A QUENCH-COALE. OR A brief Disquisition and Inquirie, in what place of the Church or Chancel the Lords-Table ought to be situated, especially when the Sacrament is administered? Wherein is evidently proved, that the Lords-Table ought to be placed in the MIDST of the Church, Chancel, or Choir North and South, not Altarwise, with one side against the wall: That it neither is nor aught to be styled an Altar; That Christians have no other Altar but Christ alone, who hath abolished all other Altars, which are either Heathenish, jewish, or Popish, and not tolerable among Christians. All the Pretences, Authorities, Arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford, Edmond Reeve, Dr. john Pocklington, and A late Coal from the Altar, to the contrary in defence of Altars, calling the Lords-Table an Altar, or placing it Altarwise, are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vain or forged. By a wellwisher to the truth of God, and the Church of England. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law: For he of whom these things are spoken, pertaineth to an other Tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the Altar. Augustinus de verbis Domini secundum Joannem, Serm. 42. Christus quotidie pascit; Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta. Printed in the year 1637. To the High and Mighty Prince CHARLES, By the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. MOST DREAD SOVEREIGN, THE bleeding and almost desperate Condition of the long established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, of late years, not only secretly undermined by Popish Priests and Jesuits, but openly oppugned, affronted, by some English Priests and Prelates in diverse Visitation-Articles, Sermons and printed Books licenced for the Press, to the intolerable contempt of your Majesties late pious a Before the 39 Articles, and concerning the causes of the dissolving of the Parliament. An. 1628. Declarations; Hath made me so presumptuous, as not only to compile, but likewise to recommend this unpolished Quench-Coale to your Royal Personage: Wherein like a plaindealing Englishman, I have according to my poor ability, not only defended the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, in the particulars now oppugned, against those treacherous rebellious Sons of hers who have professedly both in their Sermons, practices and printed Books oppugned them, out of her own Records and Writers (which I have principally made use of) but likewise discovered and laid open, without flattery or partiality, their desperate practices, aims, plots and intentions, to suppress and root out our sincere Religion, and usher in Popery by degrees; Together with the method, and progress they have made and prosecuted in this their pernicious design. The reasons inducing me to dedicate this rude incompt Discourse (which I had neither time nor opportunity to polish) to your Sacred Majesty were these. 1. First, to acqu●int your Highness, with the several dangers wherewith the Religion, Doctrine and Discipline, by Law establishest in the Church of England, are now surrounded, and those open affronts and oppositions made of late years against it; Of which I presume, your Majesty (who commonly see with other men's eyes, and hear with other men's ears, as most Princes are forced to do) have not been yet so fully acquainted, as your faithful Subjects could desire, especially by your Prelates. 2. Secondly, to inform your Majesty, how grossly some of your Prelates and Chaplains have abused your Highness and your Subjects ears and eyes, both in the Pulpit, the b See Acoale from the Altar, p. 64. the Order, of the Counsel-table concerning S. Gregory's Church: And Ibid. p. 15. 16. 17. 19 53. to 58. Counsel-chamber, and in printed Books, in the point of Altars, and their situation of Communion-Tables Altarwise against the East wall of the Choir; Which Altars & Situs of Lords-Tables, they have peremptorily affirmed, to be consonant to the practice of approred Antiquity; Yea to the Statutes, Doctrine, Canons and Discipline of the Church of England; When as it is most apparent: That the primitive Church laand Christians had no Altars, but Tables only, for above 260 teyeares after Christ; And that then and ever since, till now of late, both their Tables and Altars were always placed in the MIDST of their Quires or Churches; As I have here plentrifully manifested; And that they neither bowed to nor towards their Altars, as these new Doctors falsely dogmatise. 3. Thirdly; To present unto your Majesty, the many dangerous Innovations and backslidings to Popery that have crept into our Church of late, and now are publicly justified in print, yea enjoined by some of your potent Prelates, and enforced on your poor Subjects (especially godly Ministers) under pain of suspension, excommunication, deprivation, yea fining, imprisonment and utter ruin in your High Commissions, (at * See 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. first erected to suppress all Popery, Innovations, Errors and Episcopal enchroachments upon your eeclesiastical Prerogative, but now used as the chief Instruments, to countenance and set them up,) in professed opposition and rebellion against your Majesty's Laws, Proclamations and two late pious c Before the 39 Articles; and of the causes moving his Majesty to dissolve the last Parliament, p. 20. 21. 22. 42. Declarations to all your loning Subjects: Wherein your Majesty (to the unspeakable joy of all your truehearted people) calling God to record before whom you stand, hath made this solemn Protestation. That you will never give way to the authorising of any thing, whereby ANY INNOVATION may steal or creep into the Church, but preserve that unity of Doctrine & Discipline established in the Time of Queen Elizabeth, whereby the Church of England hath stood & flourished ever since. That you do profess to maintain the true Religion & Doctrine established in the Church of England, without ADMITTING OR CONNIVING AT ANY BACKSLIDING TO POPERY OR SCHISM. That you will not ENDURE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE, from the se●●d Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established. And that you will esteem those subordinate Officers and Ministers that shallbe but negligent in seeing this your Declaration executed (much more than those who apparently oppugn it,) as culpable both to God and your Majesty; And will expect that hereafter they give you a better account; Yet notwithstanding both these your royal Declarations; Some of your Prelates (who were both privies and parties to them) with others of your Clergy, have since their publication, not only suffered many Jnnovations to creep and steal into our Church, admitted and connived at many backslidings to Popery and Romish Schism, and permitted nay d See Shelford, Reeve, Chownaeus, Browne, Pocklington, Heylyn, Bishop White, A Coal from the Altar, the Female Glory, with other late licenced Books, Bishop Wrens, Bishop Mountagues' and Bishop Pierce their Visitation Articles. licenced in print many varyings and departings in the highest degree from the settled established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; But likewise been the chief Authors and fomenters, yea the open abbettors and Commanders of them both in the Pulpit, High Commission, their Visitation-Articles, Synods, and in printed Books; Especially in setting up, justifying, writing and preaching for Images, Crucifixes, Altars, Priests, Sacrifices of the Altar, bowing to Altars, to Communion-Tables, and railing them in Altarwise, with other particulars elsewhere specified in this Discourse; In which we have lately backslided, not only towards Popery, but quite Apostatised to it, (as the Priests, the Papists glory and crack in every place:) justifying in some late printed Books, e Chownaeus Collect: 16. 17. 18. Mr. Robort Shelford Priest Treatise concerning Antichrist. The Church of Rome to be a true Church, and never to have erred in any fundamental points, no not in the worst times; And publicly maintaining the Pope or Papacy not to be A●tichrist, and Antichrist yet not to be come, in open affront to f For 〈◊〉 against Disobedience and wi●full Rebellion. Serm. 3. 4. 5. our Homilies g Of Ireland, n. 80. Articles, h Bishop Downham, Bishop Abbot, Dr. Beard, Mr. Squire, Mr. Powel, Richard Brightwell, Thomas Becon, and others of Antichrist. Authorised Writers of all sorts, and the professed position of all the Reformed Churches of the world. So much do some of your Prelates and Priests now dote upon the i Rev. 17. 5. 15. 16. Whore of Rome and her abominations. Yea such hath been the monstruous unparalled presumption of these undutiful, perfidious Innovatours, since these Declarations published by your Majesty, that they have dared to purge, corrupt, sophisticate and Innovate the public Records and Monuments of the Church of England, ratified by sundry k 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. 3. jacobi c. 1. Acts of Parliament, without your Majesty's privity; To such an height of insolency are they grown. I shall instance only in 3. particulars, worthy your Majesties, yea the whole Kingdom's consideration, and the severest Censures that your Royal Justice can inflict. First, they have purged & corrupted the Book of Common-Prayer in two several places, the first whereof so nearly concerns your Majesty, your Royal Comfort and Princely Issue, that I should be no less than an Arch-traitor to you all, should I not discover but conceal it. In the ancient Common-prayer-Bookes there was this Collect prescribed for the Queen, Prince and Royal Issue O God, who art the Father of thine Elect and of their seed, we humbly beseeth thee to bless our most gracious Queen, etc. These busy Innovatours, to testify their loyalty and duty to your Majesty, your Queen and Royal Issue, have presumed to expung you all out of the Catalogue of God's Elect, and to rank you all in the number of Reprobates and castaways, with one dash; Blotting this clause (who art the Farther of thine Elect and of their seed) quite out of this Collect, in all the late Common-prayer-Bookes; Whereby they have done as much as in them lies, not only to deprive your Majesty and your Princely Jssue, of that temporal Crown of Sovereignty over these your Realms, to which you are Elected by God, but also to rob both your Majesty, your Noble Queen, your Royal Issue, your most Illustrious Sister, and her Princely Progeny, of that eternal Crown of glory likewise, to which both l Col. 3. 12 1. Thos. 1. 4. 1. Pet. 4. 1. 2. 2. john. 1. 2. Thes. 2. 13. Charity and Loyalty enjoin us, to believe you are Elected through God's m Ephes. 1 4, 5. 6. 7. 11, 12. Rom. 11. 5, 6. free grace and everlasting decree; Elect, in the Collect, being taken in both these senses. Whether these pragmatical Refiners of this prayer, deserve not a * Bishop Latimer his 2, and 5. Sermon before King Edward the 6. Tiburne-Tippet, at the least, for this bold attempt, I humbly submit to your Royal Majesty. 2. The second alteration they have made in the Book of Common-prayer is, in the Epistle for Palme-Sunday; small in appearance, but great in consequence. All the Common prayerbooks before the year of our Lord 1629. (as likewise, tyndal's, Coverdales', Thomas Mathewes and the Bishops Bibles, used in our Churches till Anno 1612.) read that text of Phil. 2. 10. according to the original, the Fathers, all Latin Writers and Translations, but two of late (to wit the Beza and Castalio, who render it Ad nomen, not IN nomine, as all others do) in this manner. That IN the name of jesus every knee should bow, etc. But these Innovatours, to Idolize the name jesus, and usher in the Ceremony of Capping and bowing to it (thereby to make way for bowing to Images, Altars, Adoration of the Eucharist and other Romish Innovations) in the year of our Lord 1629. (the very next year after your Majesty's Declarations) turned this IN into AT the Name (as one Prelate did the like before in the New Translation of the Bible for the same purpose) contrary to the original, the sense and scope of the place, the Fathers, all former Common-prayer-Bookes, & the very rules of our English Dialect; There being no such phrase in the whole Bible, nor in any English Author, that ever I yet read, as, AT the name, except only in this mistranslated & corrupted text; But only, IN the name. AT the name being pure nonsense; As appears by turning IN into AT, in all the texts of Scripture where this phrase IN the name is used: As Math. 28. 19 Baptising them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, john 16. 23. Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father IN my name, he will give it you: Acts 3. 6. IN the name of jesus Christ of Nazareth stand up and walk. Acts 9 27. 2. 9 He preached boldly at Damascus IN the name of jesus: And Acts 16. 8. 1. Cor. 5. 4. Ephes. 5. 2. 2. Thes. 5. 20. 2. Thes. 3. 6. In all which if we convert IN into AT, and read them AT the name, it makes both the English and text Nonsense, and so it doth in this very text, Phil. 2. 10. As some n Lame Giles his Haulting; and certain Queries propounded to the Bowers at the name of jesus, Qu. 1. 2. 3, 4. have manifested at large in particular Treatises of this Subject, and Ceremonies of bowing at the name of jesus, when it is pronounced, o Ibidem, And the Appendix concerning bowing at the name of Jesus. brought in by Popes with indulgences, for idolatrous ends, and not known, not used in the Primitive Church for above 1200 years after Christ; What ever some have written or preached to the contrary, to abuse your Majesty and Subjects with their Fables. Who they were that originally caused these two alterations and Corruptions of the common-prayer-book (to omit the changing of Minister into Priest, in some places) I cannot certainly inform your Majesty; But if common same and circumstances may be credited● they were some of your greatest Prelates this day living. One of the chief instruments employed in this good service, (who can discover the parties that set him about this work; Then a Chaplain to a great Bishop, now to your Majesty) was Dr. john Cousins, as I was long since informed by your Majesty's Printer Mr. Norton, upon the first discovery and inquiry after this abuse. A fit instrument for such a purpose; Who but the year before was accused in Parliament for dangerous words against your Majesty and the Reformers of our Religion; To wit. p See a brief Historical Narration of some notorious Acts and Speeches of Mr. john Cousins at the end of Mr. Peter Smarts Sermon: Printed at Edinburg An. 1628. That your Majesty was no more Supreme Head of the Church of England next and immediately under Christ, than the Boy that rubbed his horse heels. That the Reformers of our Church when they took away the Mass, took away all Religion and the whole service of God: They called it a Reformation, but it was indeed a Deformation; That the Mass was a good thing and a good word: As also for setting up Images, an Altar and no less than 220 Tapers & 16 Torches on Candlemas-day, in the Cathedral Church of Durham, coutrary * See the Homily against the peril of Idolatry to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England. All which particulars were substantially proved against him, both in the Parliament-house and at the Assizes at Durham, where he was found guilty upon an Indictment. Yet in stead of punishments, answerable to these his offences, (some whereof would have been capital in other men) he hath been so bolstered up by some great Prelates, near your Majesty; As that he hath received two or three great livings for his encouragement since, and is now lately advanced to be your Majesty's Chaplain in Ordinary, and an head of a College in Cambridge, (to help to poison that Fountain of learning and religion, with the drugs and dregges of Rome;) to the great grief and discontent of thousands; Honest Mr. Smart his prosecutour (for showing himself a faithful Subject to your Majesty) being in the mean time violently thrust out of his Preberdary of Durham and his Benefice, deprived, degraded, imprisoned, fined and utterly ruinated in his Estate, by your High Commissioners at York, (though a man every way conformable to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England) only for opposing these Innovations of his, and preaching a Sermon against them in the Cathedral at Durham: That of the Poet being here really verified. q juveval. Satyr. 2. Dat veniam Corvis, vexat Censura Colnmbis. These things no doubt have been concealed from your Majesty; Which now being discovered, I trust you will lay them to heart, and learn to distinguish good Subjects from bad, in despite of all calumnies cast upon them by these perfidious instruments. I have the rather given your Majesty this hint of Dr. Cousins his words and practices, (whom the Papists of Durham now much honour and challenge for their own,) because he was one of the first men that brought Altars into our Church, and the first I hear off, that turned his Communion Table Altarwise, and then into an Altar. r See qua● p. before. Mr. Burgin, one of his Disciples, was the next that imitated him, who taking away his Communion-Table, erected an Altar in the East-end of the Chancle of his Parish-Church; within the Bishopric of Durham; Which Altar (made of a Grave-stone) he laid upon a wall of stone, not a frame, adorning it with guilded hangings; Which done, he read Second Service at it, (though above half his Parishioners could neither hear nor see him;) and fell devoutly to adore it, till at last his foot hanging in his gown, he unhappily fell down against the Altar-steps, broke all his nose and face, so as he sacrificed his own blood both upon the steps & Altar itself in stead of Christ's, and was not able to walk abroad in many days after. From these two precedents and beginnings, have all those other Innovations of this Nature sprung, which now spread themselves far and near over all your Realms of England, Scotland, and Ireland too. So far more prevalent and powerful is Dr. Cousins and his party, then either your Majesty, your Laws, Declarations and loyal Subjects, or the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England; All which with the Book of Common-prayer, must now be Subject to their correction and control. 2. The second public Monument of our Church, which these Innovatours have corrupted, is the Eucharistical prayer, in the Book of Common-prayer appointed for the 5. of November, in perpetual thankfulness to God for the deliverance of your Royal Father, your Majesty and the whole Realm from that infernal, devilish, matchless Powder-plot of the Papists, prescribed and set forth by the express Statute of 3. jacobi, ●. 1. which corruption nearly concerns your Majesty, yea the whole Realm, and in my poor understanding deserves as heavy a Censure, as any of those Powder-Traytors suffered. All the Books of this kind from 3. jacobi till 1635. rendered the chief passages in this prayer, in these terms. Root out that Antichristian and Babilonish Sect, which say of jerusalem, down with it, down with it, even to the ground, etc. And to that end strengthen the hands of our Gracious King, the Nobles and Magistrates of the Land, with judgement and justice to cut off these workers of Iniquity, WHOSE RELIGION IS REBELLION, WHOSE FAITH IS FACTION, WHOSE PRACTICE IS MURDERING OF SOULS AND BODIES, and to root them out of the confines of this Kingdom. This prayer (which some have observed, not to have been read, but purposely omitted in your Majesty's Chapel the two fifth of Novembers last passed, be like by their direction who have since perverted it,) in the last Edition 1635. is thus treacherously Metamorphosed: Root out that Babilonish and Antichristian Sect ( * added. OF THEM) which say of jerusalem, &c, And to that end strengthen the hands of our Gracious King, etc. to cut off THOSE (for THESE) workers of Iniquity, WHO TURN RELIGION INTO REBELLION and FAITH INTO FACTION. In which strange alteration there are these notorious treacheries, yea villainies, included not to be stighted over. 1. First, there is a diverting of the main edge and substance of this Prayer from the Jesuits, Priests, Papists, and Antichristian Babilonish Sect of Rome, particularly designed in the first prayerbooks, upon those Loyal Subjects and Religious Christians, whom the s D. Raynolds de Idolatria Rom. Eccles. Epist. ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. p. 21. 22. Papists at first, and profane licentious Romanizing spirits since, have slandered with the name of Puritans. t Speeds History of Great Britain. p. 1252. 1233. On whom as these Hellish Traitors and their Confederates would have fathered this damnable plot at first, had it taken effect, (as blessed be God it never did) to make them more odious to the World; (Which themselves confessed upon their examinations and our Historians record:) So they have now turned the whole scope of this prayer (and by consequence the very practice and treason itself) upon these poor Innocents'; The only men aimed at in this alteration; And the chief men declaimed against both at Court, Westminster, Paul's and our Universities in the Sermons there preached of late years on the fifth of November, wherein most have paralleled them with, And many affirmed them, to be far worse than any Priests or Jesuits. So much we poor Puritans (never yet guilty of the least treason or Rebellion against their Princes in this Island, nor of any such forgeries, Jnnovations, or Romish practices, as I have here discovered,) beholding to the Jesuits, Priests and some English Prelates, who have been guilty of many hundred treasons, Conspiracies and Rebellions against your Majesty's Royal Progenitors, as our v Mr. Tyndals' Practice of Popish Prelates, D. Barnes his Supplications to King Henry the 8. Fox Acts and Monuments, p. 321. 409. 410. 479. 533. 168, to 234. Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brit. & Godwin in the lives of Anselm, Becket, Edmond, Odo, William, Arundel, Laughton, Stratford, Scroop, Poole, Wolsey, Adam de Orlton, and other Bishops. Historians and writers witness. And here by the way, your Majesty, (in despite of envy and calumny may take Notice) First, that those who are now slandered under the name of Puritans, are your best and loyallest Subjects, because most hated and slandered by Jesuits, Priests and Traitors, who would Father all villainies and treasons on them; And hate them most of any people, because truest to their Sovereigns. 2. Secondly, that no kind of people in the World are x See Dr. Raynolds de Idol. Eccles. Rom. Epist. Ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. So much slandered and traduced as they, though the Innocentest men of all othors. This the practice of the Papists to y Speeds History, p. 1252. 1253. translate this Powder-plot with all their treasons and rebellions from themselves to them, and most Sermons preached before your Majesty can witness; Wherein such things are broached, such z Mr. Boltons' Discourse of true happiness, p. 193. slanders raised of Puritans by Poetical brains, and yet vented out in the Pulpit as sacred Oracles, which the Devil himself would blush to relate, and the Auditors know to be mere sigments: And all to make Puritans odious to your Majesty, being the only men that keep both your Crown and Religion safe. I shall therefore humbly beseech your Majesty, when ever you hear any Legends or Declamations against Puritans hereafter, to consider from what kind of Persons they proceed, and to put them that utter them to make proof of what they say, or else to brand them with an hot-iron in the cheeks or forehead with an S for slanderers; And than you will never hear any more fables of Puritans, with which your Royal ears are now so oft abused by the jesuit Contzens' Disciples; Who gives this as one chief rule how to usher Popery into any Christian State, a Polit. l. 2 c. 17. 18. 19 to slander and disgrace the Puritans and zealots, to make them odious both to Prince and people, and then Popery will break in without any opposition or noise at all. 2. Secondly; By this perverting of this Prayer, the chief Odium against Jesuits, Priests and Papists (the b Speeds History. p. 1249. Sect. 33. chief Authors of this horrid treason) is mitigated and taken off, that so they may take root among us again, to the ruin both of Church, State, and (without God's special protection) of your Sacred Majesty, to whom they will ever be treacherous, as they have c Dr. White his Defence of the way, c. 6. 10. The Homily for Whitsunday. D. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry 8. always been to all Christian Princes and republics, that would not be their slaves and Vassals to yield universal obedience to them in what ever they should command. 3. Thirdly; By this Metamorphosis of, whose Religion is Rebellion, whose Faith is Faction, etc. into. Those workers of iniquity, who turn Religion into Rebellion, and Faith into Faction: The Romish Religion is acquitted and purged from that damnable, treasonable, Rebellious, factious Doctrine, of the lawfulness of deposing and murdering Christian Kings and Princes, excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or enemies to the Roman Church and Faith; Of which the first prayer, the Statute, of 3. jacobi c. 4. in the form of the Oath of Supremacy, the d On Whitsunday and of wilful Rebellion. Homilies and e Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion, Part. 3. Writers of our Church, and among others Dr. John White in his Defence of the way to the true Church, The Institution of a Christ●an manchap. of Orders. Dens & Rex. c. 6. etc. 10. Sect. 5: 6. 7. 8. and Dr. Richard Crakanthrop in his Treatise of the Pope's Temporal Monarchy, c. 1. and 11. Which Authors chapters I shall humbly desire your Majesty and all that love either your safety or Religion seriously to read over at their best leisure, and then let them love Popery, Priests and Jesuits if they can or dare,) prove them deeply guilty both in point● of Theory and Practice; And if all these fail, yet their obstinate refusal of the Oath of Supremacy (which only f 3. jacobi c. 4. Deus & Rex. enjoins them to renounce this Doctrine of King-killing) proves them deeply guilty of it; (and can your Majesty trust such near about you, who will by no means swear, they will not murder nor deprive you?) Now for any thus far to gratify Traitors and Rebels, as to acquit them from that very Doctrine which makes them such, even then when they are quilty of it, must needs be a danegrous, if not a Traitorous Act, perilous to your Majesty and the whole Realm. 4. Fourthly; This Alteration extenuates the greatness and execrable odiousness of that horrid Treason, both in respect of the Actors, and that desperate Doctrine which moved them to commit it; And to mince or extenuate such an unparallelled treason as this, so execrable to all the world; Is nothing else but to turn Traitor, and become guilty of the same treason, or of another as bad as it. Yea it is to be feared, that those who willbe so perfidious, as after thus many Years, to go about to extenuate and lessen such a Treason, have a mind to turn Traitors themselves, atleast wise, to favour Treason and Traitors, and have treasonable hearts within them. 5. Fiftly; This corruption is a large step to the abolishing of the memory of this never to be forgotten Treason, and of that solemn Holiday on the 5. of November, instituted by g 3. jacobi c. 1. Act of Parliament, for this very end, that our unfeigned thankfulness for our happy deliverance from this Hellish design might NEVER BE FORGOTTEN, but be had in A PERPETUAL REMEMBRANCE, that ALL AGES TO COME may yield praises to the Divine Majesty, and have in memory THIS JOYFUL DAY OF DELIVERANCE: (they are the words of the Act.) For when such a treason begins once to be blanched, slighted, and the solemn gratulatory Prayers instituted for its remembrance thus miserable to be corrupted. the next step can be no other, but the abrogating both of the Book itself, and the solemnity kept in remembrance of the treason; And then when this is effected, the next news we shall hear of from Rome, will be the denial of the Fact, that there was ever any such treason plotted, though sundry Histories specify it; As they have long since h Beyerlinke Chro nog●: p. 309. published in print, that Henry Garnet the jesuit and i Speeds History, p. 1249. Sect. 33. Arch-plotter of it, had no hand therein; And that there was k See Cook's Pope jone and the Authors quoted by him. joannis Valerion de Sac● dotum Barbis. Polychronicon. l. 5. c. 30. Caxion● Chronicle, part. 5. An. 885. Volateranus Cem. 1. 22 f. 228. Marianus Scotus, l. 3. Ae●as. 6. Anno 854. Col. 152. Martini Poloni Supputation●s, An. 855 Col. 152. Papa. 109. never any Pope jone, though above 20 ancient Popish Writers record there was such a one, and she a Pope, a strumpet, a most say an English woman. 6. Sixtly, It is apparent, that this alteration was made only to gratify the Priests, the Jesuits, Papists, and men Traitorously affected; Since all loyal Subjects and truebred English spirits cannot but abhor it. Therefore whoever were the Authors or occasions of it, (be they either Arch Prelates, Bishops, Priests, or other, for I cannot yet certainly discover the parties, neither have I any sufficient means or Commission to do it, it being a thing worthy your Majesties own Royal Discovery, as the Powder-plot itself was your Fathers, KING JAMES, his l 3. jacobi c. 1. 2. 3. Speeds History, p. 125l. 1255. 1256. 1257. own everblessed detection:) if it be not * See 1. Eliz. c. 1. 27. Eliz. c. 2. 3. jacobi, c. 1. 3. 4. 5. Arch-Traytours and Rebels, yet I dare proclaim them no friends to your Majesty, nor yet to the Church or State of England, or to the Religion we profess, but enemies to them all, and friends to none but Rome, whose iustruments they were in this particular. 3. The third corruption and forgery, is in the very Articles of Religion of the Church of England, at first compiled in King Edward the 6. his reign Anno 1552. Revised and reestablished Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeth's days, after that Anno 1571. confirmed by Act of Parliament, 13. Eliz. c. 12. and printed both in Latin and English the same year by the Queen's Authority. The 20 Article in all these ancient * Yea in the Latin and English Editions, An. 1553. in King Edward's days. Editions, and all others in Queen Elizabeth's reign, (as likewise in the Articles of Ireland, taken verbatim out of the English, printed at Dublin Anno 1615. and twice reprinted at London, An. 1628. & 1629. Artic. 75. of the Authority of the Church;) runs thus: It is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Words, etc. But the Bishops to advance their own usurped Authority & gain some colour to arregate to themselves a power of prescribing new rites and Ceremonies, have forged a New Article of Religion, and added it unto this, without either your Majesties or the Parliaments privity or consent, and cunningly obtruded it on the Church of England; Making this Article now to run thus: The Church hath power to decree Rues and Ceremonies, and Authority in Controversies of Faith. And yet (so far runs the Bishop's forgery and addition) it is not Lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, etc. Which whole first clause to yet: Is no part of the Article, but a mere forgery and imposture of the Bishops; Whose, gloss is as pernicious as the text, or woise: For, by Church they understand nothing else but Bishops; Making the sense of this forgery to be this: The Church, that is, the Bishops in their Visitations, Consistories and High Commissions (as they now de facto expound it, witness their late new Visitation Articles, Rites and Ceremonies which they would hence justify and Authorise) and likewise the Clergy in their Convocation without the King and Parliaments consent) have both power to decree Rites and Ceremonies, and Authority in matters of Faith. An exposition & Doctrine quite contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. 6. 19 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. and all Acts concerning Religion, Heresy, Bishops, and the like, yea directly repugnant to your Majesty's Declaration before the 39 Articles; And quite opposite to the Scriptures and all ancient Writers, who never took the word Church for Bishops or Cleargie-men only, but for the whole Congregation, and as well as much for the common-people as the Bishops and Ministers, as the 19 Article next preceding it, and our m Mr. William Tyndall in his Treatise what the Church is Dr. Whitaker de Ecclesia, Dr. Field of the Church, Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection, etc. part 2. p. 168. 169. 170. Writers plentifully witness. This forgery, how ill soever glossed, is thrust into both the late Editions of the Articles, Anno 1628. published by your Majesty's special command, and made a part of the 20 Article, notwithstanding your Majesty in your Declaration before both these Editions; Expressly prohibited, The least difference from the Articles of the Church of England allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen n See the Declaration concerning the dissoluti● of the Parliament. p. 21. Elizabeth's days, or any varying and departing from them in the least degree, in which it is not to be found; Nor yet in the Articles of Ireland: n. 75. taken verbatim out of this 20. Article, printed in London the very same year, or in the Addition of those Articles An. 1629. a year after these two last impressions. If the Bishops here reply, that they found it added in Rogers his Exposition on the Articles, printed some years before. I answer, that Copy was not the Authorized Authentic Original by which they should be directed but a bastard Copy, with which your Majesty would not have your poor Subjects cheated or deluded. Your Majesty therefore, prohibiting any the least difference from the Articles allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeth's days, by Parliament; Prohibited them to insert this forged addition. If they reply, that they were ignorant of the Original true Copies, and knew not this to be a forgery. I answer, that this is very improbable, that so many great Bishops should be altogether ignorant, which were the true genuine Articles of our Church, who had read, subscribed and given them in charge to others so often. But admit it true, yet ignorance in this case is no plea at all for any man, much less for Bishops; And if they are so ignorant of the very Articles of our Church, I hope your Majesty and others will think them very unmeet to be Bishops in our Church, and trust less to their pretended knowledge, judgement and learning in future times, giving little credit to any thing they do or say, without examination of it, since they are so really or affectedly ignorant of the very * Which they might do well to study a while, and give over their secular Offices and Affairs, which make them so blind and ignorant in divine things. Articles of our Church, in the which they pretend most skill. But if they knew the very Original Copies & Articles (as no doubt they did,) and that this clause was not in them, but a mere late forgery, most fraudulently and corruptly added to them; Then they were accessaries & wilful consenters to this forgery, to delude both your Majesty and the whole Church of England with it; Yea protessed rebels against your Majesty's Declaration before these two impressions, (made by their own advice) prohibiting the least difference from the said true Articles and Originals: And so are they guilty of forgery, treachery and contumacy against your Majesty in the highest degree. o See Cromp●os jurisdiction of Tit. Star-chamber and Rastals' Abridgement forger of false deeds If a man forge but a private Will or Deed, to cozen any private man of any Inheritance, Lease or personal estate, he shallbe severely punished in the Star-chamber, fined, pyllored if not lose his ears beside. What punishments then do they deserve, who have thus corrupted the Common-prayer-booke, the Prayers for the Gunpowder-treason and the Articles of Religion, (all ratified by Parliament & so matters of Records & to p 8. H. 6. c. 12. 5. Elz. c. 14. corrupt or raze Records, or forge deeds the second time is felony,) and to forge a new Article of Religion, to deceive your Majesty & your whole Kingdom, and that not only for the present, but for all future ages? Certainly, hanging is to good for them. Should a poor Puritan do but half as much, the Bishops would have drawn, hanged and quartered him long ere this, especially if the thing were derogatory to their Hierarchy and Epis. copal jurisdiction. But Bishops and their Agents think they may do any thing in these days without check or censure. Yet I hope your Majesty will not let them go scot-free for these their forgeries & corruptions; If not all done by their Command and privity, yet doubtless by their connivance, negligence and subsequent consents. And is it not now high time for your Majesty to look to these perfidious Innovatours, and to repose no trust in them any longer, since they are lately grown so powerful, so insolent, as thus to sophisticate, to pervert these very Original Records of the the Church of England, to which they have subscribed, and to forge new Articles of Religion, to cheat your Majesty & the whole Church of England with, for fear they proceed to further forgeries of an higher nature? We know, that the Bishops of Rome have q See Dr. Crakenthorpe his defence of Constantine and of the Pope's temporal Monarchy; and excellent Treatise to this purpose. forged a Donation from Constantine and others, with which they have deluded and troubled all the world, thrust the Roman Emperors from their Throne & Territories, and usurped a temporal Monarchy over all the world: We know that the Bishops of England in King Richard the 2. and Henry the 4. his days r Fox Acts & Monument p. 404. 405. 406. 481. 524. and Mr. Fuller's Argument, 25. H. 8. ●. 15. forged two bloody Acts of Parliament against the true Professors of the Gospel, to which the Commons never consented, though they foisted their assents into them, upon which tyrannous forged Acts most of our Martyrs were butchered, & thousands of godly Christians & loyal Subjects imprisoned, martyred, ruinated and stripped of all their goods, or else abjured, by bloodsucking tyrannous Prelates. Whether they may not in time proceed to the like attempts if not severely punished for those forepast forgeries and corruptions of our Churches, Parliamentary Records; I humbly submit to your Majesties and all wisemen's considerations; Ambition, tyranny, pride, & malice being boundless, when they have once overswolmed the banks of due moderation, or grown impudent and unruly, especially in Bishops. Having thus represented to your Majesty's Royal view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions, give me leave (I humbly beseech your Highness) to add to these, two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England. 1. The first by Dr. (than Mr.) john Cousins and his confederates; Who Anno 1628. (the same year your Majesty's Declarations were published,) set forth a Book, entitled: A collection of private Devotions, or, the Hours of Prayer; Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprised, and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained, to countenance all which, in the Title and Epistle of this Book, he writes; That these Devotions of his, were after this manner, published by Queen Elizabeth, and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority, to wit, in the Preces of Horary, set forth by her Royal Authority Anno 1573. When as there is no Analogy at all either in matter, form or method, between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty, nor any of his points of Popery in them, as hath been proved by s Cosens his Cozening Doctrine. A trial of Private Devotions. two particular Answers to his Devotions in print: Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed, but publicly sold among us, approved by a Bishop's licence, and now reprinted, to abuse your Majesty's poor Subjects, encourage Papists, and scandalise that everblessed pious Queen, as the Author and Patroness of his gross Popery. An abuse not tolerable in a Christian State. 2. The second is as bad or worse. Anno 1631. One john Ailward (not long before a Popish Priest) published a Book entitled: An Historical Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning God's Election; Affirming the Errors of the Arminians, to be the judgement and Doctrine of the Church of England, and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it, both in King Edward's and Queen Elizabeth's days. This Book (though written in professed opposition to your Majesty's Declaration before the 39 Articles, to Suppress Arminianism (yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppress the truth) was licenced by Mr. Martin, than Chaplain to the Bishop of London, now Archbishop of Canterbury. The whole Book except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Copy of an Answer to a Letter, wherein the Answerer purged himself and others from Pelagian Errors, etc. This Masterpiece, forsooth, is pretended to be set out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeth's reign by public Authority, and the Doctrine then taught and professed. When this new Book was printed, no Copies must come abroad (as the Stationer then affirmed) before the * Now Canterbury. Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty, and gained your Royal approbation thereof. Not long after this it flies abroad over all the Realm, to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects: One of them coming to that learned Knights hands, Sir Humphrey Lind, (better read in Fathers and Popish Authors then English Antiquities,) he was so much stumbled and grieved at it, that he presently repaired with it, to a Gentleman's study of his acquaintance; Telling him, there was a new Book, freshly published, which proved the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians, and that this was the Doctrine publicly taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne; Saying withal, it would do infinite harm, and desiring him to take some pains to answer it. The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Book, but he presently discovered the grand Imposture; Informing the Knight, that this Copy of a Letter, etc. was written by one Champenies, whom john Venon (Divinity Lecturer of Paul's in the first year of Queen Elizabeth) t An Apology or Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination ●. 37. expressly affirmed, to be then a rank Papist and a Pelagian, and that in answer to this Verons Lecture es of Predestination, then publicly preached at Paul's, (dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, and printed by Authority in the second year of her Highness' reign.) He likewise acquainted him, that this Copy of his Letter was printed about the third year of her Dominion, without any Authors or Printers name thereto, or place where, or year when it was printed, or any intimation at all that it was ever licenced; All which were plain evidences, that it was printed in a corner, without any licence at all. And whereas (said he) you desire a speedy Answer to it, if you will give me but a pair of gloves, I will show you two Answers to it, already in print above ●0 years since, by public Authority, and one of the first printed Copies of this Letter to boot. To which the Knight replied, I am sure you do but jest with me. No, said the other, I am in good earnest, will you give me, or wager a pair of gloves hereupon? That (answered he) I will do with all my heart. Then, said the Gentleman, reach me hither those three Books he pointed to. He did so. The first was a Copy of the Letter, without name of Author, Printer, date of time or place; Which compared with that in this new Book, proved the same verbatim. Now, said the Gentleman, you have seen the Original, I will show you the Author of it, (which he did in Verons' Apology, f. 37.) and likewise two several Answers in print: The first by john Veron himself forenamed, entitled: An Apology in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth, and imprinted at London by john Tisdale in the fourth year of her Reign; Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered: The second, by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Mary's days, Robert Crowly; In his Apology of those English Preachers and Writers, which Cerberus the threeheaded Dog of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine, under the name of Predestination; Seen and allowed according to Her Majesty's Injunctions, and printed at London by Henry Denham, Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in several Sections, and then answered Verbatim; This Book being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by public Authority; As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established. When the Gentleman had showed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Book; He likewise turned to u Se●m●s London●, 1584. ●. 311, 312, 325, 326, 327, 124, 125, 126, 134, 164, 165, 178, 208. 215, 224, 226, 268, 270, 288, 295, 299, 308, 323, 14●, 142, 18●, 〈…〉 some passages in Bishop Latymer, which answered and cleared his words cited in this Book from any such sense as it would fasten on them: And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers' Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commandments, He showed him first, the Confession, and Protestation of the Bishop's Faith, dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament, and printed at London Cum Privilegio, Anno 1550. Secondly, x 〈…〉 A brief and clear Confession of the Christian Faith, containing 100 Articles, London 1584. Thirdly, An y Fol. 22 ●● 24. 29 40. 55, 56 57 60, 63, 64 65, 78. ●● Exposition upon certain Psalms, London, 1510. In all which this godly Martyr did professedly in expr●●e terms oppugn all the Arminian points now controverted, and those this new Book would fasten on him, by over straining some of his words. Which done; Now said the Gentleman, I have showed you many full old Answers to your, New Book, and proved it to be a mere lie and forgery from the beginning to the end, yea the most gross and greatest Imposture, affront and impudent abuse that ever was put upon the Church of England; Wherhfore, Sir● since you are acquainted at London-House and Lambeth, I pray inform the Bishop and Archbishop, what you have seen, and desire them to take some speedy course to rectify this most foul abuse. He did so: Yet the Book was not called in, in a week's space or more; Which the Gentleman perceiving, went to Lambeth, with his Books, showed the Archbishop, that then was, what he had showed the Knight; Desiring his Grace, that the Church of England might not have such an impudent strange Imposture thrust upon her. Where upon he thanked the Gentleman; Protesting he had showed him that he * It seeme● the Bishops are none of the learned ● men, 〈◊〉 see well acqua●ted with ●e W●●ters and Doctrine of the Church of England, as some private Gentlemen ar●. never saw nor heard off before; Desiring him to leave his Books with him for a week, after which he would safely restore them. Whereupon, these Books, after they were half sold and dispersed over the Kingdom, were only called in, but not burned, nor any public Act made against them, to discover the practice and Imposture: Only the Gentleman was at the cost, to send some of these old Books in answer of this new Pamphlet, to the University Library at Oxford, and to Cambridge, acquainting some of his Friends there, with this Decoy. But now of late this Book flies abroad into all parts, is publicly sold in all Stationer's shops, and thousands of your Subjects, ignorant of the fraud, are merely cheated and seduced by it; the Licenser (if not the Author) being since advanced; and the discoverer of this egregious Jmposture (detestable both to God & man) most despitefully rewarded and miserable traduced, for his pains. O tempora! O mores! that men should suffer for their good service in this kind. Now I humbly refer to your Majesty's most serious consideration, whether all these particular Corruptions, Forgeries and Jmpostures (the undoubted verity whereor is soon discovered by the Books themselves, which w●● attest them do not cry aloud to your Majesty for speedy redress, and proclaim the authors of them (though never so great or powerful) unworthy of your Majesty's grace, unmeet to be trusted or credited by your Highness any more, (for those who are thus treacherous and unfaithful to their Religion and Mother Church, how can they be loyal or trusty to your Majesty? and worthy of the highest Censures your Royal justice can inflict upon them. Your Majesty hath called God to witness in z Concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament, p. 21. A Declaration to all your loving Subjects, (who dare credit you without an Oath,) That it is and always hath been your hearts desire to be found worthy of that Title, which you account the most glorious in all your Crown, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. And how can you better accomplish this desire of your heart, or make yourself worthy of this most glorious Motto then by rectifying all these most gross abuses and Jmpost●res? By rooting out all Innovations and back sl●dings unto Popery, now crept into our Church, by reducing all your Subjects to the unanimous profession of the long established Doctrine of the Church of England; And by taking vengeance upon all the grand Authors and Executioners of the forementioned Forgeries, Impostures & Innovations, which dishonour your Royal Majesty, grieve all your Faithful Subjects, betray and scandalise our Religion, make us a * Who would not laugh at these mad arguments, Paradoxes and Frantic passages of G●les Widows, Shelford, Reeve, many of which are as ridiculous and absurd as any in Ignoramus. very derision, prey and scorn to our Romish Adversaries, and draw down the very plagues and vengeance of our offended God upon us, whose judgements now call for a speedy redress of these things, at your Majesty's hands, whom they have most intolerably and undutifully dishonoured? For whereas your Roy all Majesty out of the piety and sincerity of your upright heart, hath in your fore-specified a Before the 39 Articles. And concerning the dissolution of the Parliament. p. 21. 42. Declarations, most seriously protested in the very presence of God himself your perfect detestation of all Innovations in ` Doctrine or Discipline and backslidings unto Pope●y, professing and proclaiming that you will by no means tolerate or endure them, much less than favour or enjoin them; Yet since these disloyal Novellers, their Clients and Agents forgetting their duty both to God and your Majesty, fear not to give out in private speeches, and to intimite as much in b A Coal from the Altar, p. 36. print, that your Majesty doth not only connive at, but likewise underhand, either countenance or command by Letter or Word of mouth, all these their Innovations and Apostasies towards Rome, (with their putting down of Lectures and preaching, of their late silencing, excommunicating and persecuting godly Ministers in sundry Dioceses for not yielding to these Jnnovations, or not reading the late Declaration for Sports in proper person in their Churches, which they humbly conceive not to be your Majesties, and which requires no such thing, that it should be read, much less by Ministers themselves in proper person, and gives no man Authority in case they read it not, to suspend or silence them for it, to the Jnnocent people's prejudice only, whose souls are starved and murdered by this means:) and that they do nothing at all, but what they are enjoined by your * There was a Letter lately read in some Churches of Ipswitch, as from the Archbishop of Canterbury in the audience of all the people, affirming that your Majesty had given the Archbishop order and direction for railing Communion-Tabes Altarwise, and that all Communicants should come up to the Rail and receive, which much amazed the people, and Dr. Aylot the Arch-Bishops surragate oft times affirmed the same in Court to diverse, who alleged your Majesty's ●awes and Declarations to the contrary. Majesty's Royal Instructions; Endeavouring by these false Rumours, to make your Subjects believe (had they such a miraculous Faith as to credit this impossibility) that your Majesty is the Original Authority and underhand enconrager of all these their execrable practices, Ceremonies, Novelties, proceedings and backsliding; Of purpose to draw all the Odium of them on your Highness, and thereby as much as in them lieth, to alienate your Subjects hearts and affections from your Majesty; Which intolerable, unpardonable scandal, were it as true as it is false; Yet it were their duty to forbear such speeches, or cast ●uch scruples into your Subjects minds: But since they are most notorious falsehoods and disloyal jesuitical practices in the highest degree, making your Highness no better than a notorious Hypocrite or dissembler both towards God and Man, as themselves are, though all the world will be your Compurgatours to acquit your Highness from any the least suspicion of such dissimulation; Your Majesty is now obliged both in point of honour and justice to aveng yourself of such undutiful Slanderers and Detractors from your Sacred Fame, and by a speedy redress of all their Innovations, Superstitions, Ceremonies and Abuses, to proclaim to all the world, that they are none of yours, but their own spurious issues, and that your words and Actions both in public and private are ever consonant, uniform, and the same in every respect, without the least shadow of alteration, much less of doubling, either with God or Man. If your Majesty now demand of me, who they are who have been the chief Authors and instruments of these gross abuses, forgeries Innovations? I answer, that although it may prove dangeroos to me to nominate them in particular, before your Majesty shall command me so to do, by reason of their overswaying power; Yet for your Majesty's satisfaction herein; ( * A Coal from the Altars phrase. who can judge of the Cat by her Claw) I shall give your Highness a Register of the names of some of the chief under-instruments, by which you may easily descry the heads and Grandes of this disloyal crew. One of the first and chief instruments your Majesty in your Royal c Page 20. 21. Declaration and Proclamation hath pointed out and nominated to my hands; To wit, Richard Montague; then Bachelor of Divinity (since that time punished with the fat Bishopric of Chichester for his notorious Schisms and Innovations) whose Book entitled, Apello Caesarem, published in the year 1625. (as the words of your Highness determine) did open the way to those Schisms and Divisions which have since ensued in our Church. For remedy and redress whereof, and for Satisfaction of the consciences of your good people, your Majesty did not only by public Proclamation call in that Book of his which ministered matter of offence, but to prevent the like danger for hereafter, reprinted the Articles of Religion, established in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory (a plain resolution, that your Majesty intended to establish only the original Copy of the Articles confirmed in Parliament by Queen Elizabeth, in which there is no such forgery or addition to the 20 Article, as is before discovered, not any other corrupted Copy since;) and by a Declaration before those Articles did tie and restrain all opinions to the sense of those Articles, that nothing might be left for private fancies and Innovations. Yet notwithstanding this your Rayall care, this Book of his, (because not burned, and the Author rewarded, advanced to be a governor in our Church, before any public recantation of his Errors) is bought and sold; And he not only in a new d Apparatus ad Hist. Ecclesiast. Latin Book, but likewise in a Court-Sermon at White Hall in * 1636. Lent last, in your Majesty's Sacred presence, (forgetful both of his duty and your Highness' Declaration) hath presumed to plead, not only for a Limbus Patrum, bowing to Altars, and railing in Lords-Tables Altarwise, but likewise for Altars, Priests, and unbloody Sacrifices offered upon Altars toe, in professed defiance to this your Declaration: For which some of your Majesty's Courtiers who heard his Sermon, then openly protested, that he deserved to be hanged up in White Hall gate, (it were a * See B. Latymer his 5. Sermon before King Edward, f. 64. goodly sign, the sign of such a Bishop's skin and Rochet thus exalted) and that they wondered how the Arch-Bishops could sit by and hear such a Sermon, and not command him out of the Pulpit. So insolent is this first grand Agent grown, because not punished, but preferred for his first offences. The next chief F●ctor is Dr. john Cousins, whom I have formerly nominated; a man likewise much honoured, enriched & advanced even to your Majesty's service, and the next in some men's voice to be recommended to a Bishopric, (if your Majesty reserve not the disposition of Bishoprickes to yourself, but suffer others to have a finger in their disposal:) and all for the good Service he hath done the Church of Rome, the affronts he hath offered to the Church of England, and using such reproachful words against your Majesty's Supremacy, for which another happily might have had his head and quarters advanced as high as London bridge ere this, in Leiw of all ●ther preferments. The happy success of these two leading Instruments, hath since encouraged many others to the like attempts; as e His first Sermon, p. 5. 37. where he terms the Lords-Table an Altar, God's mercy Seat, & pleads for bowing towards it. Dr. Laurence, Mr. f His 5. Treatises Cambridge, 1635. all absurd and Popish. Robert Shelford Priest, g His Communion Book Catechism expounded, London 1635. the Epistles: And p. 17. ●●22. 35. 38. 39 48. 60. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 77. 90. to 111. (in the first Impression since torn out 127. to 141. 200. 201. 203. 20● 206. 211. 216. Mr. Edmond Reeve, h Sunday no Sabbath: Vile throughout. Dr. john Pocklington, i The History of S. George, and of the Sabbath. Dr. Peter● Heylin, (the Author as most conclude of A Coal from the Altar) k Collectiones, An. 1635. Collect. 16. 17. 18. 34. 35. Chownaeus, and l Thomas Browne his Sermon: Oxon. 1634. The Female glory: Dr. Cousin's Collection of private Devotions reprinted, 1636. Bishop Whites Treatise of the Sabbath day the latter part and Epistle Dedicatory. Dr. Reads Visitation Sermon, 1635. others in late printed Books and Sermons, in hope, of like preferments, to broach many Arminian and Popish Doctrines, Ceremonies & Innovations, contrary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England, and in high contempt of your Majesties, Declarations; Which Books were licenced by William Bray and William Harwood, Chaplains to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that now is, by Samuel Baker and Mr. Weeks, Chaplains to the now Bishop of London, and by Dr. Beale, late Vicechancellor of the University of Cambridge; Yea one of them, denying your Majesty's Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastia●all and affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church, and not have erred in fundamentals even in the worst times, dedicated to the present Archbishop of Canterbury, was licenced by his Chaplain William Harwood, (yea justified publicly by the Archbishop in the High Commission, in the Censure of Dr. Bastwicke.) Quid facient Domini, audent cum talia Servi? When the Chaplains dare licence such Doctrines, Books, and Novelties by their Lord's Authority, it is much to be feared, that their Lords themselves dare do as much or more than this amounts to. If your Majesty will but inquire of these new Authors and Licensers, who are the men that cherish and countenance them; By whose Privity and Authority they have presumed to attempt the writing and Licencing of such Books, you may easily by these Rivulets trace out the Fountains from whence all these Enormities, Corruptions, Forgeries and Innovations flow; And if you shall vouchsafe with all, to cast your Royal eye upon the Remonstrance, touching the increase of Popery, Arminianism, and the decay of Religion, presented to your Majesty by the Commons house the last Parliament, it is a thousand to one, but you will soon, discover the very parties, not only by guess but by name. Besides, if your Majesty will once more cast your prying eye upon the late Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren, Bishop Peirce, Bishop Monntague, and other your Prelates and Arch-Deacons, visiting in their own names and by their own Authority; Or cause a diligent inquiry to be made in all places where Altars, Images, Crucifixes, bowing to Altars, Tapers, railing Communion-Tables Altarwise, reading Second-Service at the Altar, Consecrations of Altars, Churches, Chapels are introduced, urged and many godly conformable Ministers excommunicated, silenced, suspended & persecuted for not submitting to these with other such Innovations and New-Doctrines; By whose Authority and command these things are done and enforced; Or by what Authority some Scholars, Ministers and Lecturers have been refused to be admitted to holy Orders, Benefices and Lectures, for not subscribing to certain New-Doctrines & Ceremonies underhand propounded to them; (And with all take this into your Royal consideration, that in m Edmond Reeve his Communion Book Catechism expounded Epistle Dedicatory, and p. 20. 205. 206. 211. 216. Robert Shelford his Treatise of God's House, p. 20. A Coal from the Altar, p. 1. 26. 27. 64. three late printed Treatises, Arch-Bishops, Bishops and Cathedral Churches, are made the Original Patterns, by which all other Persons and Churches must be regulated, in these very Innovations;) Your Majesty without any further help or character, may infallibly discover, both the roots, the fountains and Seminaries, from whence all the premises issue. More particular light then this, is neither yet safe for me to give, nor necessary for your Majesty to require. If any think I have gone to far in this; Let him know; That it is only the zeal of doing your Majesty, my Country and Mother Church of England, faithful service without fear or flattery, (it being now no time to mince things, or dissemble longer,) which hath thus far transported me; In whose just important cause and quarrel (how faint hearted soever others show themselves,) I shallbe ever ready, through God's assistance, not only to spend my Li●e, my Limbs, my Fortunes and Liberty, but my very Life and Soul, Choosing rather to hazard all or any of these, then to behold my God, my Sovereign, my Country, my Religion, secretly undermined, abused, betrayed, trampled upon, or ruined, and yet sit mute, neither discovering the contrivers, the instruments, nor close carriages of such Antichristian, treacherous, disloyal designs for fear of any danger, person, or Prelate whatsoever● And if I did it not when I had means and opportunity, I should neither deem myself, a faithful Servant to my God, nor a loyal Subject to your Majesty, my Sovereign. And now since I have launched thus far out into this tempestuous Ocean. (perchance with hazard of drowning, or Pirates, unless your Majesty rescue me by a Patent of safe conduct, and calm these boisterous Seas when they arise to overflow me,) give me leave to wade but one step further, to acquaint your Highness with the evil dangerous fruits of these lewd practices, Books Innovations, and then I shall cast anchor in the secure Harbour of your Royal Grace and Protection. 1. First, they have produced abundance of Schisms, Factions, ●arres, discontents, quarrels, heartburning, if not mutual malice, hatred and reproaches, among your people in all places of your Realms, and quite rend asunder that ancient unity, peace, love and mutual charity which flourished among them, before these Innovations crept into the Church. 2. Secondly, they have not only grieved, & vexed the righteous souls, but even quite dejected the spirits, and broken the hearts of many thousand godly L●ts and most faithful Subjects to your Majesty, who even pine away and languish under them, for grief and sorrow of heart. 3. Thirdly, they have bred a general fear in the hearts, & an overgreat jealousy in the heads of your Loyal Subjects of an approaching alteration of Religion, and total Apostasy unto the Sea of Rome; They having little left to secure or arm them against this fear and jealousy, but the sincerity of your Majesties own Royal heart to our Religion, your comfortable, pious Declarations (now trampled by these Novellers under feet in open scorn) and the zeal of diverse of your Nobility, to whom God's truth and our Religion are dearer than their souls: Which no doubt they will now declare by their actions in this time of need; To your Majesty's great joy and ease, and the daunting of these strange audacious Innovatours, though hitherto many of them have been over-silent. 4. Fourthly, they have caused many to turn Atheists, Skeptickes or Newters in Religion, seeing our Church so wavering and unconstant; Many to fall off to Popery, and hundred thousands of Papists from conversion, by encouraging and hardening them in their Antichristian Errors and Superstitions, to which they see us running, if not flying so fast of late, that they say they need not come towards us, since we are posting so fast to them. 5. Fiftly, they have caused thousands of godly Christians (the n Gen. 18. 24. to 33. Acts 27. 23. 24 jer. 5. 1. Ezech. 22. 30. 31. Psal. 106. 23. Exod. 32. 10, etc. best Preservatives against Plagues and judgements) to fly out to foreign Countries and Plantations; Hundreds to separate from our Church, as now quite Romish and Antichristian; And made thousands ready for to separate, it being now a common received opinion among many; * See a Book entitled, The necessity of Separation from the Church of England. That our Churches (especially our Cathedrals) are now so far Popish in all respects, (Latin Service only excepted, which they say is countervayled by their merry all-sung never-wept Service, which the people understand no more than Latin,) that we have now the same, or at least as just cause to separate from them, as our godly Martyrs and Church had to separate from Rome in the beginning of Reformation. And though the same reasons hold not alike of all Churches for the present, yet that they hold as firm in regard of the future, since now we and all our Churches are taught and commanded, to o Reeve p. 20. 205 206. 211. 216. Shelford, p. 20 A Coal from the Altar, p. 1 26. 27. 63. 64. imitate our Prelates and Cathedrals in all their Romish Rites and Ceremonies as their Mother Churches and true patterns of Imitation. So that unless a speedy Reformation follow of these late Corruptions and Innovations, half the Kingdom, for aught I can conjecture, are like, either to turn professed Separatists, or else to leave the Realm; To such a pass have your busy Prelates lately brought things by their new Devises, Books, Articles, Ceremonies, Superstitions, and their Suppressing of Lectures, Preaching, and godly comformable Ministers, Sermons of lords-days afternoon's, Repetition of Sermons, and the like. 6. Sixtly, they give a great occasion to Jesuits, Seminarie-Priests and Friars, (of which there are now swarms in England, (there being above 60. Benedictine Monks only, besides other Orders in England, Anno 1624. as appears by the p Nam sexaginta amplius Monachos Benedictinos Congregationi nostri subditos in Anglia memora 〈…〉 Apud N. le Maistre Instauratio Antiqui Episcoporum Principatus. Parisijs, 1633. l. a. p. 280. Letter of Rudesindus Barlo, Precedent of the English FRIARS of that Order, to the College of the Cardinals at Rome, dated the 12. of December, 1624. and many more, no question, of that order now;) Who at this present use few other Arguments to seduce your Majesty's Subjects from their allegiance and Religion to Popery, than the forenamed Jnnovations and new printed Popish Books, which they buy up with greediness. q Ibid. p. Resi●dus Barlo in his forecited Letter to the Cardin●●s of Rome, to institute either Dr. Kellyson or Dr. Smith two of his order) or both of them Bishops over the Priests in England, writes very confidently; That if one of these were made a Romish B●shop here, Latio●es intra unicum biennium fructus in Angl●cana missione aspecturi sitis, quam hactenus in ●adem nullo existente Episcopo per sexaginta jam elapses annos, conspexoritis; They should see more joyful fruits in this English mission within one two years, then before they had seen in threescore when there was no Bishop. And I may as truly say, that since these Innovations have grown public and got head among us, these ( r See Franc●scus de Sancta Clara: Edit. 3. printed all as most think in England to reconcile us to Rome, who makes good use of our Novel Authors & University Acts; To hearten his Roman Catholic, and seduce Protestant's. new Books been licenced, and all Confutation of them stopped at our Presses, the Priests, Jesuits and Popish Monks (who have now a Bishop or two at least) have perverted more by means of them alone (for they could never hurt or wound us but with our own men and weapons) then in sixty years before. As therefore the increase of Papists was one main ground and chief cause lately alleged in the Star-chamber, of resuming the London-Derry plantation into your Majesty's hands: So the self same reason should now move your Majesty to recall these several Innovations, and burn up these late Novel * Widows, Shelford, and Reeve especially, 〈◊〉 to make sport in aki●de. ridiculous Pamphlets, in affront of our best and solidest Writers, which withdraw so many from your Allegiance, and give the Priests and jesuits' cause to triumph over us, yea to deride and flout us for our follies, Apostasies & miserable public contradictions. 7. Seventhly, they open the mouths of this Babilonish Crew, and of foreign and domestic Papists, to slander both our Church and Arch-Prelates, as if she and they, with many other of our Prelates and Clergy of chief note, were now s 2. Pet. 2. 22. returning with the dog to his vomit, and the washed Sow to her wallowing in the mire, yea to the very vomit and mire of that Whore of Rome, which we had formerly spned and cast out. That this is the common News in most foreign parts, not only the reports of Traveller's witness, but Sr. john Cook your Majesty's principal Secretary of State, some few years since (in the very infancy of these Innovations and backslidings) affirmed openly in Star-chamber (in the now Archbishop of Canterbury's case) that this news was spread as far as the very Walls of Rome itself, upon his certain intelligence thence; And therefore it was high time for your Majesty, your Prelates and the State to look more strictly to our Religion, and to take away all occasions of such Rumours; Since which there have been more occasions of them given then in forty years before. So as this Rumour is generally believed abroad as a most certain truth● and crept into some of their late printed Books. This likewise is the common confident discourse and persuasion of most Priests and Papists at home, both among themselves and in the Company of Protestants, over whom they now seem to triumph, and stick not openly to affirm and justify, that both our Arch-Bishops (to omit others) are theirs. To make this good, I shall give your Majesty two late instances, of which I have certain intelligence, (and witnesses too if need be,) worthy your Royal consideration. A Berkshire Gentleman, of some worth, a Popish Recusant, was since Easter last 1636. at a public meeting, where were diverse prime Gentlemen of the Shire, and 3 or 4 justices of Peace, if not more; Where entering into Discourse concerning some Controversies of Religion between the Papists and us, with some of the Company, he used these words in the hearing of them all; Well Gentlemen, you may talk and discourse of your Religion as long as you please, but we have the Queen's Majesty and the Arch Bishop of Canterbury firm on our side; And so long we shall make our party good enough with you. Some of the Company questioning him for these words; He answered, He would justify and make good what he said; But was * Had a Puritan, as they style them spoken but half so much● he should have been fined, imprisoned, pilloried, & lost his ears ere this. never yet (for aught I hear) required to do it, though intimation hath been given of these speeches to some whom they much concern. When Dr. Cosens the last Summer 1636. removed from the Bishopric of Durham, to his College at Cambridge; He gave his Friends of Newcastle a farewell Sermon in the Town, at which Sermon (preached in the afternoon) most of the Papists in that Town were present: Two of them the next morning meeting with two Merchants of the Town, who were Protestants, they went all into a Tavern to drink their morning's draughts: The Papists demanded of the Protestants, whether they heard Dr. Cousins his Sermon? One replied, that he only heard of it, but heard it not, by reason of some business that hindered him: The other made Answer, that he heard it: The Papists demand of him how he liked it? He replied; That it was but a plain ordinary Sermon, and that he heard nothing extraordinary in it: Yea, but said the Papists, did you mark his garb, his cringes to the Altar, and how he bowed himself when jesus was named? He hath the right garb and ducks of our Priests. The other answered, he did not much observe his gestures. Well, said the Papists, Dr. Cousins is a learned honest Gentleman, and to tell you truly, He and the * Some reported it of Canterbury. Archbishop of York are both ours. The other bade them, take heed what they said. We know well enough (said they) what we say, we tell you again, they are both ours. Whereupon one of the Protestants merrily replied: If you will needs have both of them to be yours, pray take them to yourselves, we can spare them well enough. Many words passed to this purpose. The Protestants complained of these speeches as scandalous to the Archbishop, and acquainted him therewith. Whereupon the Papists were Articled against in the High Commission-Court at Durham, and cited to appear there; Appearance they made, but they have not yet made any full answer, the business being hushed up in a manner, and laid asleep. Dr. Cousins in the mean time takes his journey towards Cambridge; Most of the Gentlemen Papists in the Bishopric, to prove him theirs, brought him a dayes-journy on his way, and some of them as far as York. Like speeches have been used by other Papists, yet more privately & modestly. The like report they in t In a Dr. new Pamphlet stolen out of Studley his railing Book, for the most part, and of the same Subject. print of Dr. Theodor Price, Subdeane of West-minster, that however he lived like an Atheist, yet he died like a professed Papist. This, I confess, is not only a report, but a truth; He being a reported Papist long before his death; Which made many wonder at the impudence of that great Prelate, who knowing him intus & in cute, durst recommend him to your Majesty as the fittest man he in his conscience could pitch upon to make a Welsh Bishop; And so earnestly, to stickle for him against your Lord High Chamberlain and his Chaplain Dr. Griffirth Williams; Especially being a man that never preached all his life, but one Sermon (as was reported) and that in Latin, penned (as was bruited in Oxford long ago●) by his Kinsman D. Lewes; And he not long after a notorious Sodomite, ● Edmond Reeve the Catechism in the Communion Book expounded, p. 206. flying the Realm and losing his Provostship in Oxford for this very Sin; Yet now (without any purgation or satisfaction for so foul a crime) is preferred not only to the Mastership of S. Crosses, but likewise made your Majesty's Chaplain in Ordinary, (I will not say by whom,) and the chief man employed for the now Chancellor of Oxford in his canvas for that dignity against the Earl of Pe●broke your Lord High Chamberlain, who had most voices, though not the fairest play: It may be these Arch-Prelates countenancing and preferring of such persons, is one main ground of these Papists speeches; Who are worthy to be punished for them, if they cannot justify and make them good; And they unworthy to stay one hour in their places, in case they shall not or cannot both by their Actions, Doctrines &c preceedings disprove them to be true, as I hope their Grace's will, being Fathers in God, highest grown up into Christ in all things, and the Eldest in Grace, for which cause the word Grace is used unto Arch-Bishops, as Mr. Reeve learnedly informs us. But however that shall fall out upon trial, yet this certainly is one fruit of these late Jnnovations and Books to produce such speeches in these, and more men's mouths then three or four. 8. Eightly, these Books, Innovations and Apostasies both in Doctrines, Ceremonies and Religion, defiling our Church, corrupting our divine worship, depraving our lives and provoking God himself to anger in an high degree, have (to our present terror, fear and punishment) drawn down the heavy plagues and judgements of God among us, in sundry quarters and places of the Realm; Especially in Newcastle (almost wholly unpeopled) and London; Where the Pestilence hath already swept many thousands, and yet still spreads and sweeps away more and more, and is likely so to do, till we all v 2. Chron. 6. 28, 29. 30. c. 7. 13. 14. 15 c. 2. 12. 13 14. 15. 16 17. 18. jointly humble ourselves with fasting, Zeph. 2. 1. 2. 3. weeping and mourning both in public and private for our sins and Innovations, Luke 13. 3. 5. reform our wicked and profane ungodly lives, and purge out all these Idolatries, Superstitions, Errors, Ceremonies and Innovations that have defiled our Church; Which Pest now earnestly calls upon your Majesty, (whose x I say. 49. 23. Rom. 13, 1. 2. 3. Psal. 101. 3. 4●. 6. 7. 8. chief charge and office this is, (neither will your Bishops or under-Officers negligence excuse your Majesty before God's Tribunal, in case it be not done,) even speedily, really, heartily and thoroughly to effect, for fear he who y Psal. 11●. 5. Psal. 135. 10. 〈◊〉. job. 12. 18. 19 even strikes through Kings in the day of his wrath, with this pestiferous z Psal. 91. 5. 6. 7. arrow of his, which flies far and near among us (from which ● 〈◊〉, Air, Fort, Cordials, nor a a Isay 38. 1. 21. which sickness most accord to be the plague of which the Emperor Theodosius the third died. Gri●●ston Imperial History, p. 281. and the King of late, with sundry heretofore. Crown itself can secure any) should likewise smite your Highness or any of Royal Seed as well as others, either to sickness or death; Either of which, the Lord forbid, & shield you from, as he hath done hitherto to our greatest joy. What other future events and fruits these Innovations may produce, unless the increase and ushering in of Popery, I cannot divine: Either of which would prove dangerous to your Majesties, should they ever come to pass, as we trust, we pray they shall not. For that Christian King who lives under the jurisdiction of the Sea of Rome, or where Papists get the start (as all Histories and b Mr. Tyndals' practice of Popish Prelates. D. Barnes his Supplication to Henry the ●. D. john White, Defence of the way, c. 6. 10. Fox Acts and Monuments, p. 214. to 220. 717, to 728. 321. 409. 410. 479. 533. Dr. Crakanthorpe of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, c. 10. 11. 12. our Writers witness) are more miserable than the poorest peasant, living in continual danger both of his Crown and life; unless he will be a mere vassal to the Pope & his Cardinals, to feed those devouring Harpies with their treasures, to fight for them with their arms, when ever they command, and be universally obsequious to them in all their exorbitant Imperious requests; yea not only the Pope and his Cardinals, but the poorest Priest and Friar will be able to command and beard him at his pleasure in despite of all his wealth and power, of which your Majesty's Royal progenitors here in England have had sufficient experience. What base and despicable account the Pope, his Bishops and Clergy make of Christian Kings, even of those who are most obsequious to them, and how they jeer and flout them even in print, I shall only instance out of the authorised writings of a late Jesuits, which learned c Of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, c. 1. p. 24. 25. 26. Dr. Crakanthorpe hath thus quoted and Englished to my hand, worthy your Majesty's most serious contemplation. The former of them is d Be●anut Control: Angl. q. 3 n. 14. 15. & 16. Becanut, who calling the Pope a Shepherd, and Kings and Emperor's Dogs e Per Canes intellig● n●ur partim Reges & Imperatores. Ibid. nu. 15. or Curs of this Shepherd, and sporting himself with these Titles, saith, Igitur high Can●●, therefore if these Dogs be watchful and trusty, they must be ready at the Shepherd's hand; But if they be lazy, mad or troublesome, the Shepherd must presently remove them, and put them from their Office. This doth reason teach, this doth the Caunsell of Lateran decree. Again, Christian Kings are Sheep, are Rams, are Wolf's, and are Dogs. Whence it is that the Pope carrieth himself in a diverse manner towards them. As they are Sheep, if they be scabby, he may put them out of the fold: As they are Rams, if they be troublesome, and push with their horns, he may shut them up; As they are Wolf's, he may drive them away; Quatenus Canes; As they are Dogs, he may put them from their Office, if they be defective therein: And some of these he doth by Excommunication, some by deposition. So Becanus of late. The other is Gasp. Scioppius, whose words are so contumelious, even in the highest degree, that one may justly wonder that any of their Catholics, but especially their Catholic Kings, can patiently digest them. The Church, saith he f Ecclesia est Mandra, sive Grex, aut 〈◊〉 jum●●●st●rum sive Asinorum, clitellariorum aut Sagmari●rum. Gasp. Sciop. in Praesat. ad Imper. in Summa Cap. 147. is mandra jumentorum, sive As●●●rum, a great fold of Beasts or Asses; Some are Pack-Asses, g Cum nos Christiani simus Dei jumenta sive pecora subjugalia, equi, muli, sive Asini Clitellarij, Dossuarij, Sarcinarij. Idem in Eccles, c. 147. p. 534. some Dosse-Asses, and other Burden-Asses. And then telling, cujusmodi h Ibid. in Marg. Asini sumus nos Catholici, what manner of Asses himself, and other Catholics are; We, saith he, i Ibid. must be beasts which have understanding and reason to obey Bishops with all humility and patience; For they k Illi enim sunt Homines, sive Agasones, Muliones jugarij: Illi nos Fraenant, illi loro aligant, nos agunt, nos stimulant, nobis jugum imponunt. Ibid. p. 534. are the Men, they are the Muleteers and Asse-drivers, they must yoke, bridle and saddle us, put halters about our necks, load and drive us; For others, l Ibid. p. 535. they are like to beasts, but tame & obedient beasts, such as must do what they are commanded: For a good m Bonus & intelligens Asimus audit Consilia & praeceptasal Malionis. Ibid. p. 536. and understanding Ass is he, that heareth and followeth the direction and command of the Muliter. Further, yet he adds concerning Kings, that Reges n Ibid. in Marg. Catholici sunt Asini cum tintinnabulis; Catholic Kings are Asses with bells about their necks, as being the fore-Asses, which lead o Tum caeteros Asinos, qui sonitum ti●● tinnabuli de collo vestro pendentis audiunt, via● ingredi faciatis. Ibid. the way to inferior Asses. And particularly for Charles the Great, whom he much commends, he saith, p Ibid. p. 536. 