restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
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
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.
will needs turne 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19. 20. Hâ—br 7. 11. 12. 13. 14. Jewes or Gentiles or both in erectinge Altars must likewise imitate them in the scituation of their Altars or else reject their Altars as well as their manner of scituation in the middest which they refuse to followe For the third howe the Jewes Tables the Table at which our Saviour instituted the Sacrament were scituated It is apparant that they were so placed as that they usually sate round about them This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel sayd to Jesse send and fetch David for wee will not sitt ROUND till hee come hither so the Hebrewe and Margin read it and by Psalm 128. â— Thy children shal bee like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE Our Saviour and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lords supper sate round about the Table after the Jewish Custome as is evident by Matthew 9. 10 c. 26. 20. 26. 27. Mar. 14. 18. 19. 20. c. 16. 14. Luke 7. 37. 49. c. 11. 39. c. 22. 14. 27. 30. c. 24. 30. John 13. 12. 18. 23. 1. Cor. 10. 1â— 21. c. 11. 20. c. compared with the two former texts Hence Thomas Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 3. c. 2. p. 114. 115. writes thus In the dayes of our Saviour it is apparant that the gesture of the Jewes was such as the Romanes used The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were certaine bedds some tymes two some tymes three some tymes more accordinge to the number of the guests upon these they lay downe in manner as followeth each bedd contained 3. persons some tymes 4. sildome or never more If one lay upon the bedd then hee rested the upper part of his body on the left elbowe the lower part lyinge at length upon the bedd but if many lay upon the bedd then the uppermost did lye at the bedds head layinge his feet behinde the seconds backe in like manner The third or fourth did lye each restinge his head in the others bosome Thus John leaned on Jesus bosome Iohn 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circulare or round whence their manner of sittinge was termed Mesibah a sittinge ROUND and their phrase of invitinge their guests to sit downe was sit ROUND 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus hee with whom all the Rabines and Commentators on these texts accord So amonge the Romans the Tables were placed and the guests sate downe in the selfe same manner as they did amonge the Iewes as Godwyn in his Roman Antiquites l. 2. sect 3. c. 14. Records yea amonge most Nations in all their Feasts their Tables at which they sate downe to eate or drinke were ever placed in such sorte and with such a distance from the wall that the guests sate round about them And so are all the Tables placed here in England none ever seeinge a dyninge-Table placed like a side-Table against a wall in such sorte as our Communion Tables are nowe scituated in many places If then all Tables at which men eate drinke have ever both amonge the Iewes Romans our owne all other Nations been placed in the midst of the roome or in such sort that men might sitt round about them Why shoulde not then the Lords Table especially when wee eate and drinke the Lords supper bee placed in the midst of the Church or Chauncell in such sort that all the people maye sitt or kneel round and eate and drinke about it since Christ himselfe his Apostles when hee instituted this Sacrament had their Table thus situated and satt round it as all acknowledge Is not that order best which all Nations ages yea Christ himselfe his Apostles used And are not those both factious obstinately schismaticall whoe contrarie to the usage of all Nations ages our Saviours owne example will place the Lords Table Altar-wise like a dresser or side Table against the East wall of the Church as farr of as maye bee from the people that so none maye sitt receive neere it much lesse round about it that without all Reason sence or president undoubtedly they are yet such is the sottishnes pride superstitious wilfulnes of many of our domineeringe Prelates whose will is their only reason Religion Lawe that they will bee wiser then Christ then his Apostles then all the worlde besides no place seemes soe fittinge to them for the Communion Tables situation as that which is most unfitt the East end of the Chauncell wall against which one side of it must leane for feare of fallinge is there imprisoned impounded with railes barrs for feare of runninge awaye O Madnes ô folly whether are these mens witts sences fledd whoe are thus soe strangely frentike out of their overmuch learninge For the 4. How Communion Tables some tymes tearmed Altars improperly were placed in the Primitive Church The fore-mentioned passages of Eusebius Augustine the 5. Councill of Constantinople Bishop Jewell others assure us that they were placed in the midst of the Church or Quire not at the East end against the wall as they are now To these I shall add That Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus record That in the Church of Antioch in Syria the Altar stood not to the East but towards the West Walafridus Strabus records the same in expresse words further informes us that many did praye from the East to the West And that the Jewes where ever they were usually prayed towards the Temple at Hierusalem as Daniell did in greate Babell which stood East from Hierusalem as Esay 43. 5. Ier. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Mapps witnesse Soe that Daniell prayinge towards it turned his face directly West not East as our Novellers dotingly fancie whoe alleage his example for turninge their faces in prayer the buildinge of Chancells Chappell 's Churches Altars placinge Communion Tables and bowinge toward the East when as hee prayed Westward only and his example is quite opposite and point blanke against them and their superstitious easterly adoration derived from Necromancers and those heathen Idolaters Ezech. 8. 16. whoe worshipp the risinge sunne toward the East as D. Willet Synopsis papismi contr 9. qu. 6. Error 52. proves against the Papists And from thence Walafridus thus concludes Wee beinge instructed by these examples knowe that those have not erred neither doe they erre whoe either in Temples newly built to God or cleansed from the filthynes of Idolls have sett their Altars towards divers clymates accordinge to the opportunitie of the places because there is no place where God is not present for we have learned by most true relation that in the Church of Ierusalem which Constantâ—ne his mother built over the Sepulchre of our Lord of a wonderfull greatenes in a round forme in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon consecrated by Boniface by
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
as venerable as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table both in respect of matter use relation to God and Christ and divine institution undoubtedly they are therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers Shewbread Tables and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other 2. Chron. c. 4. 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe why was it not so for the Arke the Altar and shewbread Table heretofore why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple but in the West the midst of it or in the Court as the premises Manifest Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie no preheminenâ—ie or implements in them heretofoâ—e by divine appointment our Novellers can have little reason to pleade that they ought to have any such precedency honour or use nowe The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Tables Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells is because they are High Altars So Saelford Reeves and the Coale from the Altar and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them contrarie to the dialect of our Church after the Popish language This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise to bringe in Altars Preists bowinge to Altars kneelinge at and before them to adore the Hostia to which wee are already proceeded and in fine to sett upp publique and private Masses yea the whole body of Poperie againe For which these are immediate preparatives of which they are reall parts and adjuncts This and this only is the true undoubted cause all others meere idle pretences to delude the people why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates Churchmen who originally presse it not only the qualities doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every mâ—ns Conscience experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt but the things themselves compared with the historie of former tymes declare For if wee looke into the storie of the Church wee shall finde that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation was the pullinge downe of Altars and settinge upp of Communion Tables and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe upon which Masses presently were sayd Thus we reade that in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance Geneâ—a Basill Stransburge and other Cittie 's the first thinge they did was this they proclaymed that Masses ALTARS Images in all places shoulde bee abolished and there upon the Images and Altars with Ceremonies and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all About the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie which they had begun to cast of agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope and live and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth Whereupon they sayd lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls and ALTARS to which they all agreed sayinge let us soe doe yea and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye they beate downe the Images cast downe the ALTARS After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe their Images and ALTARS Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne gave order to pull downe Altars and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board and to procure one Godlie uniformity exhorted all his Diocesse unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture with the usage of the Apostles with the primitive Church and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings in abolishing of divers vaine and superstitioâ—s opinions of the Popish Masse out of the hearts of the simple which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar then of a Table as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture of the Lords Supper Hereupon I say he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse according to the King Councells instructions and consideration and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side And upon this occasion as it most probable he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS of breaking downe Altars registred by Bishop Bâ—le among other his workes though not now extant that I can find Not long before this John Hoper Bishop of Gloster afterwards a Martyr as was that worthy Ridley preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars and to move the King utterly to demolish them If question now be asked is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Christian people yea truly but none other then such as might be done without Altars and they be of 3. sorts The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence and liberality to the poore Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is the mortifying of our owne bodies and to die from sinne Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God we be no Christian men seing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars There should among Christians be no Altars And therfore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God that Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church lacked Altars For they knew that the use of them was taken away It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people they have of Sacrifices to be done upon Altars For as long as the Altars remaine both the ignorant
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
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
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of Common-prayer and Ordination of Ministers wherein there is not one syllable concerâ—ing any such consecrations nor any forme of prayer or service institâ—ted for all or either of them as there is for all other rites Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites Ceremonies Formes of Prayer and Consecrations then such as are comprised and prescribed in thâ—se two Bookes It is infallable that they have utterly abolished and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches Church-yards Chappels and Altars as Iewish Popish Superstitious or at least superfluous and quite excluded it out of our Church As for our Canons Homilies Iâ—junctions and Articles of Religion there is not in all nor any one of them inferred â—re title concerning these Consecrations Which condemne and exclude them by their silence The Homilies likewise have some glances against them For our writers Mr. Tyndall in â—is obedience page 136. 152. of a Christian man William Wraâ—ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox Iohn Bale B of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome Mr. Calâ—r hill in his booke against Marshall Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and deâ—â—ed those Consecrations as Superstitious Iewish Popish and Antichristian styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches Chappels and Altars invâ—nted only for profiâ—â— and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake And to name no more reverent Pilkirgâ—on seveaâ—ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to deligâ—â— the people but where the Gospell is preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are conâ—ent with an honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all It is written that God dwels not in Temples made with handes nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes but he is a â—spirit an invisible substance and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not in outward wordes only of the â—ippe but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart and the whoâ—e power of the mind earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone and timber but hath willed as to pray in all places and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse which is thought to be more in one place then in another All the Earth is the Lords and he is present in all places hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water to make one place more holy then the rest are no better then the Iewes deceaving the people and teaching that only to be holy which they have censed crossed oyled and breathed upon For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then
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
in his hist. of the Sabbath part 2. c. 7 8. a Treatise of Gods house p. 2. b Service Sacraments 1. a Shelford p. 2. 7. â— b Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. c Fox Acts monum p. 1703. d Ibidem p. 1211. e Fox Actâ— monum p. 1404. 1406. * Rerum Germanic Script m. 1. p. 5â—0 591. * Platina Nâ—col 3. * De Vitis pont Rom p. 68. 69. * See Thomas Beacons reliq of Rome Object 3. a Coale froÌ„ the Altar p. 30. 53. 54. Answer 1. b Se Orme â—ods Pagano-Papisâ— l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform Object 4. Se the Coale p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52. a The hom against the Perill of Idol Se p. 41. 42. 61 b An. Mel. Musoe print An. 1620. p. 24. * Sorde sepulta sua * Pingit religioâ—a lupam So the first Copy but the corrected as in the Text. Object 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer * 37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts Monum p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect 25. Answer 1. o Fox Acts Monuments p. 1404. 1406. p Dc Reâ—us Ecclesiasticis l. 4. c. 19. q Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. 1212. r Page 19. s Page 51. Alatitâ—dine t Page 23. 24. v Page 23. x Fox Acts monuments p. 1211. 1212. y Coale p. 20. 71. z Page 13 a 5. 6. E 6. 1. Ely â— 2. Fox Acts Mounments p 1211. 1212. Object 6. b Coale p. 22. Answer 1. c In their fore cited places words Object 7 d Coale p 58 59 60 61. c. Answer 1. e Bishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other k Cole pag. 62. 8 Object l Coale from the Altar pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuuated * Fox acts Monuments p. 1212. Answer 1. m Declaration before the 32 Articles concerning the dissolution of the Parleament p. 21.42 Object 9. n Coale from the Altar p 63 64 c Answer 1. o Bishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocesse Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels. p In their seueral visitation Articles * Doctor Heylyn as most giue out some Circumstances discover q Papc 21. 42. 43 * where 25. or 30. yeares makes a good Prescription * Who licensed it * Like a Persecutor not an Apostle * It seemes they come to Church with poluted hands sâ—inking soules that they thus needed water incense * One Preist can consecrate the Sacrament what need then 4. neither of them a Bishop contrary to the Canons to Consecrate the Altar It sermes the Altar is more holy then the Sacrament which hath but one to hallow it * Defiled belike with the very Consecration of the Altar have Altar-clothes * It s well they would allaw an afternoone sermon to grace this Dedication since they admit none their since * Quod Nota. * Quod Nota. * This was an holy Dedication of an Altar indeed belike it was to Bacchus not to God a Aquinas 1â— 2â— quaestioÌ„ 1. Artic 1. 2. 1â— Quaest 6. Ar 1. 2. b Aquinas 1â— 2â— Quaest 1. Ar. Iâ— Ar 32 â— 2. 2â— qu. 189. Ar 〈◊〉 c Aquinas 1â— 2â— qu. I. Art 3 qu 96 Art 1. 1. 2â— qu. 8. Art 2. So Occhum Scotus BonaveÌ„ture Aegydius DuraÌ„dus Lambard Medis Vil la Bacon all the Schoolmen Keckerman Zabarell Magyrus Ruuio all Logiciaha e GeÌ„ 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9. c. 2. 9. c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24. f Bellarm. de Missa I. 1. c. 2. Sum. Angelica Tit. Altar g Fox Acts Montiments p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sacrament p. 463. h MagnuÌ„ Chron Belgioâ—â—m i Thomas Beconlikeliques of Rome k Page â— l Homilie of the wor thy receiving of the SacrameÌ„t part 1. p. 198. Ediâ— 1632. m P. 200. q Col. p. â— 16. 17. r Colefronâ— the Altar p. 4. line 19. 20. s Epistle to the reader I am to advertise thee c. Thou wouldest take notice and so many doe that the RomaÌ„â— is the words of the Author t Of the Sacram. part 1. p. 198. u Which some scaÌ„dalously terme An unrevereÌ„s unseemly gesture as if Christ his Apostles were unreverent instituted received the SacrameÌ„t in an unreverent unseemly manner w In imitaâ—ion of Popish Preists whoâ—â— so title themselves in the fronts of their bookes * See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3. x B. Morton Ibid p. 415. 461 y D. Reynolds confer with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Testament Notes on Heb 7. c. 9. 10. z Heylyn Pocklinton others a B. Morton Instit. of the Sacrament â—6 c 3. b Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Morton his Institution of the Sacrament l. c. 3. throughout and in the proceeding and enseâ—ving â—hapters D Fulke and Mr. Cartâ—rigâ— in the conâ—utation of the Râ—em Testament on Hebr. 7. 8. 9 10. to the sameâ—â—â—pose c See Bis-MortoÌ„ his Institution of the Sacrament l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. throughout d Of the worthy receiving esteeming of the Sacrament p. 200. e 2 Tim. 4 1â— 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2 f 27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Recusantes Ieâ—uites Seminary-Preistes Rom. service and SacrameÌ„nts c. g See Raâ—â—all Title Mort h See summa Angelica Rosella Tit. consecrat c. Et ratr de Consecrationis distinct 1. 16. Antonâ— Corseti Râ—portoriuÌ„ Tit. Consecratio i Of the Idolat The right use of the Church the time and place of prayer k Foliâ— 91. 92. 93. l Page 210 414 m Exposition of Ageus c. 2. v. 2. 3 and c. 1. v. 7. 8. n Acts 7 p 1 Tim. 2. * Note this q Iohn 4 r 2. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 27â— H. 8â— cap. 15. 37. Hâ— 8. c. 17â— 32. H. 8. c. 3 a Deus Natura Gratia in sundâ—â—e pages b Sunday no â—abbath p. 2â— 48. Edit 1. c See Bis â—â—audes Wrens Pearce Whites and other of their Articles to this purpose * Creâ— Church the Chappell at Hamorsâ—â—th others d Summa Angelica Tit. consâ—cratio Ecclesiae * See Pontificale Episcoporum de consecratione Ecclesiae Mr. Calfe hill his answer to Marshall F. 93. 94. 95. 96. e Of the Perill of Idolatrie f See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit Symonia g Seâ— Brook Fitz. habent Ristal Tit. extortion * 1636. h Of the Perill of Idolatrie The Right use of the Church The Time and Place of Prayer i 2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cooks Iustitutes f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited l 1. Eliz. c. 1. m Antiqu. Ecces Brit in late Fox Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p. 1774. to 1782. n Antiqu Eccles. Brit passim o 36. H. 8. p. 13. p See 5. H. 6. parts â—â— in this Roâ—s q Cooks Institut F. 334. a Brooke Praemunire 21. 21. E. 3 60. a
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
the Parliaments privity or consent and cuâ—ningly obtruded it on the Church of England Making this Article now to run thus The Church hath power to decree Rues and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet so farre runnes the Bishops forgery and addition it is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written c. Which whole first clause to yet Is no part of the Article but a meere forgery and imposture of the Bishops Whose glosse is as pernicious as the text or woise For by Church they understand nothing else but Bishops Making the sence of this forgery to be this The Church that is the Bishops in their Visitations Consistories and High Commissions as they now de facto expound it witnes their late new Visitation Articles Rites and Ceremonies which they would hence justify and Authorize and likewise the Cleargie in their Conuocation without the King and Parliaments consent have both power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in matters of Faith An exposition Doctrine quite contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. 6. 19. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. and all Acts concerning Religion Heresie Bishops and the like yea directly repugnant to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles And quite opposite to the Scriptures and all ancient VVriters who never tooke the word Church for Bishops or Cleargie-men only but for the whole Congregation and as well as much for the common-people as the Bishops and Ministers as the 19. Article next preceeding it and our Writers plentifully witnes This forgery how ill soever glossed is thrust into both the late Editions of the Articles Anno 1628. published by your Majesties speciall commaund and made a part of the 20 Article notwithstanding your Majesty in your Declaration before both these Editions Expressely prohibited The least difference from the Articles of the Church of England allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes or any varying and departing from them in the least degree in which it is not to be found Nor yet in the Articles of Ireland n. 75. taken verbatim out of this 20. Article printed in London the very same yeare or in the Addition of those Articles An. 1629. a yeare after these two last impressions If the Bishops here reply that they found it added in Rogers his Exposition on the Articles printed some yeares before J answer that Coppy was not the Authorized Authenticke Originall by which they should be directed but a bastard Coppy with which your Majesty would not have your poore Subjects cheated or deluded Your Majesty therefore prohibiting any the least difference from the Articles allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes by Parliament Prohibited them to insert this forged addition If they reply that they were ignorant of the Originall true Coppyes and knew not this to be a forgery I answer that this is very improbable that so many great Bishops should be altogether ignorant which were the true genuine Articles of our Church who had read subscribed and given them in charge to others so often But admit it true yet ignorance in this case is no plea at all for any man much lesse for Bishops And if they are so ignorant of the very Articles of our Church J hope your Majesty and others will thinke them very unmeet to be Bishops in our Church and trust lesse to their pretended knowledge judgement and learning in future times giving little credit to any thing they doe or say without examination of it since they are so really or affectedly ignorant of the very Articles of our Church in the which they pretend most skill But if they knew the very Originall Coppyes Articles as no doubt they did and that this clause was not in them but a meere late forgery most fraudelently and corruptly added to them Then they were accessaries wilfull consenters to this forgery to delude both your Majesty and the whole Church of England with it Yea protessed rebels against your Majesties Declaration before these two impressions made by their owne advice prohibiting the least difference from the sayd true Articles and Originals And so are they guilty of forgery treachery and contumacy against your Majesty in the highest degree If a man forge but a private Wil or Deed to cosen any private man of any Inheritance Lease or personal estate he shal be severely punished in the Star-chaÌ„ber fined pyllored if not loose his eares beside What punishments then doe they deserve who have thus corrupted the CommoÌ„-prayer-Booke the Prayers for the Gunpowder-treason and the Articles of Religion all ratified by Parliament so matters of Records to corrupt or rase Records or forge deeds the second time is felony and to forge a new Article of Religion to deceive your Majesty your whole Kingdom and that not only for the present but for all future ages Certainly hanging is to good for them Should a poore Puritane doe but halfe as much the Bishops would have drawen hanged and quartered him long ere this especially if the thing were derogatory to their Hierarchie and Epis. copall Iurisdiction But Bishops and their Agents thinke they may doe any thing in these dayes without check or censure Yet I hope your Majesty will not let them goe scot-free for these their forgeries corruptioÌ„s If not all done by their Commaund and privity yet doubtles by their connivance negligence and subsequent consents And is it not now high time for your Majesty to looke to these persidious Innovatours and to repose no trust in them any longer since they are lately growen so powerfull so insolent as thus to sophisticate to pervert these very Originall Records of the the Church of England to which they have subscribed and to forge new Articles of Religion to cheat your Majesty the whole Church of England with for feare they proceed to further forgeries of an higher nature VVee know that the Bishops of Rome have forged a Donation from Constantine and others with which they have deluded and troubled all the world thrust the Roman Emperours froÌ„ their Throne Territories and usurped a temporall Monarchie over all the world VVe know that the Bishops of England in King Richard the 2. and Henry the 4. his dayes forged two bloody Acts of Parliament against the true Professours of the Gospell to which the Commons never consented though they foisted their assents into them upon which tyrannous forged Acts most of our Martyrs were butchered thousaÌ„ds of godly ChristiaÌ„s loyall Subjects imprisoned martyred ruinated and stript of all their goods or else abjured by blood-sucking tyrannous Prelates Whether they may not in time proceed to the like attempts if not severely punished for those fore-past forgeries and corruptions of our Churches Parliamentary Records I humblie submit to your Majesties and all wise-mens considerations Ambition tyranny pride malice being boundles when
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
