire all taking it for granted that it ought not so to be placed but to stand in that place manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation â— time all most out of mind till now Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place where there is or can be none touching the placing of the Lords Table the Ordinary in this case can not must not make any innouation but order that it must stand in that place forme as was at first ordained by the Queeâ—es Commissioners where it stood ever since it being his Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall especially when the Sacrament is administred is contrary to these Books the Queenes Jnjunctions Canons writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause but is expresly prohibited by it so to doe The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quierâ—
as in the places fore-cited so in his Defence against Gâ—egory Martin writes thus The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT AND NOT AGAINST A WALL AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand which is easy to prove and hath often times been proved and it seemes sayth he to Martin of the Papists you confesse as much VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton who concurs both in words and judgement with him in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Survis Crab Binius and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE round about the Altar as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture other authours as Bishop Iewel Bishop Morton both resolve I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuite Vasquez more moderate then many of our Novellers Nihilominus certum est c. Although there be many Authours to witt of late time which he there cites for the placing of Altars towards the East Yet it is certaine that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars but likewise the High Altar and Quires and Chancles too which he there speakes of towards other climates or parts of the world For this tradition how-ever some urge it as necessary and a binding Law non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt It is not of the number of those traditions which have been left unto us under any precept VVhich he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus Strabâ— adding out of Nicephorus that men have diveâ—sly ordered those things in former times Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates wherein the Altar stood westward it being free for Christians in these things vel hanc vel illam consiâ—â—tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the siâ—uation of their Altars Lords Tables and Quires Much more theâ— to rayle in or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar-wise at the East end of the Quire or to come up to the rayle as Bishop Wreâ— will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles to receive contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive but only to offer as is evident by Concilium Toâ— et â—â—um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communiceâ— Extra Chorum populus Concil Eluber Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist 52. Innocentius 1. Epist. 22. Niciph Eccles Hist â— 12. c. 41. Chamir l. 9. de Coena Domini c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge p. 391. with others forequoted And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire the men on the one side the women on the other side and there to receive And likewise King Iames his Proclamation new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established c. it being necessâ—ry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States for that such is the unquietnâ—sse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions as Wren other Novellors and the Colier now affecting every yeare new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established is the Weals of all Common Wealthes which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon QVESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours is this VVhat Statute Canon Scripture Anâ—iquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoâ—ation or only a civill worship And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist bowing and practise of adoring Altars Crucifixes Crosses and Images which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie This Question is Tâ—â—partie and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it beginning with the first branch thereof Law Canon Injunction Constitution of our Church enjoyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie I never yet met with any no not in times of Popery except that of Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes in the Vniversity of Cambridge fore mentioned Scripture there is not any direct in point only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose As 1 Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship towards thy holy Temple The nearest texts they can ciâ—e for their purpose and yet farre enough from it For what Logician will not deride this argument David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple worshipped that is prayed towards it Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches must bow downe to the Table or Altar VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument What beast had he reason would thus dispute Had they hence inferred Ergo we must alwayes adore bow downe to or worship God towards not in our Churches and Chaples This had been a more probable inference though unsound Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only which is vanished Not towards their Synagogues of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours then of the Temple which was but one not many and that a type of our Saviour abolished shortly after his death nor of our Churches built long since after another forme and to an other purpose then it But to answer the texts fully 1. First the worship towards the Temple here mentioned was not bare bowing downe of the body only as these Novellers dreame to or towards it or the Altar or Temple but a praying towards it as is evident by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer 2. Secondly it was a worship towards the Temple only not towards the Altar in the Temple And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table For the Church or Chapple