537. that Charles was a far greater and wiser Ass, than those Kings, who cast off the Pope's yoke; For Charles being tantus Asini●, so great an Ass, cried (or rather brayed) out with a loud voice, universa Asinorum mandra, to the whole fold of Asses, that is, to the whole Church, in this manner; For the memory of S. Peter. Let us honour the Roman Church, and though they yoke which the Pope imposeth be such, as we can scarcely bear, yet let us with devotion endure the same. Exquibus verbis, saith Scioppius, ●●rum Issachar agnosca●, de quo Genes. chap. 49. Issachar Asinus fortis. By these words of Charles you may see, that he was a very Issachar, of whom it is said, Issachar is a strong Ass. Is not this (may it please your Majesty) a fine piece of Catholic Divinity, to account and call the whole Catholic Church a fold of Asses; All Catholic Kings, Asses with bells, all other Lay persons, Asses without bells; None but Bishops to be Men and Muleteers, and the Pope the chief Muliter and driver of all the Asses? So shall the Man be honoured, whom the Pope will honour. The more zealous and devout one is in obeying him and embracing his Doctrine, the greater Ass they account and call him. Seeing therefore this is the high account, that the Pope, his Bishops and Clergy make of Christian Princes; I presume your Majesty will never suffer the Pope the chief Muliter, nor any of his, nor your own Bishops, the under-Muliters, to yoke, bridle, saddle, or put halters about your Royal neck, or the necks of any of your Loyal Subjects, much less than to ride, jade, load, or drive either yourself or them, (all which they now attempt and aspire to do;) Since if your Highness should honour them in all this, yet shall you receive from them no other applause or thanks, no other Honour or Title for your labour, than here Scioppius, and they all by him, giveth unto Charles' the Great, to be: Tantus Asinus, & verus Issachar Asinus fortis. A Title I am certain your Highness will not so highly esteem of, as to deem it, q Declaration concerning the Parliaments Dissolution. p. 21. the most glorious in all your Crown, as you deservedly do that other, Defender of the Faith, which you have better right to far then this, which all Christians cannot but detest, though these Popish Heralds would bestow it on them. Wherefore to draw toward a conclusion, I shall now most humbly beseech your Majesty, upon the bended knees of my soul, to receive the premises and this poor Quench-Coale into your most Royal and pious consideration; And thereupon to take the Rains of Ecclesiastical government and affairs, from those who have thus abused them, (to your Highness, your Subjects and the whole Church of England's prejudice.) into your own immediate hands; That so these Abuses, Novelties and Corruptions here discovered; may be thoroughly reform, and the Kingdom of Jesus Christ restored perfectly and incorrupt among us. It was an excellent Counsel, that the late famous Emperor Ferdinand gave to Maximilian his Son and Successor when he lay upon his deathbed: r Grimstons' Imperial History in the life of Ferdinand, p. 684. Banish from thee such as seek new means to oppress and grieve thy Subjects. O how well it becomes a Prince, to hear the afflictions and grievances of his People, and to redress them! Imitate not those who unburthen themselves all they can of matters of Justice or Government, for it is thy chief Office. Unless your most Sacred Majesty follow this his Royal advice, things are likelier to grow worse then better, if you remit all to your Prelates, and expect a reformation to proceed from them; Who need most reformation, and are the chief delinquents. Martin Bucer (one of the wisest and learnedst men of his age) in his Book s Lib. 2. c. 1. 2. Inter Scripta Anglicana. p. 56. 57 De Regno Christi, dedicated to King Edward the 6. Discoursing by what way and means the Kingdom of Christ might and ought to be restored by pious Kings, and what Counsellors they should use in this Reformation, is bold to acquaint that godly King (who had then at least as many godly Bishops as your Majesty hath now, if not more,) that if he would have any restitution of the Kingdom of Christ here in England, he must not look that it should proceed from the Bishops, neither must he much depend on, or trust to their advice therein; But must be the principal actor himself, and advise most with men of an inferior rank. His words (worthy your Majesty's special observation and fit for our present purpose) are these. Primum, haud dubito Serenissime Rex, M. T. ipsam videre hanc, quam requirimus, imò quam requirit salus omnium nostrum, Regni Christi restitutionem, AB EPISCOPIS NULLO MODO EXPECTANDAM, dum adeò PAUCI inter eos sunt, qui vim hujus regni, & propria munia plane ipsi cognoscunt PLERIQVE AUTEM EORUM ILLUD ET JAM QVIBUS POSSUNT & AUDENT MODIS, VEL OPPUGNENT, VEL DIFFERANT, VEL REMORENTUR. Meminisse itaque S. M. T. necesse est, regiam sibi in hoc Regno potestatem, a summo Rege Regum, & Domino Dominantium, jesu Christo, esse commissam; Omnemque animam suo imperio subjectam, etiam Episcoporum & Cleri Universi. Quocirca de horum munere & Ministerijs rite instaurandis, hoc decet S. M. T. solititius ad vigilare, & study ardentiore in hoc ipsum incumbere, quo hujus reparatio functionis, ad salutem omnium plus adfert momenti; Et neglectus ejus atque dissipatio majus omnibus salutis creat periculum & infert damnum. Exempla itaque S. M. tuae proponenda sunt, & summa religione imitanda, Davidis, Salomonis, Asae Hiskiae, josiae, N●h●miae, & similium, quibus solidam pietatis laudem, & probè administrati regni Scriptura attribuit. High vero cum religio vera esset gravissimè ipsorum temporibus collapsa, & Sacerdotium pernitiosè corruptum, ipsi sibi religionis OMNEM PROCURATIONEM & RESTAU RATIONFM JURE & DEBITO R●GII MUNERIS SUMPSERANT: E●s●●; sibi ex Sacerdotibus & Prophetis ALIISQUE PIIS VIRIS ad hoc tam sanctum & arduum opus adjunxerunt consiliarios & administres, o 〈…〉 depraehenderant Dei scientia & zelo plurimum pollere. Tum ante omnialegem Dei populo exponi, explicarique MAXIMO STUDIO curaverunt. Deindè, nt Foedus Domini ru●sus toto corde omnes reciperent, & in veritate sancirent legis obedientiam professi, persuaserunt. Atque tum demam, ordinem & Ministeria Sacerdotum atque Levitarum, cunctamque Religionis juxta Legem Dei administrationem, reconcinnaverunt: Ac nequis eam rursus convelleret, vigilantissimè caverunt. De his piorum Principum studijs & conatibus ad restituendum suis populis Regnum Dei, legantur & pie expendantur, quae divinae Historiae narrant de Davide, 2. Sam. 6. 1. Par. 13. 14. 15. 16. 23. Et tribus sequentibus capitibus. De Salomone, 1. Regum 8. & 2. Paral. 5. 6. 7. De Asa, 2. Paral. 15. & the Jehiskiah, Regi summam procurationem Regni Christi competer●. Quibus opus sit Regi ad hoc negotium Consi●●●●ijs. 1. Pa●al. 13. 2. Regum. 18. & 2. Paral 18. & 19 De josia, 2. Regum 22. & 23. 2. Paral. 21. & 25. De Nehemia, per totum ejus librum. In his itaque Historijs. & Exemplis S. M. T. clare perspiciet, PRIMUM, in officio esse suo, & sicut aliorum ordinum & numerum in suo Regno, itá MAXIM SACERDOTALIS ORDINIS ETMUNERIS IPSA SVSCIPIAT INSTAURATIONEM. Deinde videbit, ad hanc rem in Consilium ei esse adhibendos, non qui magnificis modo titulis, se Theologos & Sacerdotes profitentur, horumque sanctissimorum munerum stipendia lauta invaserunt: Sed quos ex fructibus ipsorum agnoverit, Regni Christi, & cognition, & study esse prae aliis praeditos, atque flagrantes. S cut David Consilium de instauranda Religione primum coepit cum Principibus millenarijs, cum Centuriombus, & Ducibus. Nec enim potest quisquam ad reparandam Christi Regnum Consilium & operam svam constanter confer, qui non se jugo Christi ipse quoque totum submiserit. Tales verò Christus Rex noster sibi regignit & format, ex quibus vult hominum ordinibus, nec ullis hanc beneficentiam suam alligat hominum ordinibus, multò minus inanibus titulis & larvis. Quo itaque pauciores sunt in omnibus ordinis us, qui Christi Regnum & solid habent cognitum, & in veritate cupiunt restitutum; 〈◊〉 diligentiore cura quaerendi, & selegendi sunt, in quacunque illi hominum sorte inveniantur, qui S. M. T. in hae causa & negotio Regni Christi plane suscipiendi, & ad omnes Subditos ejus revocandi sint PRIMO LOCO A CONSILIIS. Qui corporis restitui valetudinem expetit, is cerrè Medicos non adhibit sibi pro magnificis Titulis & amplisopibus, quas Artis sibi praetextu cumulaver●nt; Sed quos cognoverit medendi & solida scientia, fidelique voluntate pollere. Sic nemo se ei libenter navi committat, quae ab eo regatur, qui nomine tantum & opibus se Gubernatorem jactet, peritiam autem navigandi nullam teneat; Sed mavult quisque cum eo navigare, qui tametsi obscuro sit nomine & tenuibus facultatibus, ad ritè tamen gubernandam navem existat Probe doctus & exercitatus. Quanto vero majore cura ac study S. M. tuae inquirendi sunt atque approbandi, quibus non corpora, sed summam credat Religionis Christi reconcinnandae qua aeterna omnium salus continetur? Adsit ergo S. M. T. Rex nostet Christus, ut summam de Religione restituenda Concilium eos sibi delegat Consiliarios, qui & vim Regni Christi probè norint, & toto illud corde expetunt obtinere, cum primis apud semetipsos, tùm etiam apud omnes alios; Nihilque in eo humani commodi vel gratiae spectent, sed paratissimi sint extrema potius carnis incommoda subire, quam ullam praeterire occasionem Regnum Christi adferendi & propagandi. This was Bucers' advice to your pious Predecessor King Edward, I hope it will not be unseasonable for me now to recommend it to your Majesty: At whose Royal feet, I now in all humility prostrate both myself and these my unworthy Labours, (void of all Courtship, Flattering Elegancy or Trappings, and having nothing else but loyalty and plain Rustic downright dealing, to make them acceptable to your Highness:) beseeching your Majesty (what ever others may buzz into your cares against them) to make a charitable construction of them, as proceeding from the real sincerity and fidelity of his heart, who as he daily prays to God for your Majesty's long life and happiness, as his duty binds him, and shall continue thus to do; So he is, and ever shallbe, ready to Sacrifice, not only his studies, but life, and what ever else he hath, unto your Majesty's service; And, in despite of envy and calumny, shall ever manifest himself in all things, Your Majesty's Loyal, dutiful and obedient Subject; Though yet I conceal my name, till I may do your Majesty further Service. EDMOND REEVE His Reasons For bowing to Lords-Tables, and placing them Altarwise, related and refuted. CHISTIAN READER, before I entertain thee with a serious Epistle, give me leave to detain thee a little with some late Paradoxes in Edmond Reeve, printed by Licence, to prove the necessity & Lawfulness of bowing to and towards the Altar and Communion. Table at our entering in and going out of the Church, to refresh thy spirits withal. His first reason is this. a The Communion Book Catechism expounded, p. 132. As the people of God being entered into God's house (to wit, the Temple of jerusalem) did worship towards the Sanctuary or mercy Seat from which he was heard speaking (not their Altars or Shew-bread-Tables) so now also ought EVERY ONE being come into God's house, to prostrate himself, that is, make low obeisance towards God's mercy Seare, being the uppermost part of our Temples, unto Almighty God there. This reason is properly reduced into these two Logical Arguments, pointblank against his Conclusion. 1. The Jews worshipped towards the Sanctuary and mercy Seat, from which God was heard speaking (a Type of our Pulpits and Reading pews, if of any thing;) not towards their Altars or Tables: Ergo, EVERY ONE now also ought to bow to God's mercy Seat, (the Pulpit and Reading Pew, from which he is heard speaking in his Word; not unto Altars and Tables. 2. Every one ought to prostrate himself towards the uppermost part of our Temples, unto Almighty God there: But the Roofs of our Temples, at least the East wall of them, in the Author's sense, not the Table or Akar (or our Pulpits standing higher than they) are the uppermost part of our Temples. Ergo, we must prostrate ourselves towards them to God there; Not towards the Table or Altar. But how then a prostration of the body towards the ground the lower part of the Temple, can be a prostration towards the Roof or upper part of the Church, when as it removes the body further from it (unless Mr. Reeve can tell me how a man may prostrate himself upward) I cannot yet discern. 2. His second Argument is this: Ibidem p: 134. The Divine wisdom of the Church calling the Communion-Table God's Board, doth give us to understand, that that is to be accounted the peculiar Seat of God within the Temple. (For after a Church or Chapel is consecrated by a Bishop, God's gracious presence is ever at his mercy Seat, saith the Margin) and therefore towards it unto God there, we are to make low obeisance, whensoever we come into God's house, to pray. Also as the Chair of State is always to be honoured, though the person of the Royal Majesty be not seen there: So is GOD'S BOARD EVER TO HAVE DUE REVERENCE (therefore this bowing is done & due to the Board itself not God,) and God who is there perpetually, is always to be prostrated unto, yea when as the body & blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament is not upon the same, (So the Passage in Bishop Mortons' too,) nor Divine Service in saying therein, or in any other place of the Holy Temple. For which cause it is prescribed, that ever the holy Communion-Table should be kept Sacred. This I have elsewhere fully answered out of Shelford & Widows, who produce neither Scripture nor Reason for all this they say, nor any authority, but their own. 1. First therefore let them prove: That God hath and aught to have a Seat in every Church. 2. Secondly, that this Seat is the Communion-Table only, not the Pulpit, Reading Pew, Bible, or any other part of the Church. 3. Thirdly, that God always sits there by his grace, when there is no body in the Church, to bear him Company, no Service, no Sacrament of Christ's body and blood. 4. Fourthly, that when there is Divine Service read in the Church, a Sermon preached in the Pulpit, or a Child Christened at the Font, and no Service or Sacrament at the the Table, that he yet sits still on the Table, and is there only specially present by his grace, and not at these other places in any of his Ordinances. 5. Fiftly, that God is alike present at the Table by his grace when there is no Communion as when there is one. 6. Sixtly, that men ought in point of duty to bow to every place where God is present: And to one part only off, or instrument in the Church, and not to the whole Fabric: Seventhly, that a Bishop's consecration confines God close prisoner to his mercy Seat, the Table, so as never to suffer him to stir one inch from thence, no not when there is no Sacrament, no Divine Service, no person there to do him homage, nor use of his special presence. Till these bedlam Paradoxes be proved, which willbe ad G●aecas Calendas, we may well demur to this second reason. Of which more fully anon. Only to retort the reason, let me argue thus. The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto. But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven, in the Church-Bible, and midst of his people, not at the East end of the Church where none must sit near him, as I bore elsewhere proved; And in every good Christians heart. Ergo, these, not the Table, are to be bowed unto. As for his Chair of State; That it ought always to be bowed unto. (I think when it is in the wardrobe, Cart, Imbroy derers or upholsters shop, etc. should have been excepted,) he must show us some Law or Statute for it, ere we can believe it. And though some men bow unto it now and then, because the King sits some times personally in it: This Gentleman must prove, that God sits personally sometimes on the Table, which he can hardly do. But he and others tell us, that God sits always there; Very good; Then I thus retort the similitude. No Man is so sottish to bow to the King's Chair of State when the King himself is sitting in it, but only when he is absent; For when the King his in it, they never do it, but bow only and immediately to the King, without any respect to the Coaire. Therefore since God is always sitting on the Table, they ought not to bow or do any reverence to it at all. And so this Simitude cuts the throat of their cause if rightly paralleled and applied. This will likewise overthrow his c Ibid. p. 136. 137. Argument for the the placing of the Table Altarwise, elsewhere at large refelled. Here also (writes he) it is to be considered unto the honouring of God's holy name (of his Table rather) in what place of the Chancel God's Board or Seat should stand. Doth not nature itself teach us, that in every common house the Seat of the chiefest should be above every inferior? And should not Christianity teach us, that no Seat of any person, much less of any of the Laity, (it seems then the Clergy may sit above God himself if they please) should be above God's mercy Seat, the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chancel? etc. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chancel, is it not decent that the ends thereof (thus this expositor and Patron of the common-prayer-book dares control it) be towards North and South? The Holy Ghost commandeth all things to be done decently and according unto order, (Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South, against the express order of the common-prayer-book:) And if it ought so to be in all things, much more ought it to be in every thing about God's house & especially in the standing of his Sacred Seat; As if this Seat stood very undecently and quite out of order, unless the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order. But of this me●ry profound Divinity hereafter: This only by the way for a Breakfast: The Author, having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners. That we are all bound in conscience for to learn, believe and obey whatsoever is commanded in the Commwion-booke, Homilies Book and Constitutions or Canon's Book. All which condemn his bowing to, and placing of the Table North and South: And so by his own censure, not speaking according to the Communion Book Doctrine. I may with a safe conscience before God affirm that there is no light of God's holy spirit within him. They are his own words and censure, of all those who speak not according to the Communion Book Doctrine, which himself professedly speaks against, in all these, and other passages. But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus, who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly, in giving the Titles of HOLINESS and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops, whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crackbrainde Treatise. NOTE THIS. It appears by Num. 1. 50. etc. etc. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Camp of Israel, and the Levites were there commanded to encamp ROUND ABOUT IT: To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. etc. 7. 11. hath relation, as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large. It is also evident by Numb. 3. 26. c. 4. 26. (And the hanging for the door of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROUND ABOUT, etc.) That the Passage in the Counsel of Constantinople where the same phrase is used, is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it, not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it, the words being the same both in Latin, Greek and English in all places. TO THE CHRISTIAN READER. CHRISTIAN READER, it is a Heroda●i Clio. p. 34. & Solinus Hist. p. 175. storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Son, that when he saw a Persian Captain going to stay his Father, his filial affection was so stirred in him at the sight, that though he never spoke before, yet than he broke forth into these words: O man, do not kill Croesus; And so saved his Father's life. What this dutiful Son thus unexpectedly uttered (being ever before tonguetied) out of his endeared love to his natural Father, I am here constrained, (out of my loyal respects to my spiritual Mother the Church of England) publicly to speak to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers, who have almost stabbed her to the heart, under a specious pretence of fight for her, in some late printed works: O man, do not murder and betray my Mother the Church of England. (Even as b Luke 22. 41. judas once did our Saviour with a kiss) whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholly for her. Alas, when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles, and the Book of Common-Prayer, to which you have all c Articles of Religion, 25. and Canon. 36. 37. subscribed; When I see you raking the very ashes, and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent jewel, Raynolds, Whitaker, Fulke, Willet, Perkins, with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Rome's greatest Goliahs', (whom you never durst so much as look upon, by way of Opposition, in their life times) proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings; When I behold you siding with the Papists, maintaining their Antichristian Errors, Doctrines, Ceremonies & abuses before all the world, without blush or shame; Defending their Erroneous Writers against our famous Orthodox Authors, whose blessed memories you seek causelessly to stain; When I behold you avowing even in print; d Chowneus, Reeve, Shelford, Pocklington, Heylyn, Bis: White, Bishop Montague, Bish: Wren, with sundry others have defended these Positions between them in printed Books, others have done the like in Sermons, yea in the High Commission. That the Church of Rome is a true Church. That personal Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essential to make a true Church. That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineal Succession and Episcopal dignity from S. Peter's Chair, and the very Sea of Rome, and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not, or could not do so. That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist; Nor Antichrist yet come or revealed. That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawful and necessary comely Ornaments. That Christ is Really present upon Earth, on the High-Altar and Communion-Table. That Communion-Tables are Altars; Ministers of the Gospel, Priests serving at the Altar; The Sacrament of the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, and may yea aught so to be phrased. That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables, and to place and Rail them in Altarwise at the East end of the Church, and come up to them, and receive when there is a Sacrament; And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none. That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary: (points much insisted on, and pressed at this present, when Cleargie-mens' sins are so open and notorious, that they need no Confession, but correction rather.) That the Lordsday is no Sabbath. That it is jewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath. That it is not of divine but humane Institution, nor within the morality of the fourth Commandment. That two hours only of it are to be sanctified, nor the whole day. That Morrises, Dancing, Sports and Pastimes (yea labours of men's calling, not specially prohibited by some humane Laws even out of cases of necessity) are Lawful on it. That men may fall totally and finally from Grace. That they have freewill, and may exactly fulfil the Law of God if they please themselves. That men are justified by works, yea by charity, and not by faith alone. That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and works, and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sins. That there is an universal grace given to all men, whereby they may be saved if they will. That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver. That preaching is an extraordinary thing * Among the Bishops it is so. necessary only for extraordinary times, and belonging to none but extraordinary men. That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better than two a day. That reading is properly preaching. That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopal jurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers, jure divino. That the Ministers know more than the Lay-people, the Bishops more than the Ministers, the Arch-Bishops more than the Bishops; And therefore; what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people, what ever the Bishops, the Ministers and people; what ever the Arch-Bishops, the Bishops, Ministers and people too, are bound to believe and obey, without further question or dispute. That the Pope's Laws, Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force, and our Church ought to be governed by them, and our Ecclesiastical Courts proceed Legally according to them. That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles, Canons, Injunctions, Oaths, Orders, Rites & Ceremonies in their own names and rights, and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them. That they may silence, suspend and excommunicate, (yea deprive and imprison) Ministers at their pleasure without any Legal cause. That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men, (though they have greater wages, and so should do more work;) That they may Lawfully and laudably neglect their spiritual functions to manage temporal Offices and affairs, exercise both Swords at once, and rule both Church and State together. When I see out own Divines (if we may believe them) by public Licence in printed Books defending all these with sundry other erroneous Romish Positions, maintaining all Popish Ceremonies, conforming themselves to Popish Masspriests, in their nods, cringes, genuflections, habits, preaching, writing, Ceremonies; And joining thus with them in a most treacherous confederacy against the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, as many late Writers, and by Name Bishop Montague, Bishop White, Edmond Reene, Dr. Pocklington, Dr. Heylyn, Dr. Primrose, Dr. Laurence, Dr. Read, Mr. Shelford, Mr. Chowne, Mr. Studly, with others in their late printed Books, Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles, and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons, both in the Court, City, University and Country have done. When I behold our Lords Tables every where called, and turned into Altars, or railed Altarwise; Our Ministers transformed into Priests, and so styled: Our Religion Metamorphosed into external Popish Pomp and Ceremonies; Our Devotion into Superstition; Our Holiness into professed profaneness; Our goodness into impiory; Our Preaching into Piping and Dancing; Our Lords days into play-days; Our Conscience into unconscio● ableness; Our fear of God into Atheism; Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes; Our Ecclesiastical High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and mere Tyrants; Our Pastors into Wolves; Our Religious Fasting (even in this time of Plague and danger) into Feasting; Our devout Prayers into carnal lollity; Our Profession of Religion into Derision, and God's Word, (yea Heaven and Hell) into a Fable; And that principally by means of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Books in print, (which no man can have free liberty to answer, this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours, to engross the power and command of all our printing Presses into their own hands, and to stay whatever may either detect or cross their Antichristian Romish designs.) When I behold all this, I say, even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit, how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and pen, and cry out aloud that all may hear, to these open Powder. Traitors, who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once; O men, do not thus murder and destroy the Church of England. Now, because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnatural Treachery, nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell, I have here single & out some three or four of them to combat with, (especially the Author of A Coal from the Altar, entitled, A judicious Learned Divine; Whose Coal set on fire by Mr. Samuel Baker, in the Bishops of London's Open, hath kindled a new Combustion everywhere in our Church,) concerning Altars, the Sacrament of the Altar, the ●●●●swing of the Communion Table an Altar, and the placing of it Altarwise, with one side against the Wall, as the East end of the Church. Which they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Books, in open affront and defiance to our Statutes, Articles of Religion, Book of Common-Prayer, Injunctions, Canons, Martyrs, and most Eminent Writers. Which particulars though they seem small at first view, and are slighted by many, as matters of no great moment, yet, all Circumstances considered, they are very important, and the conniving at them without Opposition, like to prove fatal to our Religion, as the Reading of the Treatise itself, will evidence more at large. To make this apparent in few words; There is no man almost so ignorant, as not to know; So blind, as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us (the heads whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament) who labour with all diligence, power, and cunning artifice, to bring the whole body of Popery into our Church again, yet secretly by degrees, with as little noise as might be, by those several Stratagems and means, which that cunning-pated jesuit Adam Contzin in his Book of e L. 2. c. 17. 18. 19 See the Book called, Look about you. Politickes printed at Mentz, Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose; Which they prosecute and follow to an haires-breadth. To effect this Plot the better (according to the Pope's consultation and direction in his Conclave) they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Books; Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard, have now (under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kind) quite silenced the truth itself; Being now publicly printed and preached every where without control, contrary to his Majesty's Proclamation, concerning the inhibiting and calling in of f P. 20. 21. 42. Mountagues' Book (which led the Dance,) in his Declaration before the 39 Articles; And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament; Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates (contrary to his Majesty's pious intention) to suppress the truth, and bring those into trouble, who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenants, either by printing or preaching. Next after this, they began to cry up, practice, and enjoin m●ny superstitious Popish Ceremonies, especially bowing at the name of jesus, both in time of Divine Service and Sermons, to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars, Images, Crucifixes, with adoration of the Sacramental bread and wine; Which Ceremony getting head by violence, many suffering for opposing it, and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it, though not prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer; Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images, Altars, yea Crusifixes in Churches, directly contrary to our * Against the Peril of Idolatry. Homilies; To call Lords-Tables, Altars; To turn them Altarwise or into Altars, and bow down unto them. And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose, they next begin, to term themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priests; Yea Priests to dance attendance on these new Altars, both in their Sermons, Books and Write. Which being done but secretly in corners (as every Evil is bashful at first, and creeps up but by degrees) these new devises also got● ground by little and little, some potent Bishops setting them on, and countenancing them under hand, Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere. And having thus by public Censures and these under●and Devises given open countenance to them, and disheartened people from opposing them, they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages, Altars, Priests, turning of Communion-Tables Altarwise, bowing to them and at the name of jesus, reading of Second Service at them, standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospel, etc. and that not only in the Pulpit, but in the High-Commission and in print, setting some shallowpated fellows (as Giles Widows, Reeve and Shelford) in the forefront to break the Ice, to see how the people would relish them; And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while, and the strangeness of the things was almost vanished, seconding them with others of better note and parts, to give greater Countenance to them, that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations. Which being thus once pleaded for in print, our Bishops (the chief Plotters and fomenters of them) begin first more covertly underhand by way of persuasion and entreaty, and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptory command, (one pragmatical impudent Prelate giving the first onset, and then others seconding him in their foreplotted order,) to enjoin all these Innovations, Popish Practices and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocese; And now they are grown so impudent, as to excommunicate, suspend, yea Censure in the High Commission all such Churchwardens and Ministers, who out of Conscience towards God, Obedience to his Majesty's Laws and Declarations, or love to Religion, dare oppose or not sub●●ie unto 〈◊〉 many * The Church-warders of Berkington, Ipswitch, Colchester, and others. Churchwardens being excommunicated for not 〈◊〉 in the Table Altarwise; And many Ministers suspended excommunicated, put from their Livings, if not field 〈◊〉 imprisoned too (especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop 〈◊〉 Diocese) for not bowing to the Altar, and as the names jesus, not reading Second Service at the High Altar 〈◊〉 Lords-Table, for opposing the railing in of the Table Altarwise, without Lawful Authority, or preaching against, or not yielding to these Popish Proceedings; Which have lately gotten such head in most places, that now all thing except Latin Service, are prepared for the Mass in many Churches, which added to these Novelties, will make us perfect Papists: For we have Altars (with Altar-clothe●● Tapers, Bison and other Romish furniture on them,) Priests, Crucifixes, bowing to Altars, coming up to the Altar, and there kneeling down to receive, all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies, Copes, Organs, Vestments (especially in our Cathedrals, which now must be. g Coal from the Altar. p. 26. 27. 28. 51. 52. Patterns of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocese,) all which being but mere Preparations for the Mass, how soon that also may steal in upon us, (if his Majesty's pious care, with other our Magistrates vigilancy and inferior Minister out-cries, who are over-silent in such an exigent, prevent 〈◊〉 not with speed,) by these active hotspurs machinations who have made such a swift progress in all the other particulars which they impudently press and justice with bra●e● faces and obdurate hearts; (not fearing already to style th● Lords Supper, an unbloody Sacrifice, the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, and to maintain a corporal presence in the Eucharist, I fear to divine. And when Mass is once installed and set up, the next thing these Novellers are to effect,) Popery willbe perfectly restored with it, and then face well all our Religion, which we have enjoyed, with all extern peace and felicity attending it. Now, 〈◊〉 it is plain (according to the modern Papists and these Innovatours' Doctrine,) that there can be no Mass without an Altar, or Super-Altar; No Altar but at the East end of the Church, as remote from the people as they he, for the better officiating of private Mass; And neither Mass nor Altar without a Sacrifice, a Sacrament of the Altar, and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it; The oppugning of these Innovations (the immediate Harbingers and forerunners both of Mass and open Popery, without which there can be no Mass, and Popery can never get head among us, (and by conniving at which without ●●ong and sudden Opposition, both Mass and Popery, the things principally a●med at, without which these other are to no purpose, will presently perk up and get quiet possession among us, to the utter overthrow of our Religion,) must needs be of great consequence. 〈◊〉 know, that when a Ciety is beleaguered, whiles the 〈◊〉 and Out works are safe and defended, the City is in no danger of surprisal: But if the Enemies once get them, all is in danger to be lost: Our Lords-Tables, Ministers, Lords Supper, yea the very use and defence of these Titles, 〈◊〉 well as the things, are the Bulwarks and Outworks of our Religion, as long as we maintained them, there was as fear of Mass or open Popery; But since the Altars and the name of Altars invaded and thrust out our Lords-Tables and their names, Priests out Ministers and the Title of Ministers, and those other Massing Ceremonies prevailed, the Outworks of our Religion are quite lost and taken, with many of the In-workes too; by our Popish Adversaries, and all is in great danger of speedy surpris●●●; Is it not then high time for us to awake and bestir ourselves; To beat out these secret Traitors, which demolish these Out-fortifications, or betray them to our Romish Adversaries and to make good and regain these Sconces (if it be possible) without which all willbe hazarded, if not quite l●st, and that in a little space for aught we know? Let no man then think slightly of these smaller matters, without which the grandest designs of our Popish Adversaries cannot be effected or proceed: But let all rather labour to pry into that great Treacherous plot and hidden mystery of Iniquity, which sets all these under-wheeles on work, and endeavour all they may, to oppose that imminent inundation of the whole body of Popery, flowing in a main upon us, all which wise men both foresee and feare● Which it willbe in vain to do, if we permit these Banks, these Bulwarks I here content for, to be broken downe● Which alone will secure us, if maintained, but ruin all if once demolished, by foreign Opposites or homebred Traitors. For the Coal from the Altar (the main Treatise I he●● encounter, which fires all these fortifications at once, that the enemies may enter and surprise us whiles we either neglect or strive to quench the flame:) The Author thereof, 〈◊〉 seems, was ashamed to own it by his name, (though as impudent, as shameless, as active an instrument of mischief as great an incendiary for his years as any living in our Church, if he on whom fame hath fathered it, be the man.) The Title informs us, that he is a Divine, yea a judicio● Learned Divine, (perchance in his own and some other conceit;) But certainly what ever his Learning is, sure I at his judgement is not very great, and his honesty less, as will appear in the Quench-Coale. For the Letter he undertakes to answer (which he would injuriously without any ground Father upon Mr. Cotton of Boston, the more to abuse had Censure the true Author of it, with whom he hath lately had some personal quarrels and contests) is certainly known to be Dr. William's now Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, a man far more Learned and judicious than the Answerer, and every way able to make good his own Letter, which I have not particularly undertaken to defend, dealing in this Controversy with the Coal, no further than concerns the points debated in the Letter, and that in general, without any relation unto the Epistoler, who no doubt will answer for himself without a Proctor. As for this Quench-Coale, having to do with others as well as the Coal, I have therein followed mine own Method, though confused, not the Coals; And cleared the points in Controversy by our own English Martyrs, Writers and Records, omitting Foreigners, partly for brevity sake, and partly because impertinent in these particulars, which principally concern the practice and judgement only of our own Church; In which as I wonder much that the rumoured Author of the Coal could find no Lordsday Sabbath, though he writ An History of it, so I wonder how he could find an Altar in it; Our Church having cashered Altars as Popish, Heathenish & jewish, yet he deems the Christian; And retained & prescribed the Name and Sanctification of the Lordsday Sabbath, which he brands as jewish, as if Altars were not more jewish than it. And here good Reader, I desire thee to observe, 〈◊〉 they are that thus plead most stiffly for Altars, calling Comunion-Tables Altars, and turning them Altarwise, 〈◊〉 h Bish: White, Dr. Hylyn, Dr. Pocklington, Ree●e, &c those who write and preach against the name 〈◊〉 Sanctification of the Lordsday Sabbath, as jewish. Certainly, these men, I fear, are quite distracted thr●● malice, or tossed to and for with a spirit of giddiness, 〈◊〉 they could not so earnestly oppose & write against Iuda● (as they term it,) with the one hand, and yet at the 〈◊〉 time embrace and write for it with the other. Now, if Judaisme be so distasteful to them, as that 〈◊〉 cannot brook the name, much less the Sanctification of 〈◊〉 Lordsday Sabbath, which the Homilies of the Time and 〈◊〉 of Prayer, and the third part of the Homily against Rebellus to which they have subscribed, pleads for, as truly Christian How then can they write for Altars, (yea the naming of 〈◊〉 Lords-Table an Altar, and his Supper the Sacrament of 〈◊〉 Altar,) which the first part of the Homily, against the 〈◊〉 of Idolatry, p. 18. and the second Part of the Sermon of 〈◊〉 Time and Place of Prayer, p. 131. condem● both as jewish Popish and Heathenish, as many of our Writers before and since these Homilies have done? Let them therefore either reject Altars, as they doe● Christian Sabbath, because they are jewish; Or else 〈◊〉 and plead for this Sabbath, and its strict Sanctification, (●●●mitting it be jewish, as it is not,) because they write so 〈◊〉 lie for Altars, more jewish far then the names, or strict Sanctification of the Lordsday Sabbath. To draw to a Conclusion; All I have here written, is ●y out of pure zeal to God's glory, the Patronage of his 〈◊〉, and benefit of his Church, without any private spleen particular persons. If any good accrue to God's people by it, or this my Mo●● Church of England; I desire God may have the glory, 〈◊〉 whom alone it is due; If no public benefit be reaped by 〈◊〉, nor satisfaction given to private Christians in these ●ggering times, to settle both their judgements, Conscient and Practise, as I hope there will; Yet I have done my 〈◊〉 endeavour; The Success is Gods alone, not mine to 〈◊〉; To his Blessing I commend both thee and it, desiring 〈◊〉 the short space I had to compile it in, may excuse the de●● in the composition. So I rest. Thy Friend in the Lord. Iuli● the tenth 1636. Courteous Reader, this should have come in at the 3. Question, concerning the Consecration of Churches; Immediately before the words of Bishop Pilkington there cited, Page 214. Line 32. * Antiquita●es Ecclesiae Brit: p. 85. 86. 87 Matthew Parker, the Learned Archbishop of Canterbury, relating the form of Consecrating Churches, Chapples, Altars, Foundation-stones, Vestments, Chalices, and the like, out of the ancient Missals and Saxon Pontificals, which our Bishops at this day use; Concludes thus of them all. Who can doubt, but that Papal Rites and Ceremonies abound with these kind of Exorcisms, which differ nothing at all from these anciently used in the Ordalium and vulgar form of Purgation, which they at length condemned, yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations than they? But S. Augustine, who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies, if he were now alive, what would he think of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonies 〈◊〉 in use? For writing to januarius, he thus speaks of Ceremonies: Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burdens Religion itself, (which the mercy of God would have to be free, with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration,) that the condition of the jews is now more tolerable than that of Christians: Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty, yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law, not to human presumptions or Insti●●●ons. Thus Augustine: And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored, that the Fathers of the Church, either will not, or cannot with the same edge of their mind, cut off these and such like Ceremonies, or rather TRIFLES from the Church, where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium, or trial by fire. But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious, they still hold fast and retain these (Consecrations) QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT, although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and compiled out of them. How much more equal than modern Papists, was Pope Gr●gorie, who writes; That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time, Place, person and instant business. But these having no regard, neither of time nor place, no● business, nor person, nor of any other thing but their own will and vain glory; N● pusillis in re●us 〈◊〉 ce●e●a volu●●; Will not submit to the truth even in these trivial things. Thus this Archbishop of these Dedications, so much now contested for by his present Successor; Ou● of what spirit, he hath here determined to our hands, I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉. A QUENCH-COALE, OR A brief disquisition, or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table, aught to be situated especially when the Sacrament is administered. IT hath been a great Question lately raised and much agitated among us, by some Innovating Romish spirits; In what place of the Church or Chancel the Lords Table ought to stand, specially at the time of the Sacraments administration; whether in the Body or midst of the Church, Chancel or Choir, or at the East end of the Choir Alterwise, where some now rail it in, and plead it aught of right to stand? The Rubric in the Common prayer book before the Communion, thus resolves this question. The Table at the Communion time having a fair white Linen cloth upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, OR IN THE CHANCEL where morning prayer and eveninge prayer be appointed to be said. And the priest standing AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE, shall say the Lords prayer with this Collect following etc. Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions published in the first year of her Reign, when the former Rubric was made thus explain and define this question. The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed shallbe so placed in good sort with in the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number communicate with the said Minister: And after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before. Therefore it is not to be movable, not fixed, or railed in at the East end of the Chancel. The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction. Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churche● with in the Realm of England, convenient, and decent Tables are provided, and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion, we appoint that the same Tables shall from time to time be kept and repaired inconvenient, and decent manner, and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silk, or other decent stuff, and with a fair linen clothe at the time of the administration as becometh that Table, and so stand saving when the said holy Communion is to be administered, At which time the same shallbe placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCEL, as thereby the Minister may be the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration; and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister. Queen Elizabeth's visitors in the first year of her Reign (who best knew the meaning of the Rubric and Injunctions, made that very year) did by special direction, place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England, in the body of the Church, or Chancel some distance from the wall, with the two ends standing East and West, and the two sides North and South; in which sort they have stood no less than 73. years, or more, And in such Churches where the Tables could not conveniently stand always in the body of the Church or Chancel, they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand, giving direction, according to the Rubric, and Queen's Injunctions, for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancel, when the Sacrament should be administered, as the said Rubric, Injunctions, and Canons prescribe. In the year of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithy treatise touching the Lord's supper, compiled as some gather, by M. William Tyndall, and printed at the end of his works, wherein p. 476. 477. he wisheth, that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time. After which, he prescribes this form of administering it, wishing, that the secular Princes would command and establish it. To wit, That the bread and wine should be set before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lord's Table (not an Altar) purely and honestly laid etc. Then let the Preacher, (whom he would have to preach, at least twice every week) exhort them lovingly to draw near unto this Table of the Lord etc. This done let him come down, (to wit from the pulpit) and accompanied honestly with other Ministers, come forth readily unto the Lord's Table (not the Altar) the congregation now SET ROUND ABOUT IT, and also in their other convenient seats, the Pastor exhorting them all to pray for grace, faith, and love which all this Sacrament signifieth, and putteth them in mind of, Then let there be read openly, and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue, etc. Where this Author prescribes a Table, not an Altar, and that to stand in the face of the Congregation, not at the upper end of the Choir, that so the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT & thus receive. This he determines to be according to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time, and that which our Martyrs then desired to be restored. In the year of the Lord 1549. (as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London. 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records) King Edward the 6. with 9 of his Privy Council (whereof Archbishop Cramner, and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two) writ a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London, to give substantial Order throughout all his Diocese, that with all diligence, all the Altars in every Church, and Chapel with in his Diocese be taken down, and in steed of them a Table to be set up in some convenient part of the Chancel with in every such Church or Chapel to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion, sending with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the form of a Table then of an Altar. After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the form of a Right Table to be used in his Diocese, and in the Church of Paul's brake down the wall standing by the high Altars side, placing the Table a good distance from the wall. M. Martin Bucer, in his Censure of the Common prayer book, of the Church of England, in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes, That it appears by the forms of the most ancient Temples, and writings of the Fathers, that the Clergy stood in the midst of the Temples, which were for the most part round, And out of that place did so administer the Sacraments to the people, that they might plainly hear the things that were there recited, and be understood of all that were present, And he there condemns, the placing of the Choir so remote from the body of the Church, and administering distinct service & Sacraments therein, as contrary to Christ's Institution, and an intolerable contumely to God; exhorting King Edward, and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same. Shortly after which Censure of his, the Altars were taken down, and Communion Tables placed in the body of the Church or Chancel in their steed. * ‡ Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1404. 1406. Bishop Farrar causing a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper (March. 30. 1555.) to be set up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen, without the Choir, & taking away the Altar thence. The MIDST of the Church being then thought the fittest place for its situation. Incomparable Bishop Jewel, * ‡ See his life before his works Sect. 25. one of Queen Elizabeth's visitors, in the first year of her Reign, who had a hand in turning the Altars into Communion Tables, and placing these Tables in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, if not incomposinge the Rubrics in the Communion book,) in his answer to Hardings' Preface, writes thus. An Altar we have, such as Christ and his Apostles, and other Holy Fathers had, which of the greeks was called the Holy Table, And of the Latins the Table of the Lord, and was made not of Stone, but of Timber, and stood not at the end of the Choir, BUT IN THE MIDST OF THE PEOPLE, as many ways it may appear. And other or better Altar than Christ or these Holy Fathers had, we desire to have none. And in his Reply to harding, Article 3. Divis. 26. He proceeds thus. Now whether it may seem likely that the same Altars stood so far of from the hearing of the people as M. harding so constantly affirmeth, I refer myself to these authorities that here follow. a Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Eusebius thus describeth the form and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended, & comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers, and wish stalls beneath set in order, And last of all the holy of holies, I mean the Altar, BEING PLACED IN THE MIDST. Eusebius saith not, the Altar was set at the end of the Choir, but IN THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH AMONG THE PEOPLE. b De verb. Domini secundum jeannem Serm. 42. S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus. Christ feedeth 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? In the 5. c Actio 1. Council of Constantinople, it is written thus. When the Lessen or Chapter was reading, the people with silence dr●ve together ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR, and gave care; (Yet * Sunday no Sabbath p. 27. D. Pocklington writes, that they are much mistaken that produce the Council of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church, and the * p. 54 53. Coal from the Altar, saith the like:) And to leave others. d Ration. divin. l. 5. Durandus examining the cause, why the Priest turneth himself about at the Altar, yieldeth this reason for the same. In the MIDST OF THE CHURCH. I opened my mouth, And Platina noteth, that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome, was the first, that in the time of the ministration, divided the Priest from the people. To leave further Allegations, that the Choir was then in the body of the Church, divided with rails from the rest, whereof it was called Cancel, or Chancel, etc. And whereas M. harding imagineth, that the people for distance of place could not hear what the Priest said. A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soon see he is far deceived. For e In Ephes. 2. Hom. 3. in 2. Cor. H●mil. 18. Chrisostome saith: The deacon at the holy Mysteries stood up, and thus spoke unto the people; Oremus pariter omnes, let us all prey together; And again he saith, the Priest and people at the ministration talk together. The Priest saith, the Lord be with you, the people answereth, And with thy spirit. Justinian the Emperor commanded, that the Priest should so speak a loud at the holy Ministration as the people might hear him: And to leave rehearsal of others. f De Saeramento Encharistica. Bessarion saith, the Priest speaking these words, the people standing by at each part of the Sacrament, or on every side, saith Amen. After which he concludes thus. seeing therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time, nor the Communion Table that then was used stood so far off from the body of the Church, nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not, so many untruths being found in M. Hardings' premises, (all which are revived afresh in the Coal from the Altar, to affront Bishop jewel, and justify M. harding, and that by public licence, such is the desperate shamelessness and Apostasy of our age:) we may well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion. And in the margin he hath this note annexed to M. Hardings' words. The. 82. un truth. The Altars, and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH, as shall appear. And Article 13. division 6. p: 362. he cities the same passages of Eusebius, Augustine, and the Council of Constantinople, to prove, that there was anciently but one Altar and Communion Table in every Church, and that standing in the midst of the Church, Choir, people; and concludes thus; So likewise Gentianus Hernettus, describing the manner of the Greek Church as it is used at this day, saith thus; In the Greek Church there is but one Altar, and the same standing IN THE MIDST OF THE QVIRE, and the Choir also was in the midst of all the people, Thus this Jewel of the Church: From whose words it is apparent, that the Communion Table in the Apostles times, and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. years after Christ, stood in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, not at the East end of the Choir, Altarwise against the wall; And that it ought now thus to stand in the Churches, being thus placed in his time. Which books of his, being A defence both of the doctrine, and practice of the Church of England against the Papists, Commanded to be had in every Church for Ministers and the people to read. (And therefore it seems a strange prodigious insolency, that * A Coal from the Altar p. 53. to 57 D. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath. p. 27. Edit. 1. men of our own Church (as they pretend) should be so impudent, as publicly to affront and refute his doctrine in print; but far stranger they should do it by public licence to disparage him, and justify the Papists doctrine) is a clear demonstration to me. That by the very doctrine, and practice of the Church of England, the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDST OF THE CHURCH OR CHANCEL, especially when the Sacrament is administered; and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chancel, like a Dresser, a side Table, or Popish Altar, (to the end it may not be thence removed, and that the people may come up to it by several ranks and files to receive the Sacrament,) is a mere Popish Innovation contrary both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England. The nameless Author of the * Page 53. 54. 55. 56. Coal from the Altar, taking upon him to be far wiser and learneder than Bishop Jewel, (yea than Bishop Ba●ington, D. Fulke, M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers) is bold to write without blushing, That the authorities of Eusebius, Augustine, Durandus, and the 5. Council of Constantinople, do not prove, that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church, or Chancel; that B. Jewel is mistaken in their meaning, and shapes several answers for to shift them. To that of Eusebius he saith, This proves not necessarily, that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church, or in the middle of the same, as the Epistoler doth intend, when he saith the middle; The Altar though it stood along the Eastern wall, yet it may be well interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancel in Reference to the North and South, as since it hath stood. And were it otherwise, yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria, wherein the people being more mingled with the Jews then 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. To which I answer: 1. That the first part of this reply is in a sort mere nonsense. The Altar was placed in the midst of the Church or Chancel, that is (saith he) in the East end of it, or in the midst of the East end; as if the East end of the Church or Chancel were the Church or Chancel itself, or the midst of it, the midst of the Church or Chancel, But these being distinct, and different things, the midst of the Church or Chancel, can be not more interpreted, to be the midst of the Eastwall or end of them, than the East wall, or midst of the East end of the Choir, can be the midst of the Church, So that this evasion is but a mere nonsense Bull; And had Eusebius intended any such thing, he would have thus expressed himself; that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Choir, not in the midst of the Church or Choir, and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with wooden Rails wrought up to the top with artificial carving. 2. I answer, that The second part of the Reply is a plain concession of what he formerly denied; and not only so, but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason, So that here we have one piece of the Coal against the other: one denying that it was in the midst, the other confessing, and provinge the contrary: Now whereas he writes, that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria: I answer, that it seems this famous Temple was one of the * Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. 4 first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviour's death, and so became a general pattern for all the rest: The * Walafridus Strabus de rebus Eccl. l. 4. c. 19 great Church at Jerusalem being built round or oval like to it, and having the Altar in the midst, like this;) In the edifying whereof, Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, who passed all others for rare and singular gifts, was the chief means and director, And till he can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive times, either before, or not long after this, wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Choir Altarwise, as now they are situated, which he can never do, I shall take it as a general and sufficient proof for the setting of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancel. That which he adds, that it was done perchance to please the Jews; is but his own fancy, no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thing; And admit it true, yet the Jews situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple, though, not out of any jewish fancy or conceit, but by Gods own direction, is a fitter pattern for Christians to follow, than any Popish Altars, fixed station at or against the East end of the Choir, only by a bold Friars or Pope's direction, without Reason, Scripture, precedent, or divine direction to warrant it. To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople, he replies, * A Coal from the Altar p. 45. 55. that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in itself doth signify a Circle, yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cannot be properly interpreted, round about the Altar, so as there was no part thereof, that was not compassed by the people; no more than if a man should say, that he hath seen the King sitting in his Throne, and all his Nobles about him, it needs or could be thought, that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence, as many of the Nobles being behind him as before him; for which he cities Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answer, First, That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, a Circle, as he confesseth; so the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, to compass or stand round about the Altar in a Circle, and to hemne it in on every side. If this than be the proper meaning of the words of this Council, as all must acknowledge, good reason have we to take them in their proper sense, and not improperly. 2. This word and phrase is so taken and interpreted in the Scripture, (as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.) For sitting, standing and encircling the throne or Table round about on every part; Therefore it should by the same Reason be so taken here. 3. When as we say, the King's Nobles do environ or stand round about his Throne; this implies, that his Throne stands not against a wall, but so as men may stand round about him; round about, e●●rimplyinge a perfect Circle, though about doth not always so. 4. I shall make it most clear, that all Altars anciently were placed in the midst of Temples, Churches, or Quires, and that it was the use both among jews. Pagans, and Christians, to compass, stand, dance, & goeround about them; therefore it shallbe intended the people did so there, till the contrary can be proved, which willbe ad Graecas Calendas. To that of S. Augustine, he replies; that, mensa ipsius in MEDIO constituta, is not to be interpreted, the Table set here in the midst, as it is translated; but the Table which is here before you, according to the usual meaning of the Latin phrase, afferre in medium, which is not to be construed thus, bring it precisely into the midst, but bring it to us, or before us: Oh wise evasion! as if Bishop Jewel, Bishop Babington, Doctor Fulke, & the Epistoler were such illiterate novices, that they knew not how to construe Latin, and need be set to school again to learn their Grammar. I wonder why this pragmatical Critic cavelled not at our new translators for rendringe that of Math. 18. 20. where two or three gathered together there I am in medio corum, in the midst of them; where the same latin word is used: If in medio, here may be properly Englished, in the midst, not at the East end, or before them; why not in this text of Augustine? All know, that the proper signification of Medium, is the midst; and of in medium afferre, to bring into the midst, not before men; Coram nobis, being the common phrase, signifying to bring, a thing before men, not in medium afferre; And if this Gentleman remember his Grammar; Sentit medios illapsus in hosts, cannot be interpreted, he perceived he was fallen, before his Enemies, but, into the midst of them. The translation of Bishop Jewel therefore is good & proper, & the collier a nonsense Critic, to quarrel with it upon such slender grounds. To that of Durandns, in medio Ecclesiae apperuios meum, that it proves not that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church, but that the Priests stood at the midst of the Altar: For it is generally known that many hundred years before Durand was borne, the Altars generally stood in Christian Churches, even as now they do. I answer, first, that to interpret in medio Ecclesiae, the midst of the Altar, not of the Church, is nonsense; as if the Altar were the Church, or the midst of the Altar the midst of the Church, yea though it stood not in the midst but East end of it. 2. If in medio here, by his own confession signify in the midst, not before the Altar; then why not in that place of Augustine too, at which he formerly carped, as mis-translated. 3. It is not well known neither by experience (for no man is so ancient,) nor by any authentic writer extant, that many 100 years before Durand was borne the Altars generally, stood in Christian Churches as now they do; there being not one testimony that can be produced to prove it. The Altar in the Cathedral Church of Rome standing, even in time of Mass, when the Pope receiveth the Sacrament, in the midst of the Choir, & the Pope sitting in a Chair of estate about it, as William Thomas an eywitnesse of it An. 1547. testifieth in his History of Italy, yet the contrary is well known, & shall God willing be proved; & if this were so well known, I wonder why this judicious learned man proves it no better, begging only the Question disputed, in stead of proving it; having thus answered, these nonsense idle Cavils against the authorities, quoted by learned Jewel, I now proceed to other of our writers. Doctor Gervase Babington Bishop of Worcester, in his Comfortable notes upon Exod. chap. 20. and 27. p. 279. 307. in his works in folio, shows at large, That the Apostles and Primitive Christians had no Altar but Communion● Tables only, and those made of boards, & REMOVABLE, SET IN THE MIDST OF THE PEOPLE, AND NOT PLACED AGAINST A WALL; they are his own words. Doctor William Fulke, in his Confutation of the Remish Testament, notes on Heb. 13. sect. 6. Anno 1589. writes thus: The Lord's Table of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table, as it is indeed; and an Altar, as it is unproperly; But that it is called of them a Table, and was indeed a Table made of boards, and removable set in the midst of the people, not placed against a wall, I have showed sufficiently by the Testimony of the ancient Fathers before, (to wit those whom Bishop Jewel quotes:) So on the 1. Cor. 11. sect. 1●. He & M. Cartwright both affirm: That in the Primitive Church, the Lords Table was situated in THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH AND PEOPLE, not against a wall. Doctor Andrew Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9 general Controversy. Quest. 6. Error. 53. p. 496. writes thus against the Papists, concerning the fashion & form of Churches, & the divisions & partitions with in: We will not much contend, so these conditions be observed: First, that all superstition be avoided in making one place of the Church holier than the rest, wherein the Papists mightily offend. For the Choir and Chancel was for their Priests & singers, the other part of the Church for lay-men, they were not to enter into that holy place, And thus according to the places they divided the Congregation as though one part were more holy than the other. * A good Choir for those novellers who plead so much of late for sanctum sanctorum. But where learn they, that Churches ought to have a Sanctuary as the Jewish Churches had. That was an evident type, and is now accomplished in our Saviour Christ, who is now entered into the heavens, as the high Priest then entered into the holy place to make attonoment for the people Heb. 9 24. this therefore is very gross to revive and renew again Jewish tips and figures, as their own Ordinary gloss saith. The external Rites, & Ceremonies of the Law, because they were a shadow of Christ to come, & of his Mysteries, Therefore the truth of the Gospel being come, are made unlawful & vanished away. Salomon's Temple then with the Sanctuary and priesthood therefore which were shadows of things to come, are no precedents or Patterns for Christians to follow, But if here in not with standing they will imitate the building of Solomon's Temple to have a Sanctuary, why do they not also build towards the West, as the Temple was? why bring they not their ALTARS DOWN TO THE BODY OF THE CHURCHES. For in their holy place there was no Altar. And indeed Altar we acknowledge none, as hereafter shall be proved. But we see no Reason why the Communion Table may not be set IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH, as well as in the Chancel if the place be more convenient, and fit to receive the Communicants: But I pray you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuary than the Font or Baptisterie? They are both Sacraments, as well Baptism as the Lords supper; why should one be preferred as holier than the other? Thus this Doctor. By all these authorities it is most apparent, that by the express Resolution of the Common prayer book confirmed by Act of Parliament; Of Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, * 1. Eliz. c. 2. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. the Bishops, learned writers, & constant practice of the Church of England from the beginning of Reformation until now, the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancel, or Choir Altarwise against the wall, especially when the Sacrament is administered; but in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, and that so it stood in the Primitive Church. Now for the better discovery of the place where the Table ought to stand, it will not be impertinent to inquire. First, where the Table of Showbread was placed? 2. Where jewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood? 3. How the jews Tables, & the Table at which Christ instituted the Sacrament were situated? 4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church? 5. What place is most proper & Convenient for the Table? 6. What reasons can be produced for the placing of the Communion Table Altarwise, at the East end of the Chancel against the wall? etc. For the first of these, it is most evident, that the showbread Table (a type of Christ, & the Sacramental breads,) stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum, but without the veil of the Tabernacle on the Northside, (not at the East side) of the Tabernacle. Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9 2. 3. 6. 7. which are express; compared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19 c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Showbread Table may be any precedent for Communion Tables, they ought to be placed, not in the East end of the Chancel, but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood. For the second; we must know, that Altars were anciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills, & elevated places, especially among the Idolatrous Gentiles, Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb. 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are frequently styled in Scripture, high places, and condemned by that name. 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1●. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39 25. In detestation of these high places, (in truth nought else but high-Altars,) God himself gave express charge to the Israli●es, Exod. 20. 28. not to go up by steps to his Altar, that their nakedness be not discovered: And to pluck down, & destroy all high places. Numb. 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39 yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish, as even in despite of God himself, to erect high places, high Altars, & to go up by steps unto them, in stead of Communion Tables; & to christian the Lords Table, with the name of g Shelford his sermon of God's house p. 2. 4. c. 15. 17. 19 Reeves his exposition of the Cathechisine in the Communion book. D. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath, & a Coal from the Altar. an Altar, and high Altar too. The Golden Altar for incense was set before the Ark of the testimony in the first Tabernacle: And the Altar of burnt offering, which was most holy, was placed before the door of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation. Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. & that by Gods own appointment, And when a burned offering of fowls was brought to the Altar, the Priest was to wring the blood of it out at the side of the Altar; and to pluck away the Crop with the Feathers, and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST part, by the place of the ashes. Levit. 1. 14. 15. 16, Therefore the Altar of burnt offering did not stand Altarwise against the East end of the Tabernacle, or Temple. When the Temple was built, Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold, not with in, but by the Altar. The brazen Altar he placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house. Another Altar he erected in the middle of the Court, before the house of the Lord, on which he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings. And when the Temple was consecrated, the Levites which were the singers with their soons, and their brethren being arrayed in white Linen, having Cymbals, and Psalteries, and Harps stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar (to wit of the golden and brazen Altar,) and with them an 120 Priests, sounding with trumpets, All which is clearly related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum; in the East side, or against the East wall of the Temple. When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel, he made a trench, round about the Altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed, And the water ran round about the Altar, and filled the trench. 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the midst, where men might stand round about it, not against a wall. We read of David that he build an Altar to the Lord, in the threshinge flower of Araunah. 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof, but in the midst of it; as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocence, so will I COMPASS thine Altar ● Lord. We read in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned, the Guard stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the King, from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner, along by the Altar and the Temple; The Altar therefore stood not in the corner, or East end of the Temple, but in the midst, or near the entering into it; In the 2. Kings 12. 9 we read, that Jehoiada the Priest took a chest, and bored a hole in the ●idd thereof, and set it besides the Altar on the right side, as one cometh into the house of the lord So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple, but near the entry, almost as our fonts now stand. And c. 16. 14. It is recorded, that King Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house, from between the Altar, and the house of the Lord, and put it on the northside of the Altar, (not the East:) Mana●●eh built Altars for all the host of heaven in the two Courts of the house of the Lord. 2. Kings 21. 5. 2. Chron. 33. 4. 5. 2. Kings 23. 12. King Asarenewed the Altar of the Lord, that was before the porch of the Lord. 2. Chron. 15. 8. We read of a prophecy. Isay. 19 19 In that day shall there be an Altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of Egypt. And of a commination to the Idolatrous Isralites. Ezech. 6. 4. 5. your Altars shallbe desolate, & I will scatter your bones ROUND ABOUT YOUR ALTARS. We find mention of the gate of the Altar NORTHWARD in Jerusalem. Ezech. 8. 5. and the brazen Altar stood Northward, as it seems. Ezech. 9 2. We read of an Altar, that was before the house. Ezech. 40. 47. Whereupon the Priests the Ministers of the Lord are enjoined in the time of a solemn Fast, to weep between the porch, and the Altar. Joell 2 17. So Ezech. 8. 16. the same expression is used, Behold at the door of the Temple of the Lord, between the porch, and the Altar were about 25. 35. men etc. And Zacharias, as Christ informs us. Ma●h. 23. 35. was slain between the Temple, and the Altar; Altars●in those day's standing usually without the Temples: it being both a troublesome, & unseemly thing to bring Oxen. Sheep, Calves & other beasts into the Temple there to kill, & sacrifice them on the Altar. By all these Scripture Testimonies it is apparent, that Altars both among the jews, & Gentiles, were never placed in the upper end or against the East walls of their Temples. but in the Courts, the Entries, or midst of their Templies, in such manner that men might go freely round about them, far different from their modern situation; which hath no one pattern in Scripture to warrant it. Now if Altars were thus situated either without their Temples, or near their entrance, porch, or doors, or else in the midst of them in former ages, so as men might freely compass, & walk round about them, why should they not be thus placed, by our Altar-introducers, & heathenish Popish Innovators now? There is neither of these Novellers but would have a Choir, or Sanctum Sanctorum in his Church, & would take it very ill if any man should subvert, or write against Quires in Churches; yet themselves, by placing their Altars & Communion Tables Altarwise against the East wall of their Churches, do utterly overturn & destroy their much applauded Quires, out of a mere superstitious sottish ignorance. For the Latin word Chorus (from which our Quires have their derivation, & denomination) as k Originun l. 6. c. 19 Isiodor Hispalensis, l De univ. l. 5: c. 9 Rabanus Maurus, m In their several dictionaries: Chorus. Calepine Eliot, Thomasius Olioke, with n Ser●ius in Virgil. 〈◊〉. 6. others testify, is nothing else, but; multitudo in sacris collect; & dictus Chorus, quod initio in modum Coronae CIRCA ARAS STARENT, & ita psallerent: A multitude assembled, together in sacred places or Temples, and called a Choir, because that in the beginning they stood ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS in manner of a Crown or garland, and so would sing; Our Innovators therefore by removinge their Altars to the East end of their Quires, & their railing them in close-Prisoners against the wall, so as the Choresters, singinge men, people cannot, may not stand round about them like a ring or crown, and so sing praises unto God, when they receive the Eucharist; both overturn the very name, & essence of their Quires, which anciently did Compass, & surround their Altars, as these authors testify. And not they only, but others long before them witness, that of the ancient Poet Virgil, very pregnant to this purpose, which may serve as a Commentary on the former Etymology, or definition of a Quire. o Aen●id. l. 4. Instauratque CHOROS, Mystic ALTARIA CIRCUM Cretesque, Dryopesque fremunt pictique Agathyrsi, etc. p Aen●id. l. 8. Dona ferunt, cumulantque oneratis lancibus ARAS, Tamburlaine Salijad Cantus, Incensa Altaria Circum, Populeis ad sunt Evincti tempora ramis, Hicjuvenum CHORUS, ille senum, qui carmine laudes, Herculeas, & facta ferunt etc. Which may be thus Englished: Promiscuous Quires about the Altars round, Creets, Epire's, Scythians, squeaking-notes resound, etc. In Chargers to the Altars, gifts they bring, The prancing Priests, 'bout burning Altars sing, Their brows with boughs & poplar-garlands dressed, A Choir of youngemen, Old-men ready pressed, Hercules fame and sactes to chant, etc. Which q Genialium dyer's l 4. c. 17. f. 226. 227. Alexander ab Alexandro thus seconds. It was (saith he) a usual Custom, ut sacrificantes ARAS CIRCUMCURRERENT, that those who sacrificed should run round about the Altars, beginning their course from the left hand to the right, which they thought more Religious, and anon from the right hand to the left. Those who sacrificed, as they were eating, used to sing praises to the Gods; CIRCUM ARAS psallere as mnnerum, to sing by measure about the Altars, to sing songs, and verses, and playing on cimbals, CHOROS agitare, to make Quires, or Dances. r Ibidem see Herodian, Zonaras, Lampridius, and Grimston in his life. It is recorded of Antoninus Caesar, that when he sacrificed to the God Heliogabalus, he brought thither Phaenicean-weomen; quae in orbem cursitarent cymbalaque & organa Musica CIRCUM ARAS psallerent, who might run round in a Circle, and play upon Cymbals, & Organs ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS, And that this singinge and dancing about Altars was usual among the ancient heathens, appears by Plato legum Dialog. 7. Strabo Geogr. lib. 10. Euripides Bacchaes Caelius, Rhodiginus Antiq. lect. l. 5. c. 3. Athenaeus dipnosoph. l. 14. c. 11. 12. Bulengerus de Theatro lib. 1. c. 52. an ll. 2. c. 12. to 17. with others, there cited Answerable to which s Deipnosoph l 13. c. 1. Athenaeus records out of Clearchus Solensis, that the Lacedæmonians those whoe had no wives, the women at a certain Feast drawing them ROUND ABOUT THE ALTARS buffeted them with their fists, that avoydinge this contumely they might be taken with the love of children, and take them wives at a fit age. And t Genialium dierum l. 4. c. 17. Alexaunder of Alexandro, relates out of u Laconica Instit. Plutarch and x Lacedaemon. Respublica. Xen●phon, that it was a custom among the Lacedæmonians to whip their youths which exceeded 14. years of age ROUND ABOUT THEIR ALTARS. A pregnant Evidence, that their Altars then stood in the midst of their Quires & Temples, not at the East end of them against a wall. Our Popish Novellers therefore who have newly removed their Altars, & Communion Tables to the East end of their Quires close to the wall, must either bring them down again into the midst of the Choir, to preserve both the name, use and essence of their Quires, or else disclaim their Quires, & christian them with some other name: By all this as also by the * Page 30. Coal from the Altars confession, it is most apparent, that both the Jews, and Gentiles Altars, stood not at the East end of their Temples, Quires, Chauncells, nor yet against a wall, but about the midst of their Temples, or Courts at least wise in such sort, that men might stand, and freely walk round about them. O●r superstitious Innovators therefore, who will needs turn, (1. Cor. 9 13. 