ANTIDOTUM LINCOLNIENSE OR AN ANSWER TO A BOOK ENTITLED, THE HOLY TABLE, NAME, & THING, etc. Said to be written long ago by a Minister in Lincolnshire, And Printed for the Diocese of Lincoln, Ao. 1637.  
Written and inscribed to the grave, learned, and religious Clergy of the Diocese of Lincoln. BY PET: HEYLYN Chaplain in Ordinary to his M atie.  1 COR. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order. 
LONDON, Printed for JOHN CLARK, and are to be sold at his shop under St. Peter's Church in Cornhill. 1637.   

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY, CHARLES, BY THE GRACE OF GOD King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc.  
Most dread Sovereign:  
YOur Majesty's exemplary piety in the house of God, hath spread itself abroad amongst all your Subjects; and they were ill Proficients in the school of piety, did they not profit very much under such a Master. Your Royal and religious care, that all things in your Regal Chapels be done according to the prescript of the public Liturgy, and ancient usage of this Church, is a prevailing motive unto all your people, not to be backward in conformity to such an eminent part of your Princely virtues. Such a most excellent pattern would soon find an universal entertainment in the hearts of men; were there not some, the enemies as well of piety, as public Order, that dissuade from both. None in this kind more faulty than an obscure and nameless Minister of Lincoln Diocese, in a discourse of his not long since published. A man that makes a sport of your Maties ties chapel's, as having never 
a Holy table, p. 36.  heard of the use of the Chapel, nor read of any ordering and directing course from the Royal Chappells; and puts a scorn upon 
b Ibi. p. 83, 84, 85, etc.  the piety of the times, in being so inclinable (by your most sacred Ma ties divine example) to decency and uniformity in Gods public service. Nay, whereas in the Primitive times, the holy Altars, as they then used to call the Communion Tables (for other Altars they were not) were esteemed so sacred, that even 
c Milites irruentes in Altaria, osculis significare pacis insigne. S. Amb. Ep. 33. l. 5.  the barbarous Soldiers honoured them with affectionate kisses: this man exposeth them to contempt and scandal, as if no terms were vile enough to bestow upon them. Nor deals he otherwise with them, who out of their due zeal to God, and for the honour of the Reformation against the unjust imputations of those of Rome, and the procuring 
d Stat. 1. Eliz. cap. 2.  of due reverence to Christ's holy Sacraments (too much slighted in these times, and in many places) have travailed to reduce this Church to that ancient Order, which hath been hitherto preserved in your Majesty's Chappells, and the cathedrals of this Kingdom: whom he hath openly traduced, as 
e Holy Table, p. 204.  if they were but taking in the outworks of religion, and meant in time to have about with the fort itself. In this regard, I thought it was my bounden duty to represent unto your Majesty's faithful and obedient Subjects the true condition of the business so by him calumniated: together with the doctrine and continual usage both of the Primitive Church of Christ, in the world abroad, and the Reformed Church of Christ in this your Majesty's Realm of England. Which work, as it was principally intended to settle and confirm the minds of your Majesty's people, whom some have laboured to possess with prejudicate fears: so to the end it may receive amongst them a more fair admittance, I have presumed to prostrate both myself and it, at your Royal feet, with that humility and reverence which best becomes  
Your Majesty's most obedient Subject, and most dutiful Chaplain, PET. HEYLYN.   

A PREFACE TO THE GRAVE, LEARNED, and religious Clergy of the Diocese of LINCOLN.  
IT is well noted by the Poet, that the 
a Serò medicina paratur, Cum mala per long●s invaluere moras. Ovid.  remedy doth come too late, when once the mischief is confirmed and settled by too long delays. And thereupon he hath advised us, Principiis obstare, to crush a spreading evil even in the beginning, before it gather head, and become incurable: On this consideration I applied myself to the present business; and so applied myself unto it, that it might come unto your view with all speed convenient, before that any contrary persuasion, by what great name so ever countenanced, should take too deep a root in any of you, to be thence easily removed. In the beginning 〈◊〉 March last, there peeped into the world a book entitled The holy Table, Name and Thing, said to be written long ago by a Minister in Lincolnshire, in answer to Dr Coal, a judicious Divine of Queen Mary's days; and printed for the Diocese of Lincoln, An. 1637. So that being written by a Minister in Lincolnshire, and printed for the Diocese of Lincoln; who could conceive but that it was intended for the private use of you, the Clergy of those parts, and not to have been scattered, as it was, over all the Kingdom: But being so fair a Babe, and borne in such a lucky hour, it would not be restrained in so narrow a compass, and therefore took the liberty to range abroad; secretly, and by stealth at first, as commonly such unlicenced Pamphlets do, till it had gotten confidence enough to be seen in public; and then, which was not until the first of April, I had the happiness to read and peruse it thoroughly: So that as Florus said of the Ligurians 
b 〈…〉 , that it was aliquanto major labour invenire, quam vincere; the like may be a●birmed of this and such like lawless, and nonli●●t Pamphlets, that it is no less● labour to find them but, th●n having found them, to confu●● them.  
For having read, and thoroughly perused the same, I found forthwith, that the most part of all the business, was to detect the extreme falsehood of the man; which is so palpable, and gross, that I dare boldly sav it, and will make it good, such, & so many impostn●es of all sorts; w●●● 〈◊〉 thrust upon the world in so small a Volume. For first, he makes an Adversary of he knows not whom, and then he 〈…〉▪ he cares not how; mangling the Author's words, whom he would confu●e, that so he may be sure of the easier conquest; and practising on those Authors whom he is to use, that they may serve his turn the better, to procure the victory. A strange and cruel kind of Minister, equally unmerciful to the dead, as to the living; with both of which he deals, a● did 
c 〈…〉.  Procrustes with his captives, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, making them fit unto his bed▪ ●f they be longer than his measure, than he cuts them sho●●er; and if they be too short, than he racks them longer: Hardly one testimony or authority in the whole discourse that is any way mate●●●all to the point in hand, but is as true, and truly cited, as that the book itself was writ long ago in answer unto Dr Coal of Queen Maris● days: which, as it is the leading tale, & stands in front of purpose to make good the entrance; so doth it give a good essay of those fine stories and inventions, which we are like to find within. One that conjectured of the house by the trim or dress, would think it very richly furnished: The walls thereof, that is, the Margin, richly set out with Antique Hangings; and whatsoever costly workmanship all Nations of these times may be thought to brag of; and every part adorned with flourishes, and pre●ty pastimes, and gay devices of the Painter: Nor is there any want at all of Ornaments or Utensils to set out the same; such specially as may serve for ostentation, though of little use, many a fine and subtle Carpet, not a few idle Couches for the credulous reader, and every where a Pillow for a Puritans Elbow; all very pleasing to the eye, but slight of substance; counterfeit stuff most of it, and wrought with so much fraud, and falsehood, that there is hardly one true stitch in all the Work: From the beginning to the end, our Minister is still the same, no Changeling: 

d Hor. de Arte.  Servatur ad imum,  
Qualis ab incoepto processerit, et sibi constat.   
And yet if all these piae frauds, (for so they must be thought in so grave a Minister) did aim at nothing else, than to advance the reputation of his holy Table; the answering of his work were more proper for another Adversary. The holy Table hath no enemies in the Church of England; and therefore he is fain to fly to Rome, to find out some that are ashamed of the name of the Lords Table. But so it is, that under the pretence of setting up his holy Table, this Minister hath dispersed throughout his book, such principles of faction, schism, and disobedience, that even that Table also is made a snare to those, who, either out of weakness, or too great a stomach, do greedily devour what ever is there set before them. So venomous a discourse requires an Antidote, a timely and a present Antidote, before the malignity of the poison be diffused too far; and therefore I thought fit to provide one for you▪ for you the learned & religious Clergy of the Diocese of ●●nc. for whom, & for whose use alone, that worthy Work of his, whosoever he be, must be pretended to be printed, yet so, hat any others may be made partakers of it, whose judgement and affections have been, or are distempered by so lewd a practiser, who cares not if the Church were in a combustion, so he may warm his hands by the flame thereof. The Author, what he is, is not yet discovered; all that is openly revealed, is that he was a Minister in Lincolnshire, as in the Title; some Minister of the Diocese, as the Licence calls him. The book, if we believe the Title-page, was writ long ago, in answer unto Doctor Coal, a judicious Divine of Queen Mary's dayes●: but what the Author means by Queen Mary's days, is not so easy to determine. If he speaks properly, literally, and anciently, as in the first part of the Title he would same be thought; he may perhaps meet with a 
e Doctor Coal was Deane of ●. Paul, in Qu. Mary's time, as in the Acts and ●on. part. 3.  Doctor Coal in Queen Mary's days; but then that Doctor Coal would not serve his turn, because he had no hand in the Coal from the Altar; but if he mean the present times, and reckon them in the rank of Queen Mary's days, as if the light in which we live, proceeded not from the clear Sunshine of the Gospel, but the fierce fire of persecution; I would fain know what could be said more factiously, to inflame the people, whom he, and others of that crew, have every were affrighted with these dangerous fears. Q. Mary's days, we bless God for it, were never further off, than now; religion never more assured, the Church better settled, nor the Divines thereof more learned, and religious, than at this time under the most auspicious Reign of our Gracious Sovereign. And therefore they that practise with all art and cunning to cast such scandals on the State, and such foul slanders on the Church, are utterly unworthy of those infinite blessings, which by the sword of God and Gideon, the favour of the Lord, and our religious Sovereign, they enjoy in both: So that the supposition of a book written long ago, in answer to a Doctor of Queen Mary's days, is at the best a factious figment, and a pernicious Imposture, to abuse the people; and only for that cause invented.  
This factious figment thus rejected, all that is left us to find out this Author, must be collected by the style and argument, though that perhaps will give us but a blind discovery. The argument, both in the main, and on the by, shows that he is a true descendant of those old Ministers of Lincoln shire, which drew up the Abridgement in King james his time: in case he be not some remainder of that scattered company, which hitherto hath hid his head, and now thrusts out with Bastwick, Prinne, and Burton, to disturb the State. The style composed indifferently of Martin Ma●●e-Prelate, and Tom: Nash: as scurrilous and full of folly, as the one; as scandalous and full of ●action, a● the other was: which, howsoever it may please young heads, and such as are affected as the Writer is, yet it gives just offence to the grave and learned, who would have serious matters handled in a serious manner. They that can find him ●ut by either of th●se Characters, must have▪ more knowledge of the Diocese, than I dare preten● to; who am pronounced beforehand, and by way of challenge, to be none of the Voisinage, and consequently no fit man to be returned of the Inquest. Only I have made bold out of my care and zeal to the common●good, to give you this short notice of him; that if by chance you should encounter with him any where in his privates 〈◊〉, you may take heed lest he seduce you by his practi●es; and in the mean time be forewarned, lest he misguide you by his writings: For coming in the habit of a neighbour Minister, especially being recommended to you, for one so Orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England; you might perchance be apt to give credit to him, and lend too credulous an ear to his sly temptations. Therefore to save that title which the Church hath in you, and to preserve that interest which it claims in your best affections, I have adventured to put in this Caveat, in the Church's name; which if you should neglect, as I hope you will not, I must be forced in maintenance of her right and interest, to bring my double quarrel. Books of a popular argument, and followed in a popular way, are commonly much cherished by that race of men, who love to run cross to all publick-order. And therefore it concerns all Churchmen, and you especially of that Diocese, for which that worthy Work was printed, to have a wise and timely care, that those which are committed to your several charges, be rightly balanced, and not inveigled and abused by the neat subtleties of those, who only labour to deceive them.  
And it concerns us all, the rather, because those factious and schismatical Pamphlets, that came out with, and since the good Ministers Book, seem to endeavour nothing more, than to possess men's minds, as before I said, with dangerous and desperate, though most needless fears, that all things go not right amongst us. The placing of the holy Table in that comely sort, as is most consonant to the practice of the Primitive times, and to the general usage of all Cathedrals in this Kingdom, and his Majesty's Chapels, given out by false and factious men; only to be a preamble to a greater change: And howsoever in itself it be a matter of indifferent nature, and so acknowledged to be both by the Minister himself, good man, and by the writer of the letter to the Vicar of Grantham; and that the Table be so placed in his Lordship's Chapel, (by whom the Minister's book was allowed and licenced) as is 
f Vide Sect. 2. ch. 4. in fine.  elsewhere said; this comes all to one: for place them▪ how they will in Cathedral Churches, his Majesties and the Bishop's Chapels, and be the matter so indifferent, as no one thing more; yet take we heed we do not place them Altarwise in Parochial Churches; rather than so, poor people must be frighted with we know not what, and told that there is somewhat in it which is worth their fears; something that mainly tends unto the alteration of religion here by law established. As if the Table could not stand where the Altar did, or be placed Altarwise all along the wall; but it must needs imply some Popish and prohibited sacrifice, to be intended for the same, though not yet ready to be offered. In which most false and scandalous imputations, as all the Pamphlets of these times are extremely guilty; so there is none more positive in it, than this Minister of Lincoln Diocese. These new Reformers (I desire you to observe his words) though they prepare and lay grounds for the same, dare not (for fear of so many laws and Canons) apparently profess this Eleusinian doctrine. They are as yet busied in taking in the outworks, and that being done, they may in time have a bout with the Fort itself. A speech of that schismatical, factious, and seditious nature, that greater of that kind was never uttered by Bastwicke, Layton, Burton, Prynne, or any pestilent Pasquil of the present, ne dumb in any of the former times. And though you may conjecture ex pede Herculem, what you are like to find by this, in the whole bulk of the discourse: yet for your better satisfaction, I will lay before you, as by way of Parallel, the harmony or agreement which is between him in his holy Table, and H. Burton in his late seditious Sermon, and Apology. Not in the language only, which is in both so like, and so full of clamour, as if they had but one pen between them; but in their factious and schismatical positions, in which they do agree so sweetly. Which done, it shall be left to you to consider of it, whether it may be possible that they should jump so even, in so many passages, by mere inspiration, and the enthusiasm of the same ill spirit, or that they rather fell upon it, (as jugglers sometimes do their tricks) by combination and confederacy.  
The Minister of Lincoln. Mr. Burton of London. THese new reformers, though they prepare and lay grounds for the same, dare not (for fear of so many laws and Canons) apparently profess this Eleusinian doctrine. They are as yet busied in takeing in the outworks, and that being done, they may in time have a bout with the fort itself. pag. 204. THey must first down with Tables, and up with Altars, etc. And what then? Surely a Priest is not far off. But where is the sacrifice? Stay a while; that service comes last, and all these are preparations unto it. So as all these Preambles do at last usher in the great God of the host, so soon as it is well baked; and the people's stomaches fitted to digest so hard a bit. pag. 105. I appeal to any indifferent men, that pretend to any knowledge in divinity; if the Reading Pew, the Pulpit, or any other place in the Church; be not as properly an Altar, as is our holy Table, howsoever situated. pag. 75, 76. Well, yet a rail must be made about it, to insinuate into people's minds an opinion of some extraordinary sanctity in the Table, more than in other places of the Church, as the Pulpit, Pew, or Font. p. 33. A number of our Churches have their Isles of such a perfect cross, that they cannot possibly see either high Altar, or so much as the Chancel. pag. 224. When they must use no prayer at all after the Sermon, but come down, and read a second or third service at the Altar, where in great Churches half the people cannot hear a word. pag. 150. Without which transposing of the Table, the Minister, were he that Stentor with the sides of brass, could never be heard of his congregation. p. 204. Reading a second service at the Altar, where even in lesser Churches, the people cannot possibly hear without a Stentorious voice of the Minister. In the Epistle to the King. Our Communion shall be at the soon our fourth, and by no means our second service. pag. 174. And read a second or third service at the Altar. pag. 150. It seems by you, we are bound only to pray, but not to speak the words of the Canons. pag. 75. When they forbid Ministers to use any prayer before their Sermons, but the bare and barren form of words in the Canon. pag. 150. God is aswell God of the West, North, and South, as he is of the East: and it is Paganish to make him more propitious in any one corner of the world, than he is in another. pag. 219. Praying with their faces towards the East, thus tying God to a fixed place. pag. 129. Whereas S. Paul reckoneth up a long Catalogue of graces, to be blameless, vigilant, s●ber, modest, learned, hospital, and I know not what: the man is content the Puritans take all these for themselves, etc. pag. 191. The good Ministers of the Land (i. e. the Puritan Ministers) are the Kings most loyal, loving, dutiful, faithful, obedient, and peaceable subjects. pag. 48. He might also mark some special differences which our Canons themselves do make between Cathedrals and Parochial Churches; and particularly in an observation concerning the point in hand pag. 182, 183. But let us examine a little what force there is in this Argument: Cathedrals are so and so: therefore all other Churches must conform to them. I deny the Argument. Legibus vivendum est, non exempl●s. p. 160. I hope it will be no offence, if I pluck out this Cumane creature, (who like a sawning Sycophant, thinks to take sanctuary in that holy ground) from the shadow and shelter of the Royal Chapel. pag. 35. In the last place being pulled away from the horns of their Cathedral Altars, as not able to shelter themselves from their pursuers: they fly as to their last refuge, and most impregnable fort, to the King's Chapel. pag. 165. Every Parish Church is not bound to imitate in all outward circumstances, the pattern and form, and outward embellishment and adorning of the Royal Chapel. pag. 33. Why should subjects think to compare with the King, in the state of his Royal family or Chapel: there being many things in the King's Chapel, which were presumption to have in ordinary Churches. pag. 165. It is not therefore his Majesty's Chapel, but his Laws, Canons, Rubrics, and Proclamations, which we are to follow in these outward Ceremonies. p. 34. The worship and service of God and of Christ, is not to be regulated by humane examples, but by the divine rule of the Scriptures. pag. 165. This Table, without some new Canon, is not to stand Altarwise, and you at the North-end thereof; but Table-wise, and you must officiate at the North-side of the same, by the Liturgy. pag. 20. The external rites and ceremonies in the Church, are limited by Act of Parliament prefixed to the Communion book, and no more to be added or used in Churches. pag. 166. Doctores legendi sunt cum venia. The Doctors must be pardoned if they sometimes slip in their expressions. p. 91. Their works are not without their naevi or spots, so as they that read them must margaritas è coeno legere, gather pearls out of the mud. pag. 112. I should therefore reasonably presume, that this good work in hand is but a second part of Sancta Clara, and a frothy speculation of some few, etc. p. 85. The book of Franciscus S. Clara, which hath been now thrice printed, and that in London as they say, and is much applauded by our Innovators, etc. pag. 117. And so the Bishop of Norwich must be ever sending forth letters of persecution: because john Fox observeth, that one of them did so. p. 98. So hot is the persecution against God's faithful Ministers & people in those Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, etc. pag. 25. that in all Queen Maries time there was not so great havoc made of the faithful Ministers of God, etc. pag. 65. S. Cyprian aggravates the offence of these Testators, that by making Churchmen executors and overseers of their last wills, Ab altari sacerdo●●s, & ministros volunt avocare, will needs withdraw ministers from their Ecclesiastical functions, with no less offence, than if under the law they had withdrawn the Priests from the holy Altar. pag. 167. When Clergy men dare in affront to God's word, to Christ's doctrine and example, etc. usurp and take upon them to meddle in the managing even of the highest and weightiest affairs of Princes, States, and temporal kingdoms, which is incompatible with the Ministerial function. Epistle to the Nobility. pag. 22. If the Ordinaries now command where there is no law or former Canon in force, it layeth a grievance on the subject, as a thing unjust, and consequently of a nature whereunto obedience is no way due. pag. 66. And herein we have ●ause to bless the name of God, who hath raised up many zealous and courageous Champions of his truth, I mean faithful Ministers of his word, who choose rather to lose all they have, than submit themselves to their unjust and base commands, pag. 83. This fellow jumbles again the King and the Bishop, tanquam Regem cum Regulo, like a Wren mounted upon the feathers of an Eagle. pag. 91. Little Pope Regulus playeth such Rex in Norwich Diocese. And in the Margin. It signifieth both a little King, a Wren, etc.  
So far the Parallel holds between them in their words and writings. And I pray God there be not a more unseen Parallel at least in their ends and aims, between this Lincolnshire Minister, and Prinne, and Bastwicke, as well as between him and Burton.  
What think you now of this consent and harmony between the Minister of Lincoln Diocese, and H. B. of London? Think, you not that they hold intelligence with one another, and by their weekly packers give and receive advertisements, both what they mean to write of, and how to follow it? Certainly this must needs be done by mutual correspondence and combination; at lest non sine numine diuûm, not without special influence of the same ill spirit. Yet I must tell you by the way, that of the two, the Minister of Lincoln is the most adventurous: who besides all that here is said, hath a long studied discourse in maintenance of sitting at the holy Sacrament, which good Master Burton never winched at. But now upon the stating of the question by this man of Lincolnshire, some of the latter libels (of which we have had many since the Minister's book) have brought in that too; and made it one of the disparities or Antitheses, between our Saviour and the Prelates. And yet the brethren may do well, not to give too much credence to him. For howsoever he hath strained so much to gain their favour; and set them out with a long Catalogue of graces, as vigilant, sober, blameless, modest, learned, hospital, and I know not what. pag. 191. Yet at another time, he flings them off, as if they had no reference to him. For if they will express no reverence at their approach unto the holy Table, as you know they will not; take them Donatus for him, they shall be ●ever written in his Calendar for the children of this Church. pag. 99 100 Or if they do dislike the callings of the Reverend Ordinaries of this land, as you know they do: He wisheth them presently with M. Cotton in the new, as unworthy of that most happy government, which (by the favour of God and the King) all the Laity and Clergy do here enjoy in the old England. pag. 64, 65. And thus he deals with Calvin also, whom he endeavoureth to save harmless all he can, from having any hand in changing the English Liturgy: yet saith, he was a Polypragmon. pag. 144. a man pragmatically zealous, pag. 145. And thus he feeds them, as you see, with a bit and a knock, altera manu piscem ostendens, altera lap●dem: and will be sure to keep them under, how much so ever he advance them.  
But O le quid ad te? What makes all this to me, may this Minister say; who am nor named nor glanced at in his holy Table; or at least named no otherwise, then amongst those Authors, which were selected purposely to adorn his Margin? It is true, the Minister, as if he knew not whom to pitch on for the Coal from the Altar, lays about him blindefold: and like the 
o Holy Table. pag. 232.  naughty boy he speaks of, he flings his stones abroad where he sees most company; not caring whom he hit, so he hit at some body. Yet generally the needle of his compass points unto the North, and he drives much at one or other, that was not of the voisinage, but an inhabitant of a remote and another province. pag. 3. who used to travail Grantham Roade, p. 71. and was a friend unto the Vicar, pag. 110. john Coal, as he is called by name, pag. 88 Newcastle Coal, as from the place and parts of his habitation, pag. 114. A man whose learning lay in unlearned Liturgies, pag. 85. and used to crack of somewhat unto his Novices, pag. 122. but to be pitied for all that, in being married to a widow, pag. 168. Who the man aims at in these casts, is not here considerable. It is possible he aims at no body, but at have amongst you. However, all this while, that I may keep myself unto my Accidence 
p Had the Doctor kept himself unto his Accidence▪ he could not have forgotten that Edwardas' was his proper name. p. 23.  Petrus dormit securus, and may sleep safely if he will; for none of all these by-blows do reflect on him. Done with much cunning I assure you, but with ill success. For now he least of all expects it, I must draw the Curtain, and let him see his Adversary, though he hide himself. 
q Virgil. Aeneid. 9  Me, me, adsum qui feci, in the Poet's words. I am the man that never yet saw Grantham Steeple; though for the Church's sake I undertook the Patronage of the poor dead Vicar. The letter to the Vicar being much sought after, and by some factious hands spread abroad, of purpose to hinder that good work of uniformity which is now in hand, did first occasion me to write that answer to it, which passeth by the name of A Coal from the Altar. Now a necessity is laid upon me to defend myself, and with myself that answer also, from the most insolent, though weak assaults of this uncertain certain Minister of the Diocese of Lincoln; who comes into the field with no other weapons, than insolence, ignorance and falsehood. In my defence whereof, and all my references thereunto, I am to give you notice here, that whereas there were two Editions of it, one presently upon the other; I relate only in this Antidote to the first Edition: because the Minister takes no notice but of that alone.  
The method which I use in this Antidotum, shall be shown you next, that you may know the better what you are to look for. The whole discourse I have divided into three Sections. Into the first whereof I have reduced the point in controversy, as it relates to us of the Church of England: following the Minister at the heels in his three first Chapters, touching the state of the question, the Regal and Episcopal power in matter of Ceremony; and in the fourth bringing unto the test, all that he hath related in several places of his book, touching the taking down of Altars, and alteration of the Liturgy in King Edward's time. The second Section comprehends the tendries of the Primitive Church, concerning Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars; together with their general usage in placing of the Altar or holy Table: and that contains four Chapters also. In which we have not only assured our cause, both by the judgement and the usage of the purest Ages: but answered all those Arguments (or Cavils rather) which by the Minister have been studied to oppose the same. The third and last exhibites to you those Extravagancies, and Vagaries which every where appear in the Minister's book; and are not any way reducible to the point in hand: wherein we have good store of confident ignorance, fal●●fications far more gross, because more unnecessary; and not a little of the old Lincolnshire Abridgement. And in this wise I have disposed it for your ease, who shall please to read it: that as you are affected with it, you may end the book either at the first or second Section; or else peruse and read it thoroughly, as your stomach serves you. In all and every part of the whole discourse, as I have laid down nothing without good authority; so have I faithfully reported those authorities which are there laid down: as one that cannot but have learned by this very minister, that all falls dealing in that kind, however it may serve for a present shift; yet in the end, 〈◊〉 both shame to them that use it, and disadvantage to the cause, Great is the 〈…〉 the last, though for a while suppressed by men's subtle practices. Nor would I that the truth should far the worse, or find the less esteem amongst you; because the contrary opinion hath been undertaken, by one that calls himself a Minister of Lincoln Diocese. You are now made the Judges in the present controversy, and therefore it concerns you in an high degree, to deal uprightly in the cause, without the least respect of persons: and having heard both parties speak, to weigh their Arguments, and then give sentence as you find it. Or in the language of Minutius; Quantum potestis singula ponderare, ea verò quae recta sunt, eligere, suscipere, probare. And that you may so do, and then judge accordingly, the God of truth conduct you in the ways of truth, and lead you in the paths of righteousness, for his own names sake.  
Westminster, May 10. 1637.   

PErlegi librum hunc, cui titulus est [Antidotum Lincolniense, etc.] in quo nihil reperio sanae doctrinae, aut bonis moribus contrarium; qu● minus cum utilitate publicâ imprimatur.  
Ex Aedibus Londin. Maii die 7. 1637. Sa: Baker.   

The Contents of each several Section and Chapter, contained in this Treatise.  

SECTION I.  

CHAP. I. Of the state of the question, and the occasion of writing the letter to the Vicar of Gr.  
The Author of the Coal from the Altar defended against him that made the holy Table, in respect of libelling, railing, falsifying his authorities, and all those accusations returned on the Accusers head. The Minister of Lincolnshires' advantage in making his own tale, & altering the whole state of the question. The Vicar cleared from removing the Communion Table of his own accord; as also from a purpose of erecting an Altar of stone, by the Bishop's letter. That scandalous term of Dresser, not taken by the writer of that letter from the country people. The Vicar's light behaviour at bowing at the name of JESUS, a loose surmise. The Alderman, and men of Gr: repair unto the Bishop. The agitation of the business there. The letter written and dispersed up and down the country, but never sent unto the Vicar. The Minister of Lincolnshire hath foully falsified the Bishop's letter. A parallel between the old and the new Editions of the letter.   

CHAP. II. Of the Regal power in matters Ecclesiastical, and whether it was ever exercised in settling the Communion Table in form of an Altar.  
The vain ambition of the Minister of Linc: to be thought a Royalist. His practice contrary to his speculations. The Doctor cleared from the two Cavils of the Minister of Linc: touching the Stat. 1. Eliz▪ The Minister of Linc: falsifieth both the Doctor's words; and the Lo Chancellor Egertons'. The Puritans more beholding to him than the King. The Minister of Linc: misreporteth the Doctor's words, only to pick a quarrel with his Majesty's Chapel. A second onset on the Chapel, grounded upon another falsification of the Doctor's words Of mother Chapels. The Royal Chapel how it may be said to interpret Rubrics. The Minister of Linc quarrels with Queen Elizabeth's Chapel; and for that purpose falsifieth both his foreign Authors, and domestic evidences. Not keeping, but adoring images, enquired into in the first year of Q. Eliz. That by the Queen's Injunctions, Orders and Advertisements, the Table was to stand where the Altar did. The idle answer of the Minister of Linc. to the Doctor's argument. Altars and Pigeon-houses all alike, with the Linc. Minister. The Minister of Linc: false and faulty argument, drawn from the perusers of the Liturgy, the troubles at Frankfort, and Miles Huggards testimony. Of standing at the North-side of the Table. The Minister of Linc: produceth the Pontifical against himself. His idle cavils with the Doctor touching the Latin translation of the Common prayer Book. The Parliament determined nothing concerning taking down of Altars. The meaning and intention of that Rubric. The Minister of Linc: palters with his Majesty's Declaration about S. Gregory's. A copy of the Declaration. The sum and substance of the Declaration. Regal decisions in particular cases, of what power and efficacy.   

CHAP. III. Of the Episcopal authority in points of Ceremony; the piety of the times, and good work in hand; and of the Evidence produced from the Acts and Monuments.  
The Minister of Linc: arts and aims, in the present business. Dangerous grounds laid by the Minister of Linc: for over-throwing the Episcopal and Regal power. He misreports the meaning of the Council of Nice, to satisfy his private spleen. The Minister of Linc: overthrows his own former grounds by new superstructures; protesteth in a thing against his conscience Chargeth the Doctor, with such things as he finds not in him, Denyeth that any 〈◊〉 t●ing may have two known and proper names; therefore that the Communion table may not be called an Altar also; and for the proof thereof doth falsify his own authorities. The Doctor falsified again, about the Canons of the year 1571. The Minister beholding to some Arch-deacons for his observations. Their curtalling of the Bishop's power, in moving or removing the Communion table, to advance their own. The piety of the times, an● the good work in hand, declared, and defended against the impious and profane derision of the Minister of Linc. The testimonies of Fryth, and Lambert, taken out of the Acts and Monuments, cleared from the cavils of the Minister of Linc. The Minister of Linc. cuts off the words of Lambert, Fox, Philpot, and Bishop Latimer, and falsifieth most foully the Acts and Monuments: Corrects the Statute and the Writ about the Sacrament of the Altar: Pleads poorly for the Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, in the matter of Oyster-boards and Dressers: and falls impertinently foul on the Bishop of Norwich.   

CHAP. IU. Of taking down Altars in K. Edw. time, altering the Liturgy first made; and of the 82. Canon.  
The Doctor leaves the Minister of Lincoln's Method, for this Chapter to keep close to England. Altars not generally taken down in the 4. of K. Edw. 6. The Minister of Linc. falsifieth the Bishop's letter to the Vicar; & palters with a passage in the Acts and Mon. to make them serve his turn about the taking down of Altars. A most notorious piece of nonsense in the new Edition of the letter. The Altars in the Church of England, beaten down in Germany. Altars not beaten down de facto, by the common people, but taken down by order, and in fair proceeding. Matters of fact may be made doctrinal sometimes, and on some occasions. The Order of the King but a kind of law. The Minister of Linc. takes great pains to free Calvin, from ha●ing any hand in altering the Liturgy. Land marks and bounds laid down, for the right understanding of the story. Calvin excepts against the Liturgy, practiseth with the D. of Somerset, both when he was Protector, and after His correspondence here with Bp. Hooper, and ill affection to the ceremonies then by Law established. The plot for altering the Liturgy so strongly laid, that it went forward notwithstanding the Duke's attainder. The shameful ignorance and most apparent falsehoods of the Minister of Linc. in all this business. Calvin attempts the King, the Counsel, and Archb. Cranmer. The date of his Letter to the Archb. cleared from the cavils of the Minister of Linc. the testimony given the first Liturgy by K. Edw. 6. asserted from the false construction of the Minister of Linc. as also that given to it by the Parliament. Archb. Bancroft, and Io. Fox, what they say thereof. The standing of the Table after the alteration of the Liturgy, and that the name of Altar may be used in a Church reform.    

SECTION II.  

CHAP. V. What was the ancient Doctrine of the Church concerning Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars: and what the Doctrine of this Church in those particulars.  
That Sacrifices, Priest's, and Altars, were from the beginning, by the light of nature; and that not only amongst the Patriarches, but amongst the Gentiles. That in the Christian Church there is a Sacrifice, Priests, and Altars, and those both instituted and expressed in the holy Gospel. The like delivered by Dionysius, Ignatius, justin Martyr, and in the Canons of the Apostles. As also by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and S. Cyprian. How the Apologeticks of those times are to be interpreted, in their denial of Altars in the Christian Church. Minutius Foelix falsified by the Minister of Linc. What were the Sacrifices which the said Apologeticks did deny to be in the Church of Christ. The difference between mystical and spiritual sacrifices. S. Ambrose falsified by the Minister of Linc. in the point of Sacrifice. The Doctrine of the Sacrifice delivered by Eusebius: The Doctrine of the following Fathers, of Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars: What is the Doctrine of this Church, touching the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. The judgement in these points, and in that of Altars, of B. Andrews, K. james, B. Montague, and B. Morton.   

CHAP. VI An Answer to the cavils of the Minister of Linc. against the points delivered in the former Chapter.  
Nothing delivered in the 31 Article, against the being of a Sacrifice in the Church of Christ, nor in the Homilies. A pious Bull obtruded on the Doctor by the Minister of Linc. The Reading-Pew, the Pulpit, and the poor-mans' Box made Altars by the Minister of Linc. And huddle of impertinencies brought in concerning sacrifice Commemorative, Commemoration of a sacrifice, and material Altars. The Sacrifice of the Altar known by that name unto the Fathers. Arnobius falsified. The Minister of Linc. questions. S. Paul's discretion, in his Habemus Altar, Heb. 13. 10. and falsifieth S. Ambrose. The meaning of that Text according unto B. Andrews, B. Montague, the Bishop and the Minister of Linc. The same expounded by the old Writers, both Greek and Latin. The Altars in the apostles Canons made Pantries and Larders; and judas his bag an Altar by this man of Linc. The Doctor and Ignatius vindicated in the three places touching Altars. The profane Passage in the Minister's Book of a Widow-Altar. An answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc. against the evidence produced from Irenaeus and S. Cyprian. The Ministers ignorant mistakes about the meaning of Tertullian in the word Ara. Pamelius new reading about Charis Dei, not universally received. A brief recital of the substance in these two la●t Chapters.   

CHAP. VII. Of Churches, and the fashion of them, and of the usual place allotted in the Church for the holy Altar.  
Places appointed for Divine worship amongst the Patriarc●●s, jews, and Gentiles. The various conditions and estate of the Christian Church, and that the Churches were according unto those estates. What was the meaning of the Apologeticks when they denied the having of Temples in the Church of Christ. the Minister of Linc. stops the mouth of Minutius Felix, and falsifieth Arnobius. Altars how situated in the troublesome and persecuted times of Christianity. The usual form of Churches, and distinct parts and places of them in the Primitive times. That in those times the Altars stood not in the body of the Church, as is supposed by the Minister of Linc. Six Reasons for the standing of the Altars at the upper end of the Choir or Chancel in the days of old. Of Ecclesiastical traditions, and the authority thereof. The Church of England constant to the practice of the former times. The Minister of Linc. tells a Winter tale about the standing of an Altar in the Cathedral Church of Dover. The meaning of the Rubric in the common-prayer-book, about the placing of the Table in Communion time.   

CHAP. VIII. An answer to the Minister of Lincoln's Arguments against the standing of the Lords Table at the upper end of the Quire.  
The Minister of Lincoln forsakes his Bishop, about the placing of the Altar in the body of the Church. The Altar in Eusebius Panegyric, not in the middle of the Church. The Minister's confidence and ignorance, in placing the Altar of incense close unto the veil. Tostatus falsified by the Minister of Lincoln. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ in the fifth Council of Constantinople, and the meaning of it. The Minister of Lincoln at a loss in his Critical learning, both Greek and Latin. Varro corrupted by the Minister of Lincoln. Saint Augustine what he meant by mensa illa in medio constituta. Albaspinus falsified. Durandus sets the Altar at the upper end of the Quire. The testimony of Socrates and Nicephorus, asserted to the Doctor from the Ministers Cavils. The Altars how now placed in the Greek Churches. The weak autorities produced by the Minister of Lincoln, for placing of the Table distant from the wall, and some of them corrupted also. The general Precedents of the Minister, for placing of the holy Table, forged: as also are the A●ts of the Council of Milan under Borromeo. The Minister confesseth guilty, and confutes himself of falsification. Many particular Precedents brought in; most of them counterfeit and forged; and altogether conclu●e nothing to the point in hand. The Minister of Lincoln against himself.    

SECTION III.  

CHAP. IX. A brief survey and censure of the first service of Extravagancies, in the holy Table.  
The Ministers Extravagancies, one of the greatest part of his whole discourse. His ignorant mistaking in the Mathematics concerning the inventions of Euclid, Archimedes, and Pythagoras. The Minister Falters in the original of Episcopal authority. His bringing in of Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra, for the jingle only. The Minister mistakes the case of the Germane Priest's. His cavils at the form of Prayer before the Sermon; and turning towards the East in the Act of Prayer. The Ministers ignorant endeavours to advance the authority of the Archdeacon's. The Minister mistaken in the Diaconicon▪ What the Diacony was, and that it adds but little to the dignity of Archdeacon's, that the old Deacon had the keeping of it. The Minister absurdly sets the Deacon above the Priest. Portare Altar, not an honour in the first Deacons, but a service only. The little honour done by the Minister to the Archdeacon's, in drawing down their pedigree f●om the first Deacons. The Ministers ignorant mistake in his own word utensil. The Minister subjects the Priest to the authority of the Churchwarden, and for that purpose falsifieth Lindwood. His ignorant derivations of the present Churchwarden from the old Oeconomus. The Minister endeavours to exclude the Glergie from meddling in secular matters; and to that end abuseth the authority of the ancient Fathers. His ignoranc● in the Catechism, and confident mistakes in that. His heartless plea for bowing at the name of JESUS.   

CHAP. X. The second service of Extravagancies, sent up and set before his guests by the Minister of Lincoln.  
The Metaphorical Altar; in the Fathers, good evidence for the proof of Real Altars in the Church. Ignatius corrupted by Vedelius. My Lord of Chichesters' censure of Vedelius. The Minister misreports Saint Bernard, and makes ten Altars out of four. A new original of the Table in the Christian Church, from the Table of Shewbread; the Ministers fumbling in the same, deserted by those Autors that he brings in for it. The Minister pleads strongly for sitting at the holy Sacrament; and for that purpose falsifieth Baronius, misreports Saint Austin, and wrongs Tertullian. The Benedictines sit not at the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday. Of the Seiur de Pibrac. The Minister advocates for the Arians, and will not have them be the Authors of sitting at the holy Sacrament; and for that cause deals falsely with the Polish Synods which impute it to them. Three Polish Synods ascribe the sitting at the Sacrament to the modern Arians. The ignorance of the Minister about accipere & reservare in Tertullian. What the Stations were. Lame Giles. The Minister slights the appellation of the second Service as did the Writer of the letter, and brings in several arguments against that division. The Minister's ignorance in the intention of the Rubrics. Of setting up a Consistory in the midst of service. The authority of the Priest in repulsing unworthy persons from the Sacrament; defended against the Ministers. He sets a quarrel between Cathedral and Parochial Churches; and mistakes the difference between them. The Injunctions falsified. Of being ashamed at the name of the Lords Table. The Minister ashamed at the name of Altar. Of pleasing the people; and the Ministers extreme pursuit thereof. The Minister falsely chargeth on the Doctor, a foolish distinction of the Diptyches. The conclusion.     

ANTIDOTUM LINCOLNIENSE.  

SECTION I.  

CHAP. I.  
Of the state of the question, and the occasion of writing the letter to the Vicar of Gr.  
The Author of the Coal from the Altar defended against him that made the holy Table; in respect of libelling, railing, falsifying his authorities, and all those accusations returned on the Accusers head. The Minister of Lincolnshires' advantage in making his own tale, and altering the whole state of the question. The Vicar cleared from removing the Communion Table of his own accord; as also from a purpose of erecting an Altar of stone, by the Bishop's letter. That scandalous term of Dresser, not taken by the writer of that letter from the country people. The Vicar's light behaviour at bowing at the name of J●SUS, a loose surmise. The Alderman, and men of Gr: repair unto the Bishop. The agitation of the business there. The letter written and dispersed up and down the country, but never sent unto the Vicar. The Minister of Lincolnshire hath foully falsified the Bishop's letter. A parallel between the old and the new Editions of the letter.  
IT was an old, but not unwitty application of the Lo: Keeper Lincoln's, 
a One who had been a singular friend to that town when he was in place.  when he was in place; that as once Tully said of Plato, In irridendis Oratoribus maximus Orator esse videbatur: so he might also say of N. appointed speaker of the Parliament for the house of Commons, 
Sect. 1.  that with great eloquence he had desired to be excused from undertaking that employment, for want of eloquence. The same may be affirmed as truly, I am sure, more pertinently, of this Non-nemo, Mr Some body; 
b In the licence.  some Minister of Lincoln Diocese: Charging the Doctor whom he undertaketh, with libelling, he hath showed himself the greatest libeler; accusing him of railing, he hath showed himself the veriest railer; and taxing him for falsifying his Texts and Authors, hath showed himself the most notorious falsifier that ever yet put pen to paper. And first, he chargeth him with libelling, upon a new 
c pag. 1.  but witty Etymology of the Lo: Chancellor S. Alban, that a libel was derived from two words, a lie, and a bell; of which, the Doctor made the lie, and sent it for a token to his private friend; the bell being put to by that friend, in commending it to the Press, and ringing it abroad over all the Country, p. 1. Nor is it placed there only in the front to disport the Reader, but it is called a libel, p. 21. and p. 60. The whole book nothing but a libel against a Bishop. p. 58. and that you may perceive he is no changeling, but ad extremii similis sibi, the same man throughout; a libel it is called again towards the latter end. p. 220. Here is a libel with a witness, a libel published by authority, a licenced libel, printed with licence, as himself confesseth, p. 4. For whosoever made the lie, you make his Majesty, in effect, to be the author of the libel: because you cannot but conceive, that no man durst have printed his Declaration in the case of S. Gregory's Church, without his Majesty's express consent, and gracious approbation. Or if you would be thought so dull, as not to apprehend a thing so clear, 
Cap. 1.  yet must the publishing of this libel rest in conclusion on my Lord high Treasurer, at whose house the book was licenced. Which is so high 
d pag. 4.  a language against authority, against the practice of this Realm for licensing of books, and finally against the honour of the Star-Chamber, on whose decree that practice and authority is founded; as was never uttered and printed with, or without licence, by any subject of England before this time. But this concerns not me so much, as the higher Powers: I only touch upon it, and so leave it: and with it turn the libel back on this uncertain certain Minister, who daring not to show himself in the King's high way, was fain to seek out blind paths, and crooked lanes, in them to scatter up and down those guilty papers, which are indeed a libel both for name and nature. For if a libel be derived from a lie and a bell, it serves this turn exceeding fitly. First Mr. Somebody, this some Minister, makes the lie, telling us of an answer writ long ago by a Minister of Lincolnshire, against a book that came into the world but the year before; and then he sends it to the Lord B● of Lincoln, Deane of Westminster, who forthwith puts a bell unto it, an unlicenced licence, and rings it over all the country; 
e pag. 1.  And it did give an Omen of what nature the whole book would prove, by that which followeth in the Title; Printed for the Diocese of Lincoln. Whereas indeed it was not printed either for that Diocese, or for any other, but calculated like a common Almanac, for the particular Meridian of some one discontented humour; with an intent that it should generally serve for all the Puritans of Great Britain. Or if you are not willing it should be a libel, to gratify you for this once, let it be a Low-belt▪ A thing that makes a mighty noise to astonish and amaze poor birds, that coming after with your light, you may take them up, and send them for a token to Pere Cotton, or carry them along with you, when you go yourself with the next shipping for New-England. But being a low-bell and a libel too, take them both together, Vt si non prosint singula, juncta juvent.  
Your second general charge is Railing, Oyster-whore language as you call it, p. 98. And being some minister, some great man, such a one as Theudas in the Acts, who boasted of himself that he was some body: you think it a preferment to the Doctor, to wear your livery, which you bestow upon him with a badge, (that you may know him for your own) and call him scurrilous railer, p. 140 Railing Philistin. p. 191. and Railing Doctor, p. ult. Where do you find him peccant in that peevish kind, that you should lay such load upon him? What one uncivil, much less scurrilous passage, can you deservedly charge him with, in his whole answer to that letter, which you have taken upon you to defend, maugre all the world? The worst word there, if you find any one ill word in it, was I trow good enough for your friend I. C. a Separatist from this Church, at that time; perhaps a Se-baptist by this time: who by the Answerer is supposed to be the writer of that letter; and might have been supposed so still, for ought you know, had not you told us to the contrary, and got your Ordinaries hand to the Certificate. But be he what he will, pray Sir who are you, that you should quarrel any man for railing, being yourself so ready a master in that art, that howsoever your fingers might perhaps be burnt, your lips assuredly were never touched with a Coal from the Altar. Quin sine rivali. I will not seek to break you of so old a trick; which I am very well contented you should enjoy without any partner. Only I will make bold to deal with you, as Alexander did with his horse Bucephalus, 
f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Plut.  take you a little by the bridle, and turn you towards the Sun, that other men may see how you lay about you, though yourself do not. Hardly one leaf from the beginning to the end, wherein you have not some one Title of honour to bestow upon him; which without going to the Heralds, I shall thus marshal as I find them. Poor fellow, p. 2. and 61. Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Barretter, p. 3. Wrangler, p. 4. Haughty companion, p. 5. Doughty Doctor, p. 21. This animal, p. 24. Scribbler, p. 26. Cumane creature, and fawning Sycophant, p. 35. Animal ratione risibile, a most ridiculous creature for his reasoning, p. 42. Pamphletter, p. 58. and poor pamphletter, 85. Firebrand, p. 62. most injudicious and trifling Novice, p. 65. judicious Rabbi, p. 76. A divine of Whims and singularity, p. 77. Mountebank, and madman, p. 88 Impostor, p. 94. Calf, p. 103. Squeamish gentleman, p. 120. Poor Doctor, p. 132. and 158. A thing that cannot blush, p. 141. Mushroom, and audacious companion, p. 150. This man of rags, p. 154. Bishop Would●bee, p. 159. Impudent companion, p, 188. Blinking Doctor, p. 190. Base sycophant, p. 191. Whiffler, p. 203. Braggart, p. 227. and to conclude with Railing Doctor. p. ult. He manus Trojam erigent? Is this the means to save your 
g Si Troja dextra defendi pous est, etc. p. 60.  Troy from ruin, of which you tell us, p. 60? No other way to show your Zeal unto the cause, but by forgetting all good manners? Such stuff as this, till you, and your confederate Mr H. Burton came in print together, hath not been set to open sale, since 
h Walgraves' press, was the press for Puritan Pamphlets in Q. Elizabeth's time, whereof see Mar. Marre-Prelate, Epist. to the Convocation p 23.  Walgraves' press, in London, and that of T. C. which you wot of in the City of Coventry, 
i Holy table, pag. 5.  have been out of work. Burton & you, the only two that have revived that kind of language, which since old Martin Marre-Prelates days hath not seen the Sun; but being now brought again into the world, and on a thorough perusal; confirmed and licenced, you may proceed for your part, Cum privilegio, none dares touch you for it. Fortunate man, whose very railings are allowed of, as being 
k In the licence.  most orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England; and therefore very fit to be printed, there is no question of it. Nobis non licet esse tam disertis: For us poor fellows as we are, it is not our ambition to look upon that height of eloquence, which you so prosperously have attained to. Or could we reach it, (being, I think, a matter feasible) we should be sure to have a check for it, not an approbation. But I will ●ase you of that fear. Non 
l In Philip. 2.  tractabo ut Consulem, ne ille quidem me ut consularem; however it was Tully's plea, shall be none of mine; I must remember who I am, not what you merit: and therefore, in my answers to your sleights and cavils, I will reply ad rem, and not ad hominem. You have some Coals upon your head already: In using you thus gently, I 
m Rom. 12. 20  shall heap on more; which is an honester revenge than you ever studied, and better than you have deserved.  
The first two faults you charge him with, were only criminal, in which the Star-Chamber, or the Guild Hall might afford you remedy: but that which follows in the last, is Capital; clipping the Kings own coin, and such as is made currant within this kingdom: a general falsifying of his Majesty's Declarations, Laws, Injunctions; of all books, either printed here, or imported hither. The whole book, as it is a libel against a Bishop, so every leaf thereof is a malicious falsification of some Author or other. p. 58. Quaerisne aliquid dici brevius? Could any man have spoke more home, and used fewer words? In case this be not, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nothing ever was. What? not one leaf without some falsification, and a malicious one to boot, of some Author or other? Assuredly, if so, you may justly call him false-fingred gentleman, bold man, a nibler at quotations, & what else you please. There is not a friend he hath, but will thank you for it. But if your challenges be but such as those you mention, p. 23. in calling Ploydon Judge, being but a Counsellor at Law, (no such malicious falsification, if you mark it well) and setting down Sir Robert, for Sir Edward Coke, a mistake only of the Printer: have you not made your triumph before the victory? The Author saw those errors, and saw them mended too, before you observed them: both of them being corrected in the second edition, which followed close upon the first, within one fortnight; and which you cannot but have seen, though you dissemble it, only to make your brethren merry when you meet together. For in your 90. pag. encountering with a passage of Bishop Latimers', you cite it from the author, as in p. 16. and so it is indeed in the second edition: whereas those words of Bishop Latimers' are p. 15. in the first. This is no honest dealing to begin with; yet this is that which we must look for, Par my & par tout, as you know who say. And for the 
n And mends it by a kind of Sacril●dge, by taking from a noble Gentleman his name given in baptism, p. 23.  sacrilege you complain of, had it been the Authors (as it was not) of all men else, you have least reason to accuse him; having yourself offended in the selfsame kind, by taking from him his name given in Baptism. For in your 88 pag. you call him john Coal, as if you knew him from his cradle: which, if the Church book may be trusted, and those which are yet living that affirm the same, was not the name given by his Godfathers, and Godmothers; though you may find it in your 
o Had the Doctor kept him to his Accidence. p. 23.  Accidence, if you seek it there. And yet it is no wonder neither, that it should be thus: it being in some places a received custom, that children when they come for 
p Camden's Remainss.  Confirmation, do change the names which they had given them at the Font: Sufficient ground for you to deal thus with the Author; and by what name soever he was called in Baptism, to have him entitled by your own. You tell us of some other things, wherein he doth both 
q pag. ●.  fain and fail, as you hunt the letter: but what you say, you say without book. For upon examination it will soon appear, that he hath feigned in nothing, whatsoever you say; nor failed in any thing, which you say he feigns. And were it tolerable in another, to run the wild-goose chase upon 
r C●n-none, and Common (or tri●iall) law. p. 23.  words and letters, which is a sport you much delight in; I have a friend in store should follow this train-scent with you, for your best preferment, and give you three for one in the bargain too. But for your feign and your failings, & whatsoever other falsifications you can charge upon him; we shall see more hereafter when you bring them forth. Mean time you may be pleased to know how ill this office doth become you. You know who said it well enough, 
s Rom. 2. 21.  Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? And being that you came so lately from your Accidence, you cannot but remember the first example in Verba accusandi, damnandi, which you are most perfect in: if not, I'll tell you what it is, Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This is so easy to be Englished, that you need no construing book; and tells you, who had need be told it, that it behoves you to take care that every thing be well at home, before you come into the Court to accuse another. Otherwise you will prove such a Censor morum, as was Manutius Plancus in the Roman story, 
t Vell. Pat. l. 2.  Qui nil objicere posset adolescentibus, quod non agnosceret senex: most guilty in your doting days of those very crimes, which you have charged on them of the younger sort. Which said in general, we mean to lay before you plainly, without welt or guard, your juggling in the carriage of this business, as it relates unto the state of the question, and other the Contents of your first Chapter: and after all those manifest and most notorious falsifications and impostures which you have put upon the world, in your 
u The Title.  holy table. The holy table never was so made an Altar, as you have made it in that book; by offering on the same such spotted, maimed, and most illegal sacrifices, to your fair 
x Pulch●a Laverna, Da mihi fallere, da justunsanctum que videri. Horat.  Laverna.  
First, for your stating of the question, you have an excellent advantage, (could you hold it fast) in making, as you do, your own case, your own evidence, and your own authorities. The principals in this business, were the Vicar of Grantham, the Alderman thereof, and my Lord Bishop of the Diocese; the only Accessary thereunto, the Bishop's Secretary. Of all these there is none that either can, or will confute you in any thing you say, say you what you will. The Vicar he is dead, and you may use him as you please; for mortui non mordent, as the saying is: But yet take heed, (and say a friend advised you to it) what you lay upon him. For though he cannot answer to your slanders now, he may bring you to answer for them another day. The Alderman being set forth unto us for 
a pag. 12.  a discreet and modest man, as the letter tells us; 
b pag. 7.  A prudent and discreet man, as your book informs us; did never show his wisdom and discretion more, than that he was 
c pag. 7.  afraid to offend the Bishop. And being, if he be alive, as prudent and discreet as ever, must needs be now as much afraid to offend the Bishop, as before he was; and therefore you may say your pleasure, and call the Alderman, and the Alderman's letter to witness what you please to say; you are sure of that. As for the Bishop, from whose mouth you must have the story, he hath good reason to confirm and justify his own relation; that it may set him off the better, and give the world a full account of his most moderate proceedings in a point so agitated. Then for the Secretary, being we find not in the story, that he was any more employed, than 
d pag. 9, 10.  sitting up with his Lord that night, fetching the book of Martyrs out of the hall, and borrowing Bishop jewels works from the Parish Church, and giving out the letters as his Lord directed, he was but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a living instrument; and if examined, can say nothing that will do you hurt. So that in case, the Bishop can but keep your counsel, as no doubt he will; and Mr Alderman hath not lost his ancient prudence and discretion, which God forbid, you may stand forth, and tell your tale, and tell it with as high a confidence, as if we were obliged to take all for Gospel. This you conceive at least, & go on accordingly: not thinking that in some main points, those 
e For besides it is uncertain whether he be of the Voisinage, etc.  of the voisinage & the same Province can detect you; or that there is no way to bring truth to light, but by confession of the parties. Now in your story of the business, 
pag. 3.  you tell us that the Vicar's head was full of crotchets. First, 
f pag. 6.  turning out of the town the Lecturers there, being two grave and painful preachers, as you set them forth. For being salaried by the Parish (to which the Bishop was so good a friend) you cannot but extol them, whatsoever they were; or what just cause soever the poor Vicar had to rid the town of them. Then for the second Crotchet, that was, you say, the removing of the Communion table from the upper part of the choir, where it was comely placed before, (and had stood time out of mind) unto the Altar-place, as he called it; and telling Mr. Alderman (who out of his discretion, must needs question the Vicar for it) that he had done it, and would justify it. What proof have we for this, (for of the other you bring none) I mean, that the Communion table stood in the upper part of the Choir, in such a comely fashion, for so long continuance; and that it was removed by the Vicar only, without consulting with the Chancellor, or perhaps the Ordinary? For proof of this we are referred to Mr Alderman's letter. Then that the Vicar called the Communion table by the name of Tresle, saying that he would build an Altar of stone at his own charge; and that the rude people made reply, that he should set up no dressers of stone in their Church: What proof have we of that? Mr Alderman's letter. Next 
f pag. 7.  that he used light gestures in bowing at the name of Jesus, so as sometimes his book fell down, and once himself, to the derision of those that were not so well affected to that religious Ceremony: What evidence to make that good? Mr Alderman's letter. These are the most material things in the whole relation, so far as it concerned the ground of the whole proceeding; and for the proof of all we must take your word, aswell as Mr Alderman's letter. For what if Mr Alderman writno such letter, or if he writ it on the Post-fact only, to make good your tale; or if you make more of it than he mentioned in it: as who can tell but you may deal with Mr Alderman's letters, as you have done throughout your book with the Alderman's better? Or what if Mr Alderman's letter say as much as you would have him, why would you have us credit Mr. Alderman's letter, to the discredit of the Vicar; especially as things stood between them? the Alderman being most apparently not a party only, but dux partium, the leader of a party against his Minister. For you yourself have told us, that 
g pag. 6.  Mr Alderman (being nor 
g pag. 6.  Bishop, Chancellor, nor Surrogate, as I conceive him) commanded his own officers, (Sergeants, and Beadles, and such fellows) to remove the Table to the place where it stood before. Which being done accordingly, he cries out first; and makes 
h Whereupon the Alderman presently wrote unto his Lordsh. pag. 7.  complaint unto the Bishop when he had no cause: but that he thought it an high point of wisdom, being so prudent and discreet a man as you say he was, to make sure work there; and then a fico for the Vicar. So that the Alderman being both a party, and the Plaintiff too, is not to be admitted for a witness also, except it be by some new order of your own devising; and like to be a rule hereafter in that 
i The Doctor by his exquisite knowledge in the Can-none, & common (or trivial) law. pa. 23.  Can-none, and trivial law, the body of the which we daily look for, of your setting out.  
But ●e the letter his, or not, you think that you have gained three points. First, a good ground to change the tenor of your own, charging the Vicar in your printed Copy, with an intent of setting up an Altar of stone, which was not▪ to be found in all the Manuscript: Besides, that you have brought him into some disfavour with his 
k And having too much favour from his Diocesan. pag. 5.  friend, the Bishop, for daring to remove the Communion table, without leave from him. Next, for that slovenly and disgraceful phrase of Dresser, given in the Bishops written letter to the Communion table placed Altarwise, and from him borrowed by Mr Prynne, that is now found out to be a phrase of the rude peoples, as you call them; and on them fathered in the printed letter, to take off that scandal. Last of all, whereas bowing at the name of JESUS was in the written letter glanced at, as if it did procure derision from the lookers on: that is now turned wholly on the Vicar, and his light gestures in performance of that pious ceremony: the printed letter being altered and explained in that particular accordingly. Having got thus much by the hand, you need say no more, but bear your head up bravely, and proclaim your victory. But as he in Macrobius said, Omne mcum, & nihil meum; so may you also say, did you deal uprightly, all this that you have got is nothing, and you may put it in your eye, without fear of 
l Thi● blinking Doctor. pa. 190.  blinking. For how may we be sure that Monsieur the half-Vicar, as you call him, p. 70. did of his own head remove the Communion table without authority from the Bishop, Chancellor, or any of his Surrogates, 
m pag. 6.  as out of Mr Alderman's letter you affirm he did. It ●eemes to me, that he acquainted the Diocesan with it, and found from him, if not an approbation, a toleration at the least, conditioned no umbrages and offence were taken by the Town against it. For thus the letter; When I spoke with you last, I told you that the standing of the Communion table was unto me a thing so indifferent, that unless offence and umbrages were taken by the town against it, I should never move it, or remove it. Was not this fair leave think you, to make a trial, how far the people would be pleased with the alteration, (and whether they would think it tended to 
n It is wel● done that you affect decency and comeliness, etc. pag. 13.  decency and comeliness in the officiating of God's Divine service.) And on this leave the table was removed to the Altar place; and stood so, till the Alderman, 
o pag. 12  a discreet and modest man, and far from any humour of Innovation, did by far less authority bring it down again, and was never checked for it. Nor can you say, that the word last there mentioned, (when I spoke with you last) is to relate unto that time, when the Vicar and the Alderman encountered at his Lordship's house: Because it follows in the next words, that which I did not then suspect, is come to pass; viz. the Alderman and better sort of the town have complained against it. The conference than meant, wherein his Lordship showed himself so indifferent in the business proposed unto him, must needs precede the Vicar's action; as did the Vicar's action the Alderman's riot; the Alderman's riot, the complaint; and the complaint, that sudden and tumultuary journey to his Lordship's house, which drew out the learned letter now between us. And so your first report of the half-vicars' hasty running, before he was sent, is, for the truth thereof disproved, or made very disputable. The other branch thereof, touching the stone Altar that you talk of, is far more improbable, and you are fain to chop & change the Bishop's letter to make it good, 
Cap. 2.  and yet cannot do it. For whereas it was charged upon the Vicar in the M. S. Copies, that he should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Choir: you have it in the printed letter, that he should say he would upon his omne cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of his Choir: which is too great a difference to be an error in the transcripts. Secondly, instead of that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, you now have made it that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars: and so by changing these to theirs, have turned a Protestant Table to a P●pish Altar. Thirdly and lastly, whereas the first section in the written copies, concluded thus, therefore I know you will not change a table into an Altar: you have converted it to this, therefore. I know you will not build any such Altar; As great an alteration in the business, as the words themselves. For had that been the business then in agitation; and not the placing of the Table Altarwise, his Lordship might have gone to bed that night, (as indeed he did) & ended all his letter with the first section; being bu● 24. lines in your own printed Copy, and that corrupted too to serve your turn: whereas there is a large discourse against the placing of the Table Altar wise, amounting to above two leaves in your own edition. I trow the writer of the letter was too good an Arti-Zan, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to spend himself upon the accessary, and let the principal be the least part of his care and study: especially considering how he might thereby gratify the whole town of Grantham, to which he had been such a friend, when he was in place.  
As little truth there is in your invention of the dresser, which you have turned upon the rude people: rude ones indeed, to give so vile and scandalous a name to a thing so sacred, in whatsoever posture it was placed or situated. What is it, I beseech you, that you have made the people say? that he (the Vicar) should set up no dressers of stone in their Church. Dressers of stone? It seems the people were as rude as you describe them; so little conversant in matters which concerned the Church, that they were yet to ●ee●● in things which did concern the kitchen. Had the discreet Alderman no more discretion, than to inform his Lp. of so rude a speech; and tell him in his ear a story of a stone-dresser, when as he might aswell have told him a tale of a Tub? Had the rude people, as you call them, applied the name of dresser unto the holy table placed along the wall, the speech had been more proper, though not less profane. But now to put the name of dresser of stone into the mouths of Country people, who never heard of any such thing as a dresser of stone: shows plainly, that neither any Altar of stone was ever purposed by the Vicar, which might occasion such an idle and absurd expression; nor that the writer of the letter took up the name of dresser from the Country people, but first invented it himself. Adeo mendaciorum natura est, ut cohaerere non possint, said Lactantius rightly. Your tresle, and your dresser then, may both go together, ultra anni solisque vias, to your dear brethren in New Engl. and their great Patriarch there, your good friend I. C. who as they care not now in what place they dispose of the holy table; so will they care as little, in a little while, by what name they call it. Of the same piece is that last observation made out of Mr Alderman's letter, touching the Vicar's light behaviour, 
Cap. 1.  in bowing at the name of Jesus: his book sometimes falling down, and once himself. Which were it so, why do you think that that should make your friends of Grantham deride the ceremony, when not the ceremony, but the Vicar was in fault, if such fault there was. Have you not seen some men behave themselves so apishly in the Pulpit, that others, and those good men too, have smiled to note it? And yet I hope you will not think, that therefore they derided that religious ordinance of preaching, when not the ordinance, but the Preacher was the sole object of the merriment. Or if the men of Gr. or rather the rude people there, were so profane and impious, as upon that or any other such occasion to deride the ceremony, the writer of the letter might have spent his pains to better purpose, 
r I have written to you somewhat more at large, etc. let. pag. 13.  in writing to them somewhat more at large, than he hath used to express himself in that kind, to bring them to a better understanding of their Christian duties. And you, the Champion of the letter, had done a better office, as I conceive it, to have reserved yourself for the defence of that, and the tenor of it, if any Puritan in the pack should have writ against it, than thus to have disturbed yourself with so little profit. But what if we join issue with an 
s Negat ionis fo●mula, quam foro Angliae, Reus, Actoris assertionem infici●tur. Spelm. Gloss.  Absque hoc, and tell you there was no such falling, either of the book, or man, as you please to say. For tell me of all loves, where was it, in the Reading pew, or at the Communion table, or in what place else? If in the reading pew, the desk and seat were able to have saved them both from falling; and so was the Communion table, if it had been there: If not there, say man, where it was, and we will have a melius inquirendum about it presently. This is a trick of yours to disgrace the Vicar, on whom elsewhere you have left a stain, for taking his morning's draught before he went about it, p. 62. As if the man, not only were not always right 
t pag 8.  in the head piece, and 
u That squirrel. headed young man. p. 59  squirrell-pated, which might be some infirmity of nature: but that he came unto the Church, disordered with drink, and inter pocula told the people, quid dia poemata narrant of the name of JESUS, and so fell down and worshipped, in stead of bowing.  
In the remainder of the story, you put an excellent speech into the mouths of those of Grantham, partly commendatory of themselves, that they were all 
a pag. 8.  p●aceable and quiet men, save that they fought 
b ●ut not without striking, etc. pag. 8.  once in the Church, about removing of the table; conformable in all things to the King's laws ecclesiastical, save that they could not but deride the ceremony of bowing at the name of jesus; and willing to submit themselves to any Order which his Lp should appoint, concerning the situation of the Lords table, so it might stand according as they would themselves. And it was also partly accusatory of their Vicar, for putting down their weekly Lecture, and partly of their own ill fortune, that they should live in the midst of Recusants, who did begin already to deride and jeer this new alteration: not withou●●ome reflection on his sacred Majesty, for 
e Their chief governor being one of that profession himself. pag. 8.  placing over them a chief Governor of that religion. His Majesty was much to blame, there is no doubt of that, for not consulting with the Alderman about the fittest man to be Ld Lieutenant of the County: but more the Papists, to deride that decency and situation of the Lords board, there, which they approve of elsewhere in all our Churches. And I could tell you, did I think you would thank me for it, that the conformity of our Church in this particular, according to the practice of approved Antiquity, doth more amaze the Papists, than ever it did those of Grantham: as knowing better than they do, that the more near we come to the ancient practice, the less they can upbraid us, and our Church with novelty, which is now made the chiefest weapon that they fight withal. As for the 
d Only they represented to hi● Lp, that they were much scandalised with the putting down of their sermons. ib.  putting down of Sermons, wherewith they were much scandalised, as your book informs us, that was the very marrowbone of the matter, the thing that most displeased the people, who must have Chaplains of their own, or else non vult fac. And had they had their tale of Sermons, it may be probably conjectured, that Mr Alderman had never removed the table, but rather left it for a text, on which the stipendary Lecturers, there, might show their store of zeal, and want of wisdom. But to go on. The people having ended, and the Bishop forward in his speech, about the indifferency of the matter, it was the Vicars Q. to enter, who came in 
e pag. 8.  pale, and won, and staring, obstupuit, steterantque comae, as you know who saith, was by the Bishop used with all lenity and sweetness: and at last, having told his Lp (being 
f His Lp was heard over-carnest with the said Vicar, to tell him who they were that set him on these alterations. pag. 9  very earnest to get it out of him) who it was that set him on these alterations, his Lp spoke aloud that all might hear him, that he had supped on that which the Vicar told him. It is an old saying and a true, audacter calumniare, necesse est ut aliquid haereat; by none more practised than yourself. For though you leave us in a wood, and tell us, that 
g pag. 9  it is not known particularly, what they there discoursed of: yet by this blind discovery you make men suspect, that some great man, to whom the Vicar did retain, encouraged him, at the least, to ●rect an Altar, if not to say Mass on it, when it was erected. Well then, the Bishop, being gone, betakes himself unto his study, where (as you say) he sat up most of the night, and in the morning (as you tell us) came abroad this 
h pag. 21.  filia unius noctis, this letter to the Vicar, which is now in question, addressed unto the Vicar, being then in the house (if you tell us right) but 
i lb.  sent to the Divines of the Lecture of Gr. and by them showed unto the Vicar. A letter of so strange a making, that it would puzzle the best Lecturer there, to tell exactly what it was; 
k lb.  digested in the former part into the fashion of a letter, but not so figuredly and distinctly in the latter: directed to no body, nor subscribed by any body. In all which story, there is nothing true, but that the papers were not sent unto the Vicar, but to some one or other of your Privadoes about those parts, the better to disperse it up and down the Country: and that not on the morrow morning, but some ten days after. For that it was directed to the Vicar, the whole proem shows, which could not be applied unto any other; especially these words, Now for your own satisfaction, and my poor advice for the future, I have written unto you somewhat more at large, etc.  
That it was fashioned like a letter in the latter end, the conclusion shows, even in your own edition of it, Which I recommend unto you, and am ever, etc. And I would fain know what these words, am ever, did relate unto, if not to the subscription following, which in my written copy was set down thus (although not printed with the rest) and am ever, Your very loving friend, I. L.  
To draw unto an end of this new-nothing, you tell us confidently (like all the rest) what 
l pag. 12.  satisfaction the poor Vicar had by this decision; having gained all the points, you say, excepting the form of placing the Table, which was the only point he stood on: and that the Vicar after this did reap much fruit and profit from his Lordship's favour, from whom he never received any favour, from that time forwards. So fine a story have you told, and so little probable; that they that dwell far off, and are not of the voisinage, can take you tripping.  
Now for the letter itself, you tell us, that it 
m pag. 11.  varieth in some places in matter from the printed Copy, but little in form. Nothing at all in form, that is certain, but much in matter: so much as you thought fit to alter in it, the better to set off the business, and give a fair face to so foul a cause. Those Copies which I met with, and compared, and had from very goods hands too, were word for word exemplified in the printed book. And if you look into Duck● lane for the old written copies, which, till the Doctor's book came out, were sold for half a crown a piece, and doubtless may be had there still, if not employed to otheruses; you will find no such variance in the matter, as you would persuade us. Which variance, what it is, and how it altars in a manner the whole state of the question, we shall see the better, by placing columne-wise those particular passages, in which the variance doth consist, according to the old and the new edition, as hereunder followeth.  
The M. S. Copy printed with the Coal from the Altar. The Copy licenced and allowed by the Bp of L. pag. 68 I have, etc. appointed the Churchwardens, whom ●t principally doth concern, under the Diocesan, to settle it for this time. Pag. 12, 13. I have etc. appointed the Churchwardens, whom, in my opinion, it principally doth concern, under the Diocesan, and by his directions, to settle it for the time. Pag. 68, 69. That you do the reverence appointed by the Canon to the blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly, and not affectedly, to procure devotion, not derision of your Parishioners. Pag. 13. That you do the reverence appointed by the Canons to that blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly, and not affectedly, to procure the devotion, and not move the derision of the Parishioners, who are not, it seems, all of a piece. Pag. 69. But that you should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire. Pag. 13. But that you should say, you will upon your own cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of your Quire. Pag. 69. That the fixing thereof in the Choir is Canonical, and that it ought not to be removed to the body of the Church. Pag. 13. That the fixing thereof in the Choir is so canonical, that it ought not to be removed (upon any occasion) to the body of the Church. Pag. 69. That other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, is a blasphemous figment, etc. Pag. 14. That other oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars, is a blasphemous figment, etc. Pag. 69. It is not the Vicar, but the Churchwardens, that are to provide for the Communion. Pag. 14. It is not the Vicar, but the Churchwardens that are to provide Utensils for the Communion. Pag. 70. And therefore I know you will not change a table into an Altar, which Vicars never were enabled to set up, etc. Pag. 14. And therefore I know you will not build any such Altar, which Vicars never were enabled to set up, etc. Pag. 71. For besides that the Country people would suppose them dressers, rather than tables. Pag. 15. For besides that the country people without some directions beforehand from their Superiors, would (as they told you to your face) suppose them dressers, rather than tables. Pag. 71. Not where the Altar, but where the steps of the Altar formerly stood. Pag. 15. Not where the Altar, but where the steps to the Altar formerly stood. Pag. 72. Or to make use of their Covers and ornaments, tables may be placed in their room. Pag. 16. Or to make use of their covers, fronts, and other Ornaments, tables may be placed in their room. Pag. 72. And it seems the Queen's Commissioners were content they should stand. Pag. 16. And it seems the Queen and her Counsel were content they should stand. Pag. 73. The sacrifice of the Altar abolished, these (call them what you will) are no more Altars, but tables of stone and timber. Pag. 16. The sacrifice of the Mass abolished (for which sacrifice only Altars were erected) these (call them what you please) are no more Altars, but tables of stone or timber. Pag. 73. Where there are no people so void of understanding. Pag. 16. Where there are no people so void of instruction. Pag. 73. For upon the Orders of breaking down Altars, all Dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables, but not upon the fashion and form of the tables. Pag. 16. 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. Pag. 73. A table in regard of what is there participated by men. Pag. 16. A table in regard of what is thence participated by men. Pag. 73. For it answers that very objection out of Heb. 13. 10. Pag. 17. For it answers that merry objection out of Heb. 13. 10. Pag. 74. We have no Altar in regard of an oblation, but we have an Altar in regard of participation and communion granted unto us. Pag. 17. 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. Pag. 74. The use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon, and the use of a table is to eat upon. Pag. 17. The proper use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon, and the proper use of a table is to eat upon. Reasons, etc. 1550. Vide Acts & Monuments, pag. 1211. Pag. 74. The Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a table only, do not you call it an Altar. Pag. 17. The Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Table only, do not you now, under the Reformation, call it an Altar. Pag. 74. In King Edward's Liturgy of 1549. it is every where called an Altar. Pag. 17. In King Edward's Liturgy of 1549. it is almost every where called an Altar. Pag. 74. The people being scandalised herewith in Country Churches, first beats them down de facto, than the supreme Magistrates, by a kind of law, puts them down de jure. Pag. 17. The people being scandalised herewith in Country 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 Counsel, did Anno 1550. by a kind of law, put them down de jure, 4. Ed. 6. Novemb. 24. Pag. 74. And setting tables in their rooms, took from us, the children the Church and Commonwealth, both the name and the nature of former Altars. Pag. 17. And setting these tables in their rooms, took away from us, the children of this Church & Commonwealth, both the name and the nature of those former Altars. Pag. 75. It is in the Christian Church 200. years more ancient than the name of an Altar, as you may see most learnedly proved out of S. Paul, Origen, and Arnobius, if you but read a book that is in your Church. Pag. 18. It is in the Christian Church at the least 200. years more ancient than the name of an Altar in that sense, as you may see most learnedly proved (beside what we learn out of S. Paul) out of Origen and Arnobius, if you do but read a book that is in the Church. Pag. 76. That your table should stand in the higher part of the Chur▪ you have my assent already in opinion: but that it should be there fixed, is so far from being Canonical, that it is directly against the Canon. Pag. 18, 19 That your table should stand in the higher part of the Chancel, you have my assent in opinion already: And so it was appointed to stand out of the Communion orders by the Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical. 1561 But that it should be there fixed, is so far from being the only Canonical way, that it is directly against the Canon. Pag. 77. This table must not stand Altarwise, & you at the North end thereof, but table-wise, and you must officiate at the North end of the same. Pap. 20. This table (without some new Canon) is not to stand Altarwise, and you at the North end thereof; but table-wise, and you must officiate on the North side of the same, by the Liturgy. 
Cap. 2.  Pag. 78. And therefore your Parishioners must be judges of your audiblenesse in this case. Pag. 20. And therefore your Parishioners must be judges of your audiblenesse in this case, and upon complaint to the Ordinary must be relieved.  
Thus have I showed in brief your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your tricks and artifices, whereby you seek to varnish a rotten cause: falsifying the very Text which you are to comment on, that it may fit your notes the better. A pregnant evidence that there is no fair dealing to be looked for from you, when you shall come either to repeat your adversaries words, or cite your Authors. But fair or foul, we must go through with you now we have begun: and so on in God's name.   