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
c. But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations that it was not so from the beginning here unto we claime but your owne common confessions Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly absteine from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos Altar So your Cardinall Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar used by the Apostle Paule Hebr. 13. But also themselves who from S. Luke Acts. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both absteined and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice And againe your Iesuite Lorinus In Acts. 14. 22. de Saâ—erdote Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith he absteined from the word Sacerdos as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament So he vvherefore this and the English word Priest hauing a different relation one to a sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter in the New Testrment which is Senior and hath no relation to a sacrificing function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as the patching of old vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason Least that say they the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish ritâ—s Which is enough to shew that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Reasons Thus he and much more against Priests And against Altars likewise he hath sundrie passages p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing seemes not to be his Here againe I cannot but admire that these tearmes of Priests Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers together with Altars Sacrifices themselves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1â—35 should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford Widdowes Reeve and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke against the Bishop And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar which this Bishop out of Aquiâ—as the Diuines of Colen Bellaâ—mine himselfe and Estâ—us proves 〈◊〉 be ment of it but only of Christ himselfe or of the Altar of the Grosse p. 416. 417. I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the Bâ—shops booke Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds These Reasons I say enduce me to beleeve that this is not the Bishops passage But that which doth must prevaile with me is this the sottishnes of the difference reason and proofes therein alledged which savours neither of his judgement learning nor acurenes All which I shall now examine 1. First the partie here puts a difference betweene Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table and Papists which sayth he is three fold First in the cause or reason of this bowing Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or towards the Altar out of any relation to or occasion dravvne from the Altar Though Cardinall Pooles Visitoâ—s in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes But Protestants bow towards the Table to testify the CommunioÌ„ of all the faitâ— full communicants thereâ—â—t Secondly in the Object â—apists bow to the Eucharist Protestants to the Lord of the Table not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly in the time Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon The second difference makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one For they bow not to the Eucharist or consecrated bread and wine See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. But as they apprehend and beleeve it to be the very body bloud of Christ yeâ— Christ himselfe both God and man And so to him which these Protestants termes the Lord of the Tablâ— Therefore the object of their bowing at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine is both one And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions The first and lâ—st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiâ—nes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie all drawne from the Table and M. Shelfords distinction See his Sermon of the Church p. 79. that it is not terminativum cultus sed MOTIVUM But the Papists have so much piety and religion in them as neither to make it one or other bowing towards it ONLY to adore the Eucharist Secondly the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Châ—ist himselfe as they beleeve is really present on it At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by â— or done unto the Altar But our Novellers out stripping the Papists how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances And when â—s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoyne them so to doe A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table but to the Table and Altar it selfe Therefore their bowing is farre worse more unreasonable absurd then the Papists in these two respects 3ly The Papists bow thus Bishop Morton Ibid. only to adore their breaden God terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table And why so What to worship or honour him therebyâ— No such matter But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table Such a peece of new divinity as J never read the like except in some Popish Masse bookes to witt Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum their Ladies Psalter Primer c. which teach their Proselites to pray to God to move