which this godly Martyr did professedly in exprâ—â—e tearmes oppugne all the Arminian points now controverted and those this new Booke would fasten on him by over straining some of his words VVhich done Now said the Gentleman I have shewed you many full old Answers to your New Booke and proved it to be a meere lie and forgery from the beginning to the end yea the most grosse and greatest Imposture affront and impudent abuse that ever was put upon the Church of England VVherefore Sirâ— since you are acquainted at London-House and Lambeth I pray informe the Bishop and Arch-Bishop what you have seen and desire them to take some speedy course to rectify this most foule abuse He did so Yet the Booke was not called in in a weekes space or more VVhich the Gentleman perceiving went to Lambeth with his Bookes shewed the Arch-Bishop that then was what he had shewed the Knight Desiring his Grace that the Church of England might not have such an impudent strange Imposture thrust upon her VVhere upon he thanked the Gentleman Protesting he had shewed him that he never saw nor heard off before Desiring him to leave his Bookes with him for a weeke after which he would safely restore them VVhereupon these Bookes after they were halfe sold and dispersed over the Kingdome were only called in but not burned nor any publike Act made against them to discover the practise and Imposture Only the Gentleman was at the cost to send some of these old Bookes in answer of this new Pamphlet to the University Library at Oxford and to Cambridge acquainting some of his Friends there with this Decoy But now of late this Booke flies abrode into all parts is publikely sold in all Stationers shops and thousands of your Subjects ignorant of the fraud are meerely cheated and seduced by it the Licenser if not the Authour being since aduanced and the discouerer of this egregious Jmposture detestable both to God man most despitefully rewarded and miserablie traduced for his paines O tempora O mores that men should suffer for their good service in this kinde Now J humblie referre to your Majesties most serious consideration whether all these particular Corruptions Forgeries and Jmpostures the vndoubted verity whereor is soone discouered by the Bookes themselves which wâ—â— attest them doe not crie aloud to your Majesty for speedy redresse and proclaime the authours of them though never so great or powerfull unworthy of your Majesties grace unmeet to be trusted or credited by your Highnes any more for those who are thus treacherous and unfaithfull to their Religion and Mother Church how can they be loyall or trustie to your Majesty and worthy of the highest Censures your Royall Iustice can inflict upon them Your Majesty hath called God to witnes in A Declaration to all your loving Subjects who dare credit you without an Oath That it is and alwâ—yes hath been your hearts desire to be found worthy of that Title which you account the most glorious in all your Crowne DEFENDER OF THE FAITH And how can you better accomplish this desire of your heart or make yourselfe worthy of this most glorious Motto then by rectifying all these most grosse abuses and Jmpostâ—res By rooting out all Innovations and back slâ—dings unto Popery now crept into our Church by reducing all your Subjects to the unanimous profession of the long established Doctrine of the Church of England And by taking vengeance upon all the grand Authours and Executioners of the fore-mentioned Forgeries Impostures Innovations which dishonour your Royall Majesty greive all your Faithfull Subjects betray and scandalize our Religion make us a very derision prey and scorne to our Romish Aduersaries and draw downe the very plagues and vengeance of our offended God upon us whose judgements now call for a speedy redresse of these things at your Majesties hands whom they have most intollerablie and undutifully dishonoured For whereas your Roy all Majesty out of the piety and syncerity of your upright heart hath in your fore-specified Declarations most seriously protested in the very presence of God himselfe your perfect detestation of all Innovations in ` Doctrine or Discipline and backslâ—dings unto Popeâ—y professing and proclaiming that you will by no meanes tolerate or indure them much lesse then favour or enjoyne them Yet since these disloyall Novellers their Clients and Agents forgetting their duty both to God and your Majesty feare not to give out in private speeches and to intimite as much in print that your Majesty doth not only connive at but likewise underhand either countenance or commaund by Letter or Word of mouth all these their Innovations and Apostacies towards Rome with their putting downe of Lectures and preaching of their late silencing excommunicating and persecuting godly Ministers in sundrie Diocesses for not yeelding to these Jnnovations or not reading the late Declaration for Sports in proper person in their Churches which they humblie conceive not to be your Majesties and which requires no such thing that it should be read much lesse by Ministers themselves in proper person and gives no man Authority in case they read it not to suspend or silence them for it to the Jnnocent peoples prejudice only whose soules are starved and murthered by this meanes and that they doe nothing at all but what they are enjoyned by your Majesties Royall Instructions Endeavouring by these false Rumors to make your Subjects believe had they such a miraculous Faith as to credit this impossibilitie that your Majesty is the Originall Authority and under-hand enconrager of all these their execrable practises Ceremonies Novelties proceedings and backsliding Of purpose to draw all the Odium of them on your Highnes and thereby as much as in them lyeth to alienate your Subjects hearts and affections from your Majesty Which intollerable unpardonable scandal were it as true as it is false Yet it were their duty to forbeare such speeches or cast â—uch scruples into your Subjects mindes But since they are most nâ—torious falsehoods and disloyall Iesuiticall practises in the highest degree making your Highnes no better then a notorious Hypocrite or dissembler both towards God and Man as themselves are though all the world will be your Compurgatours to acquit your Highnes from any the least suspition of such dissimulation Your Majesty is now obliged both in point of honour and Iustice to aveng yourselfe of such undutifull Slaunderers and Detractors from your Sacred Fame and by a speedy redresse of all their Innovations Superstitions Ceremonies and Abuses to proclaime to all the world that they are none of yours but their owne spurious issues and that your words and Actions both in publike and private are ever consonant uniforme and the same in every respect without the least shadow of alteration much lesse of doubling either with God or Man If your Majesty now demaund of me who they are who have been the chiefe Authours and instruments of these grosse
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
and Religion defiling our Church corrupting our divine worship depraving our lives and provoking God himselfe to anger in an high degree have to our present terrour feare and punishment drawen downe the heavy plagues and Iudgements of God among us in sundrie quarters and places of the Realme Especially in New-Castle almost wholy unpeopled and London VVhere the Pestilence hath already swept many thousands and yet still spreads and sweepes away more and more and is likely so to doe till we all joyntly humble our selves with fasting weeping and mourning both in publike and private for our sinnes and Innovations reforme our wicked and prophane ungodly lives and purge out all these Idolatries Superstitions Errours Ceremonies and Innovations that have defiled our Church VVhich Pest now earnestly cals upon your Majesty whose chiefe charge and office this is neither will your Bishops or under-Officers negligence excuse your Majesty before Gods Tribunall in case it be not done even speedily really heartily and thorowly to effect for feare he who even strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath with this pestiferous arrow of his which flies farre and neare among us from which ◠〈◊〉 Ayre Fort Cordials nor a Crowne itselfe can secure any should likewise smite your Highnes or any of Royall Seed as well as others either to sicknes or death Either of which the Lord forbid shield you from as he hath done hitherto to our greatest joy What other future euents and fruites these Innouations may produce unlesse the encrease and ushering in of Popery J cannot divine Either of which would proue dangerous to your Majesties should they euer come to passe as we trust we pray they shall not For that Christian King who lives under the Iurisdiction of the Sea of Rome or where Papists get the start as all Histories and our Writers witnes are more miserable then the poorest peasant living in continuall danger both of his Crowne and life vnlesse he will be a meere vassall to the Pope his Cardinals to feed those deuouring Harpyes with their treasures to fight for them with their armes when euer they commaund and be vniuersally obsequious to them in all their exorbitant Imperious requests yea not only the Pope and his Cardinals but the poorest Priest and Frier will be able to commaund and beard him at his pleasure in despight of all his wealth and power of which your Majesties Royall Progenitours here in England have had sufficient experience VVhat base and despicable account the Pope his Bishops and Cleargie make of Christian Kings even of those who are most obsequious to them and how they jeare and flout them even in print I shall only instance out of the authorised writings of a late Iesuites which learned Dr. Crakanthorpe hath thus quoted and Englished to my hand worthy your Majesties most serious contemplation The former of them is Becanut who calling the Pope a Shepheard and Kings and Emperours Dogges or Curres of this Shepheard and sporting himselfe with these Titles saith Igitur hi Canâ—â— therefore if these Dogges be watchfull and trusty they must be ready at the Shepheards hand But if they be lazie mad or troublesome the Shepheard must preseÌ„tly remove them and put them from their Office This doth reason teach this doth the Caunsell of Lateran decree Againe Christian Kings are Sheepe are Rammes are VVolves and are Dogges VVhence it is that the Pope carrieth himselfe in a divers maner towards them As they are Sheepe if they be scabby he may put them out of the fold As they are Rammes if they be troublesome and push with their hornes he may shut them up As they are VVolves he may drive them away Quatenus Canes As they are Dogges he may put them from their Office if they be defective therein And some of these he doth by Excommunication some by deposition So Becanus of late The other is Gasp. Scioppius whose words are so contumelious even in the highest degree that one may justly wonder that any of their Catholickes but especially their Catholicke Kings can patiently digest them The Church saith he is mandra jumentorum sive Asâ—â—â—rum a great fold of Beasts or Asses Some are Pack-Asses some Dosse-Asses and other Burden-Asses And then telling cujusmodi Asini sumus nos Catholici what maner of Asses himselfe and other Catholikes are We saith he must be beasts which have understanding and reason to obey Bishops with all humility and patience For they are the Men they are the Muliters and Asse-drivers they must yoake bridle and saddle us put halters about our neckes load and drive us For others they are like to beasts but tame obedient beasts such as must doe what they are commaunded For a good and understanding Asse is hee that heareth and followeth the direction and commaund of the Muliter Further yet he addes concerning Kings that Reges Catholici sunt Asini cum tintinnabulis Catholike Kings are Asses with belles about their neckes as being the fore-Asses which lead the way to inferiour Asses And particularly for Charles the Great whom he much commends he saith that Charles was a farre greater and wiser Asse then those Kings who cast off the Popes yoake For Charles being tantus Asiniâ— so great an Asse cryed or rather brayed out with a loud voyce universa Asinorum mandra to the whole fold of Asses that is to the whole Church in this maner For the memory of S. Peter Let us honour the Roman Church and though they yoake which the Pope imposeth be such as wee can scarcely beare yet let us with devotion endure the same Ex-quibus verbis saith Scioppius â—â—rum Issachar agnoscaâ— de quo Genes chap. 49. Issachar Asinus fortis By these words of Charles you may see that he was a very Issachar of whom it is said Issachar is a stronge Asse Is not this may it please your Majesty a fine peece of Catholike Divinity to account and call the whole Catholike Church a fould of Asses All Catholike Kings Asses with bels all other Lay persons Asses without bels None but Bishops to be Men and Muliters and the Pope the chiefe Muliter and driver of all the Asses So shall the Man be honoured whom the Pope will honour The more zealous and devout one is in obeying him and imbracing his Doctrine the greater Asse they account and call him Seeing therefore this is the high account that the Pope his Bishops and Cleargie make of Christian Princes I presume your Majesty will never suffer the Pope the chiefe Muliter nor any of his nor your owne Bishops the under-Muliters to yoake bridle sadle or put halters about your Royall necke or the neckes of any of your Loyall Subjects much lesse then to ride jade loade or drive either yourselfe or them all which they now attempt and aspire to doe Since if your Highnes should honour them in all this
quas Artis sibi praetextu cumulaverâ—nt Sed quos cognoverit medendi solida scientia fidelique voluntate pollere Sic nemo se ei libenter navi committat quae ab eo regatur qui nomine tantum opibus se Gubernatorem jactet peritiam autem navigandi nullam teneat Sed mavult quisque cum eo navigare qui tametsi obscuro sit nomine tenuibus facultatibus ad ritè tamen gubernandam navem existat Probe doctus exercitatus Quanto vero majore cura ac studio S. M. tuae inquirendi sunt atque approbandi quibus non corpora sed summam credat Religionis Christi reconcinnandae qua aeterna omnium salus continetur Adsit ergo S. M. T. Rex nostet Christus ut summam de Religione restituenda Concilium eos sibi delegat Consiliarios qui vim Regni Christi probè norint toto illud corde expetunt obtinere cum primis apud semetipsos tùm etiam apud omnes alios Nihilque in eo humani commodi vel gratiae spectent sed paratissimi sint extrema potius carnis incommoda subire quam ullam praeterire occasionem Regnum Christi adferendi propagandi This was Bucers advice to your pious Predecessour King Edward I hope it will not be unseasonable for me now to recommend it to your Majesty At whose Royall feet I now in all humility prostrate both my selfe and these my unworthy Labours voyd of all Courtship Flattering Elegancie or Trappings and having nothing else but loyalty and plaine Rusticke downe-right dealing to make them acceptable to your Highnes beseeching your Majesty what ever others may buze into your cares against them to make a charitable construction of them as proceeding from the reall syncerity and fidelity of his heart who as he dayly prayes to God for your Majesties long life and happines as his duty bindes him and shall continue thus to doe So he is and ever shal be ready to Sacrifice not only his studies but life and what ever else he hath unto your Majesties service And in despite of enuy and calumny shall ever manifest himselfe in all things Your Majesties Loyall dutifull and obedient Subject Though yet I conceale my name till I may doe your Majesty further Service EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bovving to Lords-Tables and placing them Altar-vvise related and refuted CHISTIAN READER before I entertaine thee with a serious Epistle give me leave to detaine thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve printed by License to prove the necessity Lawfulnes of bowiÌ„g to and towards the Altar and Communion Table at our entring in and going out of the Church to refresh thy spirits withall His first reason is this As the people of God being entred into Gods house to wit the Temple of Ierusalem did worship towards the Sanctuary or mercy Seate from which he was heard speaking not their Altars or Shew-bread-Tables so now also ought EVERY ONE being come into Gods house to prostrate himselfe that is make low obeysance towards Gods mercy Seare being the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almighty God there This reason is properly reduced into these two Logicall Arguments point-blanke against his Conclusion 1. The Jewes worshipped towards the Sanctuary and mercy Seate from which God was heard speaking a Type of our Pulpits and Reading Pewes if of any thing not towards their Altars or Tables Ergo EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to Gods mercy Seate the Pulpit and Reading Pew from which he is heard speaking in his Word not unto Altars and Tables 2. Every one ought to prostrate himselfe towards the uppermost part of our Temples unto Almightie God there But the Roofes of our Temples at least the East wall of them in the Authors sence not the Table or Akar or our Pulpits standing higher then they are the uppermost part of our Temples Ergo we must prostrate ourselves towards them to God there Not towards the Table or Altar But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple can be a prostration towards the Roofe or upper part of the Church when as it removes the body further from it unlesse Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himselfe upward I cannot yet discerne 2. His second Argument is this The Divine wisdome of the Church calling the Communion-Table Gods Board doth give us to understand that that is to be accounted the peculiar Seat of God within the Temple For after a Church or Chappell is consecrated by a Bishop Gods gracious presence is ever at his mercy Seate saith the Margent and therefore towards it unto God there we are to make low obeysance whensoever we come into Gods house to pray Also as the Chaire of State is alwayes to be honoured though the person of the Royall Majesty be not seene there So is GODS BOARD EVER TO HAVE DUE REVERENCE therefore this bowing is done due to the Board itselfe not God and God who is there perpetually is alwayes to be prostrated unto yea wheÌ„ as the body blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament is not upon the same So the Passage in Bishop Mortons too nor Divine Service in saying therein or in any other place of the Holy Temple For which cause it is prescribed that ever the holy Communion-Table should be kept Sacred This I have else-where fully answered out of Shelford Widdowes who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say nor any authority but their owne 1. First therefore let them prove That God hath and ought to have a Seate in every Church 2. Secondly that this Seate is the Communion-Table only not the Pulpit Reading Pew Bible or any other part of the Church 3. Thirdly that God alwayes sits there by his grace when there is no body in the Church to beare him Company no Service no Sacrament of Christs body and blood 4. Fourthly that when there is Divine Service read in the Church a Sermon preached in the Pulpit or a Child Christned at the Font and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table that he yet sits still on the Table and is there only specially present by his grace and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances 5. Fiftly that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one 6. Sixtly that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present And to one part only off or instrument in the Church and not to the whole Fabricke Seventhly that a Bishops consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seate the Table so as never to suffer him to stirre one inch from thence no not when there is no SacrameÌ„t no Divine Service no person there to doe him homage nor use of his speciall presence Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved which wil be ad Gâ—aecas
Calendas we may well demurre to this second reason Of which more fully anon Only to retort the reason let me argue thus The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven in the Church-Bible and midst of his people not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him as I bare else-where proved And in every good Christians heart Ergo these not the Table are to be bowed unto As for his Chaire of State That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto I thinke when it is in the ward-robe Cart Imbroy derers or upholsters shop c. should have been excepted he must shew us some Law or Statute for it ere we can beleeve it And though some men bow unto it now and then because the King sits some times personally in it This Gentleman must prove that God sits personally some-times on the Table which he can hardly doe But he and others tell us that God sits alwayes there Very good Then I thus retort the similitude No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it but only when he is absent For when the King his in it they never doe it but bow only and immediately to the King without any respect to the Coaire Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise else-where at large refelled Here also writes he it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name of his Table rather in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand Doth not nature itselfe teach us that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour And should not Christianitie teach us that no Seate of any person much lesse of any of the Laity it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please should be above Gods mercy Seate the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell c. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell is it not decent that the ends thereof thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it be towards North and South The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke And if it ought so to be in all things much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate As if this Seate stood very undeceâ—tly and quite out of order unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order But of this meâ—ry profound Divinity hereafter This only by the way for a Breakfast The Authour having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners That we are all bound in conscience for to learne believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke All which condemne his bowing to and placing of the Table North and South And so by his owne censure not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him They are his owne words and censure of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine which himselfe professedly speakes against in all these and other passages But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise NOTE THIS It appeares by Num. 1. 50. c. c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. c. 7. 11. hath relation as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large It is also evident by Numb 3. 26. c. 4. 26. And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT c. That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it the words being the same both in Latine Greeke and English in all places TO THE CHRISTIAN READER CHRISTIAN READER it is storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Sonne that when he saw a Persian Captaine going to stay his Father his filiall affection was so stirred in him at the sight that though he never spake before yet then he brake forth into these words O man doe not kill Croesus And so saved his Fathers life What this dutifull Sonne thus unexpectedly uttered being ever before tongue-tied out of his endeared love to his naturall Father I am here constrained out of my loyall respects to my spirituall Mother the Church of England publikely to speake to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers who have almost stabbed her to the heart under a specious pretence of fighting for her in some late printed workes O man doe not murther and betray my Mother the Church of England Even as Iudas once did our Saviour with a kisse whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholy for her Alas when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles and the Booke of Common-Prayer to which you have all subscribed When I see you raking the very ashes and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Iewel Raynolds Whitaker Fulke Willet Perkins with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Romes greatest Goliahs whom you never durst so much as looke upon by way of Opposition in their life times proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings When I behold you siding with the Papists maintaining their Antichristian Errours Doctrines Ceremonies abuses before all the world without blush or shame Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authours whose blessed memories you seeke causelesly to steine When I behold you avowing even in print That the Church of Rome is a true Church That personall Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essentiall to make a true Church That the arch-Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineall Succession and Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire and the very Sea of Rome and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not or could not doe so That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist Nor Antichrist yet come or
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ— ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the â—â—â—â—swing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâ—es Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