14. c. 10. 18. 19 20. H●br. 7. 11. 12. 13. 14.) Jews, or Gentiles, or both, in erecting Altars, must likewise imitate them in the situation of their Altars, or else reject their Altars, as well as their manner of situation in the midst, which they refuse to follow. For the third, how the Jews Tables, & the Table at which our Saviour instituted the Sacrament were situated? It is apparent, that they were so placed, as that they usually sat round about them, This is evident by the 1. Sam. 16. 11. where Samuel said to Jesse, send and fetch David, for we will not sit ROUND till he come hither (so the Hebrew, and Margin read it) and by Psalm. 128. ●. Thy children shallbe like Olive plants ROUND ABOUT THY TABLE. Our Saviour and his Disciples at the Institution of the Lords supper sat round about the Table, after the Jewish Custom, as is evident by Matthew 9 10 c. 26. 20. 26. 27. Mar. 14. 18. 19 20. c. 16. 14. Luke 7. 37. 49. c. 11. 39 c. 22. 14. 27. 30. c. 24. 30. John 13. 12. 18. 23. 1. Cor. 10. 1●. 21. c. 11. 20. etc. compared with the two former texts. Hence Thomas Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 3. c. 2. p. 114. 115. writes thus: In the days of our Saviour it is apparent, that the gesture of the Jews was such as the Romans used. The Table BEING PLACED IN THE MIDST ROUND ABOUT THE TABLE Were certain beds, some times two, some times three, some times more, according to the number of the guests, upon these they lay down in manner as followeth: each bed contained 3. persons, some times. 4. seldom, or never more. If one lay upon the bed, than he rested the upper part of his body on the left elbow, the lower part lying at length upon the bed, but if many lay upon the bed, than the uppermost did lie at the beds head, laying his feet behind the seconds back, in like manner. The third or fourth did lie, each resting his head in the others bosom: Thus John leaned on Jesus bosom. john 13. 23. Their Tables were perfectly circular or round, whence their manner of sitting was termed Mesibah, a sitting ROUND, and their phrase of invitinge their guests to sit down was, sit ROUND. 1. Sam. 10. 11. Psal. 128. 3. Thus he, with whom all the Rabines, and Commentators on these texts accord. So among the Romans, the Tables were placed, and the guests sat down in the self same manner as they did among the jews, as Godwyn in his Roman antiquities l. 2. sect. 3. c. 14. Records, yea among z See Gu●●el. Stuckius: Anti. Convivali● passim. most Nations in all their Feasts, their Tables at which they sat down to eat or drink, were ever placed in such sort, and with such a distance from the wall, that the guests sat round about them: And so are all the Tables placed here in England, none ever seeing a dyninge-Table placed like a sidetable against a wall, in such sort as our Communion Tables are now situated in many places. If then all Tables at which men eat, & drink, have ever both among the jews, & Romans, our own, all other Nations, been placed in the midst of the room, or in such sort that men might sit round about them: Why should not then the Lords Table (especially when we eat, and drink the Lords supper) be placed in the midst of the Church, or Chancel in such sort, that all the people may sit or kneel round, and eat, and drink about it, since Christ himself, & his Apostles when he instituted this Sacrament had their Table thus situated, and sat round it, as all acknowledge? Is not that order best which all Nations, ages, yea Christ himself, & his Apostles used? And are not those both factious, & obstinately schismatical who contrary to the usage of all Nations, ages, & our Saviour's own example, will place the Lords Table Altarwise, like a dresser, or side Table, against the East wall of the Church, as far of as may be from the people, that so none may sit, & receive near it, much less round about it, & that without all Reason, sense, or precedent? undoubtedly they are, yet such is the sottishness, pride, & superstitious wilfulness of many of our domineeringe Prelates, whose will is their only reason, Religion, Law, that they will be wiser than Christ, than his Apostles, than all the world beside, & no place seems so fitting to them for the Communion Tables situation, as that which is most unfit, the East end of the Chancel wall, against which one side of it must lean, for fear of falling, & is there imprisoned, impounded with rails & bars, for fear of running away. O Madness o folly whether are these men's wits, & senses fled, who are thus so strangely * Acts 26. 24. fantic out of their overmuch learning? For the 4. How Communion Tables (some times termed Altars improperly) were placed in the Primitive Church? The forementioned passages of Eusebius, Augustine, the 5. Council of Constantinople, Bishop Jewel, & others assure us, that they were placed in the midst of the Church, or Choir, not at the East end against the wall, as they are now: To these I shall add, That a Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22. Socrates Scholasticus, and b Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34. Nicephorus record, That in the Church of Antioch in Syria, the Altar stood not to the East, but towards the West. c De Rebu● Eccl. 〈◊〉 ●●st. l. 4. c. 19 Walafridus Strabus records the same in express words, & further informs us, that many did pray from the East to the West. And that the Jews where ever they were, usually prayed * Se 2. Chr 6 20. 21. 34 38. Ps. 138. 2. d Dan. 6. 10. towards the Temple at Jerusalem; (as Daniel did in great Babel, which stood East from Jerusalem, as Esay 43. 5. jer. 49. 28. Dan. 11. 44. Zach. 8. 7. Math. 2. 1. 2. and all Maps witness, So that Daniel praying towards, it, turned his face directly West, not East; as our Novellers dotingly fancy, who allege his example, for turning their faces in prayer, the building of chancels, Chappells, Churches, Altars, placing Communion Tables, and bowing, toward the East, when as he prayed Westward only, and his example is quite opposite, and point blank against them; and their superstitious. * Pope Vigilius was the first who ordained that those who said Mass, should torn their haces towards the East; D. Barnes & john Bale in the life of Vigil. easterly adoration, derived from Necromancers, and those heathen Idolaters, Ezech. 8. 16. who worship the rising sun, toward the East, as D. Willet Synopsis papismi. contr. 9 qu. 6. Error. 52. proves against the Papists.) And from thence Walafridus thus concludes: We being instructed by these examples, know, that those have not erred, neither do they err, who either in Temples newly built to God, or cleansed from the filthiness of Idols, have set their Altars towards diverse climates, according to the opportunity of the places; because there is no place where God is not present: for we have learned by most true relation, that in the Church of jerusalem, which Constant●ne & his mother built over the Sepulchre of our Lord, of a wonderful greatness, in a round form; in the Temple of Rome anciently called Pantheon, consecrated by Boniface, by Phocas the Emperor's permission, to the honour of all Sancts, & in the Church of S. Peter the Chief of the Apostles, Altars have been placed, not only towards the East, but likewise distributed into other parts, and quarters of the Church. These since they were so placed either unpossibly, or by necessity, we dare not disapprove. Let every man abound in his own sense, The Lord is high to all those who call upon him in truth, and salvation is far from sinners. Let us draw near to us: Thus he. Gregory Nazianzen in his 21. Oration. p. 399. declaiming against the unworthy Bishops and Ministers of his age, saith thus: They intrude themselves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and minds, as they say, and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary itself, and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur & protenduntur, and are pressed & thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE (not Altar) esteeming this order, not an example of virtue but a maintenance & help of life; A clear evidence that the Communion Table was then so situated, that the Ministers might go and stand round about it. d Tom. 1. Col. 1281. S. Chrysostome in his first Homily upon Esay. 6. 1. I saw the Lord sitting etc. hath this passage concerning the Lord's Table? dost thou not think that the Angels stand ROUND ABOUT THIS DREADFUL TABLE, AND COMPASS IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence? A clear Evidence, that the Table was so placed in Churches in his age, that men, and Angels might stand round about, and Compass it on every part. To wit, in the midst of the Church or Choir, as e De verbis Dom. secund. loan. Serm. 42. S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plain words. where no doubt it always stood (as the learned * Relics of Rome chap. of Church Goods fol. 322. vol. 3 Thomas Verow testifieth) till private Popish Masses (wherein the Priest only receiveth) removed it to the East end of the Choir or Chancel near the wall, as remote, as might be from the people. If any object, (as the late * Coal from the Altar. p. 56 57 objection. Coal from the Altar doth) that f Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22. Socrates Scholasticus, and Nicephorus write: That in most Churches in their times the Altar was usually placed toward the East. I answer: First, that before their days in Eusebius, Chrysostom's, Augustine's, & the Emperor Zeno his time, it stood in the midst of the Church, or Choir, and so it did in Durandus his age, 1320. years after Christ, g Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34. and in the Greek Churches anciently and at this day, as Bishop Jewel hath formerly proved. 2. Neither of these two Authors affirm, that the Altar, or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Choir close against the wall, as now they are placed, the thing to be proved; but only toward the East part of the Church, ad Orientem versus, saith Nicephorus: that is, nearer to the East then to the West end of the Church; to wit, in the midst of the Chancel, or Choir (which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then, as our Chauncells, & Quires are now, though not in all;) as is evident by the forequoted authorities: So as the argument hence deduced, can be but this non sequitur, Altars in their days stood usually toward the East end of the Churches, (to wit in the midst of the Quires, & Chauncells which stood Easterly, as our Communion Tables stood till now of late,) Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancel, as some Novellers now place them; whereas the argument hold good the contrary way: They were placed toward the East end of the Church, therefore not in the very East end Altarwise: since toward the East, is one thing, and in the East another, as toward London in case of situation, or travel) is one thing, in London another, That which is toward London, being not in it, as he who is toward Marriage, is not yet actually married. We read of Daniel, that he prayed toward Jerusalem, Dan. 6. 10. yet he was then in Babble, many miles from it. We read likewise of certain i Ezech. 16 17. Idolaters, (and of no others but them in Scripture, for the Jews usually prayed Westward, the Tabernacle, and Temple being so situated) who had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the East, & worshipped the sun towards the East; yet they s●ood not in the East end, but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the door of the Temple between the porch, k Exo. 26. 27. Ezech. 8. 16. 17. Godwins, Moses, & Aron l. 2. c. 1. D. Willet Synopsis Papismi. Contr. 9 q. 6. Error 52. 53. and the Altar, which stood West, not East ward; yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference between, toward the East, and in the East. Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authority therefore makes against, not for our Innovators; who can produce no one authentic writer, testimony or example, for above a thousand years after Christ, to prove, that Altars, or Lords Tables stood or were situated Altarwise against the East wall of the Choir, in such manner as now they place them; there being many pregnant testimonies to the contrary, that they stood in the midst of the Choir, Church, or Chancel, where now they ought to stand, as they did in former ages. I come now to the 5. thing, to examine, what place is most proper, and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table, especially when the Sacrament is administered? No doubt the midst of the Church, or Chancel, (not the East end of it, where it is newly placed) as the Rubric of the Communion book, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the 82. Canon, the forecited Fathers, and writers resolve in express terms; and that for those ensuing reasons, which under correction cannot be answered. First, because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament, was placed in the midst of the room, he and his Disciples sitting then round about it, and so administering, and receivinge it, as the premises manifest. Now we ought to imitate our Saviour's institution, and example as near as may be, 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament, but likewise in all decent, and convenient Circumstances, whereof the situation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one: Among the 6. reasons, why the Lords board should rather be after the form of a table then of an Altar, published by King Edward the 6. and his Council, this was the 5. and Chiefest. m Fox Acts and monum. p. 1211. Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table, not at an Altar; wherefore seeing the form of a Table is more agreeable with Christ's institution then the form of an Altar, therefore the form of a Table is rather to be used then the form of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion. The same argument holds as firm in the situation of the Table; The placing of it in the midst of the Church or Chancel is more agreeable with Christ's institution then the standing of it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Choir, Therefore this situation of it is rather to be used then the other. 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles, Fathers, and primitive Church in the purest times, as I have already manifested, & of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas, 3. Because it is most consonant to the book of Common prayer, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the Bishops own Canons, and the judgement of our best writers. 4. Because it is the most usual and proper situation of tables among all Nations in all ages both a broad & at home, who place their Tables at which they eat, and drink, in the midst of their dyninge rooms, at least wise in such sort that men may sit, or stand round about them, The Lords Table therefore being a table to eat, and drink at, 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion itself usually termed both in Scripture, & all sortt of writers from the Apostles days till now, the Lords supper; ●. Co●. 11. 20. this situation of it must be fittest, & decentest, which is Common to all suppinge tables, & doth best express, & resemble the nature of a supper, by standing in the midst of the Communicants; and their sitting, standing, or kneeling round about it altogether (not by several files, and turns,) like so many bidden-guests. Whereas the placing of it Altarwise, like a Dresser, or sideCubberd, not a Table; & the causinge of men to come up to the rail by several files; and there to receive by turns, kneeling, doth neither express the one to be the Lords table, nor the other to be the Lords supper. 5. Because this situation of the table in the midst will o Fox Acts & monuments p. 1211. more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Mass, Altars, Priests, sacrifices, and private Masses, where the Priest alone Communicates, & draw them up to the right use of the Lords supper. Whereas the placing of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chancel, now urged is nothing else, but to usher Altars; Priests, public, and private Masses, adoration of Altars, and the Hostia, transubstantiation, and the whole body of Popery into our Church again, as the Papists themselves do every where crack, & vaunt, and all who are not wilfully blinded may at first view discern by woeful experience. This form of scituatinge the Lords Table, and administering the Sacrament, was used in the primitive Church, till * M. Thomas Vegon Reliq. of Rome: ch. of Church Goods: s. 322. Popery, & private Masses, thrust it out. When Popery, Masses, Mass Priests, Transubstantiation, Altars, adoration of the Hostia, & other Popish trash were abolished, this p Fox Acts & monu. p. 1404. 1406. & the foregoing testimonies. situation of it was again revived as a Sovereign Antidote against these popish innovations, and so hath continued eversince. The altering therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things again, & so ought with all diligence, and courage to be with stood. 6. Because this situation is most q 1. Cor. 15. 40. orderly, and decent, and that in 5. regards. First, Because the Minister thereby may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer, his administration, and Consecration, which many cannot hear when the table stands at the furthest end of the Choir, or Chancel in most great Churches, and parishes. 2. Because there the Commmunicants also may more conveniently, and in greater number communicate with the Minister, than they can do when the Table stands at the end of the Choir or Chancel, as remote as may be from the people: Both these reasons are rendered in the Common prayer book, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 82. Canon, neither can they be gain said. 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst may * B. Hooper Sermon 4. on jonas. more easily see the Minister when, and how he consecrates the Sacrament, then when he is more remote, and may the better make their Confession to Almighty God, and say Amen to every prayer, as they are r In the Communion & Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8 Can. 18. enjoined. 4. Becanse it is less troublesome to the Minister to distribute, and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table. 5. When the Table stands in the midst, all the Communicants may receive together in the seats next adjoining to the table without any disturbance, disorder, noise, or stir, as they are s And in the Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8. Can. 18 Gratian. de Consec. Dist. 1. expressly Commanded to do. 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end, c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this new d●vise of setting the Table at the East end of the Chancel against the wall, and causing the Communicants to come up in several disorderly ranks and squadrons to the rail, and there to receive, divides the Communion, Communicants, and Congregation, making so many Communions, and Congregations as there are Companies; breeds a Confusion, disorder, disturbance, noise, distraction, and oft times a Contention in the Church, in causing the people to march up and down, some one way, and some another, to contend who shall first receive, or take the uppermost place, to crowd, thrust, and hinder on the other in passing to and fro, drives many from the Sacrament who would else receive it, breeds many quarrels, factions, schisms, and divisions between the Minister & the people, hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations, prayers, reverence, devotion, attention, singinge; enforceth the people who are old, blind, lame, sick, impotent to march up to the Minister to receive, who should rather come to them; inverts the practice & Custom of our Church ever since reformation, lengthens the administration, and puts all into a Combustion, yea into Confusion, causing many to turn Papists and Separatists. 7. The Lord's Supper is called of us in our Lethargy Homiles & Articles, THE COMMUNION, & his Table the COMMUNION TABLE: Now that which is thus common aught to be placed IN THE MIDST of the people, & in a Common, not a peculiar place as the Latin phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM, or COLLOCATUM, ever used to express a thing that is Common; & the Scriptures quoted in the next ensuing reason evidence. Whereas the placing of the Table so far from the people, the railing of it in that so none, but the Minister may have access unto it, destroys both the Communion & Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister, and sequestering it from the people. 8. The Communion Table ought to be placed in the midst of the Church, and Congregation, because that is the place wherein God & Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence, as the ensuing Scriptures evidence, not at the East end of the Church or Chancel as our Novellers fond dream, & Magisterially determine. Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is said to be in the MIDST of his holy place, and City. Psal. 48. 9 We have thought of thy loving kindness oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple. Jer. 14. 9 yet thou o Lord art in the MIDST of us, and we are called by thy name. Hosea 11. 9 I am God, and not man, the holy one in the MIDST of thee. Joell 2. 27. ye shall know that I am in the MIDST of Israel. Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. ye have polluted the Sanctuary, the Lord is in the MIDST thereof. The King of Israel, even the midst of thee. The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mighty. Zech. 2. 5. For I saith the Lord will be the glory in the MIDST of her. Math. 18. 2●. Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the MIDST of them. Luke 2. 46. Christ's Parents found him in the Temple sitting in the MIDST of the Doctors. John 20. 19 when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples, after his resurrection, he came and stood in the MIDST of them, and said, Peace be unto you. Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The son of man is said to be, & to walk in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks, which are there interpreted, to be the 7. Churches. Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lamb is said to stand in the MIDST of the Throne, and in the MIDST of the Elders. So Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burning bush, a type of the Church. So he spoke to Moses out of the MIDST of the Cloud. Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites, that he dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb. 5. 3. The Lord spoke unto you out of the MIDST of the fire. Deve. 4. 12. And they heard his voice out of the MIDST of darkness, and of fire too. Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay. c. 12. v. 6. writes thus, Cry out, and shout thou Inhabitant of Zion, for great is the holy one of Israel in the MIDST of thee. By all which texts it is evident, That God and Christ are said to be principally present in the MIDST of the Temple, congregation, people; whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that saith, they are specially present at the Temple, Congregation, people, The Communion Table therefore being Christ mercy seat, the place of our Saviour's special presence upon Earth, and his Chair of Estate (as Giles Widows, Shelford, Reeves, & other Novellers dogmatise) ought to be placed in the midst of the people, Church, and Congregation, where these Scriptures jointly affirm, that God, and Christ are more immediately, & specially present, if they be more in one place of the Church and Temple, than another, as they say he is. 9 Add to this that the Apostle saith, Our bodies are the Temples of Christ, and the holy Ghost. 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where do both of them principally dwell with in these Temples, but in the heart (seated in the midst of the body.) Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also do they principally dwell, and manifest themselves in the midst of our Material Temples and Congregations: Therefore for this and the precedent, reasons, our Communion Tables ought to be situated in the midst of our Churches or Quires, as they have been in ancient times, where our Injunctions, Canons, writers, Communion book, and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirming the same, prescribe, that they should stand, at least wise when the Sacrament is administered. 10. The Altar of Incense, and the showbread table stood not in the Choir, or Sanctum Sanctorum, but in the midst of the Sanctuary or body of the Temple, as the premises Evidence, and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records. Now these being in some sort tips of the Communion Tible, intimate, (which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them) that it should be situated in such manner as these were. Having thus produced these unanswearable reasons; for the placing of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancel, specially at the Sacraments administration. I come now in the 6. place, to examine those reasons which are, or can be alleged by our Novellers, for placing Communion Tables, Altarwise against the East end, wall, of the Choir of Chancel. The first reason alleged by them is this; The high Altar or Lords Table (saith doting M. Robert Shelford * He might have added Mass or Popish Priest. Priest in his Sermon of God's house, Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18.) usually standeth at the East end of God's house, Idque propter Christum etc. and that because of Christ whe● is called the light of the world, and ORIENS, to with the branch. Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East. Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument, is this, Christ is called the light of the world, the BRANCH, and as some men think shall come to judgement from the East. Therefore the Communion Table & high Altar ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church. What frentique Bedlam logic, & divinity is this? what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation? Is not this far worse than that of t Rationale divin. l. 4. See B. jewels Reply to Harding Article 3. divi. 26. p. 145. & fo D. Pockl. arg. Sundno Sabbath p. 43. 44. Durandus, & other Papists, Christ is called a Rock, and a Corner stone. 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must be made only of stone; To whicht I might vetor● from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is called the branch; Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to be made only of wood, not stone (Christ being else where called a u john 15. 1. 2. 4. 5. Rom. 11. 16. 17. 18 Rev. 2. 7. c. 22. 2. vine, Tree of life etc. & more probable inference than this M. Shelford deduceth from it. Therefore high Altars, and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church, since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood, not stone, (as x Reply to harding Art. 3. div. 26. p. 145. defence of the ● Apol. parte 2. ch. 1. div● 3. p. 315. 316. Bishop Jewel, and y Notes on Exod. 20. & 27. p. 279. 307. Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine, Optatus, Chrysostome, Athanasius, and others) as our Communion Tables are, and aught to be, by the direct prescript of the book of Common prayer (which calls it God's BOARD) the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions at the end, King Edward the 6. and his Privy Councils letter, and 6. reasons. Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parker's visitation Articles. Art. 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament: on Math. 23. sect. 7. on Heb. 13. sect. 6. on Apoc. 6. sect. 2. Answer to Martin c. 17. sect. 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478 to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeal l. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi, the 9 general Controversy qu. 6. part. 2. Error 55. p. 498. * Defence of the Apo. part. 2. c. 1 divis. 3. p. 315. reply to Hardin. art. 3. div. 26. p. 145. Bishop Jewel, and * Notes on Exo. c. 20. & 27. p. ●79. 307. Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin. Bishop Farrar, Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404: 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination. Fox ibidem. p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his friends in general. Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turn them now adays into Altars made of stone. But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument. First he saith, Christ is the light of the world. Ergo. Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise at the East end of the Church. This certainly is but a mad Consequence. For first, Christ is no Corporal, or natural, but a spiritual and supernatural light, enlightninge men's understandings, only by the light of his word, his grace, and spirit, John 1. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9 Heb. 6. 8. Eph. 1. 18. Psal. 19 8. not their corporal eyes. 2. He is an universal light in this respect. John 1. 8. 9 not situated or fixed in the East, but diffused over the whole worlds as far as his Church is spread, 3. The place where this light is ordinarily dispensed in the reading & preaching of his word, is not the Communion Table, o● Altar, but the Pulpit, & reading desk, standing for the most part about the midst of our Churches, not at the East but West end of our chancels. 4. There is no Analogy between the Communion Table and light, unless in respect of those Candlesticks, & unburninge tapers which some Popish Novellers' place for a double show upon it, contrary to the * Homely against the peril of Id●lat. par. 3. p. 50. 51 52. 75. Queen Elizabets' Injunct. n. 23. art. of Ireland 52. Homilies, & Articles which expressly condemn them. 5. Light is of a diffusive nature, spreading itself into every quarter-indifferently, & torches, or Candles that give light are Commonly placed in the midst, Math. 5. 15. not at the East end of the room or Table, that they may give light to all that are in the house. Witness the great Lamp in the midst of Paul's Choir, or great branched Candlesticks, in the midst of our Churches, & that of the Apostle. Phil. 2. 15. Among whom ye shine as lights of the world in the MIDST of a crooked and perverse Nation. The Candlesticks & Lamps among the Jews were placed not in the East, but Southside of the Tabernacle. Exod. 40. 24. 25. In the Temple the Candlesticks that were placed. 5. on the Northside, 5. on the South. 2. Chron. 4. 7. but none in the East end: So that from these particulars it appears, that there is no Analogy between light and the Covimunion Table, & that if any argument may be thence deduced for its situation, it will be but this, That it ought to stand in the midst, or in the South, or Northside of the Church, because the Lamps, lights, Candlesticks were & are so placed in the Tabernacle, Temple, and most of our Churches, and Christ is said to be, and walk in the midst of the golden Candlesticks. Rev. ●. 13. 20. c. 2. 2. For the second branch of this argument, Christ is a branch. (for so Oriens is used, Zeph. 6, 12. the place he quotes) Ergo the Lords Table ought to stand at the East end of the Church. As it is a ridiculous Inconsequent (fit for a Cambridge Ignoramus, (where this good Logical argument, with many such like, was printed) so there is little Analoges between branches & Lords Tables, unless in regard of matter. For First, Trees and branches grow not in Churches, or Temples. 2. They springe up, & are planted as well West, North, and South as East, & are Commonly planted with us West, & South, to avoid the East, & North blasting winds. 3. Christ is a branch, yea a tree of life seituated not in the East but in the midst of the Paradise of God. Rev. 2. 7. of which the tree of knowledge of good, and evil in the midst of Paradise. Gen. 2. 9 c. 3. 3. was but a type: This allusion therefore, as it is impertinent, (there being no similitude between the Lord's Table, & a branch,) so ● proves, that the Communion Table should be placed in the midst of the Church, because Christ the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge (typifyinge him) were planted in the midst of Paradise, a type of the Church. For the third, That Christ shall come out of the East, Ergo, the Communion Table ought to stand in the East end of the Church; As this argument is taken out of Bellarmine l. 3. de Sanctis c. 3. (who useth it to justify, and prove that we ought to pray, and build our Churches towards the East,) and well answered and refuted by Doctor t Synopsis Papism● the 9 gen. Contr. qu. 6. Error 52 53. Willet in the name of the Protestants, who condemn this superstition, which many now plead for: So it is built upon a false foundation. For first no Scripture saith, That Christ shall come to judgement from the East: but that he shall come in the Clouds, Rev. 1. 7. Math. 24. 30. and so come again as he ascended: Acts 1. 11. But he ascended upright in a cloud, into heaven, not East ward. Acts 1. 9 10. 11. Luke 24. 51. Mark 16. 19 Therefore he shall so descend; Heaven being neither East, West, North or South in regard of the Earth its Centre, but diametrally about it, And so Christ's descent from it must be such. 1. Thess. 4. 16. 2. That text of Math. 24. 27. (As the lightning cometh out of the East; and shineth Even unto the West, so shall the coming of the son of man be:) as all Orthodox divines generally accord, relates only to the celeri●ie, sodainenes and terribleness of Christ's coming to judgement (which shall be as swift, as sudden, and terrible as lightning. 1. Cor. 15. 52. 1. Thess. 4. 16. c. 5. 2. 3. 2. Thess. 1. 7. 8. 9 10. Rev. 6. 12. to the end. Luke 21. 34. 35. Mark 13. 32. to 37. which thus explain it;) not to that part of heaven from whence he shall descend; which if it be East in respect of one part of the world, must yet be West, North & South, as to other parts, in relation to that Climate or Country to which he shall descend: the world being plainly Circular, & globall, having no angles nor squares, & so no East, West, North, or South if simply considered in itself. 3. Admit that Christ should come to judgement out of the East in respect of England, and these parts of the world; yet this is no Reason to prove, that our Communion Tables should be placed at the East end, of our Chauncells Altarwise, (for then no doubt the primitive Christians would have so placed it, & not in the midst of their Churches. For First, the Lords Table serves only for the administration of the Sacrament instituted, to show forth Christ's till he come, 1. Cor. 25. 26. not to demonstrate the manner of his second coming to judgement, to which the Table hath no relation. Christ's second coming therefore having no reference to the Communion Table, nor the Table to it, can be no argument for its easterly scitnation. 2. The Apostle in the 1. Cor. 11. in all matters & Circumstances concerning the administration of the Sacrament, sends us only to Christ's original institution, not to his second Coming, But the Table at which he instituted the Sacrament stood in the midst, as I have proved, Therefore our Communion Tables, should so stand now, let Christ's come to judgement which way he please. 3. Christ's gives us this charge by his Apostles, do all things decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 11. 33. 34. c. 13. 40. never sending us to take a pattern from the manner of his second Coming, which is left arbitrary to himself and his Father's pleasure, Acts 1. 7. Math. 24. 36. not prescribed as a pattorne of imi tation unto us: But the standing of the Table in the midst in Christ, the primitive, and all reformed Churches judgements, is most decent, and Convenient, therefore it is to be observed, and retained of us. The second reason alleged by our Novellers for their new dislocation of Communion Tables, is this: The Communion Tables ought to be placed at the East end of the Chancel, because it is Christ's mercy seat, his claire of Estate, and the special place of his presence here on Earth, on which he sits, and resides, and the East end of the Chancel or Choir is the upper, the best part, the prime place of honour in the Church, and therefore no seats ought to be there suffered, and the Altar, the Communion Table must be there seated that so none may take the wall of Christ, 〈◊〉 sit above him and God Almighty. This reason hath been often alleged by our * In M. Chancies & M. Wards case, & others. Archbishops, Bishops, and others in the high-Commission, and urged by l I Schismatical Puritan p. ●… Giles Widows, m Sermon of God's house. M. Shelford, n Exposition of the Catech. in the Common prayer book near the end. Coal from the Altar. p. 52. Reeve, & other fantastic Scribblers in their ridiculous frantic novel Pamphlets which no man may have liberty freely to write or preach against, though never so erroneous, superstitious, Popish, and absurd. To this I answer. First, that the mercy-seat was Jewish, tipical, & abolished by Christ's death, of whom it was a type. Rom. 3. 25. 1. John 2. 2. Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 9 1. to 12. and all Commentators on these textt, & on Exod. c. 25. and 26. and 30. and 31. and 37. and 39 and 40. Godwins' Roman Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. Therefore is not, it cannot be a mercy seat. 2. The mercy seat was nothing else but the Coveringe of the Ark, so called, because it Covered, and hid the Law, it was made of pure gold, two cubits, and an half broad with two Cherubims of gold of beaten work in the two ends of the mercy seat, and it was put above upon the Ark. Exod. 25. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. c. 26. 34. c. 30. 6. c. 31. 7. c. 37. 6. to 10. c. 40. 20. Leu. 16. 13. 14. 15. Num. 7. 8. 9 Our Communion Tables are not such for matter, form, workemanshipp, situation, neither is there any Ark upon the top whereof they may be sat, & if you will make the Choir resemble the Ark, you must then place them upon the roof and leds of our Quires, therefore they are not mercy seats. 3. God did only dispense his word and Oracles, and all things which he gave Commandment to the Children of Israel from between the two Cherubims, and the mercy seat. Exod. 25. 22. and the forequoted texts. The pulpit therefore in this regard & of it elevation above the pews, & people should rather be Christ's mercy seat, than the Communion Table, where Christ only distributed his body and blood unto us, not his word, and precepts. 4. o Godwyn ibid. l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. The Ark and mercy seat stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum at the West end of the Temple, not the East. Heb. 9 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 whether none but the high Priest might enter, and that but once a year not without blood. If therefore the Communion Table be a mercy seat, it must stand in the West end of our Churches upon the top of the Ark in a Sanctrum Sanctorum, as it did, neither aught any Bishop or Priest to come near it, but the high Priest only, (to with the Archbishop of Canterbury Private of all Engiand) and that once a year, and no more, with bloody sacrifices. 5. There was but * Godwyn ibidein. one mercy seat standing only in the Temple, not in the Synagogues over the Ark, which was but one. If therefore the Lords Table be a mercy seat, there should be but one in all the world. This first reason therefore is but a jewish frenticke dream. 6. The paten which contains the Consecrated bread, and the Chalice, which hold the hallowed wine, & stand upon the Table, as the mercy seat did upon the Ark being made of silver in most, & of gold in some places, should rather be Christ's mercy seat then the Table itself, yet no men bow, or cringe to them, or plead for their honour, and precedently, though more worthy in respect of matter, use, & immediate containing of the material parts of the Sacrament, than the Table. 2. I answer, That the Communion Table is not Christ's Chair of Estate, as these Novellers dogmatise. For heaven only is Christ's Throne, Earth but his foot stool. Gen. 4. 2. Psal. 103. 11. Psal. 110. 1. Heb. 1. 13. c. 8. 1. c. 10. 12. 13. Rom. 8. 34. Psal. 11. 4. Isay 66. 1. Matth. 5. 34. Acts. 7. 49. And it is the express resolution of the Scripture, and the Article of our Creed, that Christ in his humane nature hath his Throne, and mercy seat only at his Fathers own right hand in heaven, where he sits in Majesty and glory, making perpetual intercession for us; and shall there constantly reside until his second coming to judgement, Acts 1. 11. c. 3. 21. Hebr. 9 28. how then the Communion Table can be his chair of State, and chief place of his presence, I cannot conjecture. 2. Christ in the Sacrament exhibits himself not in his State & glory to us, but in the very depth of his passion & humiliation, the Sacrament being instituted, not to manifest his exaltation and glory, but to express unto us the breaking of God's body & effusion of his blood on the Cross, & to show forth his death till his coming. 1. Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26. Math. 26. 28. Luke 22. 19 20. How therefore this place, Phil. 2. 7. 8. and Emblem of his greatest debasement, can be colourobly styled, his chair of State and Majesty, I cannot comprehend. 3. Who ever heard a Table to eat & drink at, tearmeds chare of State, either in respect of the meat, or guests? or how can it be so termed without gross absurdity, especially when the party there present on it, is exposed to us only as spiritual meat and drink, to be received by us, not adored of us. 1. Cor. 10. 3. 4. 16. 17. 21. c. 11. 21. to 30. John 6. 48. to 59 4. If any thing may be there termed Christ's Chair of Estate, it should be the Plater & Chalice, wherein the bread & wine are immediately comprised, not the Table whereon they stand, which is rather a footstool to support Christ's Chair, than the Chair wherein he sits in State; the bread & wine not so much as touching the Table. 5. Why should the Lord's Table be Christ's mercy seat or Chair of State, rather than the Font, the Pulpit, or Church Bible? Is not Christ as really & spiritually present in the one as the other, by his mercy, grace, & spirit? and is not Baptism, & the word as necessary as the Lords supper? Math. 28. 19 20. Mar. 16. 15. 16. yea● more needful, and absolutely necessaries since men may be saved without receivinge the Sacrament of the Lords supper, but not without Baptism, & the word read, and preached, as many teach. 6. To make the Communion Table Christ's mercy seat, Chair of Estate, and place of his special presence, if it be meant of his spiritual presence only, is a falsehood; since he is always equally present in this manner in all his ordinances to the end of the world. Math. 28. 19 20. If of his Corporal presence, which is only now in heaven, Acts 3. 21. Hebr. 9 28. John 14. 2. 3. 28. c. 16. 7. 16. 17. 19 21. (the thing they intent) than it smells of rank Popo●se, intimatinge a transubstantiation of the bread & wine into Christ's very body & blood, a notorious Popish absurdity, long a Artic. 28 since exploded by our Church, & drowned in b Fox Acts & monuments the later part. our Martyr's blood: who oppugned it to the death. 3. Admit, that the Communion Table were Christ's mercy seat, & Chair of Estate, (which they take as granted without any Scripture, ground or reason, which I desire them first to prove, before they lay it down an undoubted principle) yet the conclusion will not follow, that therefore is must stand at the East end of the Chancel or Choir Altarwise. For first, the c godwyn's jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. mercy seat stood in the end of the Tabernacle, and Temple upon the top of the Ark, not at the East. Therefore the Table should stand so too were it a mercy seat. 2. Christ's Chair of Estate ought to be seated there where himself hath promised his special presence: But that is not in the East end, but in the midst of the Church and people, Math. 18. 20. as I have formerly proved by sundry Scriptures: Therefore it should be placed in the midst. 4. Whereas these men protend, that the East end of the Chancel or Choir where they now rail in the Table Altarwise, is the highest and most worthy place in the Church; and that no seats must there be suffered, for fear any should take the wall or upper hand of Christ, and sit above him, or checkmate with him in his own Temple. I answer. First, that these are ridiculous Childish fantastic conceits of their own superstitious brains, grounded on no Scripture or solid reason, and so not to be credited. 2. These reasons make Christ ambitious of place & precedency, & corporally present here an Earth, when as he was; & still is lowly & humble, Matth. 11. 29. forbidding men to sit down at any Feast in the uppermost place, but in the lowest, and pronouncing an woe against the pharisees for loving the uppermost seats in Synagogues, and Feasts, Math. 23. 6. Luke 11. 43. therefore were he now on Earth, he would not contend for precedency, and the upper-most place, as these his ambitious-Champions do for him, because they love precedency themselves, much less will he do it now, he hath taken up his seat and throne in heaven, & hath left the Earth altogether in his bodily presence, where these Novellers would feign to be still resident in the Church on the Communion Table, as the Papists say he is upon their Altars, close prisoner in a Pix. 3. It is most false, that the East end of the Choir or Chancel where they now place their Altars and Tables, is the most honourable and prime place of the Church and Choir; For in all cathedrals that I have seen, & in his Majesties, Chappells, the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans Thrones and seats, and the King's Closetts are at the West end of the Choir or Chancel, And the most honourable persons seat, is the West, not the East end of them; the more West any man sits, the higher, the more East the lower, the seats next the West end being reputed the highest and honourablest, the seats next the East, the lowest, for the singinge men and Choristers, & the meaner sort of people. So in Parish Churches, where there are any seats in the Chancel or Choir, the seat at the West end is usually esteemed the worthiest and first seat, and the nearer the East end the meaner, and lower are they reputed. The West end therefore of the Choir and Chancel, as these instances, and experience undeniable manifest, is the chiefest, & the place where the most honourable persons have their seats, & chairs of State. If therefore the Communion Table, or their Altars, be Christ's Chair of State, and that he ought to take precedency and place of all men, than it must be placed in the West end of the Choir in cathedrals, where the Bishop's Throne and seat is situated, and removed to the West end of the Chancel, where the best man of the Parish sits, not thrust down to the East end of the Choir or Chancel against the wall, which is in truth the lowest place by their own practice, and resolution. And here we may behold the desperate sottishness, and frenzy of these Popish Innovators, who under a vain pretence of giving Christ, & the Communion Table the upper hand, that none may sit above them, will needs thrust them into the vary lowest place even in their own practice, judgements, and Common reputation, where servants or the meaner sort of people only sit, (where there are seats or forms) in most Churches, which yet against their own judgements and knowledge, (out of I know not what factious strange superstitions humour) must upon a sudden be Cried up for the most honourable place, by these learned Rabbis. 4. Admit the Communion Table Christ's Chair of Estate and mercy seat; and that it ought to be placed in the best and uppermost place of the Church; yet it is only such, and thus to be situated when the Sacrament is administered: For how is it his Chair of State, his mercy seat, and chiefest place of residence, when there is no Sacramental bread & wine upon it to represent his spiritual presence to us? But when the Sacrament is to be administered, the book of Common prayer, the Queen's Injunctions, Fathers, and forecited Authors inform us, that it must be placed in the body or midst of the Church, or Chancel. Therefore our Novellers must either deny the East end of the Choir to be the most honourable place, or that it was ever so reputed; or else confess the invalidity of this their proposition, That the Table ought to stand in the chief and most honourable place of the Church, unless they will Condemn the Fathers, the primitive, yea our own Church, and all our chief writers of Error in this particular. 5. Admit, that the East end of the Chancel or Choir be the most honourable part of the Church, and that the Table for this reason ought there to be railed in: Why are not the Font and Pulpit there placed and railed in as well as the Table, and the Bible, and reading pew too, Are not the Font, the Pulpit, the Bible as honourable as venerable, as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table, both in respect of matter, use, relation to God and Christ, and divine institution? undoubtedly they are; therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers, Shewbread Tables, and Altar were in Solomon's Temple which stood one by the side of the other. 2. Chron. c. 4. & 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Choir be the most worthy; and fittest for the Tables situation now, why was it not so for the Ark, the Altar, and shewbread Table heretofore? why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple, but in the West; the midst of it, or in the Court, as the premises Manifest? Certainly if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignity, no preheminen●ie or implements in them heretofore by divine appointment, our Novellers can have little reason to plead, that they ought to have any such precedency, honour, or use now. The third reason alleged for the placing of Communion Tables. Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and chancels, is; because they are High Altars: So g Treatise of the Church or God● house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. 19 Saelford, Reeves, and the Coal from the Altar, and Bishop Montague in his least Lent Sermon style them; contrary to the dialect of our Church, after the Popish language; h Exposition of the Catech. in the Communion book toward the end. This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise, to bring in Altars, Priests, bowing to Altars, kneeling, at, and before them, to adore the Hostia (to which we are already proceeded) and in fine, to set up public, and private Masses, yea the whole body of Popery again: For which these are immediate preparatives, of which they are real parts & and adjuncts: This, and this only is the true undoubted cause, i Page 6. 14. 15. 18. 32. 38. to 58. (all others mere idle pretences to delude the people) why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places, & lately railed in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire. And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates, & Churchmen who originally press it, not only the qualities, doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every m●ns Conscience, & experience visibly discerns unless he be strangely hoodwinked, but the things themselves compared with the history of former times declare. For if we look into the story of the Church, we shall find, that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation, was the pullinge down of Altars, and setting up of Communion Tables, and the first thing again acted upon the restitution of popery was the setting up of Altars, & turning Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates do, upon which Masses presently were said: Thus we read: that k Fox Acts & Monu. p 795. in the year of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance, Gene●a, Basill, Stransburge, and other Citties the first thing they did, was this; they proclaimed that Masses, ALTARS, & Images in all places should be abolished, and there upon, the Images and Altars, with Ceremonies, and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all. About l Fox ibid. p. 879. the year of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piedmont being summoned & pressed to forsake God and revolt again to Idolatry, which they had begun to cast of, agreed together to make a solemn protestation, that they would utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope, and live, and die in the maintenance and confession of God's word and truth. Whereupon they said, let us all go to morrow into the Temple to hear the word of God, & after let us cast to the ground all the Idols, and ALTARS; to which they all agreed; saying, let us so do; yea, and that the very same hour in the which they have appointed us to be at the Council house: Whereupon the next day after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body, & as soon as they came into the Temple without any further delay, they beat down the Images, & cast down the ALTARS. After Sermon they went to Billers where they beat down their Images and ALTARS. Our famous King Edward the 6. about the beginning of Reformation in his Reign, gave order to pull down Altars, and set up Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdom, And to the end that all of them might be totally abolished. Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the form of the Lords board, and to procure one Godly uniformity, exhorted all his Diocese, unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture, with the usage of the Apostles, with the primitive Church, and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings, in abolishing of diverse vain, and superstitio●s opinions of the Popish Mass, out of the hearts of the simple, which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the form of an Altar, then of a Table, as the King and Council in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved, and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture, of the Lords Supper; Hereupon (I say) he appointed the form of a right Table to be used in his Diocese, (according to the King & Counsels instructions and consideration) and in the Church of Paul's brake down the wall standing by the High Altars side. And upon this occasion (as it most probable) he wrote his book DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS, of breaking down Altars, registered by Bishop B●le among other his works, though not now extant that I can find. Not long before this, John Hoper Bishop of Gloster, (afterwards a Martyr, as was that worthy Ridley) preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah, printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio, took occasion thus to Censure Altars, and to move the King utterly to demolish them. If question now be asked, is there then no Sacrifice left to be done of Christian people? yea truly, but none other than such, as might be done without Altars, and they be of 3. sorts. The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving, Psal. 51. 17. 19 Amos 4. 5. Host 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence, and liberality to the poor, Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19 Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is, the mortifying of our own bodies, and to die from sin. Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we study not daily to offer these Sacrifices to God, we be no Christian men, seeing Christian men have no other Sacrifices than these which may and ought to be done without Altars. There should among Christians be no Altars, And therefore it was not without the great wisdom and knowledge of God, that Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church lacked Altars, For they knew that the use of them was taken away, It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to 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 Altars, For * Note this as long as the Altars remain, both the ignorant people, and the ignorant, & evil persuaded Priest will dream always of Sacrifice. Therefore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition, then should the true Religion of God sooner take place, which he thus seconds, in his 8. Sermon upon jonah. A great shame it is for a Noble King, Emperor, or Magistrate contrary to God's word, to detain or keep from the devil or his Ministers any of their goods o● Treasure, as the Candles, Images, Crosses, vestments Altars: For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent, at length they will be maintained as things necessary, as now we find true by late woeful experience. And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah, he proceeds thus: But this prayer of Ionas is so acceptable, it might be thought of some men, that the place where Ionas prayed in should have bettered it; as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time, that judgeth the Prayer said at the High Altar, to be better than that which is said in the Quire; that in the Quire better, then that which is said in the body of the Church, that in the body of the Church, better than that which is said in the Field or in a man's Chamber. But our Prophet saith the Lord hath no respect to the place, but to the heart & faith of him that prayeth. And that appeareth. For penitent Ionas prayeth out of the whales belly, and miserable Job upon the dung heap, Daniel in the Cave of the Lions, Hieremie in the claypit, the thief upon the Cross, S. Stephen under the Stones, wherefore the grace of God is to be prayed for in every place, and every where as our necessity shall have need, and wanteth solace. Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place, because that our necessity requireth help in every place, yet I do not condemn the public place of prayer, whereas God's word is preached, his holy Sacrament used, and common prayer made unto God, but allow the same, and sorry it is no more frequented & haunted, but this I would wish, that the Magistrates would put both the Priest, Minister and the people into * Note. one place, and shut up the partition called the Chancel, that separateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other, as though the veil and partition of the Temple in the old Law, yet should remain in the Church, where indeed all signs & types are ended in Christ: And in case this were done, it should not only express the dignity & grace of the New Testament, but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister, and also provoke the said Minister to a more study of the things he readeth lest he should be found by the judgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church: further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ, might both hear and see plainly what is done, as it was used in the Primative Church, when as the abomination done upon Altars was not known, nor the Sacrifice of Christ's precious blood so conculcated and trodden under feet. Hereupon, as also upon M. Bucers' forecited opinion to this purpose, and William Salisburyes' Battery of the Popes Batereulx, London 1559. (and not upon M. Calvins' Letter, as the late Author of a Coal from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40.) o Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211. 1212. all the Altars in England by the King and his Counsels direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedral Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappells, and Tables set up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late, to wit in the midst of the Church or Chancel, as appears by that is p Fox Acts & Monu. p. 1404. 1406. storied of Bishop Farrar, by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales, where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop, finding an Altar set up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion, contrary to the King and Counsels Ordinance, caused the said Altar to be taken away, and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH, which the Vicar removing, Bishop Farrar himself in the third year of King Edward's Reign; Commanded the Vicar to set the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCEL again, near the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion. After this in the 5. & 6. year of King Edward's Reign, as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church, (according to the q Fox ibid. p. 888. prophecy of William Mauldon; who in th● days of King Henry the 8. when the Mass most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in man's reason it might seem impossible that the glory & opinion of them so deeply rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any means possible so soon decay and vanish to naught, yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. years by the spirit (no doubt) of prophesy declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to pass, that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the roots, etc.) so the very r This the Common prayer Books themselves evidence, and the Coal from the Altar confesseth. p. 37. to 42. name of them was wholly expunged out of the Book of Common Prayer, by the whole Convocation and Parliament, and the name of Gods-boord, Lords-Table, Table, and Holy-Table, inserted and retained both in the Rubric and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed, & the Table enjoined therein at the time of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chancel. And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority, the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church, and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament, and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them, as he that reads them may discern. A truth so clear; that the nameless Author of the Coal from the Altar, p. 39 40. confesseth; that the former Liturgy, (wherein was the name of Altar) was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Book then established; ye● upon this only ground, not from any scandal which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people, but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgy by Calvin, who was all in all with my Lord Protector etc. A very likely tale, I promise you. As if the whole Parliament and Clergy of England, would be so rash or inconsiderate, as to alter their whole Liturgy s 3. and 4. E 6. c. 1. formerly confirmed by parliament, only to humour M. Calvin, (without any Scripture, reason, or other convincing considerations,) and upon no other grounds. Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjectural, though positively laid down; or else the Church of England & Prelate's then● more honoured t See Antiasminianisme p. 58. 59 64 M. Calvin and his judgement, than many of them and of our Clergy do now; who make it a chief part of their superstition zeal, to u B. White in the Censure of D. Vastnicke & other of the B●s. all that time; Normington and others in their late Serm. M. Shelford in his 5. Treatises: with many others. revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons, all they may, without any just or lawful cause; adorning Bellarmine, Baronius, and the Popish Schoolmen with the most magnifying Honourable Tules they can invent, to vilefy him the more, and humour the Catholic faction. And that this is but forgery, will appear, not by the forementioned x Fox Acts & Monu. p. 121. Letter of King Edward and his Counsel to Bishop Ridly; That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realm were already taken down, (not to please M. Calvin) but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS, & so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Book and Homilies upon the self same good and godly Considerations; but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent y Edit. ult. part. 2. p. 18 44. Homily against the Peril of Idolatry, wherein Altars are expressly condemned as heathenish, Idolatrous, and Popish; the Homily also showing at large, that Godly Kings in all ages broke them down, and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up; contrary to God's command, who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so set up or suffer Altars, Images, and Idols undestroyed; and to break down and destroy their Altars and Images: recording. That all Christians in the primitive Church, as Origen against Celsus, Cypriam also, and Arnobius testify, were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles, that they had no Altars nor Images: From whence it is evident that they took them to be unlawful in the Church or Temple of God, and therefore had none? whence the second part of the z Pag. 1●1. Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer, calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our days, HEATHENISH & JEWISH ABUSES, which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God, and profane and defile their Churches, and grossly abuse, yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper, with infinite toys and trifles of men's own popish devises, to make a goodly show, and to deface the plain, simple & sincere Religion of Christ Jesus, yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Book, which they a Canons 1603. Can. 36. 37. 38. subscribe to, and force others likewise, to subscribe unto; (yea b See the Book of Ordinat. contrary to their Oath and solemn profession when they were ordained Ministers, and consecrated Bishops,) set themselves now tooth and nail to turn Communion Tables into Altars, & term them by this name, both in their c B. Wrens late visit. Articles. visitation Articles, d Bishop Montague in his Sermon before the King, the last Lent. Sermons, and printed e Shelford, Reve, B. White, D. Pocklington, the Coal from the Altar, with others. Books, as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen mary's days: who upon the change of Religion & setting up of Popery, made this their first work, to remove Communion Tables; to erect Altars every where, without which they could have no Masses, nor Masse-Preists; and to preach against, 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables, and extol Altars, as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now do, whose Practices (& ends too no doubt) are the same with these in former times; which I shall take a little Liberty to relate, both to inform the Reader, & lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended, by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars. M. Fox our learned Ecclesiastical Historian, who not only writes the History of Queen Mary's days, but lived in those times, records, f Acts & Monum. p. 1282. that in the first year of Queen mary as soon as she came to the Crown, and before any Law made for that purpose, many men (just as too many Bishops & Ministers are now) were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses (the inseparable companions of them) in Churches: That g Ibidem p. 1333. D. Weston preaching at Paul's Cross the 20. of October the same year to wt: 1553. named the Lords Table, an Oister-borde; to which M. Fox addeth this marginal Note; The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston, calling the Lords Table an Oister-board; That the Archdeacon's Official visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following, gave in charge to present all such as did disturb the Queen's proceedings, in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Mass, or any part thereof: The 24. of October the same year, one h 1. Mariae c. 3. Sess. 2. Act was made to punish such, who should willingly or of purpose, molest let, disturb or otherwise trouble any Parson, Vicar, Parish, Priest, or Curate, preparing, saying, singing, ministering or celebrating the Mass, or unlawfully, contemptuously, & maliciously, of their own power or authority, pull down, deface, spoil, or otherwise break any Altar or Altars, or any Crucifix or Cross that then was, or after that should be in any Church, C●apple or Church-yard; which was seconded by the Queen's Proclamation the 15. day of December following. i Fox ibid. p. 1344. 1345. Upon the 2. of December 155●. Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winc●ester, and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Paul's Cross before King Philip, Cardinal Poole, and other Peers: where in his Sermon he had this passage. And let us now awake which so long have slept, and in our sleep have done so much naughtiness against the Sacraments of Christ, denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, and pulled down the Altars. k Fox ibid. p. 1404. 1406. March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things, for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church, to be taken away, and a Table to be set up in the middle of the Church, for celebration of the Communion. l Fox ibid. p. 1512. 1515. On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden, and laid both his hands upon it, saying; who set this here again, it being taken down the Sunday before: He is a knave that set it here, etc. and if he say any service here again, I will lay the Table on his face, & in that rage he with other took up the Table and laid it on a chest in the Chancel, and set the Trestles by it; And the 26. of November following, he said to M. B. and, ye pulled down the Altar, will ye built it again, No (quoth he) except I be commanded, for I was commanded to do that I did. The next Sunday, this Churchwarden had provided a Priest to say Mass, for which he had gott●●a● Altar. m Fox ibid. p. 1601. 1604. October 1. 1555. in the last Examination of Bishop Ridley, D. White, Bishop of Lincoln, raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill; Altars are erected in Christ's name in Britain & in far Countries; Ergo Christ is come; But we may use the contrary of that reason; Altars are plucked down in Britain. Ergo Christ is not come. Bishop Ridley smilng, answered: your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altar, in Scripture, signifieth as well the Altar, whereupon the Jews were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper. Cyrillus m●aneth there by this word Altar, not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord, and by that saying (Altars are erected in Christ's name, Ergo Christ is come) he meaneth that the Communion is ministered in his remembrance, Ergo he is come etc. As for the taking down of the Altars, it was done upon * Note. See Fox p. 1211. just considerations, for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jews usage. Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministered, more duly received then in these later days, when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church. Lincoln. A goodly receiving I promise you, to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar, and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive, and yet when your Table was constituted, you could never be content, in placing the same now East, now North, now one way, now another, until it pleased God of his goodness to place it clean out of the Church. Ridley; your Lordship's unreverent terms do not elevate the thing etc. To this speech of Bishop White, M. Fox affixeth this marginal Censure. Bishop White blasphemously calleth, the board of the Lords Table, An Oyster Table. Which just Censure the n Page 20. 21. Coal from the Altar most injuriously turns upon M. Prynne, for calling the Lords Table, a Drester. A slovenly and scornful term, deserving no other Answer, than what the marginal Notes in the Acts & Monuments give in the one place to the Dean of Westminster, or in the other to the Bishop of Lincoln D. White. And truly had the Gentleman in the o Lame Giles his haltings. place pretended, expressly termed the Lords Table a Dresser, as these two nickenamed it, An Oyster board, or Oyster Table, I should have passed thus verdict upon him, that he was Nig●o CARBONE notandus; defamedly marked with this black Coal. But examining his words, & finding them to be misreported, to lay a causeless blemish on him; I must needs conclude, that the namcelesse Priest or collier who hath fastened this scandal on him, is as black & shameless as his Coal. For he never terms the Lords Table, a Dresser; but only Censures such who against the Rubric for the Communion, Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the Canons An. 1571. (not 1471. as himself mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking) p. 18. (which is no mistake, the English Copy, which he no question saw and followed, printed the same year with the Latin, which is p. 15. warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page & words,) what ever the Coal either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary:) at the administration of the Sacrament, place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall, more like a Sidetable, Cupboard or Dresser, than a Lords Table to eat and drink at, Like, or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table, is all he writes; wherein he is as far from blasphemy, or calling the Lords Table, a Dresser, as the Scripture itself is from blasphemy, or terming Christ a th●●fe, when it saith, Matth. 24. 4●. 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ & the day of the Lord shall come as, or like a Thief in the night; the comparisons & similitudes being both apt, the one in regard of the manner of the Tables situation, the other in respect, of the sudden fearful unexpectednes of Christ's second coming to Judgement; though the name of a Dresser, unfit to be imposed on the Lord's Table; & of a thief upon our Saviour. By which slovenly term M. Prynne is so far from calling the Communion Table; that he phraseth it, q Lame Giles. p. 37 A religious implement of Gods own appointment. But to return again to that from which this false Calumny in the Coal hath diverted me. This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley, not long after this his Conference to show how eagerly the Popish Prelates, were bend to remove Communion Tables, & set up Altars in their steeds, & how much he detested this their practice, in his excellent Farwell to his friends in general, breaks forth into these patheticke words: Othou now wicked and bloody Sea, r Fox ibid. p. 1610. why dost thou now set up again many Altars of Idolatry, which by the word of God were justly taken away? Why hast thou overthrown the Lords Table? Why dost thou daily delude thy people, masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper? The Papists in their discourses with our stout & learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hot as a Coal, for Altars, & the Sacrament of the Altar; For s Fox Acto & Monu. p. 1652. 1653. in his 11. examination on S. Andrew's day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him, demanded whether S. Augustine did not call the Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar? To which M. Philpot replied: That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament. For so he and other ancient writers do call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord, in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Cross; the with Sacrifice all the Alta●s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow; the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament, hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone. Christopherson. No doth I pray you, what signifieth Altar? Philpot. Not as you falsely take it, materially, but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson. Where find you it ever so taken? Philpot. O, yes that I do in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he saith: We have an Altar of which it is not lawful for them to eat that serve the Tabernacle. Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar, and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone? Christopherson. Well God bless me out of your company, you are such an o● stinate heretic, that I never heard the like. Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors, which when they are not able to prove what they say, than they fall to blaspheming as you do, for want of better proof. In the t Fox ibid. p. 1703. Conference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martin, March 155●. Martin speaks thus to Crammer in defence of Mass & Altars which he couples both together. If you mark the Devil's language well, it agreeth with your proceedings most truly; For cast thyself downward, said he, and so taught you to cast all things down wards; Down with the Sacrament, down with the Mass, down with the Altars, etc. In u Fox ibid. p. 1781. Cardinal Pools visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors set forth certain Statutes, whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered; wherein among other things they prescribed, at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himself to the Altar, (a ceremony, superstition, and Idolatry now taken up by many contrary to, or without all Scriptures, Law and Canon, though thus enjoined by, &, borrowed from the Papists, whose superstitious toys are now much imitated and adored) x Fox: ibid. p. 1786. In April, the same year, Cardinal Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocese of Canterbury. Article 18. 23. concerning the people, inquired; whether the Altars in the Churches be consecrated, or no? And whether there do burn a lamp or candle before the Sacrament? And if there do not, that then it be provided for with expedition? As Altars were thus erected, bowed to, pleaded for, and countenanced in Queen Mary's time, upon the revival of Popery, & Communion Tables removed & scoffed at; so immediately upon her death, & the descent of the Crown to Queen Elizabeth, this religious Princes by her * near the end. Injunctions, (published in the first year of her Reign) commanded the Altars in Churches to be removed (which was done in many Churches in sundry parts of the Realm before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion) and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament, according to the FORM OF THE LAW THEREFORE PROVIDED; to wit, the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratifying the Common Prayer Book, which prescribes the Sacrament to be administered at a Table not at an Altar. (By which it is apparent, that the ministering of it, at an Altar, is against, & not according to the Statute; and so punishable thereby:) And hereupon Matthew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury, in his Metropolitical Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others, y Artic. 2. Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion, set in place prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, And whether your Altars be taken down, according to the Commandment in that behalf given? After this, Anno 1561. the Book of Orders published by the Queen's Commissioners, and Book of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoined decent Communion Tables standing on a frame, to be made and set in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood, styling them always Communion Tables, not once an Altar, and putting them in opposition to Altars, And the Canons made in the Synod at London Anno 1571. (which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the z Page 20. 21. Coal doth falsely accuse them, it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed, though p. 15. in the Latin, which the collier followed, who it seems never saw the English:) prescribe, that Churchwardens shall see there be a fair joined Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion, and a clean cloth to cover it, & that they shall see, that all Roodelo●ts in which wooden Crosses stood & all other Relics of superstition be clane taken away, which being executed accordingly, thereupon a See Haddon C●nt. 〈…〉 l. 3. s. 271. Hierom Osorius, the b Annot. 〈◊〉. 1. Cor. 11. se. 18. & 〈◊〉 Heb. ●0 sect. 6. Rhemists, c M. Novel his Reprouse of Dormans' prose ●. 15. 16. 17 Dorman, d in his Preface before his Reply to B. jewel. Harding, e Reynolds Cons. with 〈◊〉 8. divis 4. Hart and other Papists, complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their several writings, that they had cast down Images, Churches, Altars, removed them out of their Churches and set up profane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed; which Act of theirs f Answer to Hardings' Preface. Reply to Harding Art. 3. div. 26. Bishop Jewel, g Contr. Osorum l. 3. f. 271. Gualther Haddon, M. Fox, h Reproof of Dormans' Proof f. 15. 16. 17. 66. M. Deane Nowell, i His Catech. vol. 1. f. 484. M. Thomas B●acon, k Answer to the Rhemish Test on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. sect. 6. Apo● 6 sect. 2. D. Fulke and M. Carthwright, l Synopsis Papismi Contr. gener. 9 Error 53 54. 55. D. Willet & m Confer with Hart enh. 8. sect. 4. D. Reynolds not only justify as lawful, but as necessary & commendable, affirming that Queen Elizabeth & the Church of England might as lawfully remove and break, down Popish Altars, Images and Crucifixes, as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israel demolished & broke down Heathenish groves, Idols, Images, Altars, by Gods own special command and approbation. From all which particular passages we may clearly discern, That one of the first things which our own & other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion & abolishing of Popery, was the breaking down and abandoning of Altars, together with their name, and placing of Communion Tables in their steed; that the first thing again, the Papists did, upon the restitution of Popery, was the erecting of Altars, & cashiering Communion Tables. That the setting up of Altars, & turning Communion Tables into Altars, or Altarwise, is to no other end, but to usher Masses & Popery (the inseparable concommitants & followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them) into our Church again; That our godly Martyrs, Princes, Prelates, writers yea and our Church itself, have constantly both in their judgements, practice, & disputes, condemned Altars, as jewish, Heathenish, Popish & unlawful unto Christians; That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Book of Common Prayer, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, Orders, Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England, & were never yet written or preached for, patronised, enjoined, or erected but among, and by Papists, & that to receive the Mass & set up Popery, which fall or stand together with them. And that the Communion Table is no Altar, nor High Altar, as our m Shelford of God's house: p. 2. 4. 15. 17. The Coal from the Altar Sunday no Sabb. p 15 27 28 29 43 48. 50 Novellers' dream and teach. All this being thus premised, I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altarwise. First, therefore I deny, that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar, or High Altar, that it ought so to be styled or reputed, or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches; First, because the Scripture never terms the Lords Table an Altar, but a Table, 1. Cor. 10. 21. only & prescribes a Table only, not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament. 2. Because our Common Prayer Book, Homilies, Articles, Canons, Injunctions, writers do the like, distinguishing the Communion Table & Altars as opposite contradistinct things, inconsistent one with the other, abandoning not Altars only themselves, but the very name of Altars, as Jewish and Heathenish, 1. Cor. 9 13. c. 10. 18. 19 being quite expunged, so as it is not to be found in our Book of Common Prayer, Articles, Injunctions, Homilies, Canons, which never term the Lords Table an Altar, either properly or improperly. 3. Because Altars & Lords Tables differ much one from the other. 1. In matter, the one being made of stone, gold, brass, or earth for the most part, Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39 38. 39 c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood. 2. In form the one almost quite square, Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9 13. the other not so broad as long, the one having horns oft times, to which delinquents fled and laid hold, the other not. 3. In name & appellation, & that in all languages. 