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 repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1.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service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further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
Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Popâ— Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else Bâ—shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churchesâ— Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastâ—rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates aâ—d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iewâ—sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull â—itting and deâ—ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violeÌ„t Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their
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
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
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
apparell garnished with gold pearle precyous stone And because that he which should minister at that gorgeous sumptuous Altar should answer in some points to the glory thereof therfore it was devised that the minister also should have on his backe galant and gorgious apparell as an Amyce an albe a tunicke a girdle a fannell a stole a vestment c. whereof some were made of silke some of veluet some of cloth of gold yea those garnished with Angels with Images with birds with beastes with fishes with floures with herbes with trees and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man And all these things being before but voluntary greâ— afterward unto matters of so great waight importance yea unto such necessity that it was made a matter of conscience yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall Histrionicall Hickescorner like garments so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate as they use to say without these Popish robes is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne so farr is it of that these Missall vestures are now things of indifferency Wherfore in my judgment it were meet and convenient that all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls what concord is there between Christ and Beliall what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author which for brevity case I pretermitt Reverend M. Alexander Nowell in his Reprofe of Dormans profe printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. 66. writes thus Touching the name of Altars which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9. where we call it the Lords Table we have for us good authority First that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table and not at an Altar is most manifest except M. Dorman would have us thinke that men had Altars in steed of Tables in their private houses in those dayes but our Saviour expressely saying that the handes of him who should betray him were upon the Table taketh away all doubting Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam the Lord his Table Sure I am that M. Dorman all the Papists with him can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament for their Altars as I have alledged for the Lords Table they may goe therfore joyne themselves to the Jewes as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies so in Altars also as it seemeth indeed they would both become themselves and make us too Jewes rather then Christians If S. Basill some old writers call it an Altar that is no proper but a figurative name for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar so are our Sacrifices of prayer and thankgiving c. offred up to God at the Lords Table at it were an Altar But such kind of figurative speech can be no just cause to set up Altars rather then Tables unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars for that like phrase is used of them where it is sayed Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old Doctors doe call it the Lords Table usually truly without figure and agreably to the Scriptures Concerning the spirituall worship or service of God or Sacrifice if yow will seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill due to be done at the Lords Table which as a fore is noted he calleth an Altar it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table that is to say true repentaunce of heart which is as the Prophet calleth it Psal. 51. v. 19. a service a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God the offering up of our prayers prayses unto God which service and Sacrifice of prayse as the Psal. withnesseth Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God specially that Sacrifice of thankes giving most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table and to that Holy Sacrament having thereof a peculiar name being called with the Greekes Eucharistia to say thankes giving for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present doe offer up to Christ our Saviour in the memoriall by him selfe and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us Neither are our oblations or offrings to the poore lacking when we come to this Altar which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God where as yow Papists have no such thing but only the bare word Offertorium without any offring for the poore saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes and when any Dirige or Monthes mind did fall Thus yow se M. Dorman that we have even that same spirituall worship service and Sacrifice too if yow so will due to be done at this Altar that is to witt the Lords Table which S. Paul speaketh of here and any other Altar or service he meaneth not nor knew none And were yow not altogether to grosse S. Basill so oft speaking of spirituall worshipping and spirituall service might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service but a Sacrifice too which yet hath no need of your Altars framed to your selves upon this false phantasie that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes for the quicke dead with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body applied to the same which altogether is a false fable a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman The Scriptures Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse the one only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father by the which one oblation of the body of Christâ— a Sacrifice for our sinnes once for ever offered and no more to be offered by any man we be sanctified and made perfit Wherfore the Popish Preistes which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death as they doe teach thereby as much as in them lieth doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law the imperfection of which Sacrifices S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the
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
it selfe is neither 3. Thirdly it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple Not any genuflâ—ction or chringing to the Temple But this bowing of our Novellers is not simply towards but likewise to the Altar as Reeue D. Pocklington acknowledge Now bowing to and towards the Altar are in some respects two distinct things Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar 4. Fourthly this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture Improperly and Properly Improperly for a praying in some private place not only out of the Temple but even out of the sight and veiwe of it Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were whether in captivity exile or their owne Country 1. King 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts Properly For worshipping or praying in the Temple as 1. King â— 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sence and it will not avayle our Novellers David in his private devotions even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple did worship or pray towards it Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it or David did worship God towards that is in his Temple Ergo they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables and be mewed up within them by â—ike Popish authority are but frenticke ridiculous consequents Yet the best that can be drawne â—â—om these texts to justify these Ceremonies 5. Fiftly the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For 1. First they had a divine premission and authority if not a precept so to doe 2. Secondly a promise from God himselfe to heare graâ—â—â— their prayers made towards the Temple Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings Chronicles Daniel and the Psalmes Viz 1 King 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or â—â—wards Altars or Tables but a direct precept against it which many read at the Altar Table to witt the second Commaundement Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them extending as well to Tables as to Images Idols or any other creatures though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar Neither have we any promise of reward or of answering our prayers made to us for this cringing to Altars and Tables Their practise thereof warrants not ours 3. Thirdly the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe as Divines generally accord and that in many respects too tedious here to mention Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worship towards the Temple to teach them alwayes to looke forwards towards Christ which was to come in the flesh as to their only Sanctuary helpe and refuge in all conditions the only Mediatour and intercessour to whom they must pray the only High Preist Sacrifice Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple but never towards Synagogues Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables High Altars 4. Fourthly the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in and to put his name there where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God to meet to worship him and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King 7. 29. 30 c. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove that the High Altar or Communion Table is the speciall place of Gods presence the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in Sure the Scriptures informes us that VVHERESOEVER two or three Mat. 18. 20. are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the MIDDEST of them And thereupon commaunds us To pray EVERY where c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it as they doe 5. Finally the Jewes whether they were East West North or South from the Temple or it from them worshipped and prayed towards it But our Innovatours as they will have all Altars stand Eastward so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East and Altars standing towards the East These texts therefore with Davids worshipping towards the Temple on which they principally relie make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables which no Fathâ—r or Orthodox expâ—siter that I have seen ever deduced from the Scriptures Yea but if these doe not avayle them Mr. Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. acquaints us with some others that will as Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God and worship at his footstoole Eâ—go the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church is to bow to the Lords Table which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar and to worship God towards it Oh sencelesse Divinity and childish Logicke Who ever read of such distâ—acted inferences Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar Or had this footestoble here mentioned been the Altar or this worship a meere bowing of the bâ—dy towards the Arke or to it and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it there had been some shaddow of worshipping that is of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar but not of bowing to or towards it much lesse to or towards the Lords Table which is neither an Altar noâ— hâ—th any Analogie with the Altar nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul as this Dâ—eamer doteth as I have else where proved at large But since we read not in Scripture that David ever worshâ—pped or bowed to or towards the Altar And this sâ—o esâ—â—â—le here by his owne confeâ—â—on was the Arcke but by Davids owne expâ—sition Gods holy mountaine oâ— Hâ—ll Zâ—on Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping not a bowâ—ng but prayer Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie Yea but if these texts fall shâ—rt yet others come fully home as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl bowed themselves and worshipped Ergo Potlid Therefore we must bow downe and worshâ—p the Alâ—ar or Communion Table Had thâ—se either bâ—wed themselves to or towards the Altar the inference had been somewhat tolerable though
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
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
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