Supper yea the very use and defence of these Titles 〈◊〉 well as the things are the Bulworkes and Out-workes of our Religion as long as we maintained them there was as feare of Masse or open Popery But since the Altars and the name of Altars invaded and thrust out our Lords-Tables and their names Priestes out Ministers and the Title of Ministers and those other Massing Ceremonies prevayled the Outworkes of our Religion are quite lost and taken with many of the In-workes too by our Popish Adversaries and all is in great danger of speedy surprisâ—â—â— Is it not then high time for us to awake and bestirre ourselves To beat out these secret Traytours which demolish these Out-fortifications or betray them to our Romish Adversaries and to make good and regaine these Sconces if it be possible without which all wil be hazarded if not quite lâ—st and that in a litle space for ought we know Let no man then thinke slightly of these smaller matters without which the grandest designes of our Popish Adversaries cannot be effected or proceed But let all rather labour to prie into that great Treacherous plot and hidden mystery of Iniquity which sets all these under-wheeles on worke and endeavour all they may to oppose that imminent inundation of the whole body of Popery flowing in a maine upon us all which wise men both foresee and feareâ— Which it wil be in vaine to doe if we permit these Bankes these Bulworkes J here content for to be broken downeâ— Which alone will secure us if maintained but ruine all if once demolished by forraigne Opposites or homebred Traytours For the Coale from the Altar the maine Treatise I heâ—â— encounter which fires all these fortifications at once that the enemies may enter and surprise us whiles we either neglect or strive to quench the flame The Authour thereof 〈◊〉 seemes was ashamed to owne it by his name though as impudent as shamelesse as active an instrument of mischiefe as great an incendiary for his yeares as any living in our Church if he on whom fame hath fathered it be the man The Title informes us that he is a Divine yea a judicioâ— Learned Divine perchance in his owne and some other conceit But certainly what ever his Learning is sure I at his Iudgement is not very great and his honestie lesse as will appeare in the Quench-Coale For the Letter he undertakes to answer which he would injuriously without any ground Father upon Mr. Cotton of Boston the more to abuse had Censure the true Authour of it with whom he hath lately had some personall quarrels and contests is certainly knowen to be Dr. Williams now Bishop of Lincolne and Deane of Westminster a man farre more Learned and judicious then the Answerer and every way able to make good his owne Letter which I have not particularly undertaken to defend dealing in this Controversie with the Coale no further then concernes the points debated in the Letter and that in generall without any relation unto the Epistoler who no doubt will answer for himselfe without a Proctor As for this Quench-Coale having to doe with others as well as the Coale I have therein followed mine owne Method though confused not the Coales And cleared the points in Controversie by our owne English Martyrs VVriters and Records omitting Forraigners partly for brevity sake and partly because impertinent in these particulars which principally concerne the practise and judgement only of our owne Church In which as I wonder much that the rumored Authour of the Coale could finde no Lords-day Sabbath though he writ An History of it so J wonder how he could finde an Altar in it Our Church having cashered Altars as Popish Heathenish Iewish yet he deemes the Christian And retained prescribed the Name and Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath which he brandes as Iewish as if Altars were not more Iewish then it And here good Reader I desire thee to obserue 〈◊〉 they are that thus plead most stifly for Altars calling Comunion-Tables Altars and turning them Altar-wise 〈◊〉 those who write and preach against the name 〈◊〉 Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath as Iewish Certainly these men I feare are quite distracted thrâ—â— malice or tossed to and for with a spirit of giddines 〈◊〉 they could not so earnestly oppose write against Iudaâ— as they tearme it with the one hand and yet at the 〈◊〉 time embrace and write for it with the other Now if Judaisme be so distastfull to them as that 〈◊〉 cannot brooke the name much lesse the Sanctification of 〈◊〉 Lords-day Sabbath which the Homilies of the Time and 〈◊〉 of Prayer and the third part of the Homilie against Rebellus to which they have subscribed pleades for as truly Christian How then can they write for Altars yea the naming of 〈◊〉 Lords-Table an Altar and his Supper the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Altar which the first part of the Homilie against the 〈◊〉 of Idolatrie p. 18. and the second Part of the Sermon of 〈◊〉 Time and Place of Prayer p. 131. condemâ— both as Iewish Popish and Heathenish as many of our Writers before and since these Homilies have done Let them therefore either reject Altars as they doeâ— Christian Sabbath because they are Iewish Or else 〈◊〉 and plead for this Sabbath and its strict Sanctification â—â—â—mitting it be Iewish as it is not because they write so 〈◊〉 lie for Altars more Iewish farre then the names or strict Sanctification of the Lords-day Sabbath To draw to a Conclusion All J have here written is â—y out of pure zeale to Gods glory the Patronage of his 〈◊〉 and benefit of his Churh without any private spleene particular persons If any good accrue to Gods people by it or this my Moâ—â— Church of England I desire God may have the glory 〈◊〉 whom alone it is due If no publike benefit be reaped by 〈◊〉 nor satisfaction given to private Christians in these â—ggering times to settle both their Iudgements Conscienâ— and Practise as I hope there will Yet I have done my 〈◊〉 endeavour The Successe is Gods alone not mine to 〈◊〉 To his Blessing I commend both thee and it desiring 〈◊〉 the short space I had to compile it in may excuse the deâ—â— in the composition So I rest Thy Friend in the Lord. Iuliâ— the tenth 1636. Courteous Reader this should have come in at the 3. Question concerning the Consecration of Churches Immediatly before the words of Bishop Pilkington there cited Page 214. Line 32. Mathew Parker the Learned Arch-Bishop of Canterbury relating the forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples Altars Foundation-stones Vestments Chalices and the like out of the ancient Missals and Saxon Pontificals which our Bishops at this day use Concludes thus of them all Who can doubt but that Papall Rites and Ceremonies abound with these kinde of Exorcismes which differ nothing at all from these anciently used in the Ordalium and vulgar forme of Purgation which they at length condemned
yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations then they But S. Augustine who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies if he were now alive what would he thinke of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonie◠〈◊〉 in use For writing to Ianuarius he thus speakes of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burthens Religion itselfe which the mercy of God would have to be free with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration that the condition of the Iewes is now more tollerable then that of Christians Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law not to human presumptions or Instiâ—â—â—ons Thus Augustine And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored that the Fathers of the Church either will not or cannot with the same edge of their minde cut off these and such like Ceremonies or rather TRIFLES from the Church where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium or triall by fire But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious they still hold fast and retaine these Consecrations QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and coâ—piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâ—gorie who writes That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time Place person and instant busines But these having no regard neither of time nor place noâ— busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory Nâ— pusillis in reâ—us 〈◊〉 ceâ—eâ—a voluâ—â— Will not submit to the truth even in these triviall things Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications so much now contested for by his present Successoâ—r Ouâ— of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 A QUENCH-COALE OR A breife disquisition or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table ought to bee situated especially when the Sacrament is administred IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us by some Innovating Romish spirits In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand specially at the time of the Sacraments administration whether in the Body or midst of the Church Chancell or Quire or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise where some now rayle it in and plead it ought of right to stand The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Communion thus resolves this question The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge c. Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shal be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number communicate with the sayd Minister And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before Therefore it is not to be moveable not fixed or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churcheâ— with in the Realme of England convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient and decent manner and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke or other decent stuffe and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee administred At which time the same shal bee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions made that very yeare did by speciall direction place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England in the bodie of the Church or Chancell some distance from the wall with the two ends standinge East and West and the two sides North and South in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares or more And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand givinge direction accordinge to the Rubricke and Queenes Injunctions for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred as the sayd Rubricke Injunctions and Canons prescribe In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper compiled as some gather by M. William Tyndall and printed at the end of his workes wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time After which hee prescribes this forme of administringe it wishing that the secular Princes woulde commaund and establish it To witt That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table not an Altar purely and honestly laide c. Then let the Preacher whom hee would have to preach at least twise every weeke exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord c. This donne let him come downe to witt from the pulpit and accompanied honestly with other Ministers come forth readily unto the Lords Table not the Altar the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT aud alsoe in their other convenient seates the Pastor exhortinge them all to praye for grace faith and love which all this Sacrament signifieth and putteth them in minde of Then let there bee read openly and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue c. Where this Author prescribes a Table not an Altar and that to stand in the face of the Congregation not at the upper end of the Quire that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT thus receive This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâ—ons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ— is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâ—pists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ— from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâ—ed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
order 1. Cor. 11. 33. 34. c. 13. 40. never sendinge us to take a patterne from the manner of his second Comminge which is left Arbitrarie to himselfe and his Fathers pleasure Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us But the standinge of the Table in the midst in Christ the primitive and all reformed Churches Iudgments is most decent and Convenient therefore it is to bee observed and retained of us The second reason alleaged by our Novellers for their newe dislocation of Communion Tables is this The Communion Tables ought to bee placed at the East end of the Chancell because it is Christs mercy seate his claire of Estate and the speciall place of his presence here on Earth on which hee sitts and resides and the East end of the Chauncell or Quire is the upper the best part the prime place of honour in the Church and therefore no seates ought to bee there suffered and the Altar the Communion Table must bee there seated that soe none maye take the wall of Christ 〈◊〉 sitt above him and God Almighty This reason hath been often alleaged by our Archbishops Bishops and others in the high-Commission and urged by Giles Widdowes M. Shelford Reeve other fantasticke Scriblers in their ridiculous frantâ—cke novel Pamphlets which no man maye have libertie freely to write or preach against though never so erroneous superstitious Popish and absurd To this I answeare First that the mercy-seate was Jewish tipicall abolished by Christs death of whom it was a type Rom. 3. 25. 1. John 2. 2. Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 9. 1. to 12. and all Commentators on these textt on Exod. c. 25. and 26. and 30. and 31. and 37. and 39. and 40. Godwins Roman Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. Therefore is not it cannot bee a mercy seate 2. The mercie seate was nothinge else but the Coveringe of the Arke so called because it Covered and hidd the Lawe it was made of pure gold two cubites and an halfe broade with two Cherubims of gold of beaten worke in the two ends of the mercie seate and it was put above upon the Arke Exod. 25. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. c. 26. 34. c. 30. 6. c. 31. 7. c. 37. 6. to 10. c. 40. 20. Lev. 16. 13. 14. 15. Num. 7. 8. 9. Our Communion Tables are not such for matter forme workemanshipp scituation neither is there any Arke upon the topp whereof they maye bee satt if you will make the Quire resemble the Arke you must then place them upon the roofe and leds of our Quires therefore they are not mercy seates 3. God did only dispence his word and Oracles and all things which hee gave Commaundement to the Children of Israell from betweene the two Cherubims and the mercie seate Exod. 25. 22. and the fore-quoted texts The pulpiâ— therefore in this regard of it elevation above the pewes people shoulde rather bee Christs mercie seate then the Communion Table where Christ only distributed his bodie and blood unto us not his word and precepts 4. The Arke and mercy seate stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the West end of the Temple not the East Heb. 9. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. whether none but the high Preist might enter and that but once a yeare not without blood If therefore the Communion Table bee a mercy seate it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the topp of the Arke in a Sanctrum Sanctorum as it did neither ought any Bishop or Preist to come neere it but the high Preist only to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand and that once a yeare and noe more with blooddy sacrifices 5. There was but one mercy seate standinge only in the Temple not in the Synagogues over the Arke which was but one If therefore the Lords Table bee a mercie seate there shoulde bee but one in all the worlde This first reason therefore is but a Iewish frenticke dreame 6. The paten which containes the Consecrated breade and the Chalice which hold the hallowed wyne stand upon the Table as the mercy seate did upon the Arke beinge made of silver in most of gold in some places shoulde rather be Christs mercy seate then the Table it selfe yet no men bowe or cring to them or plead for their honour and precedently though more worthy in respect of matter use immediate contayninge of the materiall partes of the Sacrament then the Table 2. I answeare That the Communion Table is not Christs Chaire of Estate as these Novellers dogmatize For heaven only is Christs Throane Earth but his foo stoole Gen. 4. 2. Psal. 103. 11. Psal. 110. 1. Heb. 1. 13. c. 8. 1. c. 10. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 34. Psal. 11. 4. Isay 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49. And it is the expresse resolution of the Scripture and the Article of our Creede that Christ in his humane nature hath his Throane and mercy seate only at his Fathers owne right hand in heaven where hee sits in Majesty and glorie makinge perpetuall intercession for us and shall there constantly reside untill his second comminge to Iudgment Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. howe then the Communion Table can bee his chaire of State and cheife place of his presence I cannot conjecture 2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himselfe not in his State glorie to us but in the very depth of his passion humiliation the Sacrament beinge instituted not to manifest his exaltation and glorie but to expresse unto us the breakinge of Gods body effusion of his blood on the Crosse to shewe forth his death till his comminge 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26. Math. 26. 28. Luke 22. 19. 20. Howe therefore this place Phil. 2. 7. 8. and Emblem of his greatest debasement can bee colourobly stiled his chaire of State and Mâ—jâ—sty I cannot comprehend 3. Whoe ever heard a Table to eate drinke at tearmeds chare of State either in respect of the meate or guests or howe can it bee so tearmed without grosse absurditie especially when the party there present on it is exposed to us only as spirituall meate and drinke to bee received by us not adored of us 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. 16. 17. 21. c. 11. 21. to 30. John 6. 48. to 59. 4. If any thinge maye bee there tearmed Christs Chaire of Estate it shoulde bee the Plater Chalice wherein the breade wyne are imediately comprised not the Table whereon they stand which is rather a footstoole to support Christs Chaire then the Chaire wherein hee sits in State the breade wyne not so much as touchinge the Table 5. Why shoulde the Lords Table bee Christs mercy seate or Chaire of State rather then the Font the Pulpit or Church Bible Is not Christ as really spiritually present in the one as the other by his mercy grace spirit and
is not Baptisme the word as necessarie as the Lords supper Math. 28. 19. 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yeaâ— more needfull and absolutely necessarieâ— since men maye bee saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lords supper but not without Baptisme the word read and preached as many teach 6. To make the Communion Table Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate and place of his speciall presence if it bee meant of his spirituall presence only is a falsehood since hee is alwayes equallie present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the worlde Math. 28. 19. 20. If of his Corporall presence which is only nowe in heaven Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9. 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19. 21. the thinge they intend then it smels of ranke Popoâ—se intimatinge a transubstantiation of the breade wyne into Christs verie bodie bloode a notorious Popish absurditie longe since exploded by our Church drowned in our Martyrs blood whoe oppugned it to the death 3. Admitt that the Communion Table were Christs mercy seate Chaire of Estate which they take as graunted without any Scripture ground or reason which I desire them first to prove before they lay it downe an undoubted principle yet the conclusion will not followe that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chauncell or Quire Altarwise For first the mercy seate stood in the end of the Tabernacle and Temple upon the topp of the Arke not at the East Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seate 2. Christs Chaire of Estate ought to bee seated there where himselfe hath promised his speciall presence But that is not in the East end but in the midst of the Church and people Math. 18. 20. as I have formerly proved by sundry Scriptures Therefore it shoulde bee placed in the midst 4. Whereas these men protend that the East end of the Chancell or Quire where they nowe raile in the Table Altarwise is the highest and most worthy place in the Church and that noe seates must there bee suffered for feare any shoulde take the wall or upper hand of Christ and sitt above him or checkmate with him in his owne Temple I answeare First that these are ridiculous Childish fantastique conceites of their owne superstitious braines grounded on no Scripture or solid reason and so not to be credited 2. These reasons make Christ ambitious of place precedency corporally present here an Earth when as he was still is lowly humble Matth. 11. 29. forbiddinge men to sitt downe at any Feast in the uppermost place but in the lowest and pronouncinge an woe against the Pharisies for lovinge the uppermost seates in Synagogues and Feasts Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were hee nowe on Earth hee woulde not contend for precedency and the upper-most place as these his ambitious-Champions doe for him because they love precedency themselves much lesse will hee doe it nowe he hath taken upp his seate and throne in heaven hath left the Earth altogeather in his bodily presence where these Novellers woulde faine to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table as the Papists saye he is upon their Altars close prisoner in a Pix 3. It is most false that the East end of the Quire or Chauncell where they nowe place their Altars and Tables is the most honourable and prime place of the Church and Quire For in all Cathedralls that I have seene in his Majesties Chappell 's the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes Thrones and seates and the Kings Closetts are at the West end of the Quire or Chancell And the most honorable persons seat is the West not the East end of them the more West any man sits the higher the more East the lower the seates next the West end beinge reputed the highest and honorablest the seates next the East the lowest for the singinge men and Quiresters the meaner sort of people Soe in Parish Churches where there are any seates in the Chancell or Quire the seate at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seate and the neerer the East end the meaner and lower are they reputed The West end therefore of the Quire and Chancell as these instances and experience undeniable manifest is the cheifest the place where the most honorable persons have their seates chaires of State If therefore the Communion Table or their Altars bee Christs Chaire of State and that hee ought to take precedency and place of all men then it must bee placed in the West end of the Quire in Cathedralls where the Bishops Throne and seate is scituated and removed to the West end of the Chancell where the best man of the Parish sits not thrust downe to the East end of the Quire or Chancell against the wall which is in truth the lowest place by their owne practice and resolution And here we may behold the desperate soâ—tishnes and frenzie of these Popish Innovators whoe under a vaine pretence of givinge Christ the Communion Table the upper hand that none may sitt above them will needs thrust them into the varie lowest place even in their owne practice Iudgements and Common reputation where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit where there are seates or formes in most Churches which yet against their owne Iudgements and knowledge out of I knowe not what factious strange superstitions humour must upon a suddaine be Cried upp for the most honorable place by these learned Rabbies 4. Admit the Communion Table Christs Chaire of Estate and mercy seate and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church yet it is only such and thus to bee scituated when the Sacrament is administred For howe is it his Chaire of State his mercy seate and cheifest place of residence when there is no Sacramentall breade wyne upon it to represent his spirituall presence to us But when the Sacrament is to be administred the booke of Common prayer the Queenes Injunctions Fathers and forecited Authors informe us that it must bee placed in the body or midst of the Church or Chancell Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Quire to be the most honorable place or that it was ever so reputed or else confesse the invalidity of this their proposition That the Table ought to stand in the cheife and most honorable place of the Church unlesse they will Condemne the Fathers the primitive yea our owne Church and all our cheife writers of Error in this particular 5. Admit that the East end of the Chancell or Quire bee the most honorable parte of the Church and that the Table for this reason ought there to be rayled in Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and rayled in as well as the Table and the Bible and readinge pewe too Are not the Font the Pulpit the Bible as honorable
people and the ignorant evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition then should the true Religion of God sooner take place which he thus seconds in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah A great shame it is for a Noble King Emperour or Magistrate contrary to Gods word to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods oâ— Treasure as the Candles Images Crosses vestiments Altars For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent at length they will be maintayned as things necessary as now we find true by late wofull experience And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah hee proceeds thus But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable it might be thought of some men that the place where Jonas prayed in should have beâ—tered it as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier that in the Quier better then that which is sayd in the body of the Church that in the body of the Church better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no respect to the place but to the heart faith of him that prayeth And that appeareth For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly and miserable Job upon the dung heape Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons Hieremie in the claypit the theife upon the Crosse S. Stephen under the Stones wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place and every where as our necessity shall have need and wanteth solace Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer whereas Gods word is preached his holy Sacrament used and common prayer made unto God but allow the same and sory it is no more frequented haunted but this I would wish that the Magistrates would put both the Preist Minister and the people into one place and shut up the partition called the Câ—auncell that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law yet should remaine in the Church where indeed all signes types are ended in Christ And in case this were done it should not only expresse the dignity grace of the New Testament but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ might both heare and see playnly what is done as it was used in the Primative Church when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet Hereupon as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx London 1559. and not upon M. Calvins Letter as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40. all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappell 's and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as appeares by that is storied of Bishop Farrar by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance caused the sayd Altar to be taken away and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH which the Vicar removing Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion After this in the 5. 6. yeare of King Edwards Raigne as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church according to the prophesie of William Mauldon who in thâ— dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit no doubt of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes c. so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Convocation and Parliament and the name of Gods-boord Lords-Table Table and Holy-Table inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed the Table enjoyned therein at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them as he that reades them may discerne A truth so cleare that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar p. 39. 40. confesseth that the former Liturgie wherein was the name of Altar was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established yeâ— upon this only ground not from any scandaâ— which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector c. A very likely tale I promise you As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England would be so rash or inconsiderate as to alter their whole Liturgie formerly confirmed by Parleament only to humor M. Calvin without any Scripture reason or other convincing considerations and upon no other groundes Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall though positively layd downe or else the Church of England
Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
