be defended onely by Dr Coal I say that all Commands of the King for this Fellow jumbles again the King and the Bishop tanquam Regem cum regulo like a Wren mounted upon the feathers of an Eagle that are not upon the first inference and illation without any Prosyllogismes contrary to a cleare passage in the Word of God or to an evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature are precisely to be obeyed Nor is it enough to finde a remote and possible inconvenience that may ensue therefrom which is the ordinary objection against the book of Recreations For every good subject is bound in Conscience to beleeve and rest assured that his Prince environed with such a Counsell wil be more able to discover and as ready to prevent any ill sequele that may come of it as himself possibly can be And therefore I must not by disobeying my Prince commit a certain Sinne in preventing a probable but contingent inconveniency And then in the next place for the Bishop or Ordinary If he command according to the Laws and Canons confirmed for otherwise he is in his Eccentricks and moves not as he should do why then insuch a case as we had even now that is a Case of diversitie Doubt and Ambiguity he is punctually to be obeyed by those of his Jurisdiction be they of the Clergie or of the Laity I say in matters of doubting and ambiguitie where the inferiour shall be approved of God for his duty and obedience and never charged as guiltie of Errour for any future inconvenience The exceptions from this Rule are very few in cases onely when the Command of the Ordinary doth expressly oppose an Article of Belief one of the ten Commandments or the generall state and subsistence of Gods Catholick Church In all other Cases whatsoever that are dubious the inferiour is bound to believe his superiour saith the most wise and learned of all the Iesuits This point well poised and considered would clear a world of Errours both in Church and Common-wealth And therefore I will set down in the Margent some of my best Authours that confirm it I have not heard I protest sincerely of any Lord Bishop that hath exacted of his Diocese the placing of the Holy Table as this man would have it and do believe this passage of his to be rather a Prophesie what he means to do when he comes to his Rochet then a true History of any Diocesan that hath acted it already But howsoever as long as the Liturgie continueth as it is without offence to any man in place be it spoken I had farre leiver be he should obey then he that should peremptorily command in this kinde of Alteration And my reason for this shal be the reason and expression of a wise and learned man If it be a Law which the custome and continuall practice of many yeares hath continued in the minds of men to alter it must needs be troublesome and scandalous It amazeth them it causeth them to stand in doubt whether any thing be in it selfe by nature good or evill and not all things rather such as men at this or that time agree to accompt of them when they behold those things disproved disannulled and rejected which use had made in a manner naturall And so in all respect and humilitie to their high places and callings I leave those reverend persons herein to their owne wisdome and discretion But that Mounsieur the halfe-Vicar should have a power to remove of his own head the Communion-Table from that place of the Quire it had hitherto stood in from the very first Reformation and to call that an Altar which his Rubrick never calls otherwise then a Table and to be enabled to this by the Canons and to be a Iudge of the conveniencie of the standing thereof yea a more competent Iudge then the Ordinary and his Surrogates and no way to permit the Church-Officers to do what they are enjoyed by their immediate Superiours is such a piece of Ecclesiasticall politie as were it but countenanced by many of these judicious Divines would quickly make an end of all Discipline in the Church of England Here is not only I. C. but T. C. up and down and New England planted in the midst of the Old O foolish Vicar of Boston that would needs take Sanctuary as far as America to shelter himself from Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction Whereas had he but made a permutation with his next Neighbour the Vicar of Gr. and gotten but the acquaintance of these judicious Divines as they pass'd by that Road he might have done what he would in his own Church Ostendens digitum sed impudicum Alconti Dasióque Symmachóque in despite of the Ordinary all his Officers I am afraid that these judicious Divines that tamper so much in Doctrine with Sancta Clara and in Discipline with Sancta Petra Flood and Lomeley will prove in the end but prejudicious Divines to the estates of Bishops I am sure this Tenet is in the highest degree Iesuiticall and that the solid Divines both of ancient and later times were of another opinion To impaire the power of Bishops is no little sinne Let no man presume to dispose of any thing belonging to the Church without the Bishop saith Ignatius For he that doth otherwise doth tear as you would doe a bough from a tree the unitie sodder and comely order that should be amongst Gods people Suffer nothing to be done in that kind without thine own approbation saith the same Father writing to a Bishop And this advice was so well approved of in the Primitive Church that word for word it was inserted into the body of that famous Counsell of Laodicea Anno 364. The word used both by Ignatius and the generall Councell is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be active and stirring in these businesses And therefore the Priest must needs in despite of our Doctor and his Doctrine keep him still to his meditations and be a looker on untill his Ordinary shall otherwise direct and appoint him Especially in the matter controverted which is Erecting of Altars For the Case must be taken as it is in the Letter and was in truth and verity not as this poore Mooter doth reasonably that is against all the Laws of reasoning presume it For to presume a thing against the words of his adversarie is not to take a case but to make a case which wil be laught at in the Inns of Court There were some Priests in France and Germany that encouraged thereunto by the Chorepiscopi or Countrey-Suffragans did presume in the absence of their Bishops erigere altaria to erect Altars And this about the time of Theodosius the yonger But Leo the great tells them plainly they had no more power to erect then they had to consecrate an Altar and that the Novells and Canons Ecclesiasticall did
prove the onely Holocaust to be sacrificed on the same For you have subscribed when you came to your place that that other Oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars is a Blasphemous figment and pernicious Imposture In the 31th Artic. And also that we in the Church of England must take heed lest our Communion of a Memory be made a Sacrifice In the 1. Homily upon the Sacrament And it is not the Vicar but the Churchwardens that are to provide Vtensils for the Communion and that not an Altar but a faire joyned Table Canons of the Convocation 1571. pag. 18. And that the Altars were removed by Law and Tables placed in their stead in all or the most Churches of England appeares by the Queens Injunctions 1559 related unto and so confirmed in that point by our Canons still in force Canon 82. And therefore I know you will not build any such Altar which Vicars were never enabled to set up but were once allowed with others to pull down Injunct 1 mo Elis. For Tables in the Church For the second point That your Communion-table is to stand Altar-wise if you mean in that upper place of the Chancell where the Altar stood I think somewhat may be said for that because the Injunctions 1559 did so place it And I conceive it to be the most decent situation when it is not used and for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steps and open so as he that officiates may be seen and heard of all the Congregation Such an one I am informed your Chancell is not But if you meane by Altar-wise that the Table should stand along close by the wall so as you beforced to officiate