CHAP. II.  
Of the Regal power in matters Ecclesiastical, and whether it was ever exercised in settling the Communion table in form of an Altar.  
The vain ambition of the Minister of Linc: to be tho●gh● a Royalist. His practice contrary to his speculations. The Doctor cleared from the two Cavils of the Minister of Linc: touching the Stat. 1. Eliz. The Minister of Linc: ●alsifieth both the Doctor's words, and the Lo: Chancellor Egertons'. The Puritans more beholding to him than the King. The Minister of Linc: misreporteth the Doctor's words, only to pick a quarrel with his Majesty's Chapel. A second onset on the Chapel, grounded upon another falsification of the Doctor's words. Of mother Chappells. The Royal Chapel how it may be said to interpret Rubrics. The Minister of Linc: quarrels with Queen Elizabeth's Chapel; and for that purpose falsifieth both his foreign authors, and domestic evidences Not keeping, but adoring images, enquired into in the first year of Queen Elizabeth. That by the Queen's Injunctions, Orders and Advertisements, the Table was to stand where the Altar did. The idle answer of the Minister of Linc: to the Doctor's argument. Altars and Pigeon-houses all alike, with this Linc: Minister. The Minister of Linc: false and faulty argument, drawn from the perusers of the Liturgy, the troubles at Frank ●ort, and Miles Huggards testimony. Of standing at the North-side of the Table. The Minister of Linc: produceth the Pontifical against himself. His idle cavils with the Doctor touching the Latin translation of the Common prayer Book. The Parliament determined nothing concerning taking down of Altars. The meaning and intention of that Rubric. The Minister of Linc: palters with his Majesty's Declaration about S. Gregory's. A copy of the Declaration. The s●mme and substance of the Declaration. Regal decisions in particular cases, of what power and efficacy.  
PLutarch relates of 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In vit. Alex.  Alexander, that he did use to say of his two chief favourits, Craterus and Hephestion, that the one of them was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the one a lover of Alexander, the other of the King; Hephestion loved his person, as a private friend▪ Craterus his estate and Monarchy, as a public Minister. Princes are then best served, when these affections meet together; when those that either are about their persons, or under their dominions, 
b Eupho●mio in Epistol● add▪ jacob. Reg.  do Craterum cum Hephestione confundere, and love them not alone as men, but Princes, whom they do most truly love. Both of these parts this Somebody▪ whom I am to deal with, would fain seem to act: and he doth act them rightly, as a player doth, in a disguise or borrowed shape, which he can put off when he lists, & the play be ended. But yet for all his vizard it is no hard matter to discern him, his left hand pulling down, what his right hand buildeth; all that authority and regard which he bestowed upon the King in the speculation, being gone in 〈◊〉, as they say, when it should be reduced to practise. Of the original of the Regal power, you tell us very rightly that it is from God, that the Kings 
c pag. 32.  of England have had the flowers of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, stuck in their Imperial garlands, by the finger of Almighty God from the very beginning of this Christian Monarchy within this Island; and that the King's Majesty may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the holy Table should be placed where the Altar stood. An excellent Royalist verily in your speculations. But look upon you in your practics, and then you tell us in your corrected copy of the Bishop's letter, that the Table (without some new Canon) is not to stand Altarwise; which is directly contrary to that before. I trow you are not ignorant that the Church makes Canons, it is the work of Clergy men in their Convocations, having his Majesty's leave for their conveening, and approbation of their doings. His Majesty in the Declaration before the Articles hath resolved it so; & the late practice in K. james his reign, what time the book of Canons was composed in the Convocation, hath declared so too. If then the Table may not be removed & placed Altarwise, without some new Canon; his Majesty may command it, for aught I see by you, and yet go without. Or if you mean that any order from his Majesty, or intimation of his pleasure, shall be as forcible with you, as any Canon of them all; why do you so much slight his Majesty's Declaration about S. Gregory's? For neither can the man endure it should be called an Act of Counsel, (which yet the Doctor never calls it, to his best remembrance;) or that it should have any influence beyond that one particular case, which first occasioned it: in no respect that it should have the operation of Canon, either to force obedience, or induce conformity. So that in fine, you deal no otherwise with his Majesty, than did Popilius Lenas' with the great King 
d Vel. Pat. l. 2.  Antiochus, qui regem circumscripsit virgula, as the story hath it. You draw a ring about him with your willow sceptre, as if you meant to conjure him into a circle, and so keep him there. Thus deal you also with his person, (for you would very fain be taken for Hephestion, as well as Crat●rus.) You tell us of 
e pag. 59  his heavenly expressions used in that Declaration before remembered; and yet think scorn to follow what he there allows of: talk of his 
f pag. 33.  sacred Chapel, and the Saint of that Chapel; and in the same breath tell us, that Parish-Churches are as little bound to imitate the form and pattern of the one, as you conceive yourself obliged to imitate the piety and true devotion of the other. Saint of the Chapel! Lord how the man bestows his holy water, when he hath a mind to it. 
g Vir. Aeneid.  Spargere rore levi & ramo felicis olivae, Lustravitque vir●s, in the Poet's language. Yet no such Saint, I trow, as Ferdinando the third, of whom you say both in 
h Regnavit annos 35. in qu●bus n●c fames, nec pestis fuit in regno suo. pag. 27.  the text, and in your margin, that in his long reign of 35. ye●r●s, there was no touch of hunger or contagion. There was a Saint indeed, fit to be shown unto the world, as a public blessing: in reference to whom, and his most fortunate Empire, these wretched times have nothing whereof to glory. Sir, that Parenthesis of yours, as it comes in impertinently, so it looks suspiciously: and it had shown more wisdom in you to have passed it by, than it can make for ostentation of your reading, so to take it up.  
But let your practice go, and come we to your speculations, in which you have said much, and produced good proof, to show the true original of the right of Kings. 
i Bellarm.  utinam sic semper errasset, said once the learned Cardinal, of Calvin. It had been well if you had never handled any other argument. But good Sir, let the poor man live, and grow up under you, if you please, whom you expose so much to the public scorn, and tantum non indite of treason against his Majesty. Assuredly the poor soul meant well, when he attempted to free the Statute 1. of Eliz. from some, (perhaps some Ministers of Lincolnshire) who had restrained it to the person of the Queen that was, and that it could not any way advantage the King that is. If he hath failed in any thing, I pray you let him have your pity, and not your anger. Alas good Sir, you know it is impossible 
k Terence.  nos illico nasci senes, that we should all of us be experienced Statesmen at the first dash. We must first serve our time, and wear out our Indentures, before we come to those high mysteries, which any school boy might have taught you from 
l Printed 1615.  his Deus & Rex. Think you that no man ever knew till you found it out, that Kings had their authority from God alone? or find you any thing in the Doctor, which affirms the contrary? the Doctor, as before was said, thought fit to clear the Statute 1. of Eliz. from those that went about to restrain all authority of ordaining rites and ceremonies unto the person of the Queen, because there is no mention in that clause of her heirs and successors. To clear which point he brought in six several Arguments, borrowed, as he tells you there, both from the common Law, and the Act itself. The four first, as it seems, you are content should stand without further censure; save that you tell him that the fourth was taught him by some 
m As those Probationers did, which (p●●adventure) some Iustic● his Clerk might tell you of. p. 25.  justice his Clerk, and make yourself merry with the fifth and ●ixt. How justly, let the Reader judge, when he hears the business. The question was, whether the King lost any thing of that power which was acknowledged by that Statute to be inherent in the Queen when she was alive, for want of these few formal words, her heirs and successors. And it is 
n Coal from the Altar, p. 61.  answered five from a resolution in the law, in a case much like: it being determined by that great Lawyer Ploydon, (for so the last edition calls him) that if a man give lands to the King by deed enrolled, a fee-simple doth pass, without these words successors and heirs, because in Judgement of Law the King never dyeth. This is an argument à comparatis▪ And what see you therein with your Eagles eyes, (the Doctor being but a blinker, 
o pag. 190.  as you please to style him) that you should fall upon him with such scorn and laughter, and tell him that he doth deserve but 
p pag. 25.  a simple fee, for his impertinent ex●mple of this fee-simple. The Argument was good to the point in hand, which was not what the King could do by his power Original, that which he claims only from the King of Kings, which was never questioned: but how far he might use that Statute, if occasion were, for the ordaining of such rites and ceremonies, as he with the advice of his Metropolitan, should think fit to publish. You may call in your laugh again, for aught I see yet: but that you have a mind to show your teeth, though you cannot bite.  
But his 
q pag. 25.  next prank, you say, is worse, where he affirms, (most ignorantly, and most derogatorily to his Majesty's right and just prerogative) that the Statute 1. of Eliz. 2. was a confirmative of the old law: whereas his Author hath it rightly, that it was not a Statute introductory of a new law, but declaratory of the old. This is the hint you take to introduce your studied discourse of the power of Kings in ecclesiasticis, which neither is ad rem, nor Rhombum: but that you would do somewhat fain to be thought a Royalist; however the poor people take it to be so deserted. For tell me in good earnest, doth the Doctor say that the said Statute 1. of Eliz. was only confirmative, and not declaratory of the old? Doth he not say expressly as you would have him? Last of all, 
r Coal, p. 61, 62.  (saith his book) it may be argued, that the said clause or any thing therein contained, is not indeed introductory of any new power, which was not in the Crown before, but rather declaratory of the old, which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings, (as before any of them to the Kings of judah) and amongst others to ours also. If afterwards he use the word confirmative, you might have found his meaning by his first, declaratory: & not have fall'n upon him in so fierce a manner, as if he had been only for confirmative, and for declaratory not one word. But your next prank is worse than this, where you affirm with confidence and scorn enough, 
s pag. 26, 27.  that this right is not united to the Crown of England only, as this scribbler seems to conceive, but to all other Christian Crowns, and challenged by all Christian Princes accordingly. 
t Terence in Andria, Act. 1. S●●. 5.  Proh deum atque hominum fidem! that ever man should write thus, and believe his Creed, in that which doth relate to the day of Judgement. For sure the Doctor saith as much, as all your studied nothing comes to, that the said power did 
u Coal from the Altar, p. 60.  anciently belong (what, to this Crown alone, as you make him say? No but) to all Christian Kings, (good Sir note this well) as before any of them to the Kings of judah, and amongst others to ours also. Not unto ours alone, but among others to ours also. Or if this yet be no foul dealing, we will try once more. You tell us, with great joy no question, 
x pag. 31.  That to maintain that Kings have any part of their authority by any positive law of nations, (as this scribbler speaks of a jurisdiction, which either is or aught to be in the Crown by the ancient laws of the Realm, and is confirmed by 1 El. c. 1.) is accounted by that great personage (the Ld Egerton) an assertion of a treasonable nature. But by your leave a little Sir, that passage of a jurisdiction, which either is or aught to be in the Crown by the ancient laws of the Realm, is not the Doctors, but Sir Edward Coke, and cited from him whom you have honoured with the title of a deep learned man in his faculty, p. 25. affirming there that he hath stated the whole question rightly: as here, immediately on the recital of the words before repeated, you take great pains, more than you needed, to give his words a fair construction. If it was rightly said by Sir Edw. Coke, why not by the Doctor? If no such treasonable matter in the one, why do you charge it on the other? This is the thing complained of in the Court-historian: 
y Vel. Pa●. l. 2.  Invidiam non ad causam, sed ad volunt atem personasque dirigere. But yet God's blessing on your heart for your affection to Sir Edward: you deal with him far better and more honestly, than with your Lords great Master, the Ld Egerton: whose words you chop off with an hatchet, as if you wanted patience to hear him out. You cite him in your margin thus: It was never taught but either by Traitors, (as in Spencer's bill in Edw. 2. time,) or by treasonable Papists, (as Harding in the Confutation of the Apology) that Kings have their authority by the positive law. Why stop you there? why do you not go forwards like an honest man? Have you a squinancy in your throat, and cannot? I will do it for you. Read on then, 
z ●a●e o● the 〈◊〉 p. 99  by the positive law of nations, and have no more power than the people hath, of whom they take their temporal jurisdiction; and so Ficlerus, Simanca, and others of that crew: Or by seditious Puritans and Sectaries, as Buchanande jure regni apud Scotos, Penry, Knox, and such like. This is flat felony, believe me, to rob your Readers of the best part of all the business. For here we have two things which are worth the finding: First what it is, which, as you say, is by that honourable personage made to be of treasonable nature: viz. not only to maintain that Kings have their authority by the positive law of nations, but that they have no more power than the people hath. Next, who they be that teach this doctrine, not only Traitors, and treasonable Papists, as you make him say, but also seditious Sectaries and Puritans, Buchanan, Knox, and Penry, and such like. Nor was it taught by them, the leaders only, but as it followeth in that place, by these, and those that are their followers, and of their faction, there is in their pamphlets too much such traitorous seed sown. The Puritans are, I see, beholding to you, for lending them so fine a cloak to hide their knavery. And hereupon I will conclude, how great a Royalist soever you pretend to be, you love ' the King well, but the Puritans better.  
From the original and fountain of the sovereign power, we must next follow you unto the exercise thereof. And here you ask the question, 
a pag. 32.  How doth the Doctor make it appear, that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter? or that there is (as he avows) any public order for the same? viz: for placing the Communion Table Altarwise. To this you answer, (for you play all parts) that he shall make it cocksure by three apodictical demonstrations: which are, as afterwards you dispose them, the practice of his Majesty's Chapel, the Queen's Injunctions, and his most excellent Majesty's declaration about S. Gregory's. But first, before we proceed further, let me ask one question: Where do you find the Doctor say that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter? No where, most certain, in the book; nor any where that I can tell of, but in the mint of your imagination, where there is coinage all the year of these poor 
b Double a piece of brass coin in France, of which five go to an English penny.  double ones. The Doctor saith indeed, His sacred Majesty hath already declared his pleasure in the case of S. Gregory's, and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them. 
c Co●l, p. 63.  Encouragements are no Command,, you had best say so howsoever. For if they were, I could soon tell you in your ear, who is a very disobedient subject. But let that pass, cum coeteris erroribus, and see if that be better which comes after next. I would fain hope some good of you, but I find no ground for it: you misreport him so exceeding shamelessly in every passage. The first (you say) of his three apodictical demonstrations, (as you please to slight them) is, that it is so 
d pag. 32, 33.  in his Majesty's Chapel, where the ancient Orders of the Church of England have been best preserved, and without which (perhaps) we had before this been at a loss amongst ourselves for the whole form and fashion of divine service. The Chapel 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 Qu. Elizabeth, what time that Rubric in the common-prayer-book was confirmed and ratified. Thus you report the Doctor's words, and with shame enough. The Doctor saith not any where, (exclusively of the cathedrals, as you vouch him here) that the ancient Orders of the Church of England have been best preserved in his Majesty's Chapel, without the which (perhaps) we had been at a loss, etc. These are your words, and not the Doctors. The Doctor's words are these: 
e Coal from the Altar. p. 26▪ 27.  For certainly the ancient orders of the Church of England have been best preserved in the Chapels of the King's Majesty, and the Cathedrals of this Kingdom (good Sir mark you that;) without the which, perhaps, we had before this been at a loss amongst ourselves, for the whole form and fashion of divine service. Here you leave out, most wilfully, to say no worse, and the Cathedrals of this Kingdom, not so much to belie the Doctor, as to devise some quarrel with his Majesty's Chapel, which you cast many an evil eye at. And thereupon conclude most gravely, 
f pag 35.  To what use serve our grave and worthy Metropolitans, our Bishops, our Convocation house, our Parliaments, our Liturgies, hedged in and compassed in with so many Laws, Rubrics, Proclamations, and Conferences, if we had been long before this at a loss in England for the whole form and fashion of divine service, but for one Deane, and so many Gentlemen of the King's Chapel. Lord what a gross of words is here drawn together, to fight with nothing but a poor fancy of your own; at most with one poor Deane, and a few simple gentlemen of that contemptible place, the King's Chapel Royal. Less strength, and fewer weapons would have been sufficient, to drive this silly troop before you; whom you might easily have scattered with your very breath, and made them wait upon your triumph at the first words speaking. Dicite Io Paean, & Io bis dicite Paean. Never did any story tell of such a conquering combatant, since King William the Conqueror.  
As little truth you use in citing of the other passage from the Doctor's text; and far less modesty in your second onset on his Majesty's Chapel. You make the Doctor say, The Chapel of the King, being the best Interpreter of the law which himself enacted, wherein the Communion table hath so stood as now it doth, since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, etc. and then fly out upon him without all pity, 
g pag. 35.  Where did the man ever hear of any Chapel in the Christian world, that gave form and fashion of divine service, to whole Provinces? Good Sir have patience but a little, I will pay you all. And tell me I beseech you first, where did the Doctor ever say they should? The former place you gelded in the very middle, and this you cut off in the end. Take the whole passage as it lieth together, 
h Coal f●om ●e Altar, 51, 52.  you will find it thus. For if we look into the former practice either of the Chapels of the King, the best Interpreter of the law which himself enacted, etc. as before we had it: or of Collegiate and Cathedral Churches, the best observers of the form and order of God's public service; the Vicar had good warrant for what he did. Here you leave out again the Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, to pick a second quarrel with his Majesty's Chapel: the Doctor saying no where, as you make him say, that the Parochial Churches are to precedent themselves (expressly and exclusively) by the Chapel Royal (though had he said so, you would hardly make your part against him) but that they are to precedent themselves by the mother Churches. Finding such store of Spanish, French, Italian, Greek, and Latin cited in your Margin, only out of a poor ambition to show your store: I need not doubt but you can understand a piece of English. Read me this therefore which occurs in the 6. Paragraph of the second Section, 
i C●al. p. 27.  immediately upon these words, Without the which perhaps we had before this been at a loss amongst ourselves for the whole form and fashion of divine service. For there it followeth, And therefore if it be so in the Chapels and Cathedral Churches, as the Epistoler doth acknowledge, it is a pregnant argument that so it ought to be in the Parochials, which herein ought to precedent and conform themselves, according to the pattern of the Mother Churches. The Mother Churches, note you that; not the Mother Chapels. So that you might aswell have saved your needless disputation, about the inward and the outward motion of the Prince's mind; as those most trivial, and indeed undutiful inferences which you make upon it, I have heard often of a mother Church, but now behold a mother Chapel, p. 42. and worse than that, Teach not the daughter therefore against all antiquity, to jet it out before the mother, p. 37. you might have also spared you 
k pag. 35, 36, 37.  several observations of publishing the new Missal by Pope Pius Quintus, not at the sacred Chapel, but S. Peter's Church; the merry case, (or, as you should have called it, the ridiculous case) of S. Martin's hood; the distinct service in the Chapels of Salamanca, from those that are in Parish Churches; the several uses of singing service in this Church, the ancient courses in some others. All these are only toys to take up the time with, and conclude nothing to the purpose which we have in hand, as they confute not any thing that the Doctor saith. Yet since you speak so despicably of his Majesty's Chapel, and the use thereof; 
l pag. 36.  as one that never heard till now the use of the Chapel: I trust you will not say that the King's Chapel is set out in a contrary way, to that required in a law of the Kings own making; or that the constant usage of the Chapels in this particular, since the first making of that law, may not be thought to be a good Interpreter of the law itself. You know the old saying well enough, that praxis sanctorum, est interpres praeceptorum. And therefore being it hath been still, as now it is, in K. Edward's Chapel, whom the 
m pag. 114.  judicious divine, Mr. Hooker calleth Edward the Saint, and Queen Elizabeth's, and of K. james, and of his Majesty now living, (whom God long preserve) whom yourself have honoured with the style of Saint: We may conclude, that the King's Chapel in this kind, or the King's practice in his Chapel, may be, and is the best Interpreter of those Rubrics, Laws, and Canons, which you elsewhere speak of. Nor could you preach a worse, though perhaps no more welcome doctrine to your dear disciples, than that his Majesty's Chapel is not ordered as it ought to be: who presently might make this use thereof, that they would be as little careful to observe the law in their several Parishes. Regis ad exempl●m. You know right well what follows, though you will not follow it. If therefore the Communion table do stand Altarwise in his Majesty's Chapel, as most sure it doth; and that it be a sin against many precepts, to doubt or whisper, but that the King doth wisely and religiously in it, as p. 34. you say it is: why should not that give law to the Parish-Churches; or why should you debar them from a conformity with that, which seems so wisely and religiously done, in the Chapel Royal? Here is a riddle indeed, if you talk of riddles.  
Having been bold, (as never any man was more) with his Majesty's Chapel, you cannot leave off so, but you must have a fling at Qu: Elizabeth, and hers: and 
n pag. 37.  wish the Doctor had not named at all the beginning of Qu: Elizabeth. For then say you, therewas an Altar in the Chapel, and the very old mass officiated thereupon. The very old Mass? What is your meaning? I hope you do not think, though you speak suspiciously, that that which hath been since officiated thereupon, is a Mass too, though somewhat newer 
o Missale Anglicanum, in Alt. Damasc. p. 716. ; the English Mass, as your good friends the Puritans have been pleased to call it. Nor need you be so sorry for nameing the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, as if you would have passed it over with a So it pour non dict, for fear the Doctor (of whose credit you are very careful) should be suspected for some hopes of having the old Mass set up again: as p. 51. you tell him what great hope he hath, of having one day an Altar and a sacrifice for joy of his diagram. The Doctor speaks not of placing the Communion table, so as it stood in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth; but saith 
p C●al. p. 51.  that in the Chapel Royal it hath so stood as now it doth, since the beginning of Queen Elizabeth: i. e. for 80. years together without interruption or alteration. In the beginning of her reign, and ever since the beginning of her reign; are two different things: and this you could not but observe, but that you had a mind to quarrel with that excellent Lady; for which I trow, your brethren, who now so much adore her memory, will con you little thanks in private. For whereas that most excellent Lady followed therein the practice of her brother 
q Vide Bish: Hoopers' 3. Sermon on jonah, before K. Edw.  King Edw. 6. and kept her Chapel up in that form and order as was most fit both for the decency of God's public service, and the magnificence of her own royal State: we are now told that this was done 
r pag. 38. in marg.  Pour flatter les Catholics, & les Princes estrangers, only to flatter with the Catholics, (this flattering with the Catholics, you very cunningly left out in your translation) and with foreign Princes. Nay, if Du Chesne may be believed (or rather if you may be believed that belie Du Chesne) all this was done, not out of piety, but policy: 
s Ibid. in marg.  Et par my cette innovation laissa plusieurs choses qu'elle jugea indifferentes, come les Orgues, les Ornaments d'eglise, quoy que plus pour police que pour religion: as you cite the words. Andre du Chesne, an honester man than you, tells us no such matter. For having named the Organs and Ornaments of the Church, 
t Histoire d' Angleterre l. 21. §. 10.  he brings in Music, the names and dignities in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Canons of Churches, Curates, Priests and Deacons, as also Lent, and abstinence from flesh on Fridays and saturdays. Then adds, what you have made him say of Organs, & the Church Ornaments, (and not the Ornaments of her Chapel only) that this was done plus pour policy, que pour religion, more for policy than religion. Which words, if you observe him well, are not to be referred to all that went before (for then Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Priests and Deacons had been retained only in point of policy) but to the keeping of Lent and other fasting days. Wherein du Chesne hath spoke no more than what is extant in the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 5. where it is said expressly, that the forbearing of flesh was meant only politicly, for the increase of fishermen and mariners, etc. Or if you think, as I do, that he did not consult the Statute for it; then out of doubt, he borrowed it from 
u Inlib. 3.  Sanders de schismate Anglicano, where it is said terminis terminantibus, in this case of Lent, and fasting days, and in this only, Non religionis, sed publici tantum commodi causa hoc ipsum mandari. Your other Frenchman, the freedom of whose language you so much commend, took his hint from the same hand also: and you are but a Doctor Slanders, to join with him and them in any thing, which tends to the dishonour of so brave a Lady. This said, you wheel about to fetch another blow at the Queen's Altar, placing a crucifix on the same, (which stood there but a little while) and then demand whether the Parish Churches were to take pattern by this, when as not any of the subjects might in their private houses possess a crucifix. For proof of which you cite the 45. Article of etc. for the Regal visitation, viz. 
x pag. 39  Whether you know any that keep in their houses, any undefaced Images, tables, pictures, and cut off all the rest with an etc. Read on then, pictures, paintings, and other Monuments of feigned and false miracles, pilgrimages, Idolatry, and superstition, and do adore them. Voyla Monsieur, not the possessing, but the adoring of the crucifix, was enquired into. Welfare the Frenchmen yet, who 
y I leave him to my Margin, where he shall find two or three Frenchmen, who out of the freedom of the nation, will be sure, parler rout, etc. p. 39  out of the freedom of their nation, will be sure, parler tout, and conceal nothing that ever they heard of. You have a more retentive faculty, and you make your best of it. Your next quotation, that Images of Christ be not only defects, but also lies, for which you vouch the Homily against the peril of Idolatry, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dictum, nothing unto the point in hand; but that you are a venturous gamester, and love to have at all, whatsoever it cost you. For if you take the reason of the Homily with you, 
z part 3. p. 42  which is, that of the Godhead which is the most excellent part of Christ, no Image can be made: it will appear that in the meaning of the Homily, the images or picture of a mortal man, may not be only called a defect, but a lie also; because no picture can be made of the soul, which is the most excellent part of the whole man. But either speak more unto the purpose, or else hold your peace.  
The Doctors 2. Argument, (according as you please to new mould his book) is taken (you say) from the Queen's Injunctions; more pertinently, 
a pag. 40.  you confess, than was the former from the Queen's Chapel, but that it hath not any solidity to rest upon. Why so▪ Do not the Queen's Injunctions say, 
b Injunct. for Tables in the Church.  that if the Altar were taken down (which they commanded not) the holy Table should be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth. Yes, but you say, 
c pag. 41.  there followeth somewhat which this false fingered Gentleman left out, viz. and as shall be appointed by the Visitors: Thereupon you conclude that placing and adorning of the table was referred to the Commissioners, who in their Orders, tertio of the Queen, appointed That the table should stand where the steps within the Quires and Chancels stood, and should be covered with silk or buckram: and having said so, winde your horn, 
d And there, if you be a good Hunt's man, you may wind your horn, and blow the fall of that Injunction. p. 41.  and blow the fall of the Injunction. In all this there is no solidity, and as little truth. Those words, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors, relate not to the placing of the table, which was determined of in the Injunction, but to the covering of the same, wherein the said Injunctions had determined nothing. For mark the words; The holy Table in every Church shall be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood; What more? and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors; & so to stand, saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, etc. What think you now? what is referred unto the Visitors, the placing of the table, or the covering only? Not the placing surely, as you find in the last period of the said Injunction; viz. And after the Communion done, from time to time (not till the Visitours should determine otherwise) the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before. Then for the Orders of the year 1561. can you find any thing in them that crosseth the Injunction? Take the whole Order as it lieth, and then wind your horn. 
e Orders taken the 10. day of Oct. etc. Order 4.  It is ordered also, that the steps which be as yet at this day remaining in any Cathedral, Collegiate, or Parish Church, be not stirred or altered, but be suffered to continue. And if in any Chancel the steps be transposed, that they be not erected again, but that the steps be decently paved, where the Communion Table shall stand out of the times of receiving the Communion, having thereon a fair linen cloth, with some covering of silk, buckram, or other such like● for the clean ●●●ping of the said cloth. No order here, for altering the Communion table from that place and posture in which it had been situated by the Queen's Injunction: or that it should stand where the steps within the Quires or Chancels stood; much less, as you have made it in your falsified Copy of the Bishop's letter; where the steps to the Altar formerly stood: as if they would not have it stand close along the wall, but near unto the steps, and so from the wall, as you thence most shamefully collect. Now whereas it is appointed further in the said Orders, 
f Order 5.  that there be fixed upon the wall over the said Communion board, the tables of God's precepts imprinted for the said purpose; or as in the 
g Advertisements partly for due order, etc. Printed. 1584. p. A. 4. 2.  advertisements of An. 1564. upon the East-wall over the said table: the Doctor laying all together concluded thus, that being the table was (by the Injunction) to be placed where the Altar stood, above the steps, (as by the Orders,) and under the Commandments (as by the Orders and Advertisements;) therefore it was to stand all along the wall. Against this you have nothing to reply, but bold conjectures. 
h pag. 42.  Why not aswell in the place of the steps, and endwise to the wall? and 
i pag. 43.  why not the Commandments over the Communion board, that is, in some higher place where they may be seen, although the table stand in the midst of the Choir? and why not 
i pag. 43.  over the Communion table, that is, over the end of the table? I see you are excellent at Tick tack, as you have been always, and will not let a why not pass, if it come in your way. But this is, as Domitian said of S●neca's style, Arena ●ine calce; and hangs together, as we say in the English proverb, like pebbles in a with. But so, it seems, you will not leave us. You have another answer to the Queen's Injunction, touching the setting of the table in the place where the Altar stood: which is, that it might stand above the steps with the end Eastward, and the side Northward, and 
l pag. 44.  yet obey the words of the Injunction, and be in the place where the Altar stood. How so? Because, say you, the Injunction was directed to her Majesty's subjects, not to her Mathematicians, and therefore was more likely to use the term of a common and ordinary, than a proper and Mathematical place. And so the place of the Altar, in this Injunction, is not all and in all dimensions, but some part only of the room which the Altar filled. I gather by your style, you are some great body, some Minister, as the Licence styles you; & doubt not but you have many servants, although not many Mathematicians, attending on you. And let me put you a familiar case, this once. It is a thing I use not often. Suppose you have an old side-board, or Court-cupboard standing in your dining-room; & you command your servants (being no Mathematicians, suppose that too) to take the ●aid old side-board, or Court-cupboard away, & set another in the place: If he should set it end-wise, where the other stood side-wise, would not your blood be up, and your black staff about his ears? Your difference out of Aristotle between 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, serves for nothing here, more than to make a show, and to deceive poor people that understand it not. And yet in confidence of the cause, you tell the Doctor, that 
m pag. 45.  for the great pains he hath taken, with his line and level, in finding out the place where the Altar stood; he might have spared it all against the building of a new Pigeon-house. 
n Horat.  Naturam expellas furca licet; I see there's a profaneness in your bones, which will never out. Never did man speak of sacred things, with so little reverence. Dressers, and Pigeon houses, and whatsoever scandalous conceit comes next to hand, we are sure to hereof. It would do better, as I take it, if when you write next of a sacred argument, some boy or other might cry out to you, as heretofore the Priest did when he was to sacrifice, 
o Virgil.  Procul hinc, procul esto profane. And so much for your first and second answers, to the Queen's Injunction.  
Now for the 3. in which you have disposed the flower of all your Army, your very janissaries, you tell us with like confidence, that 
p pag. 47.  if by these Injunctions, the table was to stand where the Altar stood; then should the said Injunctions vary from the rites, which but few days before had been prescribed by Parliament, to be used in the book of Common-prayers. How prove you that? Marry say you, the Minister appointed to read the Communion, is directed to read the Commandments, not at the end, but the North side of the table, which implies the end to be placed towards the East great window. 2. It was practised so in K. Edward's time, as is (not proved, but) endeavoured to be proved out of the troubles at Francofurt. 3. Because it is very likely that Cox, Grindall, and Whitehead (being half the number of the per●sers of the Liturgic which was to be confirmed in the Parliament following) would observe that ceremony in placing the Communion-table, which themselves abroad, and at home had formerly practised. These are the Arguments we must trust to, to confirm the point; but these will not do it: for they are only say-soes, and no proofs at all; and might as justly be denied by us, as venturously affirmed by you. But we will scan them severally, beginning first with that comes last, and so proceeding ascendendo, until all be answered. First then, Cox, Grindall and Whitehead, made not up half the number of the Perusers of the Liturgy. The Author whom you cite, 
q Camden in Eliz. An. 1558.  names us eight in all, Parker, Bill, May, Cox, Grindall, Whitehead, Pilkington, and Sir Thomas Smith; all joynt-Commissioners in the business. So that unless it may be proved that three and three makes eight; (and if it may be proved you are more cunning at Arithmetic, than in all the Mathematics beside:) Grindall, and Cox, and Whitehead made not half the number. But let that pass for once, how shall we know that they did place the Communion-table end-long, both at home and abroad? For this we are directed to the troubles at Francofurt, pag. 23. and 24. in which there is not any word that reflects that way. All we find there, is the recital of a letter sent from the conformable Englishmen at Strasburgh to the schismatical congregation of the Englishmen in Francofurt, about reducing them unto the book of Common-prayers established in the latter end of K. Edward 6. which letter was delivered to them, by Mr. Grindall and Mr. Chambers, and signed by 16. of their hands, Grindals' being one; but not one word of Cox or Whitehead. Or grant this too, that Grindall, Cox and Whitehead placed their Communion table, end-long, when they were abroad, and might be fearful of offending those amongst whom they lived: yet would it be no good conclusion, that therefore they appointed it should be so here, where they were safe and out of danger; and had the countenance of the Queen, who liked old orders very well, for their encouragement. You saw this well enough, and therefore dare not say it for a certain, but 
r It being very like, that Cox, G●●nd●ll, etc. p●g. 47.  a likely matter: and likelihoods, I trow, (except it be for you) are no demonstrations. This said, your second argument about the practice in K. Edward's time, endeavoured to be proved from the troubles at Francofurt, is already answered: Your poor 
s Which the writer of the ●etter endeavoured to prove. pag. 46.  endeavours, and your simple likelihoods may well go together. Nor is there any thing in all that relation, which concerns this practice; more than a summary of the orders in K. Edward's book drawn up by Knox and others of that crew, to be sent to Calvin; by his determinate sentence to stand or fall: where it is only said, that the Minister is to stand at the North-side of the table. Which being a recital only of the Rubric in the Common-prayer book, makes but one Argument with the first; or helps, God wot, but very poorly for the proof of that. But where you knock it on the head, with saying that the placing of the table end-long, with one end towards the East great window, was the last situation of that table in K. Edward's time; and call 
t pag. 47, 48.  Miles Haggard for a witness: most sure Miles Huggard tells you no such matter. 
u Displaying o● Protestants. An. 1556. p. 81.  For thus saith Miles. How long were they learning to set their table, to minister the said Communion upon? First they placed it aloft, where the high Altar stood. Then must it be set from the wall that one might go between: the Ministers being in contention on whether part to turn their faces, either towards the West, the North, or South. Some would stand westward, some northward, some southward. How say you now? Doth Miles say any thing of placing the table end-long? No point. He saith it was removed from the wall where at first it stood, that one might go between the said wall and it; and so I hope it might standing North and South: but that it was placed endlong, not one word saith Miles.  
Your outworks being taken in, come we unto the fort itself, the Rubric: where it is said, the Minister standing at the North-side of the Table, shall say the Lords Prayer. The Doctor answered this before in his Coal from the Altar, viz. 
x Coal, p. 23.  That being in all quadrangular and quadrilaterall figures there were four sides, though commonly the narrower sides be called by the name of ends: the Minister standing at the north-end of the table, doth perform the Rubric, the table standing in the place where the Altar stood; as well as standing at the North-side, in case it stood with one end towards the East great window. And this he did conceive the rather▪ because that in the Common-prayer book done into Latin, by the command, and authorized by the great Seal of Qu. Eliz. it is thus translated, Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem partem, Minister stans, or abit orationem dominicam; that the Minister standing at the Northpart of the table shall say the Lords Prayer. This is the sum of his discourse: what reply make you? First, entering on a vain discourse, touching the raptures of the soul, when it is throughly plunged in the study of the Mathematics, and therein showing your notorious ignorance, in misreporting the inventions of Archimed●s and Pythagoras, which we will tell you of hereafter; you fall on this at last for the main of your answer. 
y pag. 52.  Loquendum est cum vulgo, when we speak to the people of a side, we must take a side as they take it; and that the Doctor was too blame to dispute out of Geometry against custom, and that with people which are no Geometricians: 
z pag 49.  Poor subjects that are penally to obey Laws and Canons, not being to be spoken to according to the Rules of Art. 
a pag. 53.  You tell us further, that every Art hath to itself its own words of art, and thereupon produce an Epitaph on the Chanter of Langres, full of odd musical notes, and pretty crotchets in that chanting faculty. And with another tale 
b pag 57  of Euclid, and certain Diagrams drawn in the sand by the Egyptians; advise the Doctor to remember, that the Rubric was written for the use of the English, and not of the Gypsies. Of all this, there is little that requires an answer, consisting all of flourishes, and fencing-tricks; but not one handsome ward to keep off a blow. For speak man, was that Rubric written for the laity, or for the Clergy; for the poor subjects, as you call them, or a learned Ministry? I trust you are not come so far, as to believe that every Cobbler, Tailor, or other Artisan, may take his turn, and minister at the holy Altar: though you have something here and there, which without very favourable Readers may be so interpreted. If so, as so it was, the Rubric being only made for the direction of the Clergy, and amongst those the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, (whom I presume you neither will nor can condemn of so much ignorance:) why do you talk so idly of poor subjects that are penally to obey laws and Canons, and ignorant people that are not to be spoken 〈◊〉 by Rules of Art?  
But this, it seems, hath been your recreation only. For 
c pag. 55.  not to dally with us longer, you tell the Doctor, that learned men in these very particular ceremonies, which we have in hand, have appropriated the word sides to the long, and the word end, to the short length of an oblong square. This, if well done, is worth the seeing: and how prove you this? Gregory the 13. who had about him all the best Mathematicians in Europe, when he renewed (or changed) the Calendar, doth call them so in his Pontifical. Non sequitur. This is the strangest sequel that I ever heard of. Nor can it possibly hold good, unless it had been said withal, that in the setting out the said Pontifical, he had consulted with those Mathematicians, in this very thing, by whose advice and counsel he renewed the Calendar. And be that granted too: what then? Why then say you, in his Pontifical he makes no more sides of an Altar, ●han of a man, to wit, a right side, and a left side; calling the lesser squares, the anterior and posterior part thereof. For proof of this, you cite him thus: Et thuri●icat Altare undique ad dextrum & sinistrum latus, pag. 144. And then again, in anteriori & posteriori parte Altaris, pag. 142. of your Edition, Venet. 1582. being in mine of Paris, 1615. pag. 232. & 247. But clearly this makes good what the Doctor saith. For the anteriour part must needs be that at which the Priest stands when he doth officiate; which by their order, is with his face to the East: and the posteriour, that which is next the wall, which pag. 183. you call the backside of the Altar. And then it must needs be, that the two sides thereof, as they are called in the Pontifical, must be the North-end, and the South-end, which justifieth directly the Doctor's words, when he affirmeth 
d Coal from the Altar. p. 24.  that the Rubric, (according to the meaning and intent thereof) is aswell fulfilled by the Minister, standing at the North end of the Table, placed along the wall, as at the north side of the same standing towards the window. I hope you have no cause to brag of this discovery. That which comes after, concerneth the translation of the book of Common prayer, 
e pag. 56.  by Walter Haddon, as you conjecture: which you except against, as recommended to a few Colleges, and not unto the Church of England: and yet acknowledging in your margin, that it was recommended unto all the Colleges, which are the Seminaries, no doubt, of the Church of England. 2. That it never was confirmed by Act of Parliament, or by K. james his Proclamation; but take notice of the authorising thereof under the great Seal of Qu. Elizabeth, no less effectual for that purpose than a Proclamation. 3. That in that translation 
f pag. 57  the Calendar is full of Saints, and some of them got into red scarlet; which howsoever it may cast some scandal on the Queen, (whom you have a stitch at) is nothing to the prejudice of that translation of the Rubric. 4. That Dr Whitaker, when he was a young man, was set by his Uncle, the Dean of Paul's, to translate it again into Latin, which makes you think that other version was either exhausted, or misliked. Misliked you cannot say, till you bring a reason; and if it was so soon exhausted, it is a good argument that it was well done, and universally received. Lastly, you fly to your old shift, affirming, that those times considered, the Liturgy was translated rather to comply with the foreign, than to reigle and direct the English Churches. Which were it so, yet it makes nothing to this purpose. For whether it be pars septentrionalis, the northern part, or latus septentrionale, the northern side, it must be equally displeasing to the foreign Churches, (for you mean only those of the Church of Rome) in which the Priest officiating is enjoined to stand in medio Altaris, with his back towards the people; being a different way from that prescribed the Minister in the Liturgy of the Church of England. Certes you do but dally in all you say; and show yourself a serious trifler, but a sorry disputant.  
Securi de salute, de gloria certemus 
g Tacit. de vit. Agri●.  I must have one pull more with you about this Rubric; and since you give so fair an hint, about the Statute which confirms it. The Parliament 1. of Qu. Elizabeth began at Westminster, jan. 23. An. 1558. and there continued till the 8. of May next following: in which there passed the Act, for uniformity of Common prayer, and service of the Church, and administration of the Sacraments, cap. 2. Together with this Act there passed another, enabling the Queen to delegate what part she pleased, of her supreme power in Ecclesiasticis, to such Commissioners as she should appoint, according to the form in that Act laid down. Presently on the dissolving of the said Parliament, the Queen sets out a book of Injunctions, aswell to the Clergy, as to the laity of this Realm: in one of 
h Injunct. for Tables in the Church.  which Injunctions, it is clear and evident, that howsoever in many and sundry parts of the Realm, the Altars of the Churches were removed, and Tables placed for the administration of the Sacrament: yet in some other places the Altars were not then removed, upon opinion of some other order to be taken by her Majesty's Visitours. This put together, I would fain have leave to ask this question: The Rubric ordering that the Minister should stand at the north-side of the Table, (there where tables were;) and in so many places of this Kingdom, the Altars standing as before: where should the Minister stand to discharge his duty? Not in the middle of the Altar, as was appointed in the Liturgy of K. Edw. An. 1549. That was disliked and altered in the Service-booke of the year 1542. confirmed this Parliament. Nor on the North-side, as you call a side: for that supposeth such a situation, as was not proper to the Altar. Therefore it must be at the northern end, or narrower side thereof, as before was said; or else no Service to be done, no Sacraments administered. The Parliament was so far from determining any thing touching the taking down of Altars, that a precedent Act 1 Mar. cap. 3. for punishment of such as should deface them, was by them continued. This was left solely to the Queen, the Metropolitan and Commissioners, to be done, o● not done, as might seem most convenient to them: and yet the Parliament confirmed that Rubric for standing at the north side of the Table. And for the Queen, the Bp yields it in his letter, that she and her Commissioners (or as your altered Copy hath it, she and her Counsel) were content the Altars should stand still as before they did: the Injunction leaving it as a thing indifferent, and of no great moment, so that the Sacrament be duly and reverently administered. Neither did the Commissioners in their Visitation, determine any thing for taking down of Altars, where they found them standing, that we can meet with in their Orders of the year 1561. Nor need you stick at the word Table, mentioned in the Rubric, confirmed in that Parliament, as if that did imply, or intimate the necessary taking down of Altars. For you yourself have told us, that sacrifice and Altars being relatives, no sooner 
i pag. 16.  was the sacrifice abolished, but these (call them what we will) are no more Altars, but tables of stone and timber; in the Epistle to the Vicar. So then, that which was once an Altar, when there was a sacrifice, (the sacrifice of the Mass you mean) is now become a table only; whether of stone or timber, that's no way material: and therefore standing as they did when the Act was made, the Minister could not possibly officiate at the north-side, unless you call the narrower end, a side, as the Doctor doth; and as yourself do, did you understand yourself, out of the Pontifical. Besides, the meaning of the Act is to be considered, not the words alone: which was to fix the Minister to some certain posture. For in K. Edward's first Liturgy, An. 1549. the Minister was appointed, as before is said, to stand in medi● Altaris, with his back towards the people. After, when as the King had commanded to take down the Altars, and to set up tables, than followed first a difference about the situation of those Tables; some being placed like Altars, and some like tables, according as we have it in the Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 700. Hereupon followed that confusion which Miles Huggard speaks of amongst the Ministers themselves: some standing northward, some southward, and some westward. For remedy whereof, it was appointed in the second Liturgy, that he, the Minister, should have some certain point, whereupon to fix: yourself affirming, 
k pag▪ 48.  that this contention was determined by the Rubric, still in force, for the North-side of the Table. So that the meaning of the Rubric being only this, to assign the Minister some certain point whereon to fasten his aspect, in his officiating at the holy table▪ that meaning is aswell complied withal, in standing at the north or narrower side thereof, placed along the wall; as standing at the longer side, with one e●d towards the East great window. Nay I will go a little farther, and put it to consideration, (and no more than so) whether the Rubric ordering that the Minister shall stand at the North side of the Table, doth not imply the Tables standing Altarwise, close along the wall, if within the Chancel; and close to the partition, if within the Church. And I propose it on this ground: Because in case it had been meant in the composure of that Rubric, that the holy Table should stand endlong, and far off from the wall, or the partition, the fittest posture for the Minister had been at the East-end thereof, with his face downwards, towards the people. Certain I am, that in that posture he would be best both seen and heard of all the Congregation, (better by far than standing at either side thereof either north or south) which seems to be the thing most stood upon in the Bishop's letter to the Vicar. But I propose this only as a consideration; I affirm it not.  
Next, we must follow you to the third Argument of the Doctor, drawn from the exercise of that supreme power in Ecclesiasticis, which is invested in the King. For granting 
l pag. 42.  that the King may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the Table should be placed where the Altar stood: you only seem to doubt 
m pag. 58.  whether his Majesty hath any way declared his pleasure▪ that he would have it so or not. Before you asked the Doctor where the King commanded it, as if not any thing but an express command, had the power to stir you: when other men, as wise as you, have thought the intimations of a Prince, in matters 
n The Bishop entering into a discourse of the indifferency of this circumstance. p. 8.  of indifferent nature, (as you acknowledge this to be) sufficient inducements for a subject to conform thereto. Now you have changed your style, and only stand on the denial, that his most sacred Majesty hath not in this case declared his pleasure: you mean, perhaps, not so declared it, as that it pleaseth you to obey his pleasure. The Doctor saith 
o Co●l, p. 63.  in brief, that his sacred Majesty hath hereupon already declared his pleasure in the case of S. Gregory's, and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them. Your answer is as short, but not half so sweet, 
p pag. 58.  that it is most untrue, that his Majesty hath declared in that Act, one word of his pleasure hereupon: i. e. (as you expound yourself) against the contents of the Bishop's letter. Most gravely spoken. What had his Majesty to do with the Bishop's letter, that he should signify his pleasure thereupon, when as the merit of the same was not called in question? Aquila non capit muscas, you know the proverb. The business then in question, was the standing of the Table in S. Gregory's Church, which by the Ordinary there, was placed Altarwise: and his most sacred Majesty did thereupon declare his pleasure, approving and confirming the Act of the said Ordinary. You challenge this as most untrue, and presently fall foul on the poor man, for libelling against the Bishop, malicious falsifying of his Authors in every page: and finally (your own turn served) for coming to that height of impudence, as ponere os in coelum, to outface heaven itself, and misreport the justice of so divine a Majesty. Why so? Because, say you, If we abstract from this Declaration, (which the bold man hath printed for an Act of Counsel) the allegations, which he, the said bold fellow, calleth the relations of both parties; and his Majesty's just pleasure for the dissolving of the appeal: the remainder will prove a full confirmation of the Bishop's letter. If so, then 
q Virgil.  frange leves calamos, & scind Thalia libellos, the Doctor took much pains to little purpose. And that it is so, you are peremptory, as in all things else, because the Declaration tells us, That the liberty given by the Communion book, or Canon, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chapel with most conveniency, is not to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish, much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinary, to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing itself, and for the time when and how long, as he may find cause. These are his Maᵗⁱᵉˢ indeed, mentis aureae verba bractcata, as you rightly call them: but they oppose not any thing that the Doctor saith. You find not in the Doctor, that the placing of the holy table, or the interpreting of those Canons and Rubrics which concern it, was either left to the discretion of the Parish, or to the particular fancy of any humorous person in the same: which is the only thing which that part of his Majesty's Declaration doth relate unto. That which the Doctor saith is this, that by the declaration of his Majesty's pleasure in that present business, there was encouragement given to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries to do the like: i. e. to place the holy table in the several Churches committed to them, as it was placed in S. Gregory's by the Ordinary thereof. This I am sure, his Majesty's words, which you applaud so, do not contradict. And on the other side, that the whole Declaration laid together, giveth that encouragement to the Ordinaries, which the Doctor speaks of, you might plainly see; but that you had no mind that any ordinary should be encouraged to so good a work; which you deride and scorn throughout your book, as shall be shown more fully in the next Chapter. Mean time, that all the world may see, how wilfully you shut your eyes, and stop your ears, against whatever is contained therein, which you like not of; I will once more set down the said Declaration, and after, gather thence some few observations, either to cure you of your wilfulness, or to shame you for it.  