ministred in his remembrance Ergo he is come c. As for the taking downe of the Altars it was done upon just consideracions for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jewes usage Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministred more duely received then in these later dayes when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church Lincolne A goodly receiving I promise yow to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive and yet when your Table was constituted yow could never be content in placing the same now East now North now one way now another untill it pleased God of his goodnes to place it cleane out of the Church Ridley your Lordships unreverent termes doe not elevate the thing c. To this speech of Bishop White M. Fox affixeth this marginall Censure Bishop White blasphemously calleth the board of the Lords Table An Oyster Table Which just Censure the Coale from the Altar most injuriously turnes upon M. Prynne for calling the Lords Table a Drester A slovenly and scornefull terme deserving no other Answer then what the marginall Notes in the Acts Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminster or in the other to the Bishop of Lincolne D. White And truly had the Gentleman in the place pretended expresly termed the Lords Table a Dresser as these two nickenamed it An Oister board or Oyster Table I should have passed thus verdict upon him that he was Nigâ—o CARBONE notandus defamedly marked with this blacke Coale But examining his words finding them to be misreported to lay a causeles blemish on him I must needs conclude that the namcelesse Preist or Colier who hath fastned this scandall on him is as blacke shameles as his Coale For he never termes the Lords Table a Dresser but only Censures such who against the Rubricke for the Communion Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the Canons An. 1571. not 1471. as himselfe mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking p. 18. which is no mistake the English Coppy which he no question saw and followed printed the same yeare with the Latine which is p. 15. warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page words what ever the Coale either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary at the administration of the Sacrament place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall more like a Side-Table Cupbard or Dresser then a Lords Table to eat and drinke at Like or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table is all he writes wherein he is as farre from blasphemie or calling the Lords Table a Dresser as the Scripture itselfe is from blasphemie or terming Christ a thâ—â—fe when it sayth Matth. 24. 4â— 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ the day of the Lord shall come as or like a Thiefe in the night the comparisons similitudes being both apt the one in regard of the maner of the Tables situation the other in respect of the sodaine fearfull unexpectednes of Christs second comming to Judgment though the name of a Dresser unfit to be imposed on the Lords Table of a theife upon our Saviour By which slovenly terme M. Prynne is so farre from calling the Communion Table that he phraseth it A religious implement of Gods owne appointment But to returne againe to that from which this false Calumnie in the Coale hath diverted me This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley not long after this his Conference to shew how eagerly the Popish Prelates were bent to remove Communion Tables set up Altars in their steeds how much he detested this their practise in his excellent Farwell to his friends in generall breakes forth into these patheticke words Othou now wicked and bloody Sea why dost thou now set up againe many Altars of Idolatrie which by the word of God were justly taken away Why hast thou overthrowne the Lords Table Why dost thow dayly delude thy people masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper The Papists in their discourses with our stout learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hote as a Coale for Altars the Sacrament of the Altare For in his 11. examination on S. Andrewes day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him demaunded whether S. Augustine did not call the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar To which M. Philpot replied That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament For so he and other ancient writers doe call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offred upon the Altar of the Crosse the with Sacrifice all the Altaâ—s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone Christopherson No doth I pray yow what signifieth Altar Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it materially but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson Where find yow it ever so taken Philpot. O yes that I doe in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he sayth We have an Altar of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serve the Tabernacle Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone Christopherson Well God blesse me out of your company yow are such an oâ— stinate heretike that I never heard the like Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors which when they are not able to prove what they say then they fall to blaspheming as yow doe for want of better proofe In the CoÌ„ference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn March 155â— Martyn speakes thus to Crammer in defence of Masse Altars which he couples both togeather If yow marke the Devills language well it agreeth with your proceedings most truly For cast thy selfe downeward sayd he and so taught yow to cast all things downe wardes Downe with the Sacrament downe with the Masse downe with the Altars c. In Cardinall Pooles visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors sett forth certaine Statutes whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered wherein among other things they prescribed at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himselfe to the Altar a ceremonie superstition and Idolatrie now taken up by many contrary to or without all Scriptures Law and Canon though thus enjoyned by borrowed from the Papists whose superstitious toyes are now much imitated and adored In Aprill the same yeare Cardinall Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocesse of Canterbury Article 18. 23. concerning the people inquired whether the Altars in the
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
heaven neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table an Altar nor make mention of an Altar whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes His authority therfore might well have been spared The next Father is Tertullian out of whom two passages are alleadged One out of his Booke de Poenitentia where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras Bowing and ducking to Altars now much in use But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity as to be adored bowed to since the consecration of them came in long after in Pope Felix time as M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon neither can it be proved that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars This authority therfore is suspicious to put it out of doubt Erasmus Rhenanus Junius M. Cooke prove it not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him the phrase being certainely none of his no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior â—rit statio tuaâ—siâ—ad Atam Deisteris Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned not kneeling or bowing to or at it So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view To this I answer that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans yet I suspect that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained where in this passage is are none of his For I find this passage in them Sic die Paschae quo communis quasi publica jejunij religio est merito deponiemus of culum c. which intimates that Christians on Easter day did Keep a common publike Fast â—nd therfore refused to kisse one anotherâ— And it makes Easter day not to be Stationum dies a day of praying standing as the next words prove Now it is certaine that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis writes that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection much more then to doe it upon Easter day and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Easter to whitsontide No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians in that age on Easter day who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce applying that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast Psall 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it This passage makes me suspitious that the later part of this Booke is none of his Adde to this That Cyprian a great admirer of Tertullian whom he stiled his Minister makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar or Kisse of peace or other such Customes Ceremonies in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lords Prayer which is probable he would have done had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church Moreover this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke intitled the Pastor by way of approbation and gives an answer to an objection out of it when as in his Booke de Pudicitia he thus censures it as counterfeit Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha falsa adultera judicatur as the Bookes now passing under his name are accounted Moreover in this very Booke of Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them ioyntly stiled the Eucharist both of them interpret Give us this day our dayly bread of Christ who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven whose body the Sacramentall bread is esteemed and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament and Eucharist Now both of them stiling the Sacrament the Eucharist and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us neither of a Table we may doubt this passage to be none of his Beside this that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ very neare Tertullians time writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome that an ancient Minister who was a Bishop long before him a plaine evidence that Ministers Bishops were then both one and so promiscuously stiled being present when some were baptised hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true whereupon he desired to be rebaptized which he durst not doe but told him that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food and had communicated and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I durst not againe baptise him but bade him be of good cheare of a sure faith and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts But he for all this morunneth continually horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE and being intreated hardly is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe we have not mention at all of any Altar or Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar but twice together the name of the Lords Table also of a dayly Communion holy food ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which being the proper genuine undoubted language of that age makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted He as also Justine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus oft times making mention of the Lords Supper the Eucharist bread and wine receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers and the Tables to but never of any Sacrament of the Altar nor of an Altar but only here Finally all the forequoted Fathers Authors expresly determine that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250 yeares after Christ had no Temples Altars nor Images at all and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age This authority therfore of his all others cited in the Coale great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches Temples Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ must needs be fabulous
Apocryphall He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches in the Authors quoted or in truth misquoted by him for materiall Churches which they meane only of the Christian Congregations who had then no publike Churches but only private places in Woods Chambers Vaults Caves and the like to meet in as Tertullianâ— Bishop Jewell and our owne Homilies witnes But admit this Booke Passage to be Tertullians owne yet then it may be a question whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table or that place wherein the Christians mett Ara signifying a Sanctuarie as well as an Altar If the place wherein the Christians assembled as the words preceeding drift of the place import Sle militer de statlonum diebus non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis Deo obligat Nonne solemnor erit statio sâ—ad Aram Dei steteris to wit after the Sacrament received Accepto corpore Domini reservatio utrumque salarum est participatio Sacrificij executio officij which cannot properly be intended that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood standing still in the place that they received in but that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled till all prayers divine offices were fully ended If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe then it makes nothing to the purpose if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe then it will inevitably follow hence that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing not kneeling and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However it is but a single Testimonie therfore ought not to â—ver-ballance those many pregnant weighty punctuall authorities to the contrary The last authority to prove the name use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius in Oâ—igens time is S. Cyprians Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale but the words not cited The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill to approch to the Altar of God c. whence we behold and beleive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God ne apud Altare consistere that they should not persevere to stand at the Altar or any more to handle it And that they should contend with all their might that such should not returne againe ad Altaris impiamenta contagia fratrum to the polluting of the Altar and contagion of the brethren The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Furnis It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer of any mans will since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices and to prayers and orisons The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple and Altar divine service had no inheritance or temporall portion allotted them among their brethren but others manuring the earth they should only worship God c. Therfore Victor since against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter a Tutor non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose necessarie factum servetur a nobis simul caeteris fratribus detur exemplum ne quid Sacerdotes ministros Dei Altari ejus Ecclesiae vocantes ad saeculares molestias devocet The third is his Epistle to Januarius Porro autem Eucharistia unde baptizati unguntur oleum in Altari sanctificatur sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam qui nec Altare habuit nec Ecclesiam unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse quando constet oleum sanctificari Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse And in his Oration de Coena Domini we find only once mention of the Lords Table twice of an Altar To these authorities I answer first in generall that the often mention of an Altar in these places rather argues the Epistles this Sermon not to be Cyprians then that the Christians in his time had Altars which all the forecited Fathers Authors deny 2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian and many places in him corrupted as D. James M. Alexander Cooke have proved among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini which mentions Altars with other of his workes to be none of his but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian these Epistles for ought I know may be his or some others most at least many of the Epistles or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes being spurious 3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age Dionysiusâ—Alexandrinus as I have proved in his Epistle registred by Eusebius living about S. Cyprians age twice termes it only the Lords Table 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles seemes to stagger at them nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written nor what the parties were to whom or concerning whom they were directed 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body blood the Table in S. Paules words only the Lords Table And in his Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament which all coufes to be his he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament writing that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euangelicall truth and Dominicall tradition nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any thing then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema That Christ only is to be heard therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done but that Christ who is before all men hath first done Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man but the truth of God For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ I find
none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâ—sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâ—d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aâ—t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ— almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌ„secrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lâ—â—e Popish foâ—gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â— 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
faithfullist understanding the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched For thus I understand them The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar which Altar betokeneth the Crosse which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherfore good Christian brethren let us that are homely fellowes not be ashamed of the old Termes that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread by the name of the Lords Supper or the Communion partaking of the body bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper lett us both have it and call it the Lords-bord or the Lords-Table and not a borrowed towell nor a Popish stone Altar nor yet a wodden Altar with a Super-altar And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought the Popes glace and his faire Ladyes of Rome Thus he John Bale Bishop of Osyris in his Image of both Churches or parâ—phrase upon the Revelation as he makes Christ himselfe the only Altar spoken of and intended Rev. 6. 9. c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke he reckons up beades Altars Images Organs Lights c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church terming them the very filthy dreggs of darknes All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shal be plucked away by the evident word of God and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appeare For no longer continueth the whore then whoredome is in price Take away the Rites and Ceremonies the Jewels and Ornaments the Images and lightes their Lordships and Fatherhodes the Altars and Masses with the Bishops and Preists and what is their Holy whorish Church any more Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9 reckons up Altars Copes Masses Trentals among other Popish abominations which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony how wickedly soever they had lived And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all as for the eyes their God hanges in a rope Images gilded painted carved most finely copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners with Reliques and Altars for the eares singing ringing and Organs piping for the nose frankincense sweet to wash away sinnes as they say Holy water of their owne holying and making Preists an infinite sort Masses Trentalls driges and pardones c. But where the Gospells preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are content with an Honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all but have only a pulpit a preacher to the People a Deacon for the poore a Table for the Communion with bare walles or els written with Scriptures haveing Gods eternall word sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares and last of all they should have good discipline correct faults and keepe good order in all their meetings Learned M. Thomas Becon in his workes in Folio printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. dedicated by name to both their Archbishops all the Bishops of England by them approved hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars some whereof I shall transcribe at large In his Humble supplication unto God for the restoring of his Holy word written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus Moreover heretofore we were taught to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode a strang Sacrifice for sinne commaunded to be built up as though calfes goates sheep such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron for the sinnes of the people and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table and after the example of Christ to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken and his bloud shead for our sinnes But now the sacrificing â—orcerers shame not both in their private talke and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne and of the Primative Church used at the Ministration of the Holy Communion and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars and upon those they sacrifice offer dayly say they that is they kill slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is there is no remission and forgivenes of sinnes If thorow their Massing sinnes be forgiuen then must the Sacrifice that there is offred be slain and the bloud thereof shead If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Masses a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people so followeth it that they murder kill and slea Christ yea and shed his bloud at their Masses and so by this meanes we must needes confesse that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers then honest and pure Tables But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death dyeth no more Death hath no more power over him For as touching that he died he died concerning sinne once And as touching that he liveth he liveth unto the God his Father If Christ therfore died no more then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more If they sacrifice him no more then are they but jangling juglars and their Masses serve for none other purpose but to keepe the people in blindnesse to deface the passion and death of Christ and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies in all pompe and honor with the labor of other mens hands and with the sweat of poope mens browes so farr is it of that they with their abominable Massing stincking sacrificing put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead as they make the unlearned simple people to beleive Ah Lord God heavenly Father if thou were not a God of long suffring of great patience how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries and so much detestable blasphemyes which the wicked Papists committ against thee thy sonne Christ in their Idolatrous Masses at their Heathenish Altars As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel the Altars of the Lord were cast downe and other Altars were reared and set up to Baal even so now the Tables
of the Lord where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministred are cast downe broken on peces and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim to Erkenwald to Grimbald to Catherine to Modwyne c. But ô Lord bannish out of the Congregation that most vile stinking Idoll the Masse and restore unto us the Holy blessed Communion that we eating together of one bread and drinking of one Cup may remember the Lords death be thankfull to thee Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations of Ceremonies of Images of Altars of Copes of vestmentes of Pixes of Crosses of Censers of Holy waterbuckets of Holy bread basketes of Chrismatories above all Idolatrous Preists and ungodly ignorant Curates And in his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse fol. 100. 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper used his common dayly apparel The Massemonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenicall gameplayers garments as with an Humerall or Ephod with an Albe with a girdle with a stole with a maniple with an amice with a chesible and the like c. commeth unto the Altar with great Pompe and with a solemne pace Where it is wonderfull to be spoken how he setteth forth himselfe to all Godly men to be lamented pitied to children even to be derided to be lauged to scorne while like another Roscius with his foolish player-like mad gestures the poore wretch wrytheth himselfe on every side now bowing his knees now standing right up now crossing himselfe as though he were a frayd of spirites now stoping downe now prostrating himselfe now knocking on his breast now sensing now kissing the Altar the Booke and Patene now streching out his armes now folding his hands together now making charecters signes tokens crosses now lifting up the bread Chalice now holding his peace now crying out now saying now singing now breathing now making no noise now washing of hands now eating now drinking now turning him unto the Altar now unto the people now blessing the people either with his fingers or with an empty cuppe c. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories that the Ministers of Christes churche in times past when they ministred the Holy Sacraments either of Baptisme or of the Lords Supper used none other then their Common and dayly apparell yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first which first of all as Sabellicus testifyeth did forbidd that from thence forth Preistes in doing their divine service should no more use their dayly aray but such holy garmentes as were appointed unto that use This Bishop lived in the yeare of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly and without any decking or gorgious furniture prepared and ministred that heavenly banket The Massemonger with a marvelous great pompe wonderfull gay shâ—w setteth forth his marchandise For he hath an Altar sumptuously built yea that is covered with most fyne and white linnen clothes so likewise richly garnished decked and trimmed with divers gorgious pictures and costly Images He hath also crewettes for water and for wine towels coffers pyxes Philacteries banners candlestickes waxe candles organes singing Bells sacry belles chalices of silver and of gold patenes sensers shyppe frankensence Altar cloothes curtines paxes basyns ewers crosses Chrismatory Reliques jewels owches precious stones myters crosse staves and many other such like ornaments more meet for the Preisthode of Aaron then for the mynistery of the New Testament It is nobly sayd of S. Ambrose the Sacraments require no gold neither do they delight in gold which are not bought for gold The garnishing of the Sacramentes is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners And verily those are precious vesselles which redeeme soules from death That is the true treasure of the Lord which worketh that that his bloud hath wrought Againe he sayth The church hath gold not that it should keepe it but that it should bestow it and helpe when need is For what doth it profitt to keep that which serveth to no use Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and bloud to his Disciples sitting at the Table When the time was now come sayth Luke Jesus sate downe and his 12. Disciples with him Luc. 22. The Massemonger delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar In distributing the mysteries of his body bloud Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aarons Preistes whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beastes but he used a Table as a furniture much more meet to gett defend confirme encrease and continue Frendship But the Massemonger as one alwayes desirous to shed bloud standeth at an Altar and so delivereth the Communion to his people when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banket maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table saying 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lordes Table of the Table of the Devills Neither did the ancient old Church of Christ alow these Aaronicall and Jewish Altars For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper after the example of Christ as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures also by the writings of the auncient Fathers and Doctors For the Sacrifices taken away to what use I pray yow should Altars serve among the Christians except ye will call againe and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices Truly Altars serve rather for the killing of beastes then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Freindship neither doe those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion then the cawdron the fyrepanne the basen the sholve the fleshhoke the gredyrne and such like instruments which the Preistes of Aaron used in preparing dressing and doing their Sacrifices For unto the Honest seemly worthy celebration of the Holy banket of the body and bloud of Christ we have need not of an Altar but of a Table except ye will say that the primative Church which more then two hundred yeares after Christes ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries yea except ye will say that Christ himselfe the Author of this most Holy Supper did dote was out of his witts which not standing at an Altar like Aarons Preist but sitting at a Table as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordaine and minister this Holy Heavenly food For who is so rude ignorant of antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper when notwithstanding from Christes ascension unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of