at the one end thereof as you may have observed in great mens Chappell 's I do not beleeve that ever the Communion-tables were otherwise then by casualty so placed in countrey-churches For besides that the Countrey-people without some directions before-hand from their superiours would as they told you to your face suppose them Dressers rather then Tables And that Queen Elisabeths Commissioners for causes ecclesiasticall directed that the Tables should stand not where the Altar but where the steps to the Altar formerly stood Orders 1561. The Minister appointed to read the Communion which you out of the Books of Fast in 1 mo of the King are pleas'd to call Second service is directed to read the Commandments not at the End but at the North-side of the Table which implies the End to be placed towards the East great window Rubrick before the Communion Nor was this a new direction in the Queens time onely but practised in K. Edwards reign For in the plot of our Liturgie sent by Mr Knox whittingham to Mr Calvin in the reign of Q. Mary it is said that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table Troubles at Frankford p. 30. And so in K. Edwards Liturgies the Ministers standing in the Midst of the Altar 1549. is turned to his standing at the North-side of the Table 1552. And this last Liturgie was revived by Parliament 1º Elis. c. 2. And I beleeve it is so used at this day in most places of England What you saw in Chappell 's or Cathedrall Churches is not the point now in Question but how the Tables are appointed to be placed in Parish-churches In some of these Chappels and Cathedralls the Altars may be still standing for ought I know or to make use of their Covers Fronts and other Ornaments Tables may be placed in their room of the same length and fashion the Altars were of We know the Altars stand still in the Lutherane Churches And the Apologie for the Augustane Confession Artic. 11. doth allow it The Altars stood a yeare or two in the reigne of King Edward as appeares by the Liturgie printed 1549. And it seems the Queen and her Counsell were content they should stand as we may guesse by the Injunctions 1559. But how is this to be understood The Sacrifice of the Masse abolished for which Sacrifice onely Altars were erected these call them what you please are no more Altars but Tables of Stone or Tymber And so was it alledged 24. Novem. 4º Edv. 6. 1550. Sublato enim relativo formall manet absolutum et materiale tantúm And so may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses where there are no people so void of Instruction as to be scandalized For upon the Orders of breaking down Altars 1550. all Dioceses as well as that of London did agree upon receiving Tables but not so soon upon the form and fashion of their Tables Act. and Monum pag. 1212. Beside that in the old Testament one and the same Thing is termed an Altar and a Table An Altar in respect of what is there offered unto God and a Table in respect of what is thence participated by men as for example by the Priests So have you Gods Altar the very same with Gods Table in Mal. 1. 7. The place is worth the marking For it answers that merry Objection out of Heb. 13. 10. which you made to some of your fellow Ministers and one Dr. Morgan before you to Peter Martyr in a disputation at Oxford We have no Altar in regard of an Oblation but we have an Altar that is a Table in regard of a participation and Communion there granted unto us The proper use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon the proper use of a Table is to eat upon Reasons c. 1550. vide Act. Monum pag. 1211. And because a Communion is an Action most proper for a Table as an Oblation is for an Altar therefore the Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Table onely do not you now under the Reformation call it an Altar In King Edwards Liturgie of 1549 it is almost every where but in that of 1552 it is no where called an Altar but The Lords Boord Why Because the people being scandalized herewith in Countrey-churches first it seems beat them down de facto then the supreme Magistrate as here the King by the advice of Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of his Counsell did Anno 1550 by a kind of Law put them down de jure 4º Edv. 6. Novemb. 24. And setting these Tables in their rooms took away from us the Children of this Church and Common-wealth both the Name and the Nature of those former Altars As you may see Injunct 1559. referring to that Order of King Edw. and his Counsell mentioned Act. Monum pag. 1211. And I hope you have more learning then to conceive The Lords Table to be a new Name and so to be ashamed of the Word For besides that Christ himselfe instituted this Sacrament upon a Table and not an Altar as Archbishop Cranmer and others observe Act. Monum pag. 1211. it is in the Christian Church at the least 200 yeares more ancient then the name of an Altar in that sense as you may see most
utterly in hibite single Priests to do either the one or the other Whereupon not many yeares after about the time of Iustinian the Emperour Hormisda◠made an absolute decree to inhibite Priests to erect any Altars in this kinde under pain of deprivation as we read in Gratian and elsewhere Which places I do not for al that presse dogmatically as conceiving the Vicar would be so absurd to dogmatize any such matter as you perceiv◠the writer of the Letter seems to excuse him no◠was that the Errour of the Germane Priests bu◠I presse it only historically to let you see that if such a Rumour had been raised in the Church as we all know the Vicars behaviour did raise in the Neighbourhood 1100 yeares ago what severitie they would have used to chastise the insolencie And no marvell if you consider well what I shall now represent unto you That the very Romans themselves in the time of their Republick would never assent that a private man should presume to erect an Altar But that which I presse for doctrine is this That a single Priest quà talis in that formality and capacitie onely as he is a Priest hath no Key given him by God or man to open the doores of any externall jurisdiction He hath a Consistory within in foro Poenitentiae in the Conscience of his Parishioners and a key given him upon his Institution to enter into it But he hath no Consistory without in foro Causae in medling with ecclesiasticall Causes unlesse he borrow a key from his Ordinary For although they be the same keys yet one of them will not open all these wards the Consistory of outward jurisdiction being not to be opened by a Key alone but as you may observe in some great mens Gates by a Key and a staffe which they usually call a Crosier This I have ever conceived to be the ancient Doctrine in this kind opposed by none but professed Puritanes They tell us indeed that the Bishops power was the poysonous Egge out of which Antichrist was hatched that it is meere tyrannie because it takes all to the Bishop and his Officers and turnes the Vicars to Soliloquies and Meditations whereas the Minister holdeth all his authoritie unto the spirituall charge of the house of God even immediately from God himselfe without dependance from King or Bishop But all learned men of the Church of England that are truly judicious Divines do adhere to that former doctrin They allow the Schoolmens double power that of order and that of jurisdiction and the subdivision of this jurisdiction to the internall and externall appropriating this last to the Bishops only They say clearly that all consecrated persons have not the power of jurisdiction They aske you roundly Who shall judge what is most comely Shall every private man Or rather such as have chiefe care and Government in the Church And for the Minister whom you would have wholly imployed they conceive that generally he is a man though better able to speak yet little or no whit apter to judge then the rest and that to give him a domineering power in matters of this nature were to bring in as many petty Popes as there are Parishes and Congregations But the written Law and speaking Law of this Kingdome are above all testimonies that can be produced the one appointing the Bishop of