At White Hall the third day of November, 1633.  
Present, the Kings most excellent Majesty.  
L●: Arch B. of Cant.  
Lo: Keeper.  
Lo: Arch B. of York.  
Lo: Treasurer.  
Lo: Privy Seal.  
Lo: D. of Lennox.  
Lo: High Chamberlain.  
E. Martial.  
Lo: Chamberlain.  
E. of Bridgwater.  
E. of Carlisle.  
Lo: Cottington.  
M. Treasurer.  
M. controller.  
M. Secretary Cook.  
M. Secretary Windebank.   
THis day was debated before his Majesty sitting in Counsel, the question and difference which grew about the removing of the Communion table in S. Gregory's Church, near the Cathedral Church of S. Paul, from the middle of the Chancel to the upper end, and there placed Altarwise, in such manner as it standeth in the said Cathedral & Mother Church, (as also in all other Cathedrals, and in his Majesties own Chapel) and as is consonant to the practice of approved Antiquity. Which removal and placing of it in that sort, was done by order from the Dean and Chapter of S. Paul's, who are Ordinaries thereof, as was avowed before his Majesty by Dr. King, and Dr. Montfort, two of the Prebends there. Yet some few of the Parishioners, being but five in number, did complain of this Act by Appeal to the Court of Arches, pretending that the book of Common-prayer, and the 82. Canon, do give permission to place the Communion table, where it may stand with most fitness and convenience. Now his Majesty having heard a particular relation made by the Counsel of both parties of all the carriage and proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare his dislike of all Innovation, and receding from ancient constitutions, grounded upon just and warrantable reasons, especially in matters concerning Ecclesiastical order and government, knowing how easily men are drawn to affect novelties, and how soon weak judgements in such cases may be over-taken and abused. And he was also pleased to observe, that if those few Parishioners might have their wills, the difference thereby from the foresaid Cathedral mother Church, by which all other Churches depending thereon aught to be guided, would be the more notorious, and give more subject of discourse & disputes that might be spared, by reason of S. Gregory's standing close to the wall thereof. And likewise for so much as concerns the liberty given by the said Common book or Canon, for placing the Communion table in any Church or Chapel with most conveniency: that liberty is not so to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish, much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing itself, and for the time, when and how long, as he may find cause. Upon which consideration his Majesty declared himself, That he well approved and confirmed the Act of the said Ordinary, and also gave command, that if those few Parishioners before mentioned, do proceed in their said appeal, than the Dean of the Arches (who was then attending at the hearing of the cause) shall confirm the said Order of the aforesaid Deane and Chapter.  
This is the Declaration of his sacred Majesty, faithfully copied out of the Registers of his Counsel-table. Out of the which I do observe, first, that the Ordinary did the facto, remove the Communion-Table from the middle of the Chancel, and place it Altar wise at the upper end. Secondly, that in the doing of it, they did propose unto themselves, the pattern not alone of their own Cathedral mother Church, but of all other cathedrals, and his Majesty's Chapel; and therewithal the practice of approved Antiquity. Thirdly, that his most excellent Majesty upon the hearing of the business, declaring his dislike of all Innovations, did yet approve the order of the Ordinary; which shows, that he conceived it not to be any variance from the ancient constitutions of this Church. Fourthly, that all Parochial Churches ought to be guided by the pattern of the Mother Church, upon the which they do depend. Fifthly, that not the people, but the Ordinary, is to interpret as well the Rubric as the Canon, touching the most convenient placing of the holy table. Sixthly, that i● pertaineth to the place and function of the Ordinary to give directions in that kind, both for the thing itself (how it shall stand) and for the time, when and how long, (it shall so stand) as he finds occasion. And last of all, that notwithstanding any thing that was objected from the said Canon and Communion book, his Majesty did well approve the Act of the said Ordinary; and not approve it only, but confirm it too: giving command to the Dean of the Arches, that he should finally and judicially confirm the same, if the appeal were followed by the said Parishioners. This is, I trow, a Declaration of his Majesty's pleasure; not only in relation to the present case, that of S. Gregory's then and there by him determined; but to all others also of the same nature. He that so well approved that Act of the Dean and Chapter of S. Paul's; would questionless approve the like in another Ordinary. ●or being the case is one, the Chappells Royal still the same, the Mother Churches no less to be followed by the Parochials in one place than others: why should you think the sentence or decision should be different? Or if you think this Declaration of his Majesty's pleasure is no encouragement to other Ordinaries, to bring the Parish-Churches to conform with the Cathedrals in this particular; because his Majesty doth not say, in terms express, that he would also very well approve the like in all other Ordinaries: you do notoriously bewray, either your ignorance or wilfulness, or some worse condition. For know you not that Maxim in the Civil laws, 
r Cod. l. 1. 〈◊〉. 14. l. 1●.  Sententia Principis jus dubium declarans, jus facit quoa● omnes? or that the Civil Lawyers say, Rex solus judicat de causa à jure non definita? If not, consult that learned case of the Post-nati, stated by the Lord Chancellor Egert●n, pag. 107. whom you have elsewhere cited, and must need have seen. The Declaration of the King's pleasure, what ever you think of it, is no trivial matter: and that not only in such things as he shall command, but such as he alloweth of, confirms, and sets his approbation on them. The book of 
s Iust. Instit. lib. 1.  Institutes, if you went no further, could tell you somewhat to this purpose: Where it is said, (construe it as you list yourself) Quodcunque Imperator per epistolam constituit, vel cognoscens decrevit, (N. B.) legem esse constat: and is to stand for good in whatsoever case & business of the same nature; unless it be in personal matters of praemium & poe●a, and such like. Regal decisions in this kind, are like the ruled cases (as they call them) in the Common law; or the Responsa prudentum, the judgements and determinations of the Reverend Sages in that profession, extant in their Reports, Terme-bookes, and Commentaries: First made in reference to the cause which was then before them, but of authority (as the least directive) in all other business of the like condition, till overruled in open Court by equal both authority and judgement. And it is a good rule in such bouts as this, 
t Post-nati. pag. 41.  De similibus ad similia iudicium & argumentatio recipiuntur. Last of all, for the Canon laws, (that you may see how much all laws condemn you for your obstinate folly) what is the whole body of the Decretals (one of the greatest parts thereof) but a collection of particular Rescripts and decisions made by several Popes, upon particular and emergent cases? which being so made, are still remaining on record as judgements, sentences, or decisions for all and every cases of the like condition; Volentes igitur ut hac tantum compilatione omnes utantur, in judiciis & in scholis, as in the Proem to the work. This is, I trust, enough to shield the Doctor from your fury, for saying only that by this Declaration of his Majesty's pleasure, in that one particular, the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries had no small encouragement, to reduce private Parish Churches to an uniformity with their Cathedral. Against the which, as you have not one word to say, but your own ipse dixit, that it is untrue; and your own mecum st●tui, that nothing shall persuade you to the contrary, as long as Mr. Alderman of Gr: and the good people of the Diocese are not pleased withal: so might we well have saved this labour, and left you to the singularity of your sullen humour. And so I leave you for this time; only, I cannot choose but marvel why you should lay such impudence to the Doctor's charge, for 
u pag. 58.  misreporting the justice of so divine a Majesty; which he reports in the same words he found it copied forth unto him; or calling him bold fellow, for printing it for an Act of Counsel, being a Declaration of his Majesty's pleasure at the Counsel board, and which you call an Act yourself, in the selfsame page: or finally correcting him, for saying the Relation of both parties, not the Allegation; when as the word Relation only is in his copy of the Act. Had he dealt so with you, you would have called him half a dozen times, Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Barretter; and I know not what: you being in this case like the Cock, that is well fed with Garlic before the fight, who seeks to over-match his Adversary, rather with rankness of breath, than strength of body.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Episcopal authority in points of Ceremony; the piety of the times, and good work in hand; and of the Evidence produced from the Acts and Monuments.  
The Minister of Linc▪ arts and aims, in the present business. Dangerous grounds laid by the Minister of Linc: for overthrowing the Episcopal and Regal power. 
Cap. 3.  He misreports the meaning of the Council of Nice, to satisfy his private spleen. The Minister of Linc: overthrows his own former grounds by new superstructures; protesteth in a thing against his conscience. Chargeth the Doctor with such things as he finds not in him. Denieth that any one thing may have two known and proper names; therefore that the Communion table may not be called an Altar also; and for the proof thereof doth falsify his own authorities. The Doctor falsified again, about the Canons of the year 1571. The Minister beholding to some Arch-Deacons for his observations. Their curtalling of the Bishop's power, in moving or removing the Communion table, to advance their own. The piety of the times, and the good work in hand, declared, & defended against the impious and profane derision of the Minister of Linc: The testimonies of Fryth, and Lambert, taken out of the Acts and Monuments, cleared from the cavils of the Minister of Linc: The Minister of Linc: ●uts off the words of Lambert, Fox, Philpot, and Bishop Latimer, and falsifieth most foully the Acts and Monuments: Corrects the Statute and the Writ about the Sacrament of the Altar: Pleads poorly for the Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, in the matter of Oyster-boards and Dressers: and falls impertinently foul on the Bishop of Norwich.  
SVnt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum Collegisse i●vat, etc. 
Horat. Carm. 1. lib. 1.  For still I follow him up and down in his own fancies. The Poet tells us of some men that had a great delight in the Olympic exercises, in hope to win the prizes which were there proposed. Our Somebody, some Minister, some I know not who, hath an itch that way; a great desire to get the prize; and I cannot blame him. Terrarum Dominos evehit ad deos? What? to be hoisted up by the common people, as a man more than mortal, one so like the gods, that it is hard to say whether he or jupiter be the better man? Who would not venture a fall, to find such applause? especially considering with what ●ase it may be attained. And certainly in two things he is very like them. For he doth only raise a dust, colligere pulverem, as the Poet hath it, and labour what he can evitare metam, to shoot as wide as it is possible from the mark he aims at: not caring (so he look like some furious driver, and make his chariot wheels run on, and rattle,) how it succeeds with him in the main of the Argument. In the last Chapter, as he tells us, he hath 
a pag. 60. 61.  reduced into a body all the Regal; and in this, all the Ecclesiastical power, which the poor fellow, whosoever he was that wrote the Coal from the Altar, conceived to be any way opposite to his Lordship's letter. In doing which, and patching up a broken Cento, out of particular and (by him) dismembered passages, collected here and there tumultuously from the Doctor's book; he raiseth such a filthy dust, that one can hardly see what it is he aims at; and yet he may come off the better, if he miss his mark. However having undertaken him, we must do our best, to blow away this dust, and clear the passage, that every one may see his courses, and what poor shifts he useth to attain the prize he so much longeth for. The Doctor saith in several places of his book, that the Ordinary, of his own authority, may, if he please, appoint the Communion-table to stand Altarwise: that his most sacred Majesty hath given encouragement to the Bishops and other Ordinaries so to do, in his decision of the case about S. Gregory's: and therefore as the case then stood with the Doctor's friend, being it was exacted of his Ordinary, it did require more of his obedience, than his curiosity. Otherwise should all men be so affected as to demur on the commands of their Superiors, in matters of exterior order and public government, till they are satisfied in the grounds and reasons of the said commands; or should they fly off from their duty, at sight of every new device that was offered to them; there would soon be a speedy dissolution both of Church and State. And to that purpose there was used a speech from Tacitus, 
b Hist. l. 1.  viz. Si ubi ●ubeantur quaerere singulis liceat, pereunte obsequio imperium etiam intercidit. So far you cite him rightly, (which I wonder at, being a fault you are not guilty of too often) save that you left out that of every new device, there mentioned: as loath to be conceived 
c Whereas indeed he is but a Divine of invention, etc. p. 1.  a Divine of invention; affecting as you do, to be accounted one of judgement. What you reply to this we shall forthwith see: that which concerns the encouragement given to the Bishops and other Ordinaries, by his sacred M tie, first being wiped off in this short parenthesis 
d pag. 61.  the contrary whereof you have showed in the precedent Chapter. Short work, believe me, you have as ready a way to confute an Adversary, as he that undertook to confute the Cardinal, with these two words, Mentiris Bellarmine. But since you do appeal to your performance in that Chapter, we must observe your method also, (being you are so good an Artist) and ●ell you with more truth, though not more words, that I have shown the contrary in the former Chapter, to that which you affirm in this so bravely.  
Your answer to the next is more, but not more material. The Doctor told you that the Ordinary of his own authority, might (if he pleased) appoint the Communion table to be set up in the place where the Altar stood, and there placed Altarwise as in the Mother Churches, and the Cappels Royal. And he had good authority, he thought, for what he said; His sacred Majesty having so declared it in the decision of the case about S. Gregory's: affirming then and there, that it properly belongeth to the place and function of the Ordinary, to give direction in that point, both for the thing itself, and for the time, when and how long, as he may find cause. O mentis aureae verba bracteata, 
e pag. 59  His Majesty's Rescript fit to be written in plates of gold, is this, and this only, concerning the point of controversy. However you applaud not His Majesty's approbation and confirmation of what was done by the Dean and Chapter of S. Paul's, in the case there handled; as crossing ex diametro your own resolutions: yet this particular clause you have selected for an Euge tuum, a passage not to be extolled sufficiently. But not being constant to yourself, we must expect● you should confute it, and so eat your words. Nor do you mean our expectation should be frustrate. For entering on a vain discourse of Episcopal government, which is to be, you say, by 
f pag. 65.  Canan Law, not by Canon shot: you fall to telling us, that they neither have, nor challenge any exorbitant power ●ver their Clergy, Laws, Canons, and Acts of Parliament (with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (especially over ●ct of Parliaments;) that they must govern with a power of moderation, not of domination; that sitting in their Chairs they are to judge according to the Canons, and not of the Canons: 
g pag. 66.  that whatsoever power the Prelate's had in former times of making Canons, and inflicting penalties in the same, it was all taken from them by K. Henry 8. and therefore if the Ordinaries now command where there is no Canon in force, it lays a burden and grievance upon the subjects, from which they may appeal as a thing unjust; and Appeals being in the Canon Law, as ancient in the Church of God as the Canons themselves; and purposely allowed of, because possibly a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling and waspish humour of his own, in stead of a Canon; Hereupon you conclude, (whatever hath been said of his sacred Majesty in those his mentis ●u●eae verba bract●ata) that it is untrue, 
h pag▪ 67.  that the Ordinary hath any authority of his own, (as he is Ordinary) to place the holy table in one or other situation. And therefore for your part, (Let the King use his pleasure in approving and confirming what he hath a mind to;) 
i pag. 69.  the Liturgy continuing as it is, you had far leiver ●e ●e that should obey (without offence to any man in place be it spoken) than he that should peremptorily command i● this kind of Alteration. And as for the obedience of the people, the Ordinary may indeed expect it, 
k pag. 68  If he command according to the Laws and Canon● confirmed, for otherwise he is in his excentrics, and moves not as he ought to do: Nay, if the Ordinary should command where there is 
l pag. 66.  no law or former Canon in force, being it is a thing unjust that he should so do, it is by consequence, of a nature, whereunto obedience is n● way due. 
m pag. 67.  Not that you would advise any Clergie●an of what degree soever, to oppose his Ordinary, either in this or any other particular of so low a nature; no God forbid; you have more wit I trow then so; but that you have a mind to lay such grounds, as any factious spirit may fly out upon, without more advising. For tell me, to what purpose else is all this discourse? His Majesty being the best Interpreter of the Canon, hath left the matter absolutely unto the Ordinary, as properly belonging to his place and function: yet if the ordinary do command it, he is in his eccentricks, commands a thing for which there is no law or Canon, judgeth not by the Canons, but of the Canons, governs his Clergy as a General doth his Army in a drunken mutiny; rather affects a domination than a moderation, and finally proposeth somewhat out of a peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour, to which obedience is not due, non si me obsecres. What is this 
n Here i● not only I C. but T. C. up and down, p. 70.  up and down think you, I. C. or T. C. as you phrase it pag. 70? This is an excellent kind of Argumentation, to weaken not alone the Episcopal, but the Regal power: as if the one had no authority to interpret Rubrics; nor the other to proceed according unto that interpretation. He that can gather any better conclusion from such factious premises, must have some Lincoln Logic, which never grew in either University. I will not tell you here, that I conjecture you do aim at some particular, in this extravagant discourse; as if all matters of the Church were carried in a higher strain than they ought to be; because in a more orderly and canonical way than your queasy stomach can admit of: but I must tell you needs, that you have falsified most abominably the Council of Nice. You tell us, it is possible, a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour of his own in stead of a Canon; from which there lieth an Appeal by the Canon Law: And for that purpose cite those words of the Council of Nice, cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But as you do translate them falsely, for your private aim; so you have made the Council say what it never meant. The Council speaks not there of any possibility, that Bishops should propose unto themselves their own peevish, waspish, wrangling humours, in stead of Canons. All that it saith is this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 
o Council▪ Nicen. c. 5.  It is required that no man should be excommunicate by his Bishop, either out of weakness, stomach, or any other kind of harshness; and that there should be Synods twice in every year, for the particular examination of such matters. Call you this a proposal of their own waspish, wrangling and peevish humours, in stead of Canons? But that you have a Licence to say what you list, you durst never have said it.  
And yet, I think we may forgive you both this and that extravagant discourse which before we spoke of. For you have made us very fair amends, Amends for Ladies saith the play, in that which followeth; and so confute yourself to save me a labour. You tell us out of Bp Bilson, 
p pag. 66, 67.  That whatsoever by the laws of God, the Prince, or the Church, is once constituted, is no longer to be mooted upon, but absolutely obeyed by all inferiors. And what God, the King, and the Church have directed, is not to be put to deliberation, but to execution. Your Author, a most reverend and learned man, speaks plainer than you do, who do affect most miserably in all your style too much of the Barrister. 
q Perpet. government of Ch. ●. 14. p. 295.  What is decreed (saith he) by Superiors, must not by inferiors be debated whether it shall take place or no; but be rather obeyed with readiness. So that in all cases determined by the laws of God, the Church, and the Prince, consultation is both superfluous and presumptuous; execution is only needful. And now I would assume, did I not think it would offend you, but by the King it is determined, that it doth properly belong unto the Ordinary to place the Communion Table where he thinks most fitting, in reference both to place and time. Ergo, what ever you have said in your last discourse, is either to a very factious and undutiful purpose, or to none at all. In the next place, you grant it to be true as the Doctor saith, 
r pag. 67.  That in all doubts that do arise, how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in the Liturgy, a deciding power is left to the Bishop of the Diocese: But than you say, 
s pag. 67.  It is as true, that the Doctor dasheth out with an etc. the main proviso of this power; so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this book. What then? Therefore it is untrue, that the ordinary hath an authority of his own (as he is Ordinary) to place the holy Table in one or other situation, more than what is given him (in case of doubt and diversity only) by the foresaid Preface. This is just hide and seek, or the blindman's buf●e. The Preface gives the Ordinary a deciding power, in case of doubting or diversity, and in that case only: yet when there is a doubt, and difference about the placing of the Table, either he hath no such deciding power, or else may not use it. The ordinary hath no authority, but what is given him by the Preface, and the Preface gives him an authority which he may not exercise. These are like sick men's dreams, 
t Horat. de ●●te.  Cujus, velut aegri somnia, vanae Finguntur species, things of ill coherence. And if you hope to save yourself by the proviso, so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this book, you are wide as ever: that contrariety which you dream of, being taken away, by that decision of his Majesty, which you have honoured with your Eulogy of mentis aureae. Nay you go further at the last, and cut your own throat with your own weapon: 
u pag. 68, 69.  Affirming that in a case of doubt, diversity, and ambiguity, the Bishop, or Ordinary, is punctually to be obeyed by those of his jurisdiction: excepting only when his said command doth expressly oppose an Article of the belief, one of the ten Commandments, or the general state and subsistence of God's Catholic Church. I think you are not of opinion, that placing the Communion Table Altarwise, is expressly opposite to either of the three here mentioned: being, as you profess elsewhere, a 
x The Bishop entering into a discourse of the indifferency of this circumstance. p. 8.  circumstance indifferent. Nor shall you challenge me for leaving out your preamble to this resolution, If he command according to the laws and Canons confirmed: unless you can make good, which I think you cannot, that any thing commanded according to the laws and Canons confirmed, may oppose expressly an Article of the faith, etc. Besides, that in your following words you speak more generally, without relation unto laws and Canons confirmed, 
y pag. 69.  that in all other cases whatsoever (except before excepted) that are dubious, the inferior is bound to believe his superior. This point, you say, well poised, would clear a world of errors both in the Church and Commonwealth; but was here handled either very impertinently, or against yourself. For your Protest, that 
z pag. 69.  you have not heard of any Ld Bishop that hath exacted of his Diocese, the placing of the holy table, as this man would have it; 
a Horat.  credat judaeus appella, Non ego. I am too well acquainted with you, to take up any thing on credit. For hark you in your ear, what mean the bleating of those sheep? 
b pag. 68  this fellows jumbling against the King and the Bishop, tanquam Regem cum Regulo, like a Wren mounted on the feathers of an Eagle? You are not such a Sphinx, I hope, but you may meet an Oedipus at one time or other. And pray you tell me ere we part, whether did you borrow that trim conceit out of the News from 
c where little Pope Reg●lios hath p●ayed such Rex. pa. 7.  Ipswich, or lent you it to H. B. before hand, to try how it relished? An excellent piece it was, believe me, and such a one as doth deserve the guerdon in Virgil's Eclogue, 
d Egl. 3.  Et vitula tu dignus, & ille.  
Having thus battered down the Episcopal power, for placing or displacing the Communion Table, which yet stands fast enough for all your assaults; you sally next upon the Vicar, Monsieur the half Vicar, 
e pag. 70.  as you call him. Angry you are at somewhat, but you dare not say what. Where doth the Doctor say (as you charge upon him) that Monsieur the half Vicar should have power to remove (of his own head) the Communion Table; or to call that an Altar, which his Rubric calls a Table, and no otherwise; to be enabled to do this by the Canons, and to be judge, yea a more competent judge of the conveniency of the standing thereof, than the Ordinary, and his Surrogates; not permitting the Church-Officers to do what they are enjoined by their immediate Superiors? These Myrmidons, I assure you, swarmed out of your strong fancy only, and are not extant any where in the Doctor's book, nor by you huddled up in your broken Cento. You only charge the Doctor there, 
f pag. 61.  for saying that the Vicar might desire to have an Altar, i. e. to have the Communion Table placed Altarwise, at the upper end of his Quire. And why not so? Desire to have a thing done thus, and thus, implies not any grant of power to do it. To have a power of ones own head to remove the Table, and to desire to have the Table placed Altarwise; are as far asunder, as you are from obtaining the office of an Arch B▪ although perhaps you may desire it. Nor doth the Doctor say in ter●inis, that it was lawful for the Vicar to call that a● Altar, which the Rubric calls no otherwise than a Table; but that 
g Coal.  the Epistoler (whosoever he was) had no reason to suspect, that any propitiatory sacrifice was aimed at by the Vicar of Gr. although he used the name of Altar for the holy table. Or had the Doctor said so in terms express; had it been either ʰ novum crimen, or ante h●c tempus inauditum? May we be sure, upon your word, that because 
i pag. 76.  names were first invented to divide and sever one particular thing from another; or that a thing cannot have two proper and distinct names; therefore the holy Table may not be called an Altar. Is it not told us in the letter, 
k Coal from the Altar, p. 32, 33, 73.  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 there (or thence) participated by men. And have not you yourself informed us ou● of Cardinal ●eron, that it is ever called a Table when it points to the Communion, and an Altar when it points unto the sacrifice, pag. 102. I see your memory is not altogether so good as your invention. Several respects may give the ●ame one thing, two names; as several capacities to the selfe-●ame person. There is a licence to your book, subsigned john Lincoln Dean● of Westminster. Bishop of Lincoln, and Deane of Westminster, are two distinct and proper names; and yet no doubt you would be sorry they should not both belong to the same one man. Your other reason, that it should not▪ 
l Letter to the● Vicar.  be called an Altar, because the Church in her Liturgy and Canons do call it a table only, is no such 
m And is a stronger one than your head-piece is capable of, p. 75  strong one, but that an ordinary head-piece may be fit to hold it. The Liturgy and Canons both, do call the Eastern part of the Church by the name of Chancel 
n Rubr. before the Communion, and ●anon 82. . The Table in Communion time shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel. So the Liturgy. The Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel. So the Canon 
n Rubr. before the Communion, and ●anon 82. . What then? Therefore, according to your reason, the Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Chancel only; why doth the Epistoler so often call it a Choir, and you not check him for it? That which you bring us from Barba●us, 
o pag. 75.  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; beside, that it is nothing to the purpose, is by you falsified of purpose, to help at need. Barbatus hath not in your margin any one syllable, that looks that way: 
p Barbatus in Clement. de elect. c. 1. n. 11.  Vbicunque habemus legem vel Canonem, non debemus allegare rationem, nisi lege vel Canone deficiente. What hath this rule to do with names and appellations, that speaks of neither? You should first learn to construe a piece of Latin, before you take upon you to be a disputant. There is another pretty fetch concerning Altars, which I will put off to the sixth Chapter, where we shall look on that discourse, which you have given us, piece by piece of the name of Altar, though sorry you should force me to waste my time in such a needless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this is.  
What follows next in your said Cento? Because 
q pag. 61, 62.  for any thing the Canon tells us, the Vicar was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, than the Bishops immediate officers the Churchwardens were, or aught to have: and that he did not any thing against the Canon, in causing the table to be disposed of to a more convenient place than before it stood in. Where find you this? Not in the Doctor certainly, if you mark him well. The Doctor speaks not any thing of the Canons generally, (as you make him speak) but of that one particular Canon, which was alleged in the letter. The Vicar, as before you charged it, desired to have an Altar, i. e. the Communion table placed Altarwise at the upper end of his Quire. The Bishop reasoneth against this out of the Canons, Anno 1571. that not the Vicar, but the Churchwardens were to provide (utensils, saith your new Edition) for the Communion, and that not an Altar, but a fair joined Table. The Doctor hereunto replies, 
r Coal from the Al●ar, p. 10.  that for any thing those Canons (and not the Canon) tell us, the Minister (as in this case the Vicar) was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, being so provided, than the Churchwardens were or aught to have. And that the Vicar did not any thing in this case against the Canon (i. e. the Canon then proposed) for he provided not the table, but only caused the table which he found provided, to be disposed of to a more convenient place than before it stood in. Have you found any thing in those Canons that affirms the contrary? If yea, why▪ do you not produce it? If not, why make you such a clamour upon no occasion? The Doctor neither there, nor elsewhere, doth justify the Vicar's Act, peromnia; nor indeed in any thing, if he did any thing in this, against the Canon: but saith in one 
s Coal, p. 10.  place what he did▪ and in another what he thought 
t Coal, p. 51.  to be most convenient. Nor could the Doctor but conjecture out of the Preamble of the letter, that the Vicar did acquaint the Bishop with his desires, and found from him a toleration at the least, if not an approbation, as before I said. Yet upon this weak ground, which will bear no foundation of a solid building, you run into a long and vain discourse, of the authority and office of Bishops, Archdeacon's, and Churchwardens: for ostentation of your reading, and that you have a mind to traduce the Doctor, as if he held ●ome 
u I am sure this te●●t is in the highest degree Jesuitical. p. 71.  jesuitical tenets which might in time prove prejudicial to the estate of Bishops. All that I can collect from thence, is, that you are beholding for your observations to one or more Archdeacon's of your near acquaintance: who were not willing, as it seems, to take all this pains for you, and do no honour to themselves. Yet let me tell you as a friend, you trust them somewhat further than a wise man would; and suffer them to plume themselves with the Bishop's feathers: taking that power unto themselves, which you full fain would fix originally in the Diocesan. For what say you, from them, to the point in hand? whether or not the Vicar ought to meddle with the holy table. It is, say you, 
x pag. 78.  not the Ordinary, but the Apostles themselves, that have turned the Parsons and Vicars from being active in this kind, to their diviner meditations. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God to serve table. Since when, from the first Deacons, then appointed, to our 
y pag. 79.  present Archdeacon's (in whose office the ancient power of the Deacons is united and concentred) Incumbents have been excluded from meddling with the Utensils of the Church, or Ornaments of the Altar. But see you not withal, that by this reason the Bishops are excluded also. For were they not the Apostles, of whom it is affirmed, that it was no reason that they should leave the word of God to serve tables? And who sustain the place and office of the Apostles at this day, if not the Bishops? See what credulity, and too much confidence in your friends hath brought upon you. I question not the matter now, meaning to meet with that hereafter. Besides, you suffer your Archdeacon's to use the name of Altar without offence; which you conceived to be so capital a crime in Monsieur Vicar. 
z pag. 79.  Ornaments of the Altar,— The very Altar itself with the Rail about it,— To move and remove the Altar: Altar thrice used in half a page, and you check not at it. The rest of your dismembered Cento, and the good sport you make yourself, touching the advancing of the Churchwardens above their Minister, & whatsoever other shreds you have patched together for your more delight, are not considerable in this place, or to this purpose. It is the Doctors undertaking, to answer to your arguments, and not your scorns: Nor loves he, howsoever you like of it, to have his portion with those men that sit in the seat of the scornful.  
But non bonum est ludere cum Sanctis. What sport soever you are pleased to make with him; take heed how you offend against God and piety. The piety of these times, though you are fully bend to make sport therewith, is no such waking dream, that you should set yourself to deride it, in so gross a manner. The Doctor tells us of that letter, that it 
a Coal from the Altar. p. ●.  was spread abroad of purpose, the better to discountenance that uniformity of public Order, to which the piety of these times is so well inclined;— of purpose to distract the people, and hinder that good work is now in hand. This is the game you have in sent, and having taken up the cry, follow it up and down over all the book: not here alone, where ex professo you pursue it, but pag. 188. 192. 197. 214. 228. etc. This, be it what it will, you tell us, is as 
b pag. 64.  yet in abeyante, pendant in the air, you know not where; and like yer long to fall upon our heads, but you know not when: 
c pag. 83.  that you have opened your eyes as wide as possibly you can, but cannot discover it: Or 
d pag. 84.  if there be such an especial inclination of these times to piety, it is a peculiar piety (you assure us so) differing from the piety of former times. And therefore you do 
e pag. 85.  reasonably presume that this good work in hand is but the second part of sancta Clara, with whom you make the Doctor tamper in points of 
f I am afraid 〈◊〉 judicious Divines that tamper so much in doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in discipline with Sancta Petra. p. 71.  doctrine, as in the points of discipline with sancta Petra. But tell me I beseech you, conceive you uniformity, and uniformity of public Order in the officiating of God's divine service, to be no good work? And find you not the piety of these times, inclinable in an higher degree to that uniformity, than any of the times before? When did you ever find a King, that did so seriously affect Church-work; or that hath more endeavoured to advance that decency and comeliness in the performance of divine Offices, which God expecteth and requires, than his sacred Majesty? His own example in the constant keeping of the hours of prayer, and most devout behaviour in the acts thereof: think you they are not sweet incitements unto all his subjects, to follow those most pious steps in the which he walks? 
g Vel. Paterc. l. 2.  Recte facere cives suos Princeps optimus faciendo docet. His Majesty's religious carriage in the house of God, and due observance of those Orders which the law requires in common people, is a more excellent Sermon upon that text, than ever you yet preached on any. They must be needs exceeding dull, or somewhat worse, which will not profit very much by such heavenly doctrine. If you have opened your eyes so wide, as you say you have, it is not that you cannot, but you will not see it; and are grown blind, not out of want of sight, but want of piety. Add to all these, the Princely zeal of his magnificent heart, for the repairing of S. Paul's; by which example, questionless, the other Churches in this land will far the better. And add to that, his Majesty's most sacred care, that in all places where he comes in Progress, what scantness of room soever was wont to be pretended, no consecrated place shall be profaned by those employments, to which they have been put in the times before. And see you nothing all this while, no good work, no piety? Then look into those Country Churches, to which his Majesty in his times of Progress repairs most frequently for hearing and attending Gods public service: leaving the privacy of his own Court, and presence, to set a copy to his people, how to perform all true humility and religious observations in the house of God. If you see nothing yet, and that there must be something which hath spoiled your eyesight; it is the too much light you live in: by which you are so dazzled that you cannot see this part of piety, or else so blinded that you will not. And we may say of you in the Poet's language, Sunt tenebrae per tantum lumen obortae. Then to go forwards, descendo, can you remember any Metropolitan of and in this Church (and gather all your wits about you) which hath more seriously endeavoured to promote that uniformity of public Order, than his Grace now being? His cares and consultations to advance this work, to make Jerusalem (if such as you disturbed him not) at unity within itself, are very easy to be seen: so easy, that it were sensibile super sensorium ponere, to insist long on it. The very clamours raised upon him, by those who love nor unity nor uniformity, and have an art of fishing with most profit, in a troubled water; are better evidence of this, than you have any in your book to maintain the cause. Nor hear we any of the other bells, which are not willing for their parts to make up the Harmony; but that great Tom rings out of tune. For when did you or any other know the Prelates, generally, more throughly intent upon the work committed to them; more earnest to reduce the service of this Church to the Ancient Orders, appointed in the Common-prayer book? It is not long since, that we had but half prayers in most Churches; and almost none at all in some, your friend I. Cottons for example. See you no alteration in this kind? Is not the Liturgy more punctually observed of late, in the whole form and fashion of God's service, than before it was? Churches more beautified and adorned than ever since the Reformation; the people more conformable to those reverend gestures in the house of God, which though prescribed before, were but little practised? Quisquis non videt, coecus; quisquis videt, nec laudat, ingratus; quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est; 
h August de Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 7.  as the Father hath it. This, if ingratitude to God, and obstinate malice to his Church, hath not made you blind, you cannot choose but see, though you would dissemble it: And if you see it, do you not think it a good work? and is there not a piety of and in these times, which more inclines to the advancement of that work, than of the former? would any man, that only wears a form of godliness, make this his May-game; and scornfully entitle it the 
i pag. 85.  imaginary piety of the times, and the Platonical Idea of a good work in hand? Take heed, for vultu l●ditur pietas. Laughed you but at it in your sleeve, you had much to answer for; but making it your public pastime, you make yourself obnoxious to the wrath of God and man, both for the sin and for the scandal. And as for the good work in hand, in case you will not help it forwards, (as I doubt you will not;) do not disturb it with your factious and schismatical Pamphlets.  
Having made merry with your friends, about the inclination of these times to piety, and the advancement of so good a work as the uniformity of public order: you pass, I know not how, to the Acts and Monuments, and the examination of such passages as were thence taken by the Doctor. Perhaps you are a better Artist than I take you for: And being it is Art is celare artem, you mean to tender to the world such an Art of writing, as hath no art in it. But the less cunning, the more truth, as we use to say. If we could find it so, it were some amends; and though I see but little hope, yet I mean to try. The Doctor told you in his 
k Coal. p. 14.  Coal from the Altar, that not a few of those which suffered death for opposing the gross and carnal doctrine of transubstantiation, did not only well enough endure the name of Altar, but without any doubt or scruple called the Lords Supper sometimes a sacrifice, and many times the Sacrament of the Altar. So that if they endured it well enough, in others, or used it themselves without doubt or scruple; it is as much as was intended by the Doctor. And for the proof of this, he first brings in john Fryth, relating in a letter to his private friends, that they his adversaries examined him touching the Sacrament of the Altar; whether it was the very body of Christ, or no. These are 
l pag. 86.  you say their words, not his. Why man, whose words soever they were in the first proposal, doth not he use the same without doubt or scruple? find you that he did stumble at them, or dislike the phrase? Had he been half so quarrelsome at the phrase, as you are, he might have testified his dislike in a word or two; the Sacrament of the Altar, as they call it. Yourself inform us from him, that in some cases, at sometimes, he used that qualification, as viz. p. 308. I added moreover that their Church (as they call it) hath no such power and authority, etc. An Argument there of his dissent, none here: their Church as they call it, there; the Sacrament of the Altar here; no dislike at all. You might have suffered the poor man to rest in peace, and not have called him 
m Vouz avez Fryth, Let him in God's name come up to the 〈◊〉. pag. 87.  to the bar to so little purpose. The second witness was john Lambert, who also used the word or phrase with as little scruple. 
n Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 401.  As concerning the other six Articles I make you the same answer, that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar, and no other. You quarrel this, as that before, being you say 
o pag. 87.  their words, not his; and hereunto we make that answer as unto the former: They were their words in proposition, his in repetition; especially the repetition being such as s●ewed no dislike. But where you tell us of his Answer, 
p Ibid.  viz. I neither can nor will answer one word; and thereupon infer, john Lambert answers there not one word for you: that's but a touch of your old trick, in cutting short quotations when they will not help you. john Lambert being demanded, not whether he approved the name of Sacrament of the Altar, but whether he thought that in the Sacrament of the Altar, there was the very body and blood of Christ in likeness of bread and wine; replied, I neither can ne will answer one word: what, ends he there, as you have made him? no, by no means: I neither can ne will answer one word 
q Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 401.  otherwise than I have told you since I was delivered into your hands: which was, that he would make no answer of what he thought, till they brought some body to accuse him. john lambert's other testimony used by the Doctor is, as followeth. Christ being offered up once for all in his own person, is yet said to be offered up, not only every year at Easter, but also every day in the celebration of the Sacrament, because his oblation, once for ever made, is thereby represented. Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 435. These words you challenge as not his. How so? Because it followeth in the place. 
r pag 88  Even so saith S. Augustin. Even so saith S. Augustin? what, and stops he there, as if he only said those words from that Reverend Father? Had it been so, we had lost nothing by the hand, the words being his in the Original, and lambert's in the Application: but it is not so. For thus it followeth in the place; Even so, saith Augustine, is the Sacrament of Christ's body, the body of Christ; and the Sacrament of Christ's blood; the blood of Christ in a certain wise or fashion. You may call home the Montebank, (for aught I can see) which you 
s Vouz avez An honest man, john Lambert. Put stand you by for a Montebank, john Coal. p. 8●.  bestow upon the Doctor; and keep him to yourself till the Doctor needs him. Touching Archbishop Cranmer, can you show us any where, that at the term or phrase of Sacrament of the Altar, he did take offence? if not, you give the Doctor what he 
t Coal. pag. 14.  there affirms. And since on your discovery, which I thank you for, I find it was john Fox, and not the Arch Bishop, which drew up those allegations against the six Articles (which following so immediately on the Arch Bishop's opposition 
u See the Acts and Mon. part. ●. p. 443.  to those Articles, might very easily be mistook for his, by one that is not so much studied in the book as you seem to be) we have lost nothing by the change. I trow if Mr. Fox took no offence thereat, you will have little thanks for your great preciseness. Oh but, say you, there followeth 
x pag. 88  such a peal after it, as none but a madman would cite him for this purpose: viz. This monstrous Article of theirs in this form of word● as it standeth, etc. What? doth john Fox call it a monstrous Article, only because the Sacrament is there called, the Sacrament of the Altar? If not, you might have kept your madman to yourself, as you do your Montebank. This monstrous Article of theirs in the form of words as it standeth, is, that the Sacrament of the Altar is the very natural body of Christ, the self same which was borne of the Virgin Mary. This you dash out with an &c. to make your partisans bele●ve, that no entitle the Lords Supper, by the name of the Sacrament of the Altar, was in john Fox his judgement, a monstro●● ●●ticle. Vt magno it populo.  
In citi●●●● ●ohn Philpot, you proceed accordingly. 
a Coal. pag. 15.  The D●●●●r told you out of him, in what respects the old Writers do sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, amongst other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar. To this you make reply, 
b pag. 89.  that he hath dealt with Philp●t, exceeding hardly, cutting off the head and feet of his discourse, and thereby making the quotation, almost as true a Martyr, as the man himself. First for the head of his discourse, it is no more than this; 
c Acts and Mon. part. 3. p. 23.  I must needs ask a question of my Respondent Dr. Chadsey, concerning a word or twain of your supposition i. e. of the Sacrament of the Altar, what he meaneth thereby, and whether he take it, as some of the ancient Writers do, terming the Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar. This is the head. Where 
d I am sure he hath lopped off the head, which had a shrewd tale to tell. p. 89.  is the shrewd tale it hath to tell? Doth not the head confess that it was called so by some ancient Writers? And what more find you in 
e Leaving the relation like philopoemen's A●mie, all belly. pag. 89.  the belly? Then for the feet. Demanding (as you make him say) whether he took it as the Ancients did, or for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacrament hangeth: and finding that 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. Had you reported Philpot rightly, we should have no great cause to 
f How like you john Philpot. pag. 89.  like him: but it is you that martyr the quotation, and not the Doctor. His question was, 
g Acts and Mon. part 3. pag. 23.  whether they took it otherwise than the Doctors did, as for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacrament hangeth, and to be all one with the Sacrament of the Mass, as it is at this present in many places. And finding that they took the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Mass to be all one; then, quoth Philpot, I will speak plain English, the Sacrament of the Altar which ye reckon to be all one with the Mass, once justly abolished, and now put in full use again, is no Sacrament at all, neither is Christ present in it. See you Sir, how you cheat and abuse your Reader, leaving out, in the question, and to be all one with the Sacrament of the Mass; and in the answer, that they took the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Mass to be all one; and in the resolution, which ye reckon to be all one with the Mass once justly abolished? You should have dealt more faithfully in your quotations of those books, in which each petty Chapman will find your falsehood.  
The other passage which you cite from the said Ioh● Philpot, out of the Acts and Monuments, part 3. pag. 553. viz. as touching their Sacrament, which they term of the Altar; and so make it their term, not his; that is answered in, and with the former. He doth not say, The Sacrament which they term of the Altar; but their Sacrament which they so term, that is, the Mass. The Sacrament of the Altar was the Father's language; to call their Mass so, was their own. Your other instance touching Philpot, out of the same part, pag. 571. we shall see hereafter. Concerning Bp Latimer, the Doctor told you, 
h Coal from the Altar, p. 15.  that he plainly granteth, that it (i. e. the holy Table) may be called an Altar, and so the Doctors call it in many places; but there is no propitiatory sacrifice but only Christ's. You, in your repetition, leave out this, It may be called an Altar, and make the Doctor say no more, than that old Latimer plainly granteth, that the Doctors call it so in many places: and thereupon infer, he doth not 
i pag. 90.  call it so himself. Then for the Doctors, (having first called upon him to speak truth, and shame the devil, for he is the old clipper of speeches) you tell us that it followeth in old Latimers' words, that they may be deceived in some points, though not in all things: I believe them when they say well, or as it is in the margin, 
k pag. 91.  Doctores legendi●s●nt cum venia; which you construe thus, the Doctors must be pardoned if they sometimes slip in their expressions. No matter for the margin, that comes out of season. I trust you will not justify all the marginal notes in the Acts and Mon. But as for Latimers' speech, that they might err in some points, though not in all things; it seems he did not think that they erred in this; himself affirming positively, that it may be called an Altar, as the Doctors call it; though you leave that out. You may take with you home the old clipper of speeches, to wait upon the Mountebank, and the Madman, that are there already. To the first place 
l Coal from the Altar, p. 15.  alleged from B. Ridley, viz. that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the very body and blood of Christ; you answer only as before, that they are their words, and not his; 
m pag. 91.  the words articulated upon him, and not his own. But whose soever they were in the proposition, he useth them without doubt or scruple in the repetition; which was the only point that they were produced for. Against the other passage of that Reverend Prelates, that the word Altar in the Scripture doth signify as well the Altar whereupon the jews were wont to offer their ●burnt sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper; and that S. Cyril meaneth by this word Altar, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord, etc. you have nought to answer: confessing plainly that 
n In answering to that place of 〈◊〉 objected to t●e Bishop of Lincoln, etc. ●e saith as you say. p. 〈…〉.  he saith as the Doctor doth. Which is the only fair dealing he hath found yet from you; though after you would fain retract, 
o pag. 92.  affirming that the Bp of Lincoln would smile very heartily, to see that such a passage, as this is, should be brought by the Doctor, to defend his Altars. Let them laugh that win.  
That which comes next after, is the Act of Parliament, 1 Edw. 6. cap. 1. of which the Doctor tells us, 
p Coal from the Altar, p. 16.  that it was resolved in the same, that the whole Communion should be restored, which in effect was a plain abolition of the former Mass; yet the Act was entitled, An Act against such persons as shall speak irreverently against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar. He tells us also, that in the body of the Act, that there was a Writ determined of, upon such delinquencies, wherein it is expressly called Sacrosanctum Sacramentum Altaris: and that the said Act being repealed 1 Mar. cap. 1. was afterwards revived by Qu. Eliz. and every branch and member of it, 1 Eliz. cap. 1. So that the Act being still in force, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to this day entitled in the Statute law, the Sacrament of the Altar. This Statute you affirm to be produced by the Doctors with the same felicity as the Martyrs were, 
q pag. 92.  that is, to witness point blank against himself: the Dr, only peeping over the wicket, but, as you say, not daring for his ears to open the door, and look into the body of it. Why do you think the Doctor should be such a flincher? First, as you say, 
r pag. 93.  because the Sacrament of the Altar was not the name, but the addition only to the name of the blessed Sacrament; the very name itself being the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ: the one the name, the other the 
s pag. 94.  nickname, as you call it. This said; 
t Ibid.  you fall upon the Doctor, and bid him come with shame enough into the body of the Act, and see what impostures he printeth for the people: because forsooth it is there called the comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, and in Scripture the Supper and Table of the Lord. Good angry Sir, do you find any imposture here on the Doctors-part? Affirms he otherwise, than that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper was, and is by that Statute (still in force) entitled also by the name of Sacrament of the Altar? It is, you say, a penal law, and being it was a penal law, it was to speak ad captum vulgi. Do you not call to mind, that you told us lately of the Queen's Injunctions, 
u pag. 44.  that they were directed to her Subjects, not unto her Mathematicians; and of the Rubric in the Liturgy, that it was made for people 
x pag. 52.  that were no Geometricians: and then conclude the point out of Chancellor Egerton, that 
y pag. 54.  words must be taken sensu currenti, custom and use being the best expositor both of Laws and words? Take the Impostor home with you to make up the mess; and than you have a Mountebank, a mad man, the devil an old clipper of speeches, and the said Impostor to keep you company.  
You challenge upon all, and on no occasions, a special interest in antiquity; and cite, as you have cause sometimes, some of the Ancients that call it the Sacrament of the Altar: yet tell us, upon better thoughts, that it is called so indeed, but not by the law of God, 
z pag. 95.  nor by the law of man; but commonly, that is, by the common error and Popery of these times. The Papists are beholding to you, for giving them such interest in the Ancient Fathers. The Fathers call it so, and it was called so only by the common error and Poperic of these later days. Do not you make the Father's exceeding young, or Popery exceeding old, in that you make the Fathers and Popery of an equal standing. Your slender observation, that in those times this very Sacrament was called the Mass, and allowed to be called so by Act of Parliament, (you mean it is so called in the Liturgy, confirmed that Parliament, 2. & 3. Edw. 6. c. 1.) is not worth the noting. Yet thereupon you make this inference, that if the Doctor shall report of you, that you have said Mass, when you have only administered the Communion, you will have your remedy against him, as in case of slander. And well you may. You know that Statute is repealed, there being another Liturgy confirmed by Parliament, which makes void the old. But so it is not with the Statute touching the Sacrament of the Altar, which is as much in force as the second Liturgy. Nor need you fear that any man will report of you, that you have said Mass, when you have only administered the Communion: though some perhaps may say (and bid you take the remedy that the law allows you) that you, or some good friend of yours, have offered to say Mass, there where you ought to have administered the Communion only. Be not too busy on your challenges, as you love yourself; lest some adventurous Swordman bid you do your worst, and take up the wasters.  
As for the Writ, directed in the body of the Act to my LL. the Bishops, you say it doth not 
a pag▪ 96.  call it (as the Doctor falsifyeth the Act) Sacramentum Altaris, but only that it was grounded on the Statute made concerning the Sacrament of the Altar. Why Sir, the Doctor doth not say, that the Writ calls it so expressly; 
b V. Coal from the Altar, p. 16.  but that it is expressly called so in the Writ. And if you have no better answer to the Writ, than unto the Statute, both Writ and Statute will hold good against all your Cavils: and the poor Doctor may be 
c How many Precedents of that writ, can t●is great La●yer show in the book of Entries. p. 5. 95  Lawyer good enough to defend the Writ, although there were no Precedents thereof in the book of Entries. You saw the weakness of this plea, and thereupon you adventure on a further hazard. You tell the Doctor, elsewhere, of his great presumption in offering to 
d Correcting Magnificat, p. 77.  correct Magnificat: and that being never in such grace, as to be made Lord Keeper of the great seal of England, he 
e pag. 23.  should presume to give a man a call to be a judge, who died but an Apprentice in the laws. Yet now you fall on both those errors, of which you have already pronounced him guilty. For you must needs correct the Statute, which the whole Parliament (wiser I take it than yourself) hath thought fit to stand: and tell us of the Writ, (which yet my Lord Bp of Lincoln, when he was Lord Keeper, had no power to alter) that it 
f pag. 97.  ought to be issued contra formam Statuti concernentis sacrosanctum Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Dominici; whereas the Statute gives no warrant for any such Writ to be issued from the Court of Chancery. Had you authority of making either Writs or Statutes, I doubt not but your first Statute should be this, that it should be lawful for any man wheresoever, or whensoever he saw the holy Table placed Altarwise, to call it a dresser; and then a Writ to be awarded against all those that should speak unreverently of your said service of the dresser. At least it should and might be lawful for the rude people so to call it, and none so bold as to control them. On them indeed you have trans-ferred it, in your new edition of the letter, to excuse the Bishop: but than you never tell us, as you might have done as well in the same Edition, how sorely they were reprehended by the Bishop for it. Here very unseasonably, and by some 
g pag. 98.  Susenbrotus figure, you have brought it in; and seem exceeding angry (as I think you are) that it should be so Prynned and pinned on the Bishop's sleeve. But be not so extremely angry though mass: Prynne may furnish you with as good a note as that when occasion serves; and recompense you for the use of your Dresser by some trick of law. But where you say, that 
h Ibid.  if one Bishop of Lincoln, and one Deane of Westminster, shall speak irreverently of the Protestants table, (I thought assuredly, it had been the Lords Table) calling it oyster-table, and oyster-boorde; by this new figure of the Doctors, all Bishops and Deans of those two places must till the end of the world be supposed to do so: you make a strange non sequitur which the Doctor meant not. He knows there have been many Bishops and Deans of either, of such a noted piety, as no man can suppose it of them. All you can thence conclude is this: that as there was a Bishop of Lincoln, and a Dean of Westminster that called the Lords table standing Table-wise, or in the middle of the Chancel, by the name of oyster-boorde: so to cry quits with them, there is (as you have now discovered him) one Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, that calls it standing Altarwise, by the name of Dresser. As for john Fox his marginal notes of the blasphemous mouth of Dr Weston, (the Dean of Westminster) calling the Lords table an oyster-boorde, pag. 85. and Bishop White, (than Bishop of Lincoln) blasphemously calleth the board of the Lords Supper an oyster-table: those you may either take or leave, as your stomach serves you. And sure it serves you very well, you had not fall'n else on the Bp of Norwich with so good an appetite, and furnished some of your good friends out of the Index of your Author, with an excellent note, against the next Edition of the News from Ipswich. But this is not the only thing wherein H. B. and you have imparted notes to one another; as may most manifestly be discerned in that general Parallel, which I have elsewhere drawn between you. At this time I shall only note how much you are beholding unto your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the back-doors of your books, your Indices. Here 
i pag. 98  we are furnished with a note out of the Index of john Fox, touching a Bishop of Norwich his sending forth letters of persecution. Pag. 129. you certify us from the authority of the same learned Index, that Bishop Ridley ordered the Communion Table to be placed, not Altarwise, but as a Table. Nor could you enter into the Fathers but by this backdoor, and there you found by chance (such good luck you have) that, Sacrificium Altaris 
k pag. 116  was foisted into the Index of S. Austin, by the Divines of Louvain, as into others of the Fathers by the Priests and Jesuits. We now perceive what helps you had, to clog your margin with such a numerous and impertinent body of quotations, as serve for very little purpose, but to make a show; a general muster, as it were, of your mighty reading.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of taking down Altar's in K. Edw. time; altering the Liturgy first made; and of the 82. Canon.  
The Doctor leaves the Minister of Lincoln's Method, for this Chapter to keep close to England. Altars not generally taken down in the fourth of K. Edw. 6. The Minister of Linc. falsifieth the Bishop's letter to the Vicar; and palters with a passage in the Acts and Mon. to make them serve his turn about the taking down of Altars. A most notorious piece of nonsense in the new Edition of the letter. The Altars in the Church of England, beaten down in Germany. Altars not beaten down de facto, by the common people, but taken down by order, and in fa●re proceeding. Matters of fact may be made doctrinal sometimes, and on some occasions. The Order of the King but a kind of Law. The Minister of Linc. takes great pains to free Calvin from having any hand in altering the Liturgy. Land mark●s and bounds 〈◊〉 down, for the right understanding of the 〈◊〉. Calvin excepts against the Liturgy, practiseth with the D. of 〈◊〉, both when he was Protector, and after. His correspondence her● with 〈◊〉. Hooper, and ill affection to the ceremonies then by Law established. The plot for altering the Liturgy so strongly laid, that it want forward notwithstanding the Duke's attainder, The 〈◊〉 ignorance and most apparent falsehoods of the Minister of Linc, in all this business. Calvin attempts the King, the Counsel, and Archb. Cranmen. The date of his Letter to the Archb. cleared 〈…〉 given the first Liturgy by K. Edw. 6. asserted from the false construction of the Minister of Linc. as also that given to it by the Parliament. Archb. Bancroft, and Io. Fox, what they say thereof. The standing of the Table after the alteration of the Liturgy, and that the name of Altar may be used in a Church reform.  
HItherto we have followed you up and down according as you pleased to lead the way; and seen what Arguments you had against the placing of the holy Table Altarwise, 
Cap. 4.  borrowed from the Regal and Episcopal power: or rather how you answer the Doctor's Arguments from thence derived. We have gone also overall your Cavils, devised against his evidence from the Acts and Monuments; wherein he showed you how indifferently, those holy men, Fryth, Lambert, Philpot, Latymer, and Ridley, used the name of Altar, calling the blessed Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar, without doubt or scruple. And howsoever you endeavoured to stop their mouths, that so they should not speak at all; or bribe them, that they might be drawn to serve your turn: yet they have shown themselves right honest men, and stood to all things which they said at the first report. You may do well to deal more faithfully hereafter, 
a pag. 86.  in your quotations of those books, wherein all sorts of men are so throughly versed. We also have made good the Statute, touching the Sacrament of the Altar, and the condition of the writ in the same awarded, from your vain assaults; by which you cannot but perceive, that if a man should call the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, by the old known and common name, (as yourself confesseth it to be) of Sacrament of the Altar; the Law will be his warrant in it against all your fury. So far we have gone after you in your own Method. But now we will crave leave, to collect out of you into one body, what ever more occurs between the Doctor and yourself, of the point in hand, as it relates unto this Church, the Liturgies, and Canons of the same; before we look abroad into foreign parts. And this we shall the rather do, because you brought us in your last Chapter, through the Acts and Monuments, into the times of K. Edward the sixth, and Qu. Elizabeth: whom we are loath to part withal, before we have examined every passage which concerns those times and them that followed. First then, besides the statute before remembered, enacted by K. Edw. 6. and revived afterward by Q●. Elizabeth, wherein the name of Sacrament of the Altar is contained expressly: the King did set out certain 
b Injunctions giv●n by t●e most excellent Prince, Edward 6. etc. An. 1547. c. 9  Injuctions, in the said first year of his reign, where it is called the blessed Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Liturgy of the year 1549. being the third year of that King's reign, it is agreed upon both sides, that the holy Table is generally called an Altar: every where called an Altar, as in the first, and almost every where, as in your second Edition of the Bishop's Letter. Nor was it to be doubted, but that the old Altars being standing, the old name continued. The difference is, both for the time, how long they stood; and for the manner, how they were taken down; and for the Liturgy itself, on what occasion it was changed.  
First for the time, the Bishop tells us in his letter, that they stood a year or two in King Edward's time: Now you enlarge the time, to four years, as the Dr. doth: saying 
c pag. 88  they stood three or four years before the King's declaration; but in the same you tell us also, that they stood not one complete year, before the godly consideration of the people (that is, as you expound yourself, the irregular forwardness of the people) had taken them to task. That they stood four years at the least, the Doctor proves by an historical deduction out of the stories of those times. 
d Coal f●om the Altar. p. 28, 29.  In which it doth appear that An. 1547. the Act of Parliament was pass, wherein it was entitled the Sacrament of the Altar: that An. 1548. the Common-prayer book was confirmed, although not published till the next, then near at hand, which was 1549. where the word Altar is oft used, everywhere, or almost everywhere, you know not which. That in the said year 1549. an Order came to Bp. Bonner from the Lords of the Council, for abrogating private Masses, wherein it was appointed that the holy blessed Communion be ministered at the high Altar of the Church, and in no other place of the same, Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 662. And finally, that in the fourth year of his reign (Novemb. 24. 1550) there came an Order from the Council to Bp. Ridley, (who succeeded Bonner) for taking down the Altars in his Diocese. p. 699. which order coming to the Bp. 
e part. 2. p. 70●.  with certain reasons also sent from the Lords of the Council, the forenamed Bp. of London, as the story tells us, did hold his Visitation, wherein he did exhort those Churches in his diocese, wherein the Altars did remain, to conform themselves unto those other Churches which had taken them down, and had set up in stead of the multitude of their Altars one decent Table in every Church. Which exhortation, as it seemeth, did prevail so far, that not long after the Altars were taken down, and Tables set up in the Churches. That it was done thus in all other dioceses, the Doctor finds not any where, but in the letter to the Vicar: where it is said indeed, and no more but said, that on the Orders of breaking down Altars, all dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables; all dioceses aswell as that of London, as your corrupted Copy hath it. For proof of which, as you have falsified the Bishop's letters to bring it in; so you have falsified the Acts and Monuments to make it good. For where the words run on in a continued style or sense; you stop them where you list, to make them speak that, which they never meant. The words run thus in the Edition 
f Acts and M●n printed. 1596.  which you choose to make up the matter. Furthermore in the year next following, 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars in Churches, and setting up the Table instead of the same, unto Nicholas Ridley, who being Bishop of Rochester before, was then made Bp. of London in Bonner's place: the Copy and contents of the King's letters are these as followeth. Here, say you, 
g pag. 128.  the full point should be, at setting up the Table instead of the same. And then a new period to begin with the following words, unto Nicholas Ridley, etc. By this device you think to have won the day, not seeing that by this fine fancy, you have made nonsense of the first period, and very strange English in the last. For let the first be thus; Furthermore in the year 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars, and setting up the Table in stead of the same: and then we shall have letters sent, to we know not whom; which would be answered and obeyed, we know not when. Then take the second by itself; unto Nicholas Ridley (who being Bp. of Rochester before, was then made Bp. of London in Bonner's place) the Copy and contents of the King's Letters are these as followeth: and then you set the Cart before the Horse, and give us such a kind of English, as is not justifiable by the grammar of the English tongue. Besides which handling of your Author, you venture on an affirmation that you have no ground for; nay I am sure you know the contrary to what there you say. You cite us 
h p. 108, 109.  elsewhere in your book, the third Sermon of Bp. Hooper upon jonah, preached before K. Edw. An. 1550. say you, An. 1551. saith Mr. Prynne, whose account I follow. And in that Sermon, It were well then (saith he) that it might please the Magistrates to turn the Altars into Tables, according to the first institution of Christ, to take away the false persuasion of the people, they have of sacrifices to be done upon the Altars. For as long as the Altars remain, both the ignorant people, and the ignorant and evil persuaded Priest, will dream always of sacrifice. By which it is apparent, that whatsoever had been done by ● p. Ridley, all other dioceses, aswell as that of London, did not agree on putting down of Altars, and setting up of Tables, as you rashly say. Nor is it likely that the Altars generally were taken down throughout the Kingdom, until the second Liturgy was confirmed by Parliament, which was not till the year 1552 as you say yourself.  
Next for the manner how they were taken down, you tell us in the Bishop's letter, 
h Letter (in the Coal.) p. 74.  that the people being scandalised herewith (i. e. with Altars) in Country Churches, first beats them down de facto, than the Supreme Magistrate, by a kind of Law, puts them down de jure. Your Copy 
i Letter (in the holy Table) p. 17.  stilo novo relates it thus, as viz. that the people being scandalised herewith in Country Churches, first, it seems, beat them down de facto; then the Supreme Magistrate, (as here the King) by the advice of Archb. Cranmer and the rest of his Counsel did, An. 1550. by a kind of Law put them down de jure, 4. Ed. 6. Nou. 24. This alteration you have made to shift the scene a little, and carry this tumultuous breaking down of Altars, which you here describe, from hence to Germany. For you perceive by this, that he relates in the first place, 
k pag. 186.  to the reformation of Altars beyond the seas (because he speaks of Supreme Magistrates,) which the people began by way of fact, before the Magistrates established the same by way of Law. And this, you say, Luther complains of against Carolostadius, that he chose rather to hew down, than dispute down Altars. No question but the Angels which removed our Lady's chamber, from her house in Bethlem ˡ unto her Chapel at Loretto, assisted you in the performance of this miracle. It could not possibly be the work of a mortal man, to shift so suddenly a business of this weight, from England, to the parts beyond sea. 
m Aeneid. l. 1  Nec vox hominem sonat. Happy man be your dole, that are so highly in the favour of your friends and followers, that whatsoever you say unto them is received as Gospel. You had not else adventured on so fine a Legend, but that you can command belief, even from very Infidels. 
n Minut. Felix.  Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut etiam crediderint alia monstrosa miracula. But tell me between you and me, I will keep your counsel; how can this business relate unto those of Germany? because, say you, he speaks of Supreme Magistrates. Why man. Your own 
o Then the Supreme Magistrate, p. 17.  edition hath it Magistrate, not Magistrates; and will you fly off from your own? Besides you tell us in the words immediately before, that in K. Edward's Liturgy of 1549. it is almost every where; but in that of 1552. it is no where called an Altar, but the Lords board. Then you go on, and ask, why so? and presently return this answer, because the people being scandalised herewith in Country Churches, first it seems beat them down de facto; and then the supreme Magistrate, etc. Kindhearted Germans, that liking not of Altars in K. Edward's Liturgy, would beat them down at home, in their own Countries, because the people (which they never heard of) were scandalised herewith in England. Faith tell me, do you not think them very honest fellows, and that a dozen of Grantham Ale were well bestowed upon them, by the Alderman there, for doing such an excellent piece of service, to promote the cause? I need not tell you more of this trim invention, which made you falsify the letter, with a long Parenthesis, as here the King, etc. to bring in this Pageant. Only I shall advise you as a special friend, to take a care you see it entered in the next edition of the Acts and Monuments, which every time it comes into the world, grows bigger, by such hands as yours; and will, no doubt, in time grow great, and be 
p Pellibus exiguis arctatur Livius ingens. Mart.  Livius ingens.  
Well then, the Altars in the Church of England being thus beaten down by the high-Germanes, what did the English do themselves? No doubt but they did beat them down too; and so they did: the one, in your imagination only, that dainty forge of new devices; the other in very deed, de facto. And then the King came after with his bottle and bag, to learn of such good teachers what he was to do in the case de jure. First beaten down de facto, then put down the jure: first by the people, after by the King; who as the Doctor told you in his Coal from the Altar, could not but come too late to carry any stroke at all in so great business, which they had done before he came. I warrant you, the King, being young, could not contain himself within doors, but must needs run to see the sport, when he heard them at it: and being come, thanked his good people for their pains, and so sent them home. But that your thoughts were taken up amongst the Germans, you should have told your story thus: viz. That first the people beat down some de facto, and then the King much taken with the example, put down the rest de jure, and by public order. Yet had you told it thus, the Doctor possibly might have questioned you for the relation: desiring you, as formerly, to tell where you find it: either that they were beaten down, or beaten down de facto by the common people. That they 
q Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 699.  were taken down in the most part of the Churches of this Realm, the King's letters tell us: but taking down implies an orderly proceeding; beating down, hath none. And the King's letters say withal, that they were taken down on good and godly considerations: which as the Doctor thinks, 
r Coal from the Altar, p. 41.  implies some order and authority from them that had a power to do it; some secret Order possibly, from the Lord Protector, or those that after signed the letter, who meant to try this way how the thing would relish, before they would appear in it, or be seen to act it. Or put the case, some Bishops now, should on some grounds to them best known, give way unto the Clergy of their several Dioceses, to place the Table Altarwise; and then the King should signify to the Bishop of Lincoln, that it was come unto his knowledge, that in many places of the Kingdom the holy table was removed to the Altar place on certain good and godly considerations: would this be an Argument unto future ages, that this was done de facto by the Country people? Besides, why should you think the people in most places of the Realm, were scandalised with Altars in the Country Churches; when in so many places of the Realm, they took up Arms, because the Mass was taken from them. Those enterprises which you speak of, of some certain (s) Zelots' in the beginning of K. Edward's, Qu. mary's, and Qu. Elizabeth's reign, which sometimes you call good and godly considerations, and sometimes the irregular forwardness of the people, were before any law established: and therefore of no kin to these. Things were now settled by a law, and by that law the Altars were to stand as before they did. Nor durst the people in the most part of the Churches of the Realm have taken down the Altars then by law established, on any private consideration how good soever: therefore I should rather think that it was done in some places, and by authority from some Ordinaries, such whom the Lords found fittest for the alteration. You cavil with the Doctor, and reckon it 
t I will give you a short taste of his feigning and his failing. p. 2.  amongst his feign, for telling you what fine doctrine this was for the common people; viz. this your report of beating down the Altars in the Country Churches: wherein he fails, you say, because the writer only mentioneth it as a matter of Fact. But being it was such a Fact, as drew on the law, the kind of law you tell us of, which after put them down de jure: think you to meet with no apt scholars, that can tell how to raise a doctrine out of the relation? Our Ancestors in K. Edward's days were zealous of the reformation, and beat down those dressers; and why should we betray God's cause, and suffer them to be advanced? Are you assured, that none amongst your partisans will apply it so, and after vouch you for their Author? As for the Order of K. Edward, which you have slighted off with a kind of law, (as you did that in Q●. Elizabeth's Injunctions with a kind of somewhat) you still stand to that, as being neither Act of Parliament, nor Act of Council, but an Act of the King sitting in Council. A most pretty quillet 
u pag. 128.  Here is a subtlety indeed, a subtlety in print, as they use to say. But take heed, nihil odiosius est nimio acumine. You should not spend too many of your nice distinctions upon Kings and Princes.  
Now for the alteration of the Liturgy, which did indeed draw with it a full and final alteration in the thing now talked of: you take great pains to make it visible unto the world, that Calvin had no finger in it. It had been happy for this Church, if he and Beza could have kept themselves to their meditations, and not been curiosi in aliena republica, as they were too much. You say of Calvin that he was a Polypragmon 
a pag. 144.  and made his letters fly to all Princes in the world that did but look towards a Reformation: and that no man 
b pag. 145.  conceives him to be more pragmatically zealous than you do, even in those Countries which cared least for him. If so, why take you up the Bucklers for him, or think he might not stickle here, as in other places? The Doctor drew a story of it from his own Epistles; which you endeavour to refel, by making antedates, or false dates unto all his letters, and unto most of all the rest, whom you there produce. As for example: The Letter to my Lord Protector, you date Octo. 22. 1546. which was a year before K. Edward came unto the Crown 
c Ibid.  as you say yourself: what time he neither was Protector, nor was there any English Liturgy to except against. Then that Archbishop Cranmer 
d pag. 144.  did write for Bucer to come over, the 2. of Oct. An. 1549. when Bucer had been here a long time before, and being at Canterbury, writes 
e Inter opu●cula Anglicana, pa. 550.  a letter to P. Martyr, dated the 20. day of june that year: and so you make him come before he was sent for. So for the treaty with the French, whereof Calvin speaks 
f Epist. ad Buce●um.  you make that March 24. 1549. when Bucer had been here 10. months at least: and yet you date Pet. Alexander's letter 
g pag. 143. in marg.  on the same day also, writ by the appointment of my Lord Archbishop to invite him hither. And thus you toil and moil yourself, (h) pugnantia secum, frontibus adversis componere; to join such things together as are not compatible. But all is well enough so it please the people, and that you can set out the Doctor like a jack of Lent, for every boy to fling his stick at. Therefore to set the matter right, and let you see the Doctor is not so extremely ignorant in 
i See then how well, on looked into t●e stori●s of the time, p 144.  all the story of those times, as you please to make him: I will set down some bounds and landmarks as it were, for our direction in this search, such as by no means can deceive us. Know then, that 
k Io. Stow, p. 593.  on the last of jan. 1547. according to the account of those foreign States, which do begin the year at Christmas, K. Edward came unto the Crown: that 
l Imprinted at London the last day of fuly. An. 1547.  in the lulie following he set out his Injunctions, in the which many things there are, that tend unto a Reformation of Religion: and that in the 
m V. the statutes of that King.  November after, in the self same year, he held his first Parliament, wherein the distribution of the Sacrament 
n 1 Ed. 6. c. 1.  subutraque specie, was by law established. An. 1548. Feb. 11. 
o Acts and Mon. part. 2▪ p. 658.  an Order was sent forth by the Lords of the Council for the abolishing of Images; March the 13. next following, the Order of administering the Communion, 
p Ibid. p. 658.  agreed upon at Windsor, by the Prelates and other learned men, 
q Ibid. p. 659, 660.  was by the King confirmed, and recommended to the Bishops for the public use. And on the 2. of Oct. the same year, did the Archbishop write to Bucer to come over hither. 
r Bucer in script. Anglic. p. 190.  Veni igitur ad nos, & te operarium praesta in mess Domini, as the letter tells us. In the November of that year, began the second 
s 2 & 3. Ed. 6. V. the statutes.  Parliament of K. Edward, and held on till the 14. of March next after, falling in An. 1549. in the same account; in which the first Liturgy was confirmed and ratified. The tenth day after that, March 24. Pet. Alexander, Secretary to the Archbishop, writes again to Bucer 
t In script. Anglic. p. 191.  with a Veni igitur quam citissimè poteris▪ and the june after that we find him here at Canterbury, from whence he writ to Pet. Martyr, as before was said. 
u Io. Stow, p. 596.  Apr. 6. Proclamation was made for putting down the Mass throughout the Realm: 
x Id. ibid.  the july following, those of Devonshire and Cornwall rose up in Arms, desiring to have their old religion restored again; and 
y Id. 597.  on the 8. of August next, (the Kingdom being thus embroiled) the French Ambassador made defiance to the King of England. 
z Id. p. 600.  The 14. of Oct. after, the Duke of Somerset was committed to the Tower, and 
a Id. p. 603.  thence released F●br. 6. 1550. and on the 8. of April next, (being before discharged of the Protectourship) was sworn 
b Id. p. 604.  Privy Counsellor. Mean time, 
c Id. p. 605.  on jan. 22. Commissioners were sent to treat of a peace with France, which was 
d Id. p. 604.  proclaimed the last of March next after following. An. 1551. januar. 30. Mart. 
e In a postscript ad censuram, ep. 503.  Bucer died. The 16. 
f joh. St●w, p. 605.  of Oct. after, the Duke of Somerset was committed to the Tower, and on the first 
g Id. p. 606.  of December following condemned to death. An. 1552. 
h Io. Stow, p. 607. and Brooke tit. Somerset.  jan. 22. the Duke of Somerset was beheaded; and on the morrow 
i Vide Stat. 5. & 6. Edw. 6.  next began the Parliament 5. & 6. of Edw. 6. in which the second Liturgy was confirmed. This said, we shall be sure to find how matters went; and how far you have lost yourself, by your too much quarrelling.  
The Doctor thus beginneth, 
k Coal from the Altar, p. 39  It seems that Bucer had informed Calvin of the condition of this Church, and the public Liturgy thereof, and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Somerset, who was then Protector. For thus he signifieth to Bucer, 
l Epist. ad Bucerum. p. 81.  Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, conatus sum hortari, ut flagitabat praesens rerum status, &c, and then adviseth Bucer to be instant with him, ut ritus, qui superstitionis aliquid redolent, tollantur è medio, that all such rites as savoured of superstition should be took away. And how far that might reach, you can tell yourself, knowing the humour of the man, as it seems you do,  
Nay he went somewhat further yet, bidding him, 
m pag. 144.  as you note yourself, to take heed of his old fault, (for fault he thought it) which was to run a moderate course in his Reformations, mediis consiliis vel authorem esse vel approbatorem. Now Pet. alexander's letter for calling in of Bucer, bears date in March, 1549. and Bucer was at Canterbury the june next following: the first thing that he did at his coming hither, as he saith himself, being to make himself acquainted with the English Liturgy. 
n In praefatione ad censuram.  Cum primum in hoc regnum venissem, etc. librum illum sacrorum, per interpretem, quantum potui, cognovi diligenter, as he relates it to the Archbishop. Of his he gave account to Calvin; and as it seems (Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, etc.) desired some letter from him to my Lord Protector. Not as 
o He desired Calv●n to write by him to the Protector, etc. p. 144.  you dream, before his coming over hither, and before the Liturgy was published; though possibly before he had been seen of the Duke of Somerset (the hurlyburlies of those times considered.) For Calvin tells you in that letter, tumultu● jam intus sodatos esse confided, that he now hoped, that all the tumults and commotions within the Realm were composed and pacified; and also that there was a rumour of a truce with France. So that this letter must needs be dated about the Autumn after Bucers coming hither: the Rebels not being fully crushed till the end of August; and nothing, but the news of our peace within, drawing the French men to assent to a truce abroad.  
Then for his letter to the Protector, which is herein mentioned, clearly it is the letter printed, which bears not date two years before. 
p Not the letter printed, bearing date two years before p. 144.  as you with ignorance and confidence enough, have been pleased to say. For you may find the date hereof by a better character, being the ●ame with that to Bucer. For 
q Epist. ad Protect. Angl. pag. 66.  he takes notice in that letter, of those Commotions, ingentes illae turbae, which had happened here, ab aliquo tempore, not long before: as also that the alteration of religion was, in part, the cause thereof; quos ex parte mutati● i● religionis causa concitabat, as himself there tells you. So that this letter must be written ●alfe a year at least, after the Liturgy established by Act ●f Parliament, and not 
r It must be full 3. years before, etc. p. 145.  three years before, as you ridiculously compute it. As for the substance of that letter, he there excepteth against Commemoration of the dead (which he acknowledgeth however to be very ancient, as also against Chrism, and extreme unction; which last (unctionis ceremonia) you have most childishly translated 
s Chrisoms, oy●e in Baptism, and commemoration of the dead. pag. 1●6.  oil in Baptism. Which said, he wisheth illa omnia abscindi semel, that all these ceremonies should be abrogated; and that withal he should go forwards to reform the Church, 
t Quia nempe ve●iti sunt, ut major rerum muta●io fe●ri non possit, praeser●●m ubi vicino●ū ratio habenda est. pag. 70.  without fear or wit, without regard of peace at home, or correspondency abroad! Such considerations being only to be had in civil matters, but not in matters of the Church, in quo nihil non ad Deiverbum exigi fas est, wherein not any thing is to be exacted, which is not warranted by the Word; and in the managing whereof there is not any thing more distasteful in the eyes of God than 
u Idem ibid. pag. 70.  worldly wisdom, ut vel moderemur, vel rescindamus, etc. either in moderating, cutting off, or going backward, but merely as we are directed by his will revealed. Nor were these three, and that about Impropriations, the only things on which he toucheth, as you please to say. He toucheth also there on the book of 
x Quoniam ver●or ne pause ex●ē● in regno vivae 〈◊〉: major pa●s autem 〈…〉 pag. 68  Homilies, which very faintly he permits for a season only, but not allows of; and thereby gave the hint to others, who ever since almost have declamed against them. And if you think that Calvin never after meddled with the Duke, about this business, of the Orders of the Church of England; you are exceeding much mistaken. For whatsoever 
y 〈…〉.  crush he had, he lost but little of his power, though he lo●t his Office: and Calvin still addressed himself unto him for the Advancement of the work. Look in his letter unto 
z Interea sc●psi ad illu●trissimū Deuce Some●seti. p. 98.  Bullinger, dated Apr. 10. 1551. which was not quite a year before the Liturgy was altered, and he will tell you what he did: 
z Interea sc●psi ad illu●trissimū Deuce Some●seti. p. 98.  I writ, saith he, to the most illustrious D. of Somerset to this effect, that there was no hope but that the Papists would grow insolenter every day than others, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de ceremoniis, unless the difference were composed about the ceremonies. Composed, and how? not by reducing the opponents to conformity, but by encouraging them rather in their opposition: especially by supporting Hooper than Bp. of Gloucester, the principal leader of that faction, and very zealous (amongst other things) against the Altar's yet remaining, as before I showed. For so it followeth in that letter, hortatus ergo sum hominem, ut Hoppero manum porrigeret; which it seems was done, as he propounded. For in another unto Bullinger dated the 29. of August following, he certifieth to him 
a Certum est D. Hopperum episcopatui suo restitutum esse. pag. 103.  that Hooper was restored to his Bishopric. Now this being but the year before the alteration of the Liturgy, Calvin being so intent against the Orders of this Church, the Duke so forwards to comply with him; and Hooper who had no less interest in Dudley of N●rthumberland, than Calvin with the Duke of Somerset, (whereof consult your author, the Acts and Mon. par. 3. p. 147.) being so eager on the chase: it is not to be doubted but the business went forwards, though the Duke went backwards. In the relating of which story you flutter up and down, and have no consistency. You tell us pag. 147. that in the first sitting of that Parliament wherein the second Liturgy was confirmed, he was attainted, and condemned, and presently executed: whereas indeed he was attainted almost two months, and executed just a day, before that sitting. You tell us, pag. 149. that he was a condemned Prisoner, looking every day for the stroke of the Axe, when the book was passing the Committees (if at all any such Committie ever was about that Book, which I somewhat question:) whereas the Axe had done, and the stroke was past, before the Session.  
Finally, whereas, in many places of the Bishop's letter, you call the second Liturgy, the Liturgy of the year 1552. as indeed it was: you tell us here, pag. 148. of a certain Letter which was delivered to the Duke from Calvin, An. 1551. (as most true it was so) the Liturgy being then newly altered. And so by that account, the Liturgy was altered, when as the Duke of Somerset was neither attainted, condemned, or executed, as before you said. Is this your looking unto the story of the times, which you so much brag of? But as before I told you, however the Duke went backward, the work went forwards; the party being grown so well compacted, that it could go alone, without any leader: especially Duke Dudley who then ruled the roast, having a great opinion of Bishop Hooper; who being no friend unto the Altars of the Church himself, might easily induce his Patron to promote the cause.  
Next for his tampering with the King and Archbishop Cranmer, we have good warrant from his Letters. In that unto Farellus Anno 1551. he tells you of a Letter sent by him to the King by Mr. Nicolas, (one of his tell-tales 
b pag. 148.  as you call him;) and of the welcome it found both with the King, and with his Council: as also that he was advised by my Lord of Canterbury to write more frequently unto the King, than he had done formerly: Not about restitution of Impropriations, that's but your device; the Archbishop sent him no such message, unless you find it in your dreams. Calvin had other things to aim at, although he took that also as it came in his way. 
c Vide Epist. illam ad Farellun. p. 384.  In statu Regni multa adhuc desiderantur; many things were amiss that needed reformation. That was more like to be the Argument of his addresses to the King. If you will please to take his word, himself shall tell you in his aforesaid Letter unto Bullinger, that he had writ both to the King and to the Council (and so had Bullinger it seems.) What was the purpose of those letters? 
d Epist ad Bulling. p. 98.  ut ●os incitaremus ad pergendum, to set them forwards on the work which was then in hand: writing withal unto the Duke of Somerset, to countenance Hooper in his opposition to the public orders then established. Yourself have told us of him, that he was 
e pag. 144.  a Polypragmon, making his letters fly to all the Princes of the world, that did but look towards a Reformation: If to all Princes, than no question but to our King also amongst the rest; and what a kind of reformation Calvin aimed at, you know well enough. Then for his practising with the Archbishop; the Doctor tells you 
f Coal 〈◊〉 the Altar. p. 39  that he had written to him An. 1551. being the year before the Liturgy was altered, complaining in the same, that in the service of this Church there was remaining a whole mass of Popery, quae non obscuret m●d●, etc. which did not only blemish, but even overwhelm Gods holy worship. This letter being placed between two others dated the same year, induced the Doctor to believe, that it was dated that year also: and this you challenge as 
g And if we give it a date from the Printers placing of the letter, which is your childish and erroneous Criticism. p. 143.  a childish and erroneous Criticism; but bring no better of your own. Only you would fain have it dated before this year, and if it might be, two years sooner: because he tells the Archbishop there, of Chanting vespers here in England, in an unknown tongue; which was, you say, inhibited by Parliament 
h pag. 148.  full two years before the altering of the Liturgy. But if you mark it well, this will little help you. 
i Epist. ad Calvin. p. 97.  Some Minister of Calvins' (perhaps his Tell-tale Monsieur Nicolas) had from Cambridge certified him, how things went in England: particularly how all the Church was provided for, and what great spoil was made of the means and maintenance thereto belonging. But more especially that those great men, who held Abby-lands, and consequently were to pay some pensions to the Monks surviving, did put them into benefices and cure of souls, who had nor mind nor meaning to discharge that duty, ut pensione iis persolvenda se liberarent, only to ease themselves of paying the Pensions. This being certified by Calvin, by a letter dated on Whitsunday, An. 1550. in his next missive to the Archbishop, 
k Epist. ad Cranmer. p. 101  he complains of both: First, that the Church was so exposed to open Port-sale (quod praedae sunt expositi Ecclesiae reditus.) and secondly, quod ex publico E●clesiae proventu aluntur otiosi ventres, etc. that the revenue of the Church should be bestowed upon those idle bellies (and so you know they called the Monks) which in an unknown tongue chanted out the Vespers. If this suffice not for the date, then be pleased to know, that Calvin in that letter relates to somewhat that had been done by the Archbishop in the Reforming of this Church for three years before. Atque utinam te duce aliquanto longiùs jam ante triennium progressi forent; which (saith he) had they done, there had not been such superstitions left, as he there complains of. Now the first Reformation made by the Archbishop's means, was the Communion book set out 1548. for the receiving of the Sacrament sub utraque specie. To which if you will add those three years which are there remembered; you must needs date this letter as the Doctor doth, An. 1551. 
l But the Date seems to be much before Anno 1551. which is D. Coals conjecture. p. 148.  not one minute sooner.  
The Doctor hereupon concludes, as before he did, that leaving the word Altar out of the Common-prayer book last established, and other alterations which were therein made, grew not from any 
m Coal, p. 40.  scandal taken at the Altars by the Country people, but a dislike that Calvin had conceived against the Liturgy, as before was said. Of any hand that Martin Bucer had therein, more than that he had signified unto Calvin, the quality and condition of this Church, and of the Liturgy thereof, the said Doctor saith not; and this not absolutely neither, but with a sic videtur, 
n Ibid. p. 39  that so it seemed. Yet you cry out, without a cause, 
o pag. 145.  that it was the King, the Lords, and the State, rather than any incitement of Martin Bucer, that made this alteration in the Liturgy, in the point of Altars. An alteration there was made by the King and State, though not by the incitement of Martin Bucer, but of Calvin rather, that Polypragmon, as you call him.  
For, that the Alteration of K. Edward's Liturgy proceeded rather of some motions from without, than any great dislike at home; the Doctor was induced to believe, the rather, because the King 
o Co●l, p. 40.  had formerly affirmed in his Answer to the Devonshire men, that the Lords Supper, as it was then administered, was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, as the Apostles used it, and as the holy Fathers delivered it. Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 667. And secondly, because he had observed, that in the Act of Parliament, by which that Liturgy of 1549. was called in, the book of Common prayer (so called in) was affirmed to be agreeable to God's Word, and the Primitive Church. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. ca 1. Unto the first of these, you promise such an Answer, 
p pag. 150.  an Answer set down in such Capital letters, that he that runs may read. And this, no doubt you mean to do, only in favour to the Doctor, who being but a blinker, as you please to call him, would hardly see your Answer in a lesser Character.  
But first, because we know your tricks, we will set down in terminis, as the story tells us, what was demanded by the Rebels, and what was answered by the King: and after look upon the gloss which you make of both, that we may see which of them you report most falsely, and what you gather from the same.  
The Rebels they demanded thus:  

q Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 666.  Forasmuch as we constantly believe, that after the Priest hath spoken the words of consecration, being at Mass, there celebrating and consecrating the same; there is very really the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ, God and man; and that no substance of bread and wine remaineth after, but the very self same body that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and was given upon the Cross for our Redemption; therefore we will have Mass celebrated as it was in times past, without any man communicating with the Priests, forasmuch as many rudely presuming unworthily to receive the same, put no difference between the Lord's body, and other kind of meat; some saying that it is bread both before and after; some saying that it is profitable to no man except he receive it, with many other abused terms.  
Now to this Article of theirs, the King thus replied:  

r Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 667.  For the Mass, I assure you no small study nor travel hath been spent, by all the learned Clergy, therein, and to avoid all contention, it is brought even to the very use as Christ left it, as the Apostles used it, as the holy Fathers delivered it, indeed somewhat altered from that the Popes of Rome for their lucre brought it to. And although ye may hear the contrary from some Popish evil men, yet Our Majesty, which for Our Honour may not be blemished and stained, assureth you, that they deceive, abuse you, and blow these opinions into your heads, to finish their own purposes.  
This is the plain song, as it passed between the Rebels and the King. And now I will set down your descant on it, in your own words verbatim, not a tittle altered, that all which run may read, and see how shamefully you abuse your own dearest Author.  

s pag. 150, 151  The Rebels, in their third Article, (set on by the Popish Priests) do petition for their Mass (that is, that which we call the Canon of the Mass) 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 Mass and words of Consecration, (which is nothing altered in the second Liturgy) 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 Mass, or the Priests eating alone, they must excuse him: For this the Popes of Rome for their l●cre added to it. So there is a clear Answer to both parts of the Article.  
A very clear answer, if you mark it well. The Rebels make demand of the whole Mass, modo & forma, as before it had been celebrated: you make them speak only of the Canon of the Mass, and words of Consecration. The King, in his reply, makes answer to the whole Mass, as it was commonly then called, the whole form and order of the Communion in the public Liturgy, that it was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: you make him answer only of the Canon, and words of Institution, as if that were all. This is not to report an answer, but to make an answer; and draw that commendation to a part of the common Liturgy, which was intended of the whole. And yet your Inference is far worse than your Report: For you have made the King to say, that they should have a Table, and a Communion, and the words of Consecration, as they were used by 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.  
This, were there nothing else, would set you forth for what you are; a man that care not what you say, or whom you falsify, so you may run away from the present danger, though afterwards it overtakes you, and falls far heavier on you than before it did.  
Next, let us see what you reply to that which concerns the Parliament, and the opinion which it had of the former Liturgy, as both agreeable to God's Word, and the Primitive Church. And first you charge the Doctor with borrowing 
t pag. 151  that passage from father Parson's three Conversions. Whether it be in father Parsons, the Doctor knows not. But whether it be or not, that comes all to one, as long as it is so delivered in the Act of Parliament. Then for the Act itself, 
u pag. 152.  you answer, that whereas some sensual persons, and refractory Papists, had forborn to repair to the Parish-Churches upon the establishment of the English Service, the Parliament doth in the Preamble tell 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 doctrine of the Word of God, and the practice of the Primitive Church: meddling no farther with the Liturgy in this part of the Act, than as it was a service in the mother-tongue.  
I have been told, it was a saying of my Lord Chancellor Egerton, that Dr Day, once Dean of Windsor, had the most excellent arts of creeping out of the law, of any man whose name was ever brought in Chancery. That Doctor, and this Minister, are much of the same quality; our Minister being as expert in creeping out of an authority, as ever was that Doctor in creeping out of the law. But yet he creeps not so away, but a man may catch him: and catch him sure we will for all his cunning. For if we look into the Act of Parliament, we shall easily find, that not the language only, but the order, form, and fabric of the divine Service before established, is said to be agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, which I desire you to observe, as it is here presented 
x 5. & 6. Ed. 6. cap. 1.  to you.  
Whereas (saith the Act) there hath been a very godly order set forth by authority of Parliament, for Common prayer and administration of the Sacraments to be used in the mother tongue, within this Church of England, agreeable unto the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people, desiring to live in christian Conversation, and most profitable to the estate of this Realm, etc. What think you, on your second thoughts, is that so much commended by the Parliament? either the very Order itself, of Common prayer and administration of the Sacraments, or the being of it in the English tongue. It could not be the being of it in the English tongue. For then the Romish Missal, had it been translated word for word, without more alteration than the language only, might have been also said to be agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church; which I am sure you will not say. And therefore it must be the whole form and order, that godly order, as they call it, of common prayer and administration of the Sacraments, to be used in the English tongue (take them both together) which they so commended. Compare this testimony of the Parliament, with that before given of it by the King; and see if they affirm it of the language, or of the order of the service. The King affirmed that it was brought unto that use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: the Parliament, that it was agreeable to the Word of God (including Christ and the Apostles) and to the Primitive Church, including the holy Fathers. Nor did the Parliament alone vouchsafe this testimony of the first Liturgy 
y pag. 53.  Archbishop Bancroft speaking of it in his Sermon preached at S. Paul's Cross, An. 1588. affirms that it was published first with such approbation, as that it was accounted the work of God.  
Besides, john Fox, 
z Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 660.  whose testimony I am sure you will not refuse, (though you corrupt him too if he come in your way) hath told us of the Compilers of that Liturgy, first that they were commanded by the King to have as well an eye and respect unto the most sincere and pure Christian religion, taught by the holy Scriptures, as also to the usages of the Primitive Church, and to draw up one convenient and meet order, rite and fashion of Common prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, to be had and used within the Realm of England, and the Dominions of the fame. And then he adds de proprio, as his own opinion, that through the aid of the holy Ghost, and with one uniform agreement, they did conclude, set forth, and deliver to the King a book in English, entitled, A book of the Common prayer, etc. This, as it shows his judgement of the aforesaid Liturgy, so doth it very fully explain the meaning of the Act of Parliament; and that it did not, as you say, relate unto the language only, but the whole order, rite, and fashion, of the Common prayer book.  
Thus have we seen the alteration of the Liturgy; and by that alteration, a change of Altars into Tables, for the holy Sacrament. The next inquiry to be made, is how the Table stood, and how they called it; and that aswell upon the taking down of Altars, An. 1550 in some places by the Kings own Order; as on the general removal of them, by the second Liturgy. First for the placing of the Table your own Author tells you, 
a Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 700.  that on occasion of taking down the Altars, here arose a great diversity about the form of the Lords b●ard: some using it after the form of a Table, and some of an Altar. But finally it was so ordered by the Bishop of London (Ridley) that he appointed the form of a right Table, to be used in all his Diocese: himself encouraging them unto it, by breaking down the wall standing then by the high Altar side, in the Cathedral of S. Paul. But that it was so ordered in all other Dioceses, the Doctor finds not any where, but in the new Edition of the Bishop's letter, which you have falsified of purpose to make it say so, as before was noted. Nor did the old Edition say, that they the other Dioceses, agreed at all upon the form and fashion of their Tables; though they agreed, as you would have it, on the thing itself. And therefore you have now put in these words, so soon, which tells another tale, than before was told: as if all Dioceses having agreed as well as London, on receiving Tables, did agree too, but not so soon upon the fashion of their Tables. For that it was not thus in all other places, your own Miles Huggard tells 
b pag. 48. Of the holy Table.  you; and to him I send you to observe it. But this diversity, 
c Ibid. p. 48.  say you, was settled by the Rubric, confirmed by law. What universally? There is no question but you mean it; or to what purpose do you say so? Yet in another place you tell us, that notwithstanding the said Rubric, the Tables stood like Altars in Cathedral Churches; in some of them at least, which had no privilege, I am sure, more than others had. For thus say you, 
d pag. 183.  In some of the cathedrals, where the steps were not transposed in tertio of the Queen, and the wall on the backside of the Altar untaken down, the Table might stand all along, as the Altar did. If it did stand in some, it might stand in all; and if in the cathedrals, than also in Parochial Churches; unless you show us by what means they procured that might, which could not be attained unto by any others. We find it also in the letter 
e Coal from the Altar, p. 72.  that only to make use of their covers, fronts, and other ornaments, the Tables might be placed in some of the Chapels, 
Cap. 3.  and Cathedrals, of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of: Why might not then the same be done in the Parish-Churches, which were provided at that time, of covers, fronts, and other ornaments of that nature. 
f pag. 38. of the holy table.  Yourself concludes it for a foolish dream, that the State should cast away those rich furnitures of the Chapel, provided for the former Altars; and sure it is as much a dream that they should cast away their ornaments of the self same nature out of Country Churches.  
And this I am the rather induced to think, because that in the Statute 1 Elizab. 
g 1 Eliz. c. 2.  wherein the Common-prayer book now in force, was confirmed and ratified, it was enacted, That all such ornaments of the Church shall be retained, and be in use, as was in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the 2. of King Edw. 6. until other order should therein be taken by the authority of the Queen, etc. Which makes it plain in my opinion, that in the latter end of King Edw. the ●ixt, there had been nothing altered in the point of the Church's Ornaments, nor consequently in the placing of the holy Table.  
Then for the name, it seems they stood as little upon that, as upon the former. When the old Altars stood, they called them Tables; and when the Tables were set up, they called them Altars. Your Author 
h Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 700.  could have told you at the first, that the book of Common prayer calleth the thing whereupon the Lords Supper is ministered, indifferently a Table, an Altar, or the Lord's board, without prescription of any form thereof, either of a Table, or of an Altar. For as it calleth it an Altar, whereupon the Lords Supper is ministered, a Table, and the Lords board; so it calleth the Table where the holy Communion is distributed with laud and thanksgiving unto the Lord, an Altar; for that there is offered the same sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. So when the Liturgy was altered, & the word Altar quite left out; they spared not, as occasion was, to call the holy table by the name of Altar. The blessed Sacrament itself, they thought no sacrilege to entitle by the name of Sacrament of the Altar: so did the Martyrs, some of them, in Qu. Mary's time; and the whole body of the State, in Parliament, 1 Eliz. as was showed before. Old Father Latimer speaks positively, that it may be called an Altar; though you, in the repeating of his words, have slipped aside that passage, and made him cast the common calling of it so, 
i Holy table, p. 97.  upon the Doctors, who might be mistaken. Yea and john Fox himself hath told you 
k Acts and Mon. part 2. pag 700.  in a marginal note, The Table, how it may be called an Altar, and in what respect. The Rubric was no other then, than we find it now: and yet we do not find, that any thought themselves so tied to the words thereof, as to use no other. Yet this is pressed upon the Vicar. The Church in her Liturgy and Canons calling the same a Table only, do not you call it an Altar, 
l Coal▪ p. 74.  so the old edition: do not you now, under the Reformation, call it an Altar: 
m Holy table, p. 17.  so saith the new. 
Cap. 4.  Under the Reformation? And why so? Only to make poor men believe, that Altars, and the Reformation, cannot stand together. But you are out in that, as in all the rest. The writer of the letter cannot but acknowledge, 
n Ibid. p. 16.  that the Altars do stand still in the Lutherane Churches; and that the Apology for the Augustane Confession doth allow it: the Doctors and Divines whereof, he doth acknowledge also to be 
o Ibid. p. 18.  sound Protestants, although they suffer Altars to stand. And in those other Churches of the Reformation, some of the chief Divines are far more moderate in this point, than you wish they were. Oecolampadius 
p Admittimus etc. Epistola ad Barthol. Hadder.  doth allow the Eucharist to be called the Sacrament of the Altar: affirming also, that for peace sake they would not abhor from the title of sacrifice, if there were no deceit closely carried under it: and that there is no harm, in calling the Lords Table by the name of Altar. Zanchie 
q De cultu Dei extern. l. 1.  more fully, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibuerunt altaria, aut mandarunt quod mensis ligneis ut antur; That neither Christ nor his Apostles have prohibited Altars, or enjoined wooden Tables; and therefore that it is to be accounted a matter of indifferency, whether we use an Altar of stone, or a table of wood, modo absit superstitio, so that no superstition be conceived of either. So they determine of the point; not doubting, as it seems, but that it might be lawful now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar: and which makes more against your meaning, to use an Altar also in the ministration. Which said, Ibid adieu to England, and the practice here; meaning to look abroad into foreign parts in the rest that followeth; where we will labour to find out what was the ancient doctrine in the Church of God, concerning Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars; and what the usage in this point of placing the Communion table. Yet so that we will cast an eye, sometimes, and as occasion is, on our own dear Mother, the Church of England, that we may see how near she comes both in her doctrine, and her practice, to the ancient Patterns. And we will see withal, what you have to say; and what it is whereof you purpose to arraign the poor man you wot of, in all those particulars.    

SECTION II.  

CHAP. V.  
What was the ancient Doctrine of the Church concerning Sacrifices, Priests and Altars: and what the Doctrine of this Church in those particulars.  
That Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars, were from the beginning, by the light of nature; and that not only amongst the Patriarches, but amongst the Gentiles. That in the Christian Church there is a Sacrifice, Priests, and Altars, and those both instituted and expressed in the holy Gospel. The like delivered by Dionysius, Ignatius, justin Martyr, and in the Canons of the Apostles. As also by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and S. Cyprian. How the Apologeticks of those times are to be interpreted, in their denial of Altars in the Christian Church. Minutius Foelix falsified by the Minister of Linc. What were the Sacrifices which the said Apologeticks did deny to be in the Church of Christ. The difference between mystical and spiritual sacrifices. S. Ambrose falsified by the Minister of Linc. in the point of Sacrifice. The Doctrine of the Sacrifice delivered by Eusebius: The Doctrine of the following Fathers, of Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars: What is the Doctrine of this Church▪ touching the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. The judgement in these points, and in that of Altars, of B. Andrew's, K. james, B. Montague, and B. Morton.  
IT is the observation of Eusebius 
a De praeparat. Evangel. l. y. c. 6. , that the Fathers which preceded Moses, and were quite ignorant of his Law, disposed their ways according to a voluntary kind of piety; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, framing their lives and actions according to the law of Nature, 
Sect. 2.  which words relate not only unto their moral conversation, as good men, but to their carriage in respect of Gods public worship, as religious men. The light of nature could inform them that there was a God, had not their Parents, from the first man Ad●m, been careful to instruct them in that part of knowledge: and the same light of nature did inform them also, that God was to be worshipped by them; that there were some particular services expected of him from his Creature. Of these, the first we meet with, upon record, is that of Sacrifice almost to co-aevall with the world. For we are told of Cain and Abel the two sons of Adam 
b Gen. 4. 2, 3, 4. , that the one of them being a tiler of the ground, brought of the frui● of the ground an offering unto the Lord: the other, being a keeper of sheep, brought of the first ling of his flock, and the fat thereof. This was, it seems, the quitrent which they paid to Almighty God, that supreme Lord, of and by whom they held their temporal fortunes; and from whose hands they were to look for a more excellent estate. 
c In Gen. 8. 20.  Lex naturalis aequum esse doovit, ut de do●is suis honoretur imprimis ipse qui dedit: Natural reason, saith Ruper●us, told them it was fit that God the Donour should be honoured with some part of that, which he himself had given unto them. Thus in those early days have we found a Sacrifice, and Sacrifices, as you say yourself, are not to be found without Priests and Altars. It is true, we do not read in Scriputre of any Altar, till that built by Noah, nor of any Priest, before Melchisedec. Noah builded an Altar, saith the Text, Gen. 8. and of Melchisedec it is said, that he was the Priest of the ●ost high God, Gen. 14. Not that there were no Altars nor no Priests before. For howsoever Pererius 
d In Goe 8. 20.  makes it doubtful, 
Cap. 5.  whether the use of Altars was before or not, a autem fu●rit usus Altarium, ne●ne, inc●rtum est: yet 
e Pet. de Moulin, de Altaribus & Sacr.  a good friend of yours, whose Tractat de Altaribus & Sacrificiis, you make good use of (though you scorn to tell by whom you profit) is more assured that they were in use from the first beginning. For speaking of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, he determineth thus 
f Cap. ●. , Ad haec sacrificia aras extructas consent aneum est, that it is very likely that Altars were erected for them. Then for the Priest, we need not take much pains to seek him. The Office of the Priesthood 
g V. Bilson of perpet. govern. of Ch. Ch. cap. 1.  was then in Adam, and held by him entirely, till Seth came of age, to take part of the burden from him: that dignity continuing always after in the Pater-familias, the eldest of the line or family, till the levitical Priesthood was set up by Moses. An evidence whereof we have in Noah, who though he was in years, and that his sons were young and lusty 
h Gen. 8. 20. , did yet discharge the Priestly function; Building an Altar to the Lord, and offering burnt Offerings on the Altar. Which sacrifice of his was Eucharistical, not typical: a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for his preservation from the Flood; not any way significative of Christ's to come. And therefore Scaliger 
i Scal. Emen. temp. lib. 5.  doth very truly tell us of him, that presently as soon as he came out of the Ark., 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immolavit Deo: which (saith Rupertus) Non scripta, sed naturalis lex ●quum esse docuit, was not commended to him by a written law, but merely by the law of Nature. Such evidence we also have in the story of Melchisedec, who being the eldest of his line (and commonly received for 〈◊〉, the son of Noah) is styled 
k Gen. 14. 18.  at the encounter between him and Abraham, the Priest of the most high God, as before was said: being also there reported to be King of Salem. And thus it also was, either by imitation or tradition, amongst the Gentiles. Their Princes being Patres Patriae, and consequently in loco Patrum-familias, the Grandfathers of all families in their Dominions, did also exercise the Priests, Office in their solemn sacrifices, jethro the father in law of Moses, who 
l Exod. 2. 16.  in the Text is called the Priest of Madian, is in the Margin of our Bibles, called the Prince. And Anius 
m Aen●id. l. 3.  in the Poet, is set out for both; Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum Phoebique Sacerdos.  
After when as the house of jacob was grown great and numerous, and settled by the Lord himself into the body of a Church; it pleased the Lord to signify by Moses how he would be worshipped: to prescribe certain Rites and forms of sacrifices, and for those sacrifices to appoint both Priests and Altars. These sacrifices were divided into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or gratulatory, such as was that of Noah, before remembered; and expiatory, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which did relate to Christ our Saviour, as types of that most perfect expiatory sacrifice, which in the fullness of time he was to offer on the Cross, for the sin of man. Which practice of the jews, abstracted from the end to which by God it was intended, was generally in use also with the Gentiles: whether delivered to them by tradition from their predecessors, or that it was dying spark of the light of Nature, or that they took it from the jews, whose Apes they were, needs not now be questioned. Suffice it, that however they could not reach the height of the true religion, nor knew not the intent of those frequent sacrifices which were imposed upon the jews; yet they would come as near it, as they could. And therefore as they had their sacrifices, so would they also have their Temples, their Priests, and Altars: places selected for divine worship, and Ministers appointed for those places, and Altars upon which to minister, being of like antiquity. The several gods in Rome, the Temples unto them belonging, the Altars in those Temples, and Colleges of Priests attending on those Altars, are things so generally known; that it were loss of time to insist upon them. The like may also be observed in all other places, and of all Idols whatsoever. For whatsoever the Idol represented, and by whomsoever it was worshipped, if it were once set up and honoured as a Deity, it drew along with it all those necessary attendants, which were by God himself thought fit to wait upon the true religion. The Groves and high places, the Priests and Altars destinated to the service of that foul Idol Baal, mentioned in the holy Scriptures, were proof enough of this, were there no proof else. But these things being notiora, 
n Pat●rc. Hist.  quam ut stylo egeant; I pass them over with this note: that there was never any Nation, but had some religion, nor any religion (of men civilised) but had Altars, Priests and Sacrifices as a part thereof, or as dependants thereupon. Which mutual agreement between jew and Gentile in those outward things, although not in the end proposed: made them both severally persecute and deride the Christians, as men of no religion, having (as they conceived) no Temples, Altars, Priests, nor Sacrifices, and so by consequence no God.  
For when our blessed Lord and Saviour had by that one offering of himself once for all, 
o H●b. 9 12. & 10. 14.  perfected for ever all them that are sanctified; and by his own blood entered into the holyplace, and obtained eternal redemption for us: there was forthwith an end of all those sacrifices in the law, by which this one of his had been prefigured. They had been only given 
p Col. 2. 17.  in umbra, as a shadow of the things to come: but when the body came itself, the shadow was unserviceable, and forthwith vanished. Yet did not Christ deprive his Church for ever of all manner of Sacrifices, but only abrogated those which had been before; which if continued, might have been a strong presumption of his not coming in the flesh: in which respect, those, and all other 
q Perniciosas & mortiferas esse Christianis. Hie●. Ep. ●d August.  Ceremonies of the jews, are by the Fathers said to be, not only dangerous, but deadly, to us Christian men. The Passion of our Saviour, as by the Lords own Ordinance it was prefigured to the jews in the legal Sacrifices, à Parte ante; so by Christ's institution, is it to be commemorated by us Christians, in the holy Supper, à Parte post. A Sacrifice it was in figure, a Sacrifice in fact; and so by consequence, a Sacrifice in the commemorations, or upon the Post-fact. A Sacrifice there was among the jews, showing forth Christ's death unto them, before his coming in the flesh: a Sacrifice there must be amongst the Christians, to show forth the Lords death till he come in judgement. And if a Sacrifice must be, there must be also Priests to do, and Altars whereupon to do it: because without a Priest, and Altar, there can be no sacrifice: Yet so that the precedent sacrifice was of a different nature from the subsequent: and so are also both the Priest and Altar from those before: a bloody sacrifice then, an unbloudy, now; a Priest derived from Aaron then, from Melchisedech, now; an Altar for Mosaical sacrifices then, for Evangelicall now. 
r 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25.  The Sacrifice prescribed by Christ, Qui novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, saith Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. who the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, And when be had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me. Likewise also he took the Cup when he had supped, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, do this as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me. Which words, if they express not plain enough the nature of this Sacrifice, to be commemorative, we may take those that follow by way of Commentary 
s Ib. v. 26. : For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this Cup, ye do show the Lords death till he come. Then for the Priests, they were appointed by him also, even the holy Apostles who being only present at the Institution, received a power from Christ to celebrate these holy mysteries in the Church of God. A power not personal unto them, but such as was from them to be derived upon others, and by them communicated unto others, for the instruction of God's people, and the performance of his service. Though the Apostles at that time might represent the Church of Christ, and every part and member of it; yet this gives no authority unto private men, to intermeddle in the sacrifice, but unto the Apostles only, and their successors in the Evangelicall Priesthood. Our Saviour hath left certain marks of characters, by which each member of the Church may soon find his duty. For the Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood, there is an edite & bibite, an eating an drinking, as private men; men of no Orders in the Church: but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them, only, as they are Priests under, and of the Gospel. Hoc facite, is for the Priest, who hath power to consecrate; Hoc edite, is both for Priest and people, which are admitted to communicate: and so is the Hoc bibite too by the Papists leave. Were it not thus, but that the people might hoc facere, take bread, and break, and ●lesse it, and distribute it unto one another; we should soon see a quick come off of our whole religion. The people then, being prepared and fitted for it, may edere and bibere, but they must not facere; that belongs only to the Priests, who claim that power from the Apostles, on them conferred by our Redeemer. Last of all for the Altar, we need not go far. S. Paul, in whom we find both the Priest and Sacrifice, will help us to an Altar also. He calleth it once a Table, and once an Altar 
t V. 21.  a Table in the tenth of the same Epistle, non potestis mensae Domini participes esse, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table, and the table of Devils; an Altar in the last of the Hebrews, 
u V. 10.  Habe●●us Altar, we have an Altar whereof they have no right to ●ate that serve the Tabernacle: an Altar in relation to the Sacrifice, which is there commemorated; a Table in relation to the Sacrament which is thence participated. Nay, so indifferent were those words to that blessed spirit, that, as it seems, he stood not on the choice of either: but used the 
x V. B. Mont●gues App. p. 288.  word Table to denote those Altars on which the Gentiles sacrificed to their wretched Idols; which he calls mensa● Daemoniorum, the table of Devils, in the Text remembered.  
If we consult the Fathers who lived next those times, we find not that they altered any thing in the present business, for which they had so good authority from the Lords Apostles; but without any scruple, or opposition (that we can meet with) used, as they had occasion, the name of Sacrifice, and Priest, and Altar, in their several writings. Not that they tied themselves to those words alone, but that they balked them not when they came in their way, as if they were afraid to take notice of them. 
a Cap. 3.  Denys the Areopagite (if it were he that wrote the books de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia) hath in one chapter, all those names of Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his native language; Sacerdos, Altar, Sacrificium, in the translation: the Altar being honoured with the attribute of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or divine; the Sacrifice with that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or most pure and holy. These works of Dionysius, Monsieur du Moulin, doth acknowledge to be very profitable, Vtilia sane & plena bonae frugis, but withal thinks 
b Sed posterioris avis. Tract. de Al●, cap. 7.  they are of a later date. And therefore on unto Ignatius, of whom there is less question amongst learned men: who in his several Epistles useth the aforesaid names or terms, as being generally received, and of common usage. First for the Altar, the Doctor showed you 
c p. 46.  in his Coal, that it is found there, thrice at least, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad Magnes. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ad Philadelph. one altar, and one Altar in every Church: and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Altar▪ in his Epistle ad Tarsens. what is objected against these, we shall see hereafter. So for the Minister, he calls him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Priest, which your good friend Vedelius translates Sacerdos, 
d Epist. ad Philadelph.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Excellent (or estimable) are the Priests and Deacons, but more the Bishop. In the Epistle ad Smyr●enses the same word occurs, to signify the Priest, or Minister of Christ's holy Gospel: as also that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rendered by your Vedelius, Sacerdotium, by us called the Priesthood. Last of all for your sacrific●, the same Ignatius 
e ad Smyrrens.  gives it for a rule, as the times than were, that it is not lawful for the Priest without the notice of his Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either to baptise, or offer, or celebrate the sacrifice. Where by the way, we may perceive how much the Cardinal was mistaken, in that he tells us for a certain, 
f abslinuisse non solum à vocabalo templi, sedetiam sacerdotii. Bellarm. de Cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 4.  that the Apostles and most ancient Fathers of the Church, as justin, and Ignatius, did purposely abstain from the names of Priest and Priesthood, as they did also from that of Temple: ne viderentur adhuc durare Iudaicae ceremoniae, lest otherwise the jewish ceremonies might be conceived to be in force. It is true, that for the most part, Ignatius use●● for the minister, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Presbyter, from which the French derived their Prebstre, and we thence our Priest; but doth not bind himself unto it. No more doth justin Martyr neither: for having laid this for a rule, that, God accepts no sacrifices but from his own Priests only; 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In dial. ad T●yphomem.  he adds that he admits of all those sacrifices, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which jesus Christ commanded to be celebrated in his Name: and are accordingly performed of all Christian people in the holy Eucharist of bread and wine. Performed in every place by all Christian people, as it is an Eucharist, 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  a sacrifice of praise and thanks to Almighty God, testified in and with a participation of the outward elements: but celebrated by the Priest, and especially as it is a sacrifice commemorative of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; who only have a power to consecrate those elements, which do exhibit Christ unto us. As for the Canons of the Apostles, which if not writ by them, are certainly of good antiquity, (and for the first 50 above all danger of discarding) the Doctor told you 
i p. 47.  in his Coal from the Altar, that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did occur in the third, fourth, and fifth. And now he tells you into the bargain, that in the third Canon you shall find mention of the sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and in the fourth of the oblation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. All which assurance in this cause will fall, if you compute the time, within the first 200. years, which you so much stand upon, and bate you 50. of your tale. So that you will not find, whatsoever you say, 
k Lett. to the Vicar. p. 75.  that in the Christian Church, the name of Table is 200. years more ancient than the name of Altar: both being of an equal standing, for aught I can see, and both used indifferently.  
Next these succeeded Irenaeus, of whom the 
l Co●●. p. 46.  Doctor told you, that he did prove the Lords Apostles to be Priests, because they did Deo & Altari servire: attend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at his Altars. What you except against in this, we shall see anon. Mean time you may take notice here, that we have found in 〈◊〉, both a Priest and Altar: and think you that he will not find us a Sacrifice also? Look on him but a little further, and he will tell you this, that there were sacrificia in populo, sacrificia in ecclesia, sacrifices in the jewish Church, and sacrifices in the Christi●n church: and 
m Sed species immu●ata tantum. lib. 4. c. 34.  that the kind or species was only altered. The kind or nature of which Christian sacrifice he tells us of in the same chapter, viz. that it is an Eucharist, a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God, for all his blessings; and a sanctifying of the creature to spiritual uses. Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratius agentes donationi ejus, & sanctificantes creaturam. In this we have the several and distinct Offices which before we spoke of: a sanctificatio creature, a blessing of the bread (for 
n Quemad●odum enim qui est à t●rra panis, percipiens vocationem Dei, jam non communis panis est, etc.  bread it is he speaks of) for holy uses, which is the Office of the Priest, no man ever doubted it: and then a gratiarum actio, a giving thanks unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits, which of the Office both of Priest and people. The sanctifying of the creature, and glorifying of the Creator, do both relate unto Offerimus: and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father. So for Tertullian, the Doctor noted that he tells us of the Altar twice, Si & ad Aram Deisteteris, in his Book de Oratione, cap. 14. In that de poenitentia he remembreth us of those that did adgeniculari aris Dei, Standing before the Altar, at some times; kneeling before the Altar at other times: but both before and at the Altar. And for the name of Priest, however the Cardinal was of opinion, that the Apostles and firstfathers' of the Church did purposely forbear it, as before was said: yet he hath found at last, 
o jam satis perspecta differentia inter judaeos & Christian●s. ●ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap.. 4  that Tempore Tertulliani, in Tertullians' time, (the difference 
o jam satis perspecta differentia inter judaeos & Christian●s. ●ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap. .4  between jews and Christians being well enough known) the name of Priest came to be in use; and for the proof thereof refers us to his Books, de velandis virginibus, de monogamia, & alibi: And therefore thither I refer you. Origen next in course of time, hath an whole Homily on the 18. Chapter of Numbers, entitled 
p Hom. 11. Vol. primum, p. 209.  de Primitiis offerendis. It is not to be thought that he composed that Homily of purpose, to advance the reputation of the jewish Priesthood: nor doth he, if a man would think so, give any countenance thereunto. And why? Pleading expressly for the maintenance of the Ministers of God's holy Word, he calls them in plain terms, Sacerdotes Evangelii, Priest of the Gospel, affirming first-fruits to be due unto them at the least de congruo. Would you his own words? take them thus; Decet enim, & utile est, eti●m Sacerdotibus Evangelii (N. B.) offerri primitias. Would you the reason of it also? Because he saith, the Lord appointed, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel, and they that Minister at the Altar, should live of the Altar. Where if you should suspect that he doth mean the jewish Altars, himself shall take you off from that fond suspicion. Et sicut hoc dignum & decens est, etc. and as (saith he) it is a fit and worthy thing that it should be so, so on the other side, 〈◊〉 is unworthy and unfit, if not utterly impious, that he which honoureth God, and comes into his Church, Et scit Sacerdotes & Ministros adsistere A●tari, and knoweth that the Priests and Ministers do wait upon the Altar 
q Et aut in verb● Dei, aut ministerio Ecclesiae deservire, etc. Ibid.  and labour in the Word and Ministry, should not devote unto him the first fruits of the land wherewith God hath blessed him. In the whole drift of that which followeth, he drives so clearly at this point, that it is needless in a menner to look for more; yet in his tenth Homily on the ninth of joshua he is more particular and exact, than before he was: For speaking of some persons who were mere out-side-men and no more than so, he thus describes them; viz. 
r Vt ad Ecclesium veniant, & linent caput suum Sacerdotibus. In jos. c. 9  That they came diligently to the Church, and made due reverence to the Priests, attended all Divine offices, honoured the servants of the Lord, Adornatum qu●que Altaris vel Ecclesiae aliquid conferant, and did contribute somewhat also to the ornament of the Altar or the Church. I hope there's proof enough for Priests and Altars, and somewhat also for the maintenance of those Priests that waited at the Altars, in the time of Origen. Nor will I instance further in the Fathers of those Primitive times, than S. Cyprian only: and in him only in those places to which you were directed in the Coal from the Altar, 
s p. 46.  where you were told, that l. 1. c. 7. in the Epistle ad Epictetum, it was called Altar Dei, God's Altar: and that there somewhat more occurred concerning Altars in the 8. and 9 Epistle of the same book also. Only I cannot choose but tell you, that in the last of those remembered, we have not found an Altar only, but that there is a Sacrifice and a Priest to be found there also. For there we have a maxim 
t Divino sacerdotio ●onorati. lib. 1. ●p. 9  concerning those which are promoted to the holy Priesthood, and in actual Orders, that they ought only Altari & sacrificiis deser●ire, to attend the Altar and the sacrifices, and be devoted to their prayers and orisons to Almighty God. Thrice in the same Epistle we find punctual mention of Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars; enough of conscience to declare what was the usage of the Church in S. Cyprians time.  
Which being so, a question may be justly made, how it should come to pass, that the Apologeticks of those very times, should so unanimously concur against the being of Altars in the Christian Church: especially that Origen, who is so much for it in his Homilies, should be so much against it in his Contra Celsum. 
u Orig. l. 8.  Celsus objected it against the Christians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they declined the building or setting up of Altars, Images, and Temples. Caecilius in the dialogue made the same objection: And having said not long before, Templu ut b●sta despiciunt, that they (the Christians) despised the Temples of the Gods (conceive it so) as funeral piles; 
x Minut. ●elix cited p. 157.  makes this Quaere after; Curio nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? what was the reason why they had, nor Temples, Images, nor Altars: not why they had no Altars only, as you make him say. The like is commonly objected from Arnobius also; 
y Contr. Gent. l. 2. cited by B. jewel, to which the letter doth refer.  Nos aceusatis, quod nec templa habeamus, nec imagines, nec arras: in which the words are changed a little, but not the matter of the accusation. Now as the objections seem to oppose directly, what ever hath been said before concerning Altars: so the Respondents answers seem as much to cross what ever hath been said concerning Sacrifices. Origen answers for his part, 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited p. 110.  that the Altar of a Christian was his understanding, from whence he offered to the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the most sweet and pleasing sacrifices of prayers, and a pure conscience. Octavius 
a cited p. 157.  much to the same purpose, that the most acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God, was bonus animus, & puramen, & sin●era conscientia; and briefly, 
b Sic apud nos, religiosior ille est qui justior.  that he was counted the most religious towards God, which was most just and upright towards man. So much Octavius saith indeed, yet not enough, it seems, to serve your turn; and therefore you must needs corrupt his text with a false translation: making Octavius say, that with them the bottom of the heart supplies the Altar. Whereas you find not such a word in all that period of Litabilis Hostia▪ before remembered: no Altar there, but that you have nor bonum animum, nor puram mentem; no nor sinceram conscientiam neither, in these wretched shifts. And last of all, Arnobius being asked the question, Whether the Christians thought 
c Lib. 7. in initio. cited p. 116.  Sacrificia ●ulla esse omnino facienda, that there was no such thing as sacrifice to be done at all; is made by you to answer nulla, no, none at all: a saying of (d) Lactantius being patched unto it, viz. not any coporeall sacrifice, but hymns and prai●e. What ever you may find in Lactantius elsewhere, certain I am, that you find nothing to this purpose in all that place which you have noted in your margin, being lib. 6 cap. 23. though peradventure you have studied it more throughly, that any other Book or Chapter, which concerns this point. Or if Lactantius say it elsewhere, which we contradict not, being so like to that which is affirmed by others, of, and about those times: yet might you have perceived in him, an answer to your own objections drawn from him, and them. The Question was, whether or no, the Christians had any Sacrifices; No, saith Lactantius, as you cite him, no corporeal sacrifices. Lactantius saith not of the Christians; that they had no sacrifices; but no corporeal ones. You were, it seems, so busy on some corporeal sacrifice, which you encountered with in the foresaid Chapter, that you regarded not the answer to your own objection. Nor did the Doctor otherwise reply to those allegations, which you produced from Origen, and Arnobius, out of Bishop jewel, and from Arnobius here in the place, than what you make Lactantius say, if you cite him rightly 
e Coal. p. 46. : viz. that they, (the Christians) had no Altars for bloody and external sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. Corporeal sacrifices, saith Lactantius; bloody and external sacrifices, saith the Doctor: Not bloody or external sacrifices, as you make him say 
f p. 153. ; and then fly out upon him, as your custom is, and put him to this wretched choice, either to come to that for which you have been wr●●gling all this while, viz. that they (the Primitive Christians) had no Altars for external sacrifices; or else to show that ever one father or schoolem●● did teach a necessity of an external Altar for internal Sacrifice. Let the poor Doctors (And) stand still, and he will find you Altars, in the Primitive Church, for vis●●le and external sacrifices, though none for bloody and external sacrifices. The like may be replied to that which you produce from Minutius Felix; Cur 〈◊〉 ●ullai habent, why they had no Altars. Altars they had, but no such Altars as Cecilius spoke of, none for bloody sacrifices of sheep and oxen. Had you but looked a little forwards you would have found amongst them both Priests and Bishops; 
g Alii ●os feruntipsius Antistitis & sacerdotis colere, etc.  and therefore by your own rule Altars also: the Priest a●d Altar being relatives, as you often tell us. Your Argument, drawn from a cavil 
h p. 56. 57  of julian the Apostata; that witty prince (for sooth) as you please to call him; was not thought worth an answer, when proposed by him▪ S. Cyrill who made answer unto all the rest; to his objection of not erecting Altars (as 
i justit. of the Sacr. lib. 6. c. 5. §. 15.  my Lord of 〈◊〉 rightly note●h) doth not say one word. Iuli●ns objection was about such sacrifices (as yourself confess) in which the jews had an agreement in some particular with the Pagans▪ and therefore his objection must relate to such Altars also. For that the Christians had their Alt●r●, for the Mystical sacrifice, julian knew full well, being a Reader of the Church, when he was a Christian: and having, when he was a persecutor, defiled th● Altars of the Christians, 
k 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Orat. 2. in julianum.  designed for their most pure and unbloudie sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with prohibited blood; as 〈…〉 complaineth. As for your observation out of Plin●●s Epistle, drawn from 
l p. 158. 159.  the r●cke indeed, as you truly say, there is nothing in it worth the marking. For if that, neither the Apostates, nor the tortured Virgins, confessed any thing of the Christian Material Altar; you can no more conclude against having Altars, than against having Reading pews and Pulpits, whereof they did confess as little in their examinations. And I must tell you one thing more, that if you urge these tex●s in earnest, as if you though they would or could conclude against having Altars, you may as well produce them, on your second thoughts, against having Churches: which is the next news I expect to hear from you. But of this more hereafter in our 7. Chapt.  
As for the sacrifices mentioned in Minutius Felix, and before him by Origen, in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is not, nor was ever questioned, but that the sacrifices of each ●hristian privately, were of a mere spiritual nature. The Doctor named you some of them in his Coal from the Altar, 
f p. 8.  viz. the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13. 15. as also the oblation of our whole selves, oursoules & bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to Almighty God, 〈◊〉. 12. 1. These and all other sacrifices of that nature, being spiritual merely, need no material or corporeal Altar. The readiest way by which to offer them to the Lord our God, is first to sacrifice them on the Altar of our heart by faith, and afterwards to lay them on that Altar, by which they may be rendered acceptable in the sight of God, even on Christ our Saviour. But then the Doctor said withal, that the Church allowed of a Commemorative sacrifice also, for a perpetual memory of Christ's precious death, of that his full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, to be continued till his coming again. The former sacrifices, being merely of spiritual nature, the Lord expects from all his people severally. Every man is, himself, a Priest, one of the Royal Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter, in this sense, and in relation unto these spiritual and internal sacrifices; which he is also bound to offer to the Lord his God continually, at all times, in all places, and on all occasions. No wood so wide, nor den so dark, nor sea so spacious, which may not be a Temple, for these devotions; and in the which we may not find an Altar, for these sacrifices. And these are they, done in 
g In quo accedamus fide & spiritual● cultura, in veraci cord, sine simulati●ne, in satisfactione fidei, quia nihil est visibile horum, neque Sacerdos, etc. Ambr. in Hebr. 10.  the singleness of heart, without hypocrisy and guile, whereof there is not any thing visible, neque Sacer d●s, neque Sacrificium, neque Altar, no more than is the Altar, on the Priest▪ or Sacrifice, as S. Ambrose tells us. But so I trow it is not in the mystical sacrifice, that of the Commemoration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; which purposely is represented unto the eye, that it may sink the deeper into the heart. The breaking of the bread, and the effusion of the wine, are they not sensible representations of his death for us▪ the offering up of his body on the cross, and shedding his most precious blood for our redemption? Which being visible in itself, and purposely so celebrated, that it may be visible to all the congregation; comes not within the compass of those sacrifices which S. Ambrose speaks of: though, like a false gamester you have cogged a die, and made S. Ambrose say what he never meant. For tell me of your honest word, doth the good father speak there of this mystical sacrifice, that which the Priest did offer on the Altar's in the 〈…〉 God? or those which every private man did ●nd might offer on the Alt●r of his 〈◊〉, by ●aith? Doth 
h V. p. 118. Where he is made to say, nihil hic visibile.  he say, Nihil hic visibile, that here (i. e. in this Commemorative sacrifice) there is nothing visible, neither the Priest, the Altar, nor the 〈◊〉? Or saith he, Nihil horum est visibile, that of the things before remembered, there is nothing visible, 〈◊〉 of the spiritual worship, done in the singleness of the heart, without hypocrisy, and in full confidence of faith? For shame deal better with the Father's, how ill soever you deal with that poor fellow, whom you have in hand. S. Ambrose could not say, (the times, in which he lived, considered) that in the Representative sacrifice by the Church then celebrated, there was nothing visible: for in those times, the Priests and Altars both were at their full, moun●ed unto their height for reputation and esteem; as you know right well. When therefore it is said in the Apo●o●eticks of those times, that they (the Primitive 〈◊〉) had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, images, nor temples, it must be answered with 〈◊〉 to those times in the which they lived. And so the Doctor answers to them in his Coal from the 〈◊〉, 
i p. 45. 46.  First, out of Bishop jewel, that then 〈…〉 fear of Tyrants, were fain to meet together in private houses, in vacant places, in woods and forests, and caves under the ground. Yourself have told us of yourself, (though you have christened your discourse by the name of the holy Table) that 
k p. 140.  you are not so unreasonably tied to one Table; but if the woman were driven into the desert, you could be content with the green grass. And then, why may you not conceive, that on the like distress, the grass should be to them in stead of an Altar, as well as unto you in stead of a Table. The Doctor answered secondly, that when they durst adventure to build them Churches, they neither were so gorgeously nor so richly furnished, as were the Temples of the Gentiles. And therefore Origen, and Arnobius (and whosoever of them speak in the self same key) are not to be interpreted, as if the Christians had no Churches, or at the lest no Altars in them: but that their Churches were so mean, that they deserved not the name of Temples; and that they had no Altars for bloody and external sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. Hospinian, on whose judgement you do much rely in other matters, could easily have told you (and questionless you saw it in him, though you conceal it wilfully for your poor advantages) that in the 
l Non nego tamen habuisse primitivam ecclesiam ante Constantin●m, Altaria seu arras. de orig. Altarium. p. 99  Primitive Church, before the time of Constantine, the Christians had their Altars, both name and thing: and for the proof thereof doth cite Tertullian, lib. de poenitentia. Cyprians Epistles, lib. 1. Epist. 7. & 9 and also, lib. 3. Epist. 13. All that he stands upon is this, Eae autem ●rae non fuerunt lapideae, nec fixae, that the said Altars were not made of stone, and fastened to some certain place, as was appointed not long after by Pope Silvester; and as Durandus and the rest of the Roman Ritualists would have them now. Altars he grants, but wooden Altars; which being once devoted to that holy use, might easily be removed from place to place, as the necessities of those times did indeed require. No sooner was the Church settled and confirmed in peace, but presently the Altars also were fixed and settled.  
Now for the nature and condition of this Commemorative or representative sacrifice, which we have traced from the first Institution of it by our Lord and Saviour, to the times of Constantine, and found both Priests which were to offer, and Altars upon which they were to offer it to Almighty God: we cannot take a better and more perfect view thereof, than from Eusebius, who hath been more exact herein, than any other of the Ancients. In his first book de Domonstratione Eva●gelica, he brings in this prediction from the Prophet Esay, that in that day shall there be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, Es. 19 19 Then adds, that if they had an Altar, and that they were to sacrifice 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. cap. 6.  to Almighty God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they must be thought worthy of a Priesthood also. But the levitical Priesthood could not be of any use unto them, and therefore they must have another. Nor was this spoke, saith he, of the Egyptians only, 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  but of all other nations, and idolatrous people; who now pour forth their prayers, not unto many Gods, but to the one and only Lord: and unto him erect an Altar for reasonable and unbloudie sacrifices 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every place of the whole habitable world, according to the mysteries of the New Testament. Now what those mysteries were, he declares more fully in the tenth Chapt. of the said first book. Christ, saith he, is the propitiatory Sacrifice for all our sins, since when even those amongst the Jews are freed from the curse of Moses law, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, celebrating daily (as they ought) the commemoration of his body and blood, which is a far more excellent sacrifice and ministry, than any in the former times: Then adds ', that Christ our Saviour, offering such a wonderful and excellent Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for the salvation of us all, appointed us to offer daily unto God the commemoration of the same, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for and as a Sacrifice. And anon after, that whensoever we do celebrate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the memory of that Sacrifice on the Table, participating of the Elements of his body and blood; we should say with David, Thou preparest a Table for me in the presence of mine enemies, thou annointest my head wih oil, my cup runneth over. Wherein, saith he, he signifieth most manifestly the mystical unction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & the reverend Sacrifices of Christ's Table, where we are taught to offer up unto the Lord, by his own most eminent and glorious Priest, 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the unbloody, reasonable, and most acceptable sacrifice all our life long. This he entitleth 
p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  afterwards the sacrifice of praise, the Divine, reverend, and most holy sacrifice, the pure sacrifice of the new Testament. So that we see, that in this Sacrifice prescribed the Christian Church, by our Lord and Saviour, there were two proper and distinct actions: The first, to celebrate the memorial of our Saviour's sacrificie, which he entitleth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the commemoration of his body and blood once offered; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the memory of that his Sacrifice; that is, as he doth clearly expound himself, that we should offer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, this our commemoration for a Sacrifice: The second, that withal we should offer to him the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving, which is the reasonable Sacrifice of a Christian man, and to him most acceptable. Finally, he joins both these together in the Conclusion of that Book, and therein doth at full describe the nature of this Sacrifice; which is thus as followeth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Therefore, saith he, we sacrifice, & offer as it were with Incense, the memory of that great Sacrifice, celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us, and 
q 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  giving thanks to him for our salvation; with godly hymns and prayers to the Lord our God; as also offering to him our whole selves, both soul and body, and to his high Priest, which is the Word. See here, Eusebius doth not call it only the memory or commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice; but makes the very memory or commemoration, in, and of itself, to be a Sacrifice which instar omnium, for, and in the place of all other Sacrifices, we are to offer to our God, and offer it with a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Incense of our prayers and praises.  
This was the doctrine of the Church in Eusebius time, touching the Sacrament of the body and blood of our blessed Saviour. Of any expiatory Sacrifice, of any offering up of Christ for the quick and dead, more than what had been done by him once, and once for all, those blessed Ages never dreamt. And howsoever some of the ancient Fathers did amplify with the choicest of their Rhetoric the dignity and nature of this holy Sacrament, the better to inflame the people with a lively zeal, at their partaking of the same: yet they meant nothing less, than to give any opportunity to the future Ages of making that an expiatory Sacrifice, which they did only teach to be Commemorative, or representative of our Saviour's passion. A Sacrifice they did confess it, Altars and Priests they did allow of, as necessary thereunto; not thinking fit to change those terms, which had been recommended to them from pure antiquity. Those blessed spirits were not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, contentious about words and forms of speech, in which there was not manifest impiety. The Supper of the Lord, they called sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a memorial of the Sacrifice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and so S. chrusostom on the ninth Chapter to the Hebrews: Sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a Sacrament, and so 
r Lib. 17. c. 20  S. Austin for example; for in his Books de Civitate Dei, he calleth it a Sacrifice; Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrificiis veteris Testamenti, etc. and saith that it succeeded in the place of those legal sacrifices, mentioned in the old Testament. The same S. Austin, as you tell us 
s p. 109. in the Margin. , doth in the same Books call it a Sacrament of memory, and we will take your word this once, that he calls it so, (because we know from whence you had it) though in the place by you cited (being l. 17. c. 20.) there is no such matter: and I am sure, that in the very same Books it is called 
t Lib. 10. c. 6.  Sacramentum Altaris, the Sacrament of the Altar: which was a very common appellation amongst the Fathers, as was acknowledged by the Martyrs in Queen Mary's time. So for the Minister thereof, they called him 
u Soli Episcopi & Presbyteri, propri● jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sacerdotes. Augde Civit. D●i, l. 20. cap. 10.  sometimes Presbyter, and sometimes Sacerdos, Elder, or Priest, indifferently without doubt or scruple: for which see the Margin. The Table, or the Altar, were to them such indifferent words, that they used both equally: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Eusebius in the tenth, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Eusebius in the sixth Chapter of his fi●s● the Demonstratione Evangelica: Altars saith S. Austin in the tenth, and mensa, saith the same S. Austin in his 17 de Civitate: 
x Orat. de 〈…〉  Gregory Nyssen in one breath doth make use of both, and calls the same one thing, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the holy Table, the undefiled Altar: Altars of stone, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this Gregory Nyssen; Altars of wood, ligna Altaris, 
y Epist. 50.  in S. Austin; both used with such indifferency, that Nyssen calleth his stone Altar by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Table; and Austin calleth his wooden Table, Altar, Altar: So that in all this search into antiquity, we find a general consent in the Church of God touching the business now in hand: the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being confessed to be a Sacrifice; the Minister therein, entitled by the name of Priest; that on the which the Priest did consecrate, being as usually called by the name of Altar, as by that of Table: and you may ●ake this testimony also from the mouth of a Gentile, that the Christians called their Table by the name of Altar; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is in Zozimus, lib. 5. Not an improper Altar, and an improper Sacrifice, as you idly dream of: For Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars being Relatives, 
z p. 109.  as yourself confesseth, the Sacrifice and the Altar being improper, must needs infer that even our Priesthood is improper also: And we may speak in proper and significant terms, as the Fathers did, without approving either the Popish Mass, or the jewish Sacrifices; from which the Doctor is as far, as either you that made the book, or he that licenced it, though you have both agreed together to breed some base suspicion of him 
a p. 76. , as if he meant somewhat else than for fear of our gracious King he dares speak out. The Doctor, I assure you, dares speak what he thinks, (though you, as I persuade myself, think not what you speak:) and will now tell you what he thinks to be the Doctrine of this Church in this present business, of Sacrifices, Priests and Altars, that we may see she is no flincher from the words and notions, no more than from the Doctrines of most orthodox Antiquity.  
And first beginning with the Priesthood, in case you are not grown ashamed of that holy calling, you may remember that you were admitted into holy Orders by no other name: Being presented to the B●sh. at your Ordination, 
b Book of Ordination.  you did require to be admitted to the Order of Priesthood: and being demanded by the Bishop, if you did think in your heart that you were truly called according to the will of our Lord jesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England unto the Ministry of the Priesthood; you answered positively, that you did: if you thought otherwise than you said, as you do sometimes, you 
c Acts 5. 4.  lied not unto men, but unto God. Look in the Book of Ordination, and you shall find it oftener than once or twice, entitled the Office of Priesthood, and the holy Office of Priesthood: the parties thereunto admitted, called by no other name than that of Priests: Or if you think the Book of Ordination is no good authority, (to which you have subscribed however in your subscription to the Articles;) look then upon the Liturgy, and the Rubrics of it, by which you would persuade the world that you are very much directed in all this business: Find you not there the name of Priest, exceeding frequent, especially in that part thereof which concerns the Sacrament; The Priest standing at the North side of the Table,— Then shall the Priest rehearse distinctly all the ten Commandments, — Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive the holy Communion,— Then shall the Priest turning himself to the people, give the absolution,— Then shall the Priest kneeling down at God's Board, etc. Infinitum est ire per singula; It were an infinite labour to sum up all places of, and in the Rubrics, wherein the Minister is called by the name of Priest; which being so, as so it is, and that your own sweet self hath told 
d p. 109.  us that Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice are Relatives: the Church of England keeping. still as well the Office of Priesthood, as the name of Priest, must needs admit of Altars, and of Sacrifices, as things peculiar to the Priesthood: But not to trust so great a matter to your rules of Logic, we will next see, what is the judgement of the Church in the point of Sacrifice. Two ways there are by which the Church declares herself in the present business: First, positively in the Book of Articles, and that of Homilies; and practically in the Book of Common prayers. First, in the Articles; 
e Art. 31.  The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is no other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. This Sacrifice or oblation once for ever made, and never more to be repeated, was by our Saviour's own appointment to be commemorated and represented to us, for the better quickening of our faith: whereof if there be nothing said in the Book of Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly unto points in Controversy: but in the Book of Homilies, which do relate unto the Articles, as confirmed in them, and are (though not dogmatic, but rather popular discourses) a Comment, as it were, on those points of doctrine, which are determined of elsewhere: 
f Hom. of the Sacrament, part. 2. p. 197.  we find it thus: That the great love of our Saviour Christ to mankind doth not only appear, in that dear-bought benefit of our redemption, and satisfaction by his death and passion, but also in that he hath so kindly provided that the same most merciful work might be had in continual remembrance. Amongst the which means is the public celebration of the memory of his pre●ious death at the Lords Table:— our Saviour having ordained and established the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his passion, in the Institution of his heavenly Supper. Here is a commemoration of that blessed Sacrifice which Christ once offered, a public celebration of the memory thereof, and a continual remembrance of it by himself ordained. Which if it seem not full enough for the Commemorative sacrifice, in the Church observed, the Homily 
g Ibid. p. 198▪  will tell us further: that this Lord's supper is in such wise to be done and ministered, as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded it to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the good Fathers in the Primitive Church frequented it. So that what ever hath been proved to be the purpose of the Institution, the practice of the holy Apostles, and usage of the ancient Fathers: will fall within the meaning and intention of the Church of England.  
For better manifesting of the which Intention, we will next look into the Agenda, the public Liturgy of this Church. Where first we find it granted, that 
h Preface on Easter day.  Christ our Saviour is the very Paschall Lamb that was offered for us, and hath taken away the sin of the world: 
i Prayer of the consecration.  that suffering death upon the cross for our Redemption, he made there by his own oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the 〈◊〉 of the whole world. And to the 
k Exhortation before the Communion.  end that we should always remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour jesus Christ thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his precious bloodshedding he hath obtained to us: he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love and continual remembrance of his death, to our great and endless comfort; 
l craier of the consecration.  instituting and in his holy Gospel commanding us to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious death till his coming again. Then followeth the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine, for 
m Prai●r of the consecration.  a remembrance of his death and passion, in the same words and Phrases which Christ our Saviour recommended unto his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Fathers of the Primitive times: which now, as then, is to be done only by the Priest [Then the Priest standing up shall say, 〈◊〉 followeth] to whom it properly belongeth, and upon whom his Ordination doth confer a power of ministering the Sacraments, not given to any other Order in the holy Ministry. The memory or commemoration of Christ's death thus celebrated, is called 
n craier after the communion.  a sacrifice, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a sacrifice representative of that one and only expiatory sacrifice which Christ once offered for us all: the whole Communicants be seeching God to grant, that by the merits and death of his Son jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, they and the whole Church may obtains the remission of their sins, and all other the benefits of his Passion: Nor stay they there, but forthwith offer and present unto the Lord their selves, their souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto him: And howsoever, as they most humbly do acknowledge, they are unworthy through their manifold sins▪ to offer to him any sacrifice, yet they beseech him to accept that their bounden duty and service. In which last words, that present service which they do to Almighty God, according to their bound●● duties, in celebrating the perpetual memory of Christ's precious death, and the oblation of their selves, and with themselves the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, in due acknowledgement of the benefits and comforts by his death received, is himbly offered unto God, for, and as a Sacrifice, and publicly avowed for such, as from the tenor and coherence of the words doth appear most plainly. Put all together which hath been here delivered from the Book of Articles, the Homilies, and public Liturgy, and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord, than this between Eusebius and the Church of England, in the present business: Our Saviour's sacrifice upon the Cross, called there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and here acknowledge to be the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world▪ There we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mysteries delivered to us by our Lord and Saviour, for a remembrance of that great sacrifice; and here 
o Exhortation to the communion.  an Institution of holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and continual remembrance of his death. The memory or commemoration of this his death, called there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a●d 
p Hom. p. 19●  here the public celebration of the memory of his precious death, at the Lords Table; there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here 
q Hom. ibid.  the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion; there for the offering of this sacrifice to Almighty God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. there was a Priesthood thought to be very necessary, and here the Priest alone 
r Rubric before the Consecration.  hath power to consecrate the Creatures of bread and wine, for a remembrance of his death and passion: There the whole action, as it relates to Priest and people, is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; & here 
s Prayer after the Communion.  the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving: there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in the self same words, a reasonable and holy Sacrifice: There the Communicants do offer to the Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. and here they do present unto him their selves, souls, and bodies. Finally, there it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that they do sacrifice unto the Lord the memory of that great oblation: i. e. as he expounds himself, they offer to him the commemoration of the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for, and as a Sacrifice. And here 
t Ibid.  we do besee●h the Lord to accept this our bounden duty and service, for, and as a sacrifice, which notwithstanding we confess ourselves unworthy to offer to him. Never did Church agree more perfectly with the ancient patterns.  
Yet lest you should endeavour, as you use to do, to cast a mist before the eyes of poor ignorant people, as if the Church meant nothing less than what here is said; will you be pleased to look upon those Worthies of the Church, which are best able to expound, and unfold her meaning: we will beg●n with Bishop Andrew's, and tell you what he saith 
u Answ. to Peron. c. 6.  as concerning sacrifices. The Eucharist, saith he, ever was and is by us considered, both as a Sacrament, 〈◊〉 as a Sacrifice. A sacrifice is proper and appliable only to Divine worship. The sacrifice of Christ's death did succeed to the sacrifices of the old Testament; which being prefigured in those sacrifices before his coming, hath since his coming been celebrated per Sacrament 'em memoriae, by a Sacrament of memory, as S. Austin calls it. Thus also in his answer unto Cardinal Bellarmine, Tollite de Missa Transubstantiationem vestram, nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio, etc. Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation, and we will have no difference with you about the sacrifice. 
x Memoriam ib● sacrific●● da●us non inviti. Resp. ad Card Be●. c. 8.  The memory of a Sacrifice we acknowledge willingly, and the King grant▪ the name of Sacrifice to have been frequent with the Fathers. For Altars next. If we agree (
y ●nsw. to Card. Peron. c. ●.  saith he) about the matter of sacrifice, there will be no difference about the Altar. The holy Eucharist being considered as a sacrifice (in the representation of breaking the Bread, and pouring forth the Cup,) the same is fitly called an Altar; which again is as fitly called a Tabee▪ the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the Sacrifice to the several receivers. So that the matter of Altars makes no difference in the face of our Church. As Bishop Andrew's wrote at King james his motion, against Cardinal Bellarmine; so Isaac Casaubon writ King james his mind to Cardinal Peron; and in expressing of his mind, affirmeth, Veteres Ecclesiae, Patres, etc. That the ancient Fathers did acknowledge one only Sacrifice in the Christian Church, which did succeed in place of all those sacrifices in the law of Moses that he conceived the said sacrifice to be nothing else, nis● commemorationem ●jus quod semel in Cruse Christus Patri suo obtulit, than a Commemoration of that sacrifice which CHRIST once offered on the Cross to his heavenly Father: 
z De verbo nullam se litem moturam. Ep. ad Card. Peron.  that oftentimes the Church of England hath professed, she will not strive about the Word, which she expressly useth in her public Liturgy. All this you seem to grant, but then make a difference between 
a p. 105.  the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, and a commemorative sacrifice: And though you grant that in the Eucharist there is commemoratio sacrificii, yet you fly out upon the 
b p. 106.  Doctor, for saying that the Church admits of a commemorative sacrifice; which is as much, you say, as P. Lombard and all his ragged regiment admit of▪ If this be all you stand upon, you shall soon be satisfied. Arch●Bishop Cranmer (whom you yourself acknowledge to be the most learned on this Theme of our late Divines) distinguisheth most clearly 
c Defence of his 5 Book against Gardiner, p. 439.  between the sacrifice propitiatory made by Christ himself only, and the sacrifice commemorative and gratulatory made by the Priests and people. My Lord of Durham also doth call the Eucharist 
d Of the Remish Sacrif. l. 6. ●. 5.  a representative and commemorative sacrifice, in as plain language verily, as the Doctor did; although he doth deny it to be a proper sacrifice: As for your Criticism, or quarrel rather, between a commemorative sacrifice, and a commemoration of a Sacrifice, which you insist on, it was very needless, both terms being used by Bishop Andrew's (as great a Clerk as any Minister of Lincoln Diocese) as aequipollent and equivalent, both of one expression; 
e De Commemoratione ib. sacrificii seu sacrificio commemorativo. Respons. ad Car. Bell.  of which see the Margin. But to go forwards with the Sacrifice, my Lord of Chichester thus speaks unto his Informers: 
f Appello Caesar●m. p. 287.  I have (saith he) so good an opinion of your understanding, though weak, that you will conceive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, or the Communion Table, which you please, to be a sacrifice. What do I hear the Bishop say, the blessed Sacrament of the Altar? And do you not persuade us, or at least endeavour it, out of his answer to the Gagger, that 
g p. 95.  Gaggers of Protestants call it so, but Protestants themselves do not? It is true, that in his answer to the Gagger, he hath those very words which you thence produce; the Sacrament (as you call it) of the Altar: but than it is as true, that he doth call it so himself; and is resolved to call it so, howsoever you like it. Walk you 
g Appe●●●. p. 288.  (saith he) at random, and at rovers in your bypaths, if you please. I have used the name of Altar for the Communion- Table, according to the manner of Antiquity, and am like enough sometimes to use it still. Nor will I abstain, notwithstanding your oggannition, to follow the steps and practice of Antiquity, in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also. Finally, 
h Ibid. p. 286.  he brings in Bishop Morton professing thus, That he beleev●d no such sacrifice of the Altar, as the Church of Rome doth, and that he fancieth no such Altars as they employ, though he professed a Sacrifice and an Altar. Thus having plainly laid before you, the Doctrine, Use, and Practice of Antiquity in the present business, together with the tendries of the Church of England conform thereto; we will next see what you can say unto the contrary, and what fair dealing we are like to find in your proceedings.   