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
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
thus Thus Idolls brought in Oratories Chapels and Altars Sacrifices vestimentes such like vvhich all be utterly condemned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches he concludes thus then they put on their Massing coates and come like blind fooles with candles in their handes at noone daye and so proceed to the Holy Masse vvith renting of throtes tearing of notes chanting of Preists howling of Clarkes flinging of coales piping of Organs thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity many mad parts be played But vvhen the vice is come from the Altar and the people shall have no more sport they conclude their service with a true sentence Terribilis est locus iste this place is terrible And have they not fisht faire thinke you to make such a doe to bring in the Devill O blind beastes O senselesse Hipocrites whom God hath geven over unto themselves that they should not see their owne folly and yet bevvray their shame to all the vvorld beside Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars Concerning the Altar how it vvas made for matter height length and breadth the text is plaine in the 8. first verses For the use of us we may note two things First that it was a figure of Christ as the Apostle to the Hebrewes expoundeth it And secondly that the Altars used in Popery are not warranted by this example But that the Primative Churches used Communion Tables as we now doe of boards and wood not Altars as they doe of stone Origen was above two hundred yeares after Christ he sayth that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians Quod nec imagines nec Templa nec Aras haberent that they had neither Images nor Churches nor Altars Arnobius after him sayth the same to the Heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus nec Aras nec Imagines yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Altars nor Images Gerson sayth that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar but himselfe and his successors there Belike then the former ages knew not profound reason that Altars must be of stone quia Peâ—ra erat Christus because the Rocke was Christ as Durandus after devised Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steddinesse and continuance wooden Tables having been before used but I say in some places not in all For S. Augustine sayth that in his time in Africa they were made of wood For the Donatists sayth he breake in sunder the Altar-boords Again the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar Chrysostome calleth it The Holy boord S. Augustine mensam Domini the Table of the Lord. Athanasius mensam ligneam the Table of wood Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar not that it was so but only by allusion metaphorically as Christ is called an Altar or our hearts be called Altars c. Marke with your selfe therfore the newnesse of this point for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables and let Popery and his parts fall and truth sound antiquity be regarded Touching the hornes of the Altar spoken of they litterally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of figuratively noted strength so that to bind the Sacrifice to the hornes of the Altar was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith and only to rest trust and stay upon him and to tye all carnall affections fast also to the Altars Hornes by subduing and making them captive to God This Altar was in one place and the Sacrifice in one place nothing how Christ should only once and in one place offer up himselfe for all man kind Concerning the Lampes as little doe they warrant Popish Altars And Christians used no such follies apish imitations of things abrogated serving only for the time M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists translation Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars The next note to discerne the Lords body is the removing of prophane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars So the Rhemists to which he replies Altars under the Law were Holy because they were builded upon the foundation of Gods institution Now they are prophane not only because they have no institution of God whereupon a stone may be layd but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and in the matter of the Eucharist never mentioneth Altar which is confirmed further in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord whereunto a Table doth well agree is never termed a Sacrifice for which an Altar is fit That it is sayd they sat downe a thing used at a table strang at an Altar whereat they sat not but stood that they did eat drinke which was never used at an Altar and is usuall at a table For although they did eate of that which came from the Altar yet they never did eate at it And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law why should our table be prophane or your Altar Holy considering that even under the Law there was as well a Holy table as an Holy Altar And setting apart the example of Christ by so much the table is fitter now then the Altar as the shew-bread standing upon the table hath a nearer Analogie with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slaine beastes which was layd upon the Altar Now your Hill Altars being failed of the Holy Scriptures goe to beg grace of the ancient Fathers where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chappell at Rome which is alwayes building and never built If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up yet bring they no morter to hold them from falling upon heapes For often times they helpe you with the name of an Altar when the thing they signifie therby is a Communion Table assigning it the Deacons Dutie to remove the Altar that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE even as they terme the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly because it is a signe of the true Sacrifice when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament Other sometimes even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from yow calling that whereupon the Holy things are set as it is a Table
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
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ— Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overâ—t for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ„ any irreverÌ„ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
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-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—
alwayes hath been our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we accompt the most glorious in all our Crowne Defender of the faith NEITHER SHALL WEE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AUTHORIZINGE OF ANY THINGE WHERE BY ANY INNOUATION MAY STEALE OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH but preserue the vnity of Doctrine discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England had stood florished ever since Wee doe here professe to maintaine the true Religion Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without admitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EITHER TO POPERY OR SCHISME Wee doe also declare that wee maintaine the ancient just Rights Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy justice that they shall haue cause to acknowledge that under our goverment gracious protection they live in a more happy and free estate then any Subjects in the Christian world But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars so terming them the rayling of them in Altarwise so standing the forceing of the Communicants by seuerall rankes files to come vp to them there to receive kneeling at the rayle the enjoyning of Ministers to read the second service as they now Tearme it at the Table when there is no Communion to ducke to bow vnto it going to it returning from it at their ingresse to egresse from the Church all which Bishop Wren others in their late visitation Articles instructions have most strictly enjoined suspending excommunicating such Ministers Churchwardens who have refused to submitt to these otherlike Romish Nouelties are all of them direct Innouations not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth raigne till of late they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England hath stood florished euer since they are an apparent backsliding to Popery borrowed from the Papishs and brought in only to simbolize with them sett vp Masse and that all Popish Doctrines Rites Ceremonies againe by degres as the premises experience witnes They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights Liberties of the Subjects who ought not to have any such Nouelties thrust vpon them much lesse to be excommunicated fined suspended imprisoned thrust from their freeholds Lectures Cures but by the Law of the Land some speciall Act of parleament as the Statute of Magna Charta c. 29. The late Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein recited expresly resolve Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes Declarations this his most solemne Christian Protistation both to God All his Loyall Subjects Neither hath his Majestey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them or given any admittance or conniuance to them or given any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them as the nameles Author of the Coale most impudently falsely to his Mayesteyes great dishonor reproach hath a vowed in print the Bishops their officers given out in speeches to couler ouer these all other their late Popish Innouations brought in fomented by themselves alone in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration royall pleasure signified this is print by Speciall Command to all his Loyall Subjects whose heares were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first as now they are overgreiued to see the Metropolitanes Bishops Ordinaries this blacke Collier in his blushlesse Coale from the Altar so insolently apparantly to thwart affront bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innouations by suspending silencing excommunicating all such faithfull Ministers Lecturers Church-wardens People who out of Conscience towars God Loyalty to his Mayesteyes Lawes obedience to this his royall Declaration refuse to submit vnto them which they hope his Mayestey vpon information of this their most desperate insolency exorbitant disloyalty rebellion against his Lawes Declaration will not only consider but most seuerely punish to his poore Subjects comfort releife 4. His Mayesteye to shew his further detestation against these Innouations in his Declaration before the 39. Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes commaundment London 1628. which Declaration was made vpon mature Deliberation with the advise of so many of our Bishops as might conueniently becalled together thus signifieth his royall pleasure therein That wee are supreme Gouernour of the Church of England and that if ANY DIFFERENCE ARISE about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soeuer thereto belonging THE CLERGIE IN THEIR CONVOCATION not euery Bishop or ordinary in his Dioces as the Coale order of the Councill Table oited in it which doubt lesse in this was not rightly entred or Copied and determines IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM But how of their owne heades without any speciall Commission from his Minyestey Noe I warrant you having FIRST obtained LEAVE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE SO TO DOE AND WEE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONS providing that none bemade CONTRARY TO THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF THE LAND That of our Prinely care that the Churchmen may doe the worke which is proper vnto them the Bishops Clergie from time to time in Convocation vpon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE to deliberate of and to doe all such things as being made plaine by them ASSENTED TO BY VS shall concerne THE SETLED CONTINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now established FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE Where his Mayestey the Bishops themselves expressely determine against the Coales Doctrine Bishops Practise 1. That if any difference arise about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging or the true sence and meaning of them not the Metropolitane or Ordinaries in their seuerall Iurisdictions nor yet the High Commissioners but the whole Clergie in Convocation is to order them Therefore this difference concerning Alters the situation ray ling in of Communion Tables the reading of the 2. service at them receiving at them the like which euery Bishop Arch-deacon Chancellor Surregare now takes vpon hâ—m perempterily to order Alter at his pleasurs 2. That the whole Clergie in Convocation can neither deliberate on nor Order or settle any thing in these or such other particulars or differences unlesse they first obtaine leave from his Mayestey vnder his brode seale so to doe He also approve their said ordinances Constitutions by his orâ— aâ—d seale Letters Parents Therefore the Metropolitane himselfe the Bishops Arch deacons other Ordinaries with their vnder-Officers can order or settle nothing in these particulars or others nor
prescribe any new Rites Ceremonies or visitation 〈◊〉 Articles in their owne names by their owne power as they most presumptuously doe in all places euery day without any leaue first obtained from his Mayestey vnder his bread Seale so to doe or to publish give them in charge impose them on his Subjects without his Majesteyes approvation asleht thereto his broad Seale likewise 3. That the Clergie in Conuocation much lesse then any Bishop in his Diocesse can order or determine nothing no not by his Mayesteyes licence approbation vnder his broad Seale that can binde the Subjects or inferior Clergie in case it be contrary to the Lawes and Customes of the Realme But Articles Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars rayling them in Altarwise with other for enamed particulars are contrary to the Lawes of the Realme to the Customes of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now sufficient to make two successive prescriptions at the Citull Canon Law neither were this made by the Clergie in Conuocation by his Mayesteyes licence assent vnder his Seale but by the Bishops Arch-deucons their officers themselves without any such royall license or assent Therefore they are meerly voyd neither doe nor ought to binde his Mayesteyes Subjects or the inferior Clergie 4. That his Majestey will never authorize or assent vnto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergie no not in Conuocation but what shall concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars the rayling of them in Altarwise c. Do not concerne the setled continuance of the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England but tend to the seâ—ret vndermining discontinuance of them Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized nor assented to these Innouations 5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree from the setled established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops who were priuy to this his Royall Declaration made by their owne advice should vary depart from both in setting vp Altars in steed of Lords Tables in Terming the Lords Table an Altar high Altar his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar in rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise their forcing the Ministers to consecrate the people to receiue or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies Much lesse wil he endure that they should affirme both by word mouth printed Bookes authorized by their Chaplaines that all these things are done with his approbation by his priuate direction Commaund but will one day call them and these erronious superstitious Popish writers to an account for these their andacious contumelies affronts in contempt of his Lawes and Declarations of purpose to alienate the hearts affections of his faithfull loyall subjects from him to countenance further their owne Romish designes to vndermine religion vsher in Poper by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head rayle but almost its intire body into our Church by these their treacherous disloyall practises proceedings Innouations All which considered the Councell Table order for St. Gregorius Tables seituation will stand the Bishops the Colier in no steed at all and the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar with other popish Scriblers may justly feare that his Majestey for those vntriuthes false Rumors raysed vp publikely printed of him as if he were the cheife Patron Author Directâ—r of all those late Romish Nouclties Rites Ceremonies which haue either secretly crept or vyolently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Lawes Declarations will give them no great thankes or reward but inflict an heauy censure on them and make them their abesters sing a publike Palinodie suitable to these his Royall Declarations published by his speciall Commaund from whence his justice honor piety constancy will neuer doubtles suffer him to receed in the least degree I haue now through Gods assistance runne over blowen out and quite extinguished as I suppose the Coale from the Altar or rather from Mr. Samuel Bakers Ouen which was like to sets our Churchon fire what euer the nameles Author of this Treatise who vpon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine as the Title stiles him or Mr. Shelford Doctor Pocklington or Edmond Reeue haue lately written or objected in defence of Altars or placing rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise talking of those idle glosses false Cauils they haue made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop Iewel and Dr. Williams Bishop of Lincolne in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham for he is certainly knowen to be the Author of it and hath auowed it haue produced against the Antiquity of Altars for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Quire all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure hauing done nothing in this argument out of vaine glory faction opposition or desire of victory over impotent Antigonists but out of a sincere affection to the truth that loyalty that duty endeared respect I beare both to my gracious Prince whose honor Constancy fidelity are interessed in this Controversie to the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England which these like so many secret Powder-traytors would sodainly blow vp subuert by their Romish Treatises desperate Innouations If I have fayled or erred in any particular as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality impute it not is the wilfulnes but weakenes of him who wil be more glad more ready to see correct his owne Ouersights then to lay open or Censure others if thou receive satisfaction from it as I hope thou will in some good measure in the things therein discussed give God the glory pray for me who as I am not afrayd to defend the truth in this Apostatizing faint hearted age when as it hath few Friends but feuer Patrons so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence when the Author of the Coale from the Altar dares be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assayling firebrand which I here principally haue encountred with our owne domesticke writters Records And now good Reader I should here dismisse thee but that as the Coale concludes with the Councel-Table Order the Coppy of that Letter which it thought to burne to ashes so I shall close vp the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Relation of the Manner forme not only of turning a Communion Table Altar-wise but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemne manner as our age hath scarce heard the like The Historie whereof as it was acted I
haue vnder the hands of an eyewitnes or two who with-hundreds more can make it good if need be vpon their Oathes THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the Countie of STAFFORD consecrating it for an Altar the 11. day of October Anno Domini 1635. VPON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Maister Edward Latham one of the Proctors of Leichfeild Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons men weomen and Chorasters came to the Towne many of the Inhabitants but cheifly the Clergie going to meet him The intent of his their coming was to performe the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar and of consecrating certeyne Altar Cloathes as they said to the glory of God The Table was made new for this purpose being about a yard an halfe in lenght exquisitely wrought and inlaid a fayre wall of waynscot being at the backe of it the rayle before it was made to open in the middle not at one side the middle where the Ministers tread being matted with a very fayre Matt. Vpon the Table was placed a faire Communion Booke couered with cloth of gold bossed with great silver Bosses together with a faire Cushion of Damaske with a Carpet of the same both party coulored of skie coulor purple the fringe of the Carpet being blew white On each side of the Table hangs two peices of white Callico betwixt them the 10 Commaundements written in a fayre Table with guilded Letters the foresaid Cushion standing just below it But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate in that peice of white Callico is represented at the top the picture of Angels with faces cloudes birdes fleying about the middle the picture of Peter on the Crosse at the bottome George on horsebacke treading on the Dragon leaues grasse with some trees being beneath all almost at the end of it In the other peice of white Callico on the West end is the same as on the North end only the picture in the middle differs being the picture of Paul with his sword in his hand all this being the curious worke of some needle woman Now the mysterie why the Pictures of Peter Paul George on horsebacke more other are in this worke is imagined because the Church is dedicated to the memorie of Peter and Paul it is vnder the Iurisdiction of Sant Georges Chappell at Windsor The next day being the Lords day assoone as the Preists for so they would be called to suite the better with their Altar came to the Church each of them made a Low Congie a peece at their very first entring in at the great Church dore and an other Congie a peece at the I le dore after that 3. Congies apeece towards the Altar before its dedication and so they went into the Chancell where a bason of water a towel was provided for the Preistes to wash in where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church then they returned backe making 3. Congies a peece went to service which was solemnely performed the Organs blowing great singing not heard of in this Church before which kinde of seruice lasted two howres at least Seruice being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Maister Ieffery Arch-deacon of Salop in the County of Salop whom the Surragate brought with him His text was Iohn 10. 22. 23. And it was at Hierusalem the Feast of the Dedication it was winter Iesus walked in the Temple in Salomons Porch All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar He had not one place of Canonicall Scripture as we remember but one place in all which was out of the Maccabees His Sermon lasted an hower After Sermon they went to the Dedication or rather as the Preacher stiled it Renouation of the Altar and in the Bell-house 4. of them putt on the rich broydered Copes and euery one of them had a Paper in his hand which they termed Censer so they went vp to the Altar reading as it went for they looked often on it As they went they made 3. Congies apeece when they came to the Altar they kneeled downe prayed ouer the cloth the other Consecrated things the Organs blowing all the while this solemnity lasted almost halfe an hower After all this was performed there was a Communion and one was appointed to stand with a Bason to receyve the offertory divers gaue mony it was thought it had been giuen to the poore but the man that held the Bason gaue it to the Surragate the somme gathered being reputed about 40. s he calling the Church-wardens gaue them as he said 10. s the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious vses but the 10 d. being counted proved to want 6. of the just somme he said he had deliuered them None gaue the Communion but the 4. that had Copes This finished they washed their hands returned making 3. Congies apeece as before These Copes the siluer Basons were brought from Leich feild The Communion and Dedication ended they went to dinner in the Afternoone they come to Church againe where was a Sermon preached by one Maister Vsuall a Minister his text was in the 2. Sam 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet se now I dwell in an house of Cedar And the Arke of God abideth vnder Curtaines This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar lasted more then an hower which being finished they went to prayer which was very solemnely performed the Organs blowing diuers Anthems Responds being sung at that time which done they departed from the Church to their lodging where they were very merry to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher the next day being munday they of Leich-feld went out of Towne many of them very drunke defiling themselues with this swinish sinne like so many filthie brute beastes to make the Altar the more holy venerable and themselves more apt to nod Congie to it this maner of keeping this feast of Dedication a patterne for all the Country to Imitate Thus ended this late Dedication with which I here conclude my rude Discourse and Quench-Coale THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to pâ—opound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors Innouatâ—rs together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts Questions to thâ—m The first Quaere is this What is the true finall end they ayme at in erecting Altars styling Communion Tables Altars placing them Altar-wise in christening themselves againe by the name of Preists not as it is vsed for a contract of the word Presbyter which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the Gosple but of
the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the lâ—st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the â—â—nation of Tables Altarwise being but â— ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idololaâ—rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such â— purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickleâ— of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not â— Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preistâ— observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A tâ—r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no Câ—alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5â— 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. Hâ—b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our