the Diocese onely in the Affirmative and the other excluding the particular fancy of any humourous persons in the Negative from assigning out these matters of Conveniencie in Gods service And the reason why this private Vicar should not without farther directions call the holy Table an Altar is set downe in the Letter but not touched by you and is a stronger one then your Head-piece is capable of Because the Church in her Liturgie and Canons doth call it a Table onely It seemes by you we are bound onely to pray but not to speak the words of the Canons I have been otherwise taught by learned men That where we have a Law and Canon to direct us how to call a thing we ought not to hunt after reasons and conceits to give it another Appellation And that every word hath that operation in construction of Law that wee may draw our Argument from the words as from so many Topick places Which the Writer of the Letter seems to do in this passage The Rubrick and the Canons call it nothing but a Table and therefore do not you a poore Vicar in the Countrey call it an Altar The writer doth not deny but that the name hath been long in the Church in a Metaphoricall usurpation nor would he have blam'd the Vicar if he had in a Quotation from the Fathers or a discourse in the Pulpit nam'd it an Altar in this borrowed sense but to give the usuall call of an Altar unto that Church-utensill which the Law that alwayes speaks properly never calls otherwise then by the name of a Table is justly by him disliked and by this Gallant lamentably defended For I appeale to all indifferent men that pretend to any knowledge in Divinitie If the Reading-pew the Pulpit and any other place in the Church be not as properly an Altar for prayer praise thanksgiving memory of the Passion dedicating of our selves to Gods very service and the Churches Box or Bason for that Oblation for the poore which was used in the primitive times as is our holy Table howsoever situated or disposed Or if it be the Priest onely that can offer a Sacrifice which in these spirituall Sacrifices we utterly deny what one sacrifice doth he inferre out of the Collects read by the Priest at the Communion-Table which are not as easily deduced out of the Te Deum or Benedictus said in the Quire or Reading-pew◠Is there no praying praising acknowledging or thanksgiving commemorating of the Passion and consecrating of our selves to Gods service in these two hymnes And therefore if that be enough to make an Altar and that these judicious Rabbies mean not somewhat else then for fear of our gracious King they dare speak out this man must change the Motto of his book and say Habenius Altaria we have 10000 Altars Whereas no place in all the Church doth offer unto us the body and blood of Christ in the outward forms of bread and wine beside the holy Table onely And consequently if a Name be invented to divide and sever one particular thing from another or to help us to the knowledge of a particular thing or that a name be tha◠which the Law gives the thing or that a thing cannot have two distinct and proper however it may have twentie Metaphoricall names then surely a Table ought to be the distinct and proper and so the usuall an Altar but the translatitious and borrowed and so the more unusuall appellation of that holy
being but a Copie from the French wherein the Date was not regarded then came it to the Dukes hands as some Letter from Calvin was then delivered to the Duke by one Nicolas a Tel-tale of M. Calvins that studied in Cambridge in those dayes but in the year 1551 Bucer being dead before which Calvin there takes notice of and the Liturgie newly altered Let us not therefore as we tender the credit of the Church of England suffer such a famous piece as our Common Prayer-book is to be disparaged in this kinde upon such weak Flams and ridiculous suppositions But if any desire to know the reason of the Alteration let him repaire to the Act it self where he may be fully satisfied He shall finde it was partly the Curiositie of the Ministers and mistakes in the use and exercise of the former Book met withall in the second Book by a clear explanation Of the which curiosity and mistaking whether this removing and placing of the Altar which they found usually so termed in the former Liturgie might not be a speciall branch I leave to the Readers collection out of what hath been already delivered in the examination of the Counsell-Act in that behalf And partly also he shall find the Book was altered for the more perfection thereof or as it followeth in the body of the Act to be made fully perfect Not to gratifie Calvin who was Lecturing in his Chaire at Geneva nor to comply with the Duke of Somerset who was a condemned prisoner looking every day for the stroke of the Ax when this Book was passing the severall Committees in the Upper and Lower house of Parliament And that it seems by any one syllable of the Letter to Farell that Calvin wrote unto the King about the change of the Liturgie is another blue one Reade the Letter and you will be of my opinion Yea but the King in his Answer to the Devonshire-men had formerly affirmed that the Lords Supper as it was then administred was brought even to the very use as Christ left it as the Apostles used it and as the holy Fathers deliver'd it I answer that these Devonshire-men whom the Doctour cloaths in this fair Livery were a sort of notorious Rebells And if a King to avoid shedding of bloud should answer such people clad in steel edictis melioribus in a more passable language then will endure Logicall examination is it fit he should be so many yeares after jeered thus by such a Mushrom here on earth reigning himself without all doubt a most glorious Saint above in Heaven Besides that the Form that Christ left the Apostles used and the Fathers deliver'd the Lords Supper in is never taken by judicious Divines in a meere Mathematicall and indivisible point of exactnesse but in a Morall conformitie which will admit of a Latitude and receive from time to time degrees of perfection But I will not lead you to any woods to borrow shadows for this place the Answer is set down in such capitall Letters that he that runnes by may read it The Rebells in their third Article set on by the Popish Priests do petition for their Masse that is that which we call the Canon of the Masse and words of Consecration as they had it before and that the Priests might celebrate it alone without the communicating of the people To this the King answers That for the Canon of the Masse and words of Consecration which is in nothing altered in the second Liturgie they are such as were used by Christ the Apostles and the ancient Fathers that is They are the very words of the Institution But for the second part of their Demand which was for the Sacrifice of the Masse or the Priests eating alone they must excuse him For this the Popes of Rome for their lucre added unto it So there is a clear Answer to both parts of the Article They should have a Table and a Communion and the words of Consecration as they were used body Christ the Apostles and the ancient Fathers But they should have no Altar nor Sacrifice for these the Popes of Rome for their lucre had added to the Institution being as B. Jewell truly calls them the Shops and gainfull Booths of the Papists And this Answer did nothing like our noble Doctour And therefore from making himself merry with the King by a kinde of Conversion borrowed from father Parsons three Conversions he wheels about and breaks a Lance upon the Parliament That would take upon them to mend a Book which they could not but acknowledge to be both agreeable to Gods Word and the Primitive Church And then he quotes 5º and 6º Edv. 6. cap. 1. as if he should say There 's my Cloak and here 's my Sword and I stand in Cuerpo ready to maintain it I say still that this Agreeablenesse to Gods Word and the Primitive Church is not to be taken in a mathematicall but in a morall point The first Book was in some the second is in more degrees agreeable to those excellent Paterns But what need I say this when the Act of Parliament saith no such matter as is pretended In that part of the Act where