4. In use, the one being only to offer Sacrifices, incense & burnt offerings on; Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Leu. l. 7. 9 being therefore called an Altar, Altar & Ara, from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it; as a Orig. l. 15. 4. Isiodor, b ●n their Di●●●●●. 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉. Cilepine, Holicke and others witness: the other only to eat and drink at, 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution, the one Legal, jewish, Typical, & Heathe●sh; the other evangelical & Christian, of which anon: the one instituted before and under the Law, the other only under the Gospel. 6. In their appendices, attendants, & circumstances. For First, Altars were usually, consecrated both among the Jews and Gentiles, Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb. 7. 10. as they are this day c Summa Angelica: 〈◊〉. Altar & Cons●o. Alt. Rhem. Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. among the Papists, with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies, oyling; sprinklings, exorcisms, Relics of Sancts, orisons, & I know not what other fond conceits; but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive, or Christian Churches of latter times. 2. Altars we ever accompanied with priests, Sacrifices, burnt offerings, peace offering; etc. Exod. 40. Levit. 1. 1. Cor. 9 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. King 18. 20. to 37. among the Jews and Gentiles: with d Summa Ang. Tit. Altar & Cons. Alt. D. Rainold 〈◊〉 with Hart c. 8. diois. 4. 5. M. Nowel's Reproof of Dormans' Proof. f. 66. Masses, Massepreistes, Pixes, consecrated Hostiaes', Tapers, Basins, candlesticks, Crucifixes, Images, Sancts Relics, Altar-cloathes, Massing, vestments, to add gestures, & Fooleries: but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospel a chalice, platter, bread and wine, without more or other furniture, but a decent cloth to cover them. 7. In their effects; the one tending to maintain, erect, propagate and usher in Gentilism, Judaisme, Popery, Mass, Massepreists, Transul stantiation and Superstition among Christians, and to corrupt the doctrine, administration and right use of the Sacrament, the true cause why the Primitive Christians, why all reformed Churches and our own Church abandoned and cast them out. The other to abandon them, and to restore, preserve, perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine, use, and administration of the Sacrament, according to its primitive institution; as the so e●●●ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large; and e Fox Acts & monum● p. 1211. King Edward the 6. with his Council both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley, and in their 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the form of a Table then of an Altar, punctually resolve. 8. Because all Altars, Sacrifices, Priest, & the Temple itself where the Altar stood (for the f Godwin Moses and Aaron l. 3. c. 2. & l. 2. c. 1. Jews had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues, but only in and about their Temple, to show that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple,) were but types and shadows of Christ the true Altar, Priest, and Temple, Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 7. l. to 15. c. 13. 10. as all the Fathers, & generally all Commentators and Christian writers accord, and therefore vanished at his death, as the whole Epistles to the Hebrews, & Galathians, & Colossions c. 2. prove at large. Hence the Apostle calls Christ himself, our Altar, Heb. 13. 10. & Rev. 6. 9 c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9 13. do the like, as Expositors old and new, together with King James himself in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse, & our own Martyrs, writers generally accord. Hence f Hom. 17. Sup. jesum Nave to●. 1 s. 158 f. 6. Origen most pertinently resolves thus: The truth therefore was in the Heavens, but the shadow and example of the truth on earth; and whiles this shadow did continue on earth, there was an heavenly Jerusalem, there was a Temple, there was an Altar, there were High Priests and priests; But when as in the coming of God our Saviour descending from heaven, truth sprang out of the earth, the shadows and examples full to the ground, For Jerusalem fell, the Temple fell, ALTAR SUBLATUM EST, the Altar was taken away, etc. SI ALTAR VIDER IS DESTITUTUM, etc. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute, be not thou sad thereat, If thou find not the High Priest do not thou despair. EST IN CAELIS ALTAR, there is an Altar in Heaven, & an High Priests of future good things stands by it chosen of God; according to the order of Melchisedecke. Hence g In L am. jer. l. 2. zain: Btbl. Patrun tom. 9 part. 1. p. 167. etc. Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes: REPULIT Dominus ALTAR SWM DE ECCLESIA, in qua CHRISTUS ALTAR CREDITUR ESSE. Hostia & Sacrificium, Pontifex & Sacerdos. The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of the Church, in which Christ is BELIEVED TO BE THE (only) ALTAR, obligation and Sacrifice, High Priest. And h Enarrat in Ps. 118. Oct 3. Tom. 2. p. 422, etc. S. Ambrose, i In 7 Psal. Penitent. ●. 235, &c Gregory the great, k Exposit. ●n Exod. c. 20. to 4. Col. 112. 113. Beda, l Comment. in Apoc. c. 47. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 526. Andrea's the Archbishop of Caesaria, m In Festo Omnium Sanctorum Serm. 4. Col. 292, etc. S. Bernard, with diverse other Fathers expressly resolve; ALTAR DOMINI CHRISTUS, that Christ himself is the Altar of the Lord, the Altar meant both in the Hebrews and apocalypse, and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him. And though some of the punier Fathers 260. years after Christ and since, do sometimes by a figurative and improper speech, call the Communion Table, (but more commonly only the Sacramental bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Saviour) the Altar, in respect of the n Psal. 51. 17. 19 Amos 4● 5. Host 14 2. Heb. 13. 15. Sacrifices of prayer and praise there offered at the receiving of the Sacrament, thence called the Eucharist; of the Collections and Alms there and there given by the Communicants for the relief of the poor, which are called a Sacrifice an oblation, Heb. 13. 16. Math. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19 and in as much as Christ's body and blood who is the true Altar; are there mystically distributed, not out of any relation to, or analogy between Jewish & Heathen Altars and Tables, or because the Sacrament is in truth a real Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fond dream, yet they most usually and properly term it only the Lords Table, or Board, and the Sacrament administered there at, the Lords Supper, as appears by sundry passages in o Nazianz. Orat. in laudem Basily & 21 Oratio. Nazianzen, p De verbis Domini secundum Joan. Serm. 46. Tom. 10. p. 225. Augustine, q Theodoret Dial. Atreptus c. 11. Theodoret, r Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. De Pomitentia Hom. 7. Tom. 5. Col. 746. B. Hom. 45. in joan. Hom. in Psal. 22 & 216. Hom. 1. deverbus Isaiae vidi Dom. Chrysostome● s Com. in Natuum c. 1. Tom. 5. p. 137. Hieron, t Theophylac●t Evar. in 1. Cor. 11. Oecumenius, u Oecumenius in 1. Cor. c. 11. Theophylact, & other x Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Eusebius Caesariensis apud Damascenum Parallel. l. 3. c. 47. Petrus Blesensis Hom. 20. in Litania Ma●ai. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 41. Euthymius in Psal. 22. Concil. Nicenum. can ●lt. apud Servum Tom. 1. p. 347. Gratianus de consecrat. distinct. 2. Fathers, All these are cited by Bishop jewel, Bishop Babington. D. Rainolds, & our writers; they styling the Cross whereon Christ suffered & was Sacrificed, the Altar of the Cross, yea faith, the heart and mind of godly men, an Altar, as frequently as the Communion Table, and in the self same figurative and improper sense. Hence S. Hierom in Psal. 25. & 31. Tom. 6. p. 30. B. & 46. B. writes thus: Altar fidelium fides est. FAITH IS THE ALTAR OF THE FAITHFUL. And the same Father Comment. in Marc. 9 Tom. 6. p. 58. 79. & Gregory the great Homil. 22. Super Ezechiel f. 209. E. F. aver: Altar Deiest Corbonum, Histia & Sacrificia bona opera fidelium, THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART, the good works of the Faithful are the oblation and Sacrifices. And Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. tom. 4. fol. 101. writes to the same effect: Celsus chargeth us (Christians) that we shun ALTARS, Images & Idol Temples, that so they may not be erected etc. whiles that he seeth nothing in the mean time, that we in the mean while have the mind of just men instead of Altars and temples; from which without all doubt the sweet odours of Incense are sent forth, vows, I say and prayers from a pure conscience. Let whoever will therefore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned, and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in, truly he may plainly understand, that they verily are inanimate and in process of time will become corruptible; but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortal soul, as long as the reasonable soul shall continue. Now these Fathers thus styling both the heart itself, and the mind and faith which have their chief residence in the heart, an ALTAR; in respect of the spiritual Sacrifices of prayer and praise offered by faith on a pure heart as on a spiritual Altar, and they stil●● the Communion Table an Altar p B. jewel. Reply to Harding Art. 30 divis 26. p. 145. D. Reynold conference with Hart p 476. 477 478 M. Nowell his reproof of dorman's proof p. 15. 16. 17. D. Fulke and M. Cartwright Con●ut of the Rhemish Testament on Heb. 13. sect. 16. & 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. only in this sense and in a figurative and improper speech, as they call the heart, mind end faith an Altar, their phrasing of it an Altar only in this sense can be no Argument at all to prove, that it is properly and in truth an Altar, or in that sense as some now press it. And these other 3. the heart, mind, and faith, which they term an Altar, being situated not in the East part, but in the midst of the temple of the body, are a stonger evidence to prove, that the Table ought to be situated in the midst of the Church, though it were an Altar, as these 3, termed Altars, are in the midst of the body; then that the Table is properly an Altar, and therefore aught to stand in the East end of the Choir Altarwise. 5. Because the Scripture expressly condemns Altars as jewish & abolished by Christ, putting Altars, Priests, & their waiting on the Altar, as jewish & Heathenish, in direct opposition to the Lords Tables, Ministers, preaching of the Gospel, consecrating of the Lords Supper at his Table; & distinguishing Christ & his Ministers, from Aaron & the Priests of his order, in this, that one of them was to give attendance at the Altar the other not, as is evident by 3. remarkable Texts of Scripture. The First of them is the 1. Cor. 9 13. 14. Do ye not know that they which Minister about Holy things, live of the things of the Temple; and they which wait at the Altar are partakers of the Altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel; Where Preachers of the Gospel, are directly distinguished from Priests, waiting on the Altar; and preaching of the Gospel in the one, put in opposition, to waiting on the Altar, in the other, The one being evangelical, the other only Legal and abolished. The next Text is that of 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. The Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ; the bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread & one body, & are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh, are not they which eat of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar? what shall I say then, that the Idol is any thing, or that which is offered in Sacrifice to Idols is any thing? But I say that the things which the Gentiles Sacrifice, they Sacrifice to Devils and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils. ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils, ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils; wherein the first part, the Ministers of the Gospel, who bless, eat, drink, & participate of the Communion of the body & blood of Christ, & partake of that bread at the Lords Table; are distinguished from Israel after the flesh, & the Priests of Aaron, who ca●e of the Sacrifices offered upon Altars, and are partakers of Altars; and the Lords Table put in opposition to the jewish Altars; and in the second part, the Sacrifices, Cup & Table of Devils, and partaking of them, put in opposition and contradistinction to the Cup and Table of the Lord, and the eating and drinking of them. The 3. Text is that of Heb. 7. 12. 13. 14. where Christ himself, his priesthood and Ministers, are thus purposely distinguished from Aaron and the levitical Priests, and priesthood, that one of them gave attendance at the Altar, the other not: For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the Law: For he of whom these things are spoken partainet●●o another Tribe, OF WHICH NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR. For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda of which Tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood etc. In which Text (as David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, with others observe,) the Apostle proveth that Aaron's priesthood is changed & the Ordinance thereof, because Psal. 110. speaketh of Christ's priesthood after the order of Melchisedek, that is freed from the service of the Altar; and Christ was borne not of the Tribe of Aaron but of Judah, of which no man gave attendant at the Altar, to wit the material Altar commanded in the Law. To declare, that Altars and giving attendance at Altars properly belonging to the levitical priesthood, were abolished by Christ the true Priest and Sacrifice, of which they were but types; And that as Christ himself was borne of the tribe of Judah, of which no man gave attendance at the Altar, so the Ministers of Christ under the gospel who profess themselves of his Tribe and Stock, should by his example give no attendance at the Altar, since he never did, nor aught to do it. From this remarkable Text, the Church of the foreigners in anand An. 1550. when John de Alasco, that Noble Polonian was their chief Minister and Superintendent, in the Confession of their faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and printed at London that same year, Cum Privilegio, make this the 5. note of Christ's Kingdom, * Quod nullum Altarenovit, cum sit ex Tribu Iuda in quo nemo assistit Altari etc. Ibidem. THAT IT KNOWS NO ALTAR, since he is of the tribe of Juda, wherein NO MAN GAVE ATTENDANCE AT THE ALTAR, neither needeth he the furniture of any mystical vestments, that he may enter into typical Sanctuaries or Holy places, all which things are abolished with this their priesthood, because the truth of those things which they did shadow out is exhibited. And David Dickson in his short Explanation of the Hebrews printed at Aberdence 1635. p. 126. 127. infers from thence. First, that Christ's priesthood is freed from that Altar which God commanded in the Law, and all the service thereof. 2. That an other Altar he knoweth not; & Christ's priesthood being declared to be freed from the service of this Altar no Law can tie it to any other. 3. That whosoever will erect another material Altar in Christ's priesthood, and tie his Church unto it (as the Papists add, and our New Prelates and Doctors do now) must look by what Law they do it. 4. That negative Conclusions in matters of faith & duties, follow well from the Scriptutes Silence. It is not warranted from Scripture therefore I am not bound to believe it? Since the Apostle here reasoneth thus; That none of the tribe of Judah attended the Altar, because Moses speak nothing of that Tribe concerning the Preisthood (which overturnes all Priests, Altars and attendance at Altars under the Gospel, and the calling of the Lords-Table an Altar, because the Scripture is silent and speaks nothing of them, but against them.) To which I shall add a 5. inference. That Christ himself never gave any attendance at the Altar, nor yet Melchi●edecke; or any of Christ's Tribe, Therefore none of Christ's Ministers ought to do it; and that those Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and Ministers, who will needs have & set up Altars, plead, write, dispute for Altars, & likewise wait on, serve & give attendance at the Altar, are only priests of Aaron or Baal, & of their Tribe; not Ministers of jesus Christ, nor any of his sacred Tribe, none of which gave any attendance at the Altar; This is the Apostles reason, inference, & the very drife of his argumentation, not mine, let those therefore whom it concerns look well unto it, and evade, or answer it as they may. 6. Christians have no such sacrifices, incense-offrings, or oblations, which require any material Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon, no spiritual service at all that requires an Altar. Therefore they neither have nor aught to have any Altar. All their Sacrifices now (as prayer, praise, liberality to the poor, mortifying their lusts, & the offering up of their souls and body's sliving Sacrifice unto God,) are spiritual, requiring neither a Priest, much less an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon, Psal. 51. 17. 19 Amos 4. 5. H●sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. H●or. 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19 Rome 12. 1. as a Third Serm. upon jonah. Bishop Hooper, and b Fox Acts & 〈◊〉. p. 1211. King Edward the 6. with his Counsel argue: Therefore they neither have nor aught to h●re any material Altar, but only Christ their spiritual Altar in heaven, 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon. 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar, than it should be greater and better than the Sacramental bread or wine, or the Lord's Supper itself, and a means to consecrate them. This reason is fully * See the Rhemish Notes, & M Cartwright on this Text. warranted by our Saviour's own resolution, Math. 23. 18. 19 Woe be unto you ye blind guides which say, whosoever shall swear by the Altar it is nothing, but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and blind, for whether is greather, the gift, or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift? and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offered thereon as more holy than they, even as Christ our spiritual altar, consecrates and hallows all our spiritual Sacrifices, Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say, that the Lords Table is better than the bread and wine, or the Lord's Supper itself, (though those who bow and ring unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it, and when they have the Sacrament itself in their hand, to which they give no such adoration, imply it to be so) or that it consecrates the Sacrament laid upon it; (for what need then any prayer or words of consecration?) therefore it is no Altar. 8. Every Altar was, and aught to be dedicated & solemnly consecrated unto God, with special ointments, sprinkling of blood and solemnities; (specially the Altar of incense and atonement, and those Altars placed in the Temple:) else they were not to be used or reputed Altars. Exod. 24. 4. to 9 c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to, ●0. c. 39 38. 39 c. 40. 5. 9 10, etc. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9 Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the d Gratian. de Consec. Distinct. ● Summa Angelica Tit. de Consecrat. Altaris. Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars, and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons' Collegiate Church in the Country of Stafford, upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnly dedicated after the Popish manner, by M. jefferies' Archdeacon of Salop and others: of which more anon: But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated, nor solemnly dedicated; sprinkled & enoyled, neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God, or of our Church and State; Therefore they neither are, nor can be Altars. 9 That which will be a means to make ignorant people & superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Mass, and Popish Priests, and to usher Popery, Mass & Massepreistes by degrees into our Church again to the polluting & defiling of God's house, Sacrament & the setting up of gross Idolatry, must needs be sinful, unlawful & to be abandoned of us: But the erecting of Altars in our Churches, the calling of Communion Tables, Altars, and turning of them Altarwise, & so reading second service & administering at them, will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices, Mass, and Popish Priests, & will usher Popery, Mass and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church again, etc. as e Serm. 3. on Jenah. Bishop Hooper, & others forequoted authorities evidence, and King Edward the 6. and his Council in their 3. reason against Altars resolve, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therefore they must needs be sinful, unlawful, & to be abandoned of us now, as they have been heretofore, both in King Edward the 6. & in Queen Elizabeth's days. 10. That which neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the Primitive Church, for above the 250. years after him, either had or used in their Churches & administration of the Sacrament, that we (who ought to imitate their example,) 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6.) ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches. But neither Christ, nor his Apostles, nor the primitive Church in her purest times, for above 250. years after Christ, either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only. Therefore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now. This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. & his Counsel against Altars, Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus: Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table, and not at an Altar, as it appeareth manifestly by the Evangelists. And S. Paul calleth the coming to the holy Communion, the coming unto the Lord's Supper, and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion. Wherefore seeing the form of a Table is more agreeable with Christ's institution, and with the usage of the Apostles, and of the Primitive Church, than the form of an Altar, therefore the form of a Table is rather to be used, than the form of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion. Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a black Coal, and some what blurred & obseured I shall produce some few authorities, to clear it. The third part of our own incomperable Homily, against the Peril of Idolatry, (confirmed both by f 1. Elz. c. 12. Statute, the g Art. 35. Articles of our Church, and every Minister's h Can. 36. 37. subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us: That all Christians in the Primitive Church, as i Contra Cels. l. 4. & 8. Origen against Celsus, k Contra Demetriadem. Cypriam also & l Advers. Geutes l. 6 A●nobius do testify, were fore charged and complained on, that they had no Altars nor Images: It is evident therefore, that they took all Images, (yea all Altars to, by the same reason) to be unlawful in the Church of the Temple of God, and therefore had none though the Gentiles therefore were Highly displeased with them, following this rule, m Acts 5. we must obey God rather than men. So the Homily which n Defence of the Apology Artic. 3. 26. Divis. p. 145. Bishop Jewel thus seconds. There have been Altars, saith M. Harding; even from the Apostles time, and that even as it is used now, far from the body of the Church, etc. This man could never utter so many untruths together without some special privilege. For first, where he saith: The Apostles in their time erected Altars, It is well known that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithful for fear of the Tyrants were fain to meet together in private houses, in vacant places in woods and Forests, and in Caves under the ground. And may we think that Altars were built before the Church? Verily o Contra Celsum l. 4 Origen thal lived above 200. years after Christ, hath these words against Celsus: Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines, aut Aras, aut Templa; Celsus charges our religion with this, that we have neither Images, nor Altars, nor Temples. Likewise saith p Arnobius l. 6. Arnobius, that lived somewhat after Origen, writing against the heathens: Accusatis nos, quod nec Templa habeamus ●oc Imagines, nec Aras. Ye accuse us for that we have neither Churches, nor Images, nor Altars. And Volateranus & Vernerius testify, that Sixtus Bishop of Rome, was the First that caused Altars to be erected. Therefore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say; That Altars have ever been, even sithence the Apostles time. Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication, in the third Volumme of his works printed Cum Privilegio, and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name, and to Queen Elizabeth herself, London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass f. 102. 103. & Relics of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus: Christ, his Apostles, and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion, The Primitive Church more than 200. years after Christ's ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries. And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not, that Pope Sixtus the second about the year of our Lord 265● brought in the altars first into the Church, utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper: when notwithstanding from Christ's ascension unto that time, the Lords Supper was always ministered at a Table, according to the practice of Christ, of his Apostles, and of the primitive Church, Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar, which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood until that time was ministered upon a Table according to the practice of Christ, of his Apostles and of the primitive Church; & here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come, for the which the stubborn stout Papists do so stoutly strive (& some now too, that call themselves Protestant's) about the year of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church; others affirm, that they came in about the year of our Lord 594. But I believe that Altars came not into the Church before the year of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Mass began first to creep in, Volateranus, Durand. Flascit. Mass. Pet. Aequillinus, Joan. Sella. Thus M. Beacon. The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill, in his answer to Marshals Treatise of the Cross, printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. (who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum; that Christians in Origens' age had neither Images nor Altars,) by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, one the 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. v. 19 p. 415. with other of our writers. All these Authorities (to which the Papists could never ye reply) the Coal from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath; informing us, that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens' and Arnobius meaning; who must be understood, not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples, but that they had no Altars for bloody or external Sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. For otherwise it is most certain, that the Church had Altars, both the name and thing, and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either; which he proves by the Testimonies of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ignatius, the Apostles Canons, and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer, first, that this nameless Author, in modesty & good manners, should have rather deemed himself mistaken in the meaning of Origen & Arnobius, than our Homilies, and these our learnedest writers, whose judgements & authorities certainly will over balance his. 2. These Authors took their words & meaning aright, what ever is pretended; as appears. 1. By the Gentiles objection itself: The Gentiles charged the Christians, that they had neither Temples, nor Images, nor Altars: Was their meaning then, that they had Temples indeed, but not to sacrifice in, & Images to, but not to adore; or that in truth they simply had neither Temples nor Images. Certainly the Coal itself would blush at the first exposition; & the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images; that the Christians had Images, but not to adore, though the Gentiles objected they had none, and Lactantius & Minucius Felix too about that age; expressly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all. Their meaning therefore being (as our Homilies, & those very words themselves resolve,) that they had no public Temples, no Images at all, for any assemblies, use, or purpose; their meaning likewise must be, that they had no Altars at all for any purpose; (not, no Altars for any bloody & external Sacrifices as the Gentiles had, but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on, as he falsely glosseth it:) Since the w●nt of Temples, Images● Altars are all coupled together, & objected to them in the same sense and manner. Now had the Christians in that age had Temples, but not for Idols service, Images, but not to adore; Altars, but not to offer bloody and external Sacrifices on, as the Coal Glosseth it; the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples, Altars, or Images to them, as is probable; since they had them, but their not sacrificing on them, & adoring them as they did, & not making a right use of them who● they had them; as we tax all covetous men, or Nonpreaching Ministers, that are Scholars, not for having no money or learning, but for not making such use of them as they should. The very objection therefore clears it infallibly, that they had no Temples, Images or Altar at all. 2. The Father's answers to these objections will take of this Cavil quite. Minucius Felix (flourishing in Tertullians' time, 200. years after Christ) in his Octavius Oxoniae 1627., p. 104, First mentions this Objection of the Gentiles, & gives this pithy reply thereto; But think ye that we conceal what we worship, if we have not Images, Temples and Altars? For what Image shall I feign to God, when as if thou rightly judge, man himself is God's Image? what Temple shall I build to him, when as this whole world fabricated by his workmanship can not contain him? And why I being aman remaining more at large, shall I imprison the power of so great a Majesty with in one little house? Is he not better to be dedicated in our mind? yea is he not to be consecrated in our breast? shall I offer Sacrifice and burnt offerings to God, which he hath brought forth only for my use, that I should cast back his gift unto him, is an ungrateful thing; when as a good mind, and a pure heart, & a sincere conscience is a Sacrifice fit to be offered to him. Therefore he who embraceth innocency, supplicates to the Lord, he who follow ●j●stice, sacrificeth to God; he who absteines from deceits, attaineth God● he who delivers aman from danger, slayeth the best oblation: These are our Sacrifices; these are Gods Holy things, thus among us, he is most religious, who is most just etc. Where this acute Father clearly acknowledgeth, that the Christians had no material Temples, Images, Altars or Sacrifices, at all among them, but only spiritual sacrifices, Altars & oblations; and had they then in truth had any real Temples, Images, Altars; he would no doubt have all aged & confessed, yea proved, that they had them though they knew not of them, & so have stopped their mouths by falsifying their objection, & showing the Gentiles the righ●use of them, to free them from any further Cavil of not using them at all, or amiss. The like Answer a Contra Ce●s. l. 8. Tom. 4. f. 101 Cels. & Aras & simulachra & delubro, nos aut diffugere QVO MINVS FUNDENTUR, etc. Origen gives to Celsus; Celsus (writes he) saith that we shun the very building both of Altars, and of Images, & of Temples, not suffering them to be erected (an infallible evidence and charge, that they had none at all for any purpose, because they would not so much as suffer them to be built, but shunned the very making of them.) When as he seeth nothing in the mean time, how that we have the mind of just men in ●●eed of, (or for) our Altars and hearthes'; out of which without all doubt the sweetest odours, of incense are sent forth, and prayers out of a more pure conscience. Let any man therefore that will examine these Altars, which I have newly mentioned, and if he lift compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in. Verily he shall plainly understand, 〈…〉 mate and willbe corrupted in process of 〈…〉 or Altars in an immortal soul, shall continue as long, as the reasonable soul, shallbe pleased to dwell therein, etc. But we truly have Images not made by any impure work men, but framed and form in us by the word of God itself, to wit the virtues imitating the first borne of every creature, etc. in which I should believe it fitting, that honour should be ascribed to him who is the exemplar of all Images, to wit the Image of the invisible God, the only begotten God, etc. Which he thus seconds in another place: b Contra Cels. l. 7. f. 96. 97. l. 4. f. 46. 47. The Christians (saith Celsus) cannot endure either Temples or Altars, or Images & Statutes to be looked upon, they openly dispraise Images etc. To which Origen thus replies: The Christians & also the Jews, when they hear, thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, & him only shalt thou serve; neither shalt thou make to thyself any graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath, etc. and for many things not unlike these, do not only dislike the Temples of the Gods, and Altars, and these Images, but would if there be a necessity rather run more willingly to death, than out of any sin or impiety altogether defile what they rightly think of God the maker of all things, etc. Therefore Celsus affirms, that Images are by no means to be esteemed for God, but dedicated to the Gods; when as it is plainly perspicuous, that to make and affirm such things, is the part of such men as are about the divinity. But we shall not so much as account them as Images of the divine Image, as those who may make no form as of the invisible, so also of the incorporeal God. By both which charges and replies, it is clear, that Christians in those days had no material Temples, Altars, Images; but only spiritual Temples, Altars and Sacrifices in their hearts, and breasts, and that they rejected all material Altars, Images and Sacrifices as unlawful, and abominable. Origen himself not denying the charge to be true, but justifying the Christians for having neither, S. Arnobius in his 6. Book against the Gentiles, brings them in thus objecting: In this part ye have used to fix the greatest crime of impiety upon us, that we neither build sacred houses for the Offices of worship, that we constitute not the Image or form of any of the Gods, that we built no Altars, etc. (A plain charge against the Christians, that they then neither had, nor yet would build any Temples, or set up any Images or Altars, which they could not have objected if they had then any,) that we offer not the blood of slain beasts, not Frankincense, not salted corn, and that we bring not in liquid wine poured out in bowls. Which things verily (saith Arnobius) we do not therefore give over and forbear, either to build or do, as if we carried impious and wicked minds, or had taken up some contempt against the Gods out of a rash despair, but because we think & believe the Gods; (if so be they are Gods indeed, and endued with the eminency of this name?) will either deride these kinds of Honours, if they can laugh, or will take them ill at our hands, if they may be exasperated with the motions of anger. After which he shows at large the reasons, why Christians build no Temples, made no Images or Altars, and offered no such Sacrifices at all to God, & why they thought it unlawful so to do; not denying the objection but confessing the matter of fact to be true, and defending it from the very fundamental grounds of Religion; which he would never certainly have done had the Christians than had any material Temples, Images or Altars for any divine or spiritual use. e Instit. l. 6 De ver● Cultu c. 24. S. Lactantius, his Scholar, meets with the same objection, and answers it in this manner: Whosoever shall obey all these heavenly precepts, he is a worshipper of the true God, whose Sacrifices are meekness of mind, and an innocent life & good actions. All which things he who exhibits, sacrificeth so often as he shall do any good or pions' thing. For God desires not a Sacrifice, neither of a male creature, neither of death & blood, but of a man and of life. To which Sacrifice there is no need of Laurel or sacred leaves to adore the Altar, or rushes or green turfs which verily are most vain, but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart. Therefore upon the Altar of God, which is truly the greatest, and is placed in the heart of man which cannot be defiled with blood, is laid righteousness, Pretence, faith, innocence, chastity, abstinence. What mean Temples; what Altars, what finally Images themselves, which are either the monuments of dead, or absent persons. After which he e Instit. l. 2 c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 11. 17. 18. 19 disputes excellently against Images showing why Christians had none, and concludes, that D●●●lls were the Authors of Images, wherefore without doubt there is no Religion, where ever there is an Image. From all these Father's answers, therefore, it is most clear and evident, that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars; and that they held them both unlawful, unnecessary, ranking them both together as Paganism, judaism & Idolatr●●; they then using no Altars (no not to consecrate the Sacramention,) for fear of inclining to Gentelisme or judaism, or hardening the jews or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars. 3. These Histories forecited, which affirm, d See Tho●● beacons Relics of Rome. fol. 322. a. that Pope Sixtus the second about th● 〈◊〉 65. or 294, or after, first brought in Altars into the Church, will quite take of this absurd evasion. For these Altars thus introduced by him, were not for any bloody or external Sacrifice, such as the jews or Gentiles used, but only to consecrate & receive the Sacrament at, as all acknowledge. If then Altars even to administer the Sacrament at, were then first brought into the Church, and not before, as Historians generally accord; then certainly the Christians before that time, had no Altars, ●o not for the celebrating of the Lords Supper on; and so these authorities of Origen, Arnobius, Minucius Faelix, and Lactantius, must necessarily be intended, as all the forecited writers, and our Homilies interpret them, that Christians had no Altars at all in those times, no not to celebrate the Sacrament on, and then the shift in the e Page 45● 46. 47. Coal, that they had Altars for this purpose, but not for any bloody or external Sacrifices, must need be fabulous and forged, having no Authority, that I know to back it in any writer. Now whereas to justify this apparent falsehood, as I have manifested it, Object. the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius, styling the Lord Table, an Altar, is pretended, and so the name, and thing itself, used and known among Christians before that age. I answer, Answer. that these authorities in truth, when once examined, will vanish into smoke. To take them according to their Antiquity, not their Order. The ancient & main Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar. But this I shall afterward prove, to be meant only of Christ himself, not of the Communion Table, as all the Fathers and ancient expositors, our own writers, and Martyrs, and all Protestant Divines accord, without dissent, or question. So that this proves nothing. That of the Apostles Canons (the 〈◊〉 in pretended Antiquity) hath been long since disclaimed & branded as f Cooks Censura p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. counterfeit coin by all our learned writers, and many Papists themselves, yea as a spurious brat of some later age, many hundred years after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers. Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority, being all forged & spurious, a● g Censura p. 59 60. 61. M. Cook hath undeniably proved them. But admit them true, yet they made little to the purpose. For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos, is but this: Run all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the only begotten God. That in his 9 Epistle to the Philadelphians but this: There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one blood of his shed for us, and one Cup, which is distributed to us for all man, one Altar to all the Church. And that in his 7. Epistle of Tarsenses but this; Esteem Widows continuing in chastity as the Altar of God. Neither of these style the Communion Table, the Altar; the two first of them being meant of Christ, & the Church itself, the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude, only; the first applied to the Church, the other to Widows, neither to the Communion Table, the thing in question. That of Irenaeus, the next ancient, is to as little purpose his words advers. Haereses l. 9 c. 20. being but these; David was a Priest to God, although Saul persecuted him: Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem: yea all just men have a Priestly order, or are Priests So all the Apostles of the Lord are Priests, who neither inherit Feiles, nor houses, but always serve God and the Altar, of whom even Moses in Deutr. spoke in the benediction of Levy: who saith to his Father and Mother, I have not known thee, etc. Which Text speaks not of the Communion Table, nor of any proper Priests, or Altars, but only of spiritual & metaphorical Priests & Altars. For it termed all righteous men, Priests that attend on God and his Altar, & he saith, the Apostles were such when they plucked the ears of corn, they then waiting on God and the Altar, which was long before the Communion Table or Lords Supper was instituted, so that here the Altar; if properly meant, is not the Lords Table but the jewish Altar, and that before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted; If allegorically and spiritually, it is meant only of Christ, our spiritual Altar, Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9 on whom all the faithful, who are spiritual Priests, 1. Pet. 2. 9 Rev. 1. 6. do waste, not of the Lords Table, at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate. So that this makes nothing to the purpose. What Irenaeus means by the Altar, will appear more evidently by his own words. Adu. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where, as he styles the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, but g So he styles it also l. 5. p. 540. 541. the Eucharist, (with which he joins no other oblation used among Christians, but only that of praise and thankgiving, neither of which requires an Altar;) so he writes, that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar, (to wit the Sacrifice of prayer and praise) frequently without intermission. And lest any one should here dream of a material Altar here on earth, he explains himself what he means by the Altar, and where this Altar is situated in the very next words, EST ERGO ALTAR IN CAELIS, etc. Therefore our h Se Aug. de Sanctis Serm. 11. B. jewels Reply to Harding Artic. 20. divis. 3. p. 440, 441. & Art. 1. divis. 9 p. 18. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. accordingly, who use this very expression, that the Altar is in heaven, & Christ the Altar. ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS: For thither all our prryers' are directed. Irenaeus therefore neither knew, nor spoke of any Altar that Christians than had, but of Christ himself, who is now in heaven, neither doth he so much as once style the Lords Table, an Altar, nor make mention of an Altar, whereat the Sacrament was administered throughout his works. His authority therefore might well have been spared. The next Father is Tertullian, out of whom two passages are alleged; One, out of his Book de Poenitentia, where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras. Bowing and ducking to Altars, now much in use. But certainly Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity, as to be adored & bowed to, since the consecration of them came in long after, in Pope Felix time, as i Reliq. of Rome of Church Goods vol. 3. f. 322. M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon, neither can it be proved, that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars. This authority therefore is suspicious, & to put it out of doubt, Erasmus, Rhenanus, Junius, & k Censurae Pat 〈◊〉 p. 80. M. Cook prove it, not to be Tertullians' but some counterfeit thrust upon him, the phrase being certainly none of his, no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age. This counterfeit authority therefore will not stand the Coal in any stead. The second passage is that in his Book de Oratione c. 14. Nun solemnior ●rit statio tua●si●ad Atam Deisteris? Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned, not kneeling or bowing to, or at it, So that these two Authorities seem to thwart one another at the first view. To this I answer, that though this Book be generally conceived Tertullans, yet I suspect, that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained, where in this passage is, are none of his. For I find this passage in them: Sic & die Paschae quo communis & quasi publica jejunij religio est, merito deponiemus of culum, etc. which intimates, that Christians on Easter day did Keep, a common & public Fast, ●nd therefore refused to kiss one another's And it makes Easter day, not to be Stationum dies; a day of praying standing, as the next words prove. Now it is certain, that Tertullian in his Book de Corona Militis, writes, that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickedness to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lord's day, being the joyful day of Christ's resurrection, much more than to do it upon Easter day; and that the Christians did not fast but rejoice in remembrance of Christ's resurrection from Easter to whitsuntide. No Ecclesiastical writer extant then making mention of any solemn fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians, in that age on Easter day; who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoice, l See Greg. Nys. Orat. 3. de resur & all the Fathers on that Text. applying, that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast, Psall. 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoice and be glad in it. This passage makes me suspicious, that the later part of this Book is none of his. Add to this; That Cyprian (a m Hierom de scripto. Eccl. with others in the lives: of Cyprian & Tertul. prefixed to their works. great admirer of Tertullian, whom he styled his Minister) makes no mention of this Book or of Tertullian, or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar, or Kiss of peace, or other such Customs & Ceremonies, in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, which is probable he would have done, had Tertullian written any such Book as this, or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use, they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church. Moreover, this Book makes mention of Hermas Book, entitled the Pastor, by way of approbation, and gives an answer to an objection out of it; when as in his Book de Pudicitia, he thus censures it as counterfeit; Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha, falsa & adultera judicatur, as the n Cooks Censura p. 13. Books now passing under his name are accounted. Moreover, in this very Book of Tertullian, in his Book de Corona Militis, & so in S. Cyprian on the Lord's Prayer, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them, jointly styled, the Eucharist, & both of them interpret, Give us this day our daily bread, of Christ, who is our living and true bread which came down from heaven; whose body the Sacramental bread is esteemed, and on whom we daily feed in the Sacrament, and Eucharist. Now both of them styling the Sacrament, the Eucharist, and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, but only of spiritual bread to be eaten of us, (neither of a Table) we may doubt this passage to be none of his. Beside this, that famous o Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, flourishing but 240. years after Christ, very near Tertullians' time, writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome, that an ancient Minister, who was a Bishop long before him (a plain evidence, that Ministers & Bishops were then both one, and so promiscuously styled) being present when some were baptised & hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him, & falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptism where with he was baptised of the heretics was not true, whereupon he desired to be rebaptised: which he durst not do, but told him, that the daily Communion many times ministered might suffice him; when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE, and had stretched forth his hand to receive the holy food, and had communicated, and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, I durst not again baptise him, but bade him be of good cheer, of a sure faith, and boldly to approach unto the Communion of the Sincts. But he for all this morunneth continually, horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE, and being entreated hardly, is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiastical prayers. In which ancient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himself, we have not mention at all of any Altar, or Sacrament, or Sacrifice of the Altar, but twice together the name of the Lords Table, & also of a daily Communion, holy food, ministering and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ etc. Which being the proper genuine & undoubted language of that age, makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted. p De praes. adv. haer p 182 189. Ad uxorem. l. 2 128 129 130 De Coronr Militis p. 〈◊〉. & 〈◊〉 ●ent. He, as also q Diaelogus cum Tryphone and Apol. 2. Justine Martyr, & Clemens Alexandrinus, oft times making mention of the Lords Supper, the Eucharist, bread and wine, receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Precedents or chief Ministers, and the Tables to, but never of any Sacrament of the Altar, nor of an Altar, but only here. Finally, all the forequoted Fathers & Authors expressly determine, that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250, years after Christ had no Temples, Altars, nor Images at all, and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second, about the year of our Lord 265. after Tertullians' age. This authority therefore of his, & all others cited in the Coal, & r Ster●at. l. 1. & 4. Cent. Mag. 2. c. 6. De Retibus 〈◊〉 Coenan Dominican. great part of s Page 43. 44. 45. 46 D. Pocklingtons' Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches, Temples, Altars and Bishops chairs among Christians with in 200. years after Christ, must needs be fabulous & Apocryphal. He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches, in the Authors quoted (or in truth misquoted) by him, for material Churches, which they mean only of the Christian Congregations, who had then no public Churches, but only private places in Woods, Chambers, Vaults, Caves, and the like, to meet in, as t Apol. adv ●entes. Tertullian●, u Reply to Harding Artic. 3. divis. 26. p. 144. Bishop Jewel, and our x The 3. part of the Homily against the Paril of Idolatry p 66. 67. own Homilies witness. But admit this Book & Passage to be Tertullians' own, yet than it may be a question; whether Tertullian means by Aram the Lords-Table, or that place wherein the Christians met. y ●e Calep. & Holioke in their Dictionar. Ara. Ara signifying a Sanctuary, as well as an Altar. If the place wherein the Christians assembled, as the words preceding, & drift of the place import, (Sle militer de statlonum diebus, non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum, quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini. Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit, an magis Deo obligat? Nun solemnor erit statio s●ad Aram Dei steteris? (to wit after the Sacrament received) Accepto corpore Domini, & reservatio utrumque salarum est, & participatio Sacrificij, & executio officij: which cannot properly be intended, that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar, and not depart from it after they had received Christ's body and blood, standing still in the place that they received in: but, that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled, till all prayers & divine offices were fully ended. If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itself, then, it makes nothing to the purpose; if of the Altar or Communion Table itself, than it will inevitably follow hence, that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing, not kneeling, and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However, it is but a single Testimony, & therefore ought not to overbalance those many pregnant, weighty, punctual authorities to the contrary. The last authority, to prove the name & use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius & in O●igens time, is S. Cyprians: Three places out of him are quoted in the Coal, but the words not cited. The first is his z Epist. l. 1. Epist. 7. in Erasin. & Epist. 74. Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras. As if it were lawful after the Altars of the Devil, to approach to the Altar of God etc. whence we behold and believe this censure to have come from the disquisition of God; ne apud Altare consistere, that they should not persevere, to stand at the Altar, or any more to handle it: And that they should contend with all their might, that such should not return again, ad Altaris impiamenta & contagia fratrum, to the polluting of the Altar, and contagion of the brethren. The second is his a Epist. l. 1 Epist. 9 Epist. 69. in Pamel. Epistle to the Presbyters, Deacons and people of Furnis. It was long ago ordained in a Council of Bishops, that no Clergy man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer, of any man's will, since all who are honoured with divine priesthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing, but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices, and to prayers and orisons. The levitical Tribe which did wait on the Temple, and Altar, & divine service, had no inheritance or temporal portion allotted them among their brethren, but others manuring the earth, they should only worship God, etc. Therefore Victor since, against the form lately prescribed to Priests in the Council, he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter, a Tutor, non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio, aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur, ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose & necessary, factum, servetur a nobis, simul & caeteris fratribus detur exemplum, ne quid Sacerdotes & ministros Dei Altari ejus & Ecclesiae vocantes, ad saeculares molestias devocet. The third is his b Epist. l. 1 Epist. 12. Apud Pamelium 70. p. 101. Epistle to Januarius. Porro autem Eucharistia & unde baptizati unguntur oleum, in Altari sanctificatur, sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam, qui nec Altare habuit, nec Ecclesiam, unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse; quando constet oleum sanctificari & Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse. And in his Oration de Coena Domini, we find only once mention of the Lords Table, & twice of an Altar. To these authorities I answer first in general; that the often mention of an Altar in these places, rather argues the Epistles, & this Sermon not to be Cyprians, then that the Christians, in his time had Altars, which all the forecited Fathers & Authors deny. 2. That many forged works are attributed to S. Cyprian, and many places in him corrupted, as c Bastards of the false Fathers p. 11. to 18 D. James & M. Alexander Cook have proved, & among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini, (which mentions Altars) with other of his works to be none of his, but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis, d Censura p. 75. to 82 living about the year of our Lord 1156. at least 900. years after Cyprian: & these Epistles, for aught I know, may be his or some others; e Se Cookes Censura, D. L●nes & D. Favar. most at least many of the Epistles, or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes, being spurious. 3. The name Altar is not usual in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age; & Dionysius●Alexandrinus (as I have proved in his Epistle, registered by f Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Eusebius) living about S. Cyprians age, twice terms it only the Lords Table. 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles, seems to stagger at them, nor knowing certainly to the fine what time they were written, nor what the parties were to whom, or concerning whom, they were directed. 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist, the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, & the Table in S. Paul's words, only the Lords Table. And in his g Epist. l. 2 Epist. 3. in Pamelius Epist. 63. Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament, which all coufes to be his, he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament, writing, that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the evangelical truth, and Dominical tradition, nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commanded and done by any humane and novel Tradition; that we ought herein to do only what the Lord hath done before; that if S. Paul or an Angel from heaven should teach us to do any thing, than what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema: That Christ only is to be heard; therefore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall think meet to be done, but that Christ who is before all men, hath first done. Neither ought we to follow the custom of any man, but the truth of God. For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ, I find none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therefore tying himself and all men thus strictly to Christ's institution, & example, in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament: And Christ & his Apostles never administering it at an Altar, nor styling the Lords-Table, an Altar, & his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar, I cannot but from hence conclude, that these Passages certainly are none of Cyprians. But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities. 1. I answer, That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table, an Altar, nor expressly affirm, that Christians than had Altars, being a mere allusion to the Priests and Altars under the Law, relating to that of 1. Cor. 9 13. & Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itself doth evidence. Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers, Prayers, & Sermons, when we had no Altars in our Church for them to wait at, nor Communion Tables called or known by the names of Altars. 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. years after S. Cyprians time, to wit in the Council of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Council held in his age, which makes it suspuious if not spurious, written long after his decease. 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars, then, it makes far more against our Bishop's tenets & power now, since it expressly affirms, that the people have power, & are boundin conscience to reject always, and not to receive any man for their Bishop, or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopric, who shall fall away from the truth to heresy, or Idolatry; that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopric, and, becomes no Bishop, neither aught to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop, but the people are to elect a new in his ste●d; the main, scope & drist of this Epistle. To the second I answer, that this Epistle mentions, a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Council, not in S. Cyprians age, for aught appears, before whose days we read of no such Council, but long after; Yea Pamelius notes, that this Epistle was written in some Council, in what he knoweth not, belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Council of Carthages, an hundreth years after that under S. Cyprian; In which Counsels the h Concil. Carthag. 1 Can. 6. 9 & 3. Can. 15. & 4. Can. 18. 20. Constitution mentioned in this Epistle, (written as is evident by the subject of it, after these 3. Counsels) was made and decreed; & so not S. Cyprians. And indeed the words, Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio, a●t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur; discover it rather to be some late Popish Friars, than his. But admit it his, yet the word Altar, and expression herein used, is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9 13. & doth not expressly define the Lord's Table to be an Altar, or so named or reputed in his age, or that the Christians than had Altars. And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age, yet that expressly condemns Clergiemens intermeddling with any secular offices, or employments whatsoever, since they ought wholly, yea solely to addict and devote themselves to God's service, prayer, preaching, and other spiritual duties of their ministerial function. A shroud * Tui opinionem nominis enormiter gravat, quod causas sanguinis agis, quod abjecta Ecclesiarum solicitudine negocijs seculari●us te tott●m occupas, & involuis. Verum tamen tui professio ordini●, nec degeneres saeculi curas, nec saevitiam gladij materialis admittis Apost. dicit. Secularia negotia si habueri●is, eos, qui contemptibiliores sunt inter vos, ad judicandum eligite. Non decet ordinem profeffionis tuae in alea tanti diutius ludere & salute anime spietate ade● damnabiliter secularibus involuere montemque Seir Bariginoso spiritu circumine. Petr. Blesens. Epist. 42. ad Epist. Camoracenj. check to some of our present Prelates & Clergiemen, now most zealous for Altars, who dare presume to take upon them temporal offices, honours, employments, & so far to engage themselves in Secular, Temporal, Civil, or State affairs, that many of the● almost wholly neglect their spiritual functions and duties, serving the world and Mammon more than God himself. To the third, I answer that this savours not of Cyprians age, in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrism, or the Sacrament, on an Altar, much less the Doctrine of that time, that Chrism or the Eucharist could not be consecrated without an Altar, which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius, I may farther affirm it, to be a l●●e Popish forgery and imposture, than S. Cyprians. And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude, notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coal, that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. years after Christ had no Altars, neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar, and so my ● 9 Argument still holds good, maugre all those spurious Fathers & newminted evasions. I now proceed to my 10. Argument: 10. Those things and names which the whole Church, State, & most approved writers of our Church of England have censured, abandoned, & condemned upon good, godly, pious grounds, & considerations heretofore, ought not to be patronised, used, written, preached for, revived, or new erected in our Churches now. But the whole Church, State, & most approved writers of the Church of England have censured, abandoned, and condemned Altars, with their names, and the calling of the Communion Tables, upon i Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211. good, godly, pious grounds & considerations heretofore. Therefore they ought not to be patronised used written for or preached, revived, or new erected in our Churches now; The Major is unquestionable, the Minor evidently proved in, & by the premises, which yet to make more perspicuous, I shall further clear by these ensuing authorities, k See H●d. Cant. O●or l 3 s. 271 Osotius, l See Novels Reproof of Dormans' Proof f. 15. 16. 17. Dormian, m In his Preface before his Reply to B. jewel. Harding, n Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect. 18. on Hebr. 13. sect. 6. the Rhemists, o See Reynolds Conf with Hare c. 8. div 4. Hart, and p Garner deEuchar. & others forecited. other Papists, complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth, and the Church of England in their time, that they had taken away, broken down, demolished all the Altars, and cast them out of the Church, setting up profane Tables or Oister-boards, as they termed them in their steeds, using only such Tables, not Altars, to consecrate the Lords-Supper on; blaming our Church in the self same manner, q De Eucharistia, or the Sacrament of the Altar. & for the self same cause, as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church, for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon. A clear Confession and apparent evidence, that the Church of England both in King Edward's, and Queen Elizabeth's days, abolished and condemned Altars. Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward days, that they had no Altars, but Tables and Boards to eat and drink at; to which r Peter Martyr. Defensia ad●. Gard. deEuchar. Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford in King Edward's days, returned this answer; What use is there of an Altar, where no fire burns, nor beasts are slain for Sacrifices. And concerning bowing to Altars (a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised, both without Scripture & Canon) he there thus determines; If an Angel from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars, let him be accursed. I do not think (saith he) that any of the Fathers were polluted with so gross Idolatry, as to bow their bodies before Altars, especially when there is no Communion; but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus, let none of us be lead by their Books, or examples to decline from the strict observation of God's Law, which peremptorily forbiddeth, the making of Idols & bowing to them or before them. This was this great learned man's judgement concerning Altars & bowing to them. William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox, 2. William Wraghton dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England. f. 12, Ye hold still Vestments, Popes, incense and ALTARS, organs & crosses in the Church, all which ordinances, Constitutions, & Ceremonies the Pope hath devised & maed, Ergo ye still have the Pope. Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances & Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained. William Salisbury, 3 William Salisbury. in his Battery of the Popes Batter, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. & dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chancellor of England, spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars, as Heathenish, Jewish, Popish, and unfit to be tolerated in Churches; to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture, should not have occasion to murmur grudge, or be offended, neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England (who as redoubted grand Captain, hath first enterprised, on this most notable feat) nor with any other Bishop or Lawful Officer, that attempted to pluck down and remove the Popish Altars out of Christ's, Churches and Temples; in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded, that all the learned Popist● would stiffly continue, as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader. In which Treatise, after he had showed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish, serving only for Sacrifices & offerings, which ended in and with Christ's offering up of his body once for all: be concludes thus: So then now if it be a clear case, and that by the plain text of Holy Scripture, that since Christ was once offered on the Altar of the Cross, all carnal Sacrifices, & all manner of offerings, that ever were wont to be offered upon the Altars, be wholly extinguished, utterly void and of none effect. And in as much as no man (being in his right wit when he advisedly perceiveth and plainly understandeth, that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose, but to burn or to offer Sacrifices & oblations upon, which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept) but he will straight ways acknowledge, that their ought not any Altar to remain to any use among us Christians, after the death and passion of our Master Christ; at which time as he protesteth himself, saying, Consum●tum est, it is finished; signifying thereby, that Moses Law was not only by him prevented, fulfilled, and finished, but that the same Law or any Commandment, Rite, Ceremony, or any other part there in contained, (as concerning any burdening or Jurisdiction over the Christians) was to all intents ended, taken away, and fully determined, and the Gospel as it were a new Law, surrogated, confirmed and established in steed of the old. Therefore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars, but Tables; For what husbandman (be he never so simple) will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe, to harrow it with a slede, or to carry with an harrow? what husbandman, I say is so foolish, as to go about to weed his corn with a sith, to moye his hey with a weeding hook; and to tedde the same with a rake? Is a leaden Cistern made for to sail on the Sea, is a ship, made to be drawn of horses as a waggon upon the Land? do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in, and lie themselves in old ruinons stables? or do men ordain featherbeds for their dogs, and lie themselves in kennels? who maketh a Garnar of an Oven, or an Oven of a Garnar? Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house, and a hearth in his barn? who can make a pleasant & a brave banqueting house, of filthy Schambles, or of a stinking Slaughter house? Yea or who had not rather have his Supper laid on a fair Table before him, then on a bloody Butchars' Cradle. And so likewise (to apply some of these strong Anagogies and dark sayings to our purpose) is not a Garnar more meet to lay up grain in than an Oven? Is it not more meet to make a threshing flore in a barn then in a man's dwelling house? And to make an hearth to kindle fire on in the mids of a man's house, then by the moyes side in his barn. And so who can make the Jews old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new evangelic Banqueting Temple? Or who had rather eat the heavenly banquet of the Lords Supper on a Jewish, a heathenlyk, or a Popish Altar: then on a decent● & a fair comely Table? The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christ's Table and his Supper also. The unfaithful heathen thinks scorn of the same. The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet. The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion. The Heathen in no sense can away with it. The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian, yea to be thought to be Christ himself, so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen. And shall we seek upon them? Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies, of their execrable Rites, and cursed usages? Or is Christ's religion so unperfit of itself, so needy and beggarly, that it must borrow imbring Fasts of the heathen, borrow Altars of the Pope, & borrow vestiments of the Jews? beside an unnumerable sort of other like baggage, which hath been weeded now of late out of Christ's Religion, and now restored home to the owners thereof. Therefore let us either render home again unto the heathen, the superstition of the imbring days, and to the Pope his hallowed Altars, and unto the Jews, their Aaron's vestiments: or else let us like good companions join together in a league with them, and be tenants in Commune, & put our religion with theirs in hotch potche. After which at the end of the Book he proceeds thus: S. Paul through the secret advertisement of the Holy Ghost did know before hand, then if he had given the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table, that there would be in time to come certain Jewish teachers that would build and set up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon. And surely the holy D. S. Augustine, nor any other Godly writer, would never have used this term Altar, so often; after that sort as they did, if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge, what absurdity, what inconveniency, and what mischief and abomination have been grounded on their translated terms. And I pray you what though S, Augustine, or other Doctors used to term the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, which if it be as I take it (I take it after the most sound and faithfullist understanding) the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their strange terms being so far fetched. For thus I understand them: The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the sign of the Altar, which Altar betokeneth the Cross, which Cross betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offered on the Crolle, or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherefore good Christian brethren, let us that are homely fellows, not be ashamed of the old Terms, that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture, which calleth the reverend and healthful remembrance of the Lords death by breaking of bread, by the name of the Lords Supper, or the Communion, & partaking of the body & blood of Christ. And the thing whereat we * vel propter art● latriam vitandam tutius erit ut sedengenu flectens mensae Dominicae populus accumbere assuescant. They therefore used 〈◊〉 sit at the Sacrament in King Edward's days to avoid the peril of adoration. sit devoutly to eat the Lords Supper, let us both have it, and call it the Lords-bord, or the Lords-Table, and not a borrowed towel, nor a Popish stone Altar, nor yet a wooden Altar, with a Super-altar. And let us present with so far fetched terms and so dearly bought, the Popes glace, and his fair Ladies of Rome. Thus he. John Bale Bishop of Osiris, 4. john Bale Bishop of Osiris. in his Image of both Churches, or paraphrase upon the Revelation, as he makes Christ himself the only Altar spoken of and intended. Rev. 6. 9 & c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offered: So in his Preface to the first part of his Book, he reckons up beads, Altars, Images, Organs, Lights etc. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church, terming them; the very filthy dreggs of darkness. All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he saith shallbe plucked away by the evident word of God, and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appear. For no longer continueth the whore, than whoredom is in price. Take away the Rites and Ceremonies, the Jewels and Ornaments, the Images and lights, their Lordships and Fatherhodes, the Altars and Masses, with the Bishops and Priests, and what is their Holy whorish Church any more. Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9, 5. B. Pilkington. reckons up Altars, Copes, Masses, & Trentals among other Popish abominations, which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Money, how wickedly soever they had lived. And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus: The Pope's Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all: as for the eyes, their God hangs in a rope, Images gilded, painted, carved most finely, copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners, with Relics and Altars: for the ears, singing, ringing and Organs piping: for the nose frankincense sweet; to wash away sins, as they say, Holy water of their own holying, and making Priests an infinite sort, Masses, Trentals, driges, and pardons etc. But where the Gospels preached, they knowing that God is not pleased, but only with a pure heart, they are content with an Honest place appointed, to resort together in, though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all, but have only a pulpit, a preacher to the People, a Deacon for the poor, a Table for the Communion, with bare walls, or else written with Scriptures, having Gods eternal word, sounding always amongst them in their sight and ears; and last of all they should have good discipline, correct faults, and keep good order in all their meetings. Learned M. Thomas Becon, 6. Thomas Becon. in his works in Folio, printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. & dedicated by name to both their Archbishops & all the Bishops of England, & by them approved; hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars, some whereof I shall transcribe at large. In his Humble supplication unto God, for the restoring of his Holy word, written in Queen Mary's days vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus: Moreover, * Heb. 13. Altars not tolerable among Christians heretofore we were taught, to beat down the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars, which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new priesthood, & a strange Sacrifice for sin, commanded to be built up, as though calves, goats, sheep, & such other brute beasts should be offered again after the priesthood of Aaron, Christ, his Apostles and the primative Church used tables at the ministration of the holy Communion for the sins of the people, and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table, and after the example of Christ, to receive together at it the holy mysteries of Christ's body and blood in remembrance that Christ's body was broken, and his blood shed for our sins. But now the sacrificing sorcerers shame not, both in their private talk, and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord, and therefore have they taken out of the Temples those seemly Tables, which we following the examples of the dearly beloved son, and of the Primative Church used. at the Ministration of the Holy Communion, and they have brought in again their bloodly and butcherly Altars. and upon those they sacrifice & offer daily, O cruel butchers. say they, that is, they kill, slay and murder thy dear son Christ for the sins of the people. For as thy Holy Apostle saith Heb. 9 Where no shedding of blood is, there is no remission and forgiveness of sins. If thorough their Massing, sins be forgiven, then must the Sacrifice that there is offered, be slain, and the blood thereof shed. If the Massmonger therefore offer Christ up in their Masses, a Sacrifice unto God for the sins of the people, O murderers. so followeth it that they murder, kill and slay Christ, yea and shed his blood at their Masses, and so by this means we must needs confess, that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers, then honest and pure Tables. But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death, dyeth no more. Death hath no more power over him. For as touching that he died, he died concerning sin once. And as touching that he liveth, he liveth unto the God his Father. If Christ therefore died no more, then do the Papists sacrifice him no more. If they sacrifice him no more, then are they but jangling juglars, and their Masses serve for none other purpose; Masses why they serve. but to keep the people in blindness, to deface the passion and death of Christ, and to maintain their idle and drafsacked bellies, in all pomp and honour, with the labour of other men's hands, and with the sweat of poop men's brows, so far is it of, that they with their abominable Massing & stinking sacrificing, put away the sins either of the quick or of the dead, as they make the unlearned & simple people to believe. Ah Lord God & heavenly Father, if thou were not a God of long suffering & of great patience, how couldst thou abide these intolerable injuries, and so much detestable blasphemies, which the wicked Papists commit against thee & thy son Christ, in their Idolatrous Masses, at their Heathenish Altars. As in the days of wicked Queen Jezabel, The Lord's Table cast out of the Temples Dan. 11. the Altars of the Lord were cast down, and other Altars were reared, and set up to Baal: even so now the Tables of the Lord, where the Holy Communion was most Godly ministered, are cast down & broken on pieces, and Idolatrous Altars built up to the God Moazim, to Erkenwald, to Grimbald, to Catherine, to Modwyne, 1. Cor. 10. etc. But o Lord, banish out of the Congregation that most vile & stinking Idol the Mass, and restore unto us the Holy & blessed Communion, that we eating together of one bread, and drinking of one Cup, may remember the Lords death, & be thankful, to thee. Purge our Temples of all Popish abominations, of Ceremonies, Ceremonies. of Images, of Altars, of Copes, of vestments, of Pixes, of Crosses, of Censers, of Holy waterbuckets, of Holy bread basketes, of Chrismatories, & above all Idolatrous Priests, and ungodly ignorant Curates. And in his Comparison between the Lord's Supper and the Pope's Mass fol. 100 101. 102. 103. He proceeds thus; Christ in the administration of his most holy Supper, The apparel of the Massemongers. used his common & daily apparel. The Massmonger like Hickescorner being dressed with scenical & gameplayers garments, as with an humeral, or Ephod; with an Albe, with a girdle, with a stole, with a maniple, with an amice, with a chesible, The gesture which the Mass mongers use in their Mass. and the like etc. cometh unto the Altar with great Pomp, and with a solemn pace. Where (it is wonderful to be spoken) how he setteth forth himself, to all Godly men to be lamented & pitied, & to children, even to be derided & to be lauged to scorn, while like another Roscius, with his foolish, playerlike & mad gestures, the poor wretch wrytheth himself on every side, now bowing his knees, now standing right up, now crossing himself, as though he were a frayed of spirits, now stopping down, now prostrating himself, now knocking on his breast, now sensing, now kissing the Altar, the Book and Patene, now stretching out his arms, now folding his hands together, now making characters, signs, tokens, & crosses, now lifting up the bread & Chalice, now holding his peace, now crying out, now saying, now singing, now breathing, now making no noise, now washing of hands, now eating, now drinking, now turning him unto the Altar, now unto the people, now blessing the people either with his fingers, or with an empty cup, etc. When it evidently appeareth by the Histories, that the Ministers of Christ's church in times past when they ministered the Holy Sacraments, either of Baptism or of the Lords Supper, used none other, than their Common and daily apparel: yea and that unto the time of Pope Stephen the first, which first of all (as Sabellicus testifieth) did forbid, that from thence, forth priests in doing their divine service should no more use their daily array, but such holy garments as were appointed unto that use. This Bishop lived in the year of our Lord 260. Christ simply and plainly, and without any decking or gorgeous furniture, prepared and ministered that heavenly banquet. The Massmonger with a marvellous great pomp & wonderful gay sh●w setteth forth his merchandise. The Mass mongers Trinkets. For he hath an Altar sumptuously built, yea & that is covered with most fine and white linen clothes, so likewise richly garnished, decked and trimmed with diverse gorgeous pictures, and costly Images. He hath also crewettes for water and for wine, towels, coffers, pyxes, Philacteries, banners, candlesticks, wax candles, organs, singing Bells, sacry bells, chalices of silver and of gold, patenes, sensers' ship, frankincense, Altar cloothes, curtines, paxes, basyns, ewers, crosses, Chrismatory, Relics, jewels, ouches, precious stones, mitres, cross staves, and many other such like ornaments, more meet for the priesthood of Aaron, then for the mynistery of the New Testament. It is nobly said of * Lib 2. Offic. c. 18. S. Ambrose, the Sacraments require no gold, neither do they delight in gold, which are not bought for gold. The garnishing of the Sacraments is the redemption or deliverance of the captives and prisoners. And verily those are precious vessels, which redeem souls from death. That is the true treasure of the Lord, which worketh that, that his blood hath wrought. Again he saith: The church hath gold, not that it should keep it, but that it should bestow it, and help when need is. For what doth it profit to keep that, which serveth to no use? Christ did minister the Sacrament of his body and blood to his Disciples, sitting at the Table. When the time was now come (saith Luke) Jesus sat down, and his 12. Disciples with him. Luc. 22. The Massmonger, delivered the bread and wine to his geates kneeling before the Altar. In distributing the mysteries of his body & blood, Christ the Lord used not an Altar after the manner of Aaron's priests, whom the Law of Moses appointed to kill and offer beasts, but he used a Table, as a furniture, much more meet to get, defend, confirm, increase and continue Friendship. But the Massmonger as one always desirous to shed blood, standeth at an Altar, and so delivereth the Communion to his people: when as the Apostle speaking of the Holy banquet, maketh mention not of an Altar, but of a Table, saying, 1. Cor. 10. Ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Table, & of the Table of the Devils. Neither did the ancient & old Church of Christ allow these aaronical and Jewish Altars. For they used a Table in the administration of the Lords Supper, after the example of Christ, as it plainly appeareth both by the Holy Scriptures, Altars. & also by the writings of the ancient Fathers and Doctors. For the Sacrifices taken away, to what use, I pray you should Altars serve among the Christians? except ye will call again, and bring in use the Jewish or rather Idolatrous Sacrifices. Truly Altars serve rather for the kill of beasts, then for the distribution of the pledges of amity or Friendship; Note. neither do those Altars more agree with the Christian Religion, Exod. 2●. than the cauldron, the fyrepanne, the basin, the sholve, the fleshhoke, the gredyrne, and such like instruments, which the priests of Aaron used in preparing, dressing, and doing their Sacrifices. For unto the Honest, seemly & worthy celebration of the Holy banquet, of the body and blood of Christ, we have need not of an Altar, but of a Table, except ye will say, that the primative Church, When Altars came first into the Church which more than two hundred years after Christ's ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the divine mysteries: yea except ye will say that Christ himself the Author of this most Holy Supper, did dote & was out of his wits, which not standing at an Altar, like Aaron's Priest, but sitting at a Table, as a Minister of the New Testament did both ordain and minister this Holy & Heavenly food. For who is so rude & ignorant of antiquities, which knoweth not, that Pope Sixtus the second, about the year of our Lord 265. brought in the Altars first of all in the Church forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the ministration of the Lords Supper; when notwithstanding from Christ's ascension unto that time, the Lords Supper was always ministered at a Table, according to the practice of Christ of his Apostles, and of the Primative Church? But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and of the virgin Mary, of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner, Heb. 13, We have an Altar, whereof it is not Lawful for them to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle. Our Altar is not of stone, but of God. Not Worldly, but Heavenly, not visible, but invisible. Not dead, but living; upon the which Altar whatsoever is offered unto God the Father, it can none otherwise be, but most thankfully and most acceptable. And like as Christ administering the most Holy mysteries of his body & blood to his Disciples, sat down at the Table. So likewise his Giustes, that is so say his Apostles, sitting at the same Table received that Heavenly food sitting. But the Massmonger delivereth not the Sacramental bread unto the Communicants except, they first of all kneel down with great humility & reverence, that they may, by this their gesture declare & show evidently to such as are present, that they worship & honour that bread for a God: which is so great & so notable wickedness as none can exceed, when it is plain & evident by the ancient writers, that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many years after Christ's resurrection sat at the Table. So far is it of, that they either after the manner of the Jews stood right up: or after the custom of the Papists kneeled, when they should receive the Holy mysteries of the body & blood of Christ. So in his catechism f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus: Father. What thinkest, thou, is it more meet to receive the Supper of the Lord at a Table, A Table more meet for the ministration of the Lords Supper, than an Altar. or at an Altar? Son. At a Table. Father. Why so? Son. For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table, and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table. And what can be more perfect than that, which Christ and his Apostles have done. All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table. And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper, maketh mention not of an Altar, but of a Table. Ye can not be partakers, saith he, of the Lord's Tables, and of the Devils also. Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ, almost 300. years after Christ universally, and in some places longer, as Histories make mention: So that the use of Altars is but a new invention, and brought in, as some write, by Pope Sixtus the second of that name. Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice. And Altars were built and set up at the Commandment of God, to offer Sacrifice upon them. But all those * Heb. 100L. Sacrifices do now cease, (for they were but shadows of things to come) therefore the Altar ought to cease with them. Christ alone is our Altar, our Sacrifice & our Priest. Our Altar is in Heaven, Our Altar is not made of stone, but of flesh & blood: of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar, whereof it is not Lawful for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle. Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars, while they had such confidence in them, that without an Altar, or in the stead thereof, a Superaltare, they were persuaded that they could, not duly & truly, and in right form minister the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar, likewise must be consecrate, have prints and charactes made therein, washed with oil, wine and water, be covered with a cloth of hair, and be garnished with fine white linen clothes & other costly apparel, or else whatsoever was done thereon, was counted vain & unprofitable. The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed & maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresy, which the Papists hold, concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass; while they teach, that they offer Christ in their Mass to God the Father, an oblation and Sacrifice for the sins of the people both of the living and of the dead, and by this means they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling & alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christ's death. And therefore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no less to be thrown down, and cast out of the Temples of the Christians, then in times past the Altars of the priests of Baal. So far is it of that they be meet to be used, at the Celebration of the Lords Supper. Finally, who knoweth not that we come unto the Lord's Table, not to offer bloody Sacrifices, to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars, but to eat and drink, and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offered up for us on the Altar of the cross, a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father, yea and that once for all. Now if we come together to eat and drink these Holy mysteties, & so spiritually to eat Christ's body and to drink his blood unto salvation both of our bodies & souls, who seeth not, that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper, than an Altar. Father. Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended. Of gestures to be used at the Lords Table. But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table? Shall we receive those Holy mysteries, kneeling, standing or sitting? Son, Albeit I know & confess, that gestures of themselves be indifferent, yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoided, as have outwardly any appearance of evil, according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstain from all evil appearance. And first of all, Of kneeling. forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ, at the receiving of the Sacrament, thorough the doctrine of the Papists, although of itself, it be indifferent, to be, or not to be used, yet would I wish, that it were taken away by the authority of the higher powers. Father. Why so? Son. For it hath an outward appearance of evil. When the Papist thorough their pestilent persuasions had made of the Sacramental bread and wine a God, then gave they in Commandment straight ways, that all people should with all reverence kneel unto it, worship & honour it. And by this means this gesture of kneeling crept in, and is yet used in the Church of the Papists, to declare that they worship the Sacrament, as their Lord God and Saviour. (Whence M. Roger Cutchud. in his 1. & 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio, Anno 1560. writes:) Many coming to the Lords Table, do misbehave themselves, & so do the lookers on, in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling & bowing their bodies, & knocking their breasts, & with Elevation of their hands. If it were to be elevated & served to the standers by, as it hath been used, Christ would have elevated it above his head. He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples; bidding them to eat it, & not to hold up their hands to receive it, & not to worship it: & so delivered it to them SITTING, & not kneeling: Only God is to be so honered with this kind of reverence, & no Sacrament: for God is not a Sacrament, neither is the Sacrament God. Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did. If thou wilt be more devout, than they were, be not deceived, but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatry.) But I would wish with all my heart, that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament, were taken away, or else that the people were taught, that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward sign, but to Christ, which is represented by that Sacrament or sign. But the most certain & sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling, that there may outwardly appear no kind of evil, according to this Commandment of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstain from all evil appearance: Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error, and the weaklings offended, and plucked back from the truth of the Gospel. Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone. Therefore when Satan commanded our Saviour Christ to kneel down before him & worship him: He answered, It is written; thou shalt worship the Lord, Math. 4. Standing, Of standing. which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our days, I can right well allow it, if it be appointed by common order, to be used at the receiving of the Holy Communion. And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commandment of God of the old Jews, Exod. 12. when they did eat the Paschall Lamb, which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come, as our Sacrament is a sign & figure of Christ come and gone. Neither did that gesture want his mysteries. For the standing of the Jews at the eating of the Lords Passeover, signified that they had a further journey to go in matters of Religion, and that there was a more clear light of the Gospel to shine, than had hethereto appeared unto them, which were wrapped round about with the dark shadows of ceremonies: again that other, yea and these more perfect Sacraments, were to, be given to God's people, which all things were fulfilled and came to pass under Christ, the author of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospel, and the institutor of the Holy Sacraments, Baptism and the Lords Supper. Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table, Of sitting. which is also used at this day in certain reformed Churches, if it were received by public authority and common consent, and might conveniently be used in our Churches; I could allow that gesture best. For as * Note. it is be doubted, but that Christ and his Disciples sat at the Table, when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and blood: which use was also observed in the primative Church, and long after. So likewise it is most Commonly, that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ, and of his Disciples. Nothing can be unreverently done, that is done of the example of Christ & of his Apostles. We come together to eat and drink the Holy mysteries of the body and blood of Christ; we have a Table set before us, is it not meet and convenient, that we sit at our Table? The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat? yea rather who sitteth not down? when Christ feed the people, he bade them not kneel down, nor stand upon their feet, but he commanded them to sit down, John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eat and drink, which thing we do at the Lords-Table. Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery. For as the standing of the Jews at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified, that there was yet to come another doctrine than the Law of Moses, even the preaching of the glorious Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus: & other Sacraments than Circumcision and the Passeover, even the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lords Supper. So in like manner the sitting of the Christian Communicants at the Lords Table doth signify, preach and declare unto us, that we are come to our journeys end concerning Religion, & that there is none other doctrine, nor none other Sacraments to be looked for, than those only, which we have already received of Christ the Lord. And therefore we sitting down at the Lords Table show by that our gesture, that we are come to the perfection of our Religion, and look for none other doctrine to be given unto us: Notwithstanding as I said before, gestures are free, so that none occasion of evil be either done or offered. In all things which we call indifferent; this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed: Abstain from all evil appearance. Father. I do not disallow thy judgement in this behalf. Of vestures at the ministration of the Lords Supper. But come of, tell me: what sayest thou concerning the vestures, which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper? Son. In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplice & a cope, in some only a surplice: in some neither cope nor surplice, but their own decent apparel. Father. And what thinkest thou in this behalf? Son. When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body & blood to his disciples, he used none other but his own Commone & daily apparel: & so likewise did the Apostles after him, and the primative Church likewise used that order, & so was it continued many years after, till superstition began to creep into the Church. After that time, fond, foolish fancy of man's idle brain devised without the authority of God's word, that the Minister in the divine service, and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linen vesture, which we now commonly call a Surplice. Surplice. Until this time the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ & of his Apostles, requiring no painted visores to set forth the glory & beauty of our Religion: which is then most glorious, and most beautiful; when it is most simple, & none otherwise setforth, than it was used and left unto us of Christ, & of his Apostles. And contrariwise it is then most obscured & defaced, when it is daubed over with the vile & vain colours of man's wisdom, although outwardly never so gorgeous and glorious. Afterward as superstition grew and increased, so likewise the people began more and more to be liberal in giving to the Church, and in adjourning, decking & trimming the Temples of the Christians, yea & that so much the more, because they were now persuaded, that such Temples, and will works pleased God, deserved remission of sins & everlasting life. By this means came it to pass, that the simple and plain Tables, which were used in the Apostolic and Primative Church, were taken away, and standing Altars set up, and gorgeously decked with sumptuous apparel, & garnished with gold, pearl, & precious stone. And because that he, which should minister at that gorgeous & sumptuous Altar, should answer in some points to the glory thereof, therefore it was devised, that the minister also should have on his back * See D. Rainolds conference with Hart c. 8. divis. 4. 5. Haddon contra Osorium lib. 3. fol. 285. M. Nowel's Reproof of Dormans' Proof fol. 66. And Thomas beacons Comparison between the Lord's Supper, & the Pope's Mass. Bishop jewel Defence of the Apology part. 3. c. 5. divis. 1. gallant and gorgeous apparel, as an Amyce, an albe, a tunic, a girdle, a fannell, a stole, a vestment etc. whereof some were made of silk, some of velvet, some of cloth of gold, yea & those garnished with Angels, with Images, with birds, with beasts, with fishes, with flowers, with herbs, with trees, and with all things that might satisfy and please the vain eye of the carnal man. And all these things being before but voluntary, gre● afterward unto matters of so great weight & importance, yea unto such necessity, that it was made a matter of conscience, yea it was become deadly sin to minister the Holy Communion without these scenical, Histrionical, & Hickescorner like garments; so that now to sing Mass or to consecrate, as they use to say, without these Popish robes, is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sin, so far is it of, that these Missal vestures are now things of indifferency. Wherefore in my judgement, it were meet and convenient, that * See Fox Acts and Monum. p. 1873. 1356. 1366. 1384. 1405. 1604. 1781. 1834. 1837. accordingly. 7. Deane Nowell. all such disguised apparel were utterly taken away, forasmuch as it is but the vain invention of man, & hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papists? For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idols? what concord is there between Christ and Beliall: what have the vestments of a Popish Altar, to do with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author, which for brevity case I pretermitt. Reverend M. Alexander Nowell, in his reproof of Dormans' proof, printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. & 66. writes thus: Touching the name of Altars, which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill (as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9) where we call it the Lords Table, we have for us good authority. First, that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table, and not at an Altar, is most manifest: except M. Dorman would have us think, that men had Altars in steed of Tables, in their private houses in those days, but our Saviour expressly saying, that the hands of him, who should betray him, were upon the Table, taketh away all doubting. Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam, the Lord his Table. Sure I am that M. Dorman, & all the Papists with him, can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament, for their Altars, as I have alleged for the Lords Table, they may go therefore & join themselves to the Jews, as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies, so in Altars also; as it seemeth indeed, they would both become themselves, and make us to Jews, rather than Christians. If S. Basill, & some old writers call it an Altar, that is no proper, but a figurative name, for that as in the old Law their burnt offerings & Sacrifices were offered upon the Altar, so are our Sacrifices of prayer, and thankgiving etc. offered up to God at the Lords Table, at it were an Altar. But such kind of figurative speech, can be no just cause, to set up Altars, rather than Tables, unless they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars, for that like phrase is used of them, where it is said, Christ offered up himself upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old * Chrysost. Hom. ●18. in 2. Cor. August. Tract. 26. in joan. & multi multis locis Doctors do call it the Lords Table, usually, truly, without figure, and agreably to the Scriptures. Concerning the spiritual worship or service of God, or Sacrifice, if you will (seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill) due to be done at the Lords Table, which, as a fore is noted, he calleth an Altar, it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table: that is to say, true repentance of heart, which is as the Prophet calleth it, Psal. 51. v. 19 a service & a Sacrifice pleasant unto God, the offering up of our prayers & praises unto God; which service and Sacrifice of praise, as the Psal. withnesseth, Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God; & specially that Sacrifice of thanks giving, most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table, and to that Holy Sacrament, having thereof a peculiar name, being called with the greeks Eucharistia, to say, thanks giving, for the grateful remembrance of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all: which Sacrifice of thanks giving we jointly with other present, do offer up to Christ our Saviour, in the memorial by himself, and by faith in our heats do communicate his precious body and blood, a Sacrifice by himself offered for us. Neither are our oblations, or offerings to the poor lacking, when we come to this Altar, which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable, and pleasant to God, where as you Papists have no such thing, but only the bare word Offertorium, without any offering for the poor; saving that you did not forget to receive the offerings for yourselves at the usual offering days, and when any Dirige, or Months mind did fall. Thus you see, M. Dorman, that we have even that same spiritual worship, service, and Sacrifice too (if you so will) due to be done at this Altar, that is to wit, the Lords Table, which S. Paul speaketh of here, and any other Altar or service he meaneth not, nor knew none. And were you not altogether to gross, S. Basill so oft speaking of spiritual worshipping, and spiritual service, might somewhat reform your carnal and sensual understanding? you see we do not stick to grant you not only a spiritual worship and service, but a Sacrifice too, which yet hath no need of your Altars, framed to yourselves, upon this false fantasy, that the body and blood of Christ are there offered by the priests, for the quick & dead, with the abuse of that distinction of the bloody and unbloudy offering of Christ's body, applied to the same: which altogether is a false fable, & a vain dream most meet for M. Dorman. The Scriptures, Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. & 13. 11. 12. do thus teach us, that Christ our Saviour once for all offered up his body and blood upon the Altar of the Cross, the one & only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father: by the which one oblation of the body of Christ● a Sacrifice for our sins, once for ever offered, and no more to be offered by any man, we be sanctified and made perfect. Wherefore the Popish priests, which do repeat often the Sacrifice of Christ's death, as they do teach, thereby, as much as in them lieth, do take away the efficacy and virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ's death, making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law: the imperfection of which Sacrifices, S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the same. For the continuance whereof their priests needed also succession: but Christ is a Priest for ever without succession, as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth. Our service and Sacrifice now, is the often and thankful remembrance of that only Sacrifice, in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lords Table, according to his own institution: Hoc facite in memoriam mei. Do this in remembrance of me: with spiritual feeding by faith also, upon that his most precious body and blood, so by him for us offered. Touching the pulling down of your Altars, I answer: they are justly destroyed, as were those wicked Altars by Asa, Josaphat, Ezechias, Josias, godly Kings of Juda destroyed, 4. Reg. 18. c. 22. 4, Reg. 23. 2. Para. 14. a. 3. 2. Para. 17. b. 6. 2. Para. 31. a. 1. 2. Para. 34. a. 4. For as abominable Idolatry was committed on, & before your Altars, as ever was upon, and before those. If you require prouses hereof, you shall have them in their due places of the Mass, & of Idolatry to Images, after which he complains thus of the Papists: also of Christians we have made us Jew's, and yourselves of Ministers of the gospel have you made Jewish and aaronical Levites, you have on Aaron's robes, you use his gestures, you have brought in his incense, his censers, his Altars, his candles, his candlesticks, his bells, and his banner, his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God. Of the which beginning of things, S. Hierome Hierom ad Demetriadem, & add Nepotian. in his time much complained. And would to God you had done no worse, than thus to make us & yourselves altogether Juish, by your shadows imitating and counterfeiting the old Law. Elegant Walter Haddon 8. Walter Haddon. & M. Fox in his answer to Hierom Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars: Now whereas thou sayest, that Images, signs, Crosses and Altars are cast down, I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth not much appertain to Luther, or the Ministers of the Evangelicall doctrine, when as they never put any hands to the pulling down of them. Neither is it equal, that those who are but private men, should by force & Tumults take liberty to themselves, to do● any thing in the Common wealth or Church. But if the Magistrates by their lawful authority, because they see it agreeable to the word of God, do piously and quietly do their office therein, what hath Osorius a private man and a stranger here, either to scold at, or to intermeddle with it. If King Sebastian shall think meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars, in Images, in Pictures, and adoring Images, he hath the voices of the Scripture on the one side, of Monks on the other, to which he may choose whither he will hearken, he may do in his Reipublike, at his peril and pleasure, But on the other side if Elizabeth Queen of the English, the Scripture leading her, shall think meet, that these filthinesses of impure superstition, which no Christian may endure without the danger of himself, and of his, rightly to be driven from the Empire, & cast out of the Realm, verily she doth nothing therein, which may not plainly be defended by the perspicuous authority of the sacred Scripture, and by the great examples of the most approved Kings. Unless perchance Osorious shall think the memory of Ezekiah, Josiah, Jehosaphat, not much to be appladed, who both destroyed Altars, and Images & Groves, and break in pieces the brazen Serpent, or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut down the Grove, and overturned the Altar, what therefore? that which in the Carnal Law was lawful to the Kings of the Jews, shall it be less lawful to our governors, Magistrates in the spiritual Kingdom or Christ? Or shall that than which in them was thought worthy of praise, & reward by the verdict of the Scriptures, be condemned of impiety in Christian Princes now? After which he proceeds, to justifye this action in breaking down and abolishing Images & Altars, by Histories, Fathers, and Counsels in the Primative times. D. Fulke, 9 D. Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament on the 1. Cor. c. 11. sect. 18. fol. 287. determines thus of Altars: But you proceed & say, for this profane Tables are removed, and Altars consecrated. Christ and his Apostles were to blame (if it be as you say) to minister upon profane Tables, without consecrating of Altars, But who shall bear witness for consecration of Altars? who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore. And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsely entitled to S. Augustine (as a great number of those Sermons are?) But admit it be Augustine's own authority, yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars, not for this end to discern the Lords body and blood. For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of ministration, it is not the matter we stand upon, but whither they were consecrated for this end. They were called Altars unproperly, as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice, the Ministers sacrificing Priests & Levites, yet were they neither in matter, for me nor use, like unto your Popish Altars of stone, that were set against a wall. For they were Tables of wood, and so commonly were called, as it is manifest by S. Augustine Ep. 50. Bonifacio. And Optatus l. 6. both speaking of the rage of the Donatists, which broke, or shaved, or scraped the boards of the Altar or Table. * Note, IT STOOD IN THE MIDST, THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND ABOUT IT. Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tire. ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund. Joan. Serm. 46. It was removable & carried by the clerks August. Quaest vet. & nov. Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therefore it is nothing like Popish Altars. So on Matthew 23. fol. 46. sect. 7. he determines thus: Popish Altars that are set up to overthrow the Altar of the Cross, are not Holy but cursed. And so is all that pertaineth to them. Neither have they perfection of the Lords Altar that was in the Temple, which was a figure of Christ's only true Sacrifice once offered, & that never can be sacrificed again, (as S. Augustine Saith) Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctify by touching, for then the murderer which took hold of the horns of the Altar, should be sanctified, whom God commanded to be drawn from thence & executed, Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift, then that God which commanded, had the gift been made Holy by touching the Altar, for it was the ordinance of God, by which the Altar sanctified the gift, and not any quality in the Altar. It is like you are sick of the disease of the Pharisees, which was covetousness, (as Chrysostome and Theophylact note) by magnifying the gifts of the Altar. M. James Calfhill, 10. M. Calfehill. in his Answer to Marshals Treatise of the Cross, London. 1565. the Preface to the Reader, writes thus: Thus Idols brought in Oratories, Chapels and Altars, Sacrifices, vestiments & such like, which all be utterly condemned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen, that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches. And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches, he concludes thus: then they put on their Massing coats, and come like blind fools, with candles in their hands, at noon day, and so proceed to the Holy Mass: with renting of throats, & tearing of notes, chanting of Priests, howling of Clerks, flinging of coals, & piping of Organs. thus they continue a long while in mirth and jollity, many mad parts be played. But when the vice is come from the Altar, and the people shall have no more sport: they conclude their service with a true sentence, Terribilis est locus iste: this place is terrible. And have they not fished fair, think you? to make such a do, to bring in the Devil: O blind beasts, O senseless Hypocrites, whom God hath given over unto themselves. that they should not see their own folly, and yet bewray their shame, to all the world beside. Bishop Babington 11. Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars: Concerning the Altar how it was made for matter, height, length, and breadth, the text is plain in the 8. first verses. For the use of us we may note two things; First, that it was a figure of Christ, as the Apostle to the Hebrews expoundeth it, And secondly, that the Altars used in Popery, are not warranted by this example. But that the Primative Churches used Communion. Tables (as we now do) of boards and wood, not Altars (as they do) of stone. Origen was above two hundred years after Christ, & he saith, that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians, Quod nec imagines, nec Templa, nec Aras haberent, that they had neither Images, nor Churches, nor Altars. Arnobius (after him) saith the same to the Heathens, Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus, nec Aras, nec Imagines, you accuse us for that we have neither Churches, nor Altars, nor Images. Gerson saith, that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made, and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar, but himself and his successors there. Belike than the former ages knew not profound reason, that Altars must be of stone, quia Pe●ra erat Christus, because the Rock was Christ, as Durandus after devised. Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steadiness and continuance, wooden Tables having been before used, but I say in some places, not in all. For S. Augustine saith, that in his time in Africa they were made of wood. For the Donatists, saith he, break in sunder the Altar-boords, Again, the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar. Chrysostome calleth it, The Holy board, S. Augustine, mensam Domini, the Table of the Lord. Athanasius, mensam ligneam, the Table of wood. Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar, not that it was so, but only by allusion metaphorically, as Christ is called an Altar, or our hearts be called Altars, etc. Mark with yourself therefore the newness of this point, for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables, and let Popery and his parts fall, and truth & sound antiquity be regarded. Touching the horns of the Altar spoken of, they literally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of, & figuratively noted strength, so that, to bind the Sacrifice to the horns of the Altar, was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith, and only to rest, & trust and stay upon him, and to tie all carnal affections fast also to the Altars Horns, by subduing and making them captive to God. This Altar was in one place, and the Sacrifice in one place, nothing how Christ should only once, and in one place offer up himself for all man kind. Concerning the Lamps, as little do they warrant Popish Altars, And Christians used no such follies & apish imitations of things abrogated & serving only for the time. M. Thomas Cartwright 12. M. Cartwrigt in his Confutation of the Rhemists' translation, Glosses, and Annotations on the New Testament, upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect. 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars: The next note to discern the Lords body, is the removing of profane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars. So the Rhemists: to which he replies. Altars under the Law were Holy, because they were builded upon the foundation of God's institution. Now they are profane, not only because they have no institution of God, whereupon a stone may be laid, but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table, Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and (in the matter of the Eucharist) never mentioneth Altar: which is confirmed further, in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord, (whereunto a Table doth well agree) & is never termed a Sacrifice, for which an Altar is fit. That it is said, they sat down, a thing used at a table, & strange at an Altar, whereat they sat not but stood: that they did eat & drink which was never used at an Altar, and is usual at a table. For although they did eat of that which came from the Altar, yet they never did eat at it. And if your Masonry of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law, why should our table be profane, or your Altar Holy, considering that even under the Law, there was as well a Holy table, as an Holy Altar. And (setting apart the example of Christ) by so much the table is fitter now than the Altar: as the shewbread standing upon the table, hath a nearer Analogy with the bread of the Sacrament than had the flesh of slain beasts which was laid upon the Altar. Now your Hill Altars (being failed of the Holy Scriptures) go to beg grace of the * Optatus l 6. Aug. Ep. 50. ad Bonif. vid. Euse. l. 10. ex orat. panegyr. in Eucari●s vid. Aug. de civ. Dei l. 10. c. 5. Item de consecr. distinct. 2. ancient Fathers: where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God, yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peter's Chapel at Rome, which is always building and never built. If they present you with some rough stones to the setting of it up, yet bring they no mortar to hold them from falling upon heaps. For often times they help you with the name of an Altar, when the thing they signify thereby is a Communion Table, assigning it the Deacons Duty to remove the Altar, that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDST OF THE CHURCH, AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE: even as they term the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly (because it is a sign of the true Sacrifice) when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament. Other sometimes, even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from you, calling that whereupon the Holy things are set (as it is) a Table, as also the Holy things themselves, they call by their proper names, of signs & Sacraments, and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host, yea and if Altars were Lawful, yet could they argue no real presence of the body of Christ upon them, unless (as they do the bread) so they will transubstantiate the dead bodies of beasts into the body of Christ, not then borne, when those things were laid upon the Altar. Neither hath Augustine's Serm. de tempo. 115. any thing thereof: it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars, which we suppose yourselves do not observe, whereby it may well be doubted (as of diverse others of those Sermons) whether it be Augustine's or no; especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars' testimony of Christ the Son of God. Last of all, let the good Reader understand, that here in the Papists join with the * Origen cont. Cels. l. 4. Volat. vid. volat. & venerer contr. Floretum l. 4. Beat Rhen Ep. praefix Leiturg. Chrysost. Heb. 13. 4. Tit. 2. 5. 1. The. 4. 4 Heathen, which quarrelled with the Primative Churches, that they had no Images, Altars nor Temples, whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome, was the first that erected Altars. Also that Gerson affirmeth, that Silvester Bishop of Rome, was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone: whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded. D. Willet, 13. D. Willet. in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9 general controversy Quaest 6. part. 2. Error 54. determines thus: Altars we acknowledge none. Altars we have none in our Churches; S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1. Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread, which is broken, 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is set upon Tables, not sacrificed upon Altars. Augustine also calleth it, Mensam Domini, the Lords table. Epist. 59 & Epist. 50. He showing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximi●ian a Catholic Bishop, beating him with Clubs, even in the Church, lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt, & wounded him with the wood of the Altar, which they had broken down, where though he improperly call it an Altar, yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood, and made to be removed, not fastened to the wall, as their Popish Altars were. Damascus' Epistol. 4. Let the Local Bishops be content to minister as Priests, and to be partakers only of the Lords Table, he saith the Lord's Table, not the Lord's Altar. To these I might add M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Miles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus: Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites, that they had polluted him, in that they said, the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing. What other thing, I pray you, do your sacrificing Priests? they cannot abide the Lord's Table, they must have an Altar & Sacrifice. They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparel, but they must have a private Mass in Masking Coats, dashed full of turns and half turns, beckings, duckinges, crossings, kissinge, toss, tumblings, besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread & wine, & the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods. Also Bishop Jewel, Bishop Hooper, B. Ridley & others, in their forecited passages against Altars, together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest. appeal l. 2. c. 6. sect. 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy, his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrews 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c, 5. (which authorizeth Justices of Peace, Majors, Bailiffs & other chief Officers of Cities and Towns Corporate, in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Books and Relics of Popery, and that if any Altar, Pix, Beads, Pictures, or such like Popish Relics, or any Popish Book or Books shall be found in their, or any of their custody they shallbe presently defaced and burnt, which Act expressly defines, Altars as well as Beads and Pictures, to be mere Relics of Popery fit to be demolished) all which have with one unanimous voice, condemned Altars, as Heathenish, Jewish, Popish, abolished by Christ's death, contrary to his institution the practice of the Apostles and Primative Church, and unmeet to be used or tolerated among Christians, resolving likewise in express Terms, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor yet to be so styled. And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise, as the objectors pretend they ought to be, because they falsely style, and deem them Altars. If any here object, First, Object. 1. that Communion Tables are Altars, because D. John Pocklington, in his Sunday no Sabbath, printed and reprinted with Licence under M. Brays the Archbishop of Canterbury's, Chaplings own hand London 1636. Edir. 1. p. 43. averrs, that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar. 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that wait of the Altar, are partakers of the Altar: which is not to be understood of Israel after the flesh, for habemus Altar, we also under the gospel have an Altar. Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coal from the Altar, Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar, and may be so termed. To this I answer first, Answer 1. that this great over confident Doctor, shows himself a very Ignoramus in the quotations, If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts, which it seems he never looked on in the Bible, for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9 13. & Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle, and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures, as thus to misquote, misprinte these texts, no wonder if he mistake their proper sense and meaning. 2. I answer, that it is most clear, that the first Text of the two, namely, 1. Cor. 9 13. Do ye not know, that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple, and they which wait AT (not of the Altar, as he reads it) are partakers with the Altar; is meant only of the aaronical priests, Levites and jewish Altars, not of Christ's, Ministers and Lords Tables. First, Because the things of the Temples and Altars, (which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple, there being no Altar in any of the Synagoges) are here coupled together, and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margin of our last translated English Bibles, of purpose to confute this blind Doctor, & instruct all men, that this Text is meant of the aaronical Priest & Levites under the Law, not of the Ministers under the gospel, as all Expositors whatsoever, both old and new interpret it. 2. Because, the Apostle expressly resolves it so past all dispute, in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel, * See William Salisbury his Batery of the Popes Batter. where he puts the Preachers and Preaching of the gospel, and the living by it, in direct opposition & contradistinction to the priests & Levites ministering about Holy things in the Temple, and living of the Temple; serving at the Altar, and partaking with the Altar, to preaching of the gospel, and living by it; drawing an argument by way of equity from one to the other, in this manner; The Priest and Levites under the Law, which minister about Holy things live of the things of the Temple, and those that wait at the Altar, are partakers with the Altar, & that by God's ordination. Therefore by the selfsame reason hath the Lord ordained, that the Ministers of the gospel, who preach the gospel, (not those who seldom or never preach, as our great Prelates do) should live of the gospel. So that if we interpret this Text, as this novel Doctor hath done, we shall quite overturn the Apostles argument & similitude, and make it a mere nonsense Tantalogie, such as his Sunday no Sabbath is, as full almost of Errors and falsehoods, as lines. 3. To that of Heb, 13. 10. We have an Altar, it is true that the Bishop of Chichester, heretofore in his Conference with * Fox Acts & monum, p. 1806. Richard Woodman Martyr, alleged this very Text, to prove the Popish Sacrament of the Altar, and that it is meant of their Popish Altars, whereon their Sacrifice of the Mass is offered, and the Rhemists in their Notes on Heb. 13. sect. 6. conclude thus: This Altar (saith Isychius) is the Altar of Christ's body, which the Jews for their incredulity must not behold: 1. 6. c. 21. in Levit. And the Greek word (as also the Hebrew answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphorical and spiritual Altar. Whereby we prove against the Heretics, that we have not a Common table or profane Communion board to eat mere bread upon, but a very Altar in the proper sense, to sacrifice Christ's body upon: and so called of the Fathers in respect of the said body sacrificed. Greg. Nazianz. in orat. de Gorgonia. Chrysoft. demonst. quod Christus sit Deus Socrat. l. 1. c. 20. 25. August. Epist. 86. de Civitate Dei l. 8. c. 27. & l. 22. c. 10. Confess. 1. 9 c. 11. 13. Contr. fauct Manich. 1. 20. c. 21. Theophylact in 23. Math. And when it is called a table, it is in respect of the heavenly food of Christ's body & blood received. And other Papists generally infer from hence (as Harding against Jewel, & Hare in his Conference with D. Rainolds, cap. 8. divis. 4. that by Altars is not meant Christ himself, but the very material Altar on which they Sacrifice Mass; inferring from hence, that the Church of Christ hath yet altars & Priests, and that the Communion table is here termed an Altar. But for any Protestant writer of our own Church or other who interprets the Altar in this Text to be the Communion Table, or a material Altar. I profess, I know not any till this new Doctor, M. Shelford, M. Reeve, & the nameless author of the Coal from the altar page 47. (who yes writes thus dubiously of this Text, as applied to the Lords Table;) and above all indeed S. Paul in his Habemus Altar, Heb. 13. 10. In which place whether he meant the Lords table, or the Lord's Supper, or rather the Sacrifice itself certain it is, that he conceived the name altar, neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church.) All the Fathers and ancients on this Text that I have seen; yea Isychius, whom the Rhemists quote, interpret it of Christ himself, whom the Rhemists themselves in their Notes on Apoc. 6. 9 interpret to be the altar under which the souls of all Martyrs live in heaven expecting their bodies, * Confutation of the Rhem. Testament Notes on Apoc. 6. sect 1. that in these Positive words: Christ as man (NO DOUBT;) the altar under which the souls of the Martyrs live in heaven, etc. which M. Cartwright & Doctor Fulke thus resort upon them: But if Christ be the Altar here, and that without doubt, not withstanding that he is not here expressly said to be, why should not he so be also in Heb. 13. 10. where the name of Altar is more directly applied to him? why was it there an Altar of stone; which is here of flesh? there in proper speech an Altar, which is here but a borrowed speech? Verily there can be no other reason why that Altar was of stone, but that the Jesuits, which out of that place framed it, either for heaviness of understanding to conceive the truth, or for hardness of heart to yield unto it, were heavier and harder than the very stones themselves, whereof they would have the Altar. And where in disagreeing themselves, they agree with the truth: so in that which followeth: Christ is the Altar as he is man, they are as far from the truth, as they are near & like unto themselves; especially if they mean he is the Altar according to his Manhood alone: for when his Manhood, being the Sacrifice, was sanctified by Christ, which is the Altar: and the thing which sanctifieth, is of a Higher nature then that which is sanctified by it, Math. 23. 19 Heb, 7. 7. it must needs follow, that our Saviour Christ must be considered in somewhat else then in his manhood. when he is said to sanctify to same. How our own writers have expounded this Text heretofore, will appear. First, 1 William Salisbury. by William Salisbury his Battery of the Pope's Bater, printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. But now (writes he) are we set upon to batter, and beat down the head corner stone of their Popish Batereulx: we will first declare yet one grammar term more, for the unlearned sake, which though it be no high point of Divinity, nevertheless who so hath not the knowledge thereof, his Divinity is but humanity or rather carnality then true knowledge in divine matters. And so the grammarians call it a speech spoken by a figure called Metonymia, when the thing contained is meant by the name of the thing that containeth it. As when he say, reach hither the Cup, meaning to have the drink contained in the Cup. This figurative speech used Christ himself, when he said Luke 22. This Cup is the New Testament in my blood: where he meant of the wine, and not of the Cup. And likewise Matthew 23. where he speaketh by the name of the City unto them, that dwelled in the City, saying, Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that stayest the Prophets, etc. Such manner of speech is also much used in the old Testament; as Esay 1. Hear ● Heaven and hearken ● earth. And in an other place, Howl ye ships of Tharsis. And so the Papists must either grant that, that kind of speech is used in the text, that we shall anon rehearse hereafter, jour else must they grant, that the Jews, (whose Altars or rather Sacrifices and forbidden meat, the writer of the Epistle alludeth unto) were wont to eat up their Altars being made of stones. And that were hard meat indeed; yea that were meat alone for * Ostrich is a beast that swalloweth gads of steel & digesteth them. Ostriches? yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony hearts, as have all Papistical Doct. who against their conscience, knowledge and learning, and being all destitute of the spirit of God, cry & shout for the defence of their well-beloved Altars, Habemus Altars, Habemus Altar, Habemus Altar; yea & I may tell you this Habemus Altar, is their judgeling trick, whereby they do juggle unto the unlearned, it is all their Tabernacle, & only refuge against all tempests, and this is as well their shoot anchor, as their halow at their hosing up of their anchor. But to hale in my sail and to land at the proposed haven. The English text of Habemus Altar written, Hebrew 13. is this: Be not carried about with divers and strange learn: for it is a good thing, that the heart be established with grace, and not with meats, which have not prosited them that have had their pastime in them. We have an Altar, of the which they have no power to eat, which serve in the Tabernacle, etc. Here he doth in a manner make a brief rehearsal of all the chiefest matters that he entreated of before, adding thereto divers Godly sentences to persuade the Hebrews to abide in this learning: Inducing them also, by alluding unto their Law being but a shadow to cleave unto the gospel, and to let go the shadow. And therefore he saith thus unto them: And as you had certain Sacrifices offered on the Altars, whereof it was not Lawful even for the very offerers to eat: so likewise have we a sacrifice once offered upon the altar of the Cross, whereof it is not Lawful for as many of you as be yet duskened with the shadow of the Law to eat, nor to be partakers of it at all. Now therefore must the Papists be thought not only to be of too childish a wit, and of no understanding, but rather furious and mad, if they continue to prove their stony altars by this text. And therefore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as enjoy their right wit to pick out from amongst themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the said kind of frenzy, and send them to Bedlam, or to their own City of Rome. For else they shall still infect other, & do more hurt than every man is ware of. At the last to draw to an end in this matter; where this word Altar is read in the 6. 8. & 11. Chapters of the revelation of S. John: if altar in those places, admitting the like trope and figurative speech, do not signify Christ also (God knoweth, it signifieth nothing less than the confirmation of such altars as the Pope hath filled every corner of Christ's Church with all. And if the Papists (after that all the Testimonies, as well of the Old & the New Testament have failed them) go about to wrest the saying of the old Doctors, for the stabilishing of their altars, they shall get nothing thereby, but still utter their own gross ignorance, or their perverse blindness, For whereso ever the old Catholic Doctors, used this word altar for the Lords Table, than alluded they unto the Jews Altar, & meant thereby the Cross which served as an altar to offer upon the Sacrifice of Christ's natural body. And forsorh, ye Papistical priests, as many of you as understand the Latin, and marked what you read, (and if ye had been * The Bee gathereth honey on the same flour, that the Spider gathereth poison. Bees & not Spiders) you might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Christ's Cross unto the altars of the Jews, even out of your own poisoned Mass. For do you not remember how ye mumbled (how ye red I would say) in a certain rhyme of your said hotch potch, which began: Laudes crucis extollamus, nos qui crucis exultamus, &c, Oquam Falix quam praeclara, fuit haec salut is ara, rubens agni sanguine. O how excellent & how happy, was this altar of ir●e, besprynckeled with Lamb's blood! and again in another prose: Ara crucis, lampas lucis, verasalus hominum; whose sense in English word for word is this: The Altar of the Cross, the lamp of light & the very health of men. 2 Richard Woodman. By Richard Woodman Martyr, who interprets this Text only of Christ, in his ast; Fox Acts & monum. p. 1806. second Examination before the Bishop of Chicester, which I shall here verbatim rela●e, Chichester. Follow your vocation: you have a little learning: we have an Altar, Heb. 13. whereof you may not eat. What meaneth S. Paul thereby? Woodman. There is no man so foolish, to eat stones, I trow. Chich. What mockers and scorners be you, to say no man will be so foolish to eat stones? it is a plain ●ocke. Wood Why my Lord, you said I had no learning, nor knowledge. Wherefore it becometh you to make things more plain to me, and not to ask me such dark questions, and yet blame me to, me think it is too much. Chich. I dare say, you know what it meaneth well enough. The most fool in my house will understand my meaning better than you do. Wood There stood some of his men not far of, talking together beside a window. He called one of them by his name. Chich. Come hither, I say to thee, thou shalt not eat of this Table; what do I mean thereby? The man. Forsooth my Lord, The B. of Chichester rightly answered of his man according to his question. you would not have me eat of this table, laying his hand thereupon. With this answer he made all them in the house to fall on laughing, and I could not hold it in, but burst out with laughter, and said. Wood He hath expounded the matter almost as well as I. Chich. He meaneth well enough, if you would understand him, answer me again, to make it more plain, I say to ye, Thou shalt not eat of this Table, what mean I thereby? The man. Forsooth you would not have me eat this Table. Wood These words made them all langh; wherewith the Bishop was almost angry, because the answer proved no better and said. Chich. He meaneth that I would not have him eat any of the meat that is set upon this Table. How sayest thou, dost thou not mean so? The man. Yes forsooth my Lord, that was my meaning indeed. Wood Yea my Lord, now you have told him what you mean, he can say so too: and so could I have done (as little wit as I have) if you had said, Paul meant that no man might eat of that which was offered upon the Altar, but the Priests. Chich. Yea I perceive you understand the meaning of Paul well enough, but that you list to cavil with me. Wood Why my Lord, do you think I understand such dark places of the Scripture, without learning? you said even now, I had no knowledge, nor learning, wherefore I answered you, as you judged of me. Chich. Well, let this matter pass, & let us turn to the principal again. Sacram, of the Altar. How say you by the Sacrament of the Altar. Wood You mean the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ Jesus? Chich. I mean the Sacrament of the Altar, and so I say. Wood You mean Christ to be the Altar, do you not? Chich. I mean the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church, what is it so strange to you. Wood It is strange to me indeed, The Altar how it is to be taken & where it is. if you mean the Altar of stone. Chich. It is that Altar that I mean. Wood I understand not the Altar so. Chich. No I think so indeed: and that is the cause that you be deceived. I pray you, how do you understand the Altar then? Wood If you will give me leave till I have done, I will show you how I understand the Altar, and where it is. Chich. Yes, you shall have leave to say your mind as much as you will. Wood It is written, Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christ's name, there is he in the midst among them: and whatsoever they ask the Father upon earth it shallbe granted them in heaven, agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying: When thou comest to offer thy gift at the Altar, and there remember'st that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy offering, and go first & be reconconciled to thy brother, and then offer thy gift. The priests would have interrupted me, but the Bishop bade them let me alone. Chich. You shall hear a pretty conclusion anon. Wood I pray you let me make an end, and then find fault with me if you can. Now to the matter: Christ the true and only Altar. In these two places of Scripture, I prove that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts. First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christ's name, there is he in the midst; and where he is there is the Altar, so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift, if we be in love and charity: if we be not, we must leave there our offering, and go first and be reconciled to our brother, and agree with him quickly, and so forth, and then come & offer the gift. Some will say, how shall I agree with my adversary, when he is not nigh by a hundred miles? may I not pray till I have spoken with him? To all such I answer: if you presume to pray among the faithful, wishing any evil to any man, woman or child, thou as kest vengeance upon thyself: For no such asketh any thing else of the Lord in h●s prayer, wherefore agree with thy adversary; that is make thy life agreeable to God's word. Say in thy heart without dissimulation, that thou askest God and all the world forgiveness from the bottom of thy heart, intending never to offend them any more. Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift, their prayer on the Altar, where the people of God be gathered together: Thus have I showed you my mind, both of the Altar, and of the offering, as I understand it. Chich. Do you understand the offering and the Altar so? I never heard any man understand it so, no not Luther the great heretic, that was condemned by a general Council, & his picture burned. Wood If he were an heretic, I think he understood it not so indeed; but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so. Chich. O what vain glory is in you, as though you understood all things, and other men nothing. Hear me: I will show you the true understanding, both of the Altar, and the offering on the Altar. We have an Altar (said Paul) that ye may not eat of. Meaning thereby, that no man might eat of that which was offered on the Altar, but the Priest. For in Paul's time all the living that the Priest had, the people came & offered it on the Altar, money or other things: and when the people came to offer it, and then remembered, that they had any thing against their brother, than they left their offering upon the Altar, and went and were reconciled to their brother: and they came again and offered their gift, and the Priest had it. This is the true understanding of the place that you have rehearsed: wherefore you be deceived. Wood My Lord, that was the use in the old Law. Christ was the end of that. But indeed I perceive by Paul's words, the Sacrifice was offered in Paul's time: yet that maketh not that it was well done, but he rebuked it. Wherefore it seemeth to me that you be deceived. To pass by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot, with our famous Thomas Beacon, who in their forecited passages, interpret the Altar in this Text, to be Christ himself: not any material Altar either of wood or stone. 3 D. Fulke The judicious solid D. William Fulke, in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect. 6. doth thus expound this Text: The Apostle speaketh expressly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christ's death, as it is manifest in the two verses next following, which is by Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remain in the Ceremonial observation of the levitical Sacrifice. Therefore this place is brutishly abused, to prove that the Christians have a material Altar, as the Papists have many. The Apostle meaneth, Christ to be the Altar, & not the Table whereon the Lord's Supper is ministered, which is called an Altar, but unproperly, as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice. For he saith, We have an Altar, which is but one, where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many. But Isychius saith, This Altar is the Altar of Christ's body; ye abuse Isychius, for he saith that the Altar is the body of Christ itself. Such an one saith he, may not come, neither to the veil nor to the Altar; that is, to the body of Christ, to do the ministry thereof. For that hath Paul, writing to the Hebrews, taught to be the veil and the Altar. The same he saith l. ●. c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth, that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body, for he saith, we have an Altar, whereof they have no power to eat, which serve the Tabernacle, namely, the body of Christ. For it is not Lawful for the Jews to eat of it. This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witness; that is in the entrance of the heavens, because we have entrance into the Heavens with him. It is manifest therefore, that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars, but the body of Christ in Heaven, the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lord's Table; which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table, as it is indeed, and an Altar, as it is unproperly. But that it is called of them a Table, and was indeed a Table made of boards, & removable, set in the midst of the people, not placed against a wall, I have showed sufficiently, by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers before. By M. Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists Heb. 13. 10. sect. 6. (we have an Altar.) The writer to the Hebrews exhorting them to seek establishment of their hearts in the grace which was brought unto them in the Gospel, & not in the discretion of meats, allegeth this for proof, that even as those which seryed the Tabernacle, were not partakers by eating of those beasts, whose blood being brought into the holy place, their bodies were burnt without the camp. Even so, those which holding fast the Ceremonies of the Law, are even yet as it were in the Tabernacle, cannot be partaker of our Saviour Christ, who suffered out of the gates of Jerusalem, and is the truth of the shadows & figures, which were burnt without the camp. This being the very natural meaning of the Text, let the Reader observe, how not childishly only, but absurdly also, the Jesui●es apply this place to prove a Real Altar, and consequently a Sacrifice of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. For first, what is that which the Jews are threatened to be deprived of the eating of. If the Jesuits will answer according to their drift here of, proving an Altar of stone, and not a Communion Table, they must say that for reward of their obstinate cleaving to the Ceremonies of the Law, they shall not eat stones, a small punishment for so great a fin, which if the Jesuits were put unto, they would (I think) cry for a Communion Table, as of some better digestion than the Popish Altar: whereby it is evident how sottish it is which they strain so much at, touching the proper signification of the Greek word, and the Hebrew answering there unto: which as if those words which properly signify one thing, cannot by borrowed speech signify another thing unproperly. And as though they were ignorant, that the word as properly signifieth a real Sacrifice, as this word signifieth an Altar, were not in this very Chapter translated from the property of it to signify a spiritual Sacrifice. Wherefore by the Altar is meant our Saviour Christ, so called, for that as he is the Priest and Sacrifice, so also he is the Altar, which sanctified himself to be offered unto his Holy Father, as the Altar did sanctify the gift which was upon it, And it is Christ, not sacrificed upon an Altar of stone, by a Priest, but which offered himself upon Mount Calvary, without the gates of Jerusalem, as is expressly mentioned here in this place. Neither doth the writer to the Hebrews mean Christ, suffering in a Mystery, but that oblation of himself which he once offered, wherein the fire of God's anger fed upon his body and soul to have (as were the Sacrifices of beasts) consumed them, if that his humanity had not been supported and borne up by the eternal spirit of his God head, wherein he offered himself unto his Holy Father. And Isychius l. 6. c. 21. in Leu. saying, that Christ's body is the Altar, confuteth you plainly, that hereof would ground an Altar of stone: and saying, that the Jews for their incredulity must not behold him, he giveth you another blow, thereby declaring that the eating of Christ is the beholding of him, and not the ●arn all eating of him, or swallowing him down the throat, & the beholding of Christ he placeth in the eye of faith, which the incredulous Jews wanting must not behold him. What cursed spirits therefore are these, which upon the confidence of this place, making as much for their Altars as for Baal's, scoff at the Holy Table of the Lord, in calling it a common & profane board, which must needs (unless they have heardned their faces to all impudence, grant that the first and last time that ever our Saviour Christ ministered the Eucharist in his own person, did it at a Table, and not at an Altar, and at the same Table also at which he eat his common repast, which notwithstanding we do not, nor (in the peace and quiet of the Church) think meet to be done. But of this matter let the Reader see more before upon 1. Cor. 11. 29. where also he shall see how unworthily the ancient Fathers are abused for maintenance of Massing Altars. And let it be here observed how the evidence of the truth presseth them, which are fain to confess that the Fathers call it as well a Table as an Altar, but say they that is unproperly in respect of the heavenly food of Christ's body and blood received. And I pray you, what should let us to say, that when they call it an Altar; they do it unproperly, because of the spiritual Sacrifice of thanks giving, that is offered at it. Set aside the truth of the cause triable by other reasons, what warrant have you for your answer which we have not for ours. Nay we may much truelier say it then you can; which having showed it before will here content ourselves with one place, and the same taken from your own allegations. And from him who may well be in stead of all the rest, for August. Epist. 86. speaking of that which under the Gospel succeeded that under the Law saith thus: One Altar ought to give place to another, sword to sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, beast to beast, blood to blood: whereby the same reason that the beast which is offered must needs be an unproper speech, and the fire that consumeth it a metaphorical fire: it followeth that the Altar, whereupon the beast is laid and consumed must needs be an unproper speech. And indeed this unproperty of speech in the Altar is yet further confirmed. When in the same place. Augustine objecteth to one as an Ignorance, that he understood not the name of Altar to be more used in the writing of the Law & of the Prophets, then under the Gospel, but most evidently of all, in that the proving, that there is mention of an Altar in the New Testament, allegeth the place in the Apocalypse, which the Jesuits themselves interpret of our Saviour Christ. You were here also greatly over-seen to bring this place; seeing he against whom this ignorance is objected, affirmed that in stead of a beast, we have now bread in the Sacrament: and in stead of blood we have the cup: where you would bear the world in hand, that Beringarius was the first that denied Transubstantiation. And S. Augustine answering it, and affirming that blood succeeded to blood, yet doth evidently declare, that he meant a figurative and Sacramental blood, in that where the other said, we have in stead of a beast, bread, Augustine answereth, that as the Jews had the presence bread, so we in the Supper of the Lord, and when he saith, that every one taketh a piece of the Immaculate Lamb: it is evident that he meaneth by the Lamb, the figure & Sacrament of the Lamb, unless you will dare to say, that our Saviour Christ in the Supper is cu● or broken in pieces: but as for your shift it is not so honest: for presupposing (as you do) that it is very blood and raw flesh, which is there received, the word of Table fitteth it not so well, but rather the word of Altar ought to have been retained, considering that men use not to bring any of these dishes to their Tables, and yet were usually brought under the Law to the Altar: which Altar if you be ashamed to build up again to have place meet for your Popish dishes, you shall repair to the Butcher's shamble or slaughter house, where this Merchandise of yours is most saleable. 5 D. Rainold. By D. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart Chap. 8. Divis. 4. p. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478 Hart. The name of Altar is used properly for a material Altar, by the Apostle to the Hebrews, saying Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, whereof they have no power to eat which serve the Tabernacle, etc. Rainolds. And are you out of doubt that by the words, We have an Altar, the Apostle meaneth a material Altar, such as your Altars made of stone. Hart. What else? A very Altar? Rainolds. And they who have no power to eat of this Altar are the stubborn Jews, who keep the Ceremonies of the Law. Hart. The Jews, & such profane men? Rainolds. Then your Mass Priests may, & do use to eat of this Altar. Hart. They do; and what then? Rainolds. Their teeth be good & strong, if they eat of an Altar that is made of stone. Are ye sure that they eat of it. Hart. Eat of an Altar? As though ye knew not, that, by the Altar the Sacrifice which is offered upon the Altar, is signified. They eat of Christ's body, which thereby is meant. Rainolds. Is it so? Then the word (Altar) is not taken for a very Altar in the proper sense, but figuratively for the body of Christ the which was sacrificed & offered. Neither is it taken for the body of Christ, in that respect that Christ is offered in the Sacrament, in the which sort he is mystically offered as often as the faithfall do eat of that bread, & drink of that Cup. Wherein the breaking of his body and shedding of his blood is represented to them. But in that respect that Christ was offered on the Cross in the which sort he was truly offered, not often, but once, to take away the sins of many, & to sanctify them, for ever, who believe in him. Hart. Nay, the ancient Father Isichius expoundeth it of the body of Christ in the Sacrament (as I showed) which the Jews must not behold. They might behold his body upon the Cross, & did so. Rainolds. But the Holy Apostle himself did understand it of the body of Christ, as it was offered on the Crosse. And that is manifest by the words he addeth to show his meaning touching the Jews and the Altar, Heb. 13. 11. For (saith he) the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought unto the Holy place by the High Priest for sin, are burnt without the camp●. Therefore even jesus that he might sanctify the people wish his own blood, suffered without the gare. Which words are some what dark, but they will be plain, if we consider both the thing that the Apostle would prove, & the reason by which he proveth it. The thing that he would prove, is, that the jews cannot be partakers of the fruit of Christ's death, & the redemption which he purchased with his precious blood, if they still retain the Ceremonial worship of the Law of Moses. The reason by which he proveth it, is an ordinance of God in a kind of Sacrifices appointed by the Law to be offered for sin, which Sacrifices shadowed Christ, & taught this doctrine, Leu. 6. 16. & 7. 6. For whereas the priests who served the Tabernacle in the Ceremonies of the Law, Levit. 4. 3. & 16. 17. had a part of other Sacrifices & offerings & did eat of them, Leu. 6. 30. there were certain beasts commanded to be offered for sin in special sort, & their blood to be brought into the Holy place, whose bodies might not be eaten, but must be burnt without the Campe. Now, by these Sacrifices offered so for sin our only Sovereign Sacrifice jesus Christ was figured, Heb. 9 12. who entered by his blood into the Holy place, to cleanse us from all sin, 1. john 1. 7. & 2. 2. & his body was crucified without the gate, john 19 20. that is, the Gate of the City of jerusalem: & they who keep the Priestly rites of Moses Law, cannot eat of him, that by his death they may live, john 6. 51. for none shall live by him who seek to be saved by the Law, as it is written, Gal. 5. 2. if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. The Apostle therefore exhorting the Hebrews, to establish their hearts with grace, that teacheth them to serve the Lord in spirit & truth after the Doctrine of the Gospel, not with meats, that is to say, with the Ceremonies of the Law, a part whereof was the difference between unclean & clean in meats doth move them to it with this reason, verse 10. that they serve the Tabernacle and stick unto the Rites of the Jewish Priest hood, their souls shall have no part of the food of our Sacrifice, no fruit of Christ's death, verse 11. For as the bodies of those beasts which are offered for sin, & their blood brought into the Holy place by the High Priest, might not be eaten by the priests, but were burnt without the camp: so neither may the keepers of the Priestly Ceremonies have life by feeding upon Christ, who (to show this mystery) did suffer death without the Gate, when he shed his blood to cleanse the people from their sin. verse 12. And thus it appeareth by the Text itself, that the name of Altar betokeneth the Sacrifice, that is to say, Christ crucified; not as his death is showed forth in the Sacrament, but as he did suffer death without the gate. Whereby you may perceive first, the folly of your Rhemists, about the Greek word, (is also the Hebrew) that it signifieth properly an Altar to Sacrifice on; as though it might not therefore be used figuratively; where yet themselves must needs acknowledge it to be so too. Next the weakness of your reason; who thereof do gather, that, by the Sacrifice, which that word importeth in the Apostle, is meant the clean offering, of which the Prophet speaketh. For the clean offering, of which the Prophet speaketh, Mal. 1. 11. is offered in every place, the Sacrifice meant by the Apostle, Heb. 13. 11. in one place only, without the Gate. Wherefore the name of Altar in the Epistle to the Hebrews doth neither signify a Massing Altar, nor prove the Sacrifice of Massing priests. Hart. That which you touch, as foolishly noted by our Rhemists in their Annot. on Heb. 13. 10. about the Greek and Hebrew word, is noted very truly. For you cannot deny yourself, but that it signifieth properly an Altar, a material Altar to sacrifice upon, & not a metaphorical & spiritual Altar. Whereby as they conclude, that we have not a Common Table or profane Communion board to eat mere bread upon, but a very Altar in the proper sense to sacrifice Christ body upon: so for proof hereof they add, that in respect of the said body sacrificed, it is also called an Altar of the Fathers, even of a In Orat. de Sorore Gorgonia. Gregory Nazianzen, b Demonst. quod Christus sit Deus. Chrysostome, c Histor. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20 & 25. Socrates, d Epist. 86. de Civitat. Dei 18. c. 27. & l. 22 c. 10. Confess l. 11. & 13. Contra Faustum Manich. l. 20. c. 21. Augustine, and e Theph. in Matth. 23. Theophylact. And when it is called a Table, it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christ's body & blood received. Rainolds. The note of your Rhemists, about the Greek & Hebrew word is true, (I grant) yet foolish too, though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift. For to the intent that where the Apostle saith, we have an Altar, it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually, or in a figurative sense, as we expound it of Christ, but materially of a very Altar, such as is used in their Masses: they say that the Greek word thusiasterion, (as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam. signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a metaphorical & spiritual Altar. Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it, I will make you see by an example of their own. Our Saviour in the Gospel teacheth of himself, that he is the true bread, which giveth life unto the world, the bread which came down from Heaven, that whosoever eateth of it should not die; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. do note thereon, that the person of Christ incarnate, is meant under the metaphor of bread, & our belief in him is signified by eating. Wherein they say well. But if a man should tell them, that the Greek word artos, (as also the Hebrew lechems answering thereunto in the Old Testament,) doth properly signify bread which we eat bodily, & not a metaphorical or spiritual bread: were not this as true a speech as their own? yet how wise to the purpose, who is so blind that seeth not? yea, to go no farther than the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greek they seek advantage themselves, upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9 that he saw under the Altar the souls of them who were killed for the word of God. do affirm expressly, that Christ is this Altar. Christ (say they) as man, no doubt is this Altar. They mean it (I hope) in a Metaphorical, or other figurative speech. For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly, yet here is it as true that the Greek word thusiasterion, (as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament) signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on, and not a Metaphorical or spiritual Altar. And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove, that Mass is said in Heaven, as that in earth: and that Christ is properly bread without a figure, as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament: the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread, yea the true bread, would prove the one clearly, as they could fit it with this note: and the word Altar, would put the other out of controversy, chiefly if that were noted with all, that an Angel stood before the Altar, having a Golden Censer, Rev. 8. 3. though f Aretheas' in collect. exposit. in Apoc. c. 8. Rupert. Com. 8. in Apocalyp. 1. 5. Allen in his Treatise of the Sacrifice of the Mass. others there also affirm the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists, as it is wont with false Prophets, Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddy wall, and others daub it over with a rotten plaster, and when a storm cometh the wall falleth & plaster with it: For though, as they lay it on, it seemeth handsome, that g The Rhemists in their Annotat. on the New Testament. words signify properly the natural things which they are used to signify, & not metaphorical or spiritual things: yet if it be opened that hereby is meant that words may not be used (by metaphors, or other figures) to signify those things which properly they do not signify, the boys in grammar Schools who know not what a Metaphor is, will laugh at it. Wherefore this plaster will not help the weakness of your muddy wall, I mean of the Conclusion which you would prove it by, & do infer upon it, that we have an Altar in the proper sense to Sacrifice Christ's body upon. In the daubing up whereof yet your plasterers do show a piece of greater Art, partly by drawing us into hatred, who have not Popish Altars, but Communion Tables, partly by winding the names of Fathers in, as if they made for you against us, Both with skill and cunning, but more of Sophistry, than divinity, 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that which the Scripture doth call the Lords Table, because it is ordained for the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body & blood: The h Greg. Nazianz. Orat. in laud. Basilii. Chryso●t. demonstr. quod Christus sit Deus. Homil. in Matth. 