sules bodies to be a reasonable holy livelie SACRIFICE unto thee But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament we offer up nothing unto God but only God tenders his Sonne with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us As the words take rate this the prayers before and after the Sacrament the Scriptures and every mans experience withesseth Therefore it can by noe meanes be tearmed a Sacrifice Whence the Homille of the Sacrament tearms our thanksgiving to God after the SacrameÌ„t received and at other times a Sacrifice p. 103. as the Apostle expresly doth Heb 13. 15. the Psalmist before him Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. Ier. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. Ion. 2. 9. But never tearmes the Sacrament it selfe thus because it neither is nor can be a sacrifice commemorative or propitiatâ—rie unlesse with reference to this thanksgiving and to the whole act and service not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine as B sh 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout 5. This Homily â— times together her case the Sacrament a Table Lords Table never a Sacrifice an Altar or Sacâ—â—ment of the Altar Admitt the Homilie granted it to be a Sacrifice which it doth not yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Preist Altar or Tables situated Altar-wise euen by the Homilie and Booke of Common-prayers resolution Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice as these Innovators would obtrude by crast and power upon us which stands in need both of a Preist an Altar or Table placed Altar-wiseâ— or of the name of a Sacrifice to make people reasly to esteeme in so 6. Nemorepente for turpissimus 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves or proceed so farre at the first dash for feare of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉 but they will usher in things by certaine insemble degrees step by step till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last First then wee most haue Communion-Tables only turned Altar-wise Then wee must haue them termed Altars Next wee must sett up Altars indeed Then wee must cringe to and adore them after that haue a Preist to write on them then a commemorative sacrificrenly to bee off red on them And thus farre wee have already proceeded in many places AND GENERALL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHVRCHES as the Colier in formes his friend and â—eader both p. 1. and 27 The Ring-leaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us backe to Rome that â—â—unded them And now must wee and Rome bee brought â—â—gether 〈…〉 as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other the next step must be to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice as the Papists doe who first proceeded â— this method and held it but commemorative as appeares by all their ancient Schoolemen And then when the thing itselfe is once gott inâ— the name of it â—yet too grosse and odioâ—â— will quickly follow it shall then be rebaptized with the name of Masse by these its Godfathers who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title The Sacrament of the Altar because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. stiles it the Sacrament of the body blood of Christ commonly called to witt by the Papists in those dayes not the Parliament or Protestants The Sacrament of the Altar So they will by the selfesame reason call it by the name of the Masse and justify this Title of it by the Masse itselfe to be lawfully warranted both by Prince Pâ—â—late Preist the whole Parliament because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. and the Booke of Common-prayer established by it there stiles it The holy Commâ—nion commonly called THE MASSE to witt by the Papists and ignorant people of those times the Masse being not quite abolished till this law was made Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Masse and the name of Masse 〈◊〉 is cleare by the body of the Act the Booke of the Commoâ—-prayer then sett out and since corrected the Homily of the worthy receiâ—ing of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Articleâ— with all the surnamed writers Injunctions and Cannons of our Church and neither old Doting Shelford nor his soâ—â—e the Colier dare deny even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar Though thâ—se ignorant Scribâ—â—â— would justifie both the lawfullnes of Altars and of termâ—â— the Loâ—ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from thâ—â—â— against the meaning of the Law as I have already â—â—â—fested Since therefore it is cleare by the Colier that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designes in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Churchâ— which he tearmes A GOOD WORKE J would it were so NOW IN HAND which wee finde too true and since this good worke is just like Coliers worke and Character by the printed yea his owne happy premunition truly ROMAN to witt by Altars and Preists and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Masse with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedrall Collegiate Churches It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestick â—â—â—ialists what their intentions are to stoppe their further progresse both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designes and to admonish them and all others in the words of our owne established Homily BEFORE ALL THINGS this wee must be sure of especially that this supper be in such wise done and ministred as our Lord and Saviour did and commanded it to be done as his holy Apostles used it and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it For as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery then it was delivered by him Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume then it was giuen by the Author but when the Author gave it he gave it not a Sacrificing Shaveâ— Masse-Preist he gaue it not at an Altar but at a table and that situated in the MIDDEST table-wise as J haue manifested to his Disciples sitting not kneeling round about it Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout we must then take heed as it is now â—â—gh time so to doe it lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 lect of a Communion it be made a private eaâ—â—â—â—â— therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altar-wise at the remotest East end of the Chanâ—â—â—â— brought in with private Masses for that purpose onely 〈◊〉 leâ—â—â— of two parts we have but one least applying it to the dead wee loose the fruite that be alive holâ—some counsell necessary
doctrine for these present times as the 34. Article tearmed the Homilies with which I shall close up this first quaere QVESTION II. The second Question I would propound to these Novelleâ—s is this That since they will now stile themselves and be called of others only Preists so Shelford tearmed himselfe 〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises and many others have done in late prinâ—ed Sermons Pamphlets what kind of Preists they are wherein their Preisthood consists If they say they are only spirituall Preists and have only a spiritual Preisthood â—oâ—â—ffer up the spirituall sacâ—ifices of prayer 〈◊〉 thanksgâ—uing almes righteousnesse broken and contrâ—â—â— hearts and their owne bodies soules to God that every Christian is as much a Preist even by Christs owne institution a themselves and hath the sâ—lfesame Preisthood that they 〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2â— 5 â— Exoâ— 19. â—â— And so they doe all they can â—o ingrosse this Title as peculiar to themselvs which is common to every Christian. If they meane by Preists nothing 〈◊〉 Presâ—yters and intend no more by their name and Preisthood but only the Eldershippe Ministrie let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace I quarell not with them Only this I must informe themâ— That such Preists need neither Altar nor Sacrifice but 〈◊〉 expresly debarâ—ed from both by Gâ—d himselfe 1. Cor. 9. 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they meane by the word Preist 〈◊〉 or Sâ—cerdâ—â— a sacrificing Preist or a Preist waiting at or upon the Altar as it is cleare they doe both by their writings their prayers before their Sermont where they pray for the Preistâ—◠〈◊〉 serve waiâ— aâ— the Altarâ— their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least 〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them what 〈◊〉 Sacrificing Preists they are and of what order their Preisthood is In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Preists and Preisthoods Preists Heb. c. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. Levit. c. 1. vers 12. Exod. c. 28. 29. 30. after the order of Aaronâ— Preists after the order of Melchizedech 2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin 10. 18 c. Preists of Baal and Preists of the high places or Idol Preists The two first of divine the two latter of Diabolicall institution Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another dâ—stinct generation of Preists commonly called by the name of Masse-Preists and those are both of Papall Diabolicall institution Other sorts of Sacrificing Preists then these I neither know nor read of The sole question then will be of which of those of 5 sorts of Preists our Novellers Altar-panons are If of the first sort that is directly abolished changed abrogated by our Saviour Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. cap. 9. 10. throughout Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who crie downe the name and sanctification of the Lords day Sabbath as â—â—wish will not I hope tearâ—ne themselves in the order of Aarons Preists which is farre more Jewish Of which sort of Preists they cannot be vnlesse they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Leui Num. 3. 6 c. c. 16. 1 Iosh c. 13. v. 14. 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of Mâ—chizedech that is peculiar only to our Saviour subsisting personally in him alone and incommunicable to any other as the Apostle directly resolves Hebr. 5. 9. 10. c. 6. â—â— c. 7. throughout â— â— 9. 10. As all authors interpret old and new writers acknowledge and among them Mr. David Dickson in his commentarie a short explanation on the Hebrewes 7. An 1634â— where he layes downe the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text 1. That to make any Preists in the new Testament by special office beside Christ is to rent the Preisthood of Christ and to make it imperfect like Aarons which for the same reason that it had many Preists was weake imperfect inferiour to Christs 2. That to make Preists by office in the New Testament to offer up any corporall sacrifice is to make Christs Preisthood seperable from his owne person which is against the nature of Christs Preisthood which can not pasâ—e from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 3. That to make plurality of the Preists in Christs Preisthood Vicars or Substitutes or in any respect partaker of the office with him is to praesuppose that Christ is not able to doe that office alone but is either dead or weake that he cannot fulfill that office contrary to the text which saith Because he continueth for ever he hath an unchangable Preisthood or a Preisthood that cannot passe from one to another Hebr. 7. 24. 4. That whosoever communicateth Christs Preisthood with another besides his owne person maketh Christ not able alone to saue to the uttermost those that come unto God by him 5. That the Scripture knoweth no Preist but the Leviticall Preists of Aarons postâ—rity for the time of the Lawâ— Or else that one Preist that was made by oath in the time of the Gospell besides these the Apostle knoweth none neither were there any other in his time in the Church 6. That to have Preists now after the similitude of Preists under the Law were to renounce the difference which God hath made betwixt the Law and the Gospell 7. That to make a Preist in the Gospell who is not consecrated by an Oath to abide for evermore in the office but may be changed and another come iu his place is contrary to Evangelicall Preisthood 8. That to make Plurality of Preists in the Gospell is to alter the order of Melchizedech sworne with an Oath and to renounce the worke sett betwixt the Law and the Gospell 9. That to make a man Preist now is to marre the Sonne of Gods priviledge To whome the priviledge only belongeth 10. That to make a sinâ—ull and weake man Preist now is to weaken the Preisthood of the Gospell and make it like the Law 11. That as long as Christs consecration lasteth which endureth for ever none must medle with his Preistly office 12. That to adde unto it and to bring in as many Preists now as did serve in the Temple of old is to provoke God to adde as many plagues as are written in Gods booke upon themselves and their Preists also All which considered I hope these Novellers dare not say they are Preists after the order of Aaron much lesse of Mâ—lchizâ—dech which is peculiar to Christ alone Pâ—reists of Baal or Idol-Preists J presume they neither will nor dare stile themselves If therefore they be Preists of any order they are and can be no other but Sâ—minary or Masse-Preists and if they are such Preists in truth as their writing and practises declare them Then let them be gone
the Kings free Chappels much lesse then any of his Vniversities which are more peculiar to his Majestie and more to be respectâ—d and of they did they incurred a Praemunire Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his owne name and right as Archbishop only they must and would withstand him according to their oaths and duties both to his Majestie the Vniversity But if he woâ—ld come as the Kings visit uâ— and substitute only and in his name and right alone with a speciall Commission or Patent under his greatâ—â—eale they would willingly submit to his visitation otherwise not This contestation grew so great that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majestie and his honourable privy Counsell at Hampton 〈◊〉 â— Whereupon the opeâ—ing â— hearing of the case pretended by the Vniversitâ—es Arch-bishops was whether his Majestie or the Arch-bishops or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiasticall and sole visitour of the Vniversities in Law righâ— The Arch-bisop declared that he desired not to visit the Vniversity out of any ambition or desire of Innovation c. But only to rectify some enormities of lâ—ng Continuance And what were they There were some Chappels belonging to certaine Colledges in that Vniversity the which had never yet been consecrated and yet divine service Sacraments were ministred in then and had beene so for many yeares and for instaÌ„ce he named Eâ—â—â—nuel Colledge for one which hath been used as a Chappel ever since the yeare of our Lord 1524 and Sidney Sussex Colledge Chappell used from An 1598. till this present So that the consecration of these two Chappels were the principall cause at least pretence of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and Vniversity A weighty matter God wootâ— to trouble his Majestie and whole Counsell with when as there is neither Scripture Law nor Canon of our Church in force to justifie such a consecration but Lawes and authoritiâ—â— store against it Bishop Pilkington Walter Haddon Mr. Fox and others much jeare and deride the madnesse folly and superstition of Cardinall Poole and his Deputie visitors of this very Vniversity of Cambridge for digging up Mr. Bucers and Paulus Fâ—gius bores out of S. Maries Church iâ— Cambridge â— yeares after they were interred And interdicting and nâ—w conâ—ecrating the Church againe as prophaned by them for feare their Masses and divine service there used should be nothing worth the place being made prophane and unholy by these Heretickes funerals as they judged them When as the Church was holy enough to say Masse in for three yeare space before all that would not heare itâ— must be imprisoned although the parties lay there buried And is it not then a farre greater madnes superstition and ridiculous frenzie for our dominering Arch-Prelats to deeme these two Chappels prophane places unfitt to administer the Sacraments aâ—d celebrate divine service in because never yet consecrated by a Bishop not only after three but almost threescore yeares use and practise of divine service Sermons and Sacraments in them WheÌ„ as neither his predecestâ—â—rs Whiâ—gift Bancroft and Abbot men very ceremonious and much addicted to superstition ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration And there is no such Canons Law and Doctrine to enforce the consecratioÌ„ of them now as were to justifie the rehallowing of S. Maries in Queen Maries time which the Popish Canon Law then approvâ—d O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church as they are for these superstitious ridiculous Romish trifles fitter for Schoole-boyes to sport themselves with all then for great and grave Bishops ever imployed in the highest State and Church affaires to trouble both the Vniversity King Counsell and themselves with all If any here reply that the Counsell of London An 1236. under Cardinall Otho the Popes Legate first of all ordained and decreed here in England that Churches should be consecrated whereas before that time as the words of the Constitution witnesse divers Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches in England had been built many years before and used as Churches and yet were never consecrated J answer that it seemes till this Constitution even in those times of superstitious grosse blindness Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity much lesse then should it be so reputed now Yet as those ancient Churches must then for this Legates gaine be all consecrated within a certaine space that he might have a round fee from every of them or else be wholy suspended and interdicted so must these ancient Chapples now by this Popish Canon After this Constitution the Bishops by Bulls from the Pope tooke upon them to consecrate Churches Chapples and Church-yeards in their owne names and rights till the abolishing of the Popes usurped power and restoring the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 1. After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapple Church or Church-yeard till they had obtained a speciall License from the King under his broad Seale for them and their successours enabling and authorizing them to doe it Which Licence they after much suite to the King Henry the 8. obtaâ—ned in the 31. yeare of his reigne the Coppy whereof I shall sett here downe The King to all men unto whome these presents shall come greeting Know yee that wee out of our speciall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion have granted and given License and by these presents for us and our heires doe grant and give License as much as in us is to the most reverend Fathers in Christ Thomas Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke and to the reverend Father in Christ John Bishop of Bath and Wells and also to all other Bishops and Suffraganes within our Realme of England that they and every 〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches Chappels or Church-yeards in our Kingdome of England already built and finished as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministred in them oâ— any of them As for the use of the buriall of dead persâ—ns within the same Churches or Church-yeards and euery of them c. And wee further will and grant by these presents thaâ— our Chancellour of England shall make or cause to be made and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Arch-bishops and Suffraganes from time to time as often as there shall be need so many and such a number of our Letters Patents with speciall and sufficient words aâ—d clauses to be made in due forme of Law for the execution of the Premises and to be sealed under the great Seale as shal be necessary and fitt for the premises or any of them by his discretion c. Notwithstanding the
Statutes of Mort c. In witnesse whereof c. Witnesse the King at Westminster the 1â— day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8 c. Teripsum Regem From which Patent truely transcribed out of the Rolls where it it is in Lattine I observe First that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches Chappels or Church-yeards without a speciall License from the King himselfe under his Great Seale Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories Visitations inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures suspend or silence Ministers and the like without such a speciall grant or Licence And so their Episcopall jurisdiction not â—ure divino but meerly humane by the Kings grant and institution Secondly that after such a License given them by the King under his great Seale they cannot yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church Chappel or Church-yeard without suing forth a specâ—all Patent out of the Chauncery under the Great Seale particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses to consecrate such such a Church Chappel or Church yeard in speciall much more then must they have the like speciall Patent and Commission to keep Courts Visitations suspend or silence Ministers and the like which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out but goe on of their owne heads in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part for which a Paemunire lies against them Thirdly that every consecration is and makes a Mortmaniâ— Therefore it is against the Law and must have a speciall License and warrant from the King under his Great Seale as this Patent prescribes Fourthly this Patent allowes neither the Bishops nor their Officers to take any fees at all for any such consecrations Therefore the fees they exact for them are meere extortions for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber Fifthly they cannot inforce any man or Parish to have their Chappels Churches or Church-yeards consecrated unlesse themselves require and desire it may be done as some words in the Patent which for brevity sake I have omitted manifest and the words may nor shall consecrate implieth as much Sixtly that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes which have a distinct peculiar forme of Consecration but only Churches Chappels Church-yeards After this King Henry the â— in the 37 yeare of his reigne by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford among other things granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Diâ—cesse Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no such power For which cause it was then specially inserâ—eâ— into this and other Bishops Patents And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use But upon the change and reformation of religion which is worthy of observation iâ— quite vanished away as did many other Popish Superstitions by the abolishing of the Masseâ—Bookes Primers and Ceremonials which prescribed the manner and forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples and Church-yeardes by the Statutes of 2. 3. E. 6. c. 1. 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edwardâ— dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2 One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches Chapples or Church-yeards though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction as keeping of Courts Visitations Probale of Wills granting of Letters of Administration suspending of Ministers upon Legall and just groundes c. be particularly granted them in those Patents Yet how To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS in oâ—â— owne Royall Name Stead and Authority not their owne as the Patents of Scory Couerdale 5. Ed. 6. parsf in the Rolls with many others testify Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches Chapples 〈◊〉 Church-yards inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes from the King under his Great Sâ—ale authorizing them to keep Consistories Visitations prove Wills grant Lâ—â—ters of Administration Suspend Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Subjâ—ct Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law to execute any of those particulars aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice and but a meere Nullity especially their Consecration of Churches Chapples Church-yeards Altars for which they have neither Patentâ— Statute Article Injunction Canon or Orthodox Writer of our Church Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication which they would now receive But of this enough for this present in which I have been the more prolix because it is a poiet of Law not hitherto discussed fully by any that I have mett with QVESTION IIII. The 4. Question I shall propound is this What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers to read the Epistle and Gosple or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it when there is no Communion The reason of this demaund is five-fold 1. Because in truth there is no Statute Law Injunction or Canon extant prescribing any such thing 2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table shall say the Lords prayer with thi collect following c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Communion ordaines thus Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homily concluding with the generall prayer c. But it sayth not that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table Whence I observe 1. That theâ— Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table but at such times only as there is a Communion 2. That when he reades service at it the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body or MIDDLE of the Church or Chappel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd So as the Prâ—â—st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him as is cleare by thâ—s Rubricke and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon forecited if you read Whence I argue thus The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar but then only when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at as the Rubricke Injunction Canon resolve But the Table is not thus
to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion unlesse they will grant that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church or Chancel which they profestedly deny witnesse the Rubricke Institution and Canon Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it but only when there is a Commiâ—â—ion Thirdly because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce that the people may heare the Minister that readâ—th them and the Minister Atanding and turning himselfe as â—he may best be heard of ALL such as be present Therefore this is direct that the Second Servicâ— whereof the Epistle and Gospell are a part must be read in the Reading Pâ—w where the Lessons are when there is no Communion Because there he may best be heard of ALL present and that he must not turne his fuce East but West to the people Fourthly because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches not to read divine Service at but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at This is the sole use for which it serves As the Font is ordained only for Baptismâ— the 〈◊〉 for reading and the Chest or pâ—oremans loâ— in every Church for Almes So it for the L Sâ— as is clear by 1 Coâ—â— 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2â— c. The Common-prayer-booke The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramntâ— of the right use of the Church of the Râ—pairing and keeping cleare of Churches Queen Elizabeths Inâ—unctions Canons sett ouâ— 1511. p 18. and Can 1603. Can 8â— 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus Whereas her Majesty understandeth c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament according to the forme of Law therefore provided Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An 1560. Art 2. thus Whether have you in your Churches c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus Church-wardens shall see there be a faire repaired Table which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion and a câ—eane Cloth to cover it A convenient Pulpit whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught c. The 28. Can 1603. thus Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the Realme of England therefore in Cathedrals too which had then no Altars convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed to what end to read Service at No But for the celebration of the holy Communion c. And likewâ—se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN With a comly decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies yea by the resolution of all our Preâ—utes â—isitation Articles is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it And the 28 Canon with the Rubricke before Tâ— Deum expresly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose It is cleare that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table but only when there is a Communion That the reading of Service at it on other times is a meere abuse and perversion of that end for which it was instituted And Bishoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service at the Font in the Pulpit or at the Poore mans box as at it Fifthly Because the Queenes Injunctions the 82 Canon and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said Minister Which words compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum are a direct resolution that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table but when there is a Communion Which being most cleare No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar when there is no Communion neither can they suspend any for not doing it And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus both the Bishop and they as D. Wreâ— Bâ—shop of Norwich with many of his Clergie have done incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited fined and imprisoned for it by this Law It being a saying of divinâ— sâ—rvice in another manner and forme and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons condemnes this Innovation which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity but only in Popish Churches of late yeares All that can be alledged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars and bowing to them The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches being most Popish corrupt and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes Images Tapors Altars Altar-adorations Vestments Chaunting lascivious Musicke Gesticulations with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer The Common Prayer-Booke 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late being fitter our detestation then Imitation To which I answer 1. That we must live by precepts not Examples Our Cathedrals in this and sundrie other particulars are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise therefore to be detested corrected and reformed by our Lawes and made like to other Churches Not our Laws Canons and Churches to be squared by them the worst of any 2. The Rubricke of the Common Prayer-Booke in the end of the Communion prescribes in direct termes That in Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches where be many Pâ—eists and Deacons they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST except they have a reasonable cause to thâ— contrary By which it is cleare that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedrall Collegiate Church and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary And who can this Minister be but the Bishop Ergo Bishops are but Ministers and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas and no dancing attendance on the Court. The