these words are mentioned some coertion and penalties were provided for sensuall persons and refractory Papists who forbore to repair to the Parish-Churches upon the establishment of the English Service desiring still to feed upon husks when God had rain'd down his Manna upon them The Parliament according to their deep wisdome in that kinde desirous to include some reason in the Preamble of the smart that comes after in the body of the Act tells the Offenders against this new Law that Prayers in the Mother-tongue is no Invention of theirs as the Priests would make them believe but the direction of the Word of God and the practice of the primitive Church Medling no further with the Liturgie in this part of the Act then as it was a Service in the Mother-tongue And so begins the Act That whereas order had been set forth for Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments to be used in the Mother-tongue agreeable to the Word of God and the Primitive Church c. The thing excepted against was Prayer in the Mother-tongue and this the Parliament avows to be agreeable to Gods Word and the Primitive Church And I hope you are not mounted as yet to that height as to dare to deny it If any Reader can doubt of so clear an explication let him look once more upon the Kings Answer to the Devonshire-Rebells immediately before this Parliament and he shall finde Sun-beams to display all darknesse that can possibly fall upon this point To the 3. Ask for the Service in the English tongue it hath manifest reasons for it If the Service in the Church was good in Latin it remaineth good in English An alteration to the better except Knowledge be worse then Ignorance So
had never been in rerum natura But how doth the Dr make it appeare that his most excellent Majestie hath commanded any such matter or that there is as he avows any publick Order for the same And this he must do by Proof Reason Authority nay Demonstrations as one that can endure no modesty of assertion I think I conceive I have heard I beleeve but jeeres at them all I warrant you he shall make it cock-sure with three Apodicticall Demonstrations I It is so in his Majesties Chappell where the ancient Orders of the Church of England have been best preserved and without the which perhaps we had before this been at a losse amongst our selves for the whole form and fashion of Divine service The Chappell of the King being the best interpreter of the Law which himself enacted wherein the Communion-table hath so stood as now it doth sithence the beginning of Queen Elisabeth what time that Rubrick in the Common prayer-book was confirmed and ratified For thus he useth to double and treble his files throughout all his Pamphlet that he may make himself a Body and Grosse of words at least to skarre crowes withall I do confesse that that most sacred Chappell but especially the Saint of that Chappell may for his pletie and true devotion be a moving precedent and breathing example not onely for the Laity and meaner sort of the Clergie but even for the gravest of all the Prelacie to follow and imitate And long may this Relation continue between that Type and Prototype of Majestie Long may he serve God and God preserve him and this Church and State through and by him But yet every Parish-church is not bound to imitate in all outward Circumstances the pattern and form and outward embellishment and adorning of the Royall Chappell And that for these Reasons 1. An Inferiour is bound to yeeld obedience to the outward onely and not to the inward Motion of the mind in his Superior For what the Prince keeps inwardly unto himself in his Will and Understanding hath no reference to the Subject by way of Precept untill it break forth ad motum exteriorem as the Schoolmen call it to some outward overture and declaration relating to the Subject How the King shall adorn and set out his Chappell Royall is a matter imminent and left to his own Princely wisdome and understanding It is a sinne against many precepts to whisper or doubt but that he doth it wisely and religiously But how his Laws and Canons require us to adorn our Churches that is the outward and exteriour moving of his Princely mind which the Schoolmen make the onely Cynosure of our Obedience It is not therefore his Majesties Chappell but his Laws Rubricks Canons and Proclamations that we are to follow in these Outward Ceremonies And this I shall cleare by an instance which we should have heard before from the Doctor but that peradventure he knew it not At. Q. Elisabeths first coming to the Crown a Proclamation indeed was set forth forbidding any man to alter any Ceremonies but according to the Rites of her own Chappell Then I confesse unto you for that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and instant of time the Chappell and the Chappell onely was the Rubrick and the Pole-starre we were to saile by in our obedience But this direction was not intended to be long-liv'd it was but a Bush that brave Lady got under to passe over a sudden showre donec de Religionis cultu ex authoritate Barliamentaria statueretur until the Parliament might bring to the World that Statute of Primo whereof we spake so much before As therefore that wise Princesse made shift for a time with her Sisters Seal so did she with her Ceremonies but forsook them both as soon as she could be otherwise provided So as now we are no longer to president our selves in this kind by the Chappell but by the Liturgie of Queen Elisabeth 2. I hope I shall ever live and die in an awfull and reverent opinion of that sacred Oratory the vivest resemblance I know upon the Earth of that Harmony of the Cherubims we look for in Heaven Yet do I trust it will be no offence to any that beares equall devotion to that sacred place if I pluck out this Cumane creature who like a fawning Syâ—ophant thinks to take Sanctuarie in that holy ground from the shadow and shelter of the Royall Chappell Where did the man ever hear of any Chappell in the Christian world that gave forme and fashion of Divine Service to whole Provinces To what use serve our grave and worthy Metropolitanes our Bishops our Convocation-house our Parliaments our Liturgies hedged in and compassed with so many Laws Rubricks Proclamations and Conferences if we had been long before this at a losse in England for the whole form and fashion of Divine Service but for one Dean and so many Gentlemen of the Kings Chappell Here is a riddle indeed Mater me genuit quâ—e eadem mox gignitur ex me I have heard often of a Mother-church but now behold a Mother-chappell When Pius Quintus set forth his new Missall he caus'd it to be proclaim'd claim'd at S. Peters Church and not at the sacred Chappell In the name of God let the same Offices be said in all the Provinces as are said in the Metropoliticall Church as well for the order of the Service the Psalmodie the Canon as the use and custome of the Ministration was the old rule of the ancient Fathers I have read of great diversity heretofore in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm of the Vses of Salisbury of Hereford of Bangor of York of Lincoln but never untill now of the Vse of the Chappell I have read also of far more ancient Offices then any of all these the Gallicane Course the Scottish Course the Romane Course the Eastern Course the Course of S. Ambrose and the Course of S. Benedict all at once used in severall parts of this Island but never read I of any ordering or directing Course from his Majesties Chappell untill now I pray you good Sir how were the divine Services held up in Christendom for the first 500 yeares in all which time if we may beleeve one of our best Antiquaries we shall hardly meet with the name of a Chappell I le put you a merry Case Most of our Liturgicall Writers the Favourites of the time are of opinion that this word Capella is derived from Capa which signifies a Hood or a Mantle and borrowed from the first Christian Kings in France of the Merovingian line who carried about them in their Armies the Hood of S. Martin as a Relick of much esteem and using to say their Mattins and Vespers in that homely Booth where this Jewell was lodged the place from this Capa was called Capella and the beginning of Chappell 's in these parts of the world My Case then