CHAP. VI  
An Answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc▪ against the points delivered in the former Chapter.  
Nothing delivered in the 31 Article, against the being of a Sacrisice in the Church of Christ, nor in the Homilies. A pious Bull obtruded on the Doctor by the Minister of Linc▪ The Reading-Pew, the Pulpit, and the poor-man's Box made Altars by the Minster of Linc. An huddle of impertinencies brought in concerning sacrifice Commemorative, commemoration a sacrifice, and material Altars. The Sacrifice of the Altar known by that name unto the Fathers. Arnobius falsified. The Minister of Linc. questions S. Paul's discretion, in his Habemus Altar Heb. 13. 10. and falsifieth S. Ambrose. The meaning of that Text according unto B. Andrew's, B. Montague, the Bishop and the Minister of Linc. The same expounded by the old Writers, both Greek and Latin. The Altars in the Apostles Canons made Pantries and Larders; and ludas his bag an Altar by this man of Linc. The Doctor and Ignatius vindicated in the three places touching Altars. The profane Passage in the Minister's Book of a Widow-Altar. An Answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc. against the evidence produced from Irevaeus and S. Cyprian. The Ministers ignorant mistakes about the meaning of Tertullian in the word Ara. Pamellus new reading about Charis Dei, not universally received. A briefexecitall of the substance in the so two last Chaepters.  
WE ended our last Chapter with the Church of England, and with the Church of England we must now begin; your method leads me to it, which I mean to follow, as well as such a broken clew▪ can lead me, in so confused a Labyrinth as of your compositions: 
Cap. 6.  And here you change the very state of the question at your first entrance on the same. The Bishop charged it home, as he conjectured, 
a Letter p.  that if the Vicar should erect any such Altar, his discretion would prove the only Holocaust to be sacrificed thereon: Now you have changed it 
b p. 102.  to a close Altar at the upper end of the Choir, where the old Altar in Queen Mary's time stood. This is no honest dealing to begin with. The mention of close Altars, and Queen Mary's time, comes in here very unseasonably, if not suspiciously, only to make poor men afraid, (whom you have throughtly possessed already with such Panic fears) that Altars and Queen Mary's days are coming in again amongst us. Nor have you dealt better with the 31 Article in your own Edition 
c p. 14.  of the Bishop's letter, where you have made it say, that that other oblation, which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars is a blasphemous ●igment, and pernicious imposture. These, was not in the Text before, and is now only thrust into it, to make the Vicar come up close to Queen Mary's Altars. I pray you good Sir, whar spectacles did you use, when you found Altars, and these Altars, Papists, and that other oblation in the 31 Article, wherein my dull and heavy eyes can see no such word? This is another of your tricks, to make your credulous followers believe, that by the doctrine of the Church in her public Articles, Papists and Altars are mere Relatives; that so whosoever shall but use the name of Altar, or speak of placing the Communion-Table Altarwise, may be suspected presently to be a Papist, or at least Popishly affected. Nor do I speak this without good authority: For do not you tell us, that the Fantastical Vicar called his Communion-Table an Altar, as the Papists do, p. 199? and have you not corrupted the Bishop's Letter, to make it say, that Altars only were erected for the sacrifice of the Mass, p. 16? which was not in the Text before. But Sir, the primitive Christians had their Altars, when there was no such thing in being, 
d The 31 Article having taken a 〈◊〉 Popish Lamb. p. 102.  as the Popish Lamb; no such blasphemous figments, and pernicious impostures, as by the Article are charged on the Church of Rome, in those, by us, rejected sacrifices of the Mass: So that both I and you, may without danger of revoking our subscriptions to the Book of Articles, set the Communion Table at the upper end of the Chancel, there where the old Altar stood in Queen Mary's time, if you needs will have it so; and yet no more dream of the Popish Lamb, and those blasphemous figments which the Article speaks of, than did the holy Fathers in the Primitive times; when neither your said Popish Lamb, nor any of those figments were in repum natura. Now, as you palter with the Article, so do you only play and dally with the Homily; as one that loves so dearly well, (whatsoever you say unto the contrary) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make yourself merry with sacred things. You tell us from the Homily, that we must take heed 
e Of the Sacrament. par●. 2. p 198.  lest the Lords Supper of a memory be made a sacrifice: and then proceed 
f p. 103, 104. , What saith the Doctor to this? He saith that by these words the Church admits of a Commemorative sacrifice. Which said, you make your Readers even burst with laughter, by telling them, that the poor man hath found a true and real sacrifice, (in the Book of Homilies) but it is a Bull; a very strange and hideous Bull which this Calf makes the Church speak unto 〈◊〉 people in her public Homilies. And what is that? As we must take heed, good people, we apply not the Sacrament of the Supper to the dead, but to the living, etc. so must we take especial heed, lest of a Commemorative Sacrifice it be made a Sacrifice. A very 
g 〈…〉 it be not 〈◊〉 Pius Quintus ●is, yet is a kind ●f pious Bull. p. 104  pious Bull indeed, you speak wondrous rightly; but a Bull only of your own herd, and only fit for such a Milo as yourself, to carry. For tell me, doth the Doctor say, that by these words the Church admits of a Commemorative sacrifice? On with your false eyes once again, and you will find the Doctor makes no other answer to your objection from the Homily 
h Coal. p. 8. , but that the sacrifice rejected in the Homily, is that which is cried down in the Book of Articles, which the Epistoler had no reason to suspect was ever aimed at by the Vicar. Of a Commemorative sacrifice in those words of the Homily, ●e gry quidem, there. Indeed the Doctor said before, in answer to your argument from the 31 Article, that though the Church condemned that other oblation of the Papists, as the Letter calls it: yet she allows of a Commemorative sacrifice for a perpetual memory of Christ's precious death, of that his full, perfeft, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. And for the proof thereof referred himself unto the Prayer of the Consecration; which are not, sure, the words of the Homily, or by him cited thence, if you mark it well. Or had he said it of those words in the Book of Homilies, had it been such a strange and hideous Bull, with four Horns, and I know not how many tails, for you to lead by it up and do ●ne the Country, for ●he delight and solace of your sportful Readers? Could you not paraphrase upon it thus? We must take heed good people, lest the Lords Supper, of a memory be made a Sacrifice: i. e. le●t of a Commemorative sacrifice, it be made propitiatory? No: He that looks for ingenuity from such hands as yours, must have less knowledge of you, and more faith in you, than I dare pretend to. And for your Bull, that was but a device to make sport for Boys. Showing us so much Spanish in the Margin, you had a mind to let us see, that you did understand as well their customs, as their language: and therefore would set out a Fuego de Toros, a kind of Bull baiting for the Boys, who must be pleased too in this business. You have not studied all this while, populo ut placerent only, but now and then ut pueris placeas, & declam●tio fias, as you know, who said.  
But would we see a Bull indeed, a Bull set out with flowers and Garlands, ready for the Sacrifice? Out of your store you can afford us such a one, though not so pious altogether, as that you sent unto the Doctor. We saw before how well you pleaded against Altars, out of the Articles and book of Homilies: and now behold an argument from the Common Prayer Book, which, if the business be not done already, will be ●ure to do it. For you 
i p. 75. 76.  appeal to all indifferent men, that pretend to any knowledge in Divinity, 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 ourselves to God's very service; and the Church's Box or Basin, for that oblation for the poor which was used in the Primitive times; as is our holy Table, howsoever situated or disposed. Nay, you go further, and demand, what one sacrifice can be inferred out of the Collects read by the Priest at the 〈…〉 which are not as easily deduced 〈◊〉 of the Te 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 said in the Choir, or Reading Pew: whether there be no praying, praising, commemorating of the Passion, and 〈◊〉 of ourselves no Gods service in those two 〈◊〉▪ The Fathe●s were but 〈◊〉 sours in dreaming of one Altar only in each sev●rall Church▪ whereas indeed there are as many as we please to make. Here is the Poor-man's Box, the Communion Table, the Pulpit, and the Reading Pew, 〈◊〉 quatuor A●ns: four in a knot, land yet not half enough for so many sacrifices. And therefore every place, the Belfry, the Church-por●h, the 〈◊〉 house, the seat of every private person, the Vestry chief of all, and whatsoever other place a man may ●ancy to himself, are now turned to Altars. This if we do not yield to at the first proposal, we are pronounced already to have no knowledge in Divinity; and not to be indifferent men, but parties. Not so indifferent men as I think you are: nor so well skilled in this new Lincolnshire divinity, which only you and one or two more of your dear acquaintance, have been pleased to broach. What need we take this pains to look after Altars, when by this Boston doctrine the Communion Table may as well be spared? 〈…〉 meae! It always was my hope, that howsoever we lost the Altar, I might be confident we should have a Table left us for the holy Sacrament, at least the Sacram 〈◊〉 itself. But see how strangely things are carried: Rather than hear of Altars, we will down with Tables; yea with the Sacrament itself: and let the memory of Christ's passion be celebrated how it will, or where it will, in the Pew, or Pulpit, the Porch or Belfry. Is't not enough to hear it 〈◊〉 of, but we must come and see it acted? what are these Sacraments they speak of, but signs, and figures; and by what figure can they make us be in love with signs? Or say that there be some spiritual sacrifices expected of us by our God; may we 〈…〉 them without material Tables? yea and without material Churches▪ on therefore Westward ho, for Salem, and the free Gospel of New England. This is the knowledge in Divinity you so much pretend to: which, wheresoever you first learned it, was never taught you, I am sure, in any of the books that you subscribed to, when you came to your place. We grant that those two Hymns you speak of, are of excellent use: and purposely selected for the setting forth of God's praise and glory, with an acknowledgement of our bounden duties to him, for his grace and goodness. But then the Liturgy hath taught you, that the Lords Table is the proper place at which to celebrate the memory of our Saviour's passion: 
k 〈…〉.  which▪ the Priest standing at the same, and consecrating there the creatures of bread and wine, according to Christ's holy institution, doth represent unto the people. And when, in testimony of our common and public gratitude for so great a mercy, we offer our whole selves unto him▪ both soul and body, we are enjoined to do it at or near the same place also▪ 
l 〈…〉.  And here O Lord we offer and present unto thee, ourselves, souls and bodies; here where thou hast been pleased to make us partakers of Christ's body and blood, and sealed unto our souls the benefits of his death and passion. Will you have more? The 
m ●f the Sacrament part. 2. p. 203.  Homily hath told us, that we are bound to render thanks to Almighty God for all his benefits briefly comprised in the death, passion, and resurrection of his dear beloved Son, the which thing because we ought chiefly at this Table to solemnize, (mark you that, this Table?) the godly Fathers named it Eucharistia, that is, thanksgiving. Had I but such a Bandog, as your friend H. B. this Puritan Bull of yours might be better hai●ed, than his Pope's Bull was. Your Popish lamb and Puritan Bull being both discarded by the Church, may go both together But I must tell you ere we part, that that which I suspected is now come to pass, viz. that by your principles, every Cobbler, Tinker, and other Artisan, may take his turn and minister at and on the holy Altar.  
That which you show us next, is but another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a quarrel about words and Phrases; touching the difference between 
n p. 104. 105.  commemoratio sacrificii, and a commemorative sacrifice: the first being used, you say, by chrusostom, K. james, and Pet. Lombard, S. Austin, Eusebius, and the book of Homilies; the later only by this wretched Doctor, and such unlucky birds as he, the ragged regiment of P. Lombard. Which said, you presently confute yourself, as your custom is, confessing that some 
o p. 105.  few learned men of the reformed Church, do use the name of a Commemorative Sacrifice; and yet (God bless them) are not brought within the compass of that ragged regiment. But hereof we have spoke already in the former Chapter. For Sacrifices next, you cannot possible approve (which 
p p. 100L.  Protestant's and Papists do jointly deny) that ever material A●tar was erected in the Church, for the use of spiritual and improper sacrifices. Assuredly the Papists have good reason for what they do; and if you grant them this position, simply, and without restriction; you give them all that they desire. For by this means they gain unto them all the Fathers, who speak of Altars, passi●●, in their works and writings; material Altars, questionless, made of wood or stone. And if material Altars were not made for improper sacrifices, you must needs gran● they had some proper sacrifices to be performed upon those Altars: Besides, in case the note be true, that never material Altar was erected for a spiritual and improper sacrifice, and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be but a metaphorical and improper sacrific●, as 
q p. 141.  you elsewhere say; it may be done as well without a material Table, and any where as properly as in a material Church. Did you distinguish, as you ought, between the mystical sacrifice in the holy Eucharist, commemorative and representative of our Saviour's death; and those spiritual sacrifices, which every Christian man is bound to offer to the Lord, at all times and places: you would find the vanity and weakness of these poor Conclusions. Yet you go forwards still on a full career, and having filled your margin with an huddle of impertinent quotations, you fall at last on this fine fancy: 
q p. 110.  how that God suffered not the first Ages of the world for 1650. years to pass away without prayers, and thanksgivings; and yet he suffered it to pass without any Altars. May a man take it on your word, and not be called for it to an after reckoning? Did you not say, the Page before, that Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice were relatives? and find we not in holy writ that Cain and Abel brought their offerings to the Lord their God? their sacrifices as they are entitled, Hebr. 11. 4. if so, then by your own rule doubtless, there wore Altars also. Or if God suffered all that time to pass without any Altars; did it not pass away without any Tables, or any Churches that we read of? But see the charity of the man, and his learning too. For if the Doctor will 
r p. 110.  but promise not to disturb the peace of the Church any more, this lusty Lad of Lincolnshire will find him all the several Altars, which have been spoke of by the Fathers for spiritual sacrifices. These we shall meet withal hereafter, amongst your impertinencies. Mean time I pass my word to keep covenant with you, and promise you sincerely before God and man, that as I never did, so I never will put my hand to any thing by which the Church may be disturbed. 
s 1. King. 18. 18.  You know Elijahs answer unto proud K. Ahab; It is not I, but thou and thy Father's house that have troubled Israel.  
From Altars we must follow you, as you lead the way, unto the Sacrifices of the Altar. Whereof though we have spoken before enough to meet with all your cavils: yet since you put me to the question, 
t p. 115.  where you may read this term of mine, Sacrifices of the Altar, if you read not of them in the Sacrifices of the Law; I will tell you where. Look through the book of Genesis, and tell me if you meet not with many sacrifices, and sacrifices done on Altars, by Abel, Noah, Abraham, jacob: sacrifices of the Altar, doubtless, and yet not sacrifices of the Law. The law you know was a Postnatus, not borne a long time after those good Patriarches died; you cite the Cardinal rightly, that all the sacrifices which we read of in the scripture, were necessarily to be destroyed. But presently you change his terms, and for his sacrifices in the Scripture, put down your sacrifices of the law; as if the Scripture went no further than the Law of Moses. If in the ancient Fathers we do find not in terminis, the sacrifice of the Altar, it helps but little to your purpose: the Doctor no where saying that he had it from them. And if they call it not interminis, the sacrifice of the Altar, they call it so at lest ex consequent, when they entitle the Lords Supper by the name of Sacrifice, and such a sacrifice as is to be offered on a sacred or an hallowed Altar. And yet to satisfy your longing, it shall be hard but we will find it for you amongst the Ancients, and not consult the Index neither. For what conceive you of S. Austin, was not he an Ancient? and yet he calls it so interminis, without doubt or scruple. Cum ergo sacrificii sive Altaris [N. B.] ●ive quarumcunque eleemosynarum, etc. in the Enchiridion ad Laurentium, cap. 110. of the Edition of Danaeus. Nor shall S. Austin go alone: it being called so by 
u Eccle●iae mos obtinuit ut Sacrificium Altaris, etc. in Ma●c. c. 44.  Bede, no such very puisnè, and that in terminis terminantibus, which is that you stand upon. But where you add, that possibly the Ancient Fathers could not have any notice of this sacrifice of the Altar; 
x p. 116.  and for a proof thereof produce a passage from Arnobius: beside, what hath before been answered to the place itself, the Doctor cannot choose but tell you, that you have used Arnobius worse, than any Gentile would have done. Arnobius was not asked, as you put the question, What are you Christians to perform no manner of sacrifices at all? but whether the Christians thought that no such thing as sacrifice was at all proper to the Gods? Quid ergo? Sacrificia censetis nulla facienda? as your margin rightly. Nor doth Arnobius answer to the question, as you make him answer, no, not any at all: as if the Christiaus only had had no sacrifices, or thought no kind of sacrifice to be a fitting service for the heavenly powers: but ex Varronis vestri sententia, nulla; none, if we may believe your own Author Varro, a learned man amongst yourselves. 
y Vt vobis non nostra, sed Va●ronis vestri sententia respon●eamus. l. 7  And this he makes non nostra, none of our opinion; though you most falsely make it both his and ours, that is, the Christians of th●se times. You must bring better proofs than this, or else it will be possible enough that the ancient Fathers might take notice of this Sacrifice of the Altar: which is the matter you deny, and to make good your negative, have thus used Arnobius.  
But, as you say, the Doctor hath found it in the Bible for all this, Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar: And so have you. Do not you find it in the Bible, as well as he? Yes; but you know the meaning of it better than any Doctor of them all; better than Doctor Gentium, than S. Paul himself; For in good faith, say you, 
a p. 117.  if S. Paul should mean a material Altar for the Sacrament in that place (with reverence to such a chosen Vessel of the Holy Ghost, be it spoken) it would prove the weakest argument that was ever made by so strong an Artist. Which said, you descant on it thus: We have an Altar and a Sacrifice of the Altar, that you of the Circumcision may not partake of. And have you so? That is no great wonder saith the jew, when abundance of you christian's (the discipline of your Church being so severe) may not partake thereof yourselves. And therefore you conclude, That for S. Paul to fright the jews with the loss of that, which so many millions of Christians were themselves bereft of, had been a very weak and feeble dehortation. Is not this 
b V. p. 58. of the holy Table.  ponere os in coelum, to outface heaven itself, in calling thus in question the judgement and discretion of that great Apostle: Tu quis es, O homo; what art thou O man, that thou shouldest dare to dispute with Paul, and that upon such weak and feeble grounds? For good Sir, tell me where you find that those degrees you speak of, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
c p. 117. , that creeping on with time and le●sure unto the bosom of the Church; were known or practised in the time of this Apostle? Think you the discipline of the Church was grown to that severity in so short a time, as that the jews might turn it back upon S. Paul, to elude his Argument? That rigour, those degrees, were never heard of in the Church, till a long time after, though by you made as old as the faith itself: there being mention in the Acts of many families baptised, not a few thousands of particular persons, which did not run through all those wearisome ways, before they were admitted to the blessed Sacrament. Or were it that those wearisome ways were travailed by the Christians in the Apostles time, before they were admitted to the Sacrament, yet were this but a sorry answer to his Argument, how 
d It would prove the weakest argument, etc. p. 117.  weak soever you conceive it. The Apostles argument is de jure, of a right to eat; your answer is de facto, of the act of eating. Th●se of the Circumcision had no right to eat of the Christians Altar; simply and absolutely no right at all. The Initiati had a kind of right, nay a good jus ad rem, though in re they had not, and to this jus in re they tended by those steps and degrees you talk of. Because a stranger hath no right to my lands, have my children none? and yet my children must 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tarry a while, expect their time, before they enter into actual possession of them. What a Goliath have we here to encounter David, what a Tertullus have we found, to dispute with Paul; what a 
e Epiphan. lib. 1. haer●s. 28. n. 2.  Cerinthus, to make head against S. Peter: yet lest S. Paul should go alone, you let us have S. Ambrose to bear him company: and hard it is to say which of the two you use most coarsely. You tax S. Paul with weakness, but yet you do it with a salva reverentia, and with a reverence be it spoken. S. Ambrose finds not in you so much good manners, whom you have falsified of purpose to make the Apostles argument as weak, as you say it is. For thus you shut up your Censura, (or if you please your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) of the blessed Apostle. 
f p. 〈◊〉.  I will conclude with S. Ambrose, That we have nothing visible in all this disputation of S. Paul, neither Priest, nor sacrifice, nor Altar: And then produce him in your margin, saying, Nihil hic visibile, neque Sacerdos, neque sacrificium, neque Altar, in 10. ep. ad Hebr. How you have falsified S. Ambrose, by turning Horum, into Hic, 
g See the forme● Chapter.  we have shown before. The Father speaks there only of spiritual sacrifices; and you will turn his horum into hic, as if he spoke there only of the mystical sacrifice. And were it hic in the original of S. Ambrose, yet you are guilty of another falsehood against that Father by rendering it, in all this disputation. The Father's hìc, if he had said so, must have related to those points which were debated of, in the 10. Chapt. to the Hebr. whence the words were cited; and those spiritual sacrifices, which are there described, you, by an excellent Art of juggling, have with a Hocas Pocas brought it hither, and make us think it was intended for this hìc, this place, Heb. 13. 10. of which now we speak, and which hath been the ground of that disputation, which you conclude with, from S. Ambrose.  
Using the Apostle, and the Fathers in so foul a fashion, it is not to be thought you should deal more ingeniously with their Disciples. The servant is not above the Master; nor looks for better usage from you, than he hath done hitherto. Having concluded with S. Ambrose, your next assault is on the Doctor: whom you 
h p. 12.  report to be the first son of the reformed Church of England, that hath presumed openly to expound this place of a material Altar; 
i and y●t not constantly nei●her. ●b.  Not constantly, you say, but yet so expounded it. I beseech you, where? Not in the Coal from the Altar, there is no such matter. Take the words plainly as they lie, you shall find them thus. And above all indeed, S. Paul in his Habemus altar, Hebr. 
p. 47.  13. 10. In which place whether he mean the Lords Table, or the Lord's Supper, or rather the sacrifice itself, which the Lord once offered, certain it is, that he conceived the name of Altar, neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church. Find you that he expounds the place of a material Altar? or that he only doth repeat three several expositions of it? Now of those expositions, one was this, that by those words, we have an Altar, S. Paul might mean we have a Table, whereof it was not lawful for them to eat, that serve the Tabernacle. If this be the material Altar, that you complain of in the Doctor's exposition; assuredly he is not the first son, by many of the Church of England, that hath so expounded it. The learned Bishop 
i Answ. to Card. ●eron. cap. 6.  Andrew's doth expound it so. The Altar in the old Testament is by Malachi called Mensa Domini. And of the Table in the new Testament, by the Apostle it is said, Habemus Altar: which whether it be of stone as Nyssen; or of wood, as Optatus, it skils not. So doth my Lord of Lincoln also, one of the sons, I trow, of the Church of England. Citing those words of Bishop Andrew's, 
k p. 120.  you add immediately, that this is the exposition of P. Martyr mentioned in the letter (i. e. my Lord of Lincoln's letter to the Vicar of Grantham) that as sometimes a Table is put for an Altar, as in the first of Malachi: so sometimes an Al●ar may be put for a Table, as in this Epistle to the Hebrews. Next look into the Bishop of Chichester, 
l Appello Cae●sarem. p. 286.  who plainly tells you, that the Lords Table hath been called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning; not, as some falsely teach, by succeeding Fathers: and that S. Paul himself may seem to have given authority and warrant to the Phrase, Hebr. 13. 10. The Doctor is not then the first son of the Church of England, that hath so expounded it. Or if he were, he hath a second, but such a second as is indeed Nulli secundus, for some things that I could tell you of, even your good friend the minister of Lincolnshire, one of the children of the Church, that writ the book entitled the Holy Table. For presently upon the Bishop of Lincoln's gloss, he adds 
m p. 120.  this de proprio, than the which solution there may be peradventure a more full; but there cannot be ● more plain and conceivable answer. I see you can make use sometimes of a leaden dagger, 
n I am sure this fellow is a mighty weak pe●ce to take up this leaden dagger, etc. p. 118.  though, as you tell us, thrown away by the very Papists; yet not so utterly thrown away, (as within two leaves after you are pleased to tell us) but that it is still worn 
o p. 121.  by the Jesuits, Salmeron, the Remists, à Lapide, Haraeus, Tirinus, Gordon, Menochius, (and Cajetan) of which some are yet living, for aught I can hear. Nor doth your Author say, it is thrown away, as if not serviceable to this purpose: 
p Pella●n. de Missa, l. 1. c. 14.  but only that non desunt ex Catholicis, some of the Catholic writers do expound it otherwise. I hope you would not have all Texts of Scripture to be cast away like leaden Daggers, because, Non desunt ex Catholicis, some one or other learned man give such expositions of them, as are not every way agreeable unto yours and mine.  
Now as the Doctor was the first Son of the Church of England, so was Se●ulius 
q p. 121.  the first Writer before the Reformation, that literally, and in the first place did bend this Text to the material Altar. Just so I promise you, and no otherwise. Or had Sedulius been the first, the exposition had not been so modern, but that it might lay claim to a fair antiquity. Sedulius lived so near S. Austin, that he might seem to tread on his very heels; the one being placed by Bellarmine, an. 420. the other an. 430. but ten years after. And if the Cardinals note 
r S●ripsit explanation●s in omnes Ep●stolas S▪ Pa●li, ex Origine, Ambrosio, Hi●ron●●●, & August●no 〈◊〉. Inscript. Ecc●es.  be true, that he excerpted all his notes on S. Paul's Epistles, from Origen▪ Ambrose, Hierom, and Austin: for ought I know, his exposition of the place may be as old, as any other whatsoever. But for Sedulius, (wheresoever he had it) thus he clears the place: 
s Inlocum.  Habemus nos fideles Altar, prae●er Altar judaeorum, unde corpus & sanguinem Christi participamus: i. e. The faithful have an Altar, yet not the jewish Altar neither, from whence they do participate of Christ's body & blood: That is plain enough, and yet no plainer than S. Chr●sost. though you have darkened him as much as possibly you can, to abuse the Father. 
t p. 122.  chrusostom expounds it (as you say) of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the things professed here amongst us: for proof whereof you bring in Oecumenius with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tenets, as it were, of Christian men. So that if you may be believed, the Father, and his second, do expound the place, of the Doctrine, Tenets, or profession of the Church of Christ. 
u I● Hebr. 13. 1●.  First, to begin with chrusostom, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The words you see, put neutrally, and so translated in the Latin, Non enim qualia sunt apud judaeos, talia etiam nostra sunt: That is, as I conceive his meaning, our Sacrifices, or our Sacraments are not such as the jewish were, our Alt●r not as theirs, nor any of our Rites thereunto belonging. My reason is, because it followeth in the Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; so that it is not lawful, no not to the Highpriest himself, to partake thereof. Of what I pray you? Not of the things professed in the Christian Church? I hope you will not say, but it was lawful to the Priests to be partakers of the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour. Why did the Apostles preach unto the jews, in case it were not lawful for them to make profession of the Faith? Therefore the Father must needs mean the Christians Sacrifices, (performed upon the Altar which the Apostle speaks of) of which it was not lawful for the Highpriest (continuing as he was, Highpriest) to be partaker. And this I take the rather to have been his meaning, because Theophylact who followed chrusostom so exactly 
y Ita Chrysostomum secutus est, ut ejus abbreviator dici possit. Bell. de scrip. Eccl. , that he doth seem to have abridged him; doth thus descant on it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Having before said (v. 9) that no regard was to be had of meats, lest our own Ordinances [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] might be thought contemptible, as things unobserved; he adds, that we have Ordinances of our own, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] not about meats, (as were the jews) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but such as do concern the Altar, 
z 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In locum.  or the unbloody sacrifice of Christ's quickening body. Of which, which sacrifice [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] it is not lawful for the Priests to be partakers, as long as they do service to the Tabernacle; i. e. the legal signs and shadows. The like saith also Oecumenius with his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you have Englished Tenets, with the like felicity, as you did the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Chrysost. For Oecumenius saying as Theophylact had done before, because the Apostle had affirmed, That no regard was to be had of meats, etc. he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and have not we also our own Ordinances or observations? To which he answers with Theophylact, but a great deal plainer, Yes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not of meats, but of our Altar. If you go down ward to the Latins, they are clear as day. Haymo who lived about the year 100L. affirms expressly on the place, Altar Ecclesiae est, ubi quotidie corpus consecratur Christi; that is the Altar of the Church, whereon the body of Christ is daily consecrated. And so Remigius, who lived, and writ about those times; Ha●emus ergo Altar Ecclesiae, ubi consecratur corpus Dominicum; the same in sense, though not in words, with that of Haymo. This, Doctor Fulk, almost as great a Clerk as you, conceives to be so really intended by Oecumenius and Haymo 
a Defence of the transl. c. 17. ●. 17. , that he reports, that they did dote upon the place; even as you say 
b p. 119. , the Doctor melts upon the place. But say you what you will. As long as he can back it with so good authority, the Doctor will make more of Habemus Altar, than before he did; though you should raise john Philpot from the dead to expound it otherwise; as near told he did in the Acts and Mon. p. 90. of your holy Table.  
From the Apostles Text, both re & nomine, proceed we to the Apostles Canons, nomine at the least, if not re also; which, if not writ by them, are by the Doctor said to be of good antiquity; nor do you deny it: Only you ●ling them off with a Schoolboys jest, 
c p. 170.  affirming confidently, that all good Scholars reckon those Canons but as so many Potguns. Not all good Scholars certainly; you are out in that. What think you of my Lord of Chichester, of whom the Doctor and the Minister of Linc. too 
d p. 95.  may well learn as long as they live? He, a geod Scholar in your own confession, doth not alone call them the Apostles Canons, 
e Preface to M. Io. Selden, p. 53.  but cities the 40 of them, as a full and strong authority to prove, that by the ancient Canon's Churchmen had leave to give, and bequeath their Goods and Chattels by their last Will and Testament. And this, in his reply unto Io. Selden, whom he knew too well, to think he would give back at the report or blow of a Schoolboys Potgun. Next where those three Canons that the Doctor cited, do speak so clearly of the Altar, and that by the same name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, used by the Apostle to the Hebrews, that there is no denial of it, you fly unto your wont refuge, a scornful and profane derision: 
f p▪ 170.  He that shall read, say you, what is presented on these Altars for the maintenance of the Bishop and his Clergy, will conceive them rather to be so many Pantries, Larders, or Storehouses, than consecrated Altars. 
g Persius' Sat. ●.  O Curvae in terris animae, & coelestium inanes! So dead a soul, so void of all celestial impressions, did I never meet with. I am confirmed now more than ever, for the first Author of the Dresser; otherwise you had never been allowed and licenced to call it as you do, a pantry, or a Larder, and a Storehouse. I see there is good provision towards, and as much devotion. Your Pigeon-house we have seen already 
o Cap. 2. , and Pottage you will serve in presently, if we can be patient. Larders we have, and Storehouses, and Pantries, which portend good cheer. Think you a man that hears you talk thus, would not conceive your Kitchen were your Chapel; the Dresser in the same, your High-Altar; and that your Requiem Altars were your Larder, pantry, and Storehouse? Get but a Cook to be your Chaplain, and on my life, Comus the old belly god amongst the Gentiles, was never sacrificed unto with such propriety of Utensils, and rich magnificence, as you will sacrifice every day to your 
h Quo●um Deus ●st venture.  god, your Belly. Nor need you fear that your estate will not hold out: I hope you are a provident Gentleman, and make your Altars bring you in▪ what your Altars spend you. For say you not in that which followeth, 
i p. 1. 0.  that judas his bag may with as good reason, as these Tables, be called ●n Altar? I wonder what fine adjunct you will find out next. You cannot probably go on, and not set down ad mens●m daemoniorum, that Table of Devils which Saint Paul speaks of. judas his bag? Just so, yet you would shift this off unto Baronius, as you have done the Dresser on the rude people of Grantham. Baronius, as you say, implieth it. Doth he so indeed? All that Baroni●● saith, is this, 
k Ann. A. 57  that those who ministered in the Church, did from the first beginnings of the Church receive their maintenance from the oblations of the faithful. Immo cum adhuc dominus supe●stes, etc. And that the Lord himself when he preached the Gospel, used from these offerings to provide for himself and his. For judas (saith S. john) bearing the bag, Ea qu●● mittebantur, portabat, did carry up and down that store which was sent in to him. What say you? doth the Cardinal imply in this, that judas his bag, may with good reason (any how) be called an Altar? Take heed of judas and his ●agge, of judas and his qualities; for fear you come unto that end that judas did.  
Your answers to the Doctor's allegations from Ignatius, must be looked on next. And first the Doctor finds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Altar, in his Epistle add Magnesios'. 
l p. 168.  You answer first, that by Vedelius this is thought to be a supposititious fragment taken out of the Constitutions of Clemens: and yet proclaim it in your margin, that this doth not appear so clearly to you, as to rest upon it. You answer secondly, that this was brought in by the Doctor only to make sport. How so? Because, say you, the Altar there, is jesus Christ. In that before, you left Vedelius, your good friend and helper in all this business; and here he leaves you, to cry quit●. Searching as curiously as he could, what to except against in all these Epistles, he lets this go by. A pregnant evidence that he knew not what to say against it. Run, saith the Father, all of you as one man to the Temple of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as to one Altar, to one jesus Christ: i. e. say you, who better understood the Father, than he did himself; run all of you to one jesus Christ, as to one Altar. This is your old trick to abuse your Readers, and mak● your Authors speak what they never meant. The Father spoke before of prayer, of common prayers to be poured forth by all the people, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the self same place, in faith and love. And then exhorts them to run together to the Church to pray, as to one Altar, to participate, as to one jesus Christ, the High Priest of all. Had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the matter had been clear on your side. But the distinction and repeating of the preposition, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, make a different business. The second place produced by the Doctor from Ignatius, was that 
m Ad Ph●lad.  of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he makes mention of the unity that ought to be retained in the Church of God; and then brings in amongst the rest, one Bread broke for all, one Cup distributed to all, one Altar also in every Church, together with one Bishop, etc. To this you answer, that in the place to the Philadelphians, he doth express himself to mean by Altar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Council of the Saints, and Church in general, and not any material Altar, as Vedelius proves at large. And do they so indeed? That passage which you speak of, is in the Epistle ad Ephesios'. And do you think he tells the Ephesians what he did mean by Altar in his Epistle to the Philadelphians? This is just like the Germans beating down of Altars, because the people here in England were scandalised with them in our country Churches. Then for Vedelius, proves he, as you affirm, that by Altar here, Ignatius means not any material Altar, but the Council of the Saints, the Church in general? In the Epistle to the Ephesians he doth indeed correct magnificat (as your own phrase is) and play the Critic with the Author; making him say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereof we shall say more hereafter in our perusal and examination of your Extravagancies. But in this place he deals more fairly, and understands him as the Doctor doth: for reckoning up four kinds of Altars in the Primitive Church, he makes the fourth and last to be mensa Domini, qua utebantur in sacra coena peragenda, the table of the Lord, used in the celebrating of the holy supper. Then adds, that 
n Hanc mensam Patres interdum etiam Altare vocant▪ Exercit. 6. ●. 1.  sometimes by the Fathers, this table is also called an Altar, and for the proof thereof brings in this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Doctor mentioned. So that you have belied the Father and your friend to boot. Lastly, for that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's Altar, in his Epistle ad Tarsenses, the whole place is this. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Those that continue in the state of Virginity, honour ye as the Priests of Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those which are widows indeed, (in the Apostles language) or which 
o p. 168.  uphold their chastity (as yourself translates it) honour ye as the Altars of God. These are his words distinctly, and what ●ind you here? Marry you say, some knavish scholar exscribed the passage for him to make sport withal: and that the Altar there intended becomes much better the upper end of his Table, than the upper end of his Church; a plain widow-Altar; Which said, you bring in one of your young Scholars with a bawdy Epigram, unfit to be inserted into any book of a serious Argument; but more unfit to be approved, allowed, and licenced, by any Ordinary: But Sir, however you are pleased to make yourself profanely merry in these sacred matters, the place is plain enough to prove an Altar; and more than so, a reverence due unto the Altar, in Ignatius time: the men of Tarsus being here advised to honour chaste and virtuous widows, as they did God's Altar. And for the widow that you wot of, if you have any special aim therein (as some think you have) she may return that answer to you, which once Octavia's Chamber-●●aid 
p Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. prope finem.  gave to Tigellinus; which I had rather you should look for in the Author, than expect from me.  
The place from 
q lib. 4. c. 20.  Iren●eus, by which he proved the Apostles to be Priests, because they did Deo & Altariservire, attend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at the Altar; you make 
r p. 165.  to be an Allegory, and no more than so: But Bishop Montague of Chichester, of whom the Doctor (as you bid him) will think no shame to learn as long as he lives, 
s Appello Ca●●em, p. ●●6.  finds more matter in it, and saith that Irenaeus, lib. 4. c. 20. speaks of the ministers of the new Testament, not of the old, that they do Deo & Altari deservi●e: which is the very same that the Doctor said. Are not you scitus scriptor, a very proper squire, to quarrel with the exposition of a man, whose books you are not fit to carry? what may be further said out of Irenaeus for sacrifices, Priests, and Altars, we have shown you in the former Chapter. Next for Tertullian, the Doctor gave 
c 〈◊〉. p. 46.  you thence two places, one from his book de oratione, Si & adaram Dei steteris: the other out of that de poenitentia, Adgenic●lari aris Dei. Not to say any thing in this place of the St●tions mentioned in the first of those two passages [nun solemnior erit statiotua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris?] you answer first unto the first, 
d p. 160.  that by this Ara Dei, Tertullian in his African and ●ffected style means plainly the Lord's Table. Why man, who ever doubted it? What saith the Doctor more than this? Tertullian (are not these his words?) hath the name of Altar, as a thing used and known in the Christian Church: as, nun solemnior erit statio tua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris? what find you there, but that the Lords Table in Tertullians ●ime, was called Ara Dei, God's Altar; you might have saved your labour, of running into France for my 
e As the Lord du Ples●is doth acknowledge. p. 100L.  Lord du Pl●ssis, unless he could have told you that Tertullian meant some other thing in his Ara Dei; or that the name of Altar was not a thing then known and used in the Christian Church. Tertullian did indeed affect a little of the African, in all his style. But his said affectation doth appear in nothing here, save that he useth the word Ara, when as, in that propriety of speech which generally was observed in Christian Writers, he should have used the word Altar. Nor need you take such pains to add some reason for your opinion, that there by Ara Dei, Tertullian plainly meaneth the Lord's Table; being a matter never questioned. And yet to show your mighty reading, and that you have a great deal of the Critic in you: you fall into a tale of I know not what, that Ara in Tertullian doth not signify an Altar, but any hillock or advantage of gro●nd. Once in Tertullian so it signifieth, as in that de Pallio. And therefore must it here be ara Dei, at God's hillock, or (as yourself translate it after) the rising of Almighty God? But herein you mistake the point extremely, as in all things else: The proper signification of the word, is Altar, as you may see in Varro de lingua latina, lib. 5. and Isidore de Origin. lib. 15. c. 4. used for a bank or hillock by a Metaphor only, as in that de Pallio. So that to call the Table ara, only because it was a kind of rising above the pavement; and to call banks or risings arras, because of that similitude they had to Altars: were to run round in circulo, and borrow Metaphors from metaphors, ad infinitum. And yet you take away this Metaphor also, by telling us immediately, that Tertullian by alluding to the reservations from the Heathen Altars, doth call the Communion-Table Ara Dei, God's Altar. Doth he so? That's well. You give as much in this, as one needs desire, that were not too insatiably covetous. How you mistake Tertullian in his reservare & accipere, we shall see hereafter.  
For the next place, Adgeniculari aris Dei, you tell us that it is run out of the text; 
f p. 1●2.  and adgeniculari c●aris Dei put in stead thereof: the alteration being made by Pamelius, approved by all men else, besides this poor Doctor. Approved by all men else? most confidently said indeed, but most weakly proved. What think you of Hospinian, whose judgement you rely upon in other matters of this nature? Meminit enim & Tertullianus adgeniculationis poenitentium ad arras, in l. de poenitentia. So he, in his discourse de origine Altarium, published in the year 1603. What think you of Laurentius Renatus de la Bar, who reads it, as the Doctor doth; Adgeniculari aris Dei; And thereupon infers, Hic vides antiquitus, Altaria venerationi fuisse, quibus adgenicularentur: By which (saith he) you may perceive that anciently the Altars were had in reverence, and that the people kneeled before them? What think you of Beatus Rhenanus, who doth not only read it aris Dei, and makes that inference thereupon, which out of him was taken by de la Bar: but brings a testimony from S. Ambrose, that in those ancient times they did os●ulis quoque honorare, honour the Altars with their kisses? What think you, finally, of Stephanus Durantis, which also reads it, Aris Dei, lib. de Ritib. Eccl. 1. cap. 15? You see Sir, here are some besides the poor Doctor that approve of the ancient reading: and for your new readings, as many times they have their uses, so other whiles they make an Author speak what he never meant: the liberty of correcting and criticising being grown so high, and that of falsifying (you know it by yourself) so universal▪ th●t the old Copies may be thought to be the truest: And I am partly in these matters of old Timon's mind, who being asked by Aratus ᵍ how he might get a perfect Copy of Homer's Works, returned this answer, that he should look abroad for one of the old Editions, and not look after those of the new corrections: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You see the Doctors are divided, and that both Readins have their Patrons, and some that lived since the old reading was cast out of the Text 
h ●pp●sed by all learned men t●at have lived, since Pamelius time. p. 165.  by Pamelius, have not for all that taken up his Charis Dei; much less opposed the old, as you idly dream. As for your sally on the Author of the Latin determination, which you speak of, p. 163. the Pocket-Author, as you call him, sicut tuus est mos, according to your wont fashion of casting dirt on all you meet wi●h; I leave him to himself; it concerns not me: Aetatem habet, he is of age to do you reason, as well in this, as in that other quarrel which you have against him, and which you fall upon unseasonably, but that you love to be in action, p. 192. All that I mean to do, is to divide the wind and Sun between you, and see fair play on both sides, if you should chance to enter the lists about it.  
And so we will proceed unto S. Cyprian, of▪ whom the Doctor told you in his 
t p. 4●.  Coal from the Altar, that in his Ep. ad Epictetum, he plainly calls it Altar D●i▪ Gods Altar. But there, say you, 
u p. 166▪  he means by Altar, Stipes, oblationes, lucra, the contributions, offerings, and all advantages belonging to the man's Bishopric whom they had suspended. This you affirm indeed, but with as little proof, as truth. The words are plainly otherwise, but that you have an itch that will never leave you, to make your Authors speak what they never meant. Now thus stood the case: One 
x Cypr. Ep. li. 1. ep. 7.  Fortunatianus having Apostated in the time of persecution, and thereupon being deprived of his Bishopric, would enter on his charge again without more ado, not being reconciled unto the Church. This the good Father there complains of, that he should dare to enter on the Priesthood, which he had betrayed, Qu●si post aras Diaboli, accedere ad aras Dei fas sit, as if it were a thing of nothing to come immediately from the Devils Altars to the Altar of God. Is this to talk of offerings, contributions, and matters of profit? After indeed, he mentioneth Stipes & Oblationes, but neither in this very case, nor any thing unto this purpose; which you know well enough, though contrary unto your knowledge, you bring in those words to stop a gap withal, and for no use else. That in the eighth Epistle, unum Altar, & unum Sacerdotium, doth signify, you say, the sum and substance of the Gospel; why do you not make use of the same construction for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ignatius, before remembered, rather than run as far as Ephesus for a bald device, to blind the lustre of the place? Both places intimate this only, that in one Church, there was not, in those early days, above one Altar; and may be serviceable as others of this nature are, against the Plurality of Masses in the Church of Rome; many of which you have in Bishop jewel, Art. 13. § 6. But that it should be thence concluded, that there S. Cyprian only means 
y p. 166.  the sum and substance of the Gospel; is to make aliquid ex nihilo, so it serve your purpose: Or if it could be thence collected, it could not but be much unto the honour of the Altar, and the Priesthood, both, that those two words should comprehend the whole bodies of religion, and yet the Priesthood and the Altar might stand well enough for all that collection. Nor need we fear, that following this Interpretation, The Popedom 
z Ibid.  would be set up and erected in every Parish Church in England, because forsooth the Father speaks of una Cathedra in the words before. Saith not Igna●ius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one only Bishop in a Church, as before was said. Neither of them I trow endeavoured to advance the Popedom, but, that for the avoiding of schisms and divisions there ought to be one Bishop only within one Diocese; whereof see Bishop jewel 
a Article.  passim, in that of the Supremacy: And as one Bishop, so one Priesthood, and one Altar only in each Church, on the selfsame reason. The like may be replied to your evasion from S. Cyprians meaning in his 
b Cited in the Co●l. p. 46.  ninth Epistle, of which you tell us, as before, that he means there by Altar the Ministerial functions and offices. If so, it were but pars pro toto, the chiefest and most excellent part of the whole Ministry put for all the rest. But are you sure of what you say? are you sure of any thing? Saint Cyprian speaks five times of Altars in that one Epistle, four times of Sacrifices and Altars: Think you he means in every place the Ministerial functions and offices? What say you then to this? Nequ● enim meretur nominari ad Altar Dei in Sacerdotum prece, qui ab Altar sacer ●otes avocare voluit: What signifieth Altar in the first place think you? What? the material Altar, or the 〈◊〉 function: However you may wrest this meaning in the later clause, to the Priestly function, yet in the first you cannot possibly give him any other meaning, than that the Priests officiated at the real and material Altar. For shame d●ale better with the Fathers, and let them speak their minds, according to the liberty of th●se most pure and pious times; without those base disg●ises which you put upon them, only to blind your reader's eyes, and abuse Antiquity.  
Thus have I given you a brief view in these two last Chapters, of the chief point in controversy, between the Doctor and yourself; and hunted you as well as my poor wits would serve me, out of all your starting holes. Altars, and Priests, and Sacrifices being Relatives, as you say yourself, I have laid down in the first place the Orthodox and ancient doctrine of the Church, concerning Sacrifice; followed it in the way of an historical narration, from Abel down to Noah, from him to Moses, from Moses to Christ, who instituted, as S. Irenaeus hath it, the new sacrifice of the new Testament; novam oblationem novi Testamenti, in this Father's language. This sacrifice thus instituted by our Lord and Saviour, the Church received from the Apostles, 
c Quam ab Apostolis Ecclesiae accipiens, in universo mundo offe●t Deo. Lib. 4. cap. 32.  and offers it accordingly to the Lord our God, throughout the habitable world: the passage and descent whereof from the Apostles times, until S. Augustine's, we have traced and followed. And we have also found, that from the first times to the last, there was no sacrifice performed without Priests, and Altars; excepting those spiritual Sacrifices, which every man is bound to offer, in what place soever. All which, both Altars, Priests, and sacrifice, we have discovered to you in the Church of England, 
Cap. 7.  out of the public monuments and Records thereof; and that so answerably unto the Patterns of Antiquity, as if it had been 〈…〉 the ancient Fathers, than the 〈…〉 have cleared up those mists, which you endeavoured to cast upon the ancient Writers, that so your Readers might not see the true intent and meaning of those passages, which concern this Argument; those most especially whereby you would persuade weak men, such as are bound to take your word without further search, that in the Primitive Church, there was neither Altar, Priest, not Sacrifice, truly and properly so called: which what a ruin and confusion it would bring in the Church of God, taking away all outward worship, enabling every man to the Priestly function, robbing the Church of all the reverence due unto it; no man knows better than yourself, who have endeavoured to promote that doctrine for this purpose only, that you may be cried up, and honoured as the Grand Patron and defender of men's Christian liberty. Finally▪ I have answered unto all those Cavils and exceptions which you had made against the Allegations and Authorities pressed and produced by the Doctor against the Writer of the Letter to the Vicar of Granthan; and left him statu quo, in the same case wherein you found him, all your assaults and stratagems of fraud and falsehood notwithstanding. But this in reference only to the thing itself, that the Church had Altars in those early and dawning days of Christianity; we will next look upon the place and situation of them, what you say to that.   