last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to witâ— the use of reading second service at the Table now foâ—â—ooâ—h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can â—eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious violâ—ters of the statute of 1â— Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastwâ—rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct aâ—thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth thâ—â— the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops coâ—â—ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bishâ—p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell â—ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that â—e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris collâ—cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. â—ulke
writers making nothing at all either for the lawfulnesse of this Ceremonie though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them Most of these Authorities I confesse are not cited or objected by the opposites but least they might object or pervert them hereafter J have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation and all others of this nature in answering these These are the only Authorities yet behind The first is that of the fift Generall Counsell Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons Institution of the Sacram l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15. of Constantinople Actio 1. where Iohn the Patriarch speakes thus Haec patienter sustinete fratres prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTARE post hoc do vobis responsionem Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Altare permansernnt clamantes Multi enim Imperarores c. To vvhich I answer First that this Patriarch speakes plainly of adoring the Altar it selfe not to or towards it or of the Hostia upon it VVhich our bowers themselves confesse to be Idolatrous Secondly the ensewing vvords prove that this adoring the Altar was only a going to the Altar there to pray not a bowing to the Altar it selfe of vvhich there is not a word unlesse wee will make this Patriarch a grosse Idolater in adoring the very Altar From which the Lollards both in France and England were so farre averse that they were called Pileati or Oeputials by the Papists Antiqu Eccles. Brit. 295. â—ó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso piâ—ei honorem non deferant Because they would not putt of their Caps to the Pix or Altar when they passed by them And if they would not so much as move their Caps to them much lesse did they bow their knees or bodies to or towards them This president therfore take it in one sence or other wil not advantage our Nouellers vnlesse they will confesse that they adore the Altar it selfe and not God towards it which makes them grosse Idolaters The second Authority The second is that of Cardinall Pooles Deputie visitours in Queen Maries bloody dayes who among other Noble Acts in that visitation decreed and prescribed Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. how many Pater Nosters and Ave Maries every man should say when he should enter into the Church and in his entrance AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOULD BOW HIMSELFE TO THE ALTAR And how to the Maister of the house This Authority I confesse Is full for bowing not to the Hostia only as the passage in Bishop Morton would fable but to the Altar it selfe But yet observe first when and by whom this Ceremonie was prescribed In Queen Maries dayes by professed Papists and Champions for the Church of Rome Secondly to whom it was prescribed only to Schollars in the Universitie and no others Thirdly with what this Ceremonie was attended VVith Pater Nosters and Ave Maries Fourthly to whom it is likewise extended To the Maister of each Colledge as well as to the Altar and that in the Church it selfe Therefore certainly they then reputed it no religious worship or divine adoration as most now esteeme it Jf our Bishops and Novellers will take this for their patterne and president some of them being not ashamed to magnify Queen Maries and depresse Queen Eliz abeths dayâ—â— See Dr. Dupra his preface to the Vniversity Statutes at Oxford I shall then conclude with Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 2. 48. That they are lineally discended from S. Peters Chaire aâ— Rome and with a late Iesuite which I have not yet seen but heard of That the Iesuites need write no more for the Sacâ—ifice of the Masse for that we are writing for and setting up Altars so fast in England that they hope to see Masse there very shortly if these may have their will at least and God and his Majesty prevent it not with speed But if they are ashamed of such a president let them with like shame henceforth abandon such an Antichristinn Romish practise The third Authority The third is that of Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synode about the yeare of our Lord 1206. Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gal. l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 81 p. 558. Summa reverentia honor maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur maximè ubi sacro sanctum corpus Domini reservatur Missa celebratur A very probable Authority for this Ceremonie To which I answer First that there is not one word in this Injunction concerning bowing to or towards the Altar And reverence and great honour might be given to it in such manner as it is given to Churches Fonts Pulpits Bibles and the like not by bowing to or towards them but by a reverend use and estimation of them free from superstition on the one hand And prophonesse on the other So as this Authority in truth proves nothing Secondly admit it meant of bowing to Altars yet it is to be given only to sacred consâ—crated Altaâ—s not to others But few or none of our Altars not one of our Lords 〈◊〉 ables have yet been so solemnely consecrated the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them 〈◊〉 it makes 〈◊〉 for any genuâ—lectio◠〈…〉 or Tables Thirdly this honour and reverence is 〈◊〉 to be given to those Altars only wheâ—c the body of Christ is a wayes 〈…〉 pix and Masse celebrated And thâ—â— say 〈◊〉 Papists in their private discourses 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉 46â— is thâ—t 〈◊〉 reason why thâ—y bow 〈…〉 cause Christs boâ—y is they imagine â—s the 〈…〉 as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it But our Altars for ought I yet know 〈◊〉 have no body of 〈…〉 on them Therefore they are not yet to be bowed unto or reverenâ—ed by vertue of 〈…〉 likewise ordaines that 〈…〉 which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8â— p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour As for the Synod of 〈◊〉 An. 1583. though it decree many things concerning Altars as that none shall stand under the Organs Pulpit or against the Piltars of the Church or over against the High Altar or neare the Church-dores or any unfitting place That there shall not be above 7 Altars in any Church That all of them shall be of stone 7 handfuls and an halfe broade and 8 handfuls long That iâ— might have a faire Altar-cloth to cover it That a Cisterne of water See Bochellus Decreta Eccles. Gal. l. 3. Tit. c. 33. 34. p. 362. with two or three towels neare it for the Preist to wash hâ—s hands defiled with their unholy holy Sacrifice of the Messe That every Altar where the Bishop shall judge it may conveniently be done shall be rayled in with an Iron or stone rayle or at least with a woodden onâ— standing at least 7 hand-breathes distance from the Altar within which rayle no Layman may enter whiles that Masâ—e is celebrating That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature as Altar-clothes towels a
Electâ—urs went to the Altar to sweare according to the tenour of the golden Bull. At last Maximilian led by the Arch-bishops of Mentz Colen was lifted up upon the Altar and TE DEUM sung played on the Organes CIRCA ALTARE about the Altar at the sides by the exalted King stood the Arch-bishop of Colen and Mentz and before his face stood the Arch-bishop of Treuier the other Princes accompaning and standing about them By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise against the East-wall of the Quire for the King sitting on the South-side of it just over against the Altar and these 5 great Princes sitting in distinct seates at his right hand in state the Altar was at least 5 seates distance from the East-wall and stood so that the Arch-bishops Princes and Nobles when the Emperour was eleuated on it stood round about it and him at the time of this royall solemnity The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Quire as appeares by Paulus in Curculione Nurâ— Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores Ovid. Motamorph l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat Iovis hospitis Ara. Iulius Caesar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comaeâ—i Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem c. Vide ibid. So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall is but a late Novelty even among the Papists themselves and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar For J finde no mention of it in the exact Discription of this Solemnity Only I read that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following they went into the Quire to the High Altar and there heard Masse Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary That after some Hymnes sung and collects reade in the Quire Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in longum The King prosttated himselfe at the steps of the Altar upon a Carpet lying all along upon it And the Arch-Bishop of Colen super â—um sic proctratum legit reads over him thus prostrate Lord save the King with other two Collects Erge we must thus prostrate our selves when we come in 〈…〉 of the Church is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation not to others and a 〈◊〉 not to or towards the Altars but at the steps of it to have an Arch-Bishop read a prayer over him and some speciall 〈◊〉 After which he sate downe in a Royall Seate before the Altar the Arch-Bishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand and Treuier on the left Then these Bishops tooke of the Kings upper garment and leading him between them ante Altare prostratuâ—in modum Crucis he prostrated himselfe in forme of a Crosse before the Altar the Arch-bishop of Colen saying divers prayers there specified over him and the Letanie The Letanie ended the Arch-Bishop of Colen standing before the Altar with his Pastorall staffe in his hand asked of the King six Questions the last whereof was this Wilt thou reverently exhibite due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome to the holy Church of Rome The Popes were anciently sworne to the Emperour and elected by him now they must sweare to the Pope and be chosen by him and his three Arch-Bishop Electours who are still at his devotion See Gratian Distinctio 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Popes temporall Monarchie cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. After which Questions he was ledde by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Trevler to the Altar and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar Sayd I will and J shall faithfully performe all the premises as farre as God by his divine assistance shall enable me and the prayers of faithfull Christians shall assist me So helpe me God and all his Saints Which done these Bishoppes brought him backe before the Altar After that they leade him againe to the Altar qui prostravit se ad terram in longum and then the Arch-bishop of Colen reade a blessing and prayer or two over him Which done they annoynted him in severall places And 〈◊〉 returning before the Altar casting himselfe downe in manner of a Crosse the Arch-Bâ—shop of Colen reade other prayers over him Then they girt him with a sword After that they set the Crowne on his head with severall Collects then leading them againe to the Altar he layd both his hands on the Altar and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue Which in truth made him a sâ—ave both to the Pope and Prelates rather then a King I will yeeld due and Canonicall honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome and to the other Bishâ—ps and Churches These things likewise which have been given conferred by Kings and Emperours to churches or Ecclesiasticall persons I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them the Lord Iesus Christ assisting me By which oath and practise the Emperours and Kings of the Romanes are made Vassâ—les to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or posâ—â—ssions A heâ—â—sh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Mantiâ— Cardiâ—alat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of Mâ—ntz was made a Cardinall he tame up to the High Altar and there kneeling downe before it on both his knees the Popes Legate graced him with a red hats the badge of this hâ—s dignity which he put upon his head He kneeling downe before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung So Anâ—o 1066. Hoâ—eden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herroâ—d at the celebration of the Masse at Westminster Ante Altare in Oratione prostratus jaceret lay prostrate before the Altar in prayer VVhen our King Richard the first was to be crowned Houeden Annal pars posterâ—or p. 656. 657. 739. he came tothe Altar before the Arch-Bishops Bishops Clergie and People and kneeling downe on his knees before the Altar tooke the usuall Coronation-oath upon the Euangeliâ—ts and 〈…〉 After which 〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it 〈◊〉 his â—and So at his second Coronation he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester 〈…〉 even unto the Altar ibi flexis genubus and 〈◊〉 with bended knees devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and from thence was ladde to his Throne I reade also that Hugh Abbot of Cluney and Hildeâ—â—â—â—â— whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together enâ—â—â—â—â— into a Country-Church Ante Aram injunctis lateribus 〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side and
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
to the Lord of the Table paralleled with worshipping towards Gods Temple worshipping at his foote-stoole Daniels prayer c. And so expresly determined by Mr. Shelford See the Serm of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. The fore-cited passage fathered on Bishop Morton Mr. Cozens Mr. Widdowes Edward Reeve aud Dr. Duncombe in his Determination Dr. Pocklington Suuday no Sabhath p. 50. Câ—ill worship it cannot be because terminated they say in God done in Gods owne house and presence not in any civill but religious respect Done towards the Altar or Table not as civill but as sacred and religions things to which no civill worship at all is dâ—eâ—â— in any civill respect If then it be a divine worship as they hold iâ— it must be either a sincere and genuine worship or Superstitious Not the former First because not instituted or prescribed by God in his word no text so much as intimating much lesse enjoyning it nor any one example in the New Testament 〈◊〉 it Secondly because never practised by the Patriarches or Prophets in the Old Testament who never thus bowed to or towards Altars nor by Christ or his Apâ—stes in the new who never thus inclined their knees or bodies to or towards Lords-Tables nor yet for ought we finde to God himselfe unlesse it were in prayer only Mat. 26. 39. Acts 20. 36. c. 21. 5. Ephes. 3. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. A thing worthie notingâ— taking off all hare-adoration only fo the body not accompanied with prayer or some so other religious duty Thirdly Altars themselves under the Gospell abolished by Christs death are not of divine institution but contrary to it Therefore the bowing towards them to honour God or worship Christ thereby is superstitious unlawfull Fourthly had it been a worship of divine institution its probable that the Saints of God in the Apostles dayes the primitive Church and all succeeding ages would both have conscionablie and constantly used it And either fore-commaunded or enforced the observation thereof But this they have not done Therefore it is not of divine institution Fiâ—tly no divine worship due to God or required by him is arbitrary to be done or not done at mans election Neither can it be omitted without mortall sinne But this is arbitrary at mans election and may be omitted without mortall sinne as the stoutest Champions thereof will and must onselfe Since no Law of God or man prescribes it as necessary Therefore it is no divine worship Sxitly no relative worship of God in through or by reason of any other Creature is of divine institution there being no paâ—t â—ne of any such worship in Scripture This the Homilie against the Perill of Idolatry plentifully proves See Bâ—shop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. throughout especially c. 8. Sect. 1. p. 547. 548. But this and so the bowing at the naming of Iesus is a relative not an immediate worship Therefore not truely divine Seventhly that which the most pious Christians the most judicious zealous Protestants in their writings and practise have censured declined as evill superstitious And being only by the most igorant blinde superstitious and Popish Persons most practised and contested for that certainly is not any divine institution nor any syncere adoration approved by God But this bowing is such as the premises experience witnesse Therefore not of divine institution or any syncere adoration approved by God Eightly that whose cheife Patrons are inforced to flie to meere forged authorities and absurd ridiculous reasons of their owne late invention to justify and maintaine it that certainly is not truly divine Such is this bowing to and towards Altars and Lords-Tables As the premises testify Therefore not divine And so by consequence a meere superstitious will-worship of mans inuention which God neither approves of nor allowes Isay. 1. 11. 12. And being not of faith it must be sinne Rom. 14. 23. All which I desire our new Maisters of Ceremonies to consider now at last who perchance have not yet so much as ruminated on this point but taken up this practise as most men doe new fashions without any examination either of its lawfulnes decency or conveniency Contrary to the Apostles rule who adviseth us 1. Thes. 5. 21. 22. to prove all things and to hold fast only that which is good Abstaining from all appearance of evill Whith this bowing certainly hath First because it is a new upstart innovation prescribed by by no Law of God or man Secondly because it tends to erect countenance and usher in a relative worship of God in by and through the Creature Thirdly because it seemes to implie an actuall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christs very body and tends to usher in this doctrine together with an adoration of the Hostia and reservation of it on the Altar or Table in a Pix the maine ends for which it seemes and is now taken up For as kneeling at the Sacrament first ushered in adoration of the Sacrament so this bowing to the Table or Altar must reuiue it the true end for which it is now â—rged Fourthly because it hardens Papists in their Idolatrâ—us superstition of adoring the Eucharist and bowing to Crucifixes Images Crosses condemned by us as most grosse Idolatrie See the Homilie of the Perill of Idolatrie Bishop Morton his 7. Booke of the Institution of the Sacrament Fiftly because it gives generall offence and scandall to most especially those who are pious and judicious Sixtly because it tends to the erection of Altars Priests and Sacrifices formerly abandoned and gives Papists occasion not only in words but in writing also to vaunt and hope that we are now apostatizing and revolting unto Rome againe Seventhly because it advenceth the Table and Altar above the Font Pulpit Bible Chalice Paten yea and the consecrated bread and wine to neither of which any such genuflexion is given Eightly because there is appearance of superstition and Idolatrie in it which is or may be committed by it as probablie as of the Papists adoring of the Eucharist Upon these grounds therefore all Christians should renounce it I come now to the last clause of the Question to inquire how this bowing to towards or before the Altar or Table differs either from the Pagans or Papists practise of bowing to or towards Images Altars Crucifixes Crosses the like which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers expresly define to be Idolatrie For the Pagan Gentiles it is evident that they bowed to or towards their Altars over or under which the Images or Statues of their Idol-Gods which they worshipped towards the Altars stood as the Papists and we have now our Crucifixes standing on or over our Altars either in Arras Glasse or Mettle or in some Curious common Prayer-Booke standing on our Altars only for a dumbe shew adorned with two or three silver Crucifixes in stead of Bosses on the cover in Imitation of these Pagans That this of
cleare undenyable truth I would first know what difference at all there is between those Idolatrous Pagans Papists and our late Innovatours See Francis de Croy his three-fold Conformity part 1. and Ormered his Pagano-Papismus These Ethnickes had Altars So have the Papists and wee They had the Images of the Idols they worshipped in their Temples and these standing in the East end of their Temples above and over their Altars And we have the Image of our Saviour on the Crosse which our Homilies hold unlawfull to be made much more unlawfull to be sett up in Churches standing either upon our Altars or above them in Tapestrie or Glasse-windowes or both just as have the Papists They when they worshipped prayed or Sacrificed to their Idol-Gods bowed and turned their faces towards their Altars and Images So doe the Papists towards their Altars and Crucifixes and so doe wee Where then lies the difference If they replie that the Pagaâ—s terminated their worship only in their Altars and Images adored the Altars and Images themselves not God in by or through them Our owne Homilies will take away this euasion both of the Papists and our Novellers See the Perill of Idolatrie part 3. p. 50. where we read thus Furthermore in that they say they doe not worship their Images or Altars as the Gentiles did their Idols or Altars but God and the Saints whome the Images Altars doe represent and therefore that their bowings before Images Altars be not like the Idolatrie of the Gentiles before their Idols Altars S. Augustine Lactantius and Clemens doe prove evidently that by this there answer they be all ONE with the Gentiles Idolaters The Gentiles saith S Augustine in Psal. 135. which seeme to be of the purer religion say Wee worship not the Images but by the corporall Image we doe be hold the Signes of the things we ought to worship And Lactantius saith Instit. l. 2. c. 2 3. We feare not the Images but them after whose likenesse the Images be made and to whose name they be consecrated And Clement saith that Serpent the devill uttereth these words by the mouth of certaine men Wee to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images Which surely is most false See how in using the same excuses which the Gentiles Idolaters pretended they shew themselves to joyne with them in Idolatrie For notwithstanding this excuse S. Augustine Clemens Lactantius prove them Ido-Iaters Thus the Homilies And Dr. Reynolds De Idolat Rom. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 86. c. Dr. Iohn White his way to the Church Sect. 51. n. 7. 8. p. 207. 208. Bishop Iewell Bishop Alley Bishop Abbot Bishop Usher Dr. Fulke Dr. Wille Dr. Field and all other of learned writers in their Tracts concernng Images and their Adoration out of these and other Fathers VVhere then is the difference between Pagans Papists and our late Novellers in these particulars To which I may adde the Tapors on our Altars used by the Pagans and condemned by our Homilies and Writers as Heathenish and Superstitious Certainly I can yet finde none If they replie That they can only worship before the Altar Table and Crucifix but doe not worship the Altar Table or Crucifix it selfe as the Pagans and Papists did doe I answer That as bowing kneeling and worshipping before God Is the same in Scripture phrase with bowing kneeling praying to and worshipping God himselfe witnesse Deut. 26. 10. 1 Sam. 1. 12. 15. 19. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Psal. 2. 27. Ps. 72. 9. Ps. 86. 9. Ps 95. 6. Ps. 96. 9. 15. Ps. 98. 6. 9. Isay. 6. 23. DaÌ„ 6. 10. 11. 26. Mich. 6. 6. Rev. 3. 9 c. 4. 10. 5. 8. c. 7. 10. c. 15. 4. compared with Isay. 45. 23. c. 49. 23. c 60. 1â— Rom. 14. 1â— Hebr. 11. 21. Gen 24. 26. 4. c. 47. 31. Exod. 4. 31. c. 12. 27. c. 34. 8. 1 Chron. 29. 10. 2. Chron. 7. 3. c. 29 29 30. Neh 8 6. Ps. 72. 9. with other texts And as bowing kneeling and falling downe before men is all one with bowing kneeling and falling downe to men Gen 49 8. 1 Sam 25 23. 2 Sam 14 33 c. 24 20. 1 Kings 1. 16. 23. 2 Kings 2. 15. Prov 14. 9. paralleld with Gen 27. 29. Exod 11. 8. 1 Kings 2. 9. 1 Chron 21. 21. So bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe before or towards Images or Altar the very same in Scripture language account witâ— bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe to Images or Altars 2 Caron 25. 14. Isay. 44. 15. 17. 19. which Iunius renders Procumbit CORAM EO Dan 3. 3. 5 6. Luke 4 71. If thou therefore wilt fall downe or worship BEFORE me all those shall be thine Compared with Exod 20 5. Levit 26. 1. Matth. 4. 9. This is the resolution of our Homilies p. 20. and 44. to 75. of William VVraghton in his Rescuer of the Romish Fox where this is excellently cleared and generally of all our Writers against Images and Adoration of the Eucharist the thing novv clearly aâ— med at in this Ceremony as Dr. Heylyn in his late History of the Sabbath intimateth if not in the Coale too This Cloake therefore is to short to cover their nakednes neither will it serue the turne If they say they have no eye at all at the Altar in this their bowing nor yet at the Crucifix over it And that neither of these are the terminaâ—ioÌ„s or total or particular object of their bowing towards them All which they must affirme and make good to acquit themselves from relatiue worship and Idolatrie I answer That this is but a meere forgery and pretext For first Shelford in his Authorized Booke Page 19. faith That the Altar or Table is motivum cultus The mouing cause of this their worship â—doration towards it Therefore certainly it hath some Influence into it and some share in it Secondly as it is the object that stirs up this worship for were there no Altar or Table â—here would not be any such bowing to to or towards the place where it stands a plaine evidence that it is both the oâ—iginâ—ll cause if not the object of this worship so it is the only visible object to which it is directed in which it is terminated their eye minde and bodily incuruation being all leuelled at it alone Else why should they not as well bow toward the Font Pulpit or any other part of the Church indifferently but to and towards it alone God being every-where alike present as Honorius Augustodunensis formerly shewes and no more confined to the Altar or Table then to any other part of the Church Thirdly it is not terminated objectively in God or Christ because done to them only to 〈◊〉 the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table or Altar to which we bow as the Passages fatlâ—â—red on Bishop Morton Page 403. witnesseth Therefore terminated only in the Table or Altar Fourthly all the