ancient Officers to the Archdeacon his Officiall or next Surrogate for the designing and to the Church-wardens for the actuall placing of the Table in the most convenient situation And the Elders of the Vestry will be little edified with this doctrine to be made but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Aristotle speaks dead and passive Instruments to execute the Commands of the Ordinary and his Surrogates But all this while the Vicar is but a dull spectator and hath no Sphere of Activity to move in but is wholly left to his private Meditations And S. Ambrose indeed doth complain of the like complainers in his time who held that the study of the holy Scriptures was but a dull and idle kinde of employment But then Matto Sancto Petro as the Charletan said when he saw the Pope in his Pontificalibus O simple S. Peter in the sixth of the Acts that thought it a far more laborious work then all this moving and removing of Tables O foolish S. Basil that bids his Clergie take especiall heed that their Martha be not troubled with many things O dull Synesius that held it fitter for an Aegyptian then a Christian Priest to be over-troubled with matters of wrangling Well Doctour God help the poore people committed to thy Cure they are like to finde but a sorry Shepheard one that will be in the Vestry when he should be in the Pulpit and by his much nimblenesse in the one is likely to shew a proportionable heavinesse in the other But now ventum est ad Triarios we are drawing on to the maine of his Battell and the very pith of his Arguments That the Writer of the Letter doth not shew one footstep of Learning or sincere affections to the Orders of the Church because he did not in a private Monition written nine yeares before fore-see and make way for a great good work and the Piety of the times that were to follow nine yeares after Alas Nè saevi magne Sacerdos Do not lay all this load upon him most judicious Divine For as you finde by your self that can further see into things to come that all Prophets are not Ordinaries so consider I beseech you in cool bloud that all Ordinaries are not Prophets We may discern of things that are by Sight that were by Memory but before the proof make shew no man is such a Prophet of the future that he knoweth which way to direct his instructions saith a learned and noble Writer out of Sophocles I am one I thank God that have buenas entranas as the Spaniards speak some good and tender bowels within me and do much pity the poore mans case even by mine own How could he possibly fore-see this great Good work or Piety of these Times so many yeares before which I opening my eyes as wide as I can cannot discover at this very instant What is this great Work now in hand What new Proclamations Rubricks Canons Injunctions Articles are come at the least into these parts as any speciall invitations to the piety of these Times more then were exhibited to the piety of all other Times from the first beginning of the Reformation His Majestie heard the Cause in the yeare 1633 and in his Royall decision he calls it not Altar but Communion-Table and leaves the moving and removing thereof to the discretion of the Ordinary His Grace the Metropolitane visited these parts in the yeare 1634 and in all his Articles doth not so much as mention the word Altar but calls it as the Rubrick doth a Communion-Table and puts his Article upon the Church-warden and not upon the Vicar concerning the decent site and convenient standing of the hâ—ly Boord Whether have you in your Church a convenient and decent Communion-Table c. And whether is the same Table placed in such convenient sort within the Chancell or Church at that the Minister may be best heard in his Ministery and the Administration and that the greatest number may communicate And whether is it so used out of time of Divine Service as is not agreeable to the holy use of it c. And his Lordship or Diocesan visiting the very next yeare 1635. as a burnt child and dreading the fire puts the same Article in haec verba in the very front of his own Book Sithence that time we have heard no Ring but of the lesser Bells in this Tune And one of these I heare chyming at this very instant Whether have you in your Church a decent Table for the Communion conveniently placed And all these concurring with the conceit of the Letter in every particular in the name of a Communion-Table and not an Altar in the place of the Church or Chancell not of the East-end onely in the distinct not confused time of receiving and not-receiving in the Accompt of the conveniency of the situation to be rendred by the Church-warden not the Vicar how shall I that live at this day much lesse the Writer of the Letter dead peradventure nine yeares ago reasonably discover to use your own phrase that Good work now in hand and the speciall inclination of these times to a peculiar kinde of pietie differing from the pietie of former times which under the peaceable Reignes of Queene Elisabeth King Iames and King Charles the Church of God in these parts hath most hâ—ppily enjoyed Surely I do reasonably presume that these dreams of Dr. Coal notwithstanding The thing that hath been it is that which shall be and that which is done is that which shall be done and that in matters of this nature there is no new thing under the Sun Because wise men tell us that change of Laws especially in matters of Religion must be warily proceeded in And because there is no manner of Reason that the orders of the Church should so depend upon one or two mens liking or disliking that she should be compelled to alter the same so oft as any should be therewith offended For what Church is void of some contentious persons and quarrellers whom no order no reason no reformation can please I should therefore reasonably presume that this Good work in hand is but the second part of Sancta Clara and a froathy speculation of some feâ— who by tossing the ball of Commendations the one to the other do stile themselves by a kind of Canting judicious Divines Whereas they be generally as you may observe by this poore Pamphleter doctissâ—â—orum hominum indoctissimum genus as Eâ—asmus spake of another the like men learned onely in unlearned Liturgies beyond that of no judgement and lesse Divinitie For who but one whose Ruffe as Sir Edward Coke was wont to say is yellow and his head shallow would propound these wild conceits of an imaginary Pietie of the times and a Platonicall Idea of a good work in hand for a Modell to reforme such a well-composed Church as the Church of England
And if any Reformation of the name the situation or use of the Communion-Table were seriously in hand what man of the least discretion but would take the Magistrate along with him The bounden dutie of Subjects is to be content to follow Authoritie and not enterprising to run before it For if you let every Minister do what he list speak what he list alter what he list as oft as him list upon a general pretense of a Good work in hand or the Pietie of the times you shall have as many kinds of Religion as there be Parishes as many Sects as Ministers and a Church miserably torn in pieces with mutability and diversity of opinions But there is much you say to be said in defence thereof out of the Acts Monuments some Acts of ParliameÌ„ts Much good do it you with that Much so as you eat cleanly and do not slubber slabber your Quotations of those Books in which all sorts of men are thorowly versed First Jo. Frith calls it The Sacrament of the Altar Doth he so Then surely it was long before the Reformation and when every man call'd it so For he was burned 4º Julii 1533. But where doth he so call it Yes he saith in his Letter They examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar Why man they cal'd it so not he Those words are the words of the Article objected against him They are their words not his He doth not once call it so in all his long discourse Turn but the leaf and you shall heare him interpret himselfe I added moreover that their Church as they call it Their Church as they call it