CHAP. VII.  
Of Churches, and the fashion of them, and of the usual place allotted in the Church for the holy Altar.  
Places appointed for Divine worship amongst the Patriarches, jews, and Gentiles. The various conditions and esta●te of the Christian Church, and that the Churches were according unto those estates. What was the meaning of the Apolog●ticks, when they denied the having of Temples in the Church of Christ. The Minister of Linc. stops the mouth of Minutius Felix, and falsifieth Arnobius. Altars how situated in the troublesome and persecuted times of Christianity. The usual form of Churches, and distinct part● and places of them in the Primitive times. That in those times the Altars stood not in the body of the Church, as is supposed by the Minister of Linc. Six reasons for the standing of the Altars at the upper end of the Choir or Chancel in the days of old. Of Ecclesiastical traditions, and the authority thereof. The Church of England constant to the practice of the former times. The Minister of Linc. tells a Winter tale about the standing of an Altar in the Cathedral Church of Dover. The meaning of the Rubric in the common-prayer-book, about the placing of the Table in Communion tim●; as also of the 82 Canon of the Church of England.  
IT is well noted by our incomparable Hoo●ker, That solemn duties of public service to be done unto God, must have their places set and prepared in such sort, as beseemeth actions of that regard. Which laid for his foundation, he thus builds upon it, that Adam, even during the space of his small continuance, in Paradise, had where to present himself before the Lord, Gen. 3. 8. that adam's sons had out of Paradise in like sort, whither to bring their Sacrifices, Gen. 4. 3. that the Patriarches used Altars, and Mountains, and Groves to the selfsame purpose, Gen. 13. 4. & 22. 1. & 21. 33. that in the wilderness, when as the people of God had themselves no settled habitation, yet were they then commanded by God to make a movable Tabernacle; and finally, that the like charge was given them against the time that they should come to settle themselves in the Land, which had been promised to their Fathers. Nature informed them in the main, that proper and peculiar places were to be set apart to God's public worship, and God himself informed them in the circumstance thereof, for the form and fashion, both when the Church was movable▪ and when after settled. The Tabernacle fashioned by his direction, was a movable Temple; the Temple fashioned by that pattern, was a settled Tabernacle. Each of them had their Courts, their Sanctum, and their Sanctum Sanctorum, according to the several Ministeries by the Law required: which distribution stood in force, as long as there was any Temple so to be distributed, and any Ministeries in the same to be performed. A Temple, whilst it stood, of most rich magnificence; immensae opulentiae Templum, as 
b Hist. lib. 5.  Tacitus most truly called it; and such as Titus laboured to preserve with all might and cunning, at the destruction of the City; knowing right well, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
c Joseph. Hist. de bellis Indecorum.  that the subversion of it would redound unto the loss and prejudice of the Roman Empire. A Temple on the which the people of the jews had severally bestowed their costly offerings, as occasion was: and to the which the Kings of Asia, 
d Ant●q. I●d. lib. 13. cap. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as josephus tells us, had sent both many and those royal and magnificent presents, in testimony of their service to the God of Israel. Nor was it otherwise with the Gentiles, than with Gods own people. At first they worshipped their Gods sub dio, in the open air: the Grecians sacrificing unto Aesculapius 
e 〈…〉  on the mountain tops, as the Bithynians did unto all their deities.  
Now as they had their high places, their montium cacumina, as mine Author calls them; so had they groves also as the Patriarches had; and sacrificed unto their Gods under woods and trees. 
f 〈…〉  The grove of Hercules near Athens, and that of Vesta near mount Palatine, were very famous in old time●. Some such there was in Carthage whereof Virgil 
g 〈…〉  speaks, Lucus in urbe fuit mediâ, laetissimus umbra. And Servius notes 
h 〈…〉  upon the place, that Virgil never speaks of groves, but you must take them to be consecrated; and nunquam sine religione▪ in his Scholia on the third of the Aen●ids. So Lucan tells us of the druids, 
i Pha● shall. l. 1.  Nemora alta remotis incolitis Lucis, that they delighted most in high woods, and private groves: the Oak being principally affected by them, whence 
k 〈…〉  they had their name. But when the Lord had fixed his people in the Land of Canaan, and given them leave to build a Temple to his name: that grant was forthwith apprehended by the Gentiles also, in their magnificent structures of the self same kind. The form and distribution generally the same with that of Salomon's: the Temples of the Gentiles being divided into three parts also; viz. the Courts or Areas, the body of the same which they called Basilicas, and last of all their Adyta, or Penetralia. The Areas of their Temples, 
l Rosinus Aut. Rom. l. 2. c. 2.  the Porticos, and the Nave or body of them, were suffered to be used sometimes for walking, conference, and such civil businesses: but for their Adyta, 
m jul. Pollux li●. 2. c. 1. n. 8.  they were conceived to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be looked into or touched, but by the Priests. These 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins generally called Penetralia, as before was said: Caesar, 
n Bellicivilis lib. 3.  occulta & remota Templi, the hidden and remote parts of the Temple; and adds withal quo praeter sacerdotes adire fas non est, that it was lawful unto none besides the Priests to go into them. Finally, for the costly offerings bestowed upon them, and those rich presents which occasionally had been sent unto them: take once for all, that Temple of Apollo in Delphos, whereof the Historian 
o justin. hist. ●ib. 24.  thus informs us. Multa ibi & opulenta Regum populorumque visuntur munera, quaeque magnificentia sui, reddentium vota gratam voluntatem, & deorum responsa manifestant.  
Thus also was it with the Christians in the Primitive times, compelled too often, to hold their meetings and assemblies, as Bishop jewel rightly notes it, in vacant places, in woods and forests, and caves under the ground. And after as by sufferance or by special favour, they were permitted to build them Oratories, for the public use: they neither built them in such sumptuous manner, as might have drawn upon them the Common envy of the Gentiles; or furnished them in such rich sort as might have been a burden to themselves in their poor estate. But when the Church was settled, and had got the better hand of her cruel enemies; Temples in all parts were erected: the whole world seeming to exult that opportunity was given to pour out its treasures to so good a purpose. To these three periods, we may reduce what ever is to be observed in the present business. Touching the first, it is that we are told by Platina, 
p in vit. Calisti.  Occulta esse omnia, & sacella potius at que etiam abdita, & plerumque subterranea. Churches they had, places designed and set apart for their holy exercises; but poor and mean, and almost hidden from men's eyes, agreeable unto the present state in the which they were. However being destinate to those holy uses, they were not suffered to be defiled and abused by profane employments. That of S. Paul, 
q 1. Cor. 11▪ 22  Have ye not Houses to eat and drink in, discovers manifestly that there was a difference to be made between house and house, between God's house and man's, the places of religious and civil meetings. Now as there was a difference between house and house; so in the self same house, there was a difference between place and place: that which was separated for the Priest and the holy Sacrament, not being to be pressed into by the Common people. And of the people there were some that might approach more near to the holy places, than the others could: which is a thing so known, that no man which pretends to learning did ever doubt it. The second period was when the Church had rest, what times the Christians set themselves to build them Churches: Churches, I mean, avowed for such, and publicly frequented for religious meetings, visible as well unto the Gentiles as unto the faithful, and well known to be so. The first observed by Polydore Virgil, 
r de Invent. ●●rum. l. 5. c. 6.  to have been publicly avowed in Rome, being that of therm Novuti invico Patritio, consecrated by Pope Pius the first, An. 150. or thereabouts, by the name of S. Prudentianae. Another Church (but somewhat after this) doth Platina remember 
s in vita Calixti.  to have been built by Pope Calixtus, in regione Transtyberina, and dedicated by the name of the Blessed Virgin. But for a general view of their works of this kind, we may best take it from Eusebius, 
t Hist. Eccl. lib. 8. cap. ●.  who speaking of the calm that was between the ninth and tenth persecutions, informs us of the Christians, that not content with those small Churches which before they had, they built them fairer, and more large, in every city. But take his own words with you for your more assurance. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where you may also see, that they had Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as before he calls them) in the former times, but mean and small, agreeable unto those miserable and calamitous days. Nor was it long before those Churches built so lately, 
u Ibid. cap. 2  were all again demolished by Dioclesian; and so continued till the time of the Emperor Constantine: what time being raised more beautifully, than before they had been; they were set out and furnished with all costly furnitures. So that when julian was in state, who next but one succeeded Constantine in the Roman empire, and that the treasures of the Church were made a prey unto the spoiler: Felix the Proconsul 
x Theodor. hist. eccl. l. 3. c. 11.  could not choose but break out into this expression, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, behold in what rich utensiles they do administer to the Son of Marie. Nor was it ever thought till now, in these later days, that God created such and so many glorious things, to be served only with the basest.  
This groundwork laid, we may the better see what we have to say to those objections, which are and have been made out of the Apol●geticks of thos● times, to prove that in those early days of Christianity there were no Churches. And this I will the rather do, because the Authors which you have produced against the being of Altars in the Christians Churches, conclude aswell, that then they had no Churches for religious uses: which being examined in this place, will more clearly manifest what kind of Altars, and what kind of Churches, were then enquired of by the Gentiles, and in what sense the having of them was denied by the Christian writers. Now they that gave the hint unto this surmise, lived either in the heat of persecution, when as the faithful were dispersed, and neither durst or could be suffered to meet in public: or else considering that their Churches were but mean and poor, they did not use to call them Temples; as did the Gentiles those magnificent and stately structures, which had been consecrated to their Idols. When therefore they were challenged by the Gentiles to render an account of their religion; and were demanded why they had no Altars: they were interrogated also why they had no Churches. Not any of those Authors which you have produced, but speak of one as well as the other: the objection being made of both, and the answer unto both set down accordingly. Origen mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Minutius Felix, hath his Templa nulla, with his Aras nullas: and of Arnobius it 
a Con●. Gent. lib. 6. in initio.  was asked, cur neque sacras aedes venerationis ad officia construamus; as well as non Altaria fabricemus. In the reporting of which Authors you leave out whatsoever doth relate to not having Churches; as if the Quaere only were of not having Altars in those Churches, and therefore cut Minutius off at cur nullas arras, not suffering him to come forth with his Templa nulla. As for Arnobius, you deal worse with him, than with Minutius, and make the Gentiles put the question, 
b p. 156.  why they (the Christians) built no Altars, venerationis ad officia, to officiate upon in any kind of divine worship: when as the question was not why they had no Altars to officiate on; but why they had no Churches to officiate in. Is this fair dealing think you, in a great Professor?  
Then for the Answers to these Cavils, in case they must be understood simply and absolutely, 
c ibid.  as you please to say in the case of Altars: then will it follow thereupon, not only that they had no Churches, but that they ought to have none neither. You grant yourself, that there were Altars in the Church in Tertullians' time; and Churches you must also grant, because you find it in Tertullian, who makes mention of them, lib. 
d ibid.  de Idol. c. 7. ad uxorem l. 2. cap. 9 de veland. virg.. cap. 3. & 13. and also in his book de Corona militis, which makes it plain, that whereas Origen and Minutius Felix lived both after him, and yet reply unto the Quaere of the Gentiles, that they had neither Temples, nor Altars: it must be understood, not absolutely and simply, as you simply say, as if they had no Churches, or no Altars in them; but with relation to those Temples, and those Altars, which were so honoured by the Gentiles. The like is also to be said unto Arnobius, who living in those very times which Eusebius speaks of, wherein the Christians did enlarge their Churches, and public Oratories; cannot be understood so absolutely and simply, as you and 
e Potest intelligi simplicit●r, quod nulla haberent simpliciter. Harald. in ma●g. 156.  your Haraldus conceive he may; but only in that qualified sense before remembered. Churches they had for sacred and religious meetings, but no such stately and magnificent structures as were erected by the Gentiles, to be the local habitation of their several Idols. And they had Altars too for that mystical Sacrifice, which had been constantly continued in the Church of God; but no such Altars as the Gentiles had, and enquired after, which were for bloody sacrifices of Sheep and Oxen. And this you might have seen in Arnobius also, but that you use to wink when you meet with any thing you would not willingly observe. For presently on this, quod non Altaria fabricemus, non are as, he adds these words, non caesorum sanguinem animantium demus: which clearly shows what Altars they were said to want by the Inquisitors.  
Thus having found that in the primitive times the Christians had their Churches, and in them their Altars, our next iuquirie must be this, how, and in what particular place those Altars were disposed of in the Churches. For that they had some proper and peculiar place, is not a matter to be doubted. Not that I think the Altars were so fixed at first, that there was no removing of them if occasion was; but that there was some certain place allotted to them, which was reserved for the Priest, and the Administration of the Eucharist: out of which place they were not to be moved, unless they were quite moved out of the Church, as sometimes it happened. For that they were not fixed at first may be well collected from the condition of the Church, which was then still in motion, and unsettled, the winds of persecution beating as they did, so fierce upon it. Nor were the Altars only movable in those first days, but also portable: and purposely made movable, that they might be portable, according to the quality of the times. And if we may rely upon Gabriel Biel, as in this case I think we may, he tells us of a Table, or Altar, (Altar ligneum in his language) 
f v. Hospi. de orig. Altar cap. 6.  whereat the Popes of Rome did use to celebrate the Sacrament: which was removed by the Priests from place to place, ubicunque episcopus Romanus latuerit, where ever the than Roman Bishops did retire themselves in times of danger. Then for the situation of them, whether towards the East, or West, or any other part of the heavenly bodies, if Walafridus Strabo may be credited; there was no certainty thereof in the said times neither: the Altars or Communion Tables being sometimes disposed of 
g de rebus Eccles. cap. 4.  in diversas plagas, East, West, North, or South; and that as there he tells us, propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem, according to the quality and conveniency of the place itself. Indeed it was not possible, as the times than were, that it should be otherwise. For holding their assemblies, as before we told you, in private houses, in dens, and caverns under ground, they were to make a virtue of necessity, and suit themselves according to the quality of the place, considering that they could not suit the place to their own desires. But this held only for a time: no longer than the faithful were in those extremities, and put unto their shifts, as we use to say. For after when they were permitted, either on sufferance, or by special favour, to fit their Churches to their minds, they contrived them so, that in their prayers and address to Almighty God, they turned themselves unto the East. The Author of the Questions and Answers ad Orthodoxos ascribed to justine, affirms that in his time 
h qu. 118.  the Christians offered up their hymns and orisons to God, fixing their eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, towards or on the eastern parts: and ●aith withal, that they received this usage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the holy Apostles. 
i Apologet. Cap. 16.  And sure I am, that in Tertullians' time the Christians were accused of worshipping the Sun: for which there was no other ground, but that they turned unto the East in the times of prayer. Ind suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari, as he there informs us. Which being so, it is not to be thought but that the Churches were contrived and built accordingly, fit to the posture of the people in the times of prayer. Not that they were not built in any place, at any time, in any other form or fashion, but that it was thus generally, and for the most part, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in all parts of Christendom, from those times downwards. And so it is resolved by 
i de rebus Eccl. Cap. 4.  Walfridus Strabo, usus frequentior est in Orientem or ants converti, & pluralitatem ecclesiarum maximam eo tenore constitui.  
For further proof of which, let us but look upon the forms of our ancient Churches, and we shall find that generally they are built in one uniform fashion: which fashion questionless was borrowed from the pattern of the first Churches erected in the primitive times. Baronius tells us of some Churches 
k Baron. Ann. Anno. 57  in his time standing, quae temporibus Constantini fuerunt à fundamentis extructae, which had been built from the foundation, in the time of Constantine: and differed nothing in the form, either for situation or distinction, from those which have been since erected. And we may probably conclude with him, that those then built were built according to the ●orme of those which were demolished not long before, in the time of Diocletians fury: cum eadem in iis officia essent obeunda, exerce●dae functiones, a● mysteria consummanda; the self same Offices, functions, and mysteries, being to be performed in them both alike. Now for performance of these functions, offices, and mysteries, the Churches were divided into several parts: two of the which are most considerable in our present business. Of these the greater was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the nave or body of the Church; the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which we call the Choir, or Chancel: the body for the most part, standing towards the West: the Choir or Chancel towards the East. And howsoever it was and might be otherwise in some few particulars; yet it was usitatior mos, the general usage of the Church, 
l Epist. ●2.  as Paulinus hath it, to place the Choir or Chancel in the Eastern part. Within the body of the Church, they had their Auditorium, their place for reading of the Scripture, and so much of the public Offices, as might be heard by those whom they called Catechumeni, that were instructed in the faith, and not as yet admitted unto the Sacrament of Baptism. The Choir or Chancel set apart for the performance of those rites, i● which they placed the greatest mystery of their profession, which was the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour: A difference or distinction not took up in the latter times, but such as may plead strongly for as much antiquity as any other custom in the Church beside; and in the which they were directed as well by God's command, as by natural reason. For in the Tabernacle built by Gods own appointment, and fashioned by his own direction, there was a Sanctum sanctorum, a place more holy than the rest; selected by the Lord for the most excellent part of the jewish ceremony, which was the expiating of his people. For which, if God thought fit that there should be a proper and selected▪ place, and that the same should be secluded from all other use: the Christians by the self same warrant might in their Churches have a Sanc●●m Sanctorum also, for the commemorating of that expiation, which was in fact made for us by our Lord and Saviour. Besides, the Gentiles, had in their several temples, their Adyta, or Penetralia, as before was said: wherein their greatest mysteries were performed and celebrated. Tota in Ad●tis divinitas, 
m adv. Valent. cap. 2.  saith Tertullian of them. In those they placed their deities, and in those their Altars. Excessere omnes, Adytis arisque relictis, Dii quibus imperium hoc steterat, 
n Virgil. Aeneid.  as the Poet hath it: which clearly shows their Altars were disposed of in their in most Adyta. And should you say that by this reason, the distribution of our Churches into a body and a Chancel, would savour too much either of the jew or Gentile, you might betray your folly, but not hurt the cause. For there's no question to be made but many Temples of the Gentiles were, without any alteration of the Fabric, converted into Christian Churches. Nor can you show a reason for it, why it should be more stood upon, as the times than were, to build new Churches of that fashion which the Gentiles used; than to use those very Churches which the Gentiles built. And for conformity with the Jews, you find that answered to your hand by a 
o Hooker. ●. 5.  judicious Divine indeed, who counts it no less grievous fault, for any King to build his house according to the model of Salomon's palace; than for the Christians in contriving of their Churches, to have an eye upon the fabric of K. Salomon's Temple.  
Now where it is affirmed in the Bishop's letter, that anciently the Communion-Tables stood in the midst of the Church; and for the proof thereof, the Vicar was referred to Bishop jewel: before we come to an examination of the proofs there offered, 
Art. 3. §. 26.  we will propose some reasons why it could not be so. And first we find it granted by that Reverend Prelate, Bishop jewel, that wheresoever the Altar stood, it was divided with rails from the rest, whereof it was called Cancelli, a Chancel, and commonly of the Greeks Presbyterium, for that it was a place specially appointed unto the Priests and Ministers, and shut up from all others, for disturbing the holy Ministry: Which given for granted we proceed, and will show some reasons and authorities that the said Chancel or Presbytery was not, as he conceiveth, in the middle of the Church, but a distinct part and member of it, at one end thereof; and yet I would not have you t●inke, but that I hold as reverend an opinion of Bishop jewel, as you, or any other, be he who he will. My first authority shall be taken f●om the instance of, and in the Emperor Theodo●ius, which himself there makes. The Emperor Theodosi●s having been long prohibited the Church, upon that great and rash Massacre of the Thessalonians, and afterwards admitted to 
p Theodor. hist. Eccles. ●. 5. c 17.  communicate: at his first entrance in the Church, casts himself down upon the Pavement. After, the Offertory coming on, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he went into the Sanctuary; and having made his offering, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, continued still within the same, near the partition or Cancelli: Which being noted by Saint Ambrose, he signified unto him by his Deacon, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that those Inferior parts were only proper to the Priests, and to no man else. Now that which in Theodoret is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in 
q lib. 7. c. 25.  Sozomen is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Choir or Chancel, who adds withal, that in Constantinople the Emperor had his seat in the said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, during the celebrating of the holy Sacrament; that so some difference might be made betwixt himself and common persons. But this being not the use in Milan, Saint Ambrose allotted him a place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, within the body of the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, immediately before the bars that severed the Church and Chancel. And this he did, that so the Emperor might have place before the people, as had the Priests before the Emperor. This clearly shows, that the Pres●yterium, or Chancel, was not in the middle of the Church, but was distinct and severed from it at one end or other; for otherwise how could the Emperor have ● place between the people and the Priests, before the Chancel or Cancelli; in case the Chancel stood in the very midst of the Church, and all the people round about it. My second reason shall be taken from a like story of 
r Nicephorus lib. 6. c 33.  Numerianus, one of the sons of the Emperor Carus, who coming into the Church at Antioch, whereof Saint Babylas was Bishop, and having a desire to behold their mysteries, quasi per transennam, privily, as if peeping through a Lattice, was presently rebuked by the Bishop for the said attempt. Now had the Choir or Chancel stood in the middle of the Church, and only railed about, so that every man might see what was done within; Numemerianus needed not to have peeped as through a Lattice to behold their doings: for being once within, it was no difficulty to discern what they were about. Thirdly, it may be proved from that which was before related from Baronius, who tells us of some Churches standing in his days, which had been founded in the time of the Emperor Constantine, and differed nothing in their form, either for situation, or distinction, from those since erected. And fourthly, from the description of the stately Temple of S. Sophia, built by justinian the Emperor: of which Procopius doth inform us 
s de Aedificii justin. lib. 1. , that the Choir or Chancel, wherein the holy mysteries were celebrated, did stand directly to the East: For having before described the Nave or body of the Temple, both for length and breadth, he adds, Ea autem quae ad solemn Orientem vergunt, ubi Deo sacr● peraguntur, hoc modo aedificata sunt; which he goes forwards to describe: but what need more be said, than you say yourself, who have so fairly, for this point, slipped your own neck out of the Collar, and left your L. the Bishop in the lurch? For whereas he refers the Vicar unto Bishop jewel, to see how long Communion●tables have stood in the middle of the Church: you put it to the question 
t p. 218. , whether it be such a new thing in Israel, that the Tables heretofore, and the high Altars afterwards did stand in the midst of the Church or Chancel. The middle of the Church or Chancel, is not the middle of the Church; and so you bid good night at once to both the Bishops. The Altar than stood not in the body of the Church, but in the Chancel, which was the first thing to be cleared.  
Next, that the Altar or Lords Table was placed in the upper end of the Choir or Chancel, may be made evident by many plain and pregnant reasons, which we will marshal ascendendo, from this time upwards. And first, it may be proved from the general usage at this time in the Church of Rome; which in those outward forms, no doubt, relates unto the use and practice of the Ancients: For why should we conceive, that keeping still the ancient fashion in the contriving of their Churches▪ they would desert the ancient fashion in the disposing of their Altars. Conceive me, that it was thus generally, and for the most p●rt, as you report me very rightly, p. 40. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as before I said. Secondly, fr●m the words of Walafridus Strabo, where he 
u de rebus. Eccl. cap. 4.  informs us, that in Saint Peter's Church in Rome, Altaria non tantum in Orientem, sed etiam in ali●s partes esse distributa; The Altars stood not only towards the East, but in other places: and this he makes to be a particular case, differing from the general usage. The like to which may be observed in his instances of the Pantheon in Rome, and that built by Helena in Jerusalem, being both round; as also that he seems to apologise for them, who propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem, were fa●ne to set their Altar's otherwise than the custom of the Church permitted. Now Walafridus Strabo died, as yourself accounts it 
x p 219. , Anno 846. or thereabouts. Thirdly, from the division of the Quires themselves, in which did fi●st accurre the Stalls or seats appointed generally for the Clergy; next above that, the Bishops Chair, and then the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Altar-place, or that whole space which was allotted purposely, and solely for the Lord's Board, or Altar, call it which you will, which was distinguished from the rest of the Chancel, by Rails or Curtains. For it appears most manifestly in the ancient writers, 
y viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in t●e Counc. La●d●. Can. 19  that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, did not only signify the Altar or Lords ●oord itself, but the whole space and place thereof; which by the Latins was sometimes distinguished by a proper name, and called Altarium. Fourthly, from that which doth occur in Socrates, concerning the disposal of the Altars in the Church of Antioch, 
z Hist. Eccl. l. 12. cap. 24.  which therein generally differed from all other Churches. How so? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ Would you his meaning in these words? take it according as you find it in Nicephorus of Langius translation; 
a Hist. 1. Ec. lib. 12. c. 34.  Sacra enim Ara non ad Orientem, sed ad Occidentem versus coll●cata ●ue●at; because the Altar was not placed towards the East, but towards the West. Cassiodore in his 
b lib. 9 c. 38.  Tripartite History, rendereth this place with more advantage. In Antiochia verò Syriae, Alta ● non ad Orientem Ecclesiae, sed magis a● Occidentem habent; in Antioch they have their Altar, not at the East end of the Church, (ad Orientem Ecclesiae) but rather bending toward the West: which makes it plain, in my conceit, that generally in other places the Altar stood ad Orientem Ecclesiae, at the Eastern end. Fi●tly, from that which is affirmed by Bish. jewel, 
c Art. 3. divi●. 26.  Who tells us that the Choir or Chancel, (and consequently the Altar, and the Altar-place) as it may be gathered from Saint chrusostom, at certain times of the service, was drawn with Curtains. Now if the Holy Table stood in the middle of the Chancel, and was thus hanged about with Curtains; there being space enough within for all the Priests and Deacons, which attended at the holy Ministry; you cannot but conceive in your imagination, that it must needs be very unsightly, and take up much more room, than in a Chancel could be spared. But let the Table be disposed of at the upper end, and then a Traverse Curtain drawn between the Table and the people; and both those inconveniences will be avoided, which before I spoke of. And last of all, it may be pleaded from a constant custom of the Christians, in praying towards the East, 
d Apolog. c. 16.  Ad Orientis regionem, as Tertullian hath it; ad solam 
e Homil. 5. 〈◊〉 ●umer.  Orientis partem, as it is in Origen: which, though many reasons are assigned by Bellarmine, Baronius, and others of the Church of Rome; yet, I conceive, there cannot a more probable reason be given thereof, than from the placing of the holy Table at the East end of the Church: For that being thought to be more sacred than any material thing beside to the Church belonging, had a far greater measure of reverence and devotion conferred upon it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a reverend salutation of the Table 
f de Hierarch Eccles. c. 2.  in Dionysius; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an honour proper to the Altar, in 
g ad Tarsens.  Ignatius; and geniculatio ad Ar●s, a bowing of the knee before it, in 
h de penitent.  Tertullian. And therefore in what place soever it was placed or situated, there were the people's eyes most like to be fixed and settled, and their aspects turned▪ that way in the time of prayer; as being that which they most longed for, and looked after, and of the which they most desired to be partakers. Add here that Damascen observes, 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. de Orth. fid. lib. 4. c 13.  that when our Saviour Christ was upon the Cross, his face was Westward,, so that all they that looked upon him, or desired to see him, did look towards the East; which were it so, the Altar being so lively a representation of the Cross of Christ, might be disposed of so in the Church or Chancel, as that the people should look Eastward, that desired to see it: and if placed Eastward for that reason, then doubtless in the uppermost and most eminent place of the Choir or Chancel, so that no man who ever should have place beyond it. For if that any man had had place beyond it, either he must not pray towards the East, as the others did; or praying towards the East, could not see the Altar, which was most looked after by all the rest.  
Now whereas you desire 
k p. 123.  the Doctor not to forget to tell you in his next book, where God or his blessed Son, or the Apostles, or the Fathers after them, or any Council, or any Canon law, or so much as a Pope's Bull, hath commanded any Christian Church to set their Altars all along the wall: I answer you by ask another question, where you can find it was commanded, that Christians should pray with their faces Eastward. Things that have generally been received in the Church of Christ, are generally conceived to have been derived from Apostolical tradition, without any special mandat, left in Scriptis, for the doing of them. Praying directly towards the East, is by some Fathers, as 
l qu. ad Orth. 118.  justin Martyr, & 
m de Sp. S. cap. 27.  S. Basil, conceived to be of that condition; and Damascen conceives so too, de Orthod. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 13. Why may we not conceive the like, of setting up the Altar all along the wall, that it hath been commended to us, if not by Apostolical, yet questionless, by Ecclesiastical tradition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the said 
n de Orth. fid. l. 4. cap. 13.  Damascen hath truly noted. Many things come unto our hands by a successional tradition, for which we cannot find an express command in any of those ways you speak of: which yet we ought to entertain, ex vi catholicae consuetudinis, by reason of the said tradition, and continual custom. Of which traditions there are many which still retain their force amongst us in England: particularly those which are most pertinent to the present business, viz. the turning of ourselves unto the East, in our public prayers; and the disposing of our Churches accordingly. And why not then in placing of the holy Table, or Altar also? This Church, the Lord be thanked for it, hath stood more firm for Apostolical and Ecclesiastical traditions since the Reformation, than any other whatsoever of the Reformation. Nor in the times before can you find out any, that stood more strongly for and in the Church's customs. If you have found, after much study and long search, a 
o p. 224.  round Church in Cambridge, and a round Temple in London; can you conclude from thence, that generally our Churches here▪ have not been built according to the Ancient patterns? if not, how excellent a discourse do you show yourself in the application. You might as well have gathered, that all the Churches in Cambridge, do stand North and South, because you find it so in Emanuel College: or that all the Ministers in Lincolnshire are perfect in the arts of railing, falsifying, and deceiving, because you know of one, that is. But that fine story which you tell us 
p p. 223. 224. ex Bed. his●. l. 2. c. 3.  of S. Augustine's Altar, is indeed your masterpiece: and therefore I will tell it in your very words, because it's your desire we should mark it well. You say, that Austin the Apostle of the Saxons placed his first Altar in the Cathedral Church at Dover, dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul: and that he placed this Altar, in medio sui pene, almost in the very midst thereof, and dedicated it to the honour of S. Gregory the Pope: and that the Priest of the place doth on that Altar every Sabbath day perform the agends of this Austin and S. Gregory. Hereupon you infer, as by way of Triumph, And shall we believe that, no Church of all the English nation, did imitate herein her first Metropolis? It is impossible it should be so. Impossible indeed, if it be true, as you have told us: but for our comfort, there's not one word true, in all this story. Nor do I think that you intended it for any thing, but a winter's tale; to drive away the cold within a chimney corner, when th●re is no fire. For so ridiculous a confidence have you told it with, as they have the hap to hear it (auditum admissirisum, and you know what follows) will catch themselves an heat with laughing. To take a view thereof, per parts, Where, I beseech you, did the man ever hear of a Cathedral Church at Dover? the Author whom you follow, doth call it Doroverni, Canterbury, in that very Chapter; and Regia civitas, the Regal city, lib. 1. cap. 33. Secondly, the Cathedral Church at Canterbury was not dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul, but, as your Author tells, 
q li. 1. cap. 3●.  in nomine sancti Salvatoris, Dei & Domini nostri jesu Christi, unto the honour of jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour: and is called Christ's Church to this day. As for the Church you mean, dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul, that was a Monastery Church, and no Cathedral; which, from the founder afterwards, was called S. Augustine's. Thirdly, it is not said in Beda, that Austin the Apostle of the Saxons did place this Altar, in that Church: but only, Habet haec in medio sui pene Altar, that in that Church there is an Altar, placed almost in the middle of it; but by whom God knows; the Church not being 
r Quod ●a necdum fue●at per●●cta nec dedicata. lbid.  finished when this Austin died. Fourthly, your Author doth not say that the said Altar was S. Augustine's first Altar; no such matter neither; the placing of that Altar was no leading case: but only habet haec Altar, that Edition, and no otherwise, In the body of the Church, or of the Chancel. p. 206. I see your fingers are so nimble, here can nothing scape you. Then for the body of the Church, however it was put unto the Question, 
y p. 76. in the 〈◊〉 from the Alt. and p. 19 of the holy Ta●le  in the Bishop's letter, that being the Rubric saith, the Table shall stand in the body of the Church, or of the Chancel, wh●re morning and evening prayer he appointed to be said; and being that morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said in the body of the Church (as in most country Churches we see it is) where should the Table stand most Canonically? yet you recant it in your book. You tell us that the Writer of the letter did 
z p. 203. 204.  never imagine, that the Table should stand most Canonically in the body of the Church: but only that the Canons allow it not to be fixed to the end of the Choir; but to be made of movable nature, to m●et with those cases in the law, in which without this transposing thereof upon occasions, the Minister cannot be heard of his Congregation. This is but small amends, save that you let us therein see, you are irresolute in yourself, and know not unto what to trust. It's true, the Rubric sounding one way, and the continual practice of the Church another way; it might perplex as wise a man, as I know who is, to find out the intention of the Rubric, and the reason of it. Yet would you give me leave to use a brief conjecture, and not upbraid me for it in your next assault, I should make bold to tell you my opinion in it. Bucer, a moderate and ingenious man, in his survey or censure of the first Liturgy, 
a Censura. cap. 1. p. 457.  observed that all divine Offices were celebrated in the Choir, or Chancel; In chorotantum, sacra representari, which he conceived to be a Popish custom, 
b Quam pri●um & severissime corrigi. Ibid.  (perhaps because it might ascribe unto the place and Priest some inherent sanctity) and wisheth that a sharp and sudden remedy should be provided for the same. Hereupon in the second Liturgy, the appointing of the place for morning and evening prayer was left unto the Ordinary: and as it seemeth by this Rubric, the holy Sacrament was to be there administered, where he so appointed. Whether it hath been practised accordingly, I cannot positively say; but if at all, it was aut raro aut nunquam, a thing seldom seen: and possibly the very Order might as much take off the opinion of inherent sanctity (if that were then the matter questioned,) as the execution. Which were it so, the reason of the law being ceased, the law ceaseth also. But this I only offer as a Consideration, and no more than so.  
Then for the 82. Canon, there it is said, that in the time of the Communion, the Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancel, as thereby the Minister may more conveniently be heard of the Communicants, in his prayer and ministration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister. Now hereunto the Doctor answered, 
c Co●l. p. 50.  that this was a permission rather, that so it might be, than a command, that so it should be: and a permission only in such times and places, where otherwise the Minister cannot conveniently be heard of the Communicants. The writer of the letter seems to grant as much, where he affirmeth, the 
d Lett. to t●e Vicar. p. 70.  placing of the Table Altarwise is the most decent situation when it is not used, and for use too where the Choir is mounted up by steps, and open, so that he which officiates may be seen and heard of all the congregation. If so, then certainly the Canon is not binding for all times and places, for then there was an Altar. Fiftly, you find it not in Bed●, that the Agenda of Pope Gregory, and the said S. Austin, were celebrated by the Priest of the place every Sabbath day (as you mean Sabbath day, and would have ignorant people understand your meaning) but only every Saturday, per omne Sabbatum. It had been very fairly done, had you expressed your Author's proper Latin, in as proper English; and called it Saturday, as you ought to do, speaking in English to the people, who as they are not 
r p. 54.  all Geometricians, so are they neither all such Latinists as to descry your falsehood in it. But we must take this for another of your Helenas to please the Puritans: who now are furnished with an Argument, to prove that the Lords day was called the Sabbath, and so reckoned in the time of Bede; and therefore not so late an Upstart, as some men have made it. Last of all for your strong conclusion, that it is utterly impossible, that no Church of the English nation should imitate herein her first Metropolis: when you have proved that the said Church there mentioned, was the first Metropolis, we will tell you more. Mean time the most that you have got, (besides the sport that you have made) is▪ that the Altar in a private Monastery, did stand in medio pene sui, almost in the midst thereof: which possible might be, because the Church not being finished when S. Austin died, was not completely finished, neither, when Bede wrote the story. However it is there related, as a particular and extraordinary case: and extraordinary cases make no general usage, unless it be with such a disputant as you, who like a drowning man, are fain● to lay hold on every thing.  
Now from the evidence that▪ you brought us, touching the Ancient standing of the Altars, in the Church of England, in point of practice: we must proceed to see what is determined of and for it, now in point of Law. For if the present Law be contrary to the ancient practice; the ancient practice must give way, and the Law shall carry it. Now for our better understanding how the Law hath ordered it, the Bishops 
a Coal. p. 76. and holy ●able. p. 19  letter to the Vicar of Gr. refers us to the Rubric, and the Canon; we will look on both. And first beginning with the Rubric, it is ordered thus, that 
b Rubric before the Communion.  the Table at Communion time, having a fair white linen cloth upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, where morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said. So saith the Rubric; and for the former part thereof, there is not any thing that can serve for your present purpose. The Table, in Communion time, doth stand in the Chancel: though it stand Altarwise, close along the wall: and in the Chancel too, i. e. in the most eminent part of it. The writer of the letter saw this well enough: and to avoid the consequence could find no better shift upon the sudden, than to corrupt the Rubric, which was done accordingly. For in the 
c Coal. p. 76.  letter to the Vicar instead of in the body of the Church, or in the Chancel, we had it, in the body of the Church, or of the Chancel: as if the Rubric did appoint, that in those places where the Communion was administered in the Chancel, the Table should be placed at that time in the body of the Chancel. It's true, your new Edition reads it, 
x p. 19  in the Chancel: but than it is as true, that in your book you fall upon the former fault, and read it, in the body of the Church or Chancel, p. 44. and so you do again, fitting the Canon to the Letter, of the old the writer of the letter would be no good Canonist, but rath●r a directive Canon, to guide us as occasion is, and as may be convenient for the Communicants. Now where you fall upon the Doctor, for saying it is a matter of permission rather than command: because, 
e p. 205.  say you, the Reverend house of Convocation is not convened to make permissions, that men may do what they list▪ but to make strong and binding Canons, to be obeyed by all the subjects, and pursued by all the Ordinaries of the Kingdom: In saying this, you do not only thwart your Bishop, but confute your King. For if it be to be pursued by all the Ordinaries in the Kingdom, ill did the Bishop state the Question, in saying the Table might stand Altar wise at the upper end of the Choir or Chancel, in ca●e the Minister may be seen and heard of all the Congregation. And on the other side, you both confute the King, and yourself to boot. The King, in that he hath determined, that placing of the Table in Church or Chancel, as both the Rubric and the Canon have resolved therein, is to be construed only a thing of liberty. And being a thing of liberty, is left unto the Judgement of the Ordinary, both for the thing itself, and for the time when, and how long, as he may find cause. Yourself, in that you have selected that particular passage 
f p. 59  for your Euge tuum, and honoured that alone with your mentis aureae verba bracteata; as before was noted. Besides, you may observe in the Declaration, that those who pleaded for the Appellants in S. Gregory's case, urged not the Canon or the Rubric, for strong and binding laws, as you please to call them: but only urged them to this purpose, that 
g Coal from the Altar. p. 65.  they did give permission to place the Table where it might stand with most fitness and convenience. So that you see, the Canon and the Rubric are permissions only, and not commands; which is but what the Doctor said: and which you see confirmed by your Lord the Ordinary, the Advocates in the plea aforesaid, the King, qui tot imperat legionibus; and which is most of all, Yourself. 

h Ovid. Met. lib. 2.  Quod si nec ●ratris, nec te mea gratia tangit,  
At Coeli miserere tui.  Besides, the Canon being general, was so to be drawn up, as it might meet with all particular cases of what sort soever. Now you know well enough, that in some Churches there are no Chancels, and most especially in those of a latter building: and some such you m●y find in London, if you please to look. So that in case the Canon had named only Chancels, it might have left some Churches without Communions, because they had no Chancels in the which to celebrate; and so by consequence there had been no remedy, in and by the Canon; if the Communion should not be duly ministered by the Priest, or not so frequently received by the people, as it ought to be.   

CHAP. VIII.  
An answer to the Minister of Lincoln's Arguments against the standing of the Lords Table at the upper end of the Quire.  
The Minister of Lincoln forsakes his Bishop, about the placing of the Altar in the body of the Church. The Altar in Eus●bius Panegyric, not in the middle of the Church. The Minister's confidence and ignorance, in placing the Alt●r of incense close unto the va●le. Tostatu● falsified by the Minister of L●ncoln. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the fifth Council of Constantinople, and the meaning of it. The Minister of Lincoln at a loss in his Critical learning, both Greek and Latin. Varro corrupted by the Minister of Lincoln. Saint Austin what he meant by mensa illa in medio constituta. Albaspinus falsified. Durandus sets the Altar at the upder end of the Quire. The testimony of S●crates and Nicephorus, asserted to the Doctor from the Ministers Cavils. The Altars how now placed in the Greek Churches. The weak authorities produced by the Minister of Lincoln, for placing of the Table distant from the wall, and some of them corrupted also. The general Precedents of the Minister, for placing of the holy Table; forged: as also a●e the Acts of the Council of Milan under Borromeo. The Minister confesseth guilty, and confutes himself of falsification. Many particular Precedents brought in; most of them counterfeit and forged; and altogether conclude nothing to the point in hand. The Minister of Lincoln against himself.  
HAving made search at home, and not found any thing unto the contrary, either in the Rubric or the Canon, but that the Table may be placed where the Altar stood; and that as well in the Communion time, 
Cap. 8.  as at other times: we must next take a view of what you have to say for the ancient practice. Not in the Church of England, that you have done withal already, and done it bravely too, no man ever better: for you have found a Monastery, and that hardly finished, wherein the Altar, upon some special and extraordinary reasons, did stand in medio pene sui, not in the middle of the Church, as the letter goeth, but almost in the middle of it. In that which follows we must travel after you, over all the world: First taking a review of those authorities which were related to in the Bishop's letter, and answered by the Doctor in his Coal from the Altar. The writer of the letter, to let the Vicar see, 
i p. 77.  how long Communion Tables had stood in the midst of the Church, (not in the midst of Chancels or Churches, as you make it now, p. 207.) referred him unto Bishop jewel. The testimonies there produced 
k jewel Art. 3. divi●. 26  are from Eusebius, Augustin, Durandus, and the fifth Council of Constanrinople. Beginning with Eusebius, 
l Coal. p. 53. & 54.  he tells us of the Church of Tyre, that being finished and all the seats thereof set up. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the founder after all, placed the most holy Altar in the midst thereof, and compassed it about with rails, to hinder the rude multitude from pressing near it. Now hereunto the Doctor answered, first that the Altar though it stood along the Eastern wall, it may be well interpreted to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the middle of the Chancel, in reference to the North and South, as it since hath stood. And secondly that were it otherwise, yet it were only a particular case of the Church in Syria, wherein the people being more mingled with the jews than in other places, might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church, as was the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple, the better to conform unto them. And this he was the rather inclined to think, because that Church in the whole structure of it, came very near unto the model of that Temple: the Gate or entrance of the same being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly open to the East, as was that of solomon's. Now you reply unto the first, (after a scoff or two bestowed on the simple Doctor) that you had thought 
m p. 208.  the Panegyrist in Eusebius had been describing in that place a brave Chancel, set all about with seats and other Ornaments, and that he had placed the Altar in the midst of that Chancel. The Bishop of Lincoln had small reason to approve of this, had he so throughly perused your book, as the Licence tells us. He sends the Vicar unto Bishop jewel, to learn how long Communion Tables have stood in the middle of the Church: & you confute both him & Bp. jewel, by placing of the Altar in the midst of the Chancel. Do not you talk of Butter think you, when he spoke of Cheese. For contrary to what he purposed, and 
n I am not Salaried to defend the writer of t●e le●ter, in all words and syllables. p. 45.  you were Salaried to defend, we have here found an Altar in the midst of the Chancel, instead of a Communion Table in the middle of the Church. But howsoever being placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the midst of the Chancel, you cannot think, that he doth mean by middle, there, the middle between North and South. How so? Because, say you, in case that Altar had stood along the Eastern wall, and in the middle of the wall, 
o p. 209.  a Grecian would not say that it stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over-aneanst the middle of the wall: even as the Septuagint describe the situation of the Altar of Incense, to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over-aneanst the veil of the Temple. Why man? I trow you cannot say of any thing that standeth close unto the middle of a wall, and is built up to it, as commonly the Altars were; that it is built 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over-aneant the middle of the wall. That form of speech would fit far better with the Communion Table, placed exactly in the midst of the Chancel. For than it would be placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over against the middle of the Eastern wall. You might have found this in your own instance of the Altar of Incense, said to be placed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over against the veil of the Temple, standing a pretty distance from it, and not 
p p. 210.  close to the veil, as you unlearnedly relate. But this debate about the placing of the Altar of Incense will fall more properly within the compass of your reply unto the Doctor's second Answer; to which now we hasten. Only I tell you by the way, that if the Panegyrist could not set the Table close along the wall, 
q p. 208. 209.  in the middle between North and South, without a painted Sea-card of the winds, and the four points in heaven; as you are pleased to laugh it out: he must make use no doubt of the same invention, to place it in the very midst of the Chancel. Where, you say, he placed it. Your other flame, is more impertinent, and absurd. For though all substantial bodies here on earth, are equally measurable by those four points in heaven, as you truly say: yet your illation thereupon, that it is not conceivable how this Altar should stand in the middle between North and South, rather than in the middle between East and West, is so ridiculous; that no man but yourself would have ventured at it. For when we talk of setting up a Table in the midst of a Room, between East and West: I trow you do not think, but in that room, it may stand rather in the middle between East and West, than in the middle of the same between North and South: though it stands equally distant from all four points, in the heavenly bodies.  
Then to the Doctors second answer, you reply and say, that like 
r p. 209.  unto a child in a sandy bank, he pulls down with one hand, what he had built up with the other. Why so? Because in case you did not like his former answer, you might see something else for your satisfaction. Call you this pulling down with one hand, what he had built up with the other? I see the Doctor cannot please you, say he what he will. But being said, what answer do you make unto it? Marry you tell us out 
f p. 209. 210.  of Adricomius, that though Tyre was in Syrià, yet were the people thereof never mingled with the jews, nor the jews with them, until their embracing of the Christian faith, after the utter ruin and subversion of that Nation. Why man? And doth the Doctor tell you, that the said Church or Temple in Eusebius, was built before the ruin of that Nation, or before any of the jews had received the faith? You could not be so ignorant as not to know by course of story, that the said Church was built above 200. years after the ruin and subversion of the jewish Nation: and therefore it would best become you, either to speak more to the purpose, or to hold your peace. Yes that you will you say. And rather than the Altar in Eusebius shall l stand in the middle of the Chancel, to carry some resemblance to the Altar of Incense, you will remove the Altar of Incense from the midst of the Temple, where it stood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, over against the veil, as before you said; and place it close unto the veil, where never any man did place it, but yourself alone. For tell me, 
t and this Altar was close unto the veil, as Tostatus and Ribera do fasten it, p. 210.  do Tostatus and Ribera fasten this Altar to the veil, as you please to tell us. Not fasten it to the veil, that's flat: for it was 
u Exod. 30. 4.  made with rings and staves, to be removed (as you are pleased to have the Communion Tables) as occasion was. Then for your placing of it close along the veil, you find no warrant in the Scripture. The Latin reads it, Contra velum; our English books before the veil; close unto it, you, that better understand the text, than all translators whatsoever. Then for 
x in Exod. 30.  Tostatus whom you cite for fastening it unto the veil, all he saith is this: Dicitur Altare istud esse contra velum, i. e. ante velum. That Altar is here said to be against the veil; that is, before it. What else? Hic ponitur situs hujus altaris, scilicet in qua parte Sanctuarii poneretur. Here is described the situation of this Altar, namely in what part of the Sanctuary it was placed. Is this to set it close unto the veil, and there to fasten it? we may conjecture how you use Ribera by your fair dealing with Tostatus, whom you thus abuse. Besides, yourself hath told us, that the Altar of Incense did 
y p. 210.  stand between the Table on the North (you mean the Table of Shewbread, do you not?) and the Candlestick upon the South: and I presume you will not say, the Table of the Shewbread, and the Candlestick did stand close unto the veil, or were fastened to it. But for these things, the Altar, and the Table, and the Candlestick, how they were disposed of in the Tabernacle: you may consult the Schemes thereof in Torniellus, Ann. M. 2544. where you will find the Altar stood not close unto the veil, but a good distance off, towards the neither end, though not exactly in the midst. You might as well have let the Altar in Eusebius stand close along the wall, in the middle between North and South, as the Doctor placed it; as have betrayed your ignorance, both in the Criticism and the fact, to so little purpose; yea and your honesty to boot. And here I would have left you and Eusebius, but that you will not let the Doctor go away with any thing. For whereas the poor Doctor said, that the Gate or entrance of this Church, like that of Salomon's Temple, was unto the East: you say 
z it is not true that the Gate or entrance of t● is Church, is sa●d to b●●pen to the East. p. 210.  it is not true, and that there is not any such thing in Eusebius. You grant that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Portico was towards the West; the leading way or entrance into the Court, or Churchyard, as we call it now: And think you they went round about the Church, to find another way at the further end? Besides, you might have found, if you would have sought, that there were three doors into the very Church itself, all of them in the Eastern end, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as 
a Euseb. l. 10. c. 4.  the Author hath it. Finally, whereas you had said before, that there 
b p. 210.  was nothing true in all this relation, but that the word Altar is named in Eusebius; now you have taken from him that comfort also: that Altar being by and by (you say) interpreted, to be a metaphorical Altar, even 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sanctification of a Christian soul. You might as well have said, the Temple there described is a Metaphorical Temple: because the Panegyrist descanting upon it, compares the Soul unto that Temple, as the sincerity thereof to the holy Altar.  
We have been long about Eusebius, but will be brieser in the rest; as brief as possibly we can, your old tricks considered. The next that follows is the first Council of Constantinople, as it is called in Bish. jewel, being that sub Agapeto & Menna, as the Doctor had it. Here you 
c p. 211.  conceive you have him at a fine advantage; Agapetus being dead before that Council sat; and Menna Patriarch of Constantinople presiding in it. But Sir, you cannot choose but know, that howsoever Agapetus died before the sitting of the Council: yet it was called especially by his procuring; (being then at Constantinople) although he lived not to see the effects thereof: his Legates also being there, by virtue of a Commission to them made, when he was alive. And this was possibly the reason, why Binius in the top of every page throughout the Acts of this whole Council, being 112. in all, sets it Sub Agapeto & Menna, as the Doctor did: your next exception, if it be not better, will be worse than nothing. The place alleged by Bishop jewel, is this, that Tempore dyptichoram, at the Reading of the Diptychs, the people with great silence drew together round about the Altar, and gave ●are unto them. The Greek text hath it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and to that phrase the Doctor answered, that 
d p. 54. 55.  howsoever 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in itself did signify a Circle; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, could not be properly interpreted round about the Altar, so that there was no part thereof, which was not compassed with the people. This he illustrated with a like phrase in our English Idiom, of the kings sitting in his throne, and all his noble men about him: and by the very saying in the Greek text of the Revelation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, round about the throne. Against this you have said but little, though you spend many words about it. All your great Grammar learning, out of Eustathius, and Hesychius, Tully, and Budaeus, excellent Critics all; that circles are exactly round, 
e Circular▪ w●ich h●th in it no c●rner at all. p. 212.  without any Corners, and that a 
f Circulos aut semicirculos consectari. ibid.  Circle differs from a semicircle; is but your wont art to divert the business. For did you not observe that the Doctor granted it, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of and in itself did signify a Circle? If so, what needs all this ado? The thing in question is not what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth, or whether Circles are not round: but whether that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, can any way infer that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church, so that the people, if they would, might run round about it. For this you bring no proof, but that 
g p. 211.  you thought the Throne in heaven had been safe enough, and that it needed not a wall to rest upon. Why, who said it did? That in the Revelation, was only brought for illustration of the Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ not for the situation of the Altar against a wall. But than you say, the Angels may as conveniently be thought to compass it about, as to cast themselves into a half mo●ne before the presence of Almighty God: and that all interpreters do so expound it. You speak of all interpreters, but you name us none; which shows your all is very nothing: for where you have a store, we are sure to find it in the margin, how little soever to the purpose. But Sir, the Doctor speaks there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
h 1. Cor. 15.  after the manner of men, touching the reference which the Prophet had in his description of the Throne in Heaven, unto the thrones of Kings on earth. And if you speak, or apprehend him speaking in that manner; it would be very hard for you to untie the knot, and show us 
i and round about the throne were four beasts full of eyes Apoc. 4. 6.  how four beasts, though never so full of eyes, could compass round the Throne in a perfect Circle. Nor doth that fragment which you bring us from S. Basils' Liturgy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, say more than what the Doctor told you from the Revelation, that all the Angels stood round about the throne, Apoc. 7. 11. though Gentian Hervet, as you say, hath rendered it in orbem, which you translate in a ring or perfect Circle. For your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
k p. 214.  in S. Peter's Liturgy, you might do well to keep it by you, till the authority of that and other Liturgies affabulated to the holy Apostles, be agreed upon. And had I thought you would have taken them for currant, I would have shown you more in them for Priests and Altars, than you can do with your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for placing the said Altars in the midst of the Church. However, by your own confession, we have found an Altar in S. Peter's Liturgy: and therefore to dispute ●dhominem, the name of Table is not 200. years more ancient in the Christian Church, than the name of Altar. The compass of the Altar 
l p. 214.  in S. Basils' Liturgy, is an allusion only to the Phrase in the book of Psalms: and so is that also in the epistle of Synesius, if such thing be in him: you have referred us in your text, to 
m p. 214.  one of his Epistles, but you tell not which. And in your Margin tell us that it is in constitut. habita ad Thatalaeum, but I find no such thing in his Epistles. But so or not so, all is one with you; and with me too in this particular, being thus answered to your hand. Last of all for your passages in S. Chrysostom's Liturgy, where it is said, the Deacon fumes the holy Table, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, round about, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in all the circuit or compass thereof, as yourself translate it; that might well be, and yet the Altar stand all along the wall. Fo● with a Censer in your hand, you could make shift, no doubt, to cense or fume the holy Table, in all th● circuit or compass of it; and yet not take the pains to go round about it: even as they do, at this day in the Church of Rome. But I must tell you by the way, that you have falsified your Author, or at least chopped him off, having more to say. For p. 64. whither you refer us, he speaks of censing of the Altar, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you say well in that, but then he adds. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after the manner of a cross; which overthrows your whole design. For take it, as the Father means it, and it is no such impossibility, as you think it is, but that a single man 
n These are but single men, and cann●t possibly be expounded to go about the Alia, in the D●ctors absurd interpretation. ●. 214▪  may do it; and fume in the Altar in a cross: and therefore the poor Doctor's interpretation not so absurd, as you would make it. The Doctor will stand close enough to his interpretation, till you bring stronger Arguments, and more fair dealing to remove him from it. You show yourself on all, and on no occasions to have some smattering of the law, and therefore cannot choose but know, that in defect of an appearance, a jury in some cases may be up ex circumstantibus: for which see, 35 H. 8. c. 6. 2 Edw. 6. c. 32. and 5. Eliz. c. 25. and 14. Eliz. c. 9 And yet I trust you will not say, the judges that determine in writ of Nisi prius, sit in the middle of the town Hall wheresoever they come; because the people are conceived to be circumstantes. None but this Minister of Lincolnshire would commit these follies. And yet it is no wonder neither: for you have given us centum tales, in stead of decem.  
Having made sport, (to keep us to your own sweet langugae) in the Greek with t●e Council of Constantinople: we must next see 
o p. 214.  you do as much in Latin, with S. Augustine. The place from him alleged by Bishop jewel, is this; Christus quotidie pascit: Mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est, O audientes, ut mensam videatis, & ad epulas non accedatis? i. e. as he translates it, Christ feeds us daily: and this is his Table here set in the midst. O my hearers, what is the matter, that ye see the Table, and yet come not to the meat? To this the Doctor 
p Coal. p. 55.  answered, that mensa illa in medio constituta, in not to be interpreted the Table set here in the midst; but the Table which is here before you: and this according to the Latin phrase afferre in medium, which is not to be construed to bring a thing precisely into the middle, but to bring it to us, or before us. In your reply to this, you trifle as before you did, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And because every Schoolboy 
q p. 215.  knows, that literally and grammatically, medium doth signify the middle part or space; therefore afferre in medium cannot signify to bring a thing unto us, or before us. This said, you make another sally, to show your Critical learning (you have such store of it) touching the derivation of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Scaliger, and the latin word Mensa out of Varro, which was at first, say you, called Mesa, from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because this utensil, saith Varro, is ever placed in the middle space between us: so that according to this great and ancient Critic, it cannot properly be called a Table, unless it be placed, as Saint Austin reports it, in medio, in the middle. Would you would leave this Critical learning, except you were more perfect in it. All that you find in Varro is 
r de lingu. la●. lib. 4. n. 2●.  no more than this, that mensa escaria, a board for meat, is called Cibilla, and that it was once square, but afterwards made round: Et quod a nobis media, a Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mensa dici potest. Find you in this that the latin word for a Table was not always Mensa; but at the first Mesa? So you would make your Readers think, that cannot every day consult the Author; and for that purpose you have falsified him in your margin accordingly; and made him say 
f p. 215. in margin.  what is not in him, viz. Mesa, quod à nobis media, à Graecis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mensa dici potest. But the first Mesa is your own, no such thing in Varro: and consequently Mesa was not the first Latin word for Table as you have falsified the Author, only to place it in the middle. Neither doth Varro say, that Mensa was derived from the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, more than from the Latin: and further adds another reason of the name, which you would not see; and that is, quod ponebant pleraque in cibo mensa, because that on the Table the meat was served out by measure. Every man had his own dimensum, as the word still holds. So then, it may be called a Table, although not placed in the middle. Your Grammar learning being shown, we must next take a turn in your Divine and Theological Philology: where we are told 
t p, 216. 217.  of Audientes, genuflectentes, competentes, and intincti, several kinds of Catechumeni, in the primitive times; as if those names had never been heard of, but amongst the fens: you would be thought to lie at wrack and manger with Lady Philology, though you never kissed her. For had you but the least acquaintance with her, you would not run into those errors which you do continually. You tell us of these Audientes, that 
u p. 217.  if the Table were in the Chancel, they could not be admitted to draw so near as to see and view it: and therefore make Saint Austin say, that's the Lord's Table there, which you see placed in the midst of the Church. Why? could they not more easily see it in the midst of the Church, than if it had been in the Chancel? Were they so Eagle-sighted a far off, and could they not discern it, if placed nearer hand? This is a mystery indeed, above my capacity. Perhaps you think, that commonly, and at other times, it stood in the middle of the Church: but when the Catechumeni were driven forth, and the holy Sacrament to be administered, it was removed into the Chancel. And then consider with yourself, how fitly you would have the Table to be set at other times in the upper end of the Chancel; and be brought down in time of the Communion into the body of the Church. Next you have made S. Austin say, that if these Audientes could but by chance get a glimpse of the holy Table, they were instantly (all discipline notwithstanding) to be baptised: and yet Saint Austin saith expressly, ut mensam videatis, that they did see the Table, though they came not to it; nor do we find they were baptised so presently on the sight thereof. Therefore to set the matter right, I rather should conceive that the word illae there, is of specal efficacy: and points not to a Table, which was then before them, (for then haec mensa est ipsius, might have been more proper): but to some Table further off, in the Choir or Chancel, made ready for all those that purposed to Communicate; which the said Catechumen! might see, though they came not near it. And so Saint Austin in these words, Mensa●ipsius est illa in medio constituta, must be thus interpreted; His Table is that yonder which is now in readiness. What is the matter, O you Audientes, that you can look upon the Table; and yet not fit and prepare yourselves to be partakers of the banquet. As for your note from 
x Observat▪ l. 2. cap. 2. cited p. 217.  Albaspinus, that if the Audientes should but get a sight of the holy Table; they were all instantly to be baptised: you do most shamefully abuse that learned Bishop; who was too great a scholar to be so mistaken. And therefore take along that passage for a close of all, to which you point us in your margin: where you shall find he speaks not of their getting a glimpse the holy Table, but of the holy mysteries celebrated on the Table. Si cui contigisset Catecumeno, casu aliquo, aut sacrificiis interest, aut occulis sacra illa intueri, (call you this a Table) cum protinus sacro fonte abluendum esse, Such a notorious falsifier of all kind of Authors, did man never meet with.  
Next for Durandus, it was observed out of him by Bishop jewel, that the Priest turning about at the Altar, doth use to say, Aperui os meum in medio Ecclesiae: which proves not, as the Doctor said 
y Coal. from t●e Altar. p. 56.  that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church; but that the Priest stood at the midst of the Altar. You know this well enough, that the Priest doth stand so; but you must needs say somewhat, what soever you know: and therefore bring Durandus 
z p. 226.  to expound himself. Well then, what saith Durandus to it. Per Altare Cor nostrum intelligitur, quod est in medio Corporis, sicut Altare in medio Ecclesiae. By the Altar is to be understood our heart, which is in the midst of the body, as the Altar is in the midst of the Church. This is almost the only place you have cited fairly in all your book: & in congratulation to yourself for your honest dealing, you presently fly out on the poor Doctor, as if there were no sensible sacrifice, nor material Altar: because Durandus in his way of Allegories, compares the Altar to our heart. Just thus before you dealt with the Panegyrist in Eusebius; and too ridiculously in both. Therefore to let your Allegories pass, as not considerable in this case, we must reply unto the words. And here I will make bold to tell you, that by in medio Ecclesiae here, Durandus doth not mean the middle of the Church, that is, the body of the Church: but which I know you mean to laugh at, the middle of the upper end of the Choir, or Chancel; there where the Altar stood in those times he lived, and long before him. Will you the reason why I say it? then look into the former Chapter, where he will tell you of those rails, or bars, which part the Altar (or the Altar place) from the rest of the Choir: as it is now in our Cathedrals, and many others of this kingdom. Cancelli quibus Altar a Choro dividitur, separationem significat coelestium a terrenis. And so the Altar stood not in Durandus time, in the midst of the Church, but generally at the end▪ of the Chancel, and thus much briefly for Durandus.  
For those exceptions which you make against the testimony produced by the Doctor 
a Coal. p. 56.  from Socrates and Nicephorus, about the standing of the Altars in Antiochia; we must needs run them over for your satisfaction, though not worth the while. What they affirm herein, we have at full laid down in our former Chapter: Cassiodore being there brought in, into the bargain. The first thing you except against, is that the place he cited from Nicephorus 
b 228.  is not to be found lib. 12. c. 24. but lib. 12. c. 34. This is another of those malicious falsifications that you charge him with, p. 58. and 
c and I beshrew him for this t●ick. p. 228  you beshrew him for it, here. p. 228. A very easy error if you mark it well; and such as Printers will commit, do we what we can. But it was found, it seems at last; that's well: more than man can say, of you and your quotations, I am sure of that: And so the wretched Doctor hath dealt with Socrates also, 
d Ibid.  citing him right, you say, in Latin, cap. 21. whereas it is the 22. Chapt. in the Greek. It would be well if you would cite your Authors right in any Language; or else find greater matters to except against, before you quarrel: yes that you will you say. For these Historians do not note those rites of the Altars of the City of Antioch, as different from all other Altars, or from the general practice of the Church: but that they differed in those rites from the Church of Rome, only, as josephus' Vicecomes proves at large. What ever Vicecomes proves in other places, I am sure he proves it not in the place you cite; being the Missae Ritib. l. 2. c. 5. in which there is not one poor word that reflects that way. Nor will I take the pains to search, if he saith it elsewhere. For whatsoever he saith in that, he can never prove it: the Authors being so express in the affirmation. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is in Socrates; contrarium ab aliis Ecclesiis situm, the translator reads it, diversum prorsus quam alibi situm, so Nicephorus hath it. The words are general enough, without relation any way to the Church of Rome. Now where you say, 
a p. 229.  that neither Socrates nor Nicephorus, do say that the Altars did stand Westward; that Socrates doth not speak of the position of these Altars, but the Churches only; and that Nicephorus adding besides his Author, the posture of the Altars, doth presently correct himself in the words of Socrates: all these are worse than so many mistake, as you have made them in the Doctor, they are wilful falsehoods. For doth not Socrates affirm, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and doth Nice●horus say otherwise, than Sacra ara non ad Orientem, sed ad Occidentem versus, collocata fuerat? what find you in Nicephorus like a recantation, passing directly from these words to another matter? For shame presume not thus on the credulity of your Readers: and think not all the world so stupid, as to be cheated with your fair words, and a loaded margin. The rest of your exceptions are so slight, they need no reply. The Doctor saith not as you 
f p. 229.  charge him, that all the people in Syria, might possibly place the Altar in the midst of the Church: but spoke it only of the people of the city of Tyre. And for the pother that you make about the meaning of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is another smack of your critical ignorance: be pleased to know, that without an● wresting of the word, the Alta●s may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to look towards the East; as well as th●t Priests looked that way, which did officiate at them, or upon them. And if you will vouchsafe to look in 
g Strom. l. ●▪  Clemens of Alexandria, you will there find that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is so used. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So he in reference to some ancient temples built amongst the Gentiles.  
Thus having saved the Doctor harmless from your vain assaults; we will next see, what you have studied of your own against the standing of the Altar, at the East end of the Church. Where I must tell you your particular instances will prove but weak and silly Arguments, like the Cathedral Church at Dover, or the round Church of Cambridge, which we met with lately. That which you tell us from the Greek Churches is indeed considerable, if it were as true. You tell us out of Gentian Hervetus, 
h p. 213.  that in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chancel there be two Altars, whereof the greater stands in the midst of that Room, and the less close by, at the left side of it. Yet Bishop jewel in his 13. Art. being of the Plurality of Masses, cities many of the Ancient Fathers that say, there is but one Altar in every Church: and then concludes with Gentian Hervet; In Graetorum templis unum tantum est Altar, idque in med●o choro aut Presbyterio. Not in the middle of the Church then, we have gained so much: and we have reason to believe it was not in the middle of the Chancel neither. One of you I am sure is out with your Gentian Hervet, touching the number of your Altars: and think you, that you are not both out in the placing of them? No certainly say you, that cannot be, 
i p. 213.  because the setter forth of the Greek and Latin Liturgies, hath affirmed as much: viz. that there be in those Churches two Altars, the greater in the midst, and called the holy Table, the lesser called the Prothesis, o● Table of Proposition. And then you bring in Claudius' Saints, to tell us, that in the Greek Temples, there is but one high Altar, and that placed in the midst of the Quire. You should do well to reconcile your witnesses, before you bring them to give evidence. Claudius' Saints, as you cite him, hath told us of one Altar only; the setter forth of the Greek and Latin Liturgies, as you please to call him, tells us of two; but placeth, as you cite him, the greatest only in the midst: and Gentian Hervet setting the great Altar in the midst, hath placed the least close by it, at the left side of the greater. Yourself and Bishop jewel with your Gentian Hervet, and Gentian Hervet with your setter forth, and his Claudius Saints, agree but very ill together. We might do well to keep them without fire and candle, till they agreed upon their verdict: but we will take an easier Course, and dismiss them presently. And first beginning with your Claudius Saints, you cite him 
k p. 214. in margin.  in his Edition of the Greek Liturgy at Paris, 1560. but you cite neither page, nor place where a man may find it. Indeed it was most wisely done to conceal the matter; that so your Reader might be drawn rather to take it on your word, than take the pains to look for it upon such uncertainties. But howsoever being looked for, and looked for with a diligent and careful eye; we must return non est inventus, no such words in Saints. Next for the setter forth of the Greek and Latin Liturgy, you might have done us a good turn to have told his name: at least not to have sent us to inquire for him in 
l p. 213. in margin.  the Biblioth. vet. Patrum, Tom. 2. in Annot. without more punctual direction. You mean, I trow, the setter forth of the Liturgies in Greek and Latin; and them we find indeed in the second Tome of that edition. But when you talk I know not how▪ of a setter forth of the Greek and Latin Liturgies, and send us to the Biblioth. vet. patrum, Tom. 2. you bid us look into a place where no such man was ever heard of: the Greek and Latin Liturgies not being found in the second of those Tomes, but in the sixth. I see you were resolved that whosoever traced you, should have much to do. But having found your Author out, we find you had good reason to conceal his name, and give us such obscure directions for the finding of him. For Genebrard whom you blindly call the setter forth of the Greek and Latin Liturgies, hath told us such a tale as will mar your markets. 
l de ritib. Graecorum, at the end ●f Sacra m▪ steriorum ante consec●atorum.  For he divides their Churches into these five parts: the first called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the holy Tabernacle, so called quod gradibus in illam scandatur, because it is mounted up by steps; and this is entered into by none but the Priests. The second he entitleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Choir or Chancel (properly and distinctly so entitled) Locus Clero & Cantoribus deputatus, a place assigned ●or the clergy and the singing men. The third was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Pulpit-place, where the Epistles and Gospels were read, and Sermons preached unto the people. ●he fourth called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the body of the Church, wherein the people had their places, both men and women, though distinct: and last of all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or place for Baptism, near which stood the Penitents. Now for the Altars which he speaks of, they stood not, as you make them stand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Choir or Chancel, distinctly and properly so called, and much less in the middle of it; but in the upper part thereof, mounted up by steps (and severed from the rest by a veil or curtain) which place was therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; i. e. the Altar-place, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Altarium, which 
m ● cap. 7.  before we spoke of. Illic sunt duo Altaria, there, in that upper end, above the steps, stood those two Altars which you talk of: not in the middle of the Chancel as you falsely say. And there, the greater of the two did stand in medio, in the middle between North and South as they still continue: the lesser, which he calls the Prothesis, standing on the left side thereof, and thereon stood the bread appointed to be consecrated, till it was offered on the Altar. Nor doth he say, the greater is in the midst, and called the holy Table, and no more but so: but majus est in medio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sacra mensa, etc. the greater of them is in the midst, and is called the Altar, the holy Table, the Holy of Holies, with many other names which are there attributed to it. Where you may see, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath precedency of sacra mensa, though you are pleased to leave out Altar; as if he called it only the holy Table: this said, your evidence out of Gentian Hervet will be easily answered. And here I cannot choose but tell you, that herein you have shown most foully, either your ignorance or your falsehood. If you conceived that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there did signify the whole Chancel, than it shows your ignorance: if that you knew it signified no more than the upper part, in quod gradibus scanditur, and yet set down with 
m In the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chancel the●e be two Altars, of which the greatest stood in the midst of that Room. p. 213.  in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Chancel, as you have translated it, than you show your falsehood. And so I leave you with an Vtrum horum mavis accipe; make your best of either: or if you will, take both; being both your own. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you find in Gentian He●vet, is that which you had met with in your setter forth, a place distinguished from the Chancel, and raised above it, within the which the said two Altars stood, which your Author speaks of; and stood, as you were told before (one of your Authors borrowing from the other both his words and matter,) though indeed one of them was no Altar, but a Table only; a Table either of proposition, or of preparation, no great matter which.  
Next let us look upon the Latins, and their use herein, from whom the English first received the faith of Christ, as yourself confess, calling their Austin, the Apostle of the Saxons. p. 223. And herein to begin with, we have gained thus much, that neither the Tables heretofore, nor the high Altars afterwards did stand in the midst of the Church or Chancel; but 
k or at least wise so far●e from the wall, etc. p. 218.  so far from the wall at least, as the Priests and Deacons might stand round about them. We hope you will come home in time. First you had placed the Altar in the middle of the Church; than you removed it very fairly into the middle of the Chancel, and now you have advanced it so near the wall, as there is only room for the Priests and Deacons to go between. I find you coming on apace, but that shall not help you: for I am bend to trust to nothing that you say, till I have examined it, no though it made unto my purpose: Now for the proof of this, you bring us in some Authors, and some precedents. Amongst your Authors, 
l p. 219.  Walafridus Strabo hath been heard already, who saith no more, but that in the first times the Altars in the Church were placed ad diversas plagas, according as, poor men, they could fit themselves, but makes the general use to be otherwise, as be●ore was said. And so do 
m 〈…〉  Bellarmine, and Suarez too, two other of your Authors, as it relates unto the Churches, which generally, they say, are built ad orientem, some few excepted, which could not otherwise be erected? But Bellarmine, I assure you, doth not speak one word in the place ●y you cited, touching the fixing of the Altars in any posture; propter commoditatem loci, if the convenience of the place require it. That's an addition of your own, no such thing in Bellarmine. And howsoever Suarez seem to look that way, yet he acknowledgeth withal, that placing of the Altar at the East end of the Church, was the ancient Custom. For Vicecomes, he doth take it as you say, for a very clear and indubitable assertion, Altaria medio in templo allocata fuisse, that Altars were placed heretofore in the midst of the Church. And he doth take it too, I say, for as indubitable, and as clear, 
n Vicecomes de mi●●a● ritib. l. 2. cap. 21.  non nisi Constantini temporibus coepisse Christianos missam publice in Ecclesia con●icere, that till the time of Constantine the Christians did not celebrate the Sacrament in their Churches publicly: but neither you nor I am bound to believe him in it. No matter how he saith it, but how he proves it. 
o p. 219.  Your Aloysius Navarinus comes in here impertinently, who on these words, Circundabo Altare tuum, saith, that their situation was such in former times, that the Priests might compass round about the holy Altar. But good Sir tell me in your next book, of what Priests he speaks. For that the Altar stood so in the law of Moses, we know well enough; and the Priests compassed them about, we know that also. But that the Altars stood so in the Christian Church, you do not tell us from your Author: which is a pregnant argument, tha● it is not in him? 
p p. 220.  But, as you say, the main authority you rely upon, is the Pontifical: wherein the Bishop is enjoined in three several places at the least, to compass the Altar round about, or circumcirca: which were it fastened to the wall, were as you say impossible for a man so to do. Just so. But tell me in good earnest, do you conceive the Bishop is enjoined in the Pontifical, to go round about the Altar, (as you mean round about it, when you tell us so) because you find it, Pontifex circuit ter Altar, once; and circuit semel, twice, as your margin rightly. The circumcirca, is your own; and none of the Pontificals. And for the compassings there spook of, they must be taken in circuitu possibili, to compass so much of it, as may be compassed. And so you must interpret another passage in the said Pontifical. viz. Thurificat Altare undique ad dextrum & sinistrum latus, ante & desuper, p. 2●3. and 232. of my Edition being of Paris, Anno 1615. Vndique there implies as much as circumcirca, and yet you find not that the Bishop is to cense or fume the further part thereof. Why so? because he could not come to do it. If not to cense it, then certainly much less to compass it about, as you mean compassing. Compare your Circuit, with my undique, and tell me what you think of this proper Argument, upon wiser thoughts.  
From Authors you proceed to Precedents, 
q p. 218.  Precedents answering these Authorities in all ages, and in all countries whatsoever. In case your Precedents serve your turn no better than your Authors did, there's never a Scrivener's Clerk in London, but will show better Precedents for a poor Noverint Vniversi. And of this quality is your first, a general Precedent, a perfect Noverint Vniversi. For as you say, you were extremely laughed at by all strangers, for making unto them such a foolish question, as they deemed it. And like enough, I would have laughed at you myself, had I heard you ask it: for never did so great a Critic ask so poor a question. I know your meaning yet, however. You would be thought to have been laughed at, for thinking that the Altars generally stood at the East end of the Church: but if you asked the question, you were only laughed at by the strangers, for thinking it a matter questionable, that they should stand in any other place than that. And though I take this for a tale, a very winter's tale, fit only to be told by such a confidence as yours: yet being told by one of the right faction, no doubt but it will pass for currant, and find a credence among those who are not able to distinguish between chalk and cheese, but swallow all that comes before them. Your Noverint Vniversi being sealed and delivered, we should look forwards to the rest of your observations; but we will borrow leave a while, to look upon the Church of Milan, and on the Reformation made therein, by the great Cardinal Borromaeo. It seems, before his time, 
r Concil. Mediolanens. 4. de Capelli● & Altar.  that there had been some Altars raised in very inconvenient places: some near the Pulpit; some near the Organs; some against one pillar, some against another; and some near the door: yet find I none particularly under the Reading Desk, nor do I think that you can find a Reading Desk in any of the Milan Churches. 
s p. 75. 76.  Only because you said before, that the Pulpit and the Reading Pew might be called Altars no less properly than the Holy Table: you would now show an Altar near the Reading Desk, in hope the Reading Desk may one day become an Altar. I hope you cannot hence conclude, that the High Altar stood indifferently in any part of the Church; or that in those small Churches wherein there was one Altar only, that one and only Altar stood as it happened in the body of the Church, under 
t p. 221.  the Organ-loft, the Reading Desk, the Pulpit, or you know not where. There's none so ignorant of the world abroad, but knows that in the greater Churches there were several Altars, none of the which come under our consideration, but that one Altar, which was disposed of in the Chancel. Your Pillar-Altars, and your Chappell-Altars were of another nature, and had their several places in the Church, according as they might be situate with the most conveniency. But so, I trust it was not with the High Altar, as they call it. And yet in this you tell us, if we may believe you 
u p. 221▪  that in the severe reformation which that Cardinal made in all the Churches of the state of Milan, he doth require that there be left a space of eight Cubits at the least, between the High Altar and the Wall, to admit the assistance of more Priests and Deacons at feasts of dedication, and other appointments of solemn Masses. If this were true, it were enough, we would seek no further. But there is nothing true in all this story. The distance that you speak of, was not between the Altar and the Wall; but between the Altar and the Rail, quod septum ab Altari co●gruo spatio dis●et, the rail, or bars, and not the wall; as in the fourth Council of Milan, published by Binius, being the extract of those Acts, to which you send us. But lest we should fall short of our present purpose, which is to set you for●h unto the world, for the most notable Counterfeit of these later Ages; we will be bold to borrow help from your own dear self, against this man of Lincolnshire that so abuseth his good Authors. You cite us in this place, Acta Eccles. Mediolan: part 4. lib. 10. de fabrica Eccles. and pag. 48. of your holy Table, you cite the very same again. But there you sing another song, and report him rightly in these words. When you build an High Altar, there must be from the foot or lowest degree thereof, to the rails that enclose the same, ●ight Cubits and more, if the Church will bear it, that there may be room for the clergy to assist, (as sometimes is required at solemn Masses.) 
x Ovid Metamor.  Et me mihi per●ide prodis, me mihi prodis ait? What have we here, ●he Minister of Lincolnshire, confessing guilty? His Author wronged in one place, and most miraculously righted in another? Now fie upon thee that couldst not keep thine own counsel; but must needs blurt out all, though against thyself. And so Ex ore tuo inique judex. The space you talk of was, as you see, between the Altar and the rail; and not between the Altar and the wall, which was the matter to be proved. The Cardinal was too good an Antiquary, to make so great a distance as you falsely charge him with, between the Altar and the wall. And though he was not sainted, 
y Made a Saint it s●emes f●r t● is service. p. 221.  as you idly dream, for taking down those petit Altars in his Church of Milan: yet such a reverend esteem the Popes had of him, that the whole 
z Thuanus hist. l.  order of the Humiliati was suppressed for ever; only because one desperate knave amongst them, made an attempt upon his person.  
This said, those few particulars which you have to show, might very easily be granted, and do no prejudice at all to the cause in hand: and it were not amiss to do so, but that you falsify your Authors with so high an impudence▪ in some of those particulars, which you have to show. Your instance of an 
a p. 220.  Ancient Marble Altar, in the middle of the Catacombe, we will freely yield you? For say you not yourself, that it was a place, in which the ancient Bishops of Rome were wont to retire themselves in time of persecution? If so, it was well they had an Altar. Those were no times to be solicitous about the placing of the same, as before we told you. Next in Saint Peter's Church in the Vatican you have found an Altar, called Altar Maggiore; but the worst is, you know not where to place it. The Italian Author whom you 
b p. 221.  cite, tells you the posture of this High Altar, was in the midst of the Choir: and yet Chemnitius, whom you cite p. 222. and allow of too, hath placed it ante Chorum, before the very Quire. This, as you say, was not observed by your former Author; you say true indeed. Your former Author, if you report him right, hath placed it in the midst of the Choir, and therefore could not well observe that it stood before it. But stand it where it will, what are you the wiser? Do you not find in 
c de rebus Eccl. cap. 4.  Walafrid●s Strabo, that in this very Church there are many Altars, some placed towards the East, and some in others parts thereof: Altaria non tantum in Orientem, sedetiam in alias partes esse distributa. And find you not also in 
d Examen Concil. Trid. pars. 4.  Chemnitius, that in that very Church there are an hundred and nine Altars; and then no marvel if some of them stand in the middle of the Choir, and some before it. Nor doth Chemnitius speak at all of that Altar Maggiore which before you spoke of, for aught there appears; but only tells you, apud Altare ante Chorum, that before the Choir there was an Altar. And, which most clearly shows your falsehood, he most perfectly distinguisheth that before the Choir from that under the whi●h Saint Peter and Saint Paul lie buried, which your Italian Author speaks of, by the number of Indulgences. You might have spared Chemnitius well enough, for any service he hath done you; but that you love to clog your margin. And for Saint Peter's Altar, place it where you will, either in the middle of the Choir, or before the door, you cannot thence conclude that there was no High Altar anciently at the East end of the Church; no more than if a man should say, there is an Altar in the middle of King Henry the Seventh his Chapel at Westminster, ergo there is no Altar at the East end of the Quire.  
From 
p. 221▪  Italy your Books transport you into Germany, and there you heard another winter's tale, of that alacrity which Witikind the ancient Saxon found in the face of Charles the Great, when he began to approach that Table which was in the midst of the Church. For this you cite Cran●zius in Metrop. l. 1. c. 24. but there's not one word that reflects that way in all that Chapter, nor indeed could be, if you mark it; the Emperou● Charles being dead and buried Chapt. ●8. That which you mean is Chapt. 9 (should 〈…〉 〈◊〉 you for this mistake) and there indeed it is 〈◊〉 in this sort: Postea vero mensam adieras●▪ Templo mediam, it a hilari mihi conspectus ●s vultu, etc. that the good Emperor changed his Countenance, at his approach unto the Table. How ●eated? Templo mediam▪ What in the middle of the Church? I cannot tell you that. For than he would have said, in medio Templi, and not Templo mediam. The Table Templo media was the High Altar out of question, and stood as now it doth at the upper end of the Choir: and yet was Templo media just in the middle to the Church▪ or ●any man that coming from the lower end, did approach unto it. Nor doth Hospinian tell us, 
f p. 2●●▪  as you make him tell us, that in the Reformation which the Helvetians made at Tig●re, (so great a Clerk as you should have called it Zuric●) An 1527. they found that in old time the Fo●t had been situated in that very place, where the Popish High Altar was then demolished. 〈◊〉 
g de Origin● Altarium. ca ●▪  only saith, Non obs●uris not is deprehensum esse, that it was so conjectured by certain signs▪ And think that those signs might not deceive them. Besides, Hospinian speaks not of the Popish High Altar, but calls it only the High Altar, Al●a●● summum. Popish was ●oysted in by you, to make poor men believe that all High Altars, were ipso facto, Popish Altars, and therefore ipso facto, to be demolished. Such excellent arts you have to infuse faction in men's minds, as never any man had more. From Germany you pass to France, where you find nothing for your purpose. You 
h p. 222  are informed, you say, that there they do not fasten their High Altars to the wall; but the lesser or Requiem Altars only. I dare be bold to say, no man ever told you so: the contrary thereunto being so apparent; as I myself can say, of my own observation. So that your general being false, that which you tell us of the rich Table in the Abbey Church of S. Den●s, will conclude no more, than your Cathedral Church at Dover. And yet you tell us false in that too. For that the Table is 
i p. 223.  not laid along the wall, but stands Table-wis●, you find not in the Theatre, cited in the Margin: that you have added of your own. Nor doth the Inscription which you bring, prove that it standeth Table wise: for the Inscription may as well fit an High Altar now, as a Communion Table heretofore. Besides, how ever it 
k and by the inscription, must needs have been used for a Communion Table heretofore. p. 223.  was used before, in case it be not used so now, it makes no matter how it stands. For if it be a Table only, a fair rich Table to ●eede the eye, and not employed in any of ●heir religious Offices: place it in God's name how you will; and make your best of it having placed it so. 
l p. 223.  The ho●y Altar in the same Church placed before the Tomb of Charles the bald, stands, as you say, in a manner in the midst of that room. Not in the midst expressly, but in a manner in the midst. Neither so, nor so. For the said holy Altar, as they call it, stands against the wall, 〈◊〉 of the Chapel being behind it▪ (a place appointed for the Sacrist) according, as you cannot choose but have observed, in many of our Cathedral Churches in this Realm. And these indeed, are n● strange postures in that Country; you say right in that: but very wrong as you intent it, as if it were not strange in France to have the Altars▪ stand in the midst of the●r Churches Both the rich Table that you speak of, and the holy Altar as they call it, stand there no otherwise than other Altars, both in France, and elsewhere: which I can say of certain knowledge, having marked them well.  
The other three rich Tables which you tell us of, 
m p. 224. 225.  two of them in Const●ntinople, and one in Rome, conclude as little to your purpose: there being no proof brought that they stood Table-wise, or were not laid along the wall; but only your mere say-soes, and some bold conjectures. Nay it appears most plainly, in tha● wherein you instance first, that it was made to stand against a wall, and in no place else. For it is said of that incomparable Lady Pulcheria, and not Pulchelia, as you call her, the Emperor's Sister, that making such a costly and magnificent piece of work as the Table was: 
n Sozomen. lib. 9 C. 1.  she caused to be inscribed on the Front thereof, that all might read it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the purpose of the gift, and true intentions of the giver. Had it been then the use of the Church in▪ Constantinople, to place the holy Table like a Comm●●●on Table; no doubt but that she would have caused the said Inscription to be made accordingly. Not on the Front thereof, for Front it could have none, except you please to call the narrow ●nd by the na●e of Front, (as none will call it, if you do not;) but round about it. And being inscribed ●ound about, it might as ●asily have been read, the Table standing Table-wise; as being on the Front, the Table standing Altarwise. So that you have found out an excellent Argument against yourself: and we thank you for it. Your second instance is 
o p. ●25.  of a Table, sent from France, by King Pepin, to the Pope, and dedicated to Saint Peter. How prove you that this Table was not made an Altar, nor placed Altarwise? Marry say you, because the Pope returned this Answer to the King, that on that very Table he had offered the sacrifice of praise to Almighty God, for the prosperity of his Kingdom. An admirable disputant. But good Sir, with your leave, might not the Pope offer the sacrifice of praise to Almighty God, on any thing but on that Table: or on that Table situate all along the wall, but in the posture only of a common Table: or not upon that Table, changed into an Altar? I see you are excellent good at all things; but for non-sequiturs, a very none-such. For your last instance of the holy Table offered up by justinian in the Temple of Sophia in Constanti●ople; you build on this, that the Inscription on the same was engraven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, round about it▪ and therefore could not have been seen, had the said Table been laid ●●ong the wall. Thus you conclude▪ and your conclusion, as it should, follows deteriorem partem, in the worst sense too. Your Circuit, and your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been scanned already. Nor can you prove by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the inscription on the Table went quite round about it. It might be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and not circumcirca. Cannot you walk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 about an Altar, or if that word offend you about a Table placed against a wall, backwards and forwards, from the extreme corner on the North-east, to the extreme corner on the Southeast, and yet not walk quite round about it, in a perfect circuit? if no, you understand not what you mean when you say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if yea, than you may find how the inscription might be engraven 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on justinian's Table, and yet the Table stand all along the wall. You see, I hope, by this time, the exceeding weakness of your cause; as other men may see by this, the extreme foulness of your carriage, in the handling of it.  
But to what purpose tell we you, of what you see: who being nor blind, nor blinker, as you make the Doctor, do shut your eyes most wilfully that you may not see; or rather see too well, but will dissemble what you see. Great pains assuredly you take to prove that the Communion Table ought not to stand at the upper end of the Chancel: and that it is against the Liturgy and Canon's of this Church, against the practice of antiquity, yea and against the usage in the Church of Rome, to place it so. And which is yet more strange, you cast a scandalous stain on them which opine the contrary, as if they were of very desperate faith, and corrupt affections. For p. 76. you fling a jealousy abroad, as if in placing the Communion Table Altarwise, they meant somewhat else, than for fear of our gracious King they dare speak out: the Mass at lea●●, no question, who can take it otherwise. And worse than so, p. 204. you tell us, that these 〈◊〉 Reformers, though they prepare and l●y 〈◊〉 for the same, dare not (for fear of so many Laws and Canons) apparently profess their Ele●sinian doctrines: and that they are busied as yet, in taking in the outworks, that that being done, they may in time have a rout with the fort itself: With spite and calumny enough. One that should read these passages, would think that yourself did place a great deal of religion, in these outward matters: yet such is your ill-luck, or want of memory, or somewhat which is worse, that you confess in other places, that placing of the holy Table in the upper end of the Chancel, is of a very mean and inferior quality▪ not to be stood upon or gain●said, if it be● required. For p. 67. you declare yourself, that you would not advise a●y Clergyman of what degre● soever, to oppose his Ordinary, either 〈…〉 other particular of so low ● nature▪ So low ●●●ture, mark y●u that; and then consider with yourself, how little cause you had, to take so much pains to ●o little purpose▪ but that you have a mind to d●stur● the Church, that you may fish the better in a troubled water. So for the writer of the letter, he signifies unto the Vicar, 
a Holy Table. p 12▪  that the standing ●f th● 〈◊〉 Table, was ●●to him a thing s●●●different, that 〈◊〉 offence a●d umbr●ges were taken by the town against it▪ he would neither move it, nor remove it. And you yourself have brought him in discoursing with the men of Granth●m, of the indifferency of this circumstance in its own nature: as in another place, 
b Against t●e which he conceived the Rubric to be very apparent, but h●s Lordship's opinion. to be very indifferent. p. 12.  you make his Lordship's opinion to be very indifferent, in the said placing of the Table, however the Rubric of the Liturgy did seem apparently to be against it. Nor is he only so resolved in point of judgement, but he is positive for the ●etting of it Altarwise, in point of practice: 
c Ibid. p. 12.  the Table, as you tell us, in his Lordship's private Chapel being so placed, and furnished with Plate and Ornaments above any the poor Vicar had ever seen in this Kingdom, the Chapel Royal only excepted. A strange tale to tell, that for the placing of the Table Altarwise, the Rubric should be so apparently against it; and yet his Lordship's opinion should be so indifferent in it: his practice peremptory for the forms observed in the Royal Chapel; and yet that you should be allowed and licenced to write kim kam, so flatly contrary to that, which in his own house he approves and practiseth. More strange that you should take this pains to falsify your Authors and disturb the peace and uniformity of the Church, in matters of so low a nature; wherein you would have no man disobey his ordinary. Were you not taken with a spirit of giddiness, we should have found some constancy in you, though but little truth. But thus you deal with us throughout your Book; and wander up and down, you know not whither: the bias of your judgement drawing one way, and your zeal unto the faction, pulling you another way. It seems you have been much distracted, aliudque ●upido, mens aliud su●det: and you are still irresolute what to do, or think. Though for the present fit, like the mad woman in the Poet, you set upon the business with a video meliora proboque: but will deterior● sequi, do we what we can. In which mad mood no wonder if you fall into many impertinencies, and extravagancies, to which now we hasten: and having made a full discovery of you in them, will conclude the whole.    