vertues make a compleat Quire Wouldest thou therefore like the Gentiles build an Altar and yet not as did these Athenians to the unknowne God VVhy see matter and stuffe prepared to thine hand the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation Christ himselfe for the chiefe Corner-stone Wouldest thou lay it over with pure refined metall VVhy see the word of God it is like Gold 7. times purified in the fire VVouldst have a Beast to slay Mortify and kill thy beastly affections which otherwise would kill thee VVantest thou a knife to kill them Take the Sword of Preaching not into thine hand but into thy heart that is it which is sharpâ—r then a two-edged sword cutteth to the dividing and separating of soule and Spirit Are all these things prepared and lackest thou yet fire to consume them VVhy zeale must be that fire without which all these will profit thee nothing O beloved if these were the Sacrifices of the Romanists or these the Altars of Papisme I vvould change my speech and most heartily request you to joyne hands with them and let the seamelesse coate of Christ to suffer rupture and division no more between us No longer should thy blessed name sweet Iesus beare reproach among the uncircumcised infidels for our seperation but if their Altars be but the Popes Exchequers and the Priests but like the Publicanes which sit there at the receit of custome Goe out of Babylon let us treate no longer with her upon Articles of agreement What Erasmus saith of the Altars of our time the same verdict S. Bernard gives of the Altars of his time by the hight of such sumptuous and wonderfull vanities saith he men are more incited to offer then to adore Thus riches are swallowed up by riches thus mony drawes in mony because I know not by what meanes but so it is where men see most there are they most willing to give On Altars therefore is presented the beautifull portracture of some Saint and it is thought so much the more holy by how much the more beautifull Men runne to kisse it they are invited to enrich it and more are astonished at things curious then inclined to adore things religious O vanity of vanities and yet not greater vanity then madnes the Church abounds in the Walls and wants in her poore She cloathes her stones with gold and leaves her Sonne naked to the cold the maintenance of the poore serve to satisfie the eyes of the rich the curious find matter to delight them the distressed find no bread to sustaine them But are these the devotions which Rome so vaunteth of Well might S. Austin in Psalm 43. 49. then wish those of his time to forbeare Sacrificing Altars if this be all the fruit of them Alas he shewes himselfe farre from alowing such impostures saith he If thou hast a fat Bull reserve him not for the Altar as if Iewish or Gentilish Sacrifices were in use but kill him for the poore though they cannot drinke the bloud of Goates yet they caÌ„ eate the flesh of Bulls and he which said unto thee If I hunger I will not tell it thee will then tell thee I was hungry and thou gavest me to eate But what Altar then would he have us to erect to God What Sacrifices thinkes he ascend best pleasing in his sight Why he turnes us to the Psalmist Offer unto the Lord the Sacrifice of praise an humble and a contrite heart shalt thou not dispise So then wouldest thou build an Altar VVhy the loftiest Altar thou canst build is a lowly heart VVouldest thou have something to offer see an oblation passing the bloud of Goates and Calves and Sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving VVell might we heare least God should have required something without us something in the house that the Mâ—thes had corrupted something in the Garner which the Mice or vermine had consumed Something in the Field which the Fox or Wolfe had devoured But he sends us to our selves and to our immodest Closet which none but God can unlocke saith Austin thine Altar is thy conscience offer thereon the Sacrifice of praise We are secure we goe not into Arabia for Frank incense neither doe we rip up the bowels of the earth for Stories to beautifie our Altars If Paul could find an Altar abroad Know Christians have it at home within their owne breasts If all these Authorities be not sufficient take but one more for all past all exception fresh in memory To wit the testimony of the reverend learned Prelate D. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Iustitution of the Sacrament set forth by publike Authority and approbation Anne 1631. and since 〈◊〉 Anne 1635. with enlargements Where L. 6. c. 3. Sâ—ct 8. p. 416. 417. and c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. if the latter be his Addition where thus he writes If furthermore wee speak of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. VVe have an Altar saith the Apostle whereof they have no right to eate that serve at the Tabernacle This some of you greedily catch at for proofe of a proper Sacrifice in the Masse See the Rhemists in their Annot. upon the place Mr. Breerly in his Booke of the Liturgie Tract 3. Sect. 3. Sub. 4. and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas expounding the place to signify either his Altar upon the Crosse or else his body as his Altar in Heaven Mentioned Apocal 8. and called the golden Altar Aquinas istud Altare vel est Crux Christi 〈…〉 If we our selves should tell you how some one affirmeth that this Altar spoken of by 〈◊〉 the Apostleâ— is the body of Christ himselfe in Heavenâ— upon which and by which all Christians are toâ— often up their Spirituall Sacrifice of Faith Devotion Thankfulness Hope and Charity You would presently answer that this one ceaâ—ainely is some Lutheran or Calvinistâ— the words are so contradictory to your Râ—mish Gatbe not with standing you may find all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of 〈◊〉 Antididagm 〈◊〉 de Missâ— Sacrificie Post 〈◊〉 Habemus Altare Heb. 13. Et Apoe 8. Aureâ—m Altare in que per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrifitia fidâ—i devotionis gratiarum actionis Spei Charitatis Deâ— Patri debent offerre Atque it a sit ut Christus sit Altare Sacerdos Sacrificium August 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Besides your Argument drawne from the word Altar in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Souldier that your Cardinall was content to leave it behind him because many Catholikes saith he interpret it otherwise Bellaâ— Quia non desunt 〈◊〉 qui interpretantur 〈◊〉 vel de Cruce vel de Christo ipso 〈◊〉 L. 1â— de Missa c. 14. And indeed who is of so shallow a braine as not to discerne notorious conconscionablenesse of your disputers who confessing that the Apostles in their times did Abstain froÌ„ the words Sacrifice