Their Sacrament of the Altar as they call it If you will know how he cals it in that dawning of the Reformation look upon the Books pen'd by himself not the Interrogatories ministed by Sr Tho. More or some others He calls it every where The Sacrament of Christs body Nay he is not there content but desires that all the Church had call'd it otherwise I would it had been call'd as it is indeed and as it was commanded to be Christs Memoriall And to call it a Sacrifice is saith he just as if I should set a Copon before you to break-fast when you are new come home and say This is your Welcome-home whereas it is indeed a Capon and not a Welcome-home And if you will beleeve his Adversary Sr Thomas More None spoke so homely of this Sacrament as Jo. Frith no not Friar Barnes himself Making this Bridegrooms ring of gold but even a proper ring of a rush So that vouz avez Jo. Frith Let him in Gods name come up to the Barre The next man is Jo. Lambert And he saith I make you the same Answer to the other six Sacraments as I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar But tell me in my eare I pray you How doth he begin that Answer to the Sacrament of the Altar It is but 14 lines before in your own Book Whereas in your sixth Demand you do enquire Whether the Sacrament of the Altar c. All these words of enquiâ—y are theirs man not his What is his Answer I neither can nor will answer one word And so Jo. Lambeâ—t answers there not one word for you Yea but he doth in another place That Christ is said to be offered up no 〈◊〉 every year at Easter but also everyday in the celebraâ—â— on of the Sacrament because his oblation once 〈…〉 made is therby represented This likewise is 〈…〉 to be spoken long before any Reformatâ—â—◠〈◊〉 hand For Lambert was also martyred 〈…〉 But are you sure these words are his I am sure you know the contrary if you have read the next words following Even so saith S. Augustine The words are the words of an honest man but your dealing in this kind is scarce honest John Lambert doth qualifie them afterward that S. Augustines meaning was That Christ was all this in a certain manner or wise He was an Oblation as he was a Lion a Lambe and a doore that is as we said before a Metaphoricall and improper Oblation which never relates unto an Altar Vouz avez an honest man John Lambert But stand you by for a Mountebank John Coal The next is the most Reverend and learned Archbishop who notwithstanding his opposition to the Statute of the 6 Articles yet useth the phrase or term of Sacrament of the Altar as formerly without taking thereat any offence Pag. 443. And are you sure he doth so in that page Are you sure of any thing I am now sure he names not that Sacrament at all either in that page or in any other near unto it The Treatise there set down is of Jâ—hn Fox his composition and set forth in his own name It mentioneth indeed in the Confutation of the first Article the Sacrament of the Altar but with such a peal after it as none but a mad man would cite him for this purpose This monstrous Article of theirs in that form of words as it standeth c. And so the Lord Archbishop saith as much as John Lambert that is not one word for him The next in order is John Philpot whose speach this cruell man hath sore pinch't upon the rack to get him to give some evidence on his side He wriggles and wrests all his words and syllables that the Quotation is very near as true a Martyr as the man himselfe I am sure he hath lop't off the Head that had a shrewd tale to tell and the feet of his Discourse which walk a quite contrary way to Dr Coals purpose leaving the Relation like Philopoemenes his Army all Belly The Head is this I must needs ask a Question of Dr Chedsey concerning a word or twain of your supposition yours not his owne that is of the Sacrament of the Altar What he meaneth thereby and Whether he taketh it as some of the Ancient Writers do terming the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar for the Reasons there set down and mentioned by Dr Coal or Whether you take it otherwise for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of Lime and Stone over the which the Sacrament â—hangeth And hearing they meant it this later way he declares himself Then I will speak plain English That the Sacrament of the Altar is no Sacrament at all How like you John Philpot You shall have more of him St Austinwith other ancient Writers do call the holy Communion or the Supper of the Lord The Sacrament of the Altar in respect it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse The which Sacrifice all the Altars and Sacrifices upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow The which pertaineth nothing to your Sacrament hanging upon your Altars of Lime and stone Christoph. No doth I pray you what signifieth Altar Philip. Not
Offer bread and incense And therefore we have borrowed nothing at all from the square Altars of the Law but leave that form to the Papists requir'd of them in their Canons but the onely Vtensill we relate unto is the Long-square Table of the Incense Yet will not this man be got off by any means from the King and the Counsell He saith that a small measure of understanding is sufficient to avoid offence at an Altar howbeit he prayeth heartily to God there may be but such a measure found in Kings and Bishops houses of which he either is over-carefull or hath a very base conceit and that they have had now 80 yeares to become better edified towards Altars Lastly if that they still continue scandalized thereat they are rather Head-strong then strong enough as was said of the Puritanes in the Conference at Hampton-Court The Puritanes mov'd then for an Abrogation those that are scandalized with your new Altars move onely for a Confirmation of the ecclesiasticall Laws and the practice of them as they have beene these last fourescore yeares generally executed So that your quotation of that Conference is a fine new Nothing The Act of Counsell made for this Reformation doth say peremptorily in two severall places That the form of a Table shall more move the simple from the Superstitious Opinions of the Popish Masse and that this superstitious Opinion is more holden in the mindes of the simple and ignorant by the form of an Altar then of a Table And therefore they did not intend to make a provision to prevent this inconvenience in the Church of England for foure-score yeares onely but for ever And accordingly they went to work caus'd their Liturgie to be mended in this particular the word Altar to be left out the word Table to be put in in their Rubricks for that purpose Nor rested they there but confirmed this corrected Liturgie by Act of Parliament revived againe by another Act of Parliament confirmed by the Proclamation of the late King of famous Memorie which was revived with his other Proclamations by his most excellent Majesty in the very beginning of his happie Reign And what is the sonne of your father to dare to offer limitation of time to a Law so absolute and Authenticall But this counsell-Counsell-order doth not appeare to have beene transmitted to any other Diocese beside Bishop Ridley's This Quiblet is grounded upon a mere Errour of the Printer by not putting a Period where he should and putting it where he should not The words rightly pointed run thus Anno 1550. other Letters not a Letter likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars in Churches and setting up the Tables in stead of the same And here the full point should be Vnto Nicolas Ridley made Bishop of London in Boners place Here is a Period in the new but a Comma onely in the old Book the Copie and contents of the Kings Letters are these as followeth So that Letters were written to all but Iohn Fox having accesse to the Bishop of Londons Registry prints onely the Copie of those which were sent to Bishop Ridley So that this is a subtilitie indeed a subtilitie in Print as they use to say But the next is more grosse and down-right That he saith that both parties that strove about the placing of their Tables in Bishop Ridley's Visitation were left to follow their own affections and the thing left at large and not determined There