16. & 8. 3. in pri●r Epist. ad Corinth. 24. & 27● ad populum Antioch. 60. & 61. Sermon de Euchar. & de B. Philogenio. S●crat. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 20. & 25. August. Epist. 59 ad Paulin. Tract in johan 26. de verbis Domini. Serm. 46. Theophylact in prior Epist. ad Corint. c. 11. Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banquet that is served upon it. And this improper sense. Marry, by a figure of speech, by which the names of things that are like one another in some quality, are given one unto another: as Christ is called David, Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist, Elias, Mal. 4. 5. the City of Rome Babylon, Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem, Isay 62. 9 the i Prudent. Hym. de S. Laur. Conc. Carth. 2. c. 2. Isidor. etymol. ar. l. 7. ●. 12. Ambr. de Offic. l. 2. c. 50. Leu. Epi. 79. a● Dioscer. Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers & Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old, are wont to give the name, as of priests & Levites, to Pastors & Deacons. so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper: and of an Altar to the Lords Table. For these things are linked by nature in relation & mutual dependence (as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice, & the Sacrificers, who serve the Altar, that is priests and Levites. Wherefore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sense to Sacrifice Christ's body upon, then must they mean also the levitical Preisthood to serve in sacrificing of it. But the levitical Preisthood is gone, Heb. 7. 11. & they knew it, neither did they call the ministry of the Gospel so, but by a figure. Your Rhemists therefore do abuse them, in proving as by them, that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly, But us of the other side they do abuse more, by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech, as if we, whose Churches, have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ, & sacrifice him upon it, ●ad but a Common Table and profane Communion board to eat mere bread upon. A feat to make us odious in the eyes of men, whom you would persuade that we discern not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury. For we have not a Common, but a k The Book of Com. pray● in the Commun. Holy Table, as both we call it, & esteem it: not a profane Communion board, but the Lords Supper, 1. Cor. 10. 16. & 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of thanksgiving, & the Cup of blessing, as the Apostles Doctrine, and practise of the l justin. Martyr in Apolog. 2. Irenae l. 4. c. 34. & l. 5. c. 4. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Coecilium. Ambros. de Sacram. l. 4. & 5. Leu. Serm. 4. de quadrag. Fathers teach us: yourselves are guilty rather of feeding men with mere bread, who do take m Concil. Constant. Sess. 13. & Trident. Sess. 21. c. 1. can. 2. away the Cup of the New Testament in the blood of Christ from the Christian people: & in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament, do give in your Masses, n Durandus in rational. divinor. officiis l. 4. c. 53. mere bread indeed by your own Confession, the Common bread, that goeth under the name of † Panis benedictus sanctae com munionis vicarius. Holy bread. I would to God M. Hart, you would think with yourself even in your bed (as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4.) & consider more deeply, both the wicked abuses, wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is profaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Mass, & the treacherous means, whereby your Masters & Fellows of the College of Rheims do seek to maintain it. Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar, or of the clean offering the principal places whereon their show standeth: they go about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple, partly by discrediting us with fal●e reproaches, partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers. Which two kinds of proof do bear the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations. 6 D. Wille● By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, the 9 general controversy part. 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars; Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar, of which they have no power to eat that serve at the Tabernecle. That is, the Altar whereon Christ's body is offered: Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum. Answer. The Apostle speaketh expressly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christ's death (as it is manifest in the two verses next following,) which is by a Christian faith, and not in the Sacrament only, whereof none can be partakers that remain in the Ceremonial observations of the levitical Sacrifices. For the Apostle speaketh manifestly, vers. 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate. Christ therefore is the Altar, yea our Priest and Sacrifice too. Further, you abuse this place to prove your material Popish Altars, which are many: but the Apostle saith, we have an Altar, speaking of one. This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed, that Christ is the true Altar, whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer, he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel. Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar, & remember that thy brother hath aught against thee, etc. Likewise, Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst. Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christ's name, there is he in the midst, and where he is, there is the Altar, so that we may be bold to come & offer our gift, Fox p. 1991. Col. 2. 7 David Dickson. By David Dickson, who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus: We have an Altar, etc. Such as will eat of Jesus & be partakers of him, must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle, by keeping on foot, & continuing the Ceremonies, & appertaynances annexed there unto; such Feasts, such Jubil es, such Altars, such sprinklings, & Holy water, such Priests and vestiments, etc. as Levi had. He calleth Christ, by the name of the Altar; because He is the thing signified by the Altar, & by the Sacrifice, and by she rest of the levitical Ceremonies. Then 1. those Ordinances of levitical Service were figures of Christ, some in one part, some in another, and He is the Accomplishment of them, even the Truth of them ALL, The true Tabernacle, the true Priest, the true Sacrifice, the true Altar, etc. 2. Christ's self, is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath. Our Altar is He only; and nothing but he, the Apostle knoweth no other. The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart, in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James 8. King james. himself, who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel. 9 v. determines thus: I saw under the Altar the souls of the Martyrs, which cried with a loud voice: How long wilt thou delay, o Lord, since thou art Holy & true, to revenge our blood. For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs, that the souls lying under the Altar, to wi●t in the safeguard of Jesus Christ, (who is the only Altar, whereupon & by whom it is only Lawful for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lips, to wit our humble prayers to God the Father) did pray, & their blood did cry to Heaven, & crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked. Thus all these with sundry other writers of our Church, together with all Protestant writers, whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himself, not of Communion Tables and Altars; Therefore it proves not that the Communion Table is, or may be called an Altar, though the Fathers some times improperly style it so, contrary to the Scripture language, yet not in that sense, or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators do, to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar, and set up Mass again. If any object in the second place, Object. 2. as the Coal from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangely doth, and before him o Treatise of God's house p. 2. M. Shelford, that the Lords Table may be called an Altar, yea the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar (though the Scripture never style either of them thus.) First, Because the Fathers some times phrase them so. 2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. revived by El. c. 2. terms the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar. 3. Because the Common Prayer Book in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. calls the Lord's Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar. 4. Because our Godly Martyrs, as John Fryth, Archbishop Crammer, John Lambert, John Philpot, Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Ridley, call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The Sacrament of the Altar, & the Communion Table an Altar, as their words cited in the Coal from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify: from whence that Pampl●t concludes thus: So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged; neither the Prince or Prelates, the Priest or people dissenting from it, some of those terms being further justified by the Statute Law. To the first of these Reasons I answer: Answer 1. First, that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table, an Altar, but the Lords Table, the Lords Supper, the Communion of Christ's body & blood, we ought therefore to style them so as the Scripture doth, 1. Cor. 10. & 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them, which are proper & genuine, since we ought to speak as Christ and God hath taught us of these ordinances. 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. years after Christ had no Altars of which more before; therefore p See B. jewels Reply to Harding Art. 1. div. 5. p. 5. not the name of Altars, or of the Sacrament of the Altar. 3. The Fathers usually and properly style the Communion Table, the Lords table, the Holy table, the Table etc. and the Sacrament itself, the Lord's Supper, the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, the Eucharist and the like, & that properly, and those who phrase the Table an Altar, or the Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar, do it only improperly and figuratively, (as they style faith, and our hearts the Altar of a Christian,) either in relation to Christ himself, who is our only true Altar, whose body, blood & death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament, or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Cross, is here spiritually exhibited, or by reason of the spiritual Sacrifices of prayer and praise, and oblations of Charity for the poors relief that are there offered up when the Sacrament is received, or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven, who must consecrate all our Services, Sacrifices, & spiritual oblations, & make them acceptable to his Father. In these regards only, as q In their forecited places. some of our Martyrs, Bishop Jewel, D. Fulke, D. Reynolds, M. Deane Nowell, D. Willet, and M. Cartwright observe, the Fathers sometime style the Lords Table, an Altar, or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations, which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Cross, here represented to us, but never truly or properly. Therefore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar; nor yet the Sacrament, to be the Sacrament of the Altar, or that it may properly be so termed. 4. Though the Father's phrase the Communion Table an Altar, or the Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar; yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully do it, or that they did well in it. For when they used this manner of speech, the Sacrifice of the Mass & Masse-Preists, with other idolatrous popish trash, was not known nor heard in the world, neither were there any to be scandalised with those phrases, or to wrest them to such ill ends & purposes, as since they have been: There were then no Papists to be hardened & encouraged in their popish Superstition, no Protestants to be scandalised or drawn to dream of Mass and Mass Priests again, as now there are. Therefore they (prochance) might lawfully use these terms, though we may not: And yet m See this Rhemists Notes on Hebr. 13. Sect. 6. & others of the Mass. these terms & speeches of the Fathers, the Papists have formerly derived and still defend & justify all the abominations of their Mass, their altars, Mass priests massing vestments, Cringes, Ceremonies; which shows, that the Fathers might have better spared then used them, since all this hurt, but no good at all hath proceeded from them; & if we should now after so long a discontinuance & disuse of these Titles, and our exploding of them, as n Fox Acts & monnm. p. 1211. savouring to much of Popery and judaism, and tending to foment them, should reassume them, it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries, errors & superstitions concerning the Mass and altars wherein they differ for Protestants, but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery, and others scandalised with these terms either wholly to separate from our Church as false, superstitious, Popish, or else to continue in it with wounded, troubled, scrupulous consciences & dejected discontented spirits, & drive them almost clean away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, as late experience to apparently manifests. So that this fi●●t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected. To the second and main reason; I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancy of reformation; whence M. Rastall in his Abridgement of Statutes, Service, & Sacraments. annexeth this observation to it. But note the time of the first making of this Statute, which was before that the Mass taken away, when the opinion of the real presence was dot removed from us. The language therefore of this Act, made thus before the Mass was taken away, or the gross opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us, is not much to be regarded, much less insisted on, though the Coal from the Altar; doth principally rely upon it. 2. I answer, that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, nor the Lord's table, an Altar, but rather the contrary; For the Tittle of it is this: An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speak against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, etc. And the body of the Act runs thus: As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar; and in Scripture (mark it,) THE SUPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD, THE COMMUNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST, etc. So that the name which the Statute gives it, is only the Sacrament used, 8. times together in this Act; and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, thus so styled, and this clause, commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar, is not a Title given it by the Statute, but by the priests and vulgar people, who then usually called it so, and added only by way of explanation as their usual term, not the Parleaments, and being omitted in the ensuing parts & clauses of this Act, which terms, the Sacrament, the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, with out this term of explination; which this Act expressly declares, to be no Title given it in, or by the Scripture, which ever calls it, the Supper and Table of the Lord, the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ; but only by the vulgar, who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected, neither Mass nor Transubstantiation, nor Altars being then abolished, as they were shortly after. 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar, (the sole thing now in question,) but, the Table of the Lord: therefore it makes nothing for Altars, or the styling of the Communion Table an Altar. 4. No Act either in King Edward's Reign or Queen Elizabeth's, or since her days, this alone excepted, calls the Lords Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar, but only the Sacrament, the Holy Sacrament, etc. this Title therefore being omitted in all other Acts, & mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar, not the Parleaments, and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Mass and Altars were again set up and revived, but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this, can be no plea at all, for us now to call the Lords Table, an Altar, or his Supper, the Sacrament of the Altar; but rather argues the contrary; that we should for bear to style them thus, because the parliament in all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service (except only in Queen Mary's days) hath done it; though the Coal from the Altar falsely affirms the contrary, that some of their Terms are further justified by the Statute Law, but never proves it, neither in truth can do it. 5. Whereas the Coal from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes, that this Statute of ●. E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Reign, was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head & body, and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar, and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sorts acknowledged, etc. I answer, that there is in this a double mistake. 1. in the Statute itself, in citing, 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speaks nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer, nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seems the Author of this Coal, (who styles S. Edward Cook, S. Robert Cook, & makes M. Plowden a judge, & styled him * Page 61. 62. Judge Plowden, though he were never any judge; & a Professed Papist) was some * By like D. Heylyn who plays t●e ignorant Lawyer to, in his hist. of the Sabbath part. 2. c. 7 8. busy pragmatical Divine who took upon him to cite & interpret Statutes in which he had no skill, or else borrowed his Law, from others, as ignorant as himself, perchance from a Treatise of God's house p. 2. M. Shelford, who quotes, or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cities it, for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. (though b Service & Sacraments 1. M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary,) as is clear by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion. Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniform order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments, set forth in a Book entitled; The Book of Common Prayer, etc. the which was repealed in the first year of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God, and discomfort to the professors of the truth of Christ's Religion. Be it further enacted by the authority of this present parliament, that the said statute of Repeal & every thing therein contained ONLY CONCERNING THE SAID BOOK, and the service, administration of Sacraments rites & Ceremonies, contained or appointed in or by the said Book, shallbe void and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming, & that the said Book with the order of service, and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies, with the alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute●, shall stand and be from and after the said Feast in full force and effect, according to the tenor and effect of this statute, any thing in their foresaid statute of repeal to the contrary not with standing. And in the end of this Act● this clause is inserted: and be it further enacted by authority aforesaid, that all Laws, Statutes & Ordinances, whereby an other service, administration of Sacraments, or Common prayer is limited, established or set forth to be used with in this Realm or any other the Queen's Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void & of none effect. By which it is most apparent. First, that this Act repeals the statute of repeal 1. Mariae: only as to the Book of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. & 6. Ed. 6. & no further; therefore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Book, and so remains unrevived, and still repealed by this Act as before. 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common: Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed, but the Common Prayer Book itself, & that not as it was at first published, when it had the name of Altar, & Sacrament of the Altar in it, but as it was purged from these terms, and testified in 5. & 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head, body, and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar, the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar, nor any of these phrases, as the Author of the Coal from the Altar, ignorantly and falsely affirms, nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer, no not; 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. & 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expressly repealed by the last clause of this Act, (the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foot) because they prescribed another Book of Common Prayer, service and administration of the Sacrament, than this which this Statute confirms; which enacts, that the said Book etc. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this statute, shall stand and be in full force and effect, not by virtue of any former Law, but according to the tenor & effect of this Statute. From all which I may safely conlude against the Coal, that neither the head, nor body, nor any branch, or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice, nor an Altar, nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side, much less on all sides acknowledged, as he falsely vaunts; that both the Princes, Prelates, Priests, & people have dissented from it, & that none of the said terms have been further justified by the Statute Laws. And so this main authority on which he & M. Shelford built, is point blank against them, makes nothing at all for them; and over throws their cause. To the 3. reason I answer; that true it is in the first Book of Common Prayer, set forth in King Edward's days An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar, as is evident by the Book itself, and the 2. reason why the Lords board should rather be after the form of a Table then an Altar: Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by public authority: but when the Altars the next year following (for no reformation can be perfited at first, but by degrees) were removed by the King and Counsels special command, & Communion Tables placed in their Rooms, not to humour M. Calvin, but upon good and Godly considerations, and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsel, (which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction, registered by M. Fox; the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of parliament 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Book, and the names of Lords Table, God's board, Communion Table, Holy Table, Communion Sacrament, & Sacrament of Christ's body & blood, & Lords Table, only retained & inserted in its steed; which Book being afterwards altered, amended & revided by Act of Parliament, 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names, Altar, & Sacrament of the again purpose omitted, and those other Phrases & expressions only retained. The names therefore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar, being thus particularly, purposely & professedly damned & expunged out of the Book of Common Prayer, by the whole Church of England in two several Acts of parliament under two most religious Princes, & never thought meet to be used or reinserted since, is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution, that the Communion Table is not an Altar (much less an a Shelford p. 2. 7. ● High Altar, as some now phrase it;) that the Lords Table, ought not to be styled an Altar, nor the Lord's Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, (else why should these Titles be thus exploded?) and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to style them thus, much less to write & plead in defence of these their Titles, as these new Champions do, but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture, the Common Prayer Book, & these two statutes give them. To the 4. reason; I answer: First, that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coal p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table, an Altar, or the Sament, the Sacrament of the Altar. True it is, Bishop Latimer saith, that the Doctors call the Lords Table an Altar in many places, in a figurative and improper sense; & Bishop Ridley, in answer to that place, that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill, saith, that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord; but themselves never call it an Altar, but a Table only; they being so far from it, that Bishop Ridley writ a special Book, de Confringendis Altaribus, and b Fox Acts & monum. p. 1211. 1212. he and Bishop Latimer had a chief hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples, & in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Book. Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there ●ited, & M. Philpot expressly resolves, that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or material Altar, but Christ himself. And as they style not the Communion Table an Altar, so not the Lords supper, the Sacrament of the Altar. For John Fryth only saith, they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar; the term his persecuting Examiner's gave it, not he; who mentions it as their Interrogatory, not his answer. So John Lambert's words: I make you the same Answer, that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar, relates to his adversaries Articles which so styled it, not to his own voluntary answer, which must be made of, and according to the question demanded. M. Philpot only saith, that the old writers do sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar; but he calls it not so himself. Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8: days, before he was thoroughly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himself c Fox Acts & monum. p. 1703. confessed at last. Take no offence at the term of Sacrament of the Altar, but afterwards he did; not using it in his writings; and so far was he s●em calling the Communion Table an Altar, that he was the chief agent in casting ou● Altars: and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Book, his, d Ibidem p. 1211. name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley, for the removing of Altars, and setting up Tables in their places; and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the form of a Table then of an Altar, (condemning both Altars, and their very name in some sort) sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter, being approved, if not compiled by him. So that all these Reasons & authorities wherewith the Coal from the Altar is principally kindled and inflamed, are now quite extinguished upon ●●●full examination, & neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar, or may be so styled, or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar, but the contrary. Since therefore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons, notwithstanding these Objections, that the Communion Table is no Altar, and that the Church, State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars, and their very name together with them, by which Altars (as Philippus Eilbrachius: writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect. 7.) the Cross of Christ is overturned, and therefore they are to be taken away; the Orthodox Churches doing well, in removing them, and restoring Tables, at which the Papists themselves dare not deny, but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper. The objection falls quite to ground, and I may thus invertit: Communion Tables are no Altars, neither ought they to be styled or reputed Altars; Therefore they ought not to be placed Altarwise, against the East end of the Choir, in such manner as the late Popish Altars, as is pretended stood. But admit Communion Tables to be Altars, than it will hence necessarily, follows that they ought to stand in the midst of the Church or Choir, because Altars anciently ever stood so, b●th among the Jews, Gentiles, Pagon Greeks & Romans, and Christians to, as I have largely manifested. Thus they stood in Durands' time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches; thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greek Churches, and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewel hath proved out of Durandus, Gentianus Herveticus, and other Authors. Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England: e Fox Act● & monum. p. 1404. 1406. For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church: Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was laid in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paul's above the High Altar, and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar; Therefore it stood not at the very East end of the Church, and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar, and setting their very Tombs; and rotten Carcases, above Christ's mercy seat, and Chair of Estate, 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited, who as they will have no ●ea●es at the upper end of the Chancle for fear any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty, some thinks they should suffer no shrines or Tombs especially of Bishops (who should give good example of humility to others,) to be there erected for fear any man's rotten carcase should lie enshrined above them; If then our Tables must be situated. as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few years; they must then be placed in the midst of the Choir or Chancel, because Altars have there been usually placed, as the premises abundantly evidence. And these ensuing Testimonies will prove● lexond● control. * Rerum Germanic. Script. m. 1. p. 5●0. 591. Sigismond the Monk, in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum, Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records; That in the ancient Cathedral Church of Augusta dedicated to S. Afra, there were two Quires, in which were two Altars standing under two arches; & at the lower end of the Choir under the rails, which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes. and under them two Altars containing the Eucharist for the people. Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars; the first & chief of them was the Altar of S. Dionies, Versus Occidentem in parte, septentrionali, non juxta murum, SED QUASI IN MEDIO: & that stood towards the West, (not East) in the North part, not close by the wall, but as it were in MIDST. Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome, so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the days of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water * Platina N●col. 3. rotund quatuor pedibus etc. went round about it from foot high and more. * De Vitis pont. Rome p. 68 69. Anastasius writes of Pop● Theodorus, that Pyrrhus Patriarch of Constantinople coming to Rome in his time about the year of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altar; he caused a chair to be placed for him hard by the Altar, honouring him as the Priest of the royal City. Either therefore the Altar in those days stood near the West end of the Choir where the Bishop's chairs, and Seats now generally are placed, or in the midst of the Choir; or else Bishops then usually sat at the East end of the Choir cheek by will with the Altar, where our Prelates will suffer no seats at all to stand, for fear any should sit above, or in equipage with God Almighty. The same Author relates, that Pope Sergius about the year of our Lord 694. made a foursquare veil about the Altar in S. Peter's Church, having 4. white Curtains and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar, two of each side: the Altar therefore stood not against the wall, but some distance from it, else this travarse or veil of Curtains could not environ it round about. In the great Cathedral Church of Rome itself, (whence these Romanizers would seem to take their pattern) the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day (as William Thomas an eye-witness in his History of Italy, & Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report) when the Pope himself and all the Cardinals received the Sacrament, STOOD IN THE MIDST of the Chaple or Choir, upon every way, and the Pope being brought behind (or above it as our Prelates term it) was there in a Throne of wonderful Majesty set up as a God, sitting above Christ and God almighty himself by our Novellers & Prelate's language: in which manner the Altar stood there long before, & yet continues situated, as I am informed. And in S. Peter's Church at Rome, (as D. Andrew Board an eye-witness to, in Cardinal Wolsy's days, in his Book of the Abuses of Rome, & M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate,) the Sacrament & Altar are both in a Chapel, not in the East, but Northside of the Church; and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapel, under an old Altar, at the very lower part or end of the Church, (not the upper.) If Altars therefore even in the very cathedrals of Rome itself, are thus seated in the midst of the Chapel or Choir, in the North, not East end, yea at the very lower part and end, not East or upper end of the Churches●; Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Colour at all left them, for their Easterly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall, or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Choir, as they call it, since the old Altar under which S. Peter & Paul lie buried (& at, which the * See Thomas Beacons reliq. of Rome. Romanists affirm, they consecrated the Sacrament and said Mass,) stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church, the Priests, Prelates a●d people taking the upper hand thereof, and sitting above it, as the Pope himself doth above the High Altar. The 3. objection Object. 3. is this: a Coal from the Altar p. 30. 53. 54. The Jews and Pagans Altars, stood in the midst of their Quires and Temples; Therefore Christian's Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altarwise against the wall, as now they are placed. I answer 1. Answer 1. That this is a mad consequence: For if we will imitate the jews and Gentiles in setting up Altars, than we have cause to imitate them in the form and situation of our Altars; & if we will reject the latter as jewish & heathenish much more Altars themselves, as more jewish and heathenish than their sit us. 2. I answer, That the argument, is a mere Nonsequitur; For admit we ought not to imitate neither jews or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the midst as they did, yet will it follow. Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chancel. Certainly Ergo we should place them at the West, North or Southside of the Church or Choir, is as good a consequent. 3. Our Novellers will needs imitate the b See Orme ●ods Pagano-Papis● l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform. Gentiles & Jews in their Sanctum Sanctorums, Mercie-Seates, Copes, Mitres, aaronical attires vestments, Organs, Singingmen, & a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies, Orders, Pastimes Festivals & Consecrations; why not then in the standing of their Altars; having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular, as they have in all, or most of the others. 4. The Altars of the jews were placed in the midst of the Tabernacle Temple & Court, of the Temples by divine institution & direction, & so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason, as the most useful ●itting and de●ent situation; therefore Christians should rather imitate, then directly thwart them in this particular, having both God's institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to do. The 4. objection is this. Object 4. See the Coal p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52. The Communion Tables in all Cathedral Churces and in all his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated, (where Ecclesiastical discipline is best observed,) therefore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples. I answer: 1. but I know not, neither do I believe the Axtecedent to be true, for certain I am, that in many Cathedrals with in these few years (& by name in the Cathedral of Salisbury, Winchester, Exeter, Bristol, Worcester, Carlisle and others) the Communion Table stood East & West a good distance from the wall, not Altarwise against it, & with in the memory of some men yet alive, it stood so in all Cathedrals of England, & in all or most of the Kings Chapples. If they have been otherwise situate of late years, (as the Tables in many Churches have been) contrary to Law; it is but an innovation, introduced by some violent Innovators, without any Lawful authority, for what end all England sees, and knows to well. So as I may truly thus retort the argument: that the Tables in Cathedral Churches, and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late days, when their situation hath been changed without, yea against both Law and Canon, Therefore the Lords Tables in all other Churches & Chapples, ought thus to be situated. As for the practice in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crown, I am utterly ignorant of it: But when he was Prince of Wales, I once received the Sacrament in his Chapel at Sant james; & then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the midst of the Chapel, and white linen Clothes, like Table Clothes, were spread upon the desks of the Seats (where in the Communiant● sat round about) in a decent manner, the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seats, and this (they then certified me, had been, and was the custom of administering the Sacrament there, both in Prince Henry's & his Majestyts time. Whether the Custom be different at Whitehall, or other his Majesty's Chapples, I know not; since I never was at any Sacrament there; but of the other, I was an eye-witness, and many who have been ancient servants both to Prince Henry, & his Majesty, can testify this to have been the Custom. I cannot therefore think, that the King & Princes Chapples do jar or vary in this particular. But admit they should, yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis; his Majesty's subjects must live according to his Laws in this particular, not according to the pattern of his Chapples; exempt, as from all Episcopal jurisdiction, (as all other Churches & Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good,) so from ordinary Rules and Laws, which bind the Subject. But to give a more particular answer. I say, that admit the Antecedent true, yet the consequence is infirm: We know, that Cathedral Churches have Deans, Prebends, Canons, Singingmen, Choristers, Organists, Virgerers, Copes, Sackbuts, (yea Kits & Cornets oft times) in them, & that they sing, not read their whole divine Service & prayers to; (I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition & compunction, since, S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry, let him sing Psalms, if any man be sorry or afflicted, let him pray, not sing: & Solomon saith Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, & as vinegar upon niter, so is he that singeth songs too, much more than with an heavy heart.) Will it therefore follow; Therefore all Papish Churches & Chapples aught to have such Officers, Instruments, & chanting? We know, that many cathedrals now, I know not by what Law, have no Communion Tables in them, but High Altars, (so they term them,) elevated on High with many steps, and ascents, their very exalted situation & name, being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles, so oft condemned in Scriptures, Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3, Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39 which were nothing but High Altars, situated in High places. Shall therefore all our parish Churches & Chapples have no Communion Tables in them, (though prescribed by our Statutes, Common Prayer-book, Articles of Religion, Homilies, Injunctions, Canons, writers,) but High-Altars only, which all these decree? We know that these new erected Cathedral High Altars have much furniture, as Tapers, Basins, Cushions (yea and Crucifixes, a The hom. against the Peril of Idol. Se p. 41. 42. 61 expressly condemned by our Homilies, as unlawful either to be made or used in Churches,) standing on them; Which M. Andrew Melvin, that famous Scottish Poet & Divine, thus wittily describes in Latin Verse: b An. Mel. Musoe print. An. 1620. p. 24. In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum: Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara? Lumina coeca duo, pollubra sicca duo? Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum? Lumine coeca suo; * Sorde sepulta sua. flumine sicca suo? Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram; Purpuream * Pingit religio●a lupam. So the first Copy but the corrected, as in the Text. gemino mact at honore lupam? Si Christi haec Mensa est, cur Missae est structa paratu? Cur versa in tenebras, Lux? in inane Latex? Si sensus, cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis, Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece? Cur, quae pulsa prius, presto est caliginis umbra? Quò calamistra trucis, philtraque blanda Lupae? Which may be thus Englished, upon the Altar & Furniture thereof in England. Why, on Court-Altars, two Books clasped lie, Two lightless Lights, two empty Basins dry? Does England in God's worship lock-up Sense? Dark in her Beams, dry in Streams influence? Whilst with Rome's Rites, she Royall-Altars Decks, Offers she not Rome's Whore in all respects? If 'tis Christ's Board, why is it Mass-like trimmed? Why has it empty Fonts? Lights wholly dimmed? If Rome's Dumbe-Showes be from the Britan's banished, Why are our Bible's Shut, our pure Prayers vanished? Why are Rome's Fogs brought back, expelled before? What mean the Tires, sweet Drafts of that base Whore? Shall it therefore follow, because these Cathedral Altars have such trinkets standing on them, ergo every parish Church & Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars & Communion Tables to? I trow not, unless there were some Law or Statute for it; since the Rubric of the Common Prayer Book, & the 82. Canon Prescribes, that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linen cloth upon it, and that at other times, during divive service only, it should be covered with a Carpet of filke, or other decent stuff; so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it, in Cathedral Churches, are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Book of Common Prayer, the Canons, yea and the Queen's Injunctions, as the High Altar is. This argument, therefore (now much insisted on) is invalid, untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Laws & Canons in those particulars, than now they are. The 5. Object. 5. A Coal from the Alt. p. 18. 19 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer. Objection is this: That the Queen's Injunctions command the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood: Ergo they ought to be placed Altarwise. To this I answer, that the words of the Queen's Injunctions, published Anno 1559. by the advice of her most honourable Counsel, are these: For the Tables in the Church. Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many & sundry parts of the Realm, the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament, ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF THE LAW THEREFORE PROVIDED; and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed, upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majesty's Visitours. In the order where of, having for uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment; so that the Sacrament be duly & reverently Ministered: yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALM, and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALF, it is ordered, that no Altar be taken down but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Churchwardens, or one of them at the least●, wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used; & that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood, & there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, & shallbe appointed BY THE VISITORS; and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed: at which time the same shallbe so placed in good sort with in the Chancel (the Rubric before the Communion and 82. Canon, say, with in the body of the Church or chancel, which makes me suspect, that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions,) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants, in his prayer & ministration, & the Communicants also, more conveniently & in more number communicate with the said Minister; and after the Communion done, from time to time, the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before. In which Injunction, (much wrested & insisted on by the Coal) these particulars are remarkable, to stop the mouths of our modern Innovators. First, that Communion Tables are no Altars, nor aught to be so styled, they being here put in opposition & contradistinction one to the other, though some now confound & bind them together as one. 2. That all Altars were removed, & ordered to be removed, by virtue and form of a Law, therefore provided, to wit the Statute of: Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Book of Common prayer which abandoned them. Therefore the bringing in & setting up of Altars now, and the calling of Communion Tables, Altars, is against that Law, and the Book of Common Prayer. 3. That the setting up & continuance of Communion Tables, and the calling of them by this name, was, and yet is according to the form of the Law in that behalf; & the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars, or High-Altars: against the Law. 4. That all Altars were generally removed & enjoined to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realm, and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church; therefore no doubt in all cathedrals, & in the Queens own Chapples, for better example unto others: So that the erecting of Altars in them, or any of them, must needs be a late Novelty, contrary to Law, to this Injunction, and a gross Nonconformity. 5. That the care of Taking down Altars, & setting up Communion Tables, was committed to the Curate & Churchwardens of each parish, not the Bishop: yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars, and displace the Tables Altarwise. 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen & her Successors, & that none ought to visit in their own names and rights but in hers, as their Visitours, having first obtained a Commission under their great Seals so to do, as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Patents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Reign abundantly evidence. 7. That the ordering of the Situation & covering of the Communion Tables, is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocese, but to the Queen's Visitors, who were then * 37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts & Monum. p. 1181. 1192. B. jewels life before his works sect. 25. specially appointed by her Commission, as they were in King Henry the 8. & King Edward's days, many of them being Lay-people. Which Visitours placed them Tablewise, not Altarwise, in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since, till with in these two or 3. years' last passed. 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancel, and there to stand unmoveable, even when the Sacrament is administered: the Injunctions expressly prescribing, that where ever it stand before; yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, it shallbe removed into such part of the Chancel, (or into the body of the Church as the Rubric of the Common prayer Book runs) as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard etc. & after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before. Which word shallbe, is not a baer arbitrary permission only, as the collier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it, but a direct pr●●●pt, as is the later-clause, by his own confession, else the Churchwardens might choose; whither they would remove the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before. These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised, I come now to answer the objection, being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably allege for them. First then I answer, Answer 1. that this clause, & set in the place where the Altar stood, implies not, but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle, for all Altars were not so situated, o Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1404. 1406. before this Injunction: The Altar in Carmarthen Church, was placed in the midst of the Church, without the Quire. The Altar in the Savoy Church and other Churches & Chapples (built North or North and South) stood at the South end of the Choir, not the East: & in many Churches some Altats stood one way, some an other, some West, some North and South, as p De Re●us Ecclesiasticis. l. 4. c. 19 walafridus Strabus witnisseth● but generally they ever stood in the midst of the Choir, as the Promises evidence. The Author of the Coal therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres, or Chauncles, in the place where now he would have them situated (which he can never do) else this clause of the Injunction will little help, but mar his cause, & make poinct-blanke against him; since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Choir Altarwise against the wall, but, in the place where the Altar stood, so that where the Altar was placed in the midst, west North or South end of the Church or Chancle, the Table was to be there situated likewise. 2. By The place where the Altar stood, is not to be interpreted so precisely, that it must stand in that particular individual place, or in that form and manner as the Altar stood; for this certainly was not the meaning, but, in the place, that is, in that end of the Church where the Altar stood; to wit, in the midst of the Church, if the Altar stood there; or in the East, West, North or South end of the Church, where the Altars were so severally situated; or in the Chancel, where the Altar formerly stood in the Chann●le: that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction, & not, that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood, or in that manner with one side against the East wall of the Choir, as our, Innovators expound it, is most apparent by these Reasons. 1. First Because the Communion Tables were q Fox Acts & Monuments p. 1211. 1212. of a different form from the Altars then in Churches being both longer & brother than Altars, which were all most perfectly square, but Tables all most as long again as broad. They could not therefore be situated in the same individual precise place as the Altars stood, being thus different in proportion & form from them. This is the r Page 19 Coals own argument, even against itself. 2. Because the Coal itself confesseth, s Page 51. that Altars were incorporated, & fixed unto this wall; & that Tables were not to be so; therefore they were not to be placed punctually in that place, & in such sort are the Altars stood & were placed, by his own confession. 3. Because the Rubric of the Common prayer Book prescribes; that the Minister at the time of administering & consecrating the Sacrament shall stand at the North side of the Table, not at the North end: which clearly determines, that the Table ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squares of it North and South, not Altar wise, with the ends of it North & South and the sides of it East and West, against the Wall, as some popish Altars stood: And therefore the Jnjunction never intended, that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was, & in the self same manner as it was situated; for the Table being but a long square, not a perfect Quadratum, hath but two sides, & two ends; the narrowest square of it, being ever in our Engish Tongue, termed an end not a Side, & the longest square only a SIDE. And though Geomatrician usually term every square* Alatit●dine. Latus, in Latin, which we translate a side, (which yet more properly signifieth the breadth, than the length of a thing, and so rather the end then the side, yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square only, the side, and the Narrew the end: The rubric therefore being first compiled in English, for English men, according to the usual meaning of the English phrase, not to show any terms of Art or skill, but to direct & instruct both Ministers & people in the most plain & familiar way; the word North-side, must needs ' be interpreted of the long-side; of the Table standing Northward, which we ever phrase the side, not of the narrowersquare set Northward, which we ever heretofore and still, phrase the North-end. Wherefore the shife used by the Coalier, t Page. 23. 24. That the North-end and the North-side come both to one, there being no difference in this case between them, he that stands and ministereth at the North-end of the Altar, standing no question at the North-side there of, as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it, (cujus contrarium verum est, since we neither use nor aught so to call it in our English dialect,) is but a mere ridiculous evasion, & a miserable shift. Neither will his Objection, v Page. 23. that the Communion prayer Book done into Latin by command & authorised by the great Seal of Queen Elizabeth in the 2. year of her reign, translates it. Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem etc. avail him: Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARSON, though it may signify, the Northern end of the Table, as well as the North-side, in case the end of it were so situated, yet here signifies only, the North-side, not end of the Table, the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table, as well as the end the original English which it Translates, the North-side not end, and the Tables at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side. not the end of it toward the North. 4. Because the Queen's visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it, even in point of practice, by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time, by virtue of this J●junction and the rubric, not Altarwise, with the two ends North and South, and the sides East & West along by the wall; but Table-wise, with the two long sides North and South, and the ends East and West, a good distance from the wall. as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth, till now of late, without any Alteration, as experience, and all aged men, who well remember how the visitors placed them. with our fore cited writers prove, past all contradiction. x Fox Acts, & monuments. p. 1211. 1212. Neither were they thus placed by casualty, but of set purpose, to difference them from Popish Massing Altars, even in point of situation, & to y Coale. p. 20. 71. teach the people that thy were Tables to eat and drink at, not Side-Tables or dressers, as the Epistoler observes, If then the Queens own visitors, and all those throughout the Kingdom, whether Ministers or Church wardens, who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables upon the removing of Altars, did thus interpret the Injunction, not of the precise place where the Altar stood, or manner of its standing; with the one side against the East-wall of the Choir, under the East-window, but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood, and there upon situated the Tables throughout all England and Wales, not Altarwise, but Table-wise only, as is before expressed,; an experimental truth past all contradistion,) then certainly there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altarwise against the East-wall of the Chancel, in that precise form, place and, manner as the Altars stood, as our Novellers now froms hence most fond contend, 3 Finally admit these words might (●simplie considered) be taken in that strict senc as some now would have them, yet the following words; and shallbe appointed by the Commissioners, not the Bishops or Ordinaries, who are expressly, excluded (though the Coal would make the prime men) which relate as well to the placing, as to the covering of the Table; leaves the manner and precise place of Situs, to the Commissioners appointement, since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood, were not so sitting to set the Table in, in many Churches, as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chancel. All which considered, this, Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables & railing them in Altarwise, for which the Coal is so hot & fiery. Now where as the z Page, 13 Coal would willingly make the world believe, that this Injunction saith, that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment; so that for ought it appears unto the Contrary, neither the Article nor Homily, nor the Queen's Injunctions nor the Canons. 1571. have determined any thing, but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice, so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar, and set up in the place where the Altar stood. 2. I answer, That these words in the Injunction; There seemeth no matter of great moment, refers not to Altars, as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment (for then a 5. & 6. E 6.. 1. Ely. ● 2. Fox Acts & Mounments. p 1211. 1212. the parliament, King, and Council in King Edward's days, would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches & expuoged their very name out of the Common Prayer Book, not the Queen and the Parliament by especial Law provided for that purpose done the like, neither would she have taken such care for their general removing, or our Martyrs & Writers been so earnest against them in their authorised works,) but it relates only, to some further or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them, with order and direction to be given by them, was no matter of great moment, but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes' visitors, they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realm beside, according to the form of the Law therefore provided: For they having a Law authorising them to remove their Altars, and to set up, Tables in their stead, they might without only order from the visitours, even according to the form of the Law therefore provided, removed their Altars and set up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament: So that these words referred only to the Commissioners order & direction, for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables & Altars themsilves, or the removing of them simply considered, as the Coliar dreams (and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation, is as false as vain the rather since neither of all these authorities all, adged term the Lords Table an Altar, but the Holy Table, Communion Table, or Lords Board & Table only. The 6. objection Object. 6. is this; The orders published by the Queen's Commisioners Anno: 1561. say, b Coal p. 22. that in the place where the steps were, the Communion Table shall stand; & that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board, the Tables of God's precepts imprinted for that purpose. And the Book of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus. The parish shall provide a decent Table, standing on a frame for the Communion Table, etc. And shall set the ten Commandments upon the East-wall over the side Table. Which put together make up this Construction, that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commandments and therefore all along the wall, on which the the Commandments were appointed to be placed, which was directly where the Altar had stood before, I answer Answer 1. first, that those two Authorities ever use the word Table, and never style the Lords Table and Altar, as his Objector doth, and would have it termed; therefore it's most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar. 2. If both the Queen's Injunctions, those Orders 1561: & Advertissements 1565. do also unanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altarwise, why were they not all then placed so, but stood Table-wise, then, and ever since? why did our learned c In their, fore cited & places, (words. Bishop Jewel in that very age & Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke, Doctor Willet & Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queens own time, (the first of them not above two years after the Advertissements, in their Authorised, works, maintain, that the Table ought to stand in the midst of the Church or Chancel; as it did in the primitive Church, and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England, proving & defending it against the Papists whom they contended with, if this were both the Doctrine of our Church, the precept meaning of the Queen's Jujunctions, Orders, Advertissement, that they should be placed Altarwise against the East end of the Choir? yea if this were so, why was Bishop jewels works prescribed to be had in all Churches, to off on't this situation of the Table in them all? Certainly the Collier must satisfy and solve these questions fully, or else he must give me leave to think: that he is as much out in his inference from these Authorities, (If the thing be well observed) as he was inhiss Conclusions from the Injunctions. 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words, prove; that the Table was to stand Altarwise, with one side against the wall, but a good distance from it, as far as the steps of the Altar stood before; & that the setting of the Tables of God's precepts over the Communion Board, or upon the East wall over the side Table, is not so to be interpreted as if the Commandments were to hang perpendicularly over●t (for that they could not do, the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood, but over it, that is, some good height above it, not direstly over it, is clear.) First, by the words themselves intimating as much, (for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table; over in both these places, relating to the Wall, next antecedent, not to the Table; at leastwise to the Wall as well as the Table: now the wall by which the Table stands, cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table, but only, over, that is, above it, therefore neither the Table of the Commandments affixed to it, or written on it, as it is in many Churches. Thus joseph was said, to be set over all the Land of Egypt: Gen. 41. 33, 43. not in situation, for so he could not be, but, in Authority and jurisdiction, that is, he took place and had precedency & command of all in Egypt, or was above them or in higher authority than they. Thus David useth the phrase Ps: 66.12. Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads, that is to be above us & triumph over us. So we say, that such a picture hangs over such a door or chimney or window, when it hangs above it, though not direstly over it, such a thing is over your head, that is, above it, not directly over it. 4. Admit over it, be meant perpendicularly over it, yet this makes not at all for its situation, Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse & over it, must be interpreted, over the East end of it next to the East wall, not the East side of it placed against the wall, that which hangs over the East end, being as truly said to be over the Table, as that with hangs over the side or middle of it. 5. Neither of these affirm, that these Commandments must hang over it when the Sacrament is administered, neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated; but at other times, Therefore it proves nothing at all, that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Choir, at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence infer. The 7. Objecteon Object 7 for the placing of the Communion Table Altarwise is this. d Coale p 58 59 60 61. etc. The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts, that if there shall hap any irreverece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Book, the Queen's Majesteye may by the advice of her Commissioners in causes eclesiastical or of the Metropolitan of this Realm, ordain or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence of Christ's Holy mysteries and Sacraments. A power not personal (saith the Coal) to the Queen only when she was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors. So that in case the Common-prayer Book had determined positively, that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chancel, which is not determined of; or that the Ordinary by his own oppointment could not have otherwise appoint, which yet is not so: the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people (as it hath been accustomed in these later days) in sitting on it, in time of Sermon, & otherwise profanely abusing it in taking Accounts, & making Rates, & such like businesses, may by the last clause of the side, for the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries & Sacraments, with the advice & Counsel of the Metropolitan command it to be placed where the Altar stood & to be railed about for the greater decency. To this I answer first, Answer 1. That a possead Esse non valet consequentia. The Kingh by virtue of this Act, by the advice of the Metropolitanne may command the Table to be placed where the Altar stood, & there railed in: Ergo it ought there to be placed & railed in, before, or without the Kings Command, is no good Argument: yea the contrary holds good. The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes express Command, & that by some public Act and writing under his great Seal, as is evident by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, the Book of Orders Anno 1561. & the Book of Advertissements Anno 1565: with the Statute of 25. H 8. ●. 19 the King being, to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seal as all his Proclamations & writs do testify. But his Majesteye hath yet given no such express command by any public Act or writing, under his great Seal, Therefore it ought not to be done. 2. This branch of the Statute, takes away all power from the Metropolitan Prelates & Ordinaries to ordain or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever, o● to alter any formerly prescribed or established, vesting this power only in the Queen's Majesteyes, her Commissioners, & Metropolitan being only to advise her, in cause she require their advice, but not to do any thing themselves in their own names, either with, or with our the Queens advise, they being (as some say in a Praemunire if they do it) by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19 compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c, 16. 3. & 4. Ed● 6, c. 11. & his Majesteyes and the Bishops own resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes special Command. London: 1628. By what right or power than I pray, & with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royal, can or do our Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Arch-Deacons, Ordinaries & officials in their several visitations take upon them, to prescribe new rites & Ceremonies of their own devising, to print & pubblish them in their own names, without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles, & to enjoin Ministers, Churchwardens, Sidemen to submit unto them, suspending, questioning, & excommunicating them in case they refuse to do it, when as themselves for making & they for submitting to any such Rites, Ceremonies, or Constitutions, are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603? By what right or authority do they now set up Altars instead of Tables; order & give in charge in e Bishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other. printed Articles, that Communion Tables shallbe changed removed, & set Altarwise against the East end of the the Chancel, & there railed in, that the Ministers shall bow & cringe unto them, administer the Sacrament, yea read the 2. service (as they call it,) at the Table, even when there is no Sacrament, & that all the Communicants shall come up to receive? that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri, the gospel, Athanasius & the Nicene Creed, bow at every naming of jesus, Women to be Churched with veils. & not without things no ways prescribed by the Book of Common prayer or Commanded by his Mayestey under the great Seal, suspending, silencing, depriving, excommunicating Ministers, and vexing his Mayesteyes' subjects several ways for not submitting to these their Novel Articles & Injunctions, being all Derogatory to his Majesteyes Ecclesiastical Prerogative, contrary to this objected clause of the Statute, and to the first clause thereof, which enacts; That no manner of Parson, vicar, or other Minister what soever, shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use, or by open fact, deed or thenreatning, compel, cause, procure or maintain any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedral or parish Church or Chapple, to use ANY OTHER RITE, CEREMONY, ORDER, FORM OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords. Supper, Matins Evening song, Administration of the Sacraments than is mentioned and set forth in the Book of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, under the penalties therein expressed, which Book neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Novel Rites & Ceremonies, The Coalier therefore might well have f●●o ne this objection which falls so heavy upon him, & these Prelates which set him no work to blow a broad his Coal from the Altar, to kindle a combustion in our Church, 3. I answer, that this clause is merely personal to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it, not her Heirs & Successors & their Commissioners, & that for two reasons; First, for the parliament then knew her sincerity & love to Religion, and her desire to advance it, of which she had given good Testimony all King Edward the 6. time, but especially in Queen Mary's days; therefore they would trust her with such a power; But they than knew not, neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heir or Successor to the Crown, nor what they might prove, in point of Religion. Therefore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority (who might peradventure overturn the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, with the due use & reverence of Christ holy mysteries & Sacraments formerly settled by this Act, & the Book of Common prayer by virtue or colour of this clause without a Parliament) but limited it only to the Queen. 2. Because the Book of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament & other Rites & Ceremonies of the Church of England, being then but newly corrected & published, there might there upon (as commonly it falls out upon all Alterations) grow some questions, doubts & inconveniences about it, or some defects or cause of alteration appear in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved, rectified, & supplied before a new Parliament might be called to dye it, or perchanse not worthy the summoning of a Parliament. All which questions, in conveniences & defests, would in likely hood appear and be fully rectified, without any need of future alierations, Rites, or Ceremonies, or continuing this power to her Heirs & Successors, which are purposely omitted in this clause. This appears most clearly, by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act; where the forfeitures for offending against the first clause is, several times by express words limited and given to the Queen's Highness, HER HEIRS and Successors; and though the 2. clause saith, that he who shallbe convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfeit to our Sovereign Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles, omitting her Heirs abolissing, all foreign power repugnent to the same; and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors, & their Commissioners, power only to punish all Heresies, Errors, Schisms, contempts. offences, Abuses, & enormities Ecclesiastical what soever contrary to former Laws, Statutes, not power to make new Ecclesiastical Laws, & so new He resies Errors, & Ecclesiastical offences, not punishable by any Ecclesiastical power or In●isdiction before. These two Statutes therefore are unfittly paralleled. And here I wonder much that the k Cole pag. 62. collier should allege, and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. (which enacts, that all Ecclesiastical power, together, with all such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities & preeminences Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power, or authority hath heretofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Ecclesiastical State & persons, & for reformation, order, & correction of the same and of all manner, Errors, heresies, schisms abuses, offences contempt, & enormites', shall for ever, by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crown of this Realm etc.) was not an Jntroductions of a New Law, but confirmative of an old, annexing no new● but only the old Ecclesiastical jurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperial Crown of this Realm for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiastical State & persons, be (as he truly confesseth) for ever united to the Crown, & to be delegated from it to others whom they shall think meet to name & appoint from time to time, only by Letters Patents under the Great Seal, as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe, I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops, Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons (who have and aught to have no manner of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction but in, from, by, & under his Majestey to whom by wholly Scripture all authority is wholly given to hear & determine all manner of causes Ecclesiastical, & correct vice & sin what soever, & to all such persons as his Majestey (to wit by special Patent & Commission) shall appoint thereunto. As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis) can or dare affirm, their Episcopal jurisdiction to be jure divino, or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters, Patents, or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seal, to keep visitations & Consistories, to make and imprint visitation Oaths & Articles in their own names, & impose them as binding Laws upon his Majesteyes' subjects, or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions in their own names & rights, or to send out their process under their own Seals & in they own names alone, not his Majesteyes, contrary to the express Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. & 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch, King and Pope in his own Diocese, & had no Sovereign over them to acknowledge. Let them therefore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royal prerogative Crown, dignity, and his Loyal subjects Liberties, or else let the collier for ever disclaim this Statute & this grand objection, to maintain his Altars & new Altered Communion Tables standing Altarwise, which overthrows all Ep scopall inherent jurisdiction, The S. Objection 8 Object. is this. That it is said in the Preface of the Book of Common Prayer, l Coal from the Altar. pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiwated. that if any doubt do arise in the use and practising of the same Book to appease all such diversity, the matter shallbe referred to the Bishop of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing contained in that Book. * Fox acts. Monuments. p. 1212. Therefore it is in the Bishop's power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Church, and there it ought to stand. I answer first, Answer 1. the Argument follows not. For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to alter any thing, but only when and where there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parish concerning, the use & practise of the said Book; not, when● and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altarwise against the East Wall of the Choir, all taking it for granted, that it ought not so to be placed, but to stand in that place & manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation (& ● time all most out of mind) till now, Therefore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places, and in case that any Popish Innovators have raised a doubt in any place, where there is or can be none, touching the placing of the Lords Table; the Ordinary in this case can not, must not make any innovation, but order that it must stand in that place & form as was at first ordained by the Queen's Commissioners & where it stood ever since, it being his m Declaration before the 32 Articles, & concerning the dissolution of the parliament. p. 21.42. Majesteyes express command that there should be no Innovation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies, or Matters of Ecclesiastical Discipline. 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocese to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Book; now the placing of the Communion Table Altarwise against the East wall, especially when the Sacrament is administered, is contrary to these Books, the Queen's Jnjunctions, Canons, writers and practice of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now. Therefore the Bishop neither can nor aught to turn the Communion Tables Altarwise by virtue of this clause, but is expressly prohibited by it, so to do The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise is this. Object 9 n Coal from the Altar. p: 63: 64: &c His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure, in the case of Sant Gregory's Church near Paul's in London, that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altarwise against the East wall of the Quier●, & thereby hath given encouragement to the Metropolitan, Bishop & other Ordinaries, to require the like in all other Churches committed to them; which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets of the Counsel-table, ●earing date the 3. of November. 1633. the Author of the Coal from the Altar, who ends with it. bathe at large relaved. To this I answer first, Answer 1. that this concerns only one particular Church & no more and the reason of this order drawn from the example of the Cathedral of Paul's & Sant Gregory's proximity there to, is not communicable to other Churches & pe●nliar to this alone. Therefore it can be no precedent for others. Secondly, It was not here resolved, that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise as the collier argues, neuber is there mention of any example, save ● at of Paul's 〈◊〉 (and that of late times sinde King james) nor any Canon, Rubric, Statute authority or writer produced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table, for all heir pretence of the practice of approved antiquity, foisted in to the order; where as the other side produced good antiquity & authorities for them, as I am informed, & among others. The rubric before the Communion, the Queen's Injunctions the 82. Canon, Bishop jewel, Bishop Babington, Doctor Fulke, with the Fathers quoted by them, and an un interrupted presciption in all Parish Churches & most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation: 3. Though his May stay ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Dean & Chapter of Paul's direction, upon this ground chiefly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church, as not, only the persons then present can depose, but the order inselfe insinuates in these words. Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation made by the Council of both parties, of all the carriage & proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare HIS DISLIKE OF ALL INNOVATIONS & receding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITUTIONS, grounded upon just & warrantable reasons, especially in matters concerning Ecclesiastical orders & government knowing how easily men are drawn to affect Novelties, & how soon in such cases weak judgements may be overtaken & abused: & the ensuing words which seem to give particular reasons, why this being but a Novelty was tolerated & passed over, when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it. His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innovation, & declaring thus his dislike of all Innovations; this order is so far from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitan Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them, as the Author of the Coal infers, that unless he will apply that ancient verse. Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata. To the Metropolitan Bishops & other ordinaries that they, love & are encouraged to affect & set up these Innovations, which his Mayestey dislikes, they must rather be discouraged then animated by this order to require the like in any, much less in all the Churches committed to them. And truly if all things be well considered they have little cause to be thus encouraged to require & make this Innovation as they generally do, not being ashamed or afraid to give it in charge to Churchwardens & Ministers in their Visitation o Bishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocese, & Bishop Percy for Bath and Wels. printed Articles, and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not removing & railing in the Lords-Table Altarwise as appears by the Churchwardens of Ipswich, Beckington, Colchester and others. For first, the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19 Enasts upon the Prelates & Clergies joint Petition in Parliament, That they, the said Clergy (in their Convocations & Synods) any of them (in their several Diocese, visitations, Consistories or jurisdictions) from henceforth shall presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure any Constitutions or ordinances, Provincial Synodals, or any other Canons, nor shall enact, promulge or execate any such Canons, Constitutions or ordicances provincial, by what soever name or names they may be called in their Convocations in time coming, which always shallbe assembled by authority of the Kings writ, unless the same clergy may have the Kings most royal assent to make, promulge & execute such Canons, Constitutions, & ordinances provincial, or Synodall and the kings most royal assent under his great Seal, he had to the same: (all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully express & manifest.) Upon peine of every one of the said Clergy doing contrary to this, & being thereof convict, to suffer imprisonment & make fine at the Kings will. The penalty of which Law every Metropolitan Bishop & ordinary hath incurred (& some say a Praemineere to) by printing & making visitation Articles & Injunctions in their own names, for altering & railing in Communion Tables Altarwise, & many such Innovations, without his Mayesteyes royal assent & approbation under his great Seal of England had to the same. 2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordains this: who soever shall hereafter affirm, that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers & lay persons or either of them, (and Bishops with other ordinaries are certainly with in this number) to join to gether, & make Rules, Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiastical, without the King's authority, & shall submit themselves to beruled & governed by them, let them be excommunicate ipso facto, & not be restored, until they shall repent & publicly revoke those their wicked & Anabapsticall Errors; But our p In their several visitation Articles. Bishops, Arch-deacons & other Ordinaries, with the * Doctor Heylyn as most give out, & some Circumstances discover. nameless judicious Learned Divine who writ the Coal from the Altar) affirm (& that in print to all the world) that it is lawful for them & either of them to make & print visitation Oaths, Articles, Injunctions & Constitutions in causes Ecclesiastical, for the railing in of Communion Tables & turning them Altarwise, & other Novel Ceremonies, as standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospel, Athanasius; & the Nicene Creed, bowing at the name of jesus, & to Communion Tables & Altars etc. Yea to keep Consistories & visitations without the King's Authority under his great Seal licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles, Constitutions, Ordinances, or to keep any Court or Consistory, and they enforce by visitations excommunications, fines imprisonments, & the power of the High Commission diverse of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit themselves to be ruled & governed by them. Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then own Canon, (& so irregular & all their proceedings nullities,) neither are they to be restored until they shall repent & publicly revoke these their wicked and their anabaptistical Errors, Articles, Oaths, & Constitutions, which they have thus audasiosly imposed upon his Mayesteyes loyal Subjects. 3. His Mayestey in his q Papc. 21. 42. 43 Declaration to his loving Subjects of the causes which moved him to dissolve the last Parliament, published by his Majesteyes special command Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemn protestation. We call God to record before whom we stand, that it is and always hath been, our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we account the most glorious in all our Crown: Defender of the faith: NEITHER SHALL WE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AUTHORIZINGE OF ANY THING WHERE BY ANY INNOVATION MAY STEAL OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH, but preserve the unity of Doctrine & discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England had stood & flourished ever since. We do here profess to maintain the true Religion & Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without admitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EITHER TO POPERY OR SCHISM: We do also declare that we maintain the ancient & just Rights & Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy & justice that they shall have cause to acknowledge that under our government & gracious protection, they live in a more happy and free estate, than any Subjects in the Christian world. But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars & so terming them; the railing of them in Altarwise & so standing, the forcing of the Communicants by several ranks & files to come up to them, & there to receive kneeling at the rail, the enjoining of Ministers to read the second service (as they now Term it) at the Table, when there is no Communion, & to duck, to bow unto it going to it, returning from it, & at their ingress to & egress from the Church, (all which Bishop Wren & others in their late visitation Articles & instructions have most strictly enjoined, suspending & excommunicating such Ministers & Churchwardens who have refused to submit to these & otherlike Romish Novelties) are all of them direct Innovations, not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth reign till of late, they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine & Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth, where by the Church of England hath stood & flourished ever since: they are an apparent backsliding to Popery, borrowed from the Papishes, and brought in only to symbolize with them, & set up Mass and that all Popish Doctrines, Rites, & Ceremonies again, by degrees, as the premises & experience witness. They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights & Liberties of the Subjects, who ought not to have any such Novelties thrust upon them, much less to be excommunicated fined, suspended, imprisoned, & thrust from their freeholds, Lectures & Cures but by the Law of the Land, & some special Act of parliament as the Statute of Magna, Charta. c. 29. The late Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein recited expressly resolve. Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes' Declarations, & this his most solemn & Christian Protistation, both to God & All his Loyal Subjects, Neither hath his Majestey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them, or given any admittance or connivance to them or given any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitan Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them, as the nameless Author of the Coal most impudently & falsely (to his Mayesteyes great dishonour & reproach) hath a vowed in print, & the Bishops & their officers given out in speeches, to colour over these & all other their late Popish Innovations, brought in & fomented by themselves alone, in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration & royal pleasure signified this is print by Special Command to all his Loyal Subjects, whose hairs were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first, as now they are overgreived to see the metropolitans, Bishops, Ordinaries, & this black Collier in his blushless Coal from the Altar, so insolently & apparently to thwart, affront, & bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innovations, & by suspending, silencing, excommunicating all such faithful Ministers, Lecturers, Churchwardens, People, who out of Conscience towars God, Loyalty to his Mayesteyes' Laws, & obedience to this his royal Declaration refuse to submit unto them, which they hope his Mayestey upon information of this their most desperate insolency, & exorbitant disloyalty & rebellion against his Laws, & Declaration, will not only consider, but most severely punish, to his poor Subjects comfort & relief. 4. His Mayesteye to show his further detestation against these Innovations, in his Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion, reprinted by his Majesteyes' commandment. London 1628. (which Declaration was made upon mature Deliberation & with the advice of so many of our Bishops as might conveniently becalled together) thus signifieth his royal pleasure therein: That we are supreme Governor of the Church of England: and that if ANY DIFFERENCE ARISE about the external Policy concerning Injunctions, Canons, or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging. THE CLERGY IN THEIR CONVOCATION (not every Bishop or ordinary in his Diocese, as the Coal & order of the Council Table oited in it, which doubt less in this was not rightly entered or Copied and determines) IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM: (But how of their own heads without any special Commission from his Minyestey? No I warrant you:) having FIRST obtained LEAVE UNDER OUR BROAD SEAL SO TO do, AND WE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONS; providing that none bemade CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND CUSTOMS OF THE LAND. That of our Prinely care, that the Churchmen may do the work which is proper unto them; the Bishops & Clergy from time to time in Convocation upon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BROAD SEAL to deliberate of and, to do all such things, as being made plain by them, & ASSENTED TO BY US, shall concern THE SETTLED CONTINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now established FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING, OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE. Where his Mayestey & the Bishops themselves expressly determine against the Coals Doctrine & Bishop's Practice: 1. That if any difference arise about the external Policy concerning Injunctions, Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging, or the true sense and meaning of them, not the Metropolitan or Ordinaries in their several jurisdictions, nor yet the High Commissioners; but the whole Clergy in Convocation is to order them. Therefore this difference concerning Altars, the situation & rayling in of Communion Tables, the reading of the 2. service at them, receiving at them & the like; which every Bishop, archdeacon, Chancellor, & Surregare now takes upon h●m perempterily to order & Alter at his pleasures. 2. That the whole Clergy in Convocation can neither deliberate on, nor Order, or settle any thing, in these or such other particulars, or differences, unless they first obtain leave from his Mayestey under his broad seal so to do, & He also approve their said ordinances & Constitutions by his or● a●d seal & Letters Parents; Therefore the Metropolitan himself, the Bishops, Arch deacons, & other Ordinaries with their under-officers, can order or settle nothing in these particulars, or others, nor prescribe any new Rites, Ceremonies or visitation 〈◊〉 & Articles in their own names, by their own power; (as they most presumptuously do in all places every day, without any leave first obtained from his Mayestey under his bread Seal so to do) or to publish, give them in charge, & impose them on his Subjects without his Majesteyes' approvation & asleht, thereto his broad Seal likewise. 3. That the Clergy in Convocation, much less than any Bishop in his Diocese, can order or determine nothing, no not by his Mayesteyes' licence & approbation under his broad Seal, that can bind the Subjects, or inferior Clergy in case it be contrary, to the Laws and Customs of the Realm: But Articles & Bishops Constitutions for the Turning of Communion Tables into Altars & railing them in Altarwise, with other for enamed particulars, are contrary to the Laws of the Realm, & to the Customs of it from the 10. of Queen Elizabeth till now (sufficient to make two successive * where 25. or 30. years makes a good Prescription. prescriptions at the Citull & Canon Law) neither were this made by the Clergy in Convocation by his Mayesteyes' licence, & assent under his Seal, but by the Bishops, Arch-deucons, & their officers themselves, without any such royal licence or assent. Therefore they are merely void, & neither do nor aught to bind his Mayesteyes Subjects, or the inferior Clergy. 4. That his Majestey will never authorise, or assent unto any thing propounded to him by his Bishops or Clergy, no not in Convocation, but what shall concern the settled continuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, but the Turning of Communion Tables in to Altars, the railing of them in Altarwise, etc. Do not concern the settled continuance of the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, but tend to the se●ret undermining & discontinuance of them; Therefore his Mayestey hath not authorized, nor assented to these Innovations. 5. That his Majestey will not endure any varying or departing in the least Degree from the settled established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England: Therefore he will not endure that his Bishops (who were privy to this his Royal Declaration made by their own advice,) should vary & depart from both, in setting up Altars in steed of Lords Tables, in Terming the Lords Table, an Altar & high Altar, & his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar, in railing in Communion Tables Altarwise, & their forcing the Ministers to consecrate & the people to receive, or in prescibing any other new Popish Rites and Ceremonies. Much less will he endure, that they should affirm both by word mouth & printed Books authorized by their Chaplains, that all these things are done with his approbation, & by his private direction & Command, but will one day call them, and these erroneous superstitious Popish writers to an account, for these their andacious contumelies, & affronts in contempt of his Laws and Declarations, of purpose to alienate the hearts & affections of his faithful loyal subjects from him, & to countenance & further their own Romish designs, to undermine religion & usher in Poper, by degrees which hath now well nigh wound in not only its head & rail, but almost its entire body into our Church, by these their treacherous, disloyal practices, proceedings, & Innovations. All which considered, the Council Table order for St. Gregorius Tables seituation, will stand the Bishops & the collier in no steed at all: and the nameless Author of the Coal from the Altar (with other popish Scribblers) may justly fear, that his Majestey for those untriuthes & false Rumours raised up, & publicly printed of him, (as if he were the chief Patron Author & Direct●r of all those late Romish Nouclties, Rites, & Ceremonies, which have either secretly crept or violently in truded themselves into our Church contrary to his Laws & Declarations) will give them no great thanks or reward, but inflict an heavy censure on them, and make them & their abesters sing a public palinody, suitable to these his Royal Declarations, published by his special Command, from whence his justice, honour, piety & constancy will never doubtless suffer him to receded in the least degree. I have now through God's assistance run over, blown out and quite extinguished (as I suppose,) the Coal from the Altar (or rather from * Who licenced it. Mr. Samuel Bakers, Oven) which was like to sets our Churchon fire, what ever the nameless Author of this Treatise (who upon examination proves neither learned nor indicious if a Divine, as the Title styles him) or Mr. Shelford, Doctor Pocklington, or Edmond Reeve, have lately written or objected in defence of Altars, or placing & railing in Communion Tables Altarwise, talking of those idle glosses, & false Cavils they have made to elude the Authorities and Antiquities which Bishop jewel and Dr. William's Bishop of Lincoln in his Letter to the vicar of Grantham (for he is certainly known to be the Author of it and hath avowed it,) have produced against the Antiquity of Altars, & for the scituating of Tables in the midst of the Church and Choir: all which I shall here prostrate to thy Christian Censure, having done nothing in this argument out of vain glory, faction, opposition, or desire of victory over impotent Antagonist, but out of a sincere affection to the truth, & that loyalty, that duty & endeared respect I bear, both to my gracious Prince, (whose honour, Constancy & fidelity are interessed in this Controversy) & to the established Doctrine & Discipline of the Church of England, which these, like so many secret Powder-traytors would suddenly, blow up, & subvert, by their Romish Treatises & desperate Innovations If I have failed or erred in any particular (as what man is free from these common infirmities of Mortality,) impute it not is the wilfulness but weakness of him, who willbe more glad, more ready, to see & correct his own Oversights, then to lay open or Censure others. if thou receive satisfaction from it (as I hope thou will in some good measure,) in the things therein discussed, give God the glory, pray for me; who as I am not afraid to defend the truth in this Apostatising faint hearted age, when as it hath few Friends, but fever Patrons: so I shall neither be ashamed to set my name to this Defence, when the Author of the Coal from the Altar, dares be so bold as subscribe his name to his Assailing firebrand, which I here principally have encountered, with our own domestic writters & Records. And now, good Reader, I should here dismiss thee but that as the Coal concludes with the Councel-Table Order, & the Copy of that Letter which it thought to burn to ashes, so I shall close up the first part of my Quench-Coale with a true Relation of the Manner & form, not only of turning a Communion Table Altarwise, but likewise Dedicating a Communion Table to be an Altar in such a solemn manner, as our age hath scarce heard the like. The History whereof, as it was acted, I have under the hands of an eyewitnes or two, who with-hundreds more can make it good, if need be upon their Oaths. THE MANNER OF ALTERING THE Communion Table of the Collegiate Church of WOLVERHAMPTON in the County of STAFFORD: & consecrating it for an Altar, the 11. day of October. Anno Domini 1635. UPON Satarday being the 10. of October 1635. Master Edward Latham, one of the Proctors of Leichfeild, & Surrogate of Woluerhampton accompanied with some 20. or 30. Persons, men, women and Chorasters, came to the Town, many of the Inhabitants, but chiefly the Clergy going to meet him. The intent of his & their coming, was to perform the solemnity of Dedicating the Communion Table to be an Altar, and of consecrating certain Altar clothes (as they said) to the glory of God. The Table was made new for this purpose, being about a yard & an half in length, exquisitely wrought and inlaid, a fair wall of wainscot being at the back of it, & the rail before it, was made to open in the middle, & not at one side; the middle, where the Ministers tread, being matted with a very fair Matt. Upon the Table was placed a fair Communion Book, covered with cloth of gold, & bossed with great silver Bosses, together with a fair Cushion of Damask, with a Carpet of the same; both party coloured of sky colour & purple, the fringe of the Carpet being blue & white. On each side of the Table hangs two pieces of white calico, & betwixt them the 10 Commandments, written in a fair Table with guilded Letters, the foresaid Cushion standing just below it. But on the North end where the Minister stands to consecrate, & in that piece of white calico, is represented at the top, the picture of Angels with faces, clouds; & birds flaying; about the middle, the picture of Peter on the Cross, at the bottom, George on horseback treading on the Dragon, leaves, & grass, with some trees, being beneath all, almost at the end of it. In the other piece of white calico on the West end, is the same as on the North end, only the picture in the middle differs, being the picture of Paul with his * Like a Persecutor not an Apostle. sword in his hand, all this being the curious work of some needle woman. Now the mystery why, the Pictures of Peter, & Paul & George on horseback, & more other are in this work, is imagined, because the Church is dedicated to the memory of Peter and Paul & it is under the jurisdiction of Sant George's Chapel at Windsor. The next day being the Lord's day, as soon as the Priests (for so they would be called, to suit the better with their Altar) came to the Church, each of them made a Low Congee a piece at their very first entering in at the great Church door, and an other Congee a piece at the I'll door, & after that 3. Congees apiece towards the Altar (before its dedication,) and so they went into the Chancel where a basin of water & a towel was provided for the priests to * It seems they come to Church with polluted hands, & s●inking souls, that they thus needed water & incense. wash in, where was incense burnind which perfumed the whole Church; & then they returned back making 3. Congees a piece, & went to service; which was solemnly performed, the Organs blowing, great singing, not heard of in this Church before, which kind of service lasted two hours at least. Service being finished there was a Sermon Preached by one Master jeffery archdeacon of Salop in the County of Salop, whom the Surragate brought with him. His text was, john. 10. 22. 23. And it was at Jerusalem the Feast of the Dedication, & it was winter, & jesus walked in the Temple in Salomon's Porch. All his whole Sermon was to prove the truth of the Altar. He had not one place of Canonical Scripture as we remember, & but one place in all, which was out of the Maccabees: His Sermon lasted an hour. After Sermon they went to the Dedication, or rather as the Preacher styled it, Renovation of the Altar: and in the Bellhouse * One Priest can consecrate the Sacrament, what need then 4. (& neither of them a Bishop, contrary to the Canons) to Consecrate the Altar? It sermes the Altar is more holy than the Sacrament which hath but one to hollow it. 4. of them put on the rich broidered Copes, and every one of them had a Paper in his hand, which they termed: Censer, & so they went up to the Altar, reading as it went, for they looked often on it. As they went they made 3. Congees apiece, & when they came to the Altar, they kneeled down & prayed over the cloth, & the other Consecrated things, the Organs blowing all the while; this solemnity lasted almost half an hour. After all this was performed there was a Communion, and one was appointed to stand with a Basin to receyve the offertory; diverse gave money, & it was thought it had been given to the poor; but the man that held the Basin gave it to the Surragate, (the some gathered being reputed about 40. s,) he calling the Churchwardens gave them as he said 10. s, the remainder he told them he would bestow on other pious uses, but the 10: d. being counted, proved to want. 6. of the just somme he said he had delivered them. None gave the Communion, but the 4. that had Copes. This finished, they * Defiled belike with the very Consecration of the Altar & have Altarclothes. washed their hands & returned, making 3. Congees apiece as before. These Copes & the silver Basins were brought from Leich- field. * It's well they would allaw an afternoon sermon to grace this Dedication since they admit none their since. The Communion and Dedication ended, * Quod Nota. they went to dinner, & in the * Quod Nota. Afternoon they come to Church again, where was a Sermon preached by one Master Usual a Minister, & his text was in the 2. Sam: 7. 2. And David said to Nathan the Prophet, see now I dwell in an house of Cedar, And the Ark of God abideth under Curtains. This Sermon did justify and magnify the Altar, & lasted more than an hour: which being finished, they went to prayer; which was very solemnly performed, the Organs blowing, & diverse Anthems & Responds being sung at that time: which done, they departed from the Church to their lodging, where they were very merry; & to grace this solemnity and Consecration of the Altar the Higher, the next day being monday, they of Leich-feld went out of Town * This was an holy Dedication of an Altar indeed, belike it was to Bacchus not to God. many of them very drunk, defiling themselves with this swinish sin like so many filthy brute beasts, to make the Altar the more holy & venerable, and themselves more apt to nod & Congee to it, & this manner of keeping this feast of Dedication, a pattern for all the Country to Imitate. Thus ended this late Dedication, with which I here conclude my rude Discourse, and Quench-Coale. THE SECOND PART OF THE QVENNCH-COALE. IN this part of my discoursel purpose by way of Corrullarie to propound some few Quaeres ip these our New Doctors & Innovators, together with the reasons why I 〈◊〉 propose these doubts & Questions to th●m. The first Quaere is this: What is the true & final end they aim at, in erecting Altars, styling Communion Tables Altars, & placing them Altarwise, & in christening themselves again by the name of Priests, (not as it is used for a contract of the word Presbyter, which signifieth properly an Elder or Minister of the gospel, but of the word Sacerdos, denoting a sacrificing or massing Priest. It is a Rule both in Philosophy & Divinity, a Aquinas 1● 2●. quaestion 1. Artic 1. 2. 1● Quaest: 6. Are 1. 2. Omnia agunt propter finem; All things (especially all Rational agent) aim at some ultimate, uttermost, or final end in all their Actions; Much more than in their serious writings & polemical discourses; We know again that it is an undoubted Maxim in the Schools; that b Aquinas 1● 2●. Quaest 1. Ar. I●. Are 32 ● 2. 2● qu. 189. Are, 〈◊〉 finis & causa finalis est primus in intention, ultimus in executione agentis. The first thing in Intention of the agent, though the l●st in execution; And that c Aquinas 1● 2●. qu. I. Art. 3 cue 96 Art. 1. 1. 2●. qu. 8. Art. 2. So Occhum, Scotus, Bonaventure. Aegydius. Durandus. Lambard. Medis Vil la, Bacon. & all the Schoolmen. Keckerman. Zabarell. Magyrus. Rwio. & all Logiciaha. Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem, all middle causes are and work only to produce the end: Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem. These things being undoubted truths past all dispute; And it being as true likewise, that Altars themselves & Priests being but instrument & subordinate relatine things, 〈◊〉 for some other use, & the ●●nation of Tables Altarwise being but ● ceremony the utmost end or final cause thereof being of themselves, (since none is so simple to says up an Altar only because he would have an Altar, or to turn the Lords Table Altarwise, only because he desires, it should be so plated: or to style himself affoctedly a Priest, only for the Titles sake, & no more, but for some further end, all these serving to no use or purpose at all simply considered, but only with relation to some further end:) The sole Question then willbe, what this end should be? To which if our Innovators & late Collier would give a direct Answer in down right English terms; it can be no other but this; That the end they strive for, in contending for Altars, Priests, & turning Tables Altarwise, is only to usher in a Sacrifice, into our Church, since Cardinal Bellarmine & B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect: 15. p. 46. expressly resolve. That Priests, Altar & Sacrifice are relatives, & have mutual & unseperable dependence one on the other; & since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice, as both the e Gen. 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9 c. 2. & 9 c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24. scriptures, and the f Bellarm. de Missa. I. 1. c. 2. Sum. Angelica Tit. Altar: Papists acknowledge, & the Coal ingenuously confesseth: p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this? Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church, can be no other, but that which formerly, upon the beginning of reformation, was cast out: but that sacrifice was only the Idolola●rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle: Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in again, by these Altars, Priests, & Communion Tables seated Altarwise. If they reply that they do it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper. I answer, that a g Fox Acts & Montiments. p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sacrament: p. 463. Table is far more decent for such ● purpose, than an Altar; a Table posture, than an Altar situation; & a Minister, than a Priest: since we never read in scripture of any supper, or eating at an Altar, since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table; (which Table, if we believe the h Magnun Chron: Belgio●●m. Cronickle● of Flaunders, Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. removed from Noremberge to Prague, as most precious relic, which the i Thomas Beconlikeliques of Rome. Church of Rome flath yet to show, if you dare believe them, though she never consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it, (which me thinks she should then due, I but in an Altar, 〈◊〉 at an Altar, & since we find no mention in scripture, of any Priests, but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table, If they reply; as the k Page ● Coal doth, that they 〈◊〉 only to him) 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice, which our Church allows, not ● Prepitiatory, as the Papists make their Mass. I answer first, that our Church allows not so much as of a Commemorative Sacrifice, neither doth she in her Homilies, or Articles style the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so, much less in her Common prayer Book, Injunctions, Canons or statntes: neither, doth the collier allege one passage in any of all these, to prove this bold assoveration, either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggarly Pedlar, he lays open all his shrids & stolen wares. 2. The Church of England (even in that very homily he cities p. 8.) expressly condemns this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words; l Homily of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament. part. 1. p. 198. Edi●. 1632. We must take heed then (saith the Homily,) lest of a Memory, it BE MADE A SACRIFICE. If not A SACRIFICE, than not a commemorative Sacrifice, unless they will grant a commemorative Sacrifice, to be no Sacrifice, which is a contradiction; & to say, we must take heed, least of the MEMORY, we make it A SACRIFICE: Is all one as to say: we must take heed that we make it not a commemorative Sacrifice; a Memory, & a Sacrifice, being here put in direct opposition & contradistinction one to an other in this clause, & in the following parts of the Homily; which 4. several times, calls the Sacrament, A MEMORY, A COMMEMORATION, AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christ's death, but never a Sacrifice commemorative or Propitiatory: Both which it expressly clubs down in these words: m P. 200. Now it followeth, to have with this knowledge a sure & constant saith, not only that the death of Christ, is avay lable for a redemption of all the world, &c: but also that he made upon the Cross, A TRUE AND SUFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins, so that then acknowledge no other saviour, redeemer. Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, but CHRIST ONLY. Herein thou needest no other man's help. NO OTHER SACRIFICE (therefore neither commemorative, 〈◊〉 propitiatory: for this univerfull Negative includes both) or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PRIEST 〈◊〉 New Priests observe this well to which they have subscribed) NO MASS, (let those who labour might and main to usher it into the Church by degrees, consider this.) No means established by man's injunction; Therefore no A t●r, Priest, Sacrifice, or Table seated Altarwise; All which this homily strikes dead at once; and our common-prayer-book and 39 Article too, almost in the selflame words. 3. A commemorative Sacrifice is a mere Bull, and contradiction: For as the picture of a man is no man, or of fire no fire; or of a Chalice, or Sacrament, no Chalice, or Sacrament; So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice, is in truth no Sacrifice, nor kind, nor species of a Sacrifice, but only a shadow or memorial of a Sacrifice. So that this is but a Mountebancks cheer, and distinction to delude children & fools with all, not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine. 4. The Sacrament neither is; nor can be a sacrifice, for every sacrifice whether legal, or evangelical, is a religious service, holocast, worship, or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himself. Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5●. 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. H●b. 9 14. & 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Book of Common-prayer, after the receiving of the Sacrament, prescribes this Eucharistical prayer: And thus we offer & present unto thee O Lord ourselves, our sules & bodies to be a reasonable, holy, & lively SACRIFICE unto thee, &. But in the receiving of the bread and wine in the Sacrament, we offer up nothing unto God, but only God tenders his Son, with all the benefits of his death and passion unto us; As the words take & rate this, the prayers before and after the Sacrament, the Scriptures, and every man's experience withesseth. Therefore it can by no means be termed a Sacrifice; Whence the Homille of the Sacrament terms our thanksgiving to God after the Sacrament received, and at other times a Sacrifice, p. 103. as the Apostle expressly doth Heb,. 13. 15. & the Psalmist before him. Ps. 107. 22. Ps. 116. 17. Ps. 54. 6. jer. 33. 11. Almos 4. 5. jon. 2. 9 But never terms the Sacrament itself thus, because it neither is, nor can be a sacrifice commemorative, or propitiatory, unless with reference to this thanksgiving, and to the whole act and service, not to the consecrating and distributing of the bread and wine, as B sh: 〈◊〉 proves at large Instit. of the Sacram. l. 6. throughout. 5. This Homily ● times together her case the Sacrament a Table & Lords Table, never a Sacrifice, an Altar, or Sacrament of the Altar; Admit the Homily granted it to be a Sacrifice, which it doth not, yet it is such a Sacrifice as needeth neither Priest, Altar, or Tables situated Altarwise, even by the Homily and Book of Common-prayers resolution; Therefore no such Romish Massing Sacrifice, as these Innovators would obtrude by craft and power upon us, which stands in need both of a Priest, an Altar, or Table placed Altar-wise● or of the name of a Sacrifice, to make people reasly to esteem in so. 6. Nemorepente for turpissimus: 〈◊〉 Romish Novellers dare not discover themselves, or proceed so far at the first dash, for fear of prevention and strong opp 〈◊〉; but they will usher in things by certain insemble degrees, step by step, till they have brought in the whole body of Popery at last. First then we most have Communion-Tables only turned Altarwise; Then we must have them termed Altars; Next we must set up Altars indeed; Then we must cringe to, and adore them; after that have a Priest, to write on them; then a commemorative sacrificrenly to be off red on them. And thus far we have already proceeded in many places AND GENERAL IN ALL COLLEGIATE AND CATHEDR ALL CHURCHES (as the collier in forms his friend and ●eader both: p. 1. and 27: The Ringleaders and most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt examples to reduce us back to Rome, that ●●unded them: And now must we and Rome be brought together 〈…〉, as muthally to embrace and 〈◊〉 each other: the next step must be, to make the Sacrament a propiriatory sacrifice, as the Papists do, who first proceeded ● this method, and held it but commemorative, as appears by all their ancient Schoolmen. And then when the thing itself is once got in● the name of it ●yet too gross and odio●● will quickly follow, it shall then be rebaptised with the name of Mass, by these its Godfathers; who as they have already pleaded for its Popish title: The Sacrament of the Altar, because the statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. styles it the Sacrament of the body & blood of Christ, commonly called (to wit by the Papists in those days, not the Parliament or Protestants) q Col. p. ● 16. 17. The Sacrament of the Altar: So they will by the selfsame reason call it by the name of the Mass, and justify this Title of it, by the Mass itself, to be lawfully warranted both by Prince, P●●late, Priest, & the whole Parliament, because the statute of a and 3. E. 6. c. 1. (and the Book of Common-prayer established by it) there styles it: The holy Communion commonly called THE MASS (to wit by the Papists and ignorant people of those times, the Mass being not quite abolished till this law was made.) Though the very intent of this Law was to abolish the Mass, and the name of Mass, 〈◊〉 is clear by the body of the Act, the Book of the Commonprayer then set out, and since corrected; the Homily of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament fore cited the 31. Article● with all the surnamed writers, Injunctions, and Cannons of our Church (and neither old Doting Shelford, nor his so●●e the collier, dare deny;) even as the end and true scope of the she statute of 1. E. 6. c. 1. was to abolish both the name 〈◊〉 Sacrament of the Altar; Though th●se ignorant Scrib●●● would justify both the lawfulness of Altars, and of term●● the Lo●ds supper the Sacrament of the Altar from th●●● against the meaning of the Law, as I have already manifested. Since therefore it is clear by the collier, that the 〈◊〉 and their Confederates 〈◊〉 some notable designs in 〈◊〉 upon the established doctrine and discipline of the Churchy which he terms r Colefron● the Altar. p. 4. line 19 20. A GOOD WORK (I would it were so) NOW IN HAND (which we find too true, and since this good work, is just like Colliers' work and Character by the printed (yea his own) happy premonition truly s Epistle to the reader I am to advertise thee, etc. Thou wouldst take notice (and so many do) that the Romā● is the words of the Author ROMAN, to wit, by Altars, and Priests, and Tables turned Altarwise to usher in Mass with its Name and Sacrifice into our Church, for which all things are now ready prepared in all Cathedral & Collegiate Churches; It is high time for us to propound this first question to these domestic ●●●ialists what their intentions are, to stop their further progress, both by a linely discovery and strenuous opposition of these their Antichristian Romish designs, and to admonish them, and all others, in the words of our own established t Of the Sacram. part. 1. p. 198. Homily: BEFORE ALL THINGS this we must be sure of, especially, that this supper be in such wise done, and ministered as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded it to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the godly Fathers in the primitive Church frequented it. For (as the worthy man S. Ambrose saith) he is unworthy of the Lords Table that otherwise doth celebrate the Mystery, than it was delivered by him: Neither can he be devout that otherwise doth presume than it was given by the Author, but when the Author gave it, he gave it not a Sacrificing Shave● Masse-Preist, he gave it not at an Altar, but at a table, and that situated in the MIDST table-wise, as I have manifested, to his Disciples sitting; not kneeling round about it u Which some scandalously term: An unreverens & unseemly gesture, as if Christ & his Apostles were unreverent, & instituted & received the Sacrament in an unreverent & unseemly manner. . Therefore we must be sure so to minister if we will be either worthy of the Lord or devout, we must then take heed (as it is now ●●gh time so to do it) lest of the memory is be 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉; lect of a Communion it be made a private ea●●●●● (therefore of having our tables at the time of its celebration placed Altarwise, at the remotest East end of the Chan●●●●, brought in with private Masses, & for that purpose only 〈◊〉 le●●● of two parts we have but one, lest applying it to the dead, we lose the fruit that be alive: wholesome counsel & necessary doctrine for these present times, as the 34. Article termed the Homilies, with which I shall close up this first quaere. QUESTION II. The second Question I would propound to these Novelle●s is this. That since they will now style themselves and be called of others only Priests, (so Shelford termed himself 〈◊〉 the Title page of his unlearned Treatises, and many others have done in late prin●ed Sermons & Pamphlets w In imitation of Popish Priests who●● so title themselves in the fronts of their books. what kind of Priests they are, & wherein their priesthood consists. If they say, they are only spiritual Priests, and have only a * See Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament Edit. 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3. spiritual priesthood, ●o●●ffer up the spiritual sacrifices of prayer, 〈◊〉, thanksgiving alms, righteousness, broken and contr●●● hearts, and their own bodies & souls to God; that every Christian is as much a Priest, even by Christ's own institution a themselves, and hath the selfsame priesthood that they 〈◊〉 Rev. 1. 6. 1. Pet. 2● 5 ● Exo● 19 ●● And so they do all they can ●o engross this Title as peculiar to themselves, which is common to every Christian. If they mean by Priests nothing 〈◊〉 Presbyters x B. Morton. Ibid p. 415. 461 , and intent no more by their name and priesthood but only the Eldership & Ministry, let them enjoy that Title and office in Peace, I quarrel not with them; Only this I must inform them● That such Priests need neither Altar nor Sacrifice, but 〈◊〉 expressly debar●ed from both by G●d himself, 1. Cor. 9 13. 14. c. 10. 16. 17. 18. 21. Hebr. 7. 12. 13. 14. But if they mean by the word Priest, y D. Reynolds confer. with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Testament. Notes on Heb 7. c. 9 10. 〈◊〉, or S●cerd●●, a sacrificing Priest, or a Priest waiting at, or upon the Altar; as it is clear they do, both by their writings; their prayers before their Sermont, (where they pray for the Preist●●) 〈◊〉 serve & wai● a● the Altar's their erecting and pleading for Altars and Commemorative Sacrifices at least, 〈◊〉 evident 〈…〉 and shall then inquire of them, what 〈◊〉 Sacrificing Priests they are, and of what order their priesthood is? In Scripture I read only of 4 kinds of Priests and Preisthoods; Priests (Heb. c. 5. & 7. & 8. & 9 & 10. Levit. c. 1. vers. 12. Exod. c. 28. & 29. & 30.) after the order of Aaron● Priests after the order of Melchizedech, (2 Kings 17. 32. 1 Kin: c. 12. 31. 32. c. 13. 33. 2. Kin: 10. 18, etc.) Priests of Baal, and Priests of the high places, or Idol Priests. The two first of divine, the two latter of Diabolical institution: Since which there hath sprung up of late in the Church another distinct generation of Priests, commonly called by the name of Masse-Preists; and those are both of Papal Diabolical institution. Other sorts of Sacrificing Priests then these I neither know nor read of. The sole question than will be, of which of those of 5 sorts of Priests our Novellers & Altar-panons are? If of the first sort; that is directly abolished, changed & abrogated by our Saviour. Heb. 7. 11. 12. c. 8. 6. to 13. & cap. 9 10. throughout. Col. 2. 14. 15. 16. And those who cry down the name and sanctification of the Lords day Sabbath as z Heylyn. Pocklinton & others. ●●wish; will not I hope tear●ne themselves in the order of Aaron's Priests, a B. Morton Instit. of the Sacrament. ●6. c 3. which is far more Jewish; Of which sort of Priests they cannot be, unless they are lawfully descended from the tribe of Levi, Num. 3. 6, etc. c. 16. 1, & josh, c. 13. v. 14. & 33. Psal. 135. 10. Mal. 2. 4. 8. Hebr. 7. 5. If of the order of M●chizedech, that is peculiar only to our Saviour, subsisting personally in him alone; and incommunicable to any other, as the Apostle directly resolves, Hebr. 5. 9 10. c. 6. ●●. c. 7. throughout ●. ●. 9 10. As all authors interpret, old and new writers acknowledge, and among them Mr. David Dickson in his b Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Morton his Institution of the Sacrament. l. c. 3. throughout, and in the proceeding and ense●ving ●hapters. D Fulke and Mr. Cart●rig● in the confutation of the R●em. Testament on Hebr. 7. & 8. & 9 & 10. to the same●●●pose. commentary a short explanation on the Hebrews 7. An: 1634● where he lays down the conclusion fully warranted by the Apostles text. 1. That to make any Priests in the new Testament by special office beside Christ, is to rend the priesthood of Christ, and to make it imperfect like Aaron's, which for the same reason that it had many Priests, was weak, imperfect & inferior to Christ's. 2. That to make Priests by office in the New Testament, to offer up any corporal sacrifice is to make Christ's priesthood separable from his own person, which is against the nature of Christ's priesthood, which can not pas●e from one to another. Hebr. 7. 24. 3. That to make plurality of the Priests in Christ's priesthood, Vicars, or Substitutes, or in any respect, partaker of the office with him, is to praesuppose that Christ is not able to do that office alone, but is either dead or weak that he cannot fulfil that office; contrary to the text which saith: Because he continueth for ever, he hath an unchangeable priesthood, or a priesthood that cannot pass from one to another. Hebr. 7. 24. 4. That whosoever communicateth Christ's priesthood with another, besides his own person, maketh Christ not able alone to save to the uttermost, those that come unto God by him. 5. That the Scripture knoweth no Priest, but the levitical Priests of Aaron's posterity, for the time of the Law● Or else that one Priest that was made by oath in the time of the Gospel, besides these the Apostle knoweth none, neither were there any other in his time in the Church. 6. That to have Priests now, after the similitude of Priests under the Law, were to renounce the difference which God hath made betwixt the Law and the Gospel. 7. That to make a Priest in the Gospel, who is not consecrated by an Oath, to abide for evermore in the office, but may be changed, and another come in his place, is contrary to Evangelicall priesthood. 8. That to make Plurality of Priests in the Gospel, is to alter the order of Melchizedech sworn with an Oath, and to renounce the work set betwixt the Law and the Gospel. 9 That to make a man Priest now, is to mar the Son of God's privilege; To whom the privilege only belongeth. 10. That to make a sinful and weak man Priest now, is to weaken the priesthood of the Gospel, and make it like the Law. 11. That as long as Christ's consecration lasteth (which endureth for ever) none must meddle with his Priestly office. 12. That to add unto it, and to bring in as many Priests now, as did serve in the Temple of old, is to provoke God, to add as many plagues, as are written in God's book, upon themselves, and their Priests also. All which considered; I hope these Novellers dare not say, they are Priests after the order of Aaron, much less of c See Bis-morton his Institution of the Sacrament. l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. throughout. M●lchiz●dech, which is peculiar to Christ alone. P●reists of Baal, or Idol-Preists, I presume they neither will, nor dare style themselves. If therefore they be Priests of any order, they are, and can be no other but Seminary or Masse-Preists: and if they are such Priests in truth, as their writing and practices declare them; Then let them be gone packing to Rome their mother, or to some English Seminaries or Cloisters, where they may say and sacrifice Ma●●e. Sure our d Of the worthy receiving & esteeming of the Sacrament, p. 200. Homilies inform both them and us that we have no need of Mass or Sacrificing Priests, neither yet (thanks be to God) have we any Masses to be chanted, (unless our Cathedral divine service may be so termed, which comes nearest Mass of any) in our Parish Churches, standing in need only of e 2 Tim. 4 1● 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2 Preaching Ministers, not Sacrificing Masse-Preists, condemned by our statutes, as direct Trayt●rs● to our King and State f 27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Recusantes, Ie●uites, Seminary-Preistes, Rom. service and Sacramennts, etc. : And if those Jnnovators willneedes enrol themselves in this order of Priests, I should not envy them the horn of a Tyburn ●ippert, to grace their order and necks with all, nor yet the shaving of their Crowns to the very shoulders (●o use Father latymer's speeches) ● which they well demerit, in stead of that Egreg●am verò laudem & spolia ampla, which prick them on to assume this new title & office of Priests and Preistshood. QUESTION III. The third Question I shall propose to them (and all our Prelates) is this, what Law, Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars: (a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton, as you have heard, which will shortly creep up by degrees in other places:) Or for Consecrating Churches, Chapels, or Churchyeards? Statute I am certain there is none for it, yea sure I am that all the statutes against g See Ra●●all Title Mort: Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments, and the Book of Common-prayers, with diverse of our learned Writers are against it. To make this clear in few words. 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church, chapel, or Churchyard makes a Mort: This is the express resolution of the whole Parliament & Realm in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal. Mort. ●. and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses. But Mort: are directly against the Laws and Statutes of the Realm, as appears by Brook, Fiz: and rastal in their Titles Mort: Therefore these Consecrations are so too. 2. Secondly, they are expressly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jac● c. 5. were duly executed, we should not have so many of those books in the Realm as now they are, which are freely printed, and sold openly in every Stationer's shop. 1. Eliz: c. 2. 8. Eliz: c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service, and to take away all occasions of dive sity, of opinions, rites & Ceremonies in our Church, clearly and utterly abolish, & extinguish and forbid for ever to be used, or kept in this Realm all books, called Missals, Breviaries, Officials, Manuals, Processionals, Legends, Primers, or other Books whatsoever, heretofore used for service of the church, written or printed in the English or Latin tongue; With all other manner of Rites, Ceremonies, divine service, Consecrations, or public forms of prayer, than such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Book of Common prayer and other rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England, and in the Book of Ordination, ratified by these Acts; In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant, concerning the Consecration of Churches, Chapels, or Churchy yards, or Altars, nor any form of prayer prescribed for the purpose, as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper, Baptism, whether public or private, Marriage, Burial of the Dead, Churching of Women, visitation of the sick, confirmation of Children, Ordination of Deacons and Ministers, Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and ●ll other things our Church deems lawful or necessary. Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct terms abolisl●e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and P●●mers h See summa Angelica & Rosella Tit. consecreate. etc. Et ratr. de Consecrationis distinct. 1. & 16. Anton● Corseti R●portoriū Tit. Consecratio. wherein the manner prayers, and service, for consecrating of Churches, Chapels, Churchyards, or Altars, are prescribed and established in their places, the Book of Common-prayer, and Ordination of Ministers, wherein there is not one syllable concer●ing any such consecrations, nor any form of prayer or service, instituted for all or either of them, as there is for all other rites & Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary: And since they expressly prohibit all other Rites, Ceremonies, Forms of Prayer, and Consecrations, than such as are comprised and prescribed in th●se two Books; It is infallible that they have utterly abolished, and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches, Churchyards, Chapels, and Altars, as jewish, Popish, Superstitious, or at least superfluous, and quite excluded it out of our Church. As for our Canons, Homilies, Injunctions, and Articles of Religion, there is not in all, nor any one of them inferred ●re title concerning these Consecrations; Which condemn and exclude them by their silence; The i Of the Idolat. The right use of the Church, the time and place of prayer. Homilies likewise have some glances against them: For our writers, Mr. Tyndall in ●is obedience (page 136. 152.) of a Christian man, William Wra●ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox, john Bale B: of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places; Thomas Becon in his Relics of Rome, k Foli● 91. 92. 93. Mr. Cal●r hill in his book against Marshal, l Page 210 414 Mr. Fox in his book of Martyrs. And many other of our writers have expressly censured and de●●ed those Consecrations, as Superstitious, jewish, Popish, and Antichristian, styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches, Chapels, and Altars, invented only for profi●●, and reserved only to Bishops for gain sake. And to name no more, reverend Pilkirg●on sevea●ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing words: m Exposition of Ageus, c. 2. v. 2. 3, and c. 1. v. 7. 8. The Pope's Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people, but where the Gospel is preached, they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart, they are con●ent with an honest place, appointed to resort together in, though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all. It is written n Acts 7 that God dwells not in Temples made with hands, nor is worshipped with any work of man's hands, but he is a ●spirit, an invisible substance, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth, not in outward words only of the ●ippe, but with the deep lighes and groans of the heart, and the who●e power of the mind, & earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith? And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone, and timber, but hath willed as to p 1 Tim. 2. pray in all places, and hath taken away that jewish and Popish holiness, which is thought to be more in one place then in another. All the Earth, is the Lords, and he is present in all places, hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith. * Note this. Therefore those Bishops which think with their conjured water, to make one place more holy than the rest, are no better than the jews, deceiving the people, and teaching that only to be holy, which they have censed, crossed, oiled, and breathed upon. For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then another. q john 4 Woman, believe me, the time is come wh●n ye shall worship neither at Jerusalem, nor in this hill, but the true worshippers shall worship God in spirit and truth: So is it now said, the place makes not the man holy, but the man makes the place h●ly, and ye shall not worship your Jdols, Stocks, and Stones, neither at Wilsingham, Ipswich, Canterbury, nor Sheve, for God chooses not the people for the places sake, but the places for the people's sake● But i● ye be in the midst of the field. God is as ready to hear your faithful prayers, as in any Abbey or Burrey, yea a thousand times more, for the one place he hates, as defiled with Idolatry, and the other he loves, as undefiled and clean. If the good man lie in prison, tied in chames, or at the stake burned for God's cause: That place is holy: For the holiness of the man, and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him; As Tertullian saith, yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in, to praise our God, etc. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard, nor Christian moulds (as they be called, when it it is no better than other Earth, but rather worse, for the conjuring that Bishops use about it.) It appears in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves, the Widows Son going to burial, Christ buried without the city, etc. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops, but in a several place appointed for the same purpose without the city, which custom remaineth to this day in many godly places. As it then was lawful and no hurt to the dead, so it is now, and one place is as holy as another to be buried in, saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway, because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, and shall be glorified at the last day again, but seemly to be buried, and an honest place to be kept several from Beasts, and unreverent using of the same, for the same purpose. IT IS POPISH TO BELIEVE that which the Bishops do teach: That place to be more holy than the rest which they have hallowed, as they say, with their conjured water, cross, censings, processions, etc. But blessed be that God our Lord, which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies, which they devise to fill their bellies, and maintain their authority by: Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardness of the people to keep them exercised, that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles; yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament, nor yet commanded now, either to us o●● them, but forbidden to be used of all, both of us and them. We be no longer under shadows, but under the truth. Christ hath fulfilled all, and taken away all such dark kind of Ceremonies, and hath placed the clear light of his Gospel in the Churchy to continue to the end. Thus and much more this Bishop, who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Domineering Bishops, terming these creatures ravening Wolves, Lions, Bears, and such other ravening Beasts, for mercilessness, rap●ne and cruelty. If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Statutes, Common●prayer● bo●ke, Homilies, Canons, Article●, Injunctions, Writers, and thus derived by this reverend Bishop himself, in a Book printed at Lord● n● 〈◊〉 An: 1562. (the same year, he 39 Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified,) I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them, to consecrate Churches, Chapels, Church yards, and Altars, accounting them altogether profane; unless they have defiled, conjured, (I should have said consecrated) them with their new devised Ceremonies, Orisons, Consecration, Rites, and Ceremonies, takenout of Popist Masse-bookes, Ceremonials, Rituals, at large related in Summa Rosella, Summa, Angelica, Bochellous, Gratian, Ivo, Lyderwood, Hostrensis, with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars, and treatises of this subject, deserving rather derision than imitation. If they have no Law at all for it, but only the Pope's Canon Law, (as they have not) aboli shed by sundry r 2. 25. H. 8. c. 19 20. 21. 27● H. 8● cap. 15. 37. H● 8. c. 17● 32. H. 8. c. 3 acts of Parliament, is derogatory to the King's prerogative, the subjects liberties, and the Laws and Statutes of the Realm; Then why are they now of late so mad upon these consecrations, as things of infinite moment. How hot they have been upon consecration of Altars, appears not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton, of which before, but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, in M●ga●len College 〈◊〉 Oxford, in Clarehall, Petorhouse, Queen's College, with di●en other Colleges in the University of Cambridge, solemntly dedicated with some kind of consecration, adorned with Tapors, Candlesticks, Basins, Crucifixes, Crosses, rich Altarclothes, clasped brave Books, with Crosses in steed of Bosses, Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions, rich hangings, and daily dreaded with superstitious idolatrous geniculations, to the great grief of all good Christians, who mourn to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poisoned & disguised with the Relics, Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose; Whom the divinity Professor of Cambridge D. C●llins in 〈◊〉 public Sermons hath of late years much ext●lled, like an Apostazing Pander, preaching openly in S. Mary's Churchy That it is sit w●e should meet the Papists halfeway, both in preaching and practice; Which he and others there have not o●●● done, but almost if not quite r●n●hon●● unto them, as as a Deus Natura & Gratia, in sund●●e pages. Franciscu de Sancta Clara (that modern Reconciler) vaunts it sundry places of his printed Book; To the great encouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction; Who vau●● thate they need no step one foot to us, who are running withal speed to come home to them, unless God's present plagues 〈◊〉 judgements for our desperate Apostasy stay our progress, and some stout private Champions and royal Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome, to drive us home again, for never a Prelate will or dares to do it, many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peter's Chair, (whence b Sunday no sabbath p. 2● 48. Edit 1. D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedigree,) with all their mig●● and man: How earnest and zealous our Prelates have b●●● in their consecration of Churches, Chapels, and Churchyards, placing great holiness in this Ceremony, yea and necessity too; And evident, not only by their late c See Bis: ●●audes Wrens, Pearce, Whites, and other of their Articles to this purpose visitation Articles, wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated grand they have hallowed with their Rochets, that it be by no means profaned, but likewise by sundry late consecrations, and contests about this Ceremony, I shall instance only in ● particulars, omitting * Cre● Church, the Chapel at Hamors●●th, & others. all the rest, together with the solemn consecration of the foundation stones of the repair of Paul's, (which were very solemnly blessed by the Bishop, who hath far more charity towards senseless stones, than men, whom he can find spare hours to curse, excommunicate, imprison, dismember, and what not, but not to bless or preach to.) The first instance I shall pitch on, is that of S. Giles Church in the Fields. This Church about 9 years since, was new repaired in some of the walls, leds, and seats, & all divine offices, Sacraments, preaching of divine service was celebrated in it, after its repair for two years' space or more, (time enough one would think to consecrate it, if prayer, preaching of God's Word, holy exercises, and Sacraments can make places holy:) All this time it was thought holy enough without any such consecration, by D. Mountain than Bishop of London: But his Successor, after a years space (I know not upon what grounds, or humour, much less by what law or authority) would needs have the Church consecrated, though not new built, but repaired, ●n which case by the d Summa Angelica Tit. cons●cratio Ecclesiae. Canon Law there needs no fresh consecration. The Parish at first oppose it, but the present Bishop will not be foiled in this Laudable work, whereupon he seque●ters the Church for a month or 3 week's space, locks up the ●oores, suffers neither divine service, nor Sermons, nor Sacraments (except Baptism) all that while, to the great disturbance of the Parishioners; At last af●er much ado, and the expense of 50. or 60●● in fees and entertainment, the Bishop solemnly consecrates it, * See Pontificale Episcoporum de consecratione Ecclesiae. Mr. Calf hill his answer to Marshal. F. 93. 94. 95. 96. after the old Romish manner (there being no Protestant form prescribed by our Church) a crucifix, condemned e Of the Peril of Idolatry. expressly by our Homiles, being first set up in the glass window, to h●ll●w it in a legal form though the fees for consecration were f See Summa Angelica & Rosella Tit: Symonia. Simony by the Canon Law, and g Se● Brook Fitz. habent & Ristal Tit. extortion. extortion by the Common Law, and so illegal by both. The 2. instance, is that of the new Chapel in the King's Bench prison, buil● by St. john Lentall. After it had been built & used as a Chapel above a years space, I know not by what Law, it must needs be consecrated, or else threatn●d to be sequestered and interdicted. The present Archishops surrogate, & Bishop Wren, by late delegation under the Archbishop forsooth, would do the feat, but not under 30●. fees at least, that was the lowest they would stoop to; So pure and innocent are these holy Consecrations and Consecratours from Simony and extortion; This price being in a manner agreed upon (hough somewhat an overhigh rate for so short a work●) D. Cu●le Bishop of Winchester hearing of it, alleged it was within his 〈◊〉, and t●e of● reit belonged not to them, but to him to consecrate; And because he would be sure to prevail, he proffered to hollow it gratis, and take nothing but a dinner for his pains, which the other would have beside their 30●. Hereupon S●. john Lentall yields, that he should have the honour to consecrate it. A week or two before this consecration, some Popishly affected person or other, had caused the picture of Christ and his 12 Apostles to be hung up in th● Chappel, contrary to the Homilies and Doctrine of our Church, the which some more honest minded persons razed and defaced. The B●shop coming to consecrate the Chapel, since Easter last * 1636. , esples the defacing of these Images, & was very angry at it; Telling Sr. john, that had he known of the defacing of these holy Images, which ought to be respected before he came thither, h● would not have consecrated the Chapel till they had been repaired and beautified again; Ye● since he was come, he would consecrate it as it was, but gave Sr. john a special charge to see these holy Relics of Rome repaired with all speed, which thereupon being done, hath driven many from the Chapel. By which true relation of this Consecration, we may see what an holy c●re our devout Prel●t● have of preserving & setting up these Images and Pictures, which the very h Of the Peril of Idolatry. The Right use of the Church. The Time and Place of Prayer. Homilies and subscribed Doctrine of our Church enjoin, them in all especial manner to deface, pull down, and cast out of all our Churches, as things that do not adorn or consecrate, but most fil●hely defile, idulterate, and profane them. Ex●ungue Leonem, you may know what and whose creatures they are, and what they aim at, by their claws. The third instance I shall nominate, is now very fresh in memory. D. Lawde Archbishop of Canterbu●y, contested lately with the University of Cambridg●, pretending that he by his Metropolitical authority ought to visit them. The University on the other side alleged; That their University itself, and many of their Colleges, were of the King's foundation, and so of right i 2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cook's justitutes: f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited exempt from all Episcopal jurisdiction; That they were not under the Bishop of the Diocese his visitation, therefore not under the Archbishops; That every College had its proper visitours, appointed by the Charters of their foundation, with his Majesties and his Royal ancestors special appointment, & therefore aught to be visited by no other. That the power and right of visiting the Ecclesiastical State and persons● especially of the Universities, was a chief flower of the Crown united to it, by express words, in two several Act● of Parliament, to wit, 26. H. 8. c. 1. 1. Eliz. c. 1. And also by 37. H. 8. c. 17. 8. Eliz. c. 1. That the King's Majesty alone by the Canon Law and those statutes was the sole visitor of the whole Realm; That no Bishop could keep any visitation, no not in his own Diocese, but by special Patent and Commission under the King's broad Seal authorising him, and that in the King's name and right alone, not his own, as these Statutes of Ed. 6. c. 2. and all the Bishop's Patents in Edward the 6. time made according to this Act, expressly define. That they were bound by their oath of Supremacy and allegiance to his Majesty l 1. Eliz. c. 1. to defend this right of his, to the uttermost of their powers, and by their oath to maintain his Privileges. m Antiqu. Ecces. Brit: in late Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1774. to 1782. That no Archbishop since 25. H. 8. c. 1. (except Cardinal Poole by a Commission from the Pope, as his Legate and Delegate in Queen Mary's time) had ever attempted and presumed to visit the University in his own Metropolitical right, and that it was never visited before that time by any B. as Metropolitan, but only as n Antiqu: Eccles. Brit: passim. the Pope's Legate, and by virtue of his Bulls: That King Henry the 8 King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth, and King james, did visit it by their Commissioners, & no Archbishop in their time durst presume to visit it by his archiepiscopal power only: That o 36. H. 8. p. 13. Robert Holgate Archbishop of York, in King Henry the 8. his days, with other Bishops, and all the Bishops what soever in King Edward the 6. time, were forced to tal●e special Patents and Licenses from the King, enabling and authorising them in precise words, to visit their Diocese and execute Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that only Nomine, vicè, & autoritate Regis, which they could not do without such Patents. p See 5. H. 6. parts. ●●. in this Ro●s. That no Bishop or Ordinary, without a special Patent or Commission, can or dares to visit any one of the King's free Chapels, much less then, any of his Universities, which are more peculiar to his Majesty, and more to be respected, and of they did, they incurred a Praemunire. q Cooks Institut. F. 334. a: Brook Praemunire. 21. 21. E. 3 60. a: Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his own name and right as Archbishop only, they must and would withstand him, according to their oaths, and duties, both to his Majesty & the University; But if he wo●ld come as the King's visit u● and substitute only, and in his name and right alone, with a special Commission or Patent under his great●●eale, they would willingly submit to his visitation, otherwise not. This contestation grew so great, that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majesty, and his honourable privy Counsel at Hampton 〈◊〉 ● Whereupon the opening & ● hearing of the case (pretended by the Universities & Archbishops) was whether his Majesty, or the Archbishops, or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiastical, and sole visitor of the Universities in Law & righ● The Archbisop declared, that he desired not to visit the University out of any ambition or desire of Innovation, etc. But only to rectify some enormities of l●ng Continuance; And what were they? There were some Chapels belonging to certain Colleges in that University, the which had never yet been consecrated, and yet divine service & Sacraments were ministered in then, and had been so for many years, and for instance he named E●●●nuel College for one r See Speeds History of great 〈◊〉 p. 106●● 1068. (which hath been used as a Chapel ever since the year of our Lord 1524) and Sidney Sussex College Chapel, used from An: 1598. till this present. So that the consecration of these two Chapels were the principal cause (at least pretence) of this great contestation before the Archbishop and University. A weighty matter, God woot● to trouble his Majesty and whole Counsel with, when as there is neither s Popes (& so Bishops) have no scriptures for their hallowing of things. B. Pilkington on Aggeus. c. 2. 2. 10. Scripture, Law, nor Canon of our Church in force, to justify such a consecration, but Laws and authorities store against it. t Exposit: on Aggeus 1. v. 78. De vita & Obitu M. Buceri. Bishop Pilkington, u Acts and Monuments p 1777. to 1788. Walter Haddon. Mr. Fox, and others much jeer and deride the madness, folly, and superstition of Cardinal Poole, and his Deputy visitors of this very University of Cambridge, for digging up Mr. Bucers' and Paulus F●gius boreas out of S. Mary's Church i● Cambridge, ●. years after they were interred; And interdicting, and n●w consecrating the Church again as profaned by them, for fear their Masses and divine service, there used, should be nothing worth, the place being made profane and unholy by these Heretics funerals, as they judged them: When as the Church was holy enough to say Mass in for three year space before, & all that would not hear it● must be imprisoned, although the parties lay there buried. And is it not then a far greater madness superstition, and ridiculous frenzy for our domineering Arch-Prelats, to deem these two Chapels profane places, unfit to administer the Sacraments, a●d celebrate divine service in, because never yet consecrated by a Bishop, not only after three, but almost threescore years' use and practise of divine service, Sermons and Sacraments in them; When as neither his predecest●●rs Whi●gift, Bancroft, and Abbot, (men very ceremonious, and much addicted to superstition) ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration. And there is no such Canons, Law, and Doctrine to enforce the consecration of them now, as were to justify the x Se Summa Angelica & Rosella Tit. Consecratio Ecclesiae. rehallowing of S. Mary's, in Queen Mary's time, which the Popish Canon Law then approv●d. O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God, and patronise the authorized Doctrines of our Church, as they are for these superstitious, ridiculous Romish trifles, fitter for Schoolboys to sport themselves with all, then for great and grave Bishops (ever employed in the highest State and Church affairs) to trouble both the University, King, Counsel, and themselves with all. If any here reply, that the y joannis de Aton C●nstit: Dom: Othonis de consecrati●nis Eccles: f. 5. 6 7. Counsel of London An: 1236. under Cardinal Otho the Pope's Legate, first of all ordained and decreed here in England, that Churches should be consecrated, whereas before that time, (as the words of the Constitution witness) diverse Cathedrals and Parochial Churches in England had been built many years before, and used as Churches, and yet were never consecrated: I answer, that it seems till this Constitution, even in those times of superstitious gross blindness, Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity, much less than should it be so reputed now. Yet as those ancient Churches must then, for this Legates gain be all consecrated within a certain space, that he might have a round fee from every of them, or else be wholly suspended and interdicted, so must these ancient Chapples now, by this Popish Canon. After this Constitution, the Bishops by z 15. R. 2. c. 5. rastal Mort. 8. Bulls from the Pope took upon them to consecrate Churches, Chapples, and Churchyeards, in their own names and rights, till the abolishing of the Pope's usurped power, and restoring the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the Crown. An. 25. H. 8. c. 19 20. 21. & 26. H. 8. c. 1. After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapel, Church, or Churchyard, till they had obtained a special Licence from the King, under his broad Seal, for them and their successors, enabling and authorising them to do it; Which Licence they (after much suit to the King, Henry the 8.) obtained in the 31. year of his reign, the Copy whereof I shall set here down. a 31 H 8. In the Patent Rolls: pars 4●. The King to all men, unto whom these presents shall come greeting. Know ye that we, out of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, have granted and given Licence, and by these presents for us and our heirs do grant and give Licence, as much as in us is, to the most reverend Fathers in Christ, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, and Edward Archbishop of York, and to the reverend Father in Christ, John Bishop of Bath and Wells, and also to all other Bishops and Suffragans within our Realm of England, that they, and every 〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches, Chapels, or Churchyeards, in our Kingdom of England already built and finished, as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministered in them, o● any of them; As for the use of the burial of dead pers●ns within the same Churches, or Churchyeards, and every of them, etc. And we further will and grant by these presents, tha● our Chancellor of England shall make or cause to be made, and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Archbishops and Suffragans from time to time, as often as there shall be need, so many, and such a number of our Letters Patents, with special and sufficient words a●d clauses to be made in due form of Law, for the execution of the Premises, and to be sealed under the great Seal, as shallbe necessary and fit for the premises or any of them, by his discretion, etc. Notwithstanding the Statutes of Mort: etc. In witness whereof, etc. Witness the King at Westminster, the 1●. day of November in the 31. year of the reign of King Henry the 8, etc. Teripsum Regem. From which Patent (truly transcribed out of the Rolls, where it it is in Latin,) I observe: First, that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawful right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches, Chapels, or Churchyeards, without a special Licence from the King himself, under his Great Seal: Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories, Visitations, inflict Ecclesiastical Censures, suspend or silence Ministers and the like, without such a special grant or Licence: And so their Episcopal jurisdiction, not ●ure divino, but merely humane by the Kings grant and institution. Secondly, that after such a Licence given them by the King, under his great Seal, they cannot, yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church, Chappel, or Churchyard, without suing forth a special Patent out of the Chancery, under the Great Seal, particularly and by name authorising them with sufficient words and clauses, to consecrate such & such a Church, Chappel, or Church yard in special, (much more than must they have the like special Patent, and Commission, to keep Courts, Visitations, suspend or silence Ministers, and the like,) which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out, but go on of their own heads, in and by their own Episcopal authorities for the most part, for which a Paemunire lies against them. Thirdly, that every consecration is, and makes a b 15. R. 2. c. 5. rastal Mortmanie. 8 3. Mortmani●; Therefore it is against the Law, and must have a special Licence and warrant from the King, under his Great Seal, as this Patent prescribes. Fourthly, this Patent allows neither the Bishops, nor their Officers, to take any fees at all, for any such consecrations; Therefore the fees they * 30●. 40●. a Church or Chapple exact for them, are mere extortions, for which an Indictment or Bill lieth in the Sta-chamber. Fifthly, they cannot enforce any man, or Parish, to have their Chapels, Churches, or Churchyeards consecrated, unless themselves require and desire it may be done, as some words in the Patent (which for brevity sake I have omitted) manifest, and the words may, nor shall consecrate, implieth as much. Sixtly, that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altarclothes, (which have a c Sum●● Angelica Tit: Consecrat: Altaris & Pontificale Romanum. distinct peculiar form of Consecration) but only Churches, Chapels, & Churchyeards. After this King d 37. H. 8. in the R●●s pars prima Henry the ●. in the 37 year of his reign, by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford, among other things, granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Churchyeards within his Diocese. Moreover without special grant from the King they had no such power; For which cause it was then specially inserted into this and other Bishop's Patents. And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use. But upon the change and reformation of religion, (which is worthy of observation) i● quite vanished away, as did many other Popish Superstitions, by the abolishing of the Masse●Bookes, Primers, and Ceremonials, which prescribed the manner and form of Consecrating Churches, Chapples, and Church-yeardes, by the Statutes of 2. &. 3. E. 6. c. 1. & 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I find not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edward● days by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2: One syllable authorising them to consecrate Churches, Chapples, or Churchyeards, though all other parts of Ecclesiastical and Episcopal jurisdiction (as keeping of Courts, Visitations, Probale of Wills, granting of Letters of Administration, suspending of Ministers upon * Note this: Bishops than could not suspend or deprive Ministers, without a special Patent or Commission, and that upon just and Lawful causes, warranted by some statute there in force: Ergo now they cannot do it. And not one of them having such a Pa●ent or Commission at this day from the King, all their suspensions and proceedings against Ministers and others are mere Nullities. Legal and just grounds etc. be particularly granted them in those Patents: Yet how? To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AUTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS, in o●● own Royal Name, Stead, and Authority, not their own, as the Patents of Scory, Coverdale, 5. Ed. 6. parsf: in the Rolls, with many others testify: Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches, Chapples, 〈◊〉 Churchyards, inserted into heir Patents in these latter days, from the King, under his Great S●ale, authorising them to keep Consistories, Visitations, prove Wills, grant L●●ters of Administration, Suspend, Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiastical Censures upon any Subject. Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law, to execute any of those particulars, and what ever they do in any of them is Coram non judice, and but a mere Nullity, especially their Consecration of Churches, Chapples, Churchyeards, Altars, for which they have neither Patents Statute, Article, Injunction, Canon, or Orthodox Writer of our Church: Or for those long e Fox Act● & Monuments. p. 1147 999 5. & 6. E. 6. c. 3. since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication, which they would now f Dedication for sport at the end. receive. But of this enough for this present, in which I have been the more prolix, because it is a poiet of Law, not hitherto discussed fully, by any that I have met with. QUESTION FOUR The 4. Question I shall propound, is this: What Law or Canon there is to enjoin Ministers, to read the Epistle and gospel, or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table (or to suspend them if they refuse to do it) when there is no Communion. The reason of this demand is fivefold: 1. Because in truth there is no Statute, Law, Injunction, or Canon extant, prescribing any such thing. 2. Because the Rubric before the Communion ordains, that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMUNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPPOINTED TO BE SAID, and the Priest standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table, shall say the Lords prayer with thy collect following. etc. And the Rubric at the end of the Communion ordains thus: Upon the Holidays if there be no Communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the Homily, concluding with the general prayer, etc. But it saith not, that it shall then be said at the Communion Table: Whence I observe: 1. That the● Rubric ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table, but at such times only as there is a Communion. 2. That when he reads service at it, the Table ought not to stand Altarwise against the East-wall of the Church, but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body, or MIDDLE of the Church, or Chapel, where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be said: So as the Pr●●st ought not to go up to the Table or high Altar, but they ought to be removed and brought down to him, as is clear by th●s Rubric, and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, and the 82 Canon forecited, if you read: Whence I argue thus: The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar, but then only, when it is removed and brought down into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at, as the Rubric, Injunction & Canon resolve: But the Table is not thus to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion (unless they will grant, that it ought always to stand in the midst of the Church, or Chancel, which they profestedly deny) witness the Rubric Institution and Canon: Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it, but only when there is a Commi●●ion. Thirdly, The third reason of the 〈◊〉. because the Rubric before Te Deum saith, that the Epistle and the Gospel shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce, that the people may hear the Minister that read●th them, and the Minister Atanding and turning himself, as ●he may best be heard of ALL such as be present: Therefore this is direct, that the Second Service (whereof the Epistle and Gospel are a part) must be read in the Reading P●w, where the Lessons are, when there is no Communion; Because there, he may best be heard of ALL present, and that he must not turn his fuce East, but West to the people. Fourthly, because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches, 4. Reasons not to read divine Service at, but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at; This is the sole use for which it serves: As the Font, is ordained only for Baptisms, the 〈◊〉 for reading, and the Chest or p●oremans lo● in every Church for Alms: So it for the L: S● as is clear by 1 Co●● 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2●. etc. The common-prayer-book; The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramnt●, of the right use of the Church, of the Repairing and keeping clear of Churches. Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions & Canons set ou● 1511. p: 18. and Can: 1603. Can: 8●. 