SECTION III.  

CHAP. IX.  
A brief survey and censure of the first service of Extravagancies, in the holy Table.  
The Ministers extravagancies, one of th● greatest part of his whole discourse. His ignorant mistaking in the Mathematics concerning the inventions of Euclid, Archimedes, and Pythagoras. The Minister falters in the original of Episcopal authority. His ●ringing in of Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra, for the jingle only. The Minister mistakes the case of the Germane Priests. His ●●vils at the ●●rme of prayer before the Sermon; and turning towards the East i● the Act of Prayer. The Ministers ignorant endeavours to advance the authority of the Archdeacon's. The Minister mistaken in the Diaconico●. What the Diacony was, and that it adds but little to the dignity of Archdeacon's, that the old Deacon had the keeping of it. The Minister absurdly sets the Deacon above the Priest. Po●tare Altar, not an honour in the first Deacons, but a service only. The little honour done by the Minister to the Arch-deacons, in drawing down their pedigree from the first Deacons. The Ministers ignorant mistake in his own w●rd utensil. The Minister subjects the ●riest to the authority of the Churchwarden, and for th●t 〈…〉 Lindwood. His ignorant d●●rivations of the present Churchwarden from the old O●conomus. The Minister endevows to exclude the Clergy from meddling in sacular matt●●●; and to that 〈◊〉 abuseth the authority of the ●●ci●●● Father's. His ignorance in the Cat●chisme, and confident mistakes in that. His heartless plea for bowing at the name of JESUS.  
LAertius tells us of Chrysippus the Philosopher, that being a great Writer, 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ in vit. Chrys.  he took up every thing that came in his way, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and swollen his Books with testimonies and quotations, more than needed. And thereupon Apollodoru● the Athenian used to say, that taking from Chrysippus' writings, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, all that was either not his own, or at all nothing to his purpose; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, his Papers would be empty of all manner of matter. Our Minister of Lincoln Diocese is much like that Author. To make his Book look big upon us, he l●ft out nothing that he met with in his own collections; or had been sent in to him by his friends to set out the work: and that it might appear a most learned piece, he hath dressed up his margin with quotations of all forts, and uses. But with so little judgement and election, that many times he runs away so far from his may● business, and from the Argument which he took in hand; that we have much ado to find him. And should one deal with him, according to the hi●● that we have given us of Chrysippus; we should find such a full in the main bulk of his discourse, 
Cap. 9  that the good man would have a very sorry frame, to support his Table. Such and so many are his impertinences, and vagaries; that the left part of all his work, is the holy Table, though that were only promised in the T●●le: and we may say thereof in the Po●ts language, Pars minima est ipsa puella sui; the dress is bigger than the body. However, that we might not ●eem to have took all this pains, in a thing of nothing; I have reduced into the body of this answer, what ever of him I could possibly bring in, though by head and shoulders: leaving the rest of his untractable extravagancies, such as by no means could be brought into rank and order, to be here examined by themselves. In marshalling of the which I shall use no method, but that which himself hath taught me; which is to rank them as I find them, and as t●ey cross me in my way: taking them page by page, as they are presented to my view; or dish by dish, as he hath set them before us. If you find any thing of the changeling in him, or that his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not prove as full of ignorance and falsehood, as his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is: I should conceive my time ill spent, in tracing him up and down in so wild a Labyrinth. Besides, we have in these extravagancies or vagaries, some fine smacks of Puritanisme, purposely sprinkled here and there to sanctifie and sweeten the whole performance; and make it ad palatum to the Gentle Reader. Begin then my dear brother of Boston, and let us see what pretty tales you have to tell us, for entertainment of the time, by way of Tabletalk: for justifying as you do, the sitting of some men, at the holy Sacrament, I must needs think you have invited us unto a Common, not an holy Table.  
And first to pass away the time till your meat comes in, you tell us two or three stories, 
c Pag. 50.  of E●clid●, and his finding out of the Jacob's staff▪ of Archimedes and his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when being in a brazen Lav●tory, he had found the Coronet or circumference of the vessel: and finally of that sad y●●th Pythagoras, 
d Pag. 51.  who having found in a Diagram an equality of so●e lines in a right ●●gled triangle, dow●e went a whole Ox to the Gods, for the Inspiration. These are hard words believe me, and you do very ill to talk in such a canting Language, and that to poor unlearned 
e And that with people that are n● 〈◊〉. p. 52.  people, which are no Geometricians: but far worse, trust me, to betray your ignorance in so fowl a manner, to those that can detect you for a most confident ignaro, to trifle thus in matters which you understand not. It is a good rule and an old, in mathematic is aut scire op●rtet, aut 〈◊〉. But you that never cared for any rules, will not care for this. Incomparable, you say, 
f Pag. 50.  was the delight of Euclid, when he had found how to make but a Jacob's staff. I pr●y you, good Sir, who told you that Euclid made the Jacob's staff▪ If it was Jacob's staff, as you say it was; it could not be of E●clides making. And I would pray you next to tell me, why naming it a Jacob's staff; you put 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the margin. Think you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Jacob's staff? The word you cite from Plut●rch where indeed it is; but a judicious and learned Mathematician, as you seem to be, would have considered with Xylander, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is vox nihili, no word at all, a mistake merely of the transcripts. Then if you read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the learned do, it might be certainly a work containing some practical Theorems wrought by the Quadrant or Astrolabe, as well as the Jacob's staff. And then again, if Euclid wrote such Theorems, it follows not that therefore he found out the Instrument. Many have told us of the use, but not found out the Author of it: 
g Geomet●●  though P. Ramus would have told you, had you asked the question▪ that it▪ was called Jacob's staff, Tanquam à sancto Patriarcha illo oli● inventus. However, were the difficulties more, and more debated by the learned in those noble studies, that's all one to you. For like a bold Adventurer, you clap it down a Jacob's staff, in the Text, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the margin: and then deride both it and them, as being 
h Which notwithstanding I can b●● for 12▪ P●●ce. p. 50▪  but a twelve-penny matter, not worth the speaking of.  
From Euclid on to A●chim●des, who washing in a brazen lavatory, cries out he had found it. What had he now found? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith your margin rightly: but very wrongly you translate it, and tell us it was nothing but the Corone● or circumference of the vessel. What will you give me to relate the story? Will you assure me on your word, though not worth the taking, that you will never meddle with the Mathematics, without further study? Well then, thus it was. 
i Vitruu. l. 9 cap. 3.  Hiero King of Syracuse, put out a Crown to making, of pure gold: and the Artificer, like a knave, mixed some silver with it. This being informed of, Hiero would fain know, how much gold had been taken out, and how much silv●r put in: and desired Archimedes to invent some way for the discovery. He, at a certain time going into his Bath, observed a quantity of the water to overflow according to the bigness of his body; whereby he presently conce●ted a device to solve the King's Problems, and cries out, I have found it: i. e. a way to discover the Artificers theft by the proportion of the water overflowing; or in the words of your own Author, did you understand him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a way of measuring the King's Crown; which he did accordingly. I ●ee you understand the language, as you do the Mathematics: and to betray your ignorance in both at once, must needs interpret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Coronet or circumference of the vessel. He found 
k His men 〈◊〉 g●t he had 〈…〉 of go●d, and it was nothing but the 〈◊〉 or circumference of the v●ssell. p. 50.  a Coronet of gol●, when he cried out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: though the invention was not worth a Tester as you tell the story.  
But the sad youth Pythagoras went beyond them all. Did he so indeed? And so do you too in relating what he invented. It is your masterpiece of Ignorance; not such another to be found in all the Country. But what did he? Marry, say you, having found in a Diagramme an equality of some lines in a rightangled triangle, down went a whole ox for the inspiration. What said you, an equality of some lines? How many were they for a wager? There are but three in all, a triangle can have no more. One is not some; and all the lines in a rightangled triangle cannot be equal, by no means▪ it is both false in the Art, and utterly would take away that excellent invention of Pythagoras. If then all three cannot have this equality, nor any one of them in itself; it must be either two or none: you needed not have kept aloof with your equality of some lines. And to say truth, it is of none. For this invention of Pythagoras, respects not any equality or inequality of the lines or sides in a rightangled triangle; but it 
l Euclid, l. ●. Sect. 47.  inquires the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or power of these lines: and it demonstrates the square described upon the line subtending the right Angle, to be ever equal to the squares of both the other compounded. Now did you either understand the invention itself, or else what admirable use is made thereof in all the practice of Geometry, you would not grudge Pythagoras an Hecatomb; a poor Ox● was nothing: although as you most ignorantly have set it down, an Ox had been too much by half; A calf had been enough to offer for such a Bull. Not such a 
m V. p. 104. of the holy Table.  Pious Bull indeed, as you have found out for the Doctor; but a profane, a Gentile, and a Pagan Bull.  
Your next vagary is, about Episcopal jurisdiction; which we have met withal already, as it related unto practice, and the point then in hand between us: but we must here confer a little, about the institution of it. This you touch very gingerly; and so, as one may see, you have a good mind to betray the cause. The reverend Ordinaries, and their calling are founded (as you 
n pag. 64▪  say) upon Apostolical, and (for all the essential parts thereof) on divine right. The Reverend Ordinaries? And why not rather, I beseech you, the Reverend Bishops? Is the word Bishop so distasteful to your holy brethren, that you dare not use it? Or do you think, you should be out of credit with them, did you affirm that in plain and positive terms, that Bishops are of Christ's institution, and de jure divino? It seems you do: and therefore in your Quo warranto, you ground their calling on Apostolical and upon divine right. On Apostolical in the first place, as being none of Christ our Saviour's Institution, but only founded by the Apostles, in their administration of the public government. The Ius divi●●● comes after, in s●cundis, but in upon the second: and that in some essential parts thereof, but you know not what. I hope there are not many Ministers in Lincol●shir● of this opinion. For let the Bishops stand alone on Apostolical right, and no more than so, and doubt it not but some will take it on your word, and then plead accordingly; that things of Apostolical institution, may be laid a●ide. Where are their Ecclesiastical 
o 1 Tim. 5.  widows; what service do the Deacons 
p Act. 6.  at the Table now; how many are there that forbear 
q Act. 15. 20.  from bl●●d, and things strangled? Therefore away with Bishops too, let all go together. And this I take it, is your meaning, though not as to the Application, yet as to the ground of the Application. I am the 〈◊〉 to believe it, because when Bishop Andrew's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had learnedly asserted the Episcopal Order to be of▪ Christ's Institution, I have heard that some who were then in place, did secretly intercede with King james to have had it al●●●ed; for fear, forsooth, of offending our neighbour Churches. This ●●are you are possessed with also: and therefore wa●ve not only the name of Bishop, but the main groundwork and foundation upon which they stand: Nay by this note of yours, Archdeacon's hold by as good a claim as the Bishops do. For being successors, as you say, 
r pag. 79.  to the primitive Deacons, who were ordained by the Apostles, and Ordinaries too, they know that too well: what lets, but that they mean themselves for those Reverend Ordinaries, which were ordained on Apostolical, and (for the essential parts of their office) on divine right also. Here is T. C. and I. C. and who else you will; new England in the midst of old▪ Yet all this while you are most orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England.  
Having thus founded the Episcopal calling on Apostolical authority, your next vagary is upon the Doctor, for setting up the Vicar above his ordinary. How truly this is said, we have seen already. And then you add, that these judicious Divines that 
pag. 71.  tamper so much in doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in discipline with Sancta Petra, will in the end prove prejudicious Divines to the estates of Bishops. Here is a fine jingle▪ is it not, to make sport for boys? who cannot but applaud your wit, for bringing Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra, in a string together. For, good Sir, tell me in a word, what other use was there of S●ncta Petra; but that you love to play and dally upon words and letters? In all his book, being in all 27. Chapters, what passage can you find that tends unto the prejudice of Bishops? Or how doth the poor Doctor, or any of those whom with so high a scorn you call judicious Divines, comply with any man that doth? Your Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra make a pretty noise; but it is only vox, & praeterea nihil.  
The Doctor thus shaked up, you go on again unto the point of jurisdiction; in which you spend two leaves together, but not one word unto the purpose. You tell us 
t pag. 72.  that of old, some Priests of Germany were reprehended by Pope Leo the Great, because they did presume in the absence of their Bishops, Erigere Altaria, to erect Altars: then, that 
u pag. 73.  a single Priest, quà talis, hath no key given him by God or man, to open the doors of any external jurisdiction, that 
x p. 71.  no man should presume to dispose of any thing belonging to the Church without the Bishop. What needed this ado, when neither, as you know yourself, the Vicar ever did intend to build an Altar: nor is it as you say yourself, in any of the Bishop's powers to do it if they were so minded. So far are you from giving way, that Bishops, of their own authority, may erect an Altar: 
y pag. 67.  that you deny them any authority of their own, to transpose a Table. Nor do you rightly sta●e the case, in Pope Leo neither. The business was not, as you dream, that there were some Priests in France or Germany, that encouraged thereunto by the Chorepiscopi, or Country Suffragans, did presume in the absence of their Bishops, Erigere Altaria, to erect Altars, No such matter verily. The thing that Leo was offended at, was that some Bishops of France and Germany, did oftentimes appoint their Chorepiscopi (who 
z Qui juxta Canon's Neocaesarienses five secundum aliorum dec●eta patr●m, iide● sunt qui & Presbyteri. Ep. 88  by the Canons of some Counsels were no more than Priests) or sometimes others which were simply Priests, to set up Altars in their absence; and to hollow Churches: Qui absente Pontifice Altaria erigerent, Basilicasque consecrarent. As his words there are. The Bishops were in fault here, not the Priests: and you as faulty full as they, to raise a scandal both on them, and the poor Vicar, in things of which they were not guilty. So that this needless disputation might have been laid by, but that it is your fashion ●o wheel about, that being gotten on the right side, you may show your learning. For having store sent in from so many hands, you think it would be taken for a great discourtesy, if you should not spend it.  
Your next vagary is about forms of Prayer; at which you have an evil tooth, that bites close, but deep. The 55. Canon hath prescribed a form of prayer, before the Sermon, according to the form of bidding of prayers, prescribed and practised in the reigns of King Henry the eight, King 
a Se● the Injunctions of K. Edw. 6. Qu. Eli. and Latimers' Sermon to the Convocation.  Edw. the sixth, and Queen Elizabeth. This you turn off with a back blow, as if you struck at somewhat else: and in a word or two give a fair Item to your brethren▪ to use what forms of prayer they list, with a nonobstante. It seems by you (say you unto the Doctor) That we are b●und only to pray, but not to speak the words of the Canons, i. e. (for so must be your meaning) as little bound to the one as unto the other. No man conceives that he is bound to use in other things no other words then the Canon's use, because there is no Canon that requires it of him: and by your rule we are not bound unto the forms of Prayer in the Canon mentioned, although the Canons do require it. Now as you fling aside the Canon, and leave your Clergi●-friends a liberty to pray what they list: so in another place, you cast aside the Church's customs; and give a liberty unto your Lay-brethre● to pray how they list. It is an Ancient custom in the Church of England, that in the times of prayer in the Congregation, we turn our faces to the East. This many of your friends dislike, and it is reckoned by H. B. 
b In his 〈◊〉 Sermon. p. 129.  amongst those Innovations, which he doth charge upon the Prelates; as if it were (forsooth) a tying of God to a fixed place. It seems you were agreed together, he to invent the charge, and you to furnish him with Arguments, to confirm the same. This makes you far more like Ch●ysippu●, than before you were▪ of whom 
c In vita Ch●ysippi.  Laertius doth inform us, that whosoever it was that found out the Dogmata, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he had an excellent Art of finding proofs to make it good. Now to make good this charge of your friend H. B. you tell us 
d pag. 219.  that it is a Paganish thing to make God more propitious in any one corner of the world than he is in an other▪ For this you cite these words of Minutius Felix, viz. Deo cun●ta plena sunt. Vbique non t●ntum nobis proximus, sed infus●s est. But gentle Sir, those words are spoken in the Author, not in relation unto the placing of the Altars, or to the people's turning of themselves in the Act ●f Prayer: but to the point of having Temples, i●e. such Temples as were then in use amongst the 〈◊〉, for the immediate and local habitations of th●ir God. Which being, as he saith, unnecessary, in regard that God was every where, and filled all things with his presence; was a good Answer to the Argument that C●●ilius used▪ but very ill brought in by you, upon no occasion. Only you please to intimate unto your dependants (who understand your meaning at half a word) that as they may pray what they will, for all the Canon; and h●● they will, for all the Custom; so they may pray also when and where they will, for all our Churches. Excellent Doctrine, credit me, not a New-Englander of them all, could have done it better.  
From your unnecessary discourse about the jurisdiction of Bishops, and these back-blows on the by, we must next ●ollow you unto a more unnecessary, about the Office of Archdeacon's; which they that perhaps sent you in your notes, desired to have extremely heightened; but all the proofs they bring to exalt the same, ●end to the diminution of it. Now for the finding out of that authority, which you ascribe to the Archdeacon's, or rather they unto themselves, you go as high as the first Deacons 
e Pag. 79.  (whose ancient power, you say, is now united and concentred in that of theirs;) and tell us many things that before we knew not. Fi●st, take it as we will, that the very Altar itself with the Rail about it, hath been termed in ancient Counsels, the Diaconie, as a place belonging (next after the Bishop) to the care and custody of the Deacon only. Secondly, that it is affirmed by an ancient Council, that the Priest can boast of nothing that he hath in general, but his bare name; not able to execute his very Office, without the authority, and ministry of the Deacon. Thirdly, that in a Precedent of this very particular, it was the Deacons office, portare, to move and remove the Altar, and all the implements belonging thereunto, as saith Saint Austin. And thereupon you draw this inference, that from these first Deacons to our present Archdeacon's, Incumbents have been excluded from meddling with the utensils of the Church, or Ornaments of the Altar: and for the proof hereof, you tell us in the Margin out of Lin●wood, that they (the Archdeacon's) have in charge omnia ornamenta & ute●silia Ecclesiarum. This is a compound dish, and was perhaps served in for an olla podrida, or the Grand Salad of the Feast: and therefore that we may the better judge of the ingredients, we will taste them severally.  
And first you say, the very Altar itself with the ●●ile about it, in ancient Counsels hath been termed the Diaconie. This is the first Caper in your Salad, and it tastes very high indeed; as high as the Council of Laodicea, which was before the famous Synod of Nice. Now in this 
f Ca●. 10.  Council it is ordered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. that no inferior Minister should have place in the Diaconie, and touch the holy vessels, or the holy utensils. This Canon, afterwards was 
g Concil. Ag●th●ns. Can. 6●.  incorporated into those made in a Council held at Agatha or aged, in Gaul Narbonnoyse, Anno 506. in this form that followeth, viz. Quoniam non oportet insacratos ministros licentiam habere in secretarium (quod Graeci diaconion appellant) ingredi, & contingere vasa dominica. Now in all this you are mistaken very ●ouly; no man ever more. For neither was the Diaconion, the place between the wall and rail, where the Altar stood: nor do those Canons give the Deacon any dignity above the Priests; as you intent it. The Diaconion, or Diaconicon (as the old translation in Binius read's it) or the Diaconie, as you call it, doth signify the Vestry, and not the Altar place: a room appointed for the keeping of the sacred utensils, not for the ministration of the holy Sacraments. And it was called Sacrarium also, as being the repository of the hallowed Ornaments: from whence we have the name of Sa●rist, to whom the keeping of the same was in fine committed. That living magazine of Learning Sir Henry Spelman 
h In Glo●●● 100  could have told you this; Diaconion & Diaconicum, locus in circuitu Ecclesiae conservandis vasis Dominicis, & ornamentis Ecclesiae deputatus; alias secretarium, alias Sacrarium: and this he saith with reference to this very Council of Laodicea, which you build upon. Then there's josephus' Vice Comes, whom you have magnified to our hand for the 
i pag. 219.  most learned in ●ur age of all that have dealt with Rites and Ceremonies; who affirms the same. For speaking of the Council of Agatha or aged, the second of the two to which you refer us, 
k De mi●●●e app●r●●u. l. 6. c. 4.  he doth resolve of Secretarium, which is there said to be called Diaconion by the Grecians, that it is the Vestry▪ Secretarium i. e. locum sacris asservandis praestitutum, as he there informs us. Nor can it but seem strange to any man that hath his wits about him as he ought to have, that the Altar with the rail about it, or the Altar place, should be entitled the Diaconie; wherein the Deacons had so little, if at all anything to do. But were it so as you would have it, yet were this little to the honour of the Archdeacon's office as now it stands; and very much unto the Priests. All that is given the Deacons here is but a trust committed to them above those other Ministers which were insacrati (as the later of your Counsels calls them) not yet admitted unto any of the holy Orders, or to them only of the lowest or inferior sort, which are not properly to be called Orders, but rather preparations to them. The washing of the plate, and laying up the sacred utensils, in their proper places, was not conceived to be a fitting service for so high a dignity as the holy Priesthood: and therefore was put off to them, who being in ordine ad spiritualia, in some degree or way unto it, were thought most fit to undertake it. So that this charge was plainly cast upon the Deacon, rather to ease the Priest, and for the honour of his calling; than to give any place or privilege unto the Deacon, (who, as you might have seen in the 
l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Con●. Laodic. c. 20.  Canon next before, was not to sit down in the presence of the Priest without special leave) to perk before him. And you have done your Bishop but a sorry piece of service in giving him 
m Next after t●e B●shop, p. 79.  a part of so mean a charge, which was conceived to be unworthy of a common Priest. Polme occidist is amici, Non servastis, ait.  
Now as in that that went before, you have betrayed your ignorance, and too great want of knowledge in Antiquity; so in the next which now succeeds, you have betrayed a greater want, which is want of honesty. You tell us that the Priest can boast of nothing that he hath in general, but his bare name; and that he is not able to execute his very office, without the authority and ministry of the Deacon. Without the authority of the Deacon? that were brave indeed: fit to be said by none but such a Minister as you, who care not what you say, so you may be heard. The practi●● in 
n Ad Tarsens.  Ignatius time, was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Deacons should be subject unto the Priests: but see how strangely things were turned in a little time; the Priests are now brought under, and forced to yield unto the Deacons. Good Sir, where may one read of such a Law? Not in the Council of Aquisgrane, or Aken, I am sure of that, though thither you refer us in your marginal note. In all that Canon which you cite, the Deaconship is described as a place of Ministry, and not of dignity. Ipsienim 
o Concil. Aquisgranens. Can. 7.  clara voce in modum Praeconis admoment cun●tos. The Deacons, as their Office is there described, do like so many criers call upon the people to pray, to kneel, to sing, to be intent unto the Lessons: they call upon them also, to let their ears be open to the Lord their God, and are designed to read the Gospel. Then follows that which is presented in your 〈…〉 officium non ha●et, that without them the Priest may have a name, but not an office: that is, their 〈◊〉 and attendance was 〈…〉 that without them the Priest could not do 〈…〉 then according to the Cannon, that the 〈◊〉 was not able to exe●●te his very Office without the 〈◊〉 of the Deacon and you say very well▪ none 〈…〉 you for it. Thi●●oysting in of thei● Audacity was a trick of yours, one oophore many tricks 〈…〉 And you may now conclude as well▪ that in some greater Churches, here in England, the Priest is utterly unable to execute his very office without the 〈◊〉 of his Clerk, 〈◊〉 Curate, because he cannot do i● so conveniently▪ without their ●i●isteries: as that the Priest's in these days were an emplie name, and could not stir a foot in the discharge of their employments, without ●●tority from the Deacon.  
That which you bring us from Saint Austi●, makes the m●tter plainer, plainer I mean as to the Priest; and sets the Deacon in his own place, a fair deal below him. It was the Deacons office (as you 
p Pag. 79.  inform us from Saint Aug●stine,) 〈◊〉, to move and remove the Alt●r, and all the implements the runto belonging. What then? Therefore the Priest's were not to meddle with the Alt●r, either to ●ove it, or remove it: that appertained unto the Deacon. But good Sir, let me ask one question? Did this removing of the Altar belong unto the Deacons, Ministerialit●r▪ or A●toritative? You cannot say, that it belonged unto ●hem, A●toritative; because you said before, that it belonged to them, nex● after the Bishop A●l the authority then (●f your ●elf say true) was radically in the Bishop; the Deacon only ●●ved, as he was directed. And then I would fain know, whether you th●nke that this 〈…〉 ●he Altar was so high an honour▪ that the 〈…〉 durst not look after it, or aspire unto it. You must 〈◊〉 say you think so, though you know the 〈◊〉; or else this tale of moving and re●●vi●● Altars, were 〈◊〉 nonsense. Now therefore look upon your Author, and he will tell you for your learning that it is quite contrary 
q Quaest ex ●troque 101.  Qu● 〈…〉 What a strange boldness is it, saith the Father; that any man should fancy an equality between the Priests & their own Ministers? what rash presumption may we think it to compare the Priests, unto the P●yters of the Tabernacle, & of the vessels of the same, & such as were employed about cutting wood. The Deacons in the Church of R●me, though somewhat 〈◊〉 than they should be▪ do not presuso so it in the Congregation: and if they do not execute all ministerial duties, it is because there are so many Cl●rks besides them. Nam utique & Altar portarent, & vasa ejus, & aquam in manus funderent s●cerdoti, etc. For otherwise, saith he, they were to carry or remove the Altars, with all the ●tensils of the 〈◊〉, and to bring water for the P●ie●t to wash his hands, according as it is in other Churches. What think you now? is the removing of the Altar so high a dignity, as you would make the world believe? If 〈◊〉, how much more excellent were the Priests, to whom these mighty men did service; and brought them water for their hands? If no why do you deal so shamefully with the Ancient Writers, in making them the instruments to abuse your Readers? But this is so inveterate in you, it will never out.  
exhibited, that he ●ay see in what estate things are, whether worse or better▪ Your Author saith no more than this▪ and this is very small amends for the disgrace you did them, in your former folly's.  
Nor doth this reach neither to entitle them to any power of moving and removing the▪ holy Table, which was the thing by you most aimed at. The Constitution speaks of ornaments and utensils, of Books and Vestments. To which of all these ●oure think you, can you reduce the Altar, or the holy Table? No doubt but you will reckon it amongst the utensils of the Ch●●●h▪ nay (such is your gross ignorance) you think it would become the place exceeding fitly. No word more frequent in your book, then that of utensil▪ by which you mean the holy Table. And if it were not p●uper is numerare pecus, I could as easily set down how many times that word is used in your learned labours; 
t For in this shorf discourse, this w●rd Altar is thundered out 105 ●everalltimes. etc. p. 192  as you have found how often that of Altar is in the Determination that you wot of▪ His Altar was more proper than your utensil, and might be used ten times for once, without any absurdity: whereas it had been childish and absurd in you, to use your utensil, once only, in that sense & meaning. By utensils your Author means not, the holy Table, or the holy Altar, take which word you will, (nor never did man use 〈◊〉 so but your 〈◊〉 self:) but for the Vessel, Patens, Chalices, and the rest▪ which are 〈◊〉 to the same. And so you find it in 
u 〈…〉  the Gloss▪ if you p●ease to look. 〈…〉 Next time you write, or print, let me beseech you to leave out this word▪ as being worn 〈◊〉 by your much using▪ and use those terms which either are commended to you by the 〈◊〉 (your own rule, if you can remember) or generally were received by the ancient Writers.  
But go we after you, in your vagaries. As you have brought the Priest to be inferior to the Deacon: ●o you will do your best, to bring him under the Churchwarden. God help poor Priests that must be under so many Masters; Churchwardens, Deacons, and who else soever you shall please to set above them. But this, you say, is no new matter: 
x p. 80.  Churchwardens having been of old, the Bishop's hand to put all mandates in execution, that may concern the utensils of the Church. For proof of this, your Margin tells us, Oeconomus [est] cui res Eccl●siastica gubernanda mandatur ab Episc●p●: that the Churchwarden is an Officer to whom the government of Ecclesiastical matters is committed by the Bishop. A very honourable office. You could not have bestowed a greater power, upon the Chancellor himself. And the Churchwardens are to thank you▪ that to advance their place and credit, stick not to 〈◊〉 your Authors, and to strain your conscience: and that too in so foul a manner, that in my life I never knew an equal impudence. There's no such thing in 
y Lib. 3. de 〈…〉 re●●●ent.  Lindwood, whom you have ●ited for your Author. That adjunct ab Episcopo, is yours, not his, than the O●conomus there mentioned, is no Churchwarden, but either a farmer or a Bailiff▪ and last of all, the Res Ecclescas●ica which is therein mentioned, hath no relation unto the utensils of the Church; but merely to the Tithes and profits. I must lay down the ca●e at large, the better to detect your most shameless dealing. ●he constitution is as followeth. First for the title, Rectores non residentes nec Vicarios habentes 〈…〉 That Parson's not being resident, nor having any 〈◊〉 upon their 〈◊〉, shall by their 〈◊〉 (be they as they prove) 〈…〉 The body of the 〈…〉 in 〈◊〉, though more full in words. 〈…〉 Now that we may the better know, what is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉, we are thus instructed in the 〈…〉. What 〈◊〉 Episcopo.? No such matter, not one word of that▪ That's an old trick of yours, and most 〈◊〉 yours, of all the men I ever deal with. How then? why by the Rector only? Is he not called both in the title and the Text, 〈…〉, his own 〈◊〉 So al●o in the Gloss. Dicitur 〈…〉 And what to do? Either to farm their profits of them, or to collect and manage their profits, for them. 〈…〉 & sic bona Eccl●siastica administrent. So that you have at once imposed four falsehoods ●n your Readers. For first, here's no Churchwarden, but a Bailiff, or a farmer; nor he appointed by the Bishop, but by the Parson; and being appointed meddleth not in any thing which doth concern the 〈◊〉 of the Church, but the profits of the Parsonage: nor finally is here any word of executing 〈◊〉 but only of maintaining hospitality▪ If this b● all you have to say, I hope the 〈◊〉 may hold his own, without being overawed by the 〈◊〉 of the Parish; how great soever you would make them.  
O but this i● not all, say you, for the Churchwarden i● an Ancient Gentleman, come of a great pigge-house, and co●en Germ●n to the Bishop, at most once removed. For you 
a p. 80▪ 〈◊〉  conceive our Latin Canons now in force, by calling him Oeconomus, make him relate u●to that 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Officer, famous in the 〈◊〉 and Latin● Counsels: next, that of old, he was▪ as now, a Layman, some domestic or kin●●a● of the Bishops, that managed all things belonging to the Church according to the direation of the Bishop▪ still you are out, quite out in every thing you say. The 〈◊〉 are not now in f●rc●, as to the phrase and Latin of them. For they were pa●●ed in English▪ in the Convocation, and confirmed in English by King james: the Latin translation of them is of no authority, of no force at all▪ And if you will needs borrow arguments from an identity of names, you should have first consulted the Civil Lawy●●s, who would have told you, that Gardi●●●● Ecclesi●, is a more proper appellation of and for the Churchwarden, than your 〈◊〉. Nor do the Authors whom you cite, inform you that the old Oecon●●●● was at first a Layman, a friend or kins●●● of the Bishops; but a Churchman merely▪ 
b In Conc. Chalced. Ca●. 26.  〈◊〉 unto whom you send us, tells us plainly, that at the first the Bishop h●d the absolute and sole disposing of the revenues of the Church: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, no man, nor friend, nor kinsman, nor domestic, for aught there appears, being privit to i●: Which when it brought some ●eandall and complaint upon the Bishop: it was ordained in the Council of Chal●edon, Can. 26. that the supreme administration of the Church's treasury should still remain in him, as before it was, but that ●e should appoint some one or othe●●o be of counsel, with him in his actions. And from what rank of men▪ should they take that choice? Not (saith your Author) from their domestics, or their kinsmen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but from the Clergy of the Diocese. Find you in this▪ that anciently these Oeconomi were Laymen, of the Bishop's kindred? I thought you had be●ne better at a pedigree, than I see you are. Otherwise you would never have derived our present Churchwardens from those old Oecono●i, 
c That th●se churchwardens f●●m that time 〈…〉, etc. p. 81.  those Clergymen Churchwardens, as you please to call them▪ of which if there be anything remaining in the Church of England, you have it in the Treasures of Cathedral Church's.  
The Deacons and the Churchwardens being thus advanced, it is no wonder that the Priest be left to his med●tations: as one that is no more than a dull spectator, and hath no sphere of activity to move in. O Godblesse 
c p. 62.  say you, all good holy Churchmen from such a misadventure; with contempt enough. God bless them too, say I, from all such 
d Ob be not ●o ●●rd● hearted 〈◊〉 merciless. etc. p. 63.  merciless and hardhearted men, (by whomsoever they are licenced) who labour to advance in this sort the authority of Churchwardens, or any other of that nature, so high above their Minister. Never did Clergyman, so licenced and allowed of, speak so contemptibly of the Ministry, as this man of Lincolnshire: who though he brags elsewhere of his 
e p. 83.  buenas entranas (as the Spaniards speak) those good and tender bowels which he hath within him; yet the shows little pity of these poor men's cases, which he exposeth thus unto scorn and laughter. But it is true, and always was, that a man's enemies are those of his own house: and we may speak it in the words, though not the meaning of the Prophet, Perditio tua exte est, that thy destruction is from thyself, O house of Israel. This cry, like that about the Piety of the times, being taken up, we shall be sure to meet withal in every corner of your book: as if there were no life in the game you follow, if piety and the true promoters of it, should not be kept upon the sent. Nay you go so far at the last, that you disable Clergymen in a manner, from being Executors and Over seers of men's wills and Testaments: telling 
f pag. 167.  us of a passage in S. Cyprian, which looks much that way, that it takes the Doctor by the nose, as one that cannot endure to be a looker on, and confined only to his ministerial meditations. However other of your passages might escape the Licenser; I cannot choose but marvel that he winked at this, being so contrary unto his practice. For did he not when he was in place, put many a Churchman into commission for the peace; not thinking it so great an avocation from their studies, but that they might do well with both. And have you never been Executor or overseer of any man's last Will and Testament; and found it no such heavy load, but that a man might bear it with content enough? But why do I propose these questions, when you proclaim him for the Licenser of your holy Table, whose private practice in his Chapel, is so repugnant to the purpose of your whole discourse. But being licenced, printed, published, and scattered up and down the Kingdom (as such things fly far:) no doubt but you have made good game to all the brethren of your party; who are now authorised by so good authority, to turn their Ministers out of all employment, yea in such things as do concern his Church and calling; and bid him get him home to his meditations. Sponte sua properant. The people are too forwards in themselves upon these attempts: and you might well have spared the spur, but that you think they make not haste enough, because you outride them.  
Butyetwell fare your heart, you will say nothing without Fathers, though they say nothing for your purpose. S. Ambrose, as 
g pag. 81.  you say, complains of the like complainers of his time, who held that the study of the holy Scriptures was but a dull and idle kind of employment. Are you sure of that? The Father there saith nothing of the like complainers. There was no occasion why he should. The Priests were then in too great honour, to be controlled and baffled by inferior Officers. Nor were there any Bishops than that laboured to suppress their Clergy (or allowed others so to do) by putting them into the hands of the Vestry Elders. That which S. Ambrose speaks of there, is that some men preferred the active kind of life, before the contemplative; the doing of the works of righteousness, before the study of the Scriptures. 
h In Psalm. 118. Serm. ●1.  Nos autem ociosos nos putamus, 〈◊〉 verbo tantummod● studere videamur. What, stops he there, as you have made him? I have before heard of a Gagger of the Protestants; but here behold a Gagger of the holy Fathers. The Father sure proceeds as followeth, Et pluris aestimamus ●os qui●perantur, quam eos qui studiu● veritatis congn●scendae exercent. Had you gone forwards as you ought, you would have found but little comfort from S. Ambrose. For mark how your conclusion follows on his words. S. Ambrose tells us of some men, who did prefer an active life before a contemplative▪ Erg● according to Saint Ambrose, the Minister must be confined to his meditations, and suffer the Churchwardens to rule the roast. 
i p. 8●.  S. Basil, he is brought in next, to bid his Clergy take especial heed, that their Martha be ●ot troubled with many things. Admit that true. What then, Erg● the Clergy must sit still, permit the people to do all, and rest themselves content with being lookers on, the dull spectators of their active undertake. But know you what you say, or rather what the Father saith in the place you cite? Tho●e Reg●l● fusiores whither you refer us, concern Monks, not Priests; those which did live in Monasteries, not those that had the Cure of Souls: which makes some difference in the case. But this is not all. The question 
k S. Basil. regul. fu●ior▪ 20. p. 454.  there proposed is thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what order they (the Monks) should follow in entertainment of Strangers. To this the Father answers, that their entertainment should be moderate, and very little, if at all, above their ordinary dy●t. And then come in those words which you have cited in your Margin▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Christ gave Martha little thanks for being so busy and distracted about her entertainment of him. What think you now? Is this to bid their Clergy take especial heed, that their Martha be not troubled about many things. i e. that they refer all to the Churchwardens, and suffer them to do their pleasure in matters which concern the Church? Last of all for Synesius, he is brought in too. 
l p. 82.  You have a very strange Commission, that you can call in all the Fathers with a testificandum; and when you find they can say nothing, yet set them down amongst the number of your witnesses, and give it out that all goes with you. Were it not for this trick, the cause would quickly have been tried, and never got such hold in the common vogue. What would you have Synesius say? Marry you send him in a ticket, and tell him that he must deliver upon his oath, that he conceived it fitter for an Egyptian then a Christian Priest, to be over-troubled with matters of wrangling. This if Synesius should affirm, yet it would little help your cause, and that your Partisans would report, that such a Reverend man as Synesius was, hath sworn directly on your side. But there is no such matter neither. All that Synesius saith is this, 
m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ep. 57  that in old times the same men were both Priests and judges; that then both the Egyptians and the Hebrews, for a long time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were under the command and empire of their Priests; that Christ had severed the two offices; and therefore that Andronicus (to whom that Epistle is inscribed) should not endeavour to unite them. Nor doth he go thus far in fine, allowing not much after, that those who have abilities to discharge both callings (though he confessed it of himself, that he was no such man:) 
n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lbid.  might both execute the Priest's office, and yet bear rule also in the Commonwealth. So that this place serves very ill, to bind the Clergy to refer all matters of and in the Church, to the disposal of the Churchwardens, or other Elders of the Vestry: but might have served exceeding fitly (were it not for the close at last) to bar them from employments in the Civil state; for which use questionless it was here cited.  
But howsoever you mistake, corrupt, and rather than the life would subborn the Fathers, yet one may charitably presume that you are perfect in your Catechism, and will not falsify any thing which you bring from thence. I do most infinitely desire to find some truth in you; but I know not where. You charge the Doctor for reporting, that by a Statute still in force, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is called the Sacrament of the Altar: though it be most true. And then 
o P. 95. 96.  you add, that presently after, this Act was revived by Queen Elizabeth (i e. the Act about the Sacrament of the Altar) there was at the same Session an addition made to the Catechtsme (and that likewise confirmed by Act of Parliament) whereby all Children of this Church, are punctually taught to name our two Sacraments, Baptism, and the Lords Supper▪ Which said, you draw up this conclusion: So as this judicious Divine was very ill Catechised, that dares write it now, the Sacrament of the Altar. Bringing the Doctor to his Catechism, a man would swear that you were excellent therein yourself. But such is your ill luck, that you can hit the ma●ke in nothing. For tell me of your honest word, when you were Catechised yourself, who taught you punctually to name the two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper? Marry say you, the Catechism in the Common Prayer book, in the addition made unto it by Queen Elizabeth, and confirmed by Parliament. I will joyn● issue on that point, and lay my best preferment against yours, that you were never taught so in that Catechism. I see it's good sometimes, to have a little 
p Men learned only in unlearned Liturgies. p. 85.  learning in unlearned Liturgies. You were past age, good man, to be taught your Catechism, when that addition was put to it. Look into all the Common Prayer books of Queen Elizabeth's time; and if you find me that addition to the Catechism, in any of them, I will quit the cause. Not one word in the Church's Catechism, in all her reign, that doth reflect upon the Sacraments, the number of them, or the names. That came in afterwards upon occasion of the Conference at Hampton Court: 
q Conf. p. 83.  where you have it thus: Next to this Doctor Reynolds complained that the Catechism in the Common Prayer book was too brief, for which one by Master Nowell late Dean of Paul's was added, and that too long for young Novices to learn by heart: requested therefore that one uniform Catechism might be made, which and none other should be generally received: and it was asked of him, whether if to the short Catechism in the Communion book, something were added for the doctrine of the Sacraments, it would not serve. You may perceive by this, that till that time, Ann● 1603, there was no such addition to the Catechism, as you idly dream of: which all the Children of this Church (your self especially for one) were taught when they were children, and required to learn it. Nor was this Catechism so enlarged, confirmed by Parliament; you are out in every thing: but only by King james his Proclamation, which you may find with little labour, before your Common Prayer book, if at lest you have one. You are so full of all false dealings with all kind of Authors, that rather than be out of work you will corrupt your very primer. Non fuit Autolyci t●● piceata manus: Like him that being used to steal, to keep his hand in use, would be stealing rushes.  
And now we thought we should have done. For seeing after all this entertainment, that you were putting yourself into a posture, and began to bow; it was supposed you would have said grace, and dismissed the company. But see how much we were mistaken. The man is come no further than his po●tage, in all this time. His stooping only was to eat, and not to reverence. Being to speak of Altars, mentioned in the Apostles Canons, he calls them Larders, Storehouses, and Pantries; or if he speak of the Communion-table, placed Altarwise, he calls it dresser. Now coming, though unnecessarily, (his Argument considered) to speak of bowing at the name of JESUS, he cannot but compare it to 
r For he was serving in his first mess of pottage. p. 100  a mess of pottage: and coming so opportunely in his way, he cannot choose but fall upon it. One would conjecture by his falling to, that he did like it very well: but if we note the manner of his eating, there is no such matter. For mark we how he ●all's upon it 
s Take them Donatus far me. p. 99  Giving those proud Dames to Donatus, that practise all manner of Courtesies, or Masks and Dances, but none by any means for Christ, at their approach to the holy Table: he adds, that this comes in as pat as can be. How so? Marry say you, the Doctor was serving in his first mess of Pottage, and the Bishop (as the saying is) got into it, and hath quite spoiled it by warning a young man (that was complained of for being a little santasticall in that kind) to make his reverence, humbly and devoutly. Doth this come in so pat, think you? The Vicar was no prond Dame, was he? Nor did the Alderman complain of him, for his light behaviour in bowing towards the holy Table, but in bowing at the name of JESUS. Yet on you run, from bowing towards or before the Communion-table, to bowing at the name of JESUS, as if both were one: both warranted or enjoined rather by the same Canon and Injunction; though you had said before, that bowing, 
t P. 99  though to honour him, and him only in his holy Sacrament, is not enjoined by the Canon. But being fall'n upon the dish, do you like the relish? No, You must like no more of it, than the Bishop doth. The Bishop he must have it done, to procure devotion, not derision: and you will have us keep old Ceremonies, so that we taint them not 
u P. 100  with new fashions, especially apish ones. Would you would tell us what those apish fashions are, that we should avoid; or persuade him to tell us what we are to do, to avoid derision of and from the scornful. All our behaviour in that kind, will be accounted apish, by such men as you; and being ex tripod by you pronounced for apish, must needs procure derision from such men as they. A lowly and accustomed reverence, to this blessed name, we have received, you grant, from all Antiquity: but when we come to do that reverence, you dislike it utterly. Two 
x P. 101.  sorts of bowings you have met with in the Eastern Churches; the greater when they bowed all the body, yet without bending of the knee, lowly and almost to the Earth; the lesser when they bowed the head and shoulders only. But then again you are not certain whether that any of these were used in the Western Church, and by them delivered over unto us. So that you like nothing but 
y P. 100  to make a courtesy; and yet not that neither if it be not a lowly courtesy. Now to see men and amongst men the Priests, make a lowly courtesy, Only by bending of the knee, without the bowing of the whole body, or the head and shoulders; must needs be taken for a new and an apish fashion, fit to procure derision only and not devotion: and so you leave no reverence to be done at all. Assuredly you mean so though you dare not say it. For having slubbered over so great a point, in that slovenly fashion, you 
z p. 101.  shut it up with this proportionable close; and so much for your preamble, that is your Pottage. I see you mind your belly, and therefore we will step down unto the Hatch, and send you up the second course of your Extravagancies: which how well you have cooked, will be seen apparently, when we are come to execute the Carvers Office.   