fell out about the yeare 1605 a great Controversie between M. Broughton and M. Aynsworth that troubled all the Diers in Amsterdam Whether the lining of Aarons Ephod was blue or sea-water-green And M. Aynsworth poore man was put to print a large Apologie in that businesse But had the Question been of the colour of this Tale told here by D. Coal it might have been resolved in one word It is a blue and perfect blue Tale. For Bishop Ridley there resolves these Questionists That the Situation most conformable to Scripture to the usage of the Apostles to the Primitive Church to the Kings proceedings was not to lay the holy Table all along the wall and therefore in Pauls Church he brake down the wall standing then by the high Altars side nor to lay it onely in the right form of a Table as this mus Ponticus as he said of Marcion this nibbler at all Quotations doth mis-recite the Text but to lay it in the form of a right Table that is a long Table or as your own Index doth interpret the word not Altar-wise but as a Table So that by this impudency of yours which put us to this narrow search we have met with two particulars very pertinent to the present dispute First that upon the taking down of the Altar the Table is not directed to be set up in the place where the Altar stood but in some convenient part of the Chancell That 's the first And secondly that the meaning of the Kings proceedings better known to this Bishop then to you was that the Table should not be placed and disposed Altar-wise which is the Question now before us Soone after D. Coal begins to relent and could finde in his heart to bestow half a Vicaridge upon the Writer of the Letter for saying That in the old Testament one and the same thing may be call'd an Altar in respect of what is there offered unto God and a Table in respect of what is there as he hath it participated by men See what it is to put a man into a peevish humour Velle tuum nolo Dindyme nolle volo Now I would not give the Writer a Peas-cod for that distinction nor do I beleeve he ever dream't of it He said that an Altar might be call'd a Table in what was Thence not there participated by men For it is a thing notoriously known saith Casâ—â—bon that Feasts heretofore were wont to accompany all solomn Sacrifices And that they did eat their good Cheer not upon but from the Altars And so saith Theophraâ—â—s that they did first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 offer up their Sacrifices and then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lay it on in entertainments But if they did the one then necessarily the other For if I did Sacrifice then surely I did eat saith Apollonius Tyaneus in his Apologie to Domitian The first they did at the Altar the second at their houses Sacrificant Me ad se ad prandium â—oâ—ant They never offer a Sacrifice saith the Parasite but they invite me to dinner to their houses And this custome was no stranger to the people of God For so we reade that Samuel did blesse the peoples Sacrifice in the high place but Feasted his strangers with his portion of that Sacrifice in his own Parlour So they that wait upon the Altar are partakers with the Altar And because their provision came from the Lords Altar as
bloud was shed for thee and be thankfull Now he must have a knee of a Camel and heart of Oake that will not bow himself and after the manner of adoration and worship say Amen as S. Cyrill speaks to so patheticall a Prayer and Thanksgiving made by the Minister unto God in his behalf And this is a powerfull Argument indeed for conformity in this point with the which I have seen some Leicester-shire people of good sort that had been refractory for a long time satisfied in an instant by the Bishop of the Diocese being very sory they had not observed so much before That in the Church of England our whole act of Receiving is accompanied in every part with the act of Praying and Thanksgiving However it behooveth humble and meek spirits in such indifferent matters to submit themselves to the Order of the Church appointed by lawfull Authority And as long as our Liturgie hath the honour and repute given thereunto which it so well deferves there is little feare that the people will clap them down upon their Breech about our holy Table It being no posture used in this Church to say Amen to such divine raptures and ejaculations Beside that throughout all the Diocese I live in being no small part of the Kingdome there is whether the Epistoler likes it or no Rails and Barricadoes to keep the people from all irreverences in that kinde But the generall Rule in this case is that which is set down in the Articles of the Dutch Church in London allowed by Beza himself and divers others That every private mans judgement in these circumstances is not to be respected But what is profitable to edifie what is not is not to be determined by the judgement of the common people nor of some one man but as I have said at large heretofore of those that have the chief care and government in the Church And so was it well done by the Reformed Church in Poland first by Monitions in the year 1573. and then by Sanctions in the year 1583. Nè in usu sit that the usuall receiving of the Communion in those parts should not be by sitting round about the Table A Ceremonie which some of the Brethren as they call them had brought into those parts either from John Alasco their countrey-man or from other Reformed Churches as might be the commerce of these three Nations considered from the Low-countreys or the Church of Scotland where this posture of sitting was Synodically established from the very beginning of the Reformation It was well done of them I say to reform it but very ill done of you to steal this Coal from the Altar of Damasco and never say so much as I thank you good Gaffer or deliver it us cleanly as you found it And yet it is not considering you confesse the Thefts in the Title of your Book calling it ingeniously A COAL FROM THE ALTAR Yet I would you had spar'd to abuse that grave Synod to make them say peremptorily Haec ceremonia Ecclesiis Christianis non est usitata especially as you turn it to English that this Ceremony is a thing not used in the Christian Church And so put the reformed Churches to fall together by the eares one with another and many of them to become odious in the Christian Church Which God he knoweth is far from either the words or meaning of that Synod For their words are these Haec ceremonia licèt cum caeteris libera c. This Ceremony however in its own nature free and indifferent as the rest of the Ceremonies c. Which sweetens the Case very much And then for their meaning They do not say it is a thing not used in the Christian Church This is your fingering and corruption But they say it is me â—sed in those Christian and Evangelicall Churches nostri consenâ—us which agreed with them in Articles of confession They condemn no other Nations no more then the Church of England doth And is this the part of a judicious Divine to corrupt a passage in a Sectary or Puritan who will be sure without any mercy to send Hue and Cry after you over all the Countrey Surely the man hath been instructed by Chrysalus in Plautus Improbis-cum improbus sit harpaget furibus furetur quod queat He is resolv'd to put some knavery upon the knave himself and to steal from the Stealer what he can For indeed to come to the second point both the Coal and the Altar are quite mistaken to think that the Synod did ever say that this Ceremony was brought in or used by the modern Arians It is very well known that John Alasco who maintained this Ceremony of sitting in a little Book published here in England in K. Edwards dayes was setled in Poland and by the means of his Noble bloud and kindred in great favour with his Prince in the year 1557. which is long before either of these two Synods And all that either of the Synods say in dislike of the Ceremonie is this That it is Arianis cum Domino pari solio se collocantibus propria A thing fitter for the Arians who by their Doctrine and Tâ—neâ—s plac'd themselves cheek by joul with the Son of God then for devout and humble Christians compassed about with