of the Holy-Ghost binding all Christians even the Apostles as well as others Rom. 14. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him Ergo c. OBJECTION But if it be sayd here that this place speaketh only of private Christians not of Church-Governours Answer I answer The place speaketh of Christians private and publike seeing it reserveth and referreth the judgment of our Brethren in such like things not to publike persons but only to Christ Ver. 4. 10. Third Argument The third Argument or reason is this They who did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came they surely did not make Lawes and bind Christians to accommodate themselves to their judgements and practise in the use of things Indifferent But the Apostles of Christ and the Christians too in the primitive Churches did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came As appeareth from the Apostles Example 1. Cor. 9. 10. 21. 22. 23. To the Jewes saith he J became a Iew c. Ergo c. OBJECTION But here it may be objected though the Apostles rather chose to use their Liberty and their lenity then their authority in these indifferent things wheresoever they came Yet if they had pleased they might have used their Apostolicall authority in binding all Churches to their judgements and practise in such things Answer 1. Hereunto I answer first that doubtles if they had received any such authority they would in some placeÌ„ or other and at one time or other have claimed it and practised it For a sword never used rusteth in the scabbard And Frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum It is a true Axiome and pertinent to that we speake off 2. Secondly I say that the Apostle himselfe doth clear the point when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himselfe even to the weaknesses of Christians least he should abuse his authority in the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. 18. 19. 20. O that such Governours as plead so their Succession to the Apostles and doe challenge in sundrie passages of government Apostolicall authority would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolicall Spirit Fourth Argument Let a 4. Argument be this That if the Synod of the Apostles and Presbiters and Brethren of Ierusalem did reach their authority no farther theÌ„ to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoake burthen of Necessary things that only during the time while they continued Necessary Then may not any Succeding Synod reach their authority to lay upon the Church Commaundements and Canons of Indifferent things For this Synod at Ierusalem was and ought to be the patterne and president of all Succeeding Synods For Primum in vnoquoque genere est mensura reliquâ—rum And our Saviour teacheth us to refute abetrations from Primitive patterns with this Matth. 19. 8. Non sic fuit ab initio From the beginning it was not so But the Synod at Ierusalem reached their authority no farther then to lay Commaundements upon the Disciples only touching Necessary things Acts 15. 28. Necessary I say either in themselves as abstaining from Fornication or at least in respect of present offence as abstaining from blood c. And let me conclude this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his intercourse with the Apostle Peter about a matter of this kind If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe Indifferent things or Ceremonies of the Iewes Then other Church-Governours wil be as much blame-worthy for compelling Christians by Law by grevious ceÌ„sures to obserue the Ceremonies now in questioÌ„ though they were IndiffereÌ„t But the Apostle Paul tells us that Peter was to be blamed in this case Gala. 2. 11. 14. Ergo c. OBJECTION Now if any except thereat as some are wont to doe in this case and say that Peter was therefore blamed because the Ceremonies to which he compelled the Gentiles were not urged as things Indifferent but as Necessary to Iustification and Saluation ANSWER I answer This is but a meere evasion and will stand them in no stead For it is certaine Peter did not account them as necessary he knew the contrary nor did he so use them himselfe nor so compell others to them But knowing his Liberty for him a Iew to use them among the Iewes he used them when the Jewes came downe from Ierusalem out of a tender care to prevent their offence OBJECT But you will urge againe and say The false Teachers did urge them as necessary ANSWER I answer What then So did the Christian Iewes at Ierusalem yet Paul himselfe used them there Acts. 21. 23. 24. 26. 27. notwithstanding the corrupt opinion of worship and Necessity which they put upon them as much as ever did the false Teachers in Galatia OBIECTION Why then will you say did Paul blame that in Peter which he practised himselfe Answer He had indeed blamed Peter for that which he practised himselfe if he had therefore blamed him for practising such Ceremonies because they were urged by others with a corrupt opinion of Necessity and worship QVERE What was then the difference that made the practise of Paul lawfull in using the Ceremonies at Ierusalem and the practise of Peter unlawfull in using the same Ceremonies at Antioch ANSWER J answer The difference was this Though that corrupt opinion of the necessity of the Ceremonies prevailed alike in both places Yet the Ceremonies themselves had not the like warrant in both places In Ierusalem they were knowne to have been the Commandements of God and were not yet knowne to the Christian Iewes to have been abrogated and therefore at Jerusalem they had warrant from God to use them to avoyd the offence of the weake Iew there But at Antioch and in all other Churches of the Gentiles they were at best but things Indifferent as having never been commaunded of God there Whence it was that Peter saw his Liberty to forbeare them there at his first comming QVERE What was then the Sinne of Peter in resuming the practises of the Ceremonies there ANSWER His Sinne was double First the abuse of his authority in the Church for that unawares by his Example he compelled the Gentiles to the use of such Ceremonies as himselfe saw Liberty to forbeare amongst them And which having never been commaunded by God to them he had no power to impose on them His other sinne was the dissembling or concealing of his Christian Liberty which he should then then have stood upon when he saw the false teachers urge these Ceremonies upon the Gentiles as well as upon the Iewes to the prejudice of their Christian Liberty When things that are indifferent are commaunded to be done of necessity as now