CHAP. X.  
The second service of Extravagancies, sent up and set before his guests by the Minister of Lincoln.  
The Metaphorical Altar; in the Fathers, good evidence for the proof of Real Altars in the Church. Ignatius corrupted by Vedelius▪ My Lord of Chichesters' censure of Vedelius. The Minister misreports Saint Bernard, and makes ten Altar's out of four. A new original of the Table in the Christian Church, from the Table of Shewbread; the Ministers fumbling in the same, deserted by those Autors that he brings in for it. The Minister pleads strongly for sitting at the holy Sacrament; and for that purpose falsifieth Baronius, misreports Saint Austin, and wrongs Tertullian. The Benedictines sit not at the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday. Of the Seiur de Pibrac. The Minister advocates for the Arians, and will not have them be the Authors of sitting at the holy Sacrament; and for that cause deals falsely with the Polish Synods which impute it to them. Three Polish Synods ascribe the sitting at the Sacrament to the modern Arians. 
Cap. 10.  The ignorance of the Minister about accipere & reservare in Tertullian. What the Stations were. Lame Giles. The Minister slights the appellation of the second Service as did the Writer of the letter, and brings in several arguments against that division. The Minister's ignorance in the intention of the Rubrics. Of setting up a Consistory in the midst of service. The authority of the Priest in repulsing unworthy persons from the Sacrament; defended against the Ministers. He sets a quarrel between Cathedral and Parochial Churches; and mistakes the difference between them. The Injunctions falsified. Of being ashamed at the name of the Lords Table. The Minister ashamed at the name of Altar. Of pleasing the people; and the Ministers extreme pursuit thereof. The Minister falsely chargeth on the Doctor, a foolish distinction of the Dyptyches. The conclusion.  
NOw for your second course, it consists most of Lincolnshire provision, such as your own home yields without further search, some sorts of fish, as Carp, and many a slippery Eel, but fowl abominable; fowl forgeries, fowl mistakes, fowl dealing of all kinds what ever. Nor can I choose but marvel, that in such verietie, there should be neither knot nor good-wit, or any thing that's rare and dainty: all ordinary fowl, but yet fowl enough. To take them as they lie in order, (for I was never curious in my choice of diet) the first that I encounter with, is a Quelque Chose, made of all Altars; a stately and magnificent service, ten of them in a dish, no less. And this you usher in with great noise and ceremony, assuring us, that there we have what ever of that kind, the whole world can yield us. If any of us have a mind to offer any spiritual sacrifices, of one sort or other; 
a What if I find you severa●● Altars f●r all these spiritual sacrifices in the ancient 〈◊〉, p. 110.  the ancient Fathers have provided you of several Altars for them all: so many, that God never required more for these kind of sacrifices. Take heed you fall not short of so large a promise, for you have raised our expectation to a wondrous height. But such is your ill luck, that vaunting so extremely of your great performances; you perform nothing worth the vaunting. For neither are these, several Altars, which you have set forth; n●r have you set forth all the Altars that are presented to you by the ancient Fathers: and lastly, were they either all, or several, they conclude nothing to your purpose. Your purpose is, to show unto your credulous Readers, that there is no material Altar to be used in a Christian Church: and for a proof thereof, you ma●e a muster of all those several Metaphors and Allegories, which you have met with in old Writers, concerning Altars. This, did you weigh it ●s you ought, crosseth directly all your purpose; and at one blow casts down that building, which you so labour to erect. All Metaphors and Allegories must relate to somewhat, that is in being: and when a thing is once in being, several wits may descant, and dilate upon it, as their fancy serves them. I hope you will not think that there was no such thing, as the Garden of Eden; no such particular Vestments for the Priest's, or sacrifices for the people; because the ancient Writers, some of them at least, have drawn them into Allegories; or can a●●ord you at fi●st word, a Metaphorical Ephod, a Metaphorical P●sch, or a Metaphorical Paradise. You know what ●●imme devices may be found in Durand, about the Church, the Choir, the Altar, the ornaments and utensils of earth, the habit of the Priests, the Prelate; and whatsoever doth pertain unto a Church, to the very Bell-ropes. And yet you would be 
b 〈…〉  laughed at by all strangers, more than you were, when you demanded how the Altar stood in foreign Churches; should you affirm that in the Church of Rome, whereof Durand was, ther● neither was a Priest, nor Prelate, neither Quires, Altars, Churches, or any ornaments or utensils to the same belonging. Or to come nearer to ourselves, there is a book entitled Catechismus ordinis equitum Periscelidis, written long since by Belvaleti, the Pope's Nuncio here, and published in the year 1631. by Bosquierus: wherein the Author makes an Allegory on the whole habit of the Order, the matter, colour, fashion, wearing, to the very girdle. And were not you, or he that should approve you in it, 
c 〈…〉 p. 81.  a wise piece indeed, if on the rea●ing of that book, you should give out, that really and materially there is no such habit, worn by the Knights of that most honourable Order, as vain men conceive: but that their habit is, as some made the Saint, only an allegory, a symbol, or a metaphor. So that if all you say were granted, and that your ten tropical, metaphorical Altars, were ten times doubled; that would make to the prejudice of that real and material Altar, which hath continued in the Church of Christ, since the Primitive times. Nay, as before I said, those metaphors conclude most strongly for a real Altar; as the conceits of Bel●●aleti, Durand, and some ancient Fathers, do for the realty of those several subjects, on which they did express their fancies.  
This said, we might put by this service, as not worth the tasting; made rather to delight; the eye with various shows, then to feed the stomach: but we will fall aboard however, were it for nothing but to show what Quelque choses you have set before us. Now the first Altar of your ten, 
d p. 110.  is Ignatius his Altar, the Council of the Saints, and the Church of the first-begotten. For this you send us to his Epistle add Ephesios', where there was never any such matter to be found, till your good friend Vedelius brought the old Father under his correction, and made him speak what ever he was pleased to have him. Ignatius, were he let alone, would have told another tale, than what you make him tell between you. For there he tells you of those men, that separate themselves from the communion of the faithful, and do not join together with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in 
e N●● consentit in voluntate sacri●iciorum, a● Vedelius translates it.  a consent of sacrifice, and in the Church of the first-begotten, whose names are written in the heavens; This by a sleight of hand, is finely altered by Vedelius, and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we must now read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Council of the Saints, as you translate it. A pretty criticism, but as too many of them are, more nice, then wise. For which and other his corrections of, and annotations on that Father, I rather choose to leave him to my Lord of Chichester, whom I am sure you know to be well versed in that kind of learning; then take him unto task myself. And he will tell you, if you ask him, 
f Appar. primus num. 47.  Audacem illum & importunum Ignatii censorem, nec quicquam attulisse ad paginas suas implendas, praeter inscitiam & incuriam, & impudentiam singularem, dum ad suum Genevatismum ●ntiquitatem detorquet invitissimam, etc. According to which Character you could not possibly have met a fitter Copesmate; one every way more answerable to you, in all those excellent qualities, which are there recited.  
Of your next nine, four of them are the very same, only brought in in several dress, to beguile the Reader. 
g p. 110. 111  The second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which you translate (and be it so) the commanding part of the reasonable soul, which is Origens' Altar; your 
h p. 111.  third, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 righteous soul, which is C●emens his Altar; the fifth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the sincerity of the mind, which is the Panegyrists Altar; the sixth, Cor nostrum, or S. Augustine's Altar: these are but several expressions of the same one thing. The reasonable soul, the righteous soul, the sincerity of the soul, are but the several habitudes of the same one soul: And for the heart, that also must be understood spiritually, and so become a soul in fine. For if you understand it literally and materially, you overthrow your whole design; in finding us a material Altar, for a spiritual sacrifice, against the which you have so learnedly declared before. Now it is worth your marking, that all these Authors (except Clemens) do frequently in other places of their writings, inform us of the Altars in the Christian Church, material Altars either of wood or stone; for the officiating of God's public service: as we have showed at large in our second Section. Nor are you other then a trifler to produce them here, as if they knew no Altars in the Church for the mystical sacrifice, but those which you have shown us from them for spiritual sacrifices. The same may be affirmed of your seventh, the memory, which is Philo's Altar; and of the tenth, that our faith 
i p. 112.  S. Hieromes Altar. Philo, and Jerome both, acknowledged several, real, and material Altars, in their several Churches: though in the places by you cited, they solace and delight themselves in conceits and allegories. So that of all your Altars we have left but three, the fourth, eight, and ninth; and two of them will in conclusion prove but one. Of these the fourth is every place, 
k Hol● Table. p. 111.  (a most excellent Altar) wherein, say you, we offer unto God the sweet smelling fruits of our studies in divinity. And this you make Eusebius his Altar. Now if one ask you what you mean by this every place, I know you cannot choose but say, that you mean the Pulpit, if not the tables end in some secret Conventicle: every place wherein you offer unto God the sweet smelling fruits of your studies in Divinity. But you find no such matter 
l 〈…〉  in Eusebius, nothing that any way concerns your studies. For then, none but such learned men as you, could make every place an Altar, for spiritual sacrifices; as all men may, in the true meaning of your Author. Of offering up your studies, and the sweet smelling fruits thereof (most fragrant fruits indeed, if you well consider it) not one word saith he. Your eighth, S. Bernard's Altar, is, as you say, the Son of God, become the Son of man. Which howsoever it be true, as to the thing itself, and in that metaphorical sense as the former were: yet have you no such Altar, in S. Bernard; your very Margin saith the contrary. Your Author saith 
m p 111. in margin.  Altar Redemptor is humilis incarnatio: not that our Saviour God and Man, is become our Altar; but that the Incarnation was our Saviour's Altar. Or had S. Bernard said so, as he might have done, then had it been the same with Aquinas his Altar, or the ninth of yours, which is the Son of God in heaven. I trust you will not separate the Son of God become the Son of man, from the Son of God now in heaven; as if our Saviour had not took his body with him, to the heavenly glories. Which if you do not, as you cannot (and I have so much faith in you, as to think you will not) you might have either reported S. Bernard rightly, or quite left him out. There's none that doth defend the material Altar, or thinks the name of Altar may be given to the holy Table▪ but falls down prostrate at this Altar: as being t●at one and only Altar which sanctifies all our spiritual sacrifices, and divine oblations, and makes them acceptable in the sight of God the Father. Yet this concludes no more, that there should be no Altar in the Church, for the mystical sacrifice; because our high Altar is in heaven, Altar nostrum est in coelis, as 
n Li. 4 c. 34.  S. Irenaeus hath it: then that you may conclude that no man hath a natural father, because we have one Father which is in heaven, our Pater noster qui est in coelis, as the Scripture hath it.  
In the next place you set before us a pretty quillet: the holy Table 
o p. 123.  in the Christian Church, not being exemplified, as you say, from the square Altars, Exod. 27. but from the long Table of the Shewbread which stood in the Temple, Exod. 25. This is good fish indeed, if it were well fried; but upon better view, proves not worth the eating. You say the holy table in the Christian Church was not exemplified from the square Altars in the Law: and yet you tell us, p. 126. that by the Canons of their Church, that very form is required amongst the Papists, and to them you leave it. You might do well, before you make it proper to the Papists, and to them alone, to have considered of the form of the ancient Altars; and told us what those Canons were, and of what antiquity, that do so enjoin it. You point us in your Margin, unto Suarez, in tertiam partem: as good and punctual a direction to find out the Canon, as if you had enjoined us to inquire for your House in Lincolnshire, and never told us what's your name. Then for the Table of Shewbread, to which you do refer the original of the holy Table, you flutter up and down, as one that knows not what to trust to: as most an end they do not that propose new fancies. For p. 125. you bring in the conceits of two jewish Rabbins, tending you say, unto your purpose. How foe? Ezek. 4. 22. (it should be 41. 22.) it is thus written, And he said unto me, this is the Table before the Lord, meaning without doubt the Altar of incense. You say exceeding right in that, the Table spoken of by the Prophet, is the Altar of incense: but what hath that to do with the Table of Shewbread? This you confirm by that which followeth. The question than grows, how the Altar, is called a Table: 
p 125.  and you reply unto it from those Rabbins, that at this day the Table performs what the Altar was wont to do. Where first you blend together the Table o● the Shewbread, and the Altar of Incense, as if both one thing: and next you make the Rabbins speak of the Christian Table, as if it did perform what the Altar should, whereas they spoke it of their own. For why should you believe that any of the Rabbins would conceive so honourably of the Christian Tables, 
q Ibi. p. 125.  that since the destruction of the Temple, they should become the place of sacrifice and propitiation. Assuredly the jews have no such conceit of the holy Table▪ and it was done but like a Gentile to report so of them. Last of all, where before you make the holy Table to be exemplified from the long-table of the Shewbread, you shut up this vagary with this handsome close, 
r p. 126.  that the only utensil you relate unto (for the form and fashion of your Table) is the long-square table of the Incense. Which as it plainly contradicts what you said before, touching the Pedigree of the holy Table, from the Table of Shewbread, so it confutes the Scripture also: which never told you of a Table, but an Altar of Incense; or if a Table, yet a square table certainly, for fouresquare shall it be, saith the very Text, Exod. 30. 2. So excellent an invention was your new original of the Christian Table; and so bravely followed.  
But than you say, you have some Authors for it: so you have for every thing, till it is brought unto the trial. Remember what you are to prove, and then show your evidence. The point in issue, is that the form and situation of the holy Table, in the Christian Church, is not exemplified from the square. Altars, but from the long Table of the Shewbread that stood in the Temple. If you have any of the Fathers that speak home to this, we are gone in law; but all your witnesses fall short. Isidore Peleusiota, whom you first bring in, speaks neither of the form, nor situation of the Christian Table. But when a doubt was moved by Benjamin a jew, touching the new oblation in the Christian Church, that it was done 
s 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 401.  in bread, and not in blood, as were the sacrifices of the law: he makes reply unto the sa●e, that by the law, there were both bloody sacrifices performed without, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the open Court, and that within the Temple there was a tabe, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not to be looked on by that people, whereon bread was placed. Then adds, that the said Benjamin was one 
t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ibid.  of those, and that he did not know that truth, which had been hidden in the law, but was now revealed. This is the total of his evidence. And this makes nothing for the form and situation of the Table, which was the matter to be proved; but only that, as he conceived, the Shewbread did prefigurate somewhat, which afterwards was instituted in the Christian Church. And let me tell you as a friend, that if you press this matter hard, as if our Christian sacrifice did relate to that; you give the Papists more advantage for their half Communion, than you will gain unto yourself, about the form and fashion of your holy Table. You say indeed 
u p. 124.  it will be long, yer we will bring so clear and ancient an extruction for the form and fashion of the Altars in Christianity; though you brought nothing hence for either. When we see more, we shall know better what to answer. To make a transcript of your allegations, from Irenaeus and S. Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome, being no more unto the purpose, were only to waste time and paper. All that they say, is nothing to the form and situation of the holy table, but to the analogy and proportion, between the bread in the Lord's Supper now, and the Shewbread then: & yet you falsify your Authors also, to make that good. You tell us out of Irenaeus, that omnes justi sacerdotalem habent ordinem; and you say true, they are his words. But when you say, all that are justified by Christ have a Priestly interest in this holy bread: though it be true you say, had it been your own; yet you untruly father it upon Irenaeus, who in his fourth book, cap. 20. whither you refer us, tell's us no such matter: The like may be affirmed 
x P. 125▪  of Saint Jerome also, whom you have cited twice for the selfsame purpose, viz. In Epist. ad Tit. c. 1▪ and in Ezek. c. 44. though neither in his comment on that whole Epistle, or in his exposition on Ezek. c. 44. or cap. 41. which was most like to be the place; can we find any thing at all which reflects that way. But what need further search be made in so clear a case; and such as doth relate so little to the point in hand? Especially since another of your Author's, 
y In Hebr. 9  Cornelius à Lapide, from whom you borrowed your quotations in the margin, p. 126▪ out of Saint Hierom, in Malach. 1. Cyrill, Catech. mist. cat. 4. and Dam●scen, de orthod. fid. i. 4. c. 14. takes these interpretations to be only Allegories; as indeed they are: Allegoricè mensa panum propositionis significabat mensam corporis & sanguinis Christi: as 
z Tropologicè vero significat opera misericordiae, in Hebr. 9  in the Tropological sense, saith he, it signifies the works of mercy. Take for a farewell to the rest, that if you will derive the form and situation of your holy Table, from the Table of Shewbread: Your table must not stand at all within the Chancel, nor in the middle of the Church; but on the North side of the Church, as you yourself have placed it, out of Philo, p. 210. which though it thwarts as well your own book, as the Bishop's letter: Yet you 
a P. 123. 124▪  proclaim, you care not how the Altars stood either in the jewish or Popish Church; your Table being quite of another race. And take this with you too for the close of all, that if your Table be descended of the race you mean; it is more jewish then the Altar: there being Altars doubtless before Moses Law, but no Tables of Shewbread. Nor can the Altars be more Popish than your holy table; there being Altars in the Church when there were no Papists.  
I did before conjecture that you had invited us, unto a common, not an holy Table; and I am now confirmed more in it, then before I was: so strongly do you plead for sitting at it, and in excuse of them that allow that gesture. A matter no way pertinent to your present Argument, but that you must fly out sometimes, to please your followers: who but for such vagaries, would be little edified. Now for the proof of this, that sitting at the holy Table is nor new, nor strange; you tell us, 
b Pag. 132▪  that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lords supper were ●●ten for a certain time, at the same table; and that, for aught appears in any Antiquity, in the same posture. At the same Table, in the same posture; that comes home indeed: but neither you, nor any one of those who have most endeavoured it, have yet made it good. For your part you refer yourself unto Baronius, whom you thus report. 
c Pag. 132. in margin.  Vtraque coena jungebatur, which he clearly proves out of chrusostom in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. in the beginning thereof. So you, and were it so indeed, yet this speaks nothing of the posture. But the truth is, you have most shamefully abused Baronius, and the Father too you find not in Baroni●●, utraque coena jungebatur, as if the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Lords Supper, were eaten at the same Table, and that they made but one continued action only. Nay, you find the contrary 
d Annal. T. ●. Anno 57  utraque simul mensa jungebatur, are your Author's words: and you have better skill in Latin then the World beside, if you can pick me one and the same table, out of mensa utraque, certainly, mensa utraque doth imply two Tables: and this you could not but have seen in that which follows, communis & sacra, one common, and the other sacred. Take the whole words together, and you find them thus. Quoniam utraque simul mensa jungebatur, communis & sacra; quid in unaquaque prastare deberent admo●●●●. Here are two Tables then, not one; those Tables of two several natures, and not the same; and therefore the behaviour of the people quid in unaquaque praestare debent, to be more reverend at the one, then at the other. You have an admirable searching eye, that can find here both the same Table, and same posture too; but a far nimbler hand, that could so trimly turn two Tables, into one Supper. But this you say, is clearly proved out of Saint chrusostom. What, the same Table, and the same posture? You are false in this too. Baronius doth produce S. Chrysostom to an use quite contrary. However Christ, saith he, began first with his ordinary supper, and then proceeded to the Sacrament: yet in the following times, they began first with the holy Sacrament, and after went unto their Love-feasts. And this is that for which he voucheth the Authority of that Reverend Father, Peracta Synaxi, post sacramentorum communionem inibant convivium: very plain & home. Had you dealt half as honestly with Baronius, as he with chrusostom, you had been blameless at this time: but then your friends, whom you strive to please, had lost an excellent argument, for a sitting Sacrament.  
From the Church primitive you fall upon the Church of 
e Pag. 133.  Rome, which doth not absolutely as you say, condem● this ceremony of sitting; for if it did▪ it would c●ll the maundy of the Benedictines, who at the lest once in the year, (that is on Maundie Thursday only) receive the Sacrament in that posture. If this be all you have to say, touching the indulgence in this case of the Church of Rome, o● the general practice of the same; you have got but little. Only you had a mind to let people see, that the Church of England was more rigid and severe in this kind, than the Church of Rome. For if the Church of Rome should connive at this, being a thing of so long continuance, and done within the walls of a private Monastery; it cannot be drawn into example, or made a precedent for others to expect the like. But if it chance to prove, that it is not the Sacrament, but a resemblance only of the old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which on that day is celebrated sitting, by these Benedictines; have you not then deluded us, in a shameful manner? Bullinger thus relates the matter, 
f De orig. errorum circa coenam ●. 4.  that on that day, the Gospel of Saint john being read publicly by the Deacon, in the mean time, ordine dispositis mensis convivae assident, the guests sit down in order, at their several Tables. What then? Frangentes panem azymum, & calicem invicem propinantes, etc. Breaking unleavened bread and drinking unto one another, they keep on foot some tracts of the ancient supper. What think you now? Is this a Sacrament or a common Supper; done in the Church, or in the Refectory? I hope you will not say, that they had mensas dispositas, several tables in the Church, and those ready furnished; or that they did invicem propinare, drink to one another in the holy Sacrament. Quanta de spe, how great a fortune are you fall'n from; that thought to gain such much meed for this good service? But yet you will not leave us so 
f P. 133.  This custom, as you tell us, mounts higher than Saint Benedict, to S. Augustine's time. This custom? what. Of sitting at the Sacrament upon Maundie Thursday? No such matter verily. Saint Austin saith no more than this, that 
g Epistola 118.  some, (and those against the general custom) did think it lawful on that day, to receive the Sacrament after other meats. Not that they did receive it so, but that they thought it lawful to receive it so, ut ●ost alios cibos offerri liceat corpus & sanguis Domini, as the Father hath it, which makes (I trust) as little for sitting at the Sacrament at that or any other time; as that for which you falsified Baronius, hath made for all times.  
But you go higher yet, and tell us that it was the general practice of the Gentiles, to worship sitting: that so it was enjoined the 
h Pag. 134.  Romans by an express law of Numa Pompilius; and that it seems to be the custom of the Greeks also, by an old Quatrain of the Seiur de Pibr●c. How old I pray you was that Quatrain? Not many thousands sure, nor many hundreds, no nor many stories. The S●iur de Pibrac as I take it, 
i Thuanus hist. sub. H. 3.  was Chancellor to King Henry the Third of France; and so his Quatrain could not be very old, if you mark it well. And yet you thought it questionless to be very ancient. You had not told us else 
k P. 135.  that the Apostles of Christ were not to learn ceremonies out of the laws of Numa, or the Quatrains of Pibrac. Most learnedly resolved. They might as well have learned divinity from the man of Lincolnshire, as ceremonies from the Quatrains of the Seiur de Pibrac. You tell us further in your margin, 
l P. 134.  how that Tertullian makes it a general posture for all Pagans: so he doth indeed. 
m De Orat. c. 12.  Perinde faciunt nationes, as his own words are. But than you had done well to have told us also, how highly he condemns it in them, and how irreverent he conceived it, assidere sub aspects, contraque aspectum ejus, to sit them down under the no●es (as we use to say) of those very Gods 
m Quem cum maxime reverearis & venereris. ● de ●rat. cap. 12.  whom they did worship and adore. This had been some fair dealing in you, could it have stood with your design, of justifying the use of sitting in the holy Sacrament. Nay more than so, you say of Cardinal Peron, that he brings a passage out of Tertullian, to prove that some of the ancient Christians did adore, sitting: and that this position of theirs, this sitting, Tertullian did not blame. Not blame? Why man, Tertullian mentions it for nothing else, but to reprehend it. Nor was it then a custom to adore sitting, as you say. Tertullian never told you that; nor the Cardinal neither. 
n Ibid.  But adsignata oratione, assidendi mos est quibusdam: some men as soon as they had done their prayers, were presently upon their breech: as you would have them now at the prayers themselves. Never did any wretched cause, meet a fi●t●r Advocate. You would persuade us, that there is▪ 
o P. 136.  little fear, that here, in England, the people will clap them d●wne upon their breech, about our holy Table: so I hear you say. But by those many libellous and seditious Pamphlets that have been scattered up and down, since your book came out; we find the contrary. Perhaps the goodness of their Advocate makes them more forwards in the cause. I hope you know your own words, and in them I speak, telling you, 
p P 132.  If you were a scholar, you would have been ashamed to write this Divinity.  
For foreign Church●s next, you tax the Doctor, as if he did 
q P. 135.  conclude the Ceremonies of so many neighbouring Protestants to be unchristian altogether. Where find you such a passage in him? All that the Doctor said is this, 
r Coal from the Altar, p. 36.  that it was brought into the Churches first, by ●oth the modern Arians, (who stubbornly gainsaying the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour, thought it no robbery to be equal with him, and sit down with him at his Table:) and for that cause most justly banished the reformed Church in Poland. And for the proof of this, he saith it was determined so in a general Synod, as being a thing not used in the Christian Church, tantumque pr●pri● infidelibus Ari●nis, but proper to the Arians only. This goes extremely to your heart, so that you cannot choose but wish 
s P. 137.  that he had spared to abuse that grave Synod, to make them say peremptorily, haec ceremonia Ecc●esiis Christianis non est usitata, especially as ●ee 〈◊〉 in into English, this ceremony is a thing not used in the Christian Church. Why how would you translate it, were you put to do it. The most that you could do, were to change the number; and render it, the Christian Churches, for the Christian Church, which how it would advantage you, I am yet to seek. But being so translated, what have you to object against it; or to make good, that he hath any way abused so grave a Synod? Marry say you, the Synod saith, 〈◊〉 ceremonia, licet cum 〈◊〉 liber●, etc. this ceremony howsoever in its owne●nature it be indiff●●●ent and free, as the rest of the Ceremonies etc. Which you say, sweetens the 〈◊〉 very much. And so it doth indeed, sweeteneth it very much to them which have a liberty to use i●: but not to them who are restrained to another gesture. Nor had you noted it, being so impertinent, but that you would be thought a Champion for men's Christian liberty, as before I told you. Next you object 
t 〈…〉  they do not say it is a thing not used in the Christian Church, (that being a corruption of the Doctors) but that it is not used in the Christian and Evangelicall Churches, nostri consensus, which agreed with them in the Articles of Confession. If so, the Doctor was too blame, and shall cry peccavi. But it is you that finger and corrupt the Synod. The Doctor took it as he found it. 
u Synod. 〈…〉.  H●●c ceremonia, (licet cum caeter is libera) Ecclesiis Christianis & coetibus Evangelicis ●on est usitata; are the very words. If you can find nostri consensus there, it must be of your own hand-writing. There is no such matter, I am sure, in the printed books. It's true, that in the former words it is so expressed, ne sessio sit in usu ad mensam Domini, in ullis ●ujus consensus Ecclesiis, that sitting at the Lords Table be not used in any of the Churches of their Confession. That's national▪ as unto themselves. But then the reason follows, which is universal. Haec enim ceremonia, etc. because that ceremony was not used in any of the Christian Churches, or Evangelicall assemblies. This is the place the Doctor pressed; and you can find no consensus nostri there; I am sure of that: Nay, it had been ridiculous nonsense (such as you use to speak sometimes) if it had been so. Now where you tell the Doctor, 
x P. ●37.  that he ●●ole this passage from the Altar of Damascus; and having 〈◊〉 it did corrupt it ● he must needs answer for himself, that it is neither so, nor so 
y Altar Damasc. P. 751. 〈◊〉.  The Altar of Damascus doth report the place, in terminis, as it is extant in the Synod; and as the Doctor laid it down in his 〈…〉 Altar No● did he ever know 〈…〉, till you directed him unto it.  
But ●o or not so, all is one in your opinion. 
a P. 138.  For both the Altar and the Coal are quite mistaken, as you give out, in thinking that the Synod did ever say, that this ceremony was brought in or used, by the 〈◊〉 Arians. Neither brought in, nor used? that were strange indeed. What is it then that they intent? Only, say you, that it is Arianis propria, a thing fitter for the Arians, who by their doctrine and ten●ts placed themselves cheek by jowl with the Son of God then for devout and humble. Christians, compassed about with neighbours so fundamentally heretical. 
b P. 139.  And this you say, the Altar espied at last, to be the meaning of the Synod, that sitting was proper to the Arians, not by usage, but secundum principia doctrinae suae, by the principles of their doctrine only; and so conclude, that contrary to all truth of story, the Doctor makes it first brought in by the modern Arians. Had you looked forwards in the Synod▪ you had found it otherwise. For there it followeth, 
c Synod. V●lodis●●●iens. in Harm. Confess.  that sitting at the holy Sacrament first crept into their Churches, potiss. mum occasione & auspicio illorum, etc. especially by occasion and example of those men, which miserably had fallen away and denied the Lord that bought them. Nor was it so resolved▪ in this Synod only, Anno 1583. It was concluded so before 
d In Harmon. Confess. cap. 4.  in the Synod of Petricone, in the year 1578. that sitting at the Lords Table was first taken up by them, who rashly 〈◊〉 every thing in the Church, and ignorantly imitating Christ's example, were fallen off to Arianisme▪ But I will lay you down the words for your more assurance. Sessionis verò ad mensam domini, etc. illi inter nos primi Authores extiterunt, qui omnia temere in ecclesia immutantes, & sine scientia Christum quasi imitantes, nobis ad Aria●ismum perfidi 〈◊〉 facti sunt. That's all that hath relation to the point in hand. The rest which is cut off with an etc. is a touch only on the by, that the said sitting was repugnant to the use of all the 
e P●aeter ritus in omnibus per ●uropam Evangelicis eccles●is vulgo consuetos. ib.  Evangelicall Churches throughout Europe. What follows next upon this declaration of the Synod? Quar● hanc propriam ipsis, etc. Wherefore to leave this gesture as proper and peculiar unto them 
f Vt Christum, ita & sa●ra ejus irreve●en●er tr●ctan●● bus, ibid.  who handle both our Saviour and his Sacraments with the like irreverence; and being in itself, uncomely, irreligious, and very scandalous withal unto simple men. Nay, before that, Anno 1563. it was determined to this purpose also in another Synod at Crac●vi●, that if perhaps any did use to sit at the Lords Supper, ceremoniam eam Arianabapt●st is relinquant, they should desert it utterly, 
g Cap. 6. in ●●rm. confess.  as proper and peculiar to the Arian Anabaptists. This makes it clear as day, that sitting at the Lords Table, was brought into the Churches first, by the modern Arians. That which you interpose touching john A Lasco is not worth the while. He 
h P. 138.  was not settled in Poland, as yourself affirm, until the year 1557. which was but six years before the Synod at Cracovia, wherein this gesture was condemned of Arianisme. Nor was he settled then indeed, if you consider the Epistles unto Calvin, which yourself hath cited: things not succeeding there, 
i Vtentioni●s Calvino, Anno 1557. in Epl. Calvin.  saith Vtentionius, to their hearts 〈…〉 furiòse se opponit Satan propagationi regni Christi▪ so furiously doth the devil oppose the propagation of Christ's kingdom. But settled or not settled, all is one for that. The Arians were here started up before his coming: nor have I such a reverend opinion of john A 〈◊〉, but that some principles of his might tend that way also. And so I leave you to consider, whether the Arians or the Puritans are most bound unto you, for standing up so bravely to defend their cause.  
That which comes next to hand is 〈◊〉, a fo●le mistake or two, about the ancient practice of the Church, and Tertul●●●● meaning. You say, 
k P. 161.  that in Tertullians' time, they did not (as we now do) eat the consecrated bread upon the place, but accipere & reservare, re●erve it, and carry it home with them. You make this general, that they did not as we do● now▪ that is not eat the consecrated bread upon the place, whereas indeed it was but in particular cases: either in times of persecution, when they could not meet so often as they would, for fear of troubles; or in the Stations, or days on which it was not lawful to worship kneeling. In the first case, they did accipere & reservare, receive it of the Priest at Church in several portions, and then reserve it, that is, take it home, and eat it there, at such times as they thought most fit for their ghostly comfort: and this they did especially, that they might be sure to have it for their last viaticum, at the approach of sudden unexpected dangers. This they did use to eat in secret, before other meats, as is apparent by that passage 
l Ad uxorem lib. 2.  in Tertullian, Nun sciet maritus quid secret● a●te omne●● cibum gusts? But this is no good proof I trust, that therefore in the Church, they did not ●ate at all; because they did reserve some part to be eaten at home. That were to overthrow the nature of the holy Supper, and make the Communion to become a private eating. In the next case, being that of Station, which you with confidence enough, have ma●e to be a fast or 
m P. 160.  public meeting, (as if there were no public meetings but on Fasts, nor Fasts but on a public meeting:) it was ordered thus. There were some certain times, in which it was not lawful to worship 
n Di● dominico de geni●ul 〈◊〉 adorare n●fas e●●e duc●mus: eadem immunitate, a Pascha ad Pentecosten g●uidemus. Tertul. d● Cor. M●lit.  kneeling, as vis. every Sunday in the year, and the whole time from Pasch to Pentecost. Now in those days of Station, or standing days, at which the people might not kneel, in the receiving and partaking the holy Sacrament; they rather chose to forbear the Communion, then to take it 
o Quod sta●●o solvenda sit accepto 〈◊〉 dom. Id 〈◊〉 orat.  standing. Which being well known unto Tertullian, he wisheth them to come, though they might not kneel, and take it standing at the Altar, [Si & ad aram Dei steteris:] and to reserve and take it home, and eat at their own houses, kneeling, according unto their desires. By doing which, accepto corpore Domini & reservato, by their receiving of it in the Church, and carrying of it home to eat it there, they should 
p Vtrunque salvum est, & participatio ●acri●●cit, & executio officii  salve all fores: participate of the sacrifice, as they ought to do, and yet retain the old tradition, in those days of Station. This if you understood before, you did ill to hide it; if not, you are a little wiser than before you were.  
The next that comes before us is a covered dish, and being uncovered, proves a Jelly, 
q P. 172▪  a Claudius Gellius in your language, a lame Giles in ours. Who this lame Giles should be, you cannot guess you say, but indeed you will not. Lame Giles his haltings is the title of a book set out by Master Prynns', against Giles Widows of Oxford: wherein the Doctor first encountered with the name of Dresser, applied to the Communion-Table standing Altarwise, and of the which he thought him to have been the Author, till he observed it in the Letter to the Vicar of Grantham, being the ancienter of the two. But this is but a copy of your countenance. You have not so small interest in Master Prynne, as not to be partaker of his learned labours; though you seem loath, both here and elsewhere, that any thing of his, should be either pinned or prinned on you, or any friend of yours whoever.  
This dish being thus uncovered, and set by, let us now fall more roundly to your second service. In the beginning of your book, you tell us that the Doctor 
r p. 3.  feigns, that the writer of the letter doth slight, but fails, for he doth cite and approve the appellation of second service. The Bishop's 
s In the Co●l● from the Altar, p. 71.  letter hath it thus. The Minister appointed to read the Communion (which you out of the book of Fast, in of the King, are pleased to call second service.) And towards the latter end, 
t Ibid. p. 77.  either in the first or second service, as you distinguish. Is this to cite and to approve the appellation: Yes, that it is say you, and more. For the good writer of the letter, finding the 
u P. 173. 174  Vicar used it (as it seems) in his discourse, and that the neighbours boggled at it, excuseth it as done in imitation of that grave and pious book. That grave and pious book, good Lord, how wise you are upon a sudden, and yet how suddenly do you fall again to your former follies▪ That book, as grave and pious as it is, was never intended (as you say in that which follows to give Rubrickes to the public Liturgy; and therefore howsoever the Fast-booke calls it (so grave and pious though it were) let never any Country Vicar in Lincoln Diocese presume to call it so hereafter. Just so you dealt before with his Majesty's Chapel. Having extolled it to the heavens, and set forth all things in the same, 
x p. 34.  as wisely and religiously done: yet you are resolute, that Parish Churches, are not, nor ought not to be bound, to imitate the same in those outward circumstances. A grievous sin it was no doubt, for the poor Vicar to apply the distribution of the Service, in the book of Fast, unto the book of Common-Prayer: and it was very timely to be done, to excuse him in it, as if he did relate only to the Book of Fast. Else who can tell, but that the Alderman of Grantham and the neighbours there, might have conceived he used it 
y p. 174.  in imitation of the two Masses used of old; that viz. of the Catechumeni, and that of the Faithful: neither of which, the Alderman (a prudent and discreet, but no learned man) nor any of his neighbours had ever heard of. Great reason to excuse the Vicar from so foul a crime; which God knows how it might have scandalised poor men, that never had taken notice of it, till it was glanced at in the letter.  
The Vicar being thus excused, you turn your style upon the Doctor, for justifying the distribution of the Common Prayers▪ into a first and second service. You said even now, that you approved the appellation; yet here you give us several Arguments for reproof thereof. For first, say you, 
a p. 174.  the Order of Morning Prayer, is not (as the poor man supposeth) the whole Morning Prayer, but a little fragment thereof called the Order of Matins, in the old Primers of King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and the Primer of Sarum, what no where else? Do you not find it in your Common-Prayer book, to be called Matins? Look in the Calendar for proper Lessons, and tell me, when you see me next, how you find it there? matins and Evensong, ●aith it there; Morning and Evening Prayer, saith the Book elsewhere▪ which makes, I trow, the order of Morning prayer to be the same now, with the order of Matins, and that in the intention of the Common-Prayer Book, not in the Ancient Primers only. Not the whole Morning prayer say you, but you speak without book: your book instructing you to find the full course and tenor of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the year. Yet you object, that if we should make one service of the Matins, we must make another of the Collects, and a third of the Leta●●e: and the Communion at the soon will be the fourth, but by no means the second service. Why Sir, I hope the Collects are distributed, some for the first, and others for the second service: there's no particular service to be made of them. And for the Litany, comparing the Rubric after Quicunque vult, with the Queen's Injunctions, that seems to be a preparatory to the second service. For it is said 
b Cap. 18.  there, That immediately before the time of Communion of the Sacrament, the Priests with other of the Choir shall kneel in the midst of the Church, and sing or say plainly the Litany, etc. And you may mark it in some Churches, that whiles the Litany is saying, there is a Bell tolled, to give notice unto the people, that the Communion service, is now coming on. Secondly, you 
c p. 174▪  object, that by this reckoning, we shall have an entire service without a prayer for King or Bishop; which you are bold to say, and may say it boldly, is in no Liturgy this day, either Greek or Latin. Stay here a while. Have you not found it otherwise in your observations? What say you then to these? O Lord save the King, & then, Endue thy Ministers with righteousness. Are these no prayers for King or Bishop? Those which come after in the Litany, & that in the prayer for the Church militant; ●re but the same with these, though more large and full. Thirdly, say you, 
d p. 175.  the Act of Parliament doth call it service, and not services; therefore (for so you must conclude) there is no distribution of it to be made into first and second. So in like sort say I, the Act of Parliament doth call it 
e An Act for uniformity of Common prayer and Service, etc. 10. El. c. 2.  Common-prayer, and not Common-prayers: therefore (upon the self same reason) there is no distribution to be made of prayers for plenty, and prayers for peace, prayers for the King, and prayers for the Clergy, prayers for the ●ick, and prayers for the sound, & sic de caeteris. Lastly, you make 
f p. 175.  the true and legal division of our Service, to be into the Common-praier, and the Communion: the one to be officiated in the Reading Pew, the other at the holy table, disposed conveniently for that purpose. If so, then whenthere is no Communion, which is you know administered but at certain times, then is there no division of the service, and consequently no part thereof to be officiated at the h●ly table; which is expressly contrary to the Rubric after the Communion. You are like I see to prove a very able Minister, you are so perfect in your Portuis.  
But now take heed, for you have drawn your strengths together, to give the poor Doctor a greater blow, accusing him of 
g p. 176.  conjuring up such doctrine, as might turn not a few Parsons and Vicars out of their Benefices in short time. How so? Why by encouraging them, in a Book printed with Licence, (I see you are displeased at the licence still) to set up a consistory in the midst of divine Service, & to examine in the same the worthiness of all Communicants. The Doctor finds it in his Rubric, that so many as intend to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signify their names unto the Curate over night▪ or else in the morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after. From whence, and from the following Rubrics, the poor Doctor gathered, 
h Coal. p. 2●  that in the intention of the Church there was to be some reasonable time, between Morning Prayer and the Communion. For otherwise what liesure could the Curate have to call before him notorious evill●livers, or such as have done wrong to their neighbours, and to advertise them not to presume to come unto the Lord's Table: or what spare time can you afford him, between the Reading Pew and the holy Table, to reconcile those men between whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, etc. as he is willed and warranted to do, by his Common-Prayer Book. Call you this setting up a Consistory in the midst of Service? You might have seen, but that you will not, that here is nothing to be done in the midst of service: but in the middle space of time, between both services; when as the people are departed, and the Curate gone unto his house. This was the ancient practice of the Church of England. The Morning prayer, or Matins to begin between six and seven; the second service, or Communion service, not till nine or ten: which distribution still continues in the Cathedral Church of Winchester, in that of Southwell, and perhaps some others. So that the names of those which purposed to communicate, being signified unto the Curate, if not before, yet presently after Morning Prayer: he had sufficient time to consider of them, whether he found amongst them any notorious evil livers, any wrongdoers to their neighbours, or such as were in malice towards one another, and to proceed accordingly, as he saw occasion. All this you wipe out instantly with a dash of wine, 
i Ovid. epist. Penelop.  Exig●o Pergamon tota mero, as the Poet ha●h it: as if the notice given unto the Curate was for nothing else, 
k p. 176.  but that provision might be made of Brood and Wine and other necessaries for that holy mystery. And were it so, yet could this very ill be done, after the beginning of Morning Prayer (as 
l Immediately af●er the beginning of Morning Prayer. p. 177.  you needs will have it.) For would you have the people come to signify their nappies unto the Curate, when he was reading the Confession, or perhaps the Paternoster, or the Psalms, or Lessons; & then the Curate to break off, as oft as any one came to him, to bid the Churchwardens take notice of it, that Bread and Wine may be provided. Besides, you must suppose a Tavern in every Village, and a Baker two: else you will hardly be provided of Bread and Wine for the Communicants, in so short a space, as is between the beginning of Morning Prayer, and the holy Sacrament. Nay, not at all provided in such cases, but by Post and Post-horses, & much inconvenience; the Market-towns being far off; the ways deep and miry: which what a clutter would make especially upon the Sabbath, as you call it; I leave you to judge. Assuredly what ever your judgement be, you are a Gentleman of the prettiest and the finest fancies, that I ever met with.  
Thus deal you with the other Rubrics, and wrest them quite besides their meaning; especially the third, which concerneth the repulsing of those which are obstinately malicious, and will by no means be induced to a reconcilement. You tell us only of the second, which requires the Curate 
m P. 177.  to admonish all open and notorious evil livers, so to amend their lives that the congregation may thereby be satisfied: that it were most ridiculously prescribed to be done in such a place, or in so short a time; and therefore that it is intended to be performed by the Curate upon private conference with the parties. Good Sir, who ever doub●●d it, or thought the Church in time of service, to be a fitting place for personal reprehensions? So that you might have spared to tell us, your 
n P. 181.  〈◊〉 laudable practice, in not keeping back, but only admonishing p●blicke offender's upon the evidence of ●act, and that no● publicly neither, nor by name: unless there had been somewhat singular in it, which no man ever had observed but your own dear self; and that to be proposed as an I●stituti● sacerdotum, for all men else to regulate their actions by. But for the third, you say that it directs the Curate how 
o P. 177.  to deal with those, whom he perceives by intimation given, and direction returned from his Ordinary, to continue in unrepented hatred and malice: whom having the direction of his Ordinary, he may keep from receiving t●e Sacrament, and that in an instant without chopping or dividing the divine service. And then, that otherwise it were an unreasonable and illegal thing, that a Christian man laying open claim to his right in the Sacrament, should be debarred from it by the mere discretion of a C●rate. Po●r● Priests! I lament your case; who are not only by this Minister of Lincoln Diocese, debarred from moving and removing the holy Table: but absolutely turned out of all authority, from bindring scandal●●s and unworthy pe●sons to approach unto it. That's by this Minister conferred on his 
p P. 178.  Deacon also: because forsooth it did belong unto the Deacon▪ to cry, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, look to the door●s there, to the doors▪ and to take care, the Cate●●●meni, and those which were not to communicate, should avoid the Church. O saclum insipidum & infacetum! Such a dull, drowsy disputant, did never undertake so great an Argument. As if the Deacon did these things of his own authority; not as a Minister unto the Priest, and to save him a labour. That which comes 
q Su●rez. Domini●us a Soto and others p. 179. 180.  after from the Jesuits, and other Schoolmen will concern us little who are not to be governed by their dictates and decisions, but by the rules and Canons of the Church of England. Now for the Rubric, that saith thus. The Curate shall not suffer those to be partakers of the Lords Table, betwixt whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reign, until he know them to be reconciled: and that of two persons which are at variance, that one of them be content to forgive the other, etc. the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate. So for the Canons, they run thus. 
r Can. 26.  No Minister shall in any wise admit to the receiving of the holy Communion any of his Cure which be openly known to live in sin notorious without repentance; nor any who have maliciously contended with their neighbours, until they shall be reconciled; nor any Churchwardens or Sidemen who wilfully incur the horrible crime of perjury, in not presenting as they ought: nor 
s Canon. 27  unto any that refuse to kneel, or to be present at public prayers; or that be open depravers of the Book of Common Prayer; or any thing contained in the Book of Articles, or the Book of ordering Priests and Bishops, or any that have depraved his Majesty's Sovereign authority in causes Ecclesiastical etc. Here is no running to the Ordinary 
t By intimation given, and direction received from his Ordinary, etc. p. 177.  to receive direction what to do, but an authority le●t unto the Priest without further trouble; and more than so 
u No Minister shall in any wise, etc. as in the Canon.  a charge imposed upon him not to do the contrary. Only it is provided, 
x Canon 27  that every Minister so repelling any, shall on complaint, or being required by the Ordinary, signify the cause unto him, and therein obey his Order and Direction. Therein, upon the post-fact, after the repelling, and on return of the Certificate; and not before as you would have it: for proof whereof, with an unparallelled kind of impudence, you cite those very Canons against themselv●s▪ But so extreme a spleen you have against the Clergy, that upon all and no occasions, you labour throughout your Pamphlet, to lay them open and expose them to the contempt and scorn of the common people.  
Now as you labour to expose the Clergy to contempt and scorn; so you endeavour, secretly and upon the by, to make the Chapels and Cathedrals guilty of some fowl transgression, the better to expose them unto censure also. The 
y. p. 27.  Doctor charged thus on the Epistolar, whosoever he was, in his Coal from the Altar; and you confess the action in your holy Table. For reckoning it 
z p. 2.  amongst the Doctors feignings, that the writer of the Letter would cunningly draw the Chapels and Cathedrals to a kind of Praemunire, about their Communion-tabl●s: you answer that he fails, for the writer confesseth he doth allow and practise it. Allow and practise it? What it? It is a relative, and points to that which went before; viz. a cunning purpose and intent to draw Chapels and Cathedrals into a kind of Praemunire; which you acknowledge in plain terms, the writer doth allow and practise. 
a Lactant. ●. 2. c. 1.  Adeo veritas ab invit●● etia● pectoribus ●rumpit, said Lactantius truly. It seems your book was not so thoroughly perused, as the Licence intimates: for if it had, this passage had not been so left to bewray the business. Yet you fall fowl upon the Doctor, and reckon it as one of his extravagancies, 
b P. 182.  that he should charge the writer for making such a difference between the Chapels and Cathedrals ●n the one side, and the Parochials on the other, (in the point of Altars;) the Laws and Canons (in that point) looking indifferently on all. Which said, you tell him of some special differences (which he knew before) made by t●e Canons themselves, between Cathedrals and Parochial Churches. But Sir, the question is not of those things wherein the Canons make a difference, as in Copes, monthly Communions and such like, which there you instance in: but in those things wherein they make no difference, as in placing of the table. And yet you are beside the cushion too, in stating of those very differences, which yourself proposeth. One difference that you make between them, is in the place of reading the Litany; which is officiated, as it ought, would be found no difference. You know that in Cathedral Churches, the Litany is said or sung in the middle of the Choir, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said: and you may know, that in all Parish Churches by the Queen's Injunctions, (which you have given us for a Canon) the Priests with others of the Qu●re, shall kneel in the midst of the Church, (where Morning and Evening Prayer are said) and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Litany set forth in English. Another difference that you make▪ is that Cathedrals are excepted from delivering to the Queen's Commissioners, the Ornaments and jewels of their Churches: the Articles expressly naming the Churchwardens of every Parish only. Not to take notice of the sequel, which is weak and wrested, we will reply unto the Fact, and tell you plainly, there was no such matter, as delivering to the Queen's Commissioners, the ornaments or jewels of the Parish Churches; which you would gladly thrust upon us. All that you find 
c Injunction 47.  in the Injunction, (to which you send us) is that the Churchwardens of every Parish, shall deliver unto the Visiters, the Inventories of Vestments, copes, and other ornaments, Plate, Books, especially Grayls, etc. appertaining to their Church. You see that not the Ornaments themselves, but the Inventories of them, were to be delivered to the Queen's Commissioners. No● had you so expressly falsified the Queen's Injunction, but that you find the Piety of the times inclining to ado●●e the Churches: and you would fain cast somewhat in the way to hinder the good work which is now in hand; by telling those which love to ●eare it, that in the reformation made by Queen Elizabeth, all Ornaments were took away, as tending unto Popery and Superstition.  
The lowest dish of all, as lest worth the looking after, is an extravagant wild fowl, which either hath no name, or is ashamed of it. The Writer of the Letter had ●aid 
d Coal p. 74. 75.  unto the Vicar, that he did hope he had more learning, then to conceive the Lords Table to be a new name, and so to be ashamed of the name. This, saith the Doctor, 
e Coal p. 43.  might have well been spared, there being none so void of pi●tle and understanding as to be scandalised at the name of the Lords Table; as are some men, it seems, at the name of Altar, saving that somewhat must be said, to persuade the people that questionless such men there were, the better to endear the matter. Now you reply, to the last clause of being scandalised and ashamed at the name of the Lords table; that 
f Holy Table. p. 192.  surely of that kind there are too many in the world, some calling it a profane Table, as the Rhemists; others an ●yster-bo●rd, and an oyster table; the Vicar, if his neighbours charged him rightly, a Tresle: and you know who a Dresser, why was that left out? This said, you fall upon the Author of the Latin determination, only to make the m●n suspected of b●ing ashamed of the name of Table: and then upon the Church 
g p. 194.  of Rome, as being (you say) the true Adversary, that the letter aimed at, for leaving out of her Canon (in the Reformation of the Missal by Pope Pius Quintus) this very name of the holy Table, against the practice of all Antiquity, and precedent Liturgies. But Sir consider in cold blood, that that determination came not out, till five or six years after the Bishop's letter. Yourself hath given it for a rule, 
h p. 82.  that as all Prophets are not Ordinaries, s● all Ordinaries are not Prophets: and therefore certainly the writer of the letter being no Prophet, as you say, could not at all reflect on this determination▪ Then for the Church of Rome, that comes in as idly: just as the Germ●ns were brought in, to beat down all the Altars there; because the Country people here were scandalised therewith in their Parish Churches. Whether the Church of Rome be ashamed or not, at the name of Table, is not material to this purpose: the letter being writ in English, and scattered up and down amongst English men; and therefore had you brought us some of them, that had conceived the Lords Table to be a new name, or were ashamed thereof, you had then done well. Which since you have not done, but wandered up and down in a maze, or circle▪ 〈…〉  
I ●ee you will be served in state: your second course being taken away, there is a banquet yet remaining; some sweet meats from Placentia, and a piece of 〈◊〉▪ There is a 〈…〉 in the main discourse, and an 〈…〉 in the ordering of it both of them intermixed so artificially, that it is hard to be discerned, whether of the two be most predominant. But here, you give it clear for the ●t p●pulo 〈◊〉 yea and ut magno in populo too, to make sure the matter▪ not only justifying your own poor endeavours in that kind, but falling foul upon the Doctor, because he joins not with you in the undertaking. 
k p. 201.  You tell us, that the first Protestant's of the Reformation had a better opinion of the common people: and that the first inducements of King Edward and his most able 〈◊〉, to 〈◊〉 the Altars and place holy Tables, 〈…〉 up superstition in the minds of these, (by him, the Doctor so much despised) commont people. What an opinion the first Protestants had of the common people, is not now the question, but whether in their labours to reform the Church, and root up superstition, they had relation to the humour of the people, or the glory of God. If you could show us, that King Edward and his most able Council▪ (as in your odious manner of comparisons you are pleased to style them) aimed at this only, in that act of theirs, populo ut placerent, to please the people: you had said somewhat to the purpose. But you had laid withal a greater scandal on that King, and his so able Council, than all your wit and learning would be able to take off again. If not, why do you bring King Edward and his able Council upon the stage, as if they could say somewhat in your defence, when they had no such meaning as you put upon them▪ The people then, as it appeareth in the story, were so averse from that Act of the King and Counsel, that they were fain to set out 
l V. Acts and mon. part ●. p. 700.  certain considerations to prepare them to it, and make them ready for the change, which they meant to make. Call you this pleasing of the people? It was indeed pretended, that the change would be for the people's good, and to root up superstition out of their minds: but nothing less intended than the people's pleasure. An honest care that all things may be done for the common good, for training up the people in their obedience to God's Commandments, the King's just government, and the Church's orders; no man likes better than the Doctor. If this will please the people, take me with you, and you shall never want a second to assist you in it. And this is that placenti● which the Apostle hath commended to us by his own 
m I Cor▪ 10▪ 33.  practice, first; I▪ please, saith he▪ all men in all things, no●●ee king 〈…〉 profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved: and next by way of precept 
n Rom. 15. 2.  or direction, Let every 〈◊〉 please his neighbour for his good to edi●●cetion. If you observe these rules, and look not after your own profit, applause, or popular dependencies▪ but th● edification of the people only, that they may be 〈◊〉▪ you have Saint Paul, both for your warrant and example. The Doctor had not faulted thus either in you, or in the write 〈◊〉 the letter, had he found it in you. But on the other side, ther● is 〈…〉 popularity which some men affect 〈◊〉, an art to feed the people's humour, that they themselves may be borne up and hoist by the people's breath: and this appeareth every where, as well throughout that letter, as your whole discourse. This was the disease of 
o Mark▪ 15. ● 5.  Pilate in the holy Gospel. Of whom it is recorded there, that to please the people, he released Barraba● unto them, and condemned jesus: and this the itch of Dio●rephes 
p L p. 3.  in S. john's Epistles, who loving to have the pre-eminence amongst ignorant people, disparaged the Apostles, and pra●ed openly against them with malicious words. In these designs to court the favour of the people, by casting scandals on the Church, and the public government; and by that means to be admired and honoured for a Zealove Minister, and a stout Patriot for the public; for a 
q Plutarch. i● Demosth.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Historian, or a 
r Isocrat. ad N●coc.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Orator's language, the Doctor leaves you to yourself. You may draw after you, if you please, 
s Horat.  A●b●bajaru●● collegie, & h●c genus o●ne, the love and favour of the multitude for a day or two: but you will find it a weak staff to rely upon, though it may serve to puff you up, and make you think yourself to be some great body. The Doctor hath no such designs, & therefore needs not take those courses: knowing especially that Saint Paul hath said, that if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.  
But 
t Hor. de art Poet.  〈…〉 You that did never any thing in ●ein, except a little ●or vainglory; have better studied those deep points, than the Apostle did or could● & have found out a way so to serve the Lord, that you may please the people too. And therefore Mait●●anto Pa●t● simple S●int Paul, (I hope you can remember your own sweet words) that could not so well time it, as to se●ve t●o masters. How far you are the servant of Christ, I have not to do with; look you to that but how far you have laboured to please the people, that I can tell you presently without more ado. What made you undertake this Argument, being▪ for ought you would be known of, no party in it: was it to show your zeal and service unto Christ, or to please the people? What makes you speak so slightly of the Institution of Episcopal power: and having spoke so slightly of it, what makes you speak so doubtfully of the present government, as if all things were carried with an higher hand than they ought to be, rather with canon shot then with Canon law: was it to s●rve Christ, who had beforehand, as you say, 〈…〉 down de facto: was not this done to please the people▪ Such pleasers of the people's humours, we have too many in this kingdom: and you, I take it, l●ke Mutatu● Curio in the Poet, are 
u Momentumque fu●● mutatus Curio re●um▪ Luca. I. 1.  〈…〉. And yet you might have done all this, wothout exposing the poor Doctor to the common 〈…〉 if so many 
x p. 201.  provisionarie Saints of God, so many nerves and sinews of the State, so many arms of the King to defend his friends, and offend his enemies; were by hi● called in scorn, and for ●ant of ●it, po●re people. Good Sir, a word or two in private. Think you that there are no provisionarie Saints, no ●erves and sinews of the State, none of the King's Ar●es in the Town of Grantham? and yet 
y Coal. p. 76  the Bishop 〈◊〉 his Vicar, that it were fitter that the Altar should stand table-wise, then that the Table be erected Altarwise, to trouble the poor Town of Grantham. The Doctor took his phrase from thence, and only turned those words upon him (if you mark it well) which he had found there to his hand. Nor are you very free from so great a fault, in calling those provisionarie Saints, sinews, and nerves and Arms, the 
z The rude people replying ●e shoul● set up no Dressers of sword's &c. p. 6.  rude people of Grantham. Or if you needs will make him mean it of the people generally, tell me, I pray you what is the difference (for I know it not) between the people and the subjects. If none, as surely none there is, how durst your mother's son in such a sta●e as this, in such a Church as this, and under such a Prince so beloved as this, call the said Saints, Arms, Nerves, and Sinews, for want of wit, or something else, 
a Poor subject that are 〈…〉  poor Subjects. It's true, you make them fair amends, by giving them ●om● secret notice, of their authority and power in the civil government: concluding that extravagancy with the 
b p. 202.  〈…〉 man, Iraser pop●lo R●man● 〈…〉 But Sir, I hope you do not make your p●●re Subjects in England, any way equal to the people in the state of Rome, who were so formidable 〈◊〉 that time to all Kings and Princes, 
c justin. hist. li. 29.  ut 〈…〉 aliquen● juxta ●orum 〈…〉 of the state, was in the people at that 〈◊〉, when this speech was used▪ and so your application of it in this place and time, must needs be either very foolish, or extremely factious.  
〈…〉 Here you report his words aright, which you do not often; but then most shamefully misreport his meaning. The Doctor doth not there lay down a definition of the Diptyches, as you falsely charge him; but only doth expound the word, as it related to the case which was then in hand. You may remember, that the Bishop had sent the Vicar unto Bishop jewel, to learn how long Communion Tables had stood in the middle of the Church▪ and Bishop jewel tells him of a passage in the fifth Council of Constantinople, where it was said, that tempore Diptychorum cucurrit ●mnis cum magno silentio circumcirca Altar. i e. saith he, When the Lesson or Chapter 〈◊〉 a reading, the people with silence drew together 〈◊〉 about the Altar. Now when the Doctor comes to scan this passage, not taking any notice of this mistake in Bishop jewel, he concludes it thus. 
f Coal. p. 55  So that for all is said in the fifth Council of 〈◊〉, the Altar might and did stand at the end of the 〈◊〉, although the people came together about it, to hear the Diptyches▪ i. e. the 〈◊〉 of those Prelates▪ and other persons of 〈◊〉 note, who had departed in the ●aith. 〈…〉 to be his definition of the Diptyches; a very ●oolish one, you say▪ and foolish it had been indeed, had it been laid down there for a definition. 〈◊〉 did you m●●ke it as you should, you would h●ve 〈◊〉 ●hat it was never meant for a definition of the Diptyches generally; but only for an exposition of the word, as in that place 〈…〉 if you look into the 
g Act. 5. 〈◊〉 1753.  〈…〉 〈◊〉 hear the Diptyches; and then, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. that the recital being made of the four holy Ecumenical Synods, as also of the Archbishops of blessed memory, ●uphemius, 〈◊〉, and Leo, the people with a loud voice made this acclamation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Gl●rice ●e to thee O Lord. This is the truth of the relation in that Council. And I would fain learn of you, being so great ● Clerk, how you can fault the Doctor for his exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in that place and ●ime: when there was only read (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the commemoration of those Prelates, Leo, Euphemius, and Macedonius, and other persons of chief note, those which had had their interest in the said four Counsels, which were all departed in the faith. You were near driven to seek a concluding quarrel, when you pitched on this. Only you were resolved to hold out as you had begun: and as you enured on the business, with a false story of the Vicar; so to conclude the same, with a false clamour on the Doctor. But Sir, let me advise you, when you put forth next, to show more candour in your writings, and less shifting wit. Otherwise, let the Diptyches▪ have as many leaves as any of your Authors old or new have mentioned to you: your name will never be recorded, but on the backside of the book; in case you do not find a room in the 
h The last was enumeration of som● notori us & 〈◊〉 people, & ●. p 236.  last column of the four, which you have given us from Pelargus. And so I shut up this debate with that Pathetical expression wherewith Octavius did conclude against Ceci●ius. Quid ingrati sumu●? quid nobis invidem●s, s● veritas d●vinitatis aetate nostri temporis maturuit? Fruamur b●no nostro, & recti sententiam temperemus: co●ibeatur superstitio, impiet 〈◊〉 expiet●●, 〈◊〉 Rel●gio ser●●tur. Why are we so ingrateful, why do we envy one another, if the true worship of the Lord, be grown more perfect in our times, than it was before? Let us enjoy our own felicity, ●nd quietly maintain that truth which we are possessed of▪ let superstition be restrained, impiety exile●, and true Religion kept inviolable. This if we do endeavour in our several places, we shall be counted faithful Stewar●s in our Master's house; and happy is the servans, whom his L●ra when he comes sha● find so doing. Amen.  
FINIS.     

Errata.  
SEct. 1. p. 5. l. 16. for ratione, r. rationale. p. 44. l. ● for etc. r. and ib. l. 24. de. But, p. 54. ●. 14. for take notice r. take no notice, p. 56. for 1542. r. 1 552. p. 73. l. 3. deal and, p. 74. l. 18. for 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉, p. 85. l. 29. r. 〈◊〉. p▪ ●8. l. 7. deal though▪ p. 99 l. 5. for his, r. the, p. 100 l. 3. deal & of the 82 Canon, p. 103 l. 1. for pass, r. passed.  
Section 2. p. 7. l. 31. for an r. and ●. p. 10. l. 2. for your, r. the, ib. l. 30, deal and p. 16. l 25. for the r. this, p. 40. l. 10. for 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 p. 46. l. 1. for find not, r not find, p. 54. l. 32. for ne●re r. we ●re p. 66. l. 23 for this r. thep. 86. for which r. of which p. 88 l. 15. r. discourser. p. 90 l. 23. for the Altar, r. an Altar p. 93. l. 27. for Altarwise, r▪ where the Altar stood. p 106. l. ●0. for in the Altar, r. the Altar, p. 110. l. 8. for cu●, r. 〈◊〉.  
Sect. 3. p. 5. 6 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 7 l. 26. deal that. p. 8. l. 1. deal in, p. 24. l. 16▪ r. Treasurers, ib. l. 22. deal O. p. 28. l. 14. for and r. but. p. 37. l. ●5. for to, r. nothing to. p. 40. l. 1. deal that. p. 46. l. 28. make a full point at too. p. 49. l. 22, for stories, r. scores. ib. l. 50. k. the 3, r. Chancellor to the D●ke of Anjou, brother of King H●nr● 3. etc. p. 53. l. 26. for Petricone, r Petricove. p. 54. l. 8. for to, r. we ibid. l. 28. for V●entionius, r. Vtenhovious. 56, r. Prynne, p. 62. l. 16. for two, ●. too p. 6 5. l. 19 for thus r. this.