Neighbours so fundamentally hereticall I could say that here in England this worse conclusion of the Doctours To desire to sit at the Communion is more to be feared from the Opposers of our Liturgie who brag of their Cosin-ship and Coheir-ship with Christ then from us who are ready to live and die in defence of the same And the Altar at the last espied this to be the meaning of the Synod that this Sitting was proper to the Arians not by usage but secundum principia doctrinae suae as an Inference easily drawn from the Principles of their Doctrine Howbeit the Coal was resolv'd to wink at it in his Authour and to speak big words though beside the Cushion and against all truth of History that it was brought in at the first by the Modern Arians His Author telling him in the same Page that it was published in the Book of Scottish discipline Anno 1560. and my self having shewed by a Testimony beyond all exception that it was preached in Poland three year before that by John Alasco And then your Principles were they true as the one of them is false For there was never any Altar erected in the Temple but to sacrifice upon nor ever any man read in divine or humane learning that denied Incense to be a Mincha and kinde of Sacrifice the conclusion could not come within a league of us For we who extract our selves as I told you before from that Table in the Temple do desire to eat in no other manner then as the Priests and as David our Types did eat before us We do not desire to eat upon which
that whosoever hath moved you to dislike this Order can give you no reason for it Order saith the King a godly Order saith the Parliament both mean the same thing as they use the same words An Order for Common prayers in the Mother-tongue So that Father Parsons and you must unlaugh again this foolish Laughter which you made without cause upon this Act of Parliament Well let the King the Counsell and the Parliament order what they please two things he will make good first that if Origen or Arnobius do say they had no Altars in the Primitive Church they meant not any for bloudy or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had Where you see he is almost come to that we have been wrangling for all this while That they had no Altars for externall Sacrifices And shew me that ever one Father or Schoolman did teach a necessity of an externall Altar to an internall Sacrifice and I will yeeld him the better of the Controversie But I see his Loop-hole already he will help himself with those words As the Gentiles had Although it be God wot but a poore shift And secondly he will make it good that the Church had Altars both the Name which the Letter denies not but onely the name applied to the materiall Instrument call'd the Lords Table and Thing too a long time together before the birth of Origen and Arnobius This later part would prove too heavie a Buckler for any man to take up that were to fight it out with a Scholar indeed For the Writer of the Letter doth utterly decline the Combat retiring himself to his 200 years which will not serve his Turn for all his Caution if Sixtus Primus did first appoint that Masse should be said no where but upon an Altar as to an advantage of ground and turning B. Jewell against this Goliah without averring any thing of his own beside the testimony of S. Paul at which this Doctour like that drunken Gossip saith Amen when he should have said All this I stedfastly believe But having to do but with this man of rags I dare undertake him in both the points and if I could fully satisfie that place of Tertullian in his Book De Oratione will adventure my credit to wipe his nose of the rest of those Testimonies produced by him And all this while I am no Champion for the Writer of the Letter who hath withdrawn his Neck out of the Collar but of the great Champion of our Church B. Jewell For the first therefore because B. Jewell saith that then the faithfull for fear of Tyrants were fain to meet together in private houses c. therefore it was they were not so richly furnished or at least wise they had not such Altars as the Gentiles had saith D. Coal But B. Jewell when he spake those words of their wanting of Churches in the Primitive Church addes presently a word or two which this Doctour did not unwillingly forget And may we think that Altars were built before Churches Which though it be not altogether an unanswerable Question for men are of opinion that Altars were built before the Churches yet is it sufficient to declare the impudencie of this man that would undertake to answer Origen and Arnobius out of B. Jewell B. Jewells conclusion there is that M. Harding was ill advised to say confidently that Altars have ever been sithence the Apostles times And he answers fully out of S. Austin the Doctours Objection that Altars being then portativo and carried by the Deacons from place to place which the learned Papists do not deny they might have had Altars although they had no standing Temples That is portative Altars not of Stone fixed to the walls of the Church as our late Popish Altars be of the which B. Jewell might very well make his former Question Now for that other Flam That Origen and Arnobius should deny their having onely of Heathenish but not of Christian Altars although it were enough to stop the mouth of this Ignoto to set down the Testimonies of those great Worthies of the reformed Church who with B. Jewell expound these two Fathers of the having no Altars at all as the B. of Duresme Mornay Desiderius Heraldus Monsieur Moulin Hospinian and others yet because he thinks he hath gotten the Cowards advantage to put us to the proofe of the Negative presuming onely upon the justice of the cause I will undertake him upon these hard conditions For Origen it is clear'd in a word that he was not interrogated and consequently that he never answered concerning the Heathen or Pagan Altars For Celsius his adversary what Countrey-man soever he was disguiseth himself as a Iew disputing against the Christians in all that discourse And it were an Argument fitting as wise a Rabbin as our D. Coal to prove the Christians to be Atheists because they had not which they themselves abhorred to the death Pagan Altars But Celsus his objection is to the purpose and generall that the Christians had amongst thēselves a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or secret Token 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of some invisible combination that they erected no kinde of Altars as all other Sects and Professions not being Atheists amongst the Jews and Gentiles did And to this generall Objection the Answer was likewise generall or very impertinent that they had no Altars at all but those immateriall Altars we spake of before in the Souls and Consciences of holy men And Arnobius well weighed comes to the same effect For howbeit he had not to do with Jewes but with Gentiles yet the Objection is in generall termes not that they erected no Altar for their Gods and Sacrifices but that they built them no Altar venerationis ad officia to officiate upon in any kinde of divine worship And so Desiderius Heraldus the best Critick extant upon that Book delivers himself That this may be understood simply and absolutely without any relation to the Pagan Altars Holding an opinion elsewhere that simply and absolutely there were no Altars erected in the Church of God before Tertullians time But this will appeare yet more clearly by a place of S. Cyrill which the L. B. of Duresme doth thorowly examine to this purpose For Julian the Apostata had been a Reader of our Church and knew the generall practice thereof and that it had been in him a ridiculous thing to imagine that the Christians should have any Pagan Altars Nay the wittie Prince takes notice of it that the very Jewes do sacrifice and have an agreement in that particular with the Pagans and yet concludes bitterly against us as he conceives Offerre Sacra in Altari sacrificare cavetis You Christians are most scrupulous in offering of any Sacrifice upon your Altar And to this as the Learned Bishop well observes S. Cyrill answers not one word which had been prevarication before God and man if