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
receive it in the accustomed place and maner and commaunding the Church-Warden to present them to D. Aylot the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury his Surrogate for that Towne during his Metropoliticall Visitation for not receiving when as they should have presented him for not giving them the Communion when as they there profered to receive it after their auncient maner One Mr. Burroes of that Parish being thrice put by the Sacrament for not comming up to this new rayle and yet presented for not receiving thereupon prefers a Bill of Inditement upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. against Nuâ—oman for this Innovation at Colchesters Sessions Which Inditement being ill drawen and most of the grand Iury Nucomans friends an Ignoramus was retained thereon and Dulman the Clerke that drew it might have well been added thereto This Inditement only exhibited so troubled Nucoman and Dr. Aylot that the next Court-day Mr. Burroes is excommunicated for not appearing in Court though he made his personall apparance and there continued till the Court was risen as he could prove by 20 witnesses and the Dr and Register both confessed as much such strange justice and vexatious oppression now raignes in these spitefull I should say spirituall Courts The next Lords day Nucoman publisheth the Excommunication in the Church and then sends the Church-wardens to Mr. Burroes there present to commaund him to depart the Church VVho comming to him accordingly He told them that the Excommunication certainly was forged by Nucoman his enemie that there was none granted against him in the Court for he was present all the while And how ever it came not out in the Kings name under the Kings Seale and by an authority derived immediately from the King by speciall Letters Patents as it ought by Law to doe and the expresse provision of the Statutes of 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. and therefore it was voyde in Law neither would nor could he in poynt of loyally to his Majesty obey it being not made by his authority Whereupon the Church-wardens left him Nucoman hereupon bids them carry him out of the Church The Church-wardens refuse to doe it Then he chargeth the Constables to doe it Who câ—â—ming to Mr. Burroâ—s he told them that he was not excommunicated that they had nothing to doe in the Church neither was it any part of their office but the Church-wardens to remove him and therefore bid them to doe no more then they could justify by Law else they should smart for it Upon this they left him Nucoman hereupon puts off his Surplesse closeth his Booke and gâ—eth out of the Church the people follow him by degrees Mr. Burroes sits still till about 11. of the clocke when the Clerke came to shut the dores The next day there was a great stirre about this busines Nucoman would have this a disturbance against the Statute of 1. Mariâ—e c. 3. Mr. Burroes said that he was the disturber and the Dr for publishing and granting such an illegate excommunication and giving over divine service without cause and that he was not to goe out by Law if the excommunication had been legall but ought to have been carried out by the Church-wardens and so was no disturber Much adoe there was about it Mr. Burroes to cleare the busines goes to the Register and Dr. to know whether he was excommunicated or no and for what cause At first they denyed he was excommunicated neither would they believe that Nucoman had published any excommunication against him Which when he made appeare they then told him he was excommunicated indeed by the Court He demaunded for what cause They answered for not appearing He replied he was present all the while in Court and that they both knew to be true And is this said he your justice to excommunicate men for not appeapearing when they are all the while in Court To which Dr. Aylot answered â— Sir you are an audatious fellow indeed you will indite your Minister for Innovations we will take you downe in time and teach you how to indite Ministers I will excommunicate you â— all the Parishes round about and throughout England and see who dares absolue you for Inhibition I am sure you can have none VVill you so Mr. Dr. said he I thought your power had not been so large as to reach over all England nor your presumption and insolency so great as to excommunicate his Majesties subjects thus against Law for inditing these that breake both his Majesties Lawes and Declarations If you abuse me thus as you say you will I will not only goe to Church notwithstanding your excommunication but likewise bring you into the Star-chamber for abusing me in this maner Well the Dr. proceeds excommunicates him upon no grounds in other parish-Parish-Churches threatens him with the High Commission only for inditing Nucoman for abusing him as before and bringing in Innovations And doth not such a rejected wilfull oppressing unjust Ecclesiasticall Iudge deserve to be trussed up for such proceedings Were Bishop Latymer now alive and should heare such a story of an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and most of them are of the same Litter he would not sticke to say before the King himselfe J would wish that of such a Iudge in England now we might have the skin hanged up It were a goodly signe the signe of the Iudges skinne And certainly till the skins of some of these Spirituall Devill-Iudges be fleyde off and their neckes graced with a Tiburne-tippet for their extortions and strange oppressions of his Majesties people in a way of justice the people shall never live in quiet but the Wolves will bite and devour them Mr. Burroes notwithstanding all this malice proceeds in his resolution as well as the Dr. on the 2. of October last being the Lords-day he goes to his owne Parish-Church without any absolution whereupon Nucoman gives over service and departs and all the people after him Then he goes to another Church where he was excommunicated And after that to a third they all doe the like and leave the Church On Monday the 3. of October being the Sessions-day for the Towne he prefers a new Inditement against Nucoman for his Innovations the Mayor and Recorder persuade him to desist he refuseth to doe it Then they wish him to put it off till next Sessions because it was a new case He answered the case was plaine and that he must by the Statute indite him this Sessions or not at all Then they fall to perswade the Iury not to finde the Inditement The Iury being stout honest men notwithstanding finde it Billa vera this Innovation of Nucoman being a notorious affront both against the Statute and his Majesties late Declarations They desire them to change their verdict The honest men refuse to doe it Thereupon the Sessions is presently adiourned for 10. dayes Nuoman posts to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to acuaint him with these proceedings and to crave his direction what
late licensed Books Bishop Wrens Bishop Mountagues and Bishop Peirce their Visitation Articles e Chownaeus Collect 16. 17. 18. Mr. Robort Shelford Priest Treatise concerning Antichrist f For 〈◊〉 against Disobedience and wiâ—full Rebellion Serm. 3. 4. 5. g Of Ireland n. 80. h Bishop Downham Bishop Abbot Dr. Beard Mr. Squire Mr. Powel Richard Brightwell Thomas Becon and others of Antichrist i Rev. 17. 5. 15. 16. k 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. 3. Iacobi c. 1. l Col. 3. 12 1. Thos 1. 4. 1. Pet. 4. 1. 2. 2. Iohn 1. 2. Thes. 2. 13. m Ephes. 1 4 5. 6. 7. 11 12. Rom. 11. 5 6. * Bishop Latimer his 2 and 5. Sermon before King Edward the 6. n Lame Giles his Haultings and certaine Quaeries propounded to the Bowers at the name of Iesus Qu. 1. 2. 3 4. o Ibidem And the Appendix concerning bowing at the name of Jesus p See a briefe Historicall NarratioÌ„ of some notorious Acts and Speeches of Mr. Iohn Cosens at the end of Mr. Peter Smarts Sermon Printed at Edinburg An. 1628 * See the Homily against the perill of Idolatry q Iuveual Satyr 2. r See quaâ— p. before * added s D. Raynolds de Idolatria Rom. Eccles Epist. ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. p. 21. 22. t Speeds History of Great Britaine p. 1252. 1233. v Mr. Tyndals Practise of Popish Prelates D. Barnes his Supplicationâ— to King Henry the 8. Fox Acts and Monuments p. 321. 409. 410. 479. 533. 168 to 234. Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brit. Godwin in the lives of Anselme Becket Edmond Odo William Arundell Laughton Stratford Scroope Poole Wolsey Adam de Orlton and other Bishops x See Dr. Raynolds de Idol Eccles. Rom. Epist. Ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. y Speeds History p. 1252. 1253. z Mr. Boltons Discouâ—se of true happines p. 193. a Polit. l. 2 c. 17. 18. 19 b Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. c Dr. White his Defence of the way c. 6. 10. The Homily for Whitsunday D. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry 8. d On Whitsunday and of wilfull Rebellion e Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Part. 3. The Institution of a Christâ—aÌ„ manchap of Orders Dens Rex f 3. Iacobi c. 4. Deus Rex g 3. Iacobi c. 1. h Beyerlinke Chro nogâ— p. 309. i Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. k See Cookes Pope Ione and the Authours quoted by him Ioannis Valerion de Sacâ— dotum Barbis Polychronicon l. 5. c. 30. Caxionâ— Chronicle part 5. An. 885. Volateranus Cem. 1. 22 f. 228. Marianus Scotus l. 3. Aeâ—as 6. Anno 854. Col. 152. Martini Poloni Supputationâ—s An. 855 Col. 152. Papa 109. l 3. Iacobi c. 1. 2. 3. Speeds History p. 125l 1255. 1256. 1257. * See 1. Eliz c. 1. 27. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iacobi c. 1. 3. 4. 5. * Yea in the Latine and English Editions An. 1553. in King Edwards dayes m Mr. William Tyndall in his Treatise what the Church is Dr. Whitaker de Ecclesia Dr. Field of the Church Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection c. part 2. p. 168. 169. 170. n See the Declaration concerning the dissolutiâ— of the Parliament p. 21. * Which they might doe well to study a while and give over their secular Offices and Affaires which make theÌ„ so blinde and ignorant in divine things o See Crompâ—os Iurisdiction of Tit. Star-chamber and Rastals AbridgmeÌ„t forger of false deeds p 8. H. 6. c. 12. 5. Elz. c. 14. q See Dr. Crakenthorpe his defence of Constantine and of the Popes temporall Monarchie and excellent Treatise to this purpose r Fox Acts MonumeÌ„t p. 404. 405. 406. 481. 524. and Mr. Fullers Argument 25. H. 8. â— 15. s Cosen 's his Cosening Doctrine A tryall of Private Deuotions * Now Canterbury t An Apologie or Defence of the Doctrine of Predâ—stination â— 37. u Seâ—mâ—s Londonâ— 1584. â— 311 312 325 326 327 124 125 126 134 164 165 178 208. 215 224 226 268 270 288 295 299 308 323 14â— 142 18◠〈…〉 x 〈…〉 y Fol. 22 â—â— 24. 29 40. 55 56 57. 60 63 64 65 78. â—â— * It seemeâ— the Bishops are none of the learned â— men 〈◊〉 se well acquaâ—ted with â—e Wâ—â—ters and Doctrine of the Church of England as some private GentlemeÌ„ arâ— z Concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. * Who would not laugh at these mad argumeÌ„ts Paâ—adoxes and Frantique passages of Gâ—les Widdows Shelford Reeve many of which are as ridiculous and absurd as any in Ignoramus a Befoâ—e the 39. Articles And concerning the dissolution of the Parliament p. 21. 42. b A Coale from the Altar p. 36. * There was a Letter lately read in some Churches of Ipswitch as from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the audience of all the people affirming that your Majesty had given the Arch-Bishop order and direction for rayling Communion-Tabes Altarwise and that all Communicants should come up to the Rayle and receive which much amazed the people and Dr. Aylot the Arch-Bishops surragate oft times affirmed the same in Court to divers who alleaged your Majesties â—awes and Declarations to the contrary * A Coale from the Altars phrase c Page 20. 21. d Apparatus ad Hist. Ecclesiast * 1636. * See B. Latymer his 5. Sermon before King Edward f. 64. e His first Sermon p. 5. 37. where he tearmes the Lords-Table an Altar Gods mercy Seate pleades for bowing towards it f His 5. Treatises Cambridge 1635. all absurd and Popish g His Communion Booke Catechisme expounded London 1635. the Epistles And p. 17. â—â—22 35. 38. 39. 48. 60. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 77. 90. to 111. in the first Impression since torne out 127. to 141. 200. 201. 203. 20â— 206. 211. 216. h Sunday no Sabbath Vile throughout i The History of S. George and of the Sabbath k Collectiones An. 1635. Collect. 16. 17. 18. 34. 35. l Thomas Browne his Sermon Oxon. 1634. The Female glory Dr. Cosens Collection of private Devotions reprinted 1636. Bishop Whites Treatise of the Sabbath day the latter part and Epistle Dedicatory Dr. Reades Visitation Sermon 1635. m Edmond Reeve his Communion Booke Catechisme expouÌ„ded Epistle Dedicatory and p. 20. 205. 206. 211. 216. Robert Shelford his Treatise of Gods House p. 20. A Coale from the Altar p. 1. 26. 27. 64. n Gen. 18. 24. to 33. Acts 27. 23. 24 Ier. 5. 1. Ezech. 22. 30. 31. Psal. 106. 23. Exod. 32. 10 c. * See a Booke intiteled The necessity of Seperation from the Church of England o Reeve p. 20. 205 206. 211. 216. Shelford p. 20 A Coale from the Altar p. 1 26. 27. 63. 64. p Nam sexaginta amplius Monachos Benedictinos Congregationi nostri subditos in Anglia memora 〈…〉 Apud N. le Maistre Instauratio Antiqui Episcoporum Principatus Parisijs 1633. l. a. p. 280. q Ibid. p. r See Francâ—scus de Sancta Clara Edit 3.
m Hierom de scripto Eccl. with others in the lives of Cyprian Tertul. prâ—fixed to their workes n Cookes Censura p. 13. o Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. p De praes adv haer p 182 189. Ad uxoreÌ„ l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ent q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. r Sterâ—at l. 1. 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉 CoenaÌ„ DominicaÌ„ s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 t Apol. adv â—entes u Replie to Harding Artic. 3. divis 26. p. 144. x The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatrie p 66. 67. y â—e Calep. Holioke in their Dictionar Ara. z Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin Epist. 74. a Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9. Epist. 69. in Pamel b Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud PameliuÌ„ 70. p. 101. c Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18 d Censura p. 75. to 82 e Se Cookes Censura D. Lâ—nes D. Favar f Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. g Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63. h Concil Carthag 1 Can. 6. 9. 3. Can. 15. 4. Can. 18. 20. * Tui opinionem nominis enormiter gravat quod causas sanguinis agis quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitudine negocijs seculariâ—us te tottâ—m occupas involuis Verum tamen tui professio ordiniâ— nec degeneres saeculi curas nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost dicit Secularia negotia si habueriâ—is eos qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos ad judicanduÌ„ eligite Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere salute anime spietate adeâ— damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine Petr. Blesens Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj i Fox Acts monum p. 1211. k Se Hâ—d Cant. Oâ—or l 3 s. 271 l See Novells Reproof of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. m In his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell n Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. o See Reynolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4. p Garner deEuchar others forecited q De Eucharistia or the Sacrament of the Altar r Peter Martyr Defensia adâ— Gard. deEuchar 2. William Wraghton 3 William Salisbury * vel propter artâ— latriam vitandam tutius erit ut sedengenu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant They therfore used 〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edwards dayes to avoyd the peril of adoration 4. Iohn Bale Bishop of Osyris 5. B. Pilkington 6. Thomas Becon * Heb. 13. Altars not tollerable among Christians Christ his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the ministration of the holy CoÌ„munion O cruell butchers O murtherers Masses why they serve The Lords Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11. 1. Cor. 10. Ceremonies The apparell of the Massemongers The gesture which the Masse mongers use in their Masse The Masse mongers Trinkets * Lib 2. Offic. c. 18. Altares Note Exod. 2â— When Altars came first into the Church A Table more meet for the ministration of the Lords Supper then an Altar * Heb. 10â— Of gestures to be used at the Lords Table Of kneeling Of standing Of sitting * Note Of vestures at the ministration of the Lords Supper Surplesse * See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis 4. 5. Haddon contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe fol. 66. And Thomas Becons Comparison between the Lords Supper the Popes Masse Bishop Iewel Defence of the Apologie part 3. c. 5. divis 1. * See Fox Acts and Monum p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. accordingly 7. Deane Nowell * Chrysost. Hom. â—18 in 2. Cor. August Tract 26. in Ioan. multi multis locis Hierom ad Demetriadem ad Nepotian 8. Walter Haddon 9. D. Fulke * Note 10. M. Calfehill 11. Bishop Babington 12. M. Cartwrigt * Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat panegyr in Eucariâ—s vid. Aug. de civ Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr distinct 2. * Origen cont Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat venerer contr Floretum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4 13. D. Willet Object 1. Answer 1. * See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter * Fox Acts monum p. 1806. * Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1. 1 William Salisbury * Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gaddes of stele digesteth them * The Bee gathereth hony on the same flour that the Spider gathereth poyson 2 Richard Woodman ast; Fox Acts monum p. 1806. The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his question Sacram of the Altar The Altar how it is to be taken where it is Christ the true and only Altar 3 D. Fulke 5 D. Rainold a In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia b Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus c Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 25. d Epist. 86. de Civitat Dei 18. c. 27. l. 22 c. 10. Confesse l. 11. 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21. e Theph in Matth. 23. f Aretheas in collect exposit in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert Com. 8. in Apocalyp 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Masse g The Rhemists in their Annotat on the New Testament h Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii Chrysoâ—t demonstr quod Christus sit Deus Homil. in Matth. 16. 8. 3. in priâ—r Epist. ad Corinth 24. 27â— ad populum Antioch 60. 61. Sermon de Euchar. de B. Philogenio Sâ—crat Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August Epist. 59. ad Paulin. Tract in Iohan 26. de verbis Domini Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint c. 11. i Prudent Hym. de S. Laur. CoÌ„c Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor etymol. ar l. 7. â— 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Lev. Epi. 79. aâ— Dioscer k The Booke of Com. prayâ— in the Commun l Iustin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. 5. Lev. Serm. 4. de quadrag m Concil Constant. Sess. 13. Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can 2. n Durandus in rational divinor officiis l. 4. c. 53. †Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius 6 D. Willeâ— 7 David Dickson 8. King Iames. Object 2. o Treatise of Gods house p. 2. Answer 1. p See B. Iewels Replie to Harding Art 1. div 5. p. 5. q In their forecited places m See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. others of the Masse n Fox Acts monnm p. 1211. Service Sacraments * Page 61. 62. * By like D. Heylyn wâ—o playes tâ—e ignoraÌ„t Lawyer to
r Se Speeds History of great 〈◊〉 p. 106â—â— 1068. s Popes so Bishops have no scriptures for their hallowing of thinges B. Pilkington on Aggeus c. 2. 2. 10. t Exposit on Aggeus 1. v. 78. De vita Obitu M. Buceri u Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p 1777. to 1788. x Se Summa Angelica Rosella Tit. Consecratio Ecclesiae y Ioannis de Aton Câ—nstit Dom Othonis de consecratiâ—nis Eccles f. 5. 6 7. z 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mort. 8. a 31 H 8. In the Patent Rols pars 4â— b 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mortmanie 8 3. * 30â— 40â— a Church or Chapple c Sumâ—â— Angelica Tit Consecrat Altaris Pontificale Romanum d 37. H. 8. in the Râ—â—s pars prima * Note this Bishops then could not suspeÌ„d or deprive Ministers without a speciall Patent or CommissioÌ„ and that upon just and Lawfull causes warranted by some statute there in force Ergo now they cannot doe it And not one of theÌ„ having such a Paâ—ent or CommissioÌ„ at this day from the King all their suspensions and proceedings against Ministers and others are meere Nullities e Fox Actâ— Monuments p. 1147 999 5. 6. E. 6. c. 3. f Dedicacion for sport at the end The third reason of the 〈◊〉 4. Reasons * Have you a decent Communion Table to administer the Sacrament or CommunioÌ„ at This is the ordinary Article in all visitations The 5. reason g Sermon of Gods House p. 20. h A Coale from the Altar p. 11. 27. i Ivo Denetalium pars 2a c. 25. 26 28. 29. 34 25 August Epist. 118 ad Ianuarium Cyprianus de coena Domini Ambros l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 6 k See Hospinian de Origine Altarium Templorum And the Authorities in the beginning forecited l Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Eccles. c. 1. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. m Rationale Divin l. 1. c. 2 nu 15. n 〈◊〉 l 1. c. 7. nu 15. o De officijs l. 1. c. 3 p De Ecclesiasticis officijs lib. 3. c. 3. q De Instit Clericorum l. 1. c 33. r Rationale Divin l 1. c. 1. nu 18. s Page 56. t Page 56. u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu 1. u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu 1. x CommeÌ„t in Rutr Missale par 1 Tit. 15. Sect. 2 y Cap. 17. Sect. 15. z Lib. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 462. Edit 2. a De Origine Altarium b Acts 14. 28. Iob. 10 24 Exod. 39 25. 26 c 19. 12. Num. 1. 50. Iosh. 6. 3. 4. 2 SaÌ„ 5. 9. Exod. 16. 13. 2 Cron. 4. 3. 2 Kings 6 14 15. Iob. 16. 13. Psal 7. 7. Ps. 17 9. Ps. 18. 4 5 Ps. 22. 12 16. Ps 88. 17. Ps. 103 3. Ps. 118. 10. 12. Jonab 2 3. 5 Luk. 21 20. Heb. 11. 30. c. 12. 1. RoÌ„ 20 9. â— Jeue 3. Qu. 83. Disp 233. co 2. n. 20 d De rebus Eccles. c. 4. e Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 24. f Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. g VisitatioÌ„ Articles for Norwich Diocesse i Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. k See Shelfords SermoÌ„ of Gods house p. 18 19 20. Bishops Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. p. 463. l â— King 8 29 30. 33 35 Dan. 9. 10 m 2 Châ—oÌ„ 7. 12. See the Homily of the right use of â—he Church n Exposition of the Catechisme in the Communion-Booke towards the end o Sunday no Sabbath p. 50. q See the Commentatours on 1 King 8. 2 Chor. 6. Ps. 5. 7. 138. 2. Dan. 6. 10 r See Bisâ—â—p Mâ—rt uâ—itution of the Sacrament p. 463. * Sermon of Gods house p. 18. s In the â—ncomiaâ—â—â—â—â— verses before his booke t D Walburton Dâ—â—me of Wels in a Sermon and others in their Sermons u Oratio 28 de Funere Patris p. 472. w See Ps. 21 12. Ier. 2 27. c. 32 33. 2 Câ—ron 29. 6. where the like phrase is used x De Bibliotheca Patrum Colonâ— Agrip 1618 p. 14 15. y Descriptor Eccl. Aâ—â— 34. z Annal ToÌ„ 1. An. 63 nu 17. a Censura scriptorum veterum p. 9 10. b Eccles. Hâ—eraâ—â—h l. c. 5. c Censura p. 50. 52. 54. d Dâ— Divinâ—s Ossicijs e De Paenitentia lib. Edit Rhenani ToÌ„ 2 p. 46. f See Cooke Censura p. 70. Rhenanus in argumento 〈◊〉 libri g Rhenanus La Cerda lâ—idem Tripart Hist. l. 9. c. 35. h See Tripart Hist. l. 9. c. 35 i Adversus eos qui hummae in Christâ— c. p. 565 k Cookes Censura 93. c. l Oratio 25 p. 443. m Bibl Patrum Tom. 10. p. 415. 416. E. c. n Bibliotâ— Patrum Tom. 12. pars 1. p. 1054. o Biblioth patr Tom. 14. p. 252 A 254. B. C. 256. B. * Therefore all of them stood not Easterly at the upper end of the Chancle o Sermon of Gods 〈◊〉 p. 2 4 19. p The Laâ—lesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan p. 34. 89. q Page 34. r The lawlesse knee lesse Puritan p. 89. s Bishop White his Title to his Treatise of the Sabbath and Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. * 1 Tim. 3. 2. to 9. Tit. 1. 5. to 11. Eph. 4 31. 32. 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. a Bucer Enarrat in Psal. 92 b Quod si Pontifices nolunt de se turpia narrari aut nefaria nihil ejusmodi faciant aut cum fecerint noÌ„ putent caipsa ita latere ut sciri posteris narrari nequeant Papir Massa * Mr. Badgers young daughters speech to Bisâ— Laude who asked him Why he wore his shirtsleeves upon the top of his cloths c See the Orthodox faith c. in aÌ„swer to a Popish Treatise entitled WHITE DIED BLACK Dr. of Divinity Deane of Carlile then now Bishop of Ely to compare his and his brothers Doctrines and Pâ—sitions there defended with these since mentioned in his last Treatise and in the High Commission Court d Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 2. Herodotus l. 2. e Balaeus Cent. 9. c. 97. * Iust like his bowing not to the name of Iesus but to the Sence Serm. on Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11. c Pag. 462 d Pag. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. e Pag. 361. 462. f Bellarm. l. 1. de Missac 2. dist 5. g Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 17. * Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. * Bishop Morton l. throughout * Shelford Reeve Rives Pocklington Dr. Râ—ad Browne Widdows Adams Wren Page and I know not how many more who bring it in by head shoulders into their Sermons and writings * In his devotions the Prayer when we are prostrate before the Altar b Rom. 4. 15. 1. Iohn 3. 4. * See Bish Mort Institution of the Sacrament l. 8. c. 1. p. 557. Col. 2. 18. * Bishop Morton l. 7. through out and p. 541. 542. 445. a Of the Perill of Idolatrie Bishop Mortons Institution 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