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever met with all, have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus: Whereas her Majesty understandeth, etc. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament, according to the form of Law therefore provided: Hence Matthew Parkers visitation-Articles An: 1560. Art. 2. thus: Whether have you in your Churches, etc. A comely and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMUNION, etc. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus: Churchwardens shall see, there be a fair repaired Table, which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion, and a c●eane Cloth to cover it; A convenient Pulpit, whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught, etc. The 28. Can: 1603. thus: Whereas we have no doubt, but that in all Churches within the Realm of England (therefore in Cathedrals too, which had then no Altars) convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed (to what end? to read Service at? No; But) for the celebration of the holy Communion, etc. And likewise that a convenient seat be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN: With a comely & decent Pulpit for the preaching of God's word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies, yea by the resolution of all (our * Have you a decent Communion Table to administer the Sacrament or Communion at? This is the ordinary Article in all visitations. Pre●utes visitation Articles) is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it; And the 28 Canon, with the Rubric before T● Deum expressly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose: It is clear, that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table, but only when there is a Communion: That the reading of Service at it on other times, is a mere abuse and perversion of that end, for which it was instituted: And Bishops may with as much reason and Law enjoin them to read Second Service, at the Font, in the Pulpit, or at the Poor man's box, as at it. Fifthly, The 5. reason. Because the Queen's Injunctions, the 82 Canon, and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropolitical visitation expressly prescribe: That when ever the Minister shall read Service at the Table, it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle, as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister: Which words, compared with the Rubric before Te Deum, are a direct resolution, that the Minister ought not to read any prayers at the Table, but when there is a Communion; Which being most clear; No Bishops may or aught to enjoin Ministers to read Second Service at the Table or Altar, when there is no Communion, neither can they suspend any for not doing it. And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to read Service thus, both the Bishop and they (as D. Wre●. B●shop of Norwich, with many of his Clergy have done) incur the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indicted, fined and imprisoned for it by this Law; It being a saying of divin● service in another manner and form, and an using of other rights and Ceremonies than are prescribed in the Book of Common-prayer; Which together with the Queen's Injuctions and Canons) condemns this Innovation, which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now; Neither is there any precedent for it in Antiquity, but only in Popish Churches of late years. All that can be alleged for it is that which g Sermon of God's House: p. 20. Shelford and the h A Coal from the Altar. p. 11. 27. collier produce for Altars, and bowing to them; The practice of our Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, being most Popish, corrupt, and most opposite to our Laws and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes, Images, Tapors, Altars, Altar-adorations, Vestments, Chanting, lascivious Music, Gesticulations, with a World of other Romish Antichristian Relics and Ceremonies: (All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry of the time and place of Prayer: The Common Prayer-book: 3. & 4. E. 6. c. 10. & 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. jac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late) being fitter our detestation then Imitation. To which I answer: 1. That we must live by precepts, not Examples; Our Cathedrals in this, and sundry other particulars, are contrary to our Laws and Canons in point of practice, therefore to be detested. corrected, and reform by our Laws, and made like to other Churches; Not our Laws, Canons, and Churches to be squared by them, the worst of any. 2. The Rubric of the Common Prayer-book, in the end of the Communion, prescribes in direct terms; That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, where be many Priests and Deacons, they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SUNDAY AT THE LEAST, except they have a reasonable cause to th● contrary; By which it is clear, that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedral & Collegiate Church, and that every Priest and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister, unless he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary: And who can this Minister be but the Bishop? Ergo Bishops are but Ministers, and aught to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals: Ergo to be always Resident at their Seas, and no dancing attendance on the Court. The last clause of this Rubric relates only to all the Priests and Deacons receiving with the Minister, not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister, for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission. Thus was the Sacrament daily administered in every Cathedral and Collegiate Church i Ivo Denetalium: pars 2a. c. 25. 26 28. 29. 34 25 August. Epist. 118 ad januarium. Cyprianus de coena Domini. Ambros. l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 6 anciently, and in Queen Elizabeth's days; And so it ought by Law to be now; And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holiday at the Lords Table in those Churches, because they had a Communion on those days. But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued, and not so much as looked after by our Bishops and Cathedral men; and the Ceremony, to wit●, the use of reading second service at the Table (now forsooth at the High Altar, as they call it,) only retained and urged; Which ought not to be read there by Law, as I have manifested, unless there be a Commnion, and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table, as the Rubric in the Communion, the Queen's Injunctions, and 28. Canon prescribe, not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull down their High Altars in their Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holiday at the Table, (and the standing in the midst, not 〈◊〉 Choir where all may hear, not at the upper end, where 〈◊〉 can ●eare what's read, as in Paul's and other Cathedrals, 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others, when to say AMEN, 〈◊〉 that they hear not what is read) as the Common Prayer-book enjoins them; Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables, situated Altarwise, reading it only in their pews, appointed for that purpose, as they do in Parish Churches, else they may be lawfully indicted, fined and imprisoned for it, as egregious viol●ters of the statute of 1● Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer, that they seem so much to stand upon. QUESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this; What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West, or placing the Chancle or Choir at the East end of them, k See Hospinian de Origine Altarium & Templorum. And the Authorities in the beginning forecited. Statute or Canon of our Church and State I know not any; and for practise it hath been otherwise. The Temple of jerusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise: And the jewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round, or in an Oual manner, as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulchre at jerusalem: The famous l Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Eccles. c. 1. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Church of Tyre, built by Paulinus Bishop of that city, was otherwise situated: For the Sermon made in the praise thereof, which fully discribes it, informs us; That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it, reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunbeams, and that there was a separation with great distance, between the Sanctuary or Temple itself and this Porch: The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch, and the Porch standing thus Eastwards; It is certain, that the Chancle or Choir of this Church stood either in the midst, or West end of it, not at the East in the midst whereof (the same Sermon informs us) the Altar stood. The Coliars strange gloss to evade this direct authority, p. 53. (That this Altar stood along the Eastern Wall of this Chancle, which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South.) is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon, which saith, th●● the Porch stood Eastward, and the Sanctuary a great distance from it, in the midst of which the Altar stood. So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church, being so far remote from and beyond the Porch, which stood Eastward. Since this time the Churches (as I have elsewhere manifested) have been diversely situated according to the conveniency of the place; Some being round or Ouall; Others square; Others standing North and South, as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church, with diverse of the Kings own Chapples; And the Chapples of Sundry Colleges, Hospitals, Noblemen and Gentlemen; And if this be not sufficient, the very late Popish Chapel at Somersett-house; with the new Church in Court Garden, which as it stands not now perfectly East and West, so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part; Which some Prelates (without Law, Canon, and reason, I know not upon what superstitious overweening conceit) commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end, to the great expense of the builder, the hindrance, and deformity of that good work, which yet must not be used for a Church, because not consecrated by a Bishops co●●ring white Rochet; Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law, & utterly exploded as a Romish Relic. If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples, East and West, or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches, as is apparent, there is not; There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or railing 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise; Being the end for which I moved the Question. And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle, so as little Antiquity. For in Durantus his time (one of the latest authorities Bishop jewel quotes) who lived not above 400 years since, the Altar stood in the midst of the Choir, and not close against the wall, as is evident not only by the words Bishop jewel ●ites, but by other passages: By the: Altar ( m Rationale Divin l. 1. c. 2 nu. 15. saith he) our heart is understood, which is in the MIDST of the body, ficut Altar in MEDIO ECCLESIAE, as the Altar is in the MIDST of the Church. Moreover he informs us, n 〈◊〉. l 1. c. 7. nu 15. that in consecrating the Altar, the Bishop septies Altar CIRCVIT, goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times (which he could not do stood it Altarwise as now, close to the Easterno wall,) to signify that ●e ought to take care for all, and be vigilant for all, which is signified by CIRCUITUM, by his compass or going round the Altar. And if this be not sufficient, (out of Isiodor o De officijs, l. 1. c. 3 , Amalarius p De Ecclesiasticis officijs, lib. 3. c. 3. , Fortunatus q De Instit. Clericorum: l. 1. c 33. , Rabanus r Rationale Divin. l 1. c. 1. nu 18. , Maurus s Page 56. , and others forecited) he thus defines a Choir t Page 56. , Chorus est multitudo exsacris coll●cta, & dictus Chorus, quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent, & ita psallerent: Enough to Answer the Coliars u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu. 1. idle evation of his authority. This ancient definition of a Choir is since repeated and approved by Durantus u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu. 1. Bartholomeus Gavantus x Comment. in Rutr. Missale: par: 1 Tit. 15. Sect. 2 and other late Popish writers. Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Choir, yet ab initio non fuit sic: it hath been but of late times so, even as the Papists themselves confess. Hence our Learned Dr. ●ulke y Cap. 17. Sect. 15. , as in the places forecited, so in his Defence against G●egory Martin writes thus: The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT, AND NOT AGAINST A WALL, AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand, which is easy to prove, and hath often times been proved, and it seems (saith he to Martin of the Papists z Lib. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 462. Edit. 2. ) you confess as much; Which words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton (who concurs both in words and judgement with him) in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament. This Hospinian a De Origine Altarium. proves by sundry authorities, and by that of the Counsel of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which Survis, Crab, Binius, and others render CIRCUMCIRCA ALTAR, round about the Altar, as the word doth properly signify even in b Acts 14. 28. job. 10 24 Exod. 39 25. 26 Sacred Scripture, & other authors, as Bishop jewel, & Bishop Morton both resolve. I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the jesuit c 19 12. Num. 1. 50. josh. 6. 3. 4. 2 San. 5. 9 Exod. 16. 13. 2 Cron. 4. 3. 2 Kings 6 14 15. job. 16. 13. Psal 7. 7. Ps. 17 9 Ps. 18. 4 5 Ps. 22. 12 16. Ps 88 17. Ps. 103 3. Ps. 118. 10. 12. Jonab. 2 3. 5 Luk. 21 20. Heb. 11. 30. c. 12. 1. Rom. 20 9 ● Jeve. 3. Qu. 83. Disp 233. co. 2. n. 20 Vasquez, more moderate, than many of our Novellers, Nihilominus certum est, etc. Although there be many Authors (to wit of late time, which he there cities) for the placing of Altars towards the East; Yet it is certain, that it is NO SIN or offence to situate not only lesser Altars, but likewise the High Altar (and Quires and Chancles too, which he there speaks of) towards other climates or parts of the world; For this tradition (however some urge it as necessary, and a binding Law) non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt; It is not of the number of those traditions, which have been left unto us under any precept; Which he proves out of the forecited words of d De rebus Eccles. c. 4. Walafridus, Strab●, adding out of e Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 24. Nicephorus, that men have diversely ordered those things in former times. Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of f Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. Socrates, wherein the Altar stood westward, it being free for Christians in these things, vel hanc vel illam consi●●tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custom in the si●uation of their Altars, (Lords Tables) and Quires: Much more the● to rail in, or not rail in their Altars or Lords Tables Altarwise at the East end of the Choir, or to come up to the rail (as g Visitation Articles for Norwich Diocese. Bishop Wre● will now enforce all his Diocese by his new iuvented Articles, to receive, contrary to the custom of all our churches from Queen Elizabeth's time till now, yea contrary to the practice in the days of Popery, and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Choir or Chancle to receive, but only to offer, as is evident by Concilium To● et ●●um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communice●; Extra Chorum populus. Concil: Eluber: Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense: Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist: 52. Innocentius. 1. Epist. 22. Niciph: Eccles: Hist: ●. 12. c. 41. Chamir. l. 9 de Coena Domini. c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge, p. 391. with others forequoted. And the Rubric of the Book of Common-Prayer, set forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Choir, the men on the one side, the women on the other side, and there to receive. And likewise King james his Proclamation, new printed before the Books of Common-Prayer, admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and public for me of God's service from this which is now established, etc. it being necessary to use constancy in the holding of the public determinations of States, for that such is the unquietness and unstedfastness of some dispositions (as Wren & other Novellors, and the collier now) affecting every year new forms of things, as if they should be followed in their unconstancy, would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemptible; Whereas the steadfast maintaining of things by good advice established, is the Weals of all Common Wealths, which I would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon. QUESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours, is this: What Statute, Canon, Scripture, Antiquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars; Whether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoration, or only a civil worship? And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist, bowing, and practise of adoring Altars, Crucifixes, Crosses, and Images, which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatry. This Question is T●●partie, and the chief of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any; I shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it, beginning with the first branch thereof: Law, Canon, Injunction, Constitution of our Church, enjoining and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremony, I never yet, met with any, no not in times of Popery, except that of i Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 1781. Cardinal Pools Popish Visitours in Queen Mary's days, in the University of Cambridge, fore mentioned. Scripture there is not any direct in point, only some texts are strained and miserable perverted to this purpose. As k See Shelfords Sermon of God's house: p. 18 19 20. Bishops Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament. Edit 2. p. 463. 1: Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy fear will I worship towards thy holy Temple; The nearest texts they can ci●e for their purpose, and yet far enough from it. For what Logician will not deride this argument: David would and did worship towards the Temple at jerusalem. Ergo we must bow down and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables: David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or elsewhere out of the Temple, worshipped, that is, l ● King. 8 29 30. 33 35 Dan. 9 10 prayed towards it; Ergo Christians when they come in or go out of our Churches, must bow down to the Table or Altar. What coherence of vigour is there in this argument? What beast had he reason would thus dispute? Had they hence inferred, Ergo, we must always adore, bow down to, or worship God towards (not in) our Churches and Chaples: This had been a more probable inference, though unsound; Because the jews worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only, which is vanished; Not towards their Synagogues, of which our Churches is rather patterns and successors, then of the Temple, which was but one, not many, and that a type of our Saviour, abolished shortly after his death, nor of our Churches built long since after another form, and to an m 2 Ch●on, 7. 12. See the Homily of the right use of ●he Church. other purpose than it. But to answer the texts fully: 1. First, the worship towards the Temple, here mentioned, was not bare bowing down of the body only (as these Novellers' dream) to, or towards it, or the Altar or Temple, but a praying towards it, as is evident, by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King. 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan: 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer. 2. Secondly, it was a worship towards the Temple only, not towards the Altar in the Temple; And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table; For the Church or Chapple itself is neither. 3. Thirdly, it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple; Not any genuflection or chringing to the Temple: But this bowing of our Novellers, is not simply towards, but likewise to the Altar, as n Exposition of the Catechism in the Communion-Booke towards the end. Reeve, & o Sunday no Sabbath: p. 50. D. Pocklington acknowledge; Now bowing to, and towards the Altar, are in some respects two distinct things; Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple, no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar, 4. Fourthly, this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of ways in scripture; Improperly and Properly: Improperly for a praying in some private place, not only out of the Temple, but even out of the sight and view of it. Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards jerusalem: Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the jews where ever they were, whether in captivity exile or their own Country, 1. King. 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other forecited texts. Properly: For worshipping or praying in the Temple: as, 1. King: ●. 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron: 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sense, and it will not avail our Novellers, David in his private devotions, even out of the sight and view of the Temple, did worship or pray towards it; Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church, when we see the Table or High Altar must bow down to or towards it; or David did worship God towards, that is, in his Temple. Ergo, they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table, (for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God, unless they will make new forms of Altars and Tables, and be mewed up within them by ●ike Popish authority) are but frenticke ridiculous consequents; Yet the best that can be drawn ●●om these texts, to justify these Ceremonies. 5. Fiftly, the jews had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For: 1. First, they had a divine premission and authority, if not a precept so to do. 2. Secondly, a promise from God himself to hear & gra●●● their prayers made towards the Temple; Both which appears by the forequoted texts of the Kings, Chronicles, Daniel, and the Psalms. Viz: 1 King. 8. 39 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or ●●wards Altars or Tables, but a direct precept against it, which many read at the Altar & Table, (to wit, the second Commandment, Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them; extending as well to Tables as to Images, Idols or any other creatures) though they presently break it by bowing unto the Table or Altar. Neither have we any promise of reward, or of answering our prayers made to us, for this cringing to Altars and Tables. Their practice thereof warrants not ours. 3. Thirdly. the Temple was a special and lively type of our Saviour Christ himself, (as Divines generally accord,) and that in many respects, too tedious here to mention. Wherefore the jews were thus to worship q See the Commentatours on 1 King. 8. 2 Chor. 6. Ps. 5. 7. & 138. 2. & Dan. 6. 10 towards the Temple, to teach them always to look forwards towards Christ, which was to come in the flesh, as to their only Sanctuary, help and refuge in all conditions, the only Mediator and intercessor, to whom they must pray, the only High Priest, Sacrifice, Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple, but never towards Synagogues. Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables & High Altars. 4. Fourthly, the Temple was the place of God's special presence, which God had chosen for himself to dwell in, and to put his name there, where all the Isralites were every year by special command from God, to meet & to worship him, and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it. Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King. 7. 29. 30, etc. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove, that the High Altar or Communion. Table is the special place of God's presence, the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in; Sure the Scriptures informs us, that WHERESOEVER two or three (Mat. 18. 20.) are gathered together in Christ's name, there is he in the MIDST of them; And thereupon commands us: To pray EVERY where, etc. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace: Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it, as they do. 5. Finally, the Jews whether they were East, West, North, or South from the Temple, or it from them, worshipped and prayed towards it. But our Innovatours, as they will have all Altars stand Eastward, so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East, and Altars standing towards the East. These texts therefore, with David's worshipping towards the Temple (on which they principally rely) make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables, which no Father or Orthodox expositor that I have seen, ever deduced from the Scriptures. Yea, but if these do not avail them, Mr. Shelford (in his Sermon of God's house, p. 18. 19 20. 21. 22.) acquaints us with some others that will: as, Psal. 99 5. Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool: E●go, the first reverence that we must make when we come into the Church, is to bow to the Lords Table, which Saint Paul calls the Lord's Altar, and to worship God towards it. Oh senseless Divinity, and childish Logic! Who ever read of such distracted inferences? Had the Psalmist said we will worship at the Altar; Or had this footestoble, here mentioned, been the Altar, or this worship, a mere bowing of the b●dy towards the Ark, or to it, and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it, there had been some shadow of worshipping, that is, of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar, but not of bowing to, or towards it, much less to or towards the Lord's Table, which is neither an Altar, no● h●th any Analogy with the Altar, nei her is it so termed by Saint Paul, as this Dreamer doteth, as I have else where proved at large. But since, we read not in Scripture, that David ever worshipped or bowed to or towards the Altar; And this s●o es●●●le here, by his own confession was r See Bis●●p. M●rt. u●itution of the Sacrament. p. 463. the ark, but by David's own exposition God's holy mountain o●. H●ll Z●on, Psal 99 9 And this worshipping, not a bowing, but prayer: Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremony. Yea, but if these texts fall sh●rt, yet others come fully home: as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl. bowed themselves and worshipped. Ergo Potlid: Therefore we must bow down, and worship the Al●ar or Communion Table. Had th●se either b●wed themselves to or towards the Altar, the inference had been somewhat tolerable, though nothing to the purpose, for bowing to Lords Tables; But seeing they bowed only to worship God by praising him, or praying to him (their bowing itself being not their worshipping, as these Dreamers fancy, the texts themselves distinguishing the bowing from the worship, and worship from the bowing) and since the first of these bowed themselves when and where there was no Altar near them; And the second not to or towards the Altar, but unto God; Therefore can they with no more probability hence infer the lawfulness of mere bowing to or towards the Altar or L. T. then they ca● hence make good that these bowed themselves to, and worshipped towards the Altar, which is certain they never did. The other 〈◊〉 of Is●y. 45. 23. and Rom. 24. 11. (meant only of the bowing and subjection of men to our Saviour Christ himself, not to Altars or the name jesus, as S P●ul here expressly resolves) are so impertinently cited by Mr. Shelso●● * Sermon of God's house, p. 18. to this purpose, that they need no answer. All men shall bow to Christ himself at the day of judgement: 〈◊〉, they must bow to or towards Lords Ta●les and Communion Tables now; Being a consequence, nor tolerable in a B●dlam, much less in an ancient s In the ●ncomia●●●●● verses before his book. highly applauded Divine, by Ignoramusses of his own strain. Yea but if these texts miscarry (yet say some) that of t D Walburton D●●me of Wells, in a Sermon, and others in their Sermons. Isay. 36. 7. and 2 Chron. 32. 12. Hath not the same Hezechiah (saith railing Rabshaketh) taken away his High places, and his Altar's, and commanded judah and lerusalem, saying, ye shall worship before one Altar, and burn incense on it? 1. I answer, first, that this is only the railing speech of Rabshaketh, not the dictate of God's infallible Spirit, therefore no authentic proof. 2. Secondly, the first part of it is a direct untruth, why not the latter too, there being no such command of Hezechiahs' in Scripture, for the Isralites to worship before one Altar? But admit there were: 3. Yet thirdly, I say, that this Command to worship before the Altar, makes nothing for worshipping or bowing to the Altar, much less the Table; No more than David lifting up his hands towards God's holy Oracle: Ps. 28. 2. proves that we ought to lift up our hands towards the Table or Altar, when we come in, or depart out of the Church, or when ever we make prayers unto God. For first, this worshipping before the Altar was not any Genuflection, or bowing to or towards it, but a bringing of an Oolation or Sacrifice to it, and burning incense on it, as the next words expound it, and Gen. 8. 20. 1 King. 3 4. 2 Kin. 16. ●2. 13. c. 18. 22. Ps. 43. 4. Ps. 51. 19 Ps. 118. 27. Isay. 56. 7. Mat. 5. 23. compared together, testify: Or else, it was only a standing upright, and praying to God before it, o● near it, without any incuruation of the body to or towards i●: 2 Kin: 8. 21. 22. 2 Chron. 6. 12. Luk. 18. 11. 13. Neither of which warrant or enforce any bowing to or towards it: No more than the Rubric in the common-prayer-book, prescribing the man a●d the woman to kn●●le down in some convenient place nigh unto the place where the Table standeth, when they are Churched, there to p●ay-implyes; That they ought to use to bow to or towards the Table. Secondly, because they might worship before the Altar, without any bowing or particular inclination of the body to it, as we use to kneel and pray before the Font at every Christening, before the Minister and Pulpit at every Sermon, before the Grave at every funeral, before the Reading Desk at every Common-prayer, Mourning or Evening, and yet bow or cringe our bodies to or towards neither of them, out of any respect at all unto them; Neither do we the like to the Sacrament or Lords Table when we receive his Supper though most kneel before it then. So that I may now safely conclude, that there is no Scripture at all for this new Ceremony, the rather, because Exod. 20. 23. 24. 25. 26. Dan. 27. 5. josh. 8. 31. God commands his Altars to be made only of Earth or unhewn stones, without any Image or Picture on them, to withdraw the jews from bowing to them, being made of so base materials, enjoining them also not to go up by steps to his Altar (as our Novellers do to their High Altars,) that their nakedness be not discovered thereon, which would have been more discovered by bowing and stopping down thereto, then by ascending to it by steps. As for Psal. 95. 6. it is as extravagant to this purpose as the rest; The Table being not our Lord and maker, before noted, towards whom this text enjoins us to kneel and fall down prostrate: Which I have sufficiently answered in refelling them, and therefore pass it by. But are there no Fathers or Antiquities for bowing to Altars and Lords Tables? To Tables certainly, not one, unless that of Nazianzen concerning his Mother u Oratio 28 de Funere Patris p. 472. Quod venerandae Mensae nunquam terga verteret, be wrested to this purpose contrary to the sense; To wit, that she never turned her w See Ps. 21 12. jer. 2 27. c. 32 33. 2 C●ron. 29. 6. where the like phrase is used. back upon the Lord's Table, by neglecting to communicate, when ever the Sacrament was administered at it; Which is far enough from bowing to it: The Table there being put for the Sacrament itself, administered thereon, as it is in Sundry such passages in the Fathers, Nicephorus Greg. f. 10. Cent. Magd. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. and others. For bowing to and towards Altars there are some seeming Passages in Antiquity, the chief whereof I shall recite and answer, omitting the residue as impertinent. The Antiquity of this bowing. The first Antiquity I find that may probably be objected for bowing to Altars, is the x De Bibliotheca Patrum Colon● Agrip. 1618. p. 14 15. Mass of S. james the Apostle, the brother of the Lord, if we dare believe it: Wherein among other things, I find a Prayer prescribed to the Priest, to be said, A fo●bus usque ad Altar, from the Church-door to the Altar, which hath these words in it: We shake and tremble coming to thy holy Altar. After the Priest is gone in to the Altar, the Deacon cries; Let us bow our heads to the Lo●d; And then the Priest kneeling down, saith this prayer: Tho● who only art the Lord, and a merciful God; Inclinantibus cernices suas CORAM SANCTO ALTARI, etc. To all that bow then necks b●fore thy holy Altar, & ask special gu●fisfiō there, sen● fo●th thy good grace, and 〈…〉 dictions, which cannot be taken away from u, etc. ANSWER. To which I answer; First, that this Liturgy is but a me●re late Popish forgery (brought in many hundred years after Christ. y Descriptor: Eccl. A●● 34. Bellarmine and z Annal: Tun. 1. An. 63 nu 17. Baronius, being so ingenious to confess, that there are so many additions to it of late times, as it is not easy to judge what part it had S. james for the Author. But if he were Author of any part, yet doubtless not of this, as a Censura scriptorum veterum: p. 9 10. Mr. Cook proves sufficiently; To whom I shall refer you. Secondly, here is not a word of the Priests bowing to or towards the Altar, nor yet of the peoples; But only a bowing their neck to the Lord. Thirdly, this bowing their necks before the Altar, was not with any relation to the Altar, but to God, and only a bowing of the body in prayer to the Lord. Therefore this spacious forged Antiquity, hatched but of late years, makes nothing for this Ceremony. The Second Antiquity. The second, is that of b Eccles. Hierarch. l. c. 5. Dionysius Arcopagita, who writes: That a Bishop when he is to be consecrated, utroque genu flexo ante Altar●a, kneeling on both his knees before the Al●tar, hath the gospel delivered by God, laid upon his head and hand: That a Priest kneeling before the Altar on his knees, hath the Bishop's right hand laid upon him; That the Deacon kneeling only on one knee before the Altar, hath the Bishop's right hand imposed. After which he observes, that access to the Altar, inflexio genuum, the bowing of the knees, and laying on of hands, etc. is common to all three, and that their access to the Altar, and bowing of their knees, and all the spiritual Graces in them to God, etc. To which I answer: First, that this Antiquity is but some late Counterfeit Novelty, as Mr. Cook c Censura: p. 50. 52. 54. hath showed at large, and the very Ceremonies of Ordination here mentioned prove, which came not in, till at least 600 years after Dionysius days, as d D● Divines Ossicijs. Alcumirus witnesseth. Secondly, admit the Author genuine, not forged, yet here is nothing but a kneeling down before the Altar on both knees, to receive Imposition of hands, not any bowing of the knee or body to or towards the Altar, the thing which should be proved. The third Antiquity. The third, is that of e De Paenitentia, lib. Edit. Rhenanis. Tun. 2 p. 46. Tertu●●●n, where his Panitence, among other things, is prescribed. Aris Dei adgenicular●: To bow the knee to God's Altars. This some think an unanswerable Antiquity. I answer, first: That f See Cook Censura p. 70. Rhenanus in argumento 〈◊〉 libri Erasmus and diverse others think this to be none of Tertullians', in regard of its phrase, and because Altars (as I have proved) were not then in use. Secondly, I answer: That the true Copy reads it, CHARIS, not ARIS DEI; as Lafoy Cerda the I●su●e in his Edition of Tertullian, and Annotations, proves at large; And the antecedent & subsequent words do manifest. Plerumque v●ró je●uni●s p●eces alere, ingemiscere, lacrymari & mugire d●es ●octesque ad Dominum Deum ●uum, P●aesbyteris advol●, & A●is (for Charis) Dei adgeniculars, & omnibus fratribus legationes depricationis suae injurgere. After which, some few ●nes, it wodowes by way of recital: Ergo cum te ad fratrum g●nua protenais, Christum contrecta, Christum exo as: Which last words proves that, & A●●s, ●mistaken, and put in for Charis; ET be●●g here a pla●●● bodge, absurdly thrust in for Ch● Which added to arts, makes Charis. This, the placing of it between Presbyteris advolui, and omnibus fratribus, etc. warrants to be the true sense and reading; And that for three reasons. First, because the parties that were thus to prostrate themselves to the Elders and Saints of God were g Rhenanus & La Cerda l●idem: Tripart. Hist. l. 9 c. 35. Paen●tents, or men excluded and excommunicated from the Churth and Sacraments for some heinous sim●●s, which they were thus to lament: This bowing and prostration therefore of themselves, could not be Aris Dei, to the Altars, from which they were excluded; But Charis Dei, to the beloved Saints of God, to whom they might have private access for comfort and counsel. Secondly, because the end of this bowing to the Elders and Brethren was only to ask them pardon for their scandals and offences against the whole Church and them; And to deprecate their crimes, as the last words, omnibus fratribus legationes depraecationis suae injungere, manifest: Or else h See Tripart. Hist. l. 9 c. 35 to desire them to pray, grieve and lament to God both with and for them; As the following clauses. Quid consortes casuum tuorum ut plauso●es fugis? Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione laetum agere: Condole at universum, & ad remedium conlaboret, necesse est, etc. Now, it were absurd for them thus to bow and kneel down to the Altar of God, for either of these two causes; Therefore it was questionless to the Saints of God, and must so be rendered. Thirdly, because the Tripartite History, jerom, Cyprian, with others, quoted by Rhenanus and La Cerda, touching the manner of the Exomologesis (Con●ession) in the primative times, make no mention at all of any bowing to Altars, used in this kind of discipline, by Penitence; But only a bowing to the Saints of God, who bedewed these Paenitents with their tears. This bowing therefore only to God's Saints is no proof of the Antiquity of bowing to Altars. Thirdly, admit it were Aris Dei, yet it makes nothing to the purpose: For this was not any precise bowing to or towards the Altar such as is now used, but only a kneeling or prostration in prayer before it, as the text doth manifest. Besides it is Aris Dei adgeniculari, in the Passive, not adgeniculare in the Active verb; Therefore no voluntary genuflexion to the Altar, but an enjoined and enforced prostration of a penitent by the Altar; So that this grand authority well examined vanisheth into smoke, extending only to paenitents, not any other. The fourth Antiquity. The fourth is that of i Adversus eos qui hummae in Christ● etc. p. 565 Athanatius. Quid? quòd & hodiè qui ad Sanctum Altare accedunt, idque amplectuntur, ac cum metu ac laetitia salutant, non in lapidibus & lignis, sed in gratia per lapides & ligna nobis raepresentata adhaerent. I answer, first, that this is not k Cooks Censura 93. etc. Athanasius his genuine work. Secondly, that this was only a coming up unto, and embracing and kissing of the Altar, which our Novellers now use not when they bow to it, or before it; And that out of Superstition, rather than any true Christian devotion, as is manifest. Thirdly, it is spoken only of such who came to receive the Sacrament, ●nd at the time of their receiving, not of others. The fifth Antiquity. The fifth, is that of Gorgonia, who being dangerously sick (as l Oratio 25 p. 443. Nazianzen in his Oration in her praise records) and despairing of Man's help, went secretly in the dark night unto the Church; Add Altar cum fide procumbit; Casts herself down with faith by the Altar, calling him to witness who is worshipped upon it, with a loud voice, etc. And moving her head to the Altar with the like cry, and abundance of tea●es, threatened she would not remove from thence, till sh● had recovered her health, and so continued praying and weeping at the Altar, till by God's goodness she was miraculously recovered. To which I answer: First, that here is no mention of any bowing to or towards the Altar, but only of a kneeling down, and a prostration at it, to pray and weep to him that is worshipped on it; Which proves no more the use or practice of bowing to Altars, than our Ministers kneeling down and praying at the Lords Table, when they consecrats the Sacrament, or marry any man, warrants or proves a custom to bow to or towards the Lord's Table, never in use till now of late. See the Common Prayer-book, the Rubric before Communion and Marriage. Secondly, this is alleged as an extraordinary example only of one, and she a woman (who in ancient times might not come near the Altars, nor touch the Altarclothes by the Canons; (Gratian. de Consedratione Distinct. 1. Rodulphus Tungrensis de Canonum observantia: Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 254. B.) in an extraordinary case, at an extraordinary time of the night when none were present in the Church: This swallow therefore makes no Summer, proves no general practice or custom then, but the contrary. The sixth Antiquity. The sixth, is that of Eutropius the Eunuch (Socrates Scholast, Eccl es. Hist. l. 6. c. 5.) who incurring the Emperor Arcaaius displeasure, took the Church for his Sanctuary, and lay along at the foot of the Altar. I answer: That there is no prostration to or towards the Altar to adore it, but to be secured by it, a flying to it only as a Sanctuary by a guilty person fearing death, not a voluntary adoration of it, or bowing to it, by an innocent person ●n no danger of his life. Therefore impertinent, our bowers not lying down along at the feet of our Altars, as they did. The seaventh Antiquity. The seaventh, is the example of Paulus the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople, who perceiving his Church to be in great & imminent danger of burning, by reason of a fierce fire, fell prostrate before the Altar, referring unto God in his prayer the preservation of his Church, and so by his uncessant earnest prayers miraculously preserved the Church from burning. Socrates l. 7. c. 39 in the Book 38. in the English Nicephorus, Eccles. Hist. l. 14. c. 41. I answer: That here was no prostration or bowing to or towards the Altar, but only a prostration in prayer before it; Which proves nothing. Besides, Nicephorus makes no mention of the Altar, but only relates, that Paulus went into the Sanctuary, and there prostrated himself in prayer. Finally, this case is extraordinary, upon an extraordinary occasion: Neither do the Historians mention it to prove any reverence then given to the Altar, but only to show the force and fruit of prayer, which can quench even the most raging flames of fire. In a word; We read here of a bowing and prostration in prayer before the Altar, but not of any bowing or prostration to the Altar without any prayer; The thing only in dispute; For which there is not one example in any Author till above 500 years after Christ. The eighth Antiquity. The eight, is that of Rusticus, a Cardinal Deacon of Rome, about the year of our Lord 550. Contra A●ephalis Disputatio. Bibl. Patrum, Tom. 6. Pars 2. p. 225. G. 229. E. where he writes thus: We all adore the Cross, and by it, him whose Cross it is, yet we are not said to coadore the Cross w●●h Christ, neither by this is there one nature of the Cross and of Christ. Similiter adorare Altar, ●oadorare Altari Trinitat● non dicimur, sed potius per Altar. Nec enim Tabernaculum in Erem●, nec Arca, nec Templum, nec Altaria ab antiquis coadorabantur & concolebantur & neque una est Dei & horum facta Natura. Hae verò creaturae non coadorentur Trinitati, sed per eas Trinitas adoretur. Nec non & clavos quibus fixus est, & lignum venerabilis Crucis, omnis per totum m●rdum Ecclesia absque ●lla contradictione adorant, etc. To which I answer: First, that this is one of the Papists new forged Fathers, not heard of in the Church till now of late; Besides, they branded him for a Schismatic, and a man then deprived by the Pope, and cannot certainly define whether this be his work. See Biblioth. Patrum before his works. Secondly, this work must not be so ancient, or else the Author is a great liar, it being that the universal Church did not adore the Cross and Nay es universally in that age, nor adore God and Christ in, by, and through Altars, Crucifixes, and Images, nor yet in 50 years after, as is apparent by Pope Gregory the first; (Registr. lib. 7. Epist. 109 & l. 9 Epist. 9) No, nor yet in 300 years after witness the Council of Constantinople Anno 754. Matthew Westminster H●●: 793. Hoveden Annal. pars l. p. 405. The Council of Paus An. 824. Agobardus his book de Picturis & Imaginibus: Our own Homilies against the Peril of Idolatry, together with Zonarus in his Annals, N●celus in his Annals, Eutropius in his Roman History, and the other Centurie writers witnessing as much. This Author therefore being either a bastard or a liar, will not stand them much in stead. Thirdly, I answer, if our Novellers will take advantage of this authority, which I have quoted for them, let them take him all, or none. That I presume they will not do, for than they must adore the Cross, the Crucifix, and Nails wherewith our Saviour was pierced, and that they will not do (I suppose) as yet: If therefore they disclaim him in this, why not in that of adoring the Altar. Fourthly, he writes expressly, that they did adore the Altar, and not coadore the Trinity with it, but rather adore the Trinity by or through it. Now thus to adore the Altar, or God with, or by, or through it, is no less Idolatry, by our own Homilies ● and all our writer's resolution; Whereupon Dr. Duncombe in his determination at Cambridge, disclaimed utterly any worshipping or adoring God by or through the Altar, even in his defence of bowing to or towards it. This Idolatrous adoration of the Altar and Precedent will not stead them, but quite spoil their cause. The ninth Antiquity. The ninth that may be objected, is that of m Bibl: Patrum Tom. 10. p. 415. 416. E. c. Stephanus Edvensis, a Bishop An: 950. Cap. 12. de Sacramento Altaris, Where he writes: That the Priest coming to the Altar in his Massing-v●st●ents, osculatnr Evangelium & Altar, kisseth the Bible and the Altar, signifying him thereby, who with the kill of his mere nation hath made both one in the incaruation of the jews and Gentiles. He holds or stands at (Tenet dexteram partem Altaris) the right hand-side of the Alter, because Christ was promised in the Law to the Jews, before he preache● to the Gentiles. After that the gospel is removed from the right hand or corner of the Altar to the left by the Deacon or Priest, the right hand is attributed to the jews, for the veneration of the Law, the left to the Gentiles for their execrable Idolatry. The Gosples' Doctrine committed to them, was first repulsed by the jews; Whence the gospel ought to be read on the left side of the Altar towards the North, etc. (O profound reason and divinity!) After the Priest, inclinans seante Medium Altaris, bowing himself or kneeling down before the midst of the Altar, prays to God the Father to give him the spirit of humility, etc. Which I have cited more at large, to show the ridiculous grounds of Popish Ceremonies. I answer: First, that in all this there is not one word of bowing to or towards the Altar, which certainly would here have been mentioned among other Ceremonies, had it been then in use. Secondly, the last words mention only a kneeling down at the Altar (and that by the Priest, at the time of Consecration) to pray, but no kneeling or bowing to the Altar, either before, after, or without any prayer, the Ceremony now contended fore. This therefore is not home. The tenth Antiquity. The tenth, is that of n Bibliot●. Patrum Tom. 12. pars 1. p. 1054. Honorius Augustodunensis de antiquo ritu M●ssarum, l. 3. c. 30. De Inclinationibus. Dam Ecclesiam ingredientes ad Altare inclinamus, quasi regem milites adoramus. Aeterni quippe Regis Milites sumus, cui semper in precinctu specialis militiae assumus. Cum autem ad Orientem & Occidentem inclinamus, Deum ubique praesentem nos adorare monstramus. Quem it a rationali motu ab ortu nostrae nativitatis usque ad occasum mortis sequi debemus, sicut coelum ab Oriente in Occidentem naturali revolutione ferri videmus. Quod Monachi expressius designavit, qui se toto corpore ab Oriente in Occidentem girant. To which I answer: That this Author lived 1120 years after Christ, and is the first undoubted writer that makes mention of bowing to the Altar at the entering into the Church, which I have met with all; Which Ceremony, as is likely, began in his days. But yet observe. First, he saith, they bowed To, not towards the Altar only; Which many of our Novellers deny they do. Secondly, that the ground and reason of bowing to the Altar then, is far different from those reasons alleged for it now. They bowed thus: Only to restify that they were God's Soldiers, ready at all times to do him service; Not, from any reasons drawn from the Altar; But we forsooth must bow to it, because it is God's mercy seat, the place of Christ's special presence on Earth, his Chair of state, to testify ou● Communion with the faithful, because it is the principal part of the Church; And if all these fail, because it is used in Cathedral Churches; Which reason they never dreamed on then. Thirdly, that as they then bowed to the Altar, so likewise they bowed themselves both East and West, to testify, that God whom they worshipped was every where alike present. But our men will only bow Eastward, and have all Altars so situated, not Westward; And confine Gods special presence to their Altar, and the East end of the Church, as if he were not every where present alike; Which is directly opposite both to their practice and reason here alleged to the contrary. Fourthly, they bowed only to the Altar at their first entrance into the Church, ours now, not only at their coming in, but every time they pass by it, towards it, repair to it, retire from it, and at their going out of the Church beside. Fiftly, this, in that age, was the practice only of Monks when they went to their hours of prayer (for of them he speaks, as is evident by the precedent and subsequent chapters) with reference to these hours. Therefore it is no proof for Ministers or Laymens' practice of it then, or now. The eleaventh Antiquity. The eleaventh, is that of o Biblioth. patr. Tom. 14. p. 252 A 254. B. C. 256. B. Rudolphus Tungrensis, flourishing about the year of our Lord 1380. De Canonum observantia propositio 23. Who as he informs us in direct terms, that Sixtus the second Anno 261 ordained; That the Mass should be celebrated upon an Altar, QUOD ANTEA NON FIEBAT, which before that time was not done, (a clear proof that Christians for 261 years after Christ had no Altar in use) so he writes: That the Priest in that age read the gospel at the left corner of the Altar, according to the Roman Order, that on the Right side he might be the readier to receive oblation, and perform sacrifice. That the Roman Order prescribes, that incense with a Tapor should be carried before the gospel, when it was carried to the Altar or Readers seat. And then relating diverse Ceremonies about the Mass, he saith: Sacerdos autem humiliationem Christi usque ad mortem Ctucis nobis indicat, quando se usque ad Altare inclinat, dicendo habe igitur ohlationem. Et statim in sequentibus narrationem de Dominica passione orditur; Quam usque ad supplices te rogamus, observat; Quosque juxta Altare se inclinans, Christum in Cruse inclinato capite spiritum tradidisse signat. To which I answer: That this is no bowing to or towards the Altar; But a bowing of the Priest, as low as the Altar, and by ●r besides the Altar, not out of any respect or reverence to it, but to sh●w forth Christ's humiliation unto the death of the Cross (as i● the Sacrament (1 Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26) instituted for that purpose, and then celebrated, were not sufficient for that, without this idle Ceremony, to show that Christ bowed his head, when he gave up the Ghost, (as if Christ himself at his last supper, or his Apostles after him, could not have prescribed such Ceremonies for these ends, had they thought them necessary:) Therefore it's no warrant or proof of any bowing or inclination to or towards the Altar (especially for other ends) which is not so much as mentioned in this writer, there being non Canon extant for it in his age. The twelveth Antiquity. The twelveth, is that of Eugenius Roblesius (Bibl. Patrum Tom. 15. p. 761. G. H.) de authoritate & ordine Officij M●rzabarici, among the Goths. Where I find no mention of the Priests genuflection to the Altar before the ordinary Mas●e, or in it; But these passages after it: Absoluta Missa, Sacerdos genubus flexis juxta Altare recitat, salve regina. D●nde deosculato Altar, convertit se ad populum: But in the Lenton Masses, immediately after the Psalms, Sacerd●s genust xo supragradus Altaris recitat quasdam preces, etc. Hinc ante sacrificium & oblationom, Sacerdos genu flexo ad Altar, recitat. alias preces, etc. But all this proves only a kneeling and genuflection in prayer at the Altar, not any bowing or incuruation to or towards it, and that all the time of the Consecration by the Priest alone, not by other at other seasous. These are all the chief Authorities I have hitherto observed, which seem to give any colour to this bowing to or towards Altars, which Ceremony I cannot find prescribed in any Books of Divine Offices, Canonists, Missals, Caeremonials, Primers, Psalters, Liturgies, Masse-Bookes, or Masses (no not in the Popish Churches, much le●●e at home) that have hitherto come unto my hands: A strong argument and evidence in my judgement, that it was never used in former times as now it is of late: The forecited Authorities (two only excepted, and those late Popish writers) making nothing at all either for the lawfulness of this Ceremony, though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them. Most of these Authorities, I confess, are not cited or objected by the opposites, but lest they might object or pervert them hereafter, I have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation, and all others of this nature, in answering these. These are the only Authorities yet behind. The first is that of the fifth General Counsel (Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons' Institution of the Sacram: l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15.) of Constantinople, Actio. 1. where john the Patriarch speaks thus: Haec patienter sustinete fratres, & prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTAR, & post hoc do vobis responsionem: Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Altar, permansernnt clamantes; Multi enim Imperarores, etc. To which I answer: First, that this Patriarch speaks plainly of adoring the Altar itself, not to or towards it, or of the Hostia upon it; Which our bowers themselves confess to be Idolatrous. Secondly, the ensewing words prove, that this adoring the Altar, was only a going to the Altar there to pray, not a bowing to the Altar itself, of which there is not a word, unless we will make this Patriarch a gross Idolater in adoring the very Altar; From which the Lollards both in France and England were so far averse, that they were called Pileati or Oeputials by the Papists, (Antiqu: Eccles. Brit. 295.) ●ó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso pi●ei honorem non deferant: Because they would not put of their Caps to the Pix or Altar, when they passed by them. And if they would not so much as move their Caps to them, much less did they bow their knees or bodies to or towards them. This precedent therefore, take it in one sense or other, will not advantage our Novellers, unless they will confess, that they adore the Altar itself, and not God towards it, which makes them gross Idolaters. The second Authority. The second, is that of Cardinal Pools Deputy visitours in Queen Mary's bloody days, who among other Noble Acts in that visitation, decreed and prescribed (Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 1781.) how many Pater Nosters and Ave Mary's every man should say, when he should enter into the Church, and in his entrance AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOULD BOW HIMSELF TO THE ALTAR; And how to the Master of the house. This Authority, I confess Is full, for bowing not to the Hostia only, as the passage in Bishop Morton would fable, but to the Altar itself. But yet observe, first, when and by whom this Ceremony was prescribed: In Queen Mary's days, by professed Papists, and Champions for the Church of Rome. Secondly, to whom it was prescribed, only to Scholars in the University, and no others. Thirdly, with what this Ceremony was attended; With Pater Nosters and Ave mary's. Fourthly, to whom it is likewise extended; To the Master of each College, as well as to the Altar, and that in the Church itself. Therefore certainly they then reputed it no religious worship or divine adoration, as most now esteem it. If our Bishops and Novellers will take this for their pattern and precedent, (some of them being not ashamed to magnify Queen mary's, and depress Queen Eliz abeths day●●. See Dr. Dupra his preface to the University Statutes at Oxford) I shall then conclude with Dr. Pocklington; (Sunday no Sabbath, p. 2. 48.) That they are lineally descended from S. Peter's Chair a● Rome, and with a late jesuit, which I have not yet seen, but heard of; That the Jesuits need write no more for the Sacrifice of the Mass, for that we are writing for and setting up Altars so fast in England, that they hope to see Mass there very shortly (if these may have their will at least, and God and his Majesty prevent it not with speed.) But if they are ashamed of such a precedent, let them with like shame henceforth abandon such an Antichristinn Romish practise. The third Authority. The third, is that of Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synod about the year of our Lord 1206. (Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gal. l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 81, p. 558.) Summa reverentia & honour maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur, & maximè ubi sacro sanctum corpus Domini reservatur, & Missa celebratur. A very probable Authority for this Ceremony: To which I answer: First, that there is not one word in this Injunction concerning bowing to or towards the Altar: And reverence, and great honour might be given to it, in such manner as it is given to Churches, Fonts, Pulpits, Bibles, and the like, not by bowing to or towards them, but by a reverend use and estimation of them free from superstition on the one hand; And prophonesse on the other. So as this Authority in truth proves nothing. Secondly, admit it meant of bowing to Altars, yet it is to be given only to sacred consecrated Alta●s, not to others; But few or none of our Altars, not one of our Lord's 〈◊〉 ables have yet been so solemnly consecrated, (the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them.) 〈◊〉 it makes 〈◊〉 for any genuflection, 〈…〉, or Tables. Thirdly, this honour and reverence is 〈◊〉 to be given to those Altars only whe●c the body of Christ is a ways 〈…〉 pix, and Mass celebrated: And th●● (say 〈◊〉 Papists in their private discourses: 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉 46●.) is th●t 〈◊〉 reason why th●y bow 〈…〉 cause Christ's bo●y, is they imagine, ●s the 〈…〉 as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it. But our Altars, for aught I yet know 〈◊〉, have no body of 〈…〉 on them. Therefore they are not yet to be bowed unto or reverenced, by virtue of 〈…〉 likewise ordains, that 〈…〉 which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8●. p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour. As for the Synod of 〈◊〉 An. 1583. though it decree many things concerning Altars, (as that * Therefore all of them stood not Easterly at the upper end of the Chancle. none shall stand under the Organs, Pulpit, or against the Piltars of the Church, or over against the High Altar, or near the Church-dores, or any unfitting place: That there shall not be above 7 Altars in any Church: That all of them shall be of stone 7 handfuls and an half broad, and 8 handfuls long: That i● might have a fair Altar-cloth to cover it; That a Cistern of water (See Bochellus Decreta Eccles. Gal. l. 3. Tit. c. 33. 34. p. 362.) with two or three towels near it for the Priest to wash h●s hands: (defiled with their unholy holy Sacrifice of the Mess:) That every Altar, where the Bishop shall judge, it may conveniently be done, shall be railed in with an Iron or stone rail, or at least with a wooden on●, standing at least 7 handbreathes distance from the Altar, within which rail no Layman may enter whiles that Mas●e is celebrating: That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature, as Altarclothes, towels, a Crucifix in the mid jest, two Candlesticks at the least, one placed at the right hand, another at the left, which shall stand always on it, but especially on all Holidays, unless the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order. Which Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an hair's breadth: though I say this Counsel decreed all this and more, yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar; Therefore it seems to be a thing of no great request, even among the Papists, who bow only to the Hostia on it, (B●sh● M●tons Institution of the Sacram: p. 463.) not to the Altar itself or towards it. These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be produced by any for bowing to Altars; And all these if duly weighed are nothing, at least to sway with any Protestant or sincere Christian. As for bowing to or towards the Lord's Table, (which I have proved not to be an Altar, nor yet to be of right so styled, but only the Lords Table, as even in times of superstation it hath been st●●ed; Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9: Col. 243. Nic●ph: G●eg. f. 10. Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament, p. 303.) there is not one syllable in all my reading, nor I think in any man else to be found. If any demand now of me, how I prove, that the primitive Ch●rch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars & Lords Tables, and therefore we ought not now to do it? I answer, that I can manifest it sundry ways: 1. Because I find no such thing either in the Fat●e●s or Ecclesiastical Historians, where all the Rights, and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church, are accurately set down and adscribed, (See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. the Ceremonies & Ritibus Eccles.) so as this of all other had it been a thing of that moment, and so much practised as some now fable) would not have been passed over in s●●●nce by them. 2. Because the Primitive Church and Christians for 260 years after Christ or more, had no Altars at all among them, as I have else where proved; Therefore no bowing to Altars; And to Tables we never read that any bowed, no not in times of Popery, when they so far disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Profane Tables and Oysterboards. Acts & Monum. Edit. ult. pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497. 3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred years after Christ prohibited all Christian● to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday, and from Easter till Whitsuntide on any weekeday, in honour of Christ's resurrection, holding it an offence and sin so to do even in the act of prayer and adoration itself; As, Tertullians' words in his Book De Corona Militis, witnesseth; Die Dominica jejunium nefas ducimus, vel de geniculis adorare. And these subsequent Authorities do likewise manifest it; justin Martyr. Quaest 115. Tertullian ad uxorem. Hierom Advers: Luceforianos de Ecclesiasticis observationibus: c. 29. Radulphus Tungrenfis de Canonum observantia. Proposit. 23. p. 458. A. Concil: Nicaenum Can. 20. Carthag. 6. Can. 20. Constantinop. 6. Can. 90. Turonense sub Carolo Magno Can. 37. Gratian de Consecratione Dist. 3. Origen Homil. 4. in Num. Cyprian Centur in Orat: Domini. Centur. Magd. 3. c. 6. col. 135. If then the Primitive Christians prayed and worshipped standing and deemed it a sin to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those days, the chief time of the● Christian and public assembles, especially for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper. Ivo Carnot●●ses Decretal. Pars 1. c. 25. 34. It is certain therefore, that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tables● & as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacrament, much less bowed their he●ds or knees at the naming of jesus, as some ignorant shallowpated Novellers now pretend and give out, without proof or shadow of truth● 4. Because the Fathers condemned, as Idolatry, all b●wing to or towards Images, or Idols, all worshipping 〈◊〉 God, in, by, through, or towards them; Holding diurn 〈◊〉 and adoration, a thing peculiar to God alone, 〈…〉 immediately to God himself, without any such 〈…〉 helps of Images or Altars, condemning all relative w●rship, as derogatory to his Majesty: See the Homily of the 〈◊〉 of Idolatry: Bishop Ushers answer to the Jesuits Challenge of Images and praying to Saints. Therefore this worshipping and adoring of God, in, by, through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table, is a thing utterly condemned by them, & to be detested of all, which would have hardened the Gentiles in their Idolatry, for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches, and carefully (Tertulliani Apologia) wiped of these Cavils of 〈◊〉 Pagans, who slandered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sun, the Cross, an Ass' head, and the like; Concluding and protesting, that adoration and worship was due to God alone, and that immediately. 5. Because, they reputed Christ only the true Altar, the only Altar in ●eaven which they adored, all other Altars were jewish or Pagan relics, abolished by Christ's death, which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture; Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament, Edit. 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. Therefore unfit to be bowed to or towards, or to be the objects of any relative worship, as most now make this their bowing. Upon all which grounds, I conceive, I may safely assirm●, (at least till our Novellers shall be able to prove the contrary) that the Primitive Church and Christians, never used to bow to Altars or Lords Tables, and that there are no Fathers nor Antiquities to justify this usage. In the Description of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romans in the month of january, An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32. I 〈◊〉, that 〈◊〉 E●●perour in the Cathedral Church at F●ankf●●d 〈…〉 for him to sit in; Ad Altaris 〈…〉; A th● Southside of the Altar, where the gospel is usually read, higher than the other seats, just over against the Altar; That the Archbishop of Mentz, the Duke of Bavar●●, the Count Palatine of Rhine, Maximilian Archduke of Austria, and the Duke of Burgundy sat on his left hand; The Arch bishop of Colen, the Duke of Saxony, and the Marqu●sse of Brandenburge on the left hand; And the Archbishop of Trevier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉 the left, but just before the King's face, before the Altar. On the same side of the Choir sat diverse other Bishops. On the North-side of the Altar sat many Bishops, Earls, Dukes, and Nobles. All which in order went and offered at the Altar. After which the King came and received his Crown at the High Altar. Mass being ended, the Prince's Elect●urs went to the Altar to swear, according to the tenor of the golden Bull. At last Maximilian, led by the Archbishops of Mentz & Colen, was lifted up upon the Altar, and TE DEUM sung & played on the Organs. CIRCA ALTAR about the Altar, at the sides, by the exalted King, stood the Archbishop of Colen and Mentz, and before his face stood the Archbishop of Trevier, the other Princes accompanying and standing about them. By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise, against the East-wall of the Choir, for the King sitting on the Southside of it, just over against the Altar, and these 5 great Princes sitting in distinct seats at his right hand in state, the Altar was at least 5 seats distance from the East-wall, and stood so, that the Archbishops, Princes and Nobles when the Emperor was elevated on it, stood round about it, and him, at the time of this royal solemnity. The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Choir, as appears by Paulus in Curculione: Nur● Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores. Ovid. Motamorph. l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat jovis hospitis Ara. julius Caesar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comae●i Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem, etc. Vide ibid. So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall, is but a late Novelty, even among the Papists themselves, and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar; For I find no mention of it in the exact Description of this Solemnity. Only I read, that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following, they went into the Choir to the High Altar, and there heard Mass. Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary. That after some Hymns sung, and collects read in the Choir: Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in longum: The King prosttated himself at the steps of the Altar upon a Carpet, lying all along upon it. And the Archbishop of Colen, super ●um sic proctratum legit, reads over him thus prostrate, Lord save the King, with other two Collects. (Erge, we must thus prostrate ourselves when we come in 〈…〉 of the Church, is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation, not to others, and a 〈◊〉 not to or towards the Altars, but at the steps of it, to have an Archbishop read a prayer over him, and some special 〈◊〉.) After which he sat down in a Royal Seat before, the Altar, the Archbishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand, and Trevier on the left; Then these Bishops took of the King's upper garment, and leading him between them, ante Altare prostratu●in modum Crucis, he prostrated himself in form of a Cross before the Altar, the Archbishop of Colen saying diverse prayers (there specified) over him, and the Litany. The Litany ended, the Archbishop of Colen, standing before the Altar, with his Pastoral staff in his hand, asked of the King six Questions, the last whereof was this; Wilt thou reverently exhibit due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome, & to the holy Church of Rome? (The Popes were anciently sworn to the Emperor, and elected by him, now they must swear to the Pope, and be chosen by him and his three. Archbishop Electours, who are still at his devotion. See Gratian Distinctio. 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Pope's temporal Monarchy, cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.) After which Questions he was led by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Treuler to the Altar, and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar; Said, I will, and I shall faithfully perform all the premises as far as God by his divine assistance shall enable me, and the prayers of faithful Christians shall assist me: So help me God and all his Saints. Which done, these Bishops brought him back before the Altar. After that they lead him again to the Altar, qui prostravit se ad terram in longum, and then the Archbishop of Colen read a blessing and prayer or two over him; Which done, they anointed him in several places; And 〈◊〉 returning before the Altar, casting himself down in manner of a Cross, the Archbishop of Colen read other prayers over him. Then they girt him with a sword; After that, they set the Crown on his head with several Collects; then leading them again to the Altar, he laid both his hands on the Altar, and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue; (Which in truth made him a s●ave both to the Pope and Prelates, rather than a King:) I will yield due and Canonical honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome, and to the other Bishops and Churches: These things likewise which have been given & conferred by Kings and Emperors to churches or Ecclesiastical persons, I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them, the Lord jesus Christ assisting me. By which oath and practise the Emperors and Kings of the Romans are made Vassals to the Pope and Prelates, their hands being thereby tied from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Privileges or pos●●ssions; A he●●sh policy worthy observation. Anno Dum 1518. Jacobi Manti● Cardi●alat us. Albertis Epise: Mogunt: Rerum Germ: Scriptores. Tom. 2. p. 399. When Albertus Arch. Bishop of M●ntz was made a Cardinal; he tame up to the High Altar, and there kneeling down before it on both his knees, the Pope's Legate graced him with a red hats, the badge of this h●s dignity which he put upon his head: He kneeling down before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung. So An●o 1066. Ho●eden Annql: pars prior p. 447. I read, that King Herald, at the celebration of the Mass at Westminster; Ant Altar in Oratione prostratus jaceret, lay prostrate before the Altar in prayer. When our King Richard the first was to be crowned (Hoveden Annal: pars posterior: p. 656. 657. 739.) he came tooth Altar before the Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Clergy, and People, and kneeling down on his knees before the Altar, took the usual Coronation-oath, upon the Euangeli●ts and 〈…〉 After which, 〈◊〉 in the Archbishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crown from the Altar, put it 〈◊〉 his ●and. So at his second Coronation, he was led into the Cathedral Church of S. Swithim at Winchester 〈…〉, even unto the Altar, & ibi flexis genubus, and 〈◊〉 with bended knees, devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Archbishop of Canterbury, and from thence was lad to his Throne. I read also, that Hugh Abbot of Cluney, and Hilde●●●●● whiles he was an Archdeacon riding together, en●●●●● into a Country-Church, Ante Aram injunctis, lateribus 〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione; Cast themselves down before the Altar one by the others side, and there prayed along time. Ma●me●●●rie de Gestis Regum Angl: lib. ●. p. 100L. Thus the Monks of Glastenbury (when their Abbot ●●●●●●ine fel● at variance with them, and chased them with 〈◊〉 men into ●he Church) sancto Altari miserius fuas appl●●●●●●●, Bewailed th●is miseries, to wit, at the holy Altar, where the Abbot slew two, and wounded fourteen of them; Yea the Abbot himself with a spear (saith Hoveden, Annal: pars prior, p. 456. 460.) thrust one of the Monks, through the body, and slew him, Sacrum Amplexar●●● Alt●●●●, embracing the holy Altar in his arms; Alium ad Altaris crepidinem sagit●is Confossum necavit. But that any of these Kings, Prelates, or Monks bowed their bodies to or towards the Altar at their entering in, passing by or repairing to the Altar, or coming in, or going out of the Church, as we do now, I find not one syllable in these Histories which certainly would not have pretermitted it, had it been then in common use. Indeed, I read in Aeneas Picalomineus, Cardinal of Sens, (Europe's status sub Frederico tertio Imp. c. 19 63.) that Vla. 〈◊〉 King of Poland after his conversion from Paganism to christianity; In●er equitandum quotiescunque turres Ecclesiarum inspe●●t, detracto pileo, caput in●linavit; Deum (qui coleretur in Ecclesia) veneratus: When he did ride abroad, as oft as he beheld the Towers, ●he pulled of his hat, and bowed his head, worshipping God, who is adored in the Church: But that he did thus, when he saw the Altar or ●●rds-Table, I find not, had he used any such Ceremony, this Cardinal doubtless would have recorded the one as well as the other. If our Altar-worshippers will press or imitate his example, than they must bow and worship towards our Churches-steeples, when they see them, (for which they may have some colour from David's worshipping, Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 138. 2. and daniel's praying towards the Temple, Dan. 6. 10.) not towards the Altar or Table. Now, most of our Church's towers and steeples stind, either at the west end or in the midst of the Churches, few or none of them at the Eist-end, quite opposite to their Altars and Tables situation; This precedent therefore will manifestly overthrow their bowing to, and worshipping towards the Altar, and the East, which they now so much contest for. As for these mentioned prostrations, and kneel down at or before the Altar only to pray, or to receive a Crown or Cardinal's hat, without any relation to the Altars, as they were for these special ends and purposes, not out of any respect to the Altar; So they warrant not our genuflexion or inclination of our bodies towards, or to the Altar or Table, upon reasons drawn from the Altar or Table, or for other purposes, and upon other occasions than these. Besides, this kneeling and prostration of theirs was only at and before consecrated Altars, not at or before Lords Tables or unhallowed Altars. But few of our High Altars are yet solemnly dedicated by our Prelates, neither can they, unless they be removed further from the wall, the Bishop being to go 7 times about the Altar, when he consecrates it; As I have proved out of Durandus, Rat: Divinarum, l. 1. And admit they are thus hallowed, yet being consecrated not by a power derived immediately from the Pope of Rome, but by such as are yet counted Schismati●kes by him, (though Bishop White in his Epistle Dedicatory to his late Treatise of the Sabbath, be very angry with those, who repute, or st●●y● us Schismatics from the Roman Church at this day, because most, but those whom he there styles Puritans, ` Presb●te●ians, etc. are perfectly reconciled to it,) they are so far from being adored and bowed to, that the Papists and Popishly affected (the only men who are likely to how to or towards them) will think them fitter to be demolished: For Anno 1177, in the Council of Venice, under Pope Alexander, where the three Anti-popes', Victor, Paschall, and 〈◊〉 were degraded; (See Hoveden Annal: pars posterior pag. 568●) It was decreed among other things: That all the Altars dedicated by those Anti-popes', or their Ordinaries, should be demolisheds; Which was done accordingly: Yea Christian Archbishop of Mentz, burnt his Bull, with his own hands received from Pope Paschall, in the presence of Pope Alexander, receiving a new Bull from him. So Geeffry Plantagenet Archbishop of York (See Hoveden Annal: pars posterior p. 713.) overturned all the Altars, broke all the Chalices, that Hugh Bishop of Durham had celebrated at or used, or any other Priest in his presence, after his excommunication by him. Our High Altars therefore, by the same reason, being not consecrated at all, or at least by schismatics or Excommunicate persons (if not by the sentence of the Church of Rome, yet by the express determination of the 12 Canon 1603. (which together with the stature of 1. Eliz. c. 2. condemns the consecrating of, & bowing to Altars by necessary consequence, with all other our late Innovation, excommunicating all those ips● facto, that neither prescribe or submit unto ●hem,) are rather to be broken down, removed, abolished, as they were both in King Edw. the 6. & Queen Elizabeth's days, than they bowed to, or adored; Since as Gulielmus Sturkius observes (Antiquit Co●vinalium, l. 2. 6. 16. P. 209.) Christ, Apostplorum, & primitivae Ecclesiae exemplo magis videntur quadrare mensae, quam Altaria: Verissimis illis impletis (ait) legalibusi, & peracto in cruse sacrificio per Christum, earn hic rationem Eccl●siae, quamolim Synagogae instituit. Mensam dedit in qua epuletur, non autem in qua offeretur victima: Nec Sac●rdos consecravit, qui offerent sacrific●rentque, sed Ministrosdedit, quiepul●m sacrum distribuer●●●. Arae, fixae, & statuae, pecudibus mactandis, & ignibus fo●end is magis sont Idoneae. Christum in Mensa sacrosanctum suum conviu●um primò instituis●e, accum charis●●●nis suis discipulis celebras●e, Evangelica historia testatur. Hanc Mensa● auro purissimo coopertam, atque infinitis propemodum ge●mis ornatam, ex Taletio occupatàm, Musem Ara●um D●cem se●um reportasse ●estatur Leo Affcicanus, l. 5. c. 79. In pri●itiva quoque Ecclesia mensarum in celebratione Coenae Dominicaeusum, cum alium literarum monumenta, tum il●a Nicenae Synodi verba testantur. In divina MENSA ne ●umiliter intenti simus, ad propositum panem, etc. Thus Sturkius who at large pieades for the use and conveniency of religious and pious Discourses, conferences, the reading and talking of Scripture and divine things at Feasts and Christian Assemblies, both from the Example of Christ, the Fathers, and Heathen Philosophers, Antiqu: Convivalium, l. 3. c. 1●. fol. 382. 383. In direct opposition to Bishop's Wrens new Visitation-Articles to the contrary. Whom I desire his worship, and all those profane ones of his opinion, to read at their best leisure, together with his other notable passages against the profanation of the Lords day; by Feasting, Dancing. Alice, Revels, 〈◊〉 and other pastimes, (Epist. Dedicat: Antiqu: Connival: l. 1. c. 16. fol. 36. c. 23. fol. 67. c. 25. fol. 74. 75. c. 33. f. 133. to 138. and l. 3. c. 2l. 22.) so much contested for now of late; All which the primitive Christians abandoned, as well as Altars. But though these Novellers have neither Statute. Canon, Scripture, nor Antiquity for this new invented Ceremony, yet doubtless being reasonable creatures, they must have some reasons for it. True, they thi●ke they have so; But if their reasons be but examined, they are in truth mere lying 〈◊〉 crackbrainde fantasies of their own invention, not warranted by any Scripture, or registered in any Father, or Author, no● known to Durandus, (See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉.) or Mirologus, (See De Divinis Offici●s l●b.) or any other Romanists, who have taken upon them to give a reason for every one of their Ceremonies, though never so superstitious or ridiculous. If any desire to know their Reasons, they are these: 1. First, they say, they do & must bow to or towards the High-Altar and Lords-Table, because it is the place of Christ's special presence upon Earth, and his Chair of estate wherein he 〈◊〉. See Giles Widows his Lawless kneelesse Schismatical Puri●●●●●, p. ●9. Shelfords Sermon of God's house, p. 2. 4. 18. 19 20. Reeve his Exposition of the Catechism in the common-prayer-book, near the end. Which reason I have already proved false. Only I shall demand these few Questions of them: I. QUESTION. By what Scriptures or Fathers they can make good this proposition; That the High-Altar or Lords-Table is the special place of God's presence upon Earth, and his Chair of state, wherein 〈◊〉? II. QUESTION. What they mean by this special presence, whether his corporal, or his divine presence? If his corporal, that implies, first, a Transubstantiation of the Sacramental bread and wine into the very body & blood of Christ. Secondly, a perpetual reservation of the consecrated bread thus transubstantiated into Christ's body on the Altar & Lords-Table, (else the reason holds not, but only at the time when the Sacrament is administered, and the consecrated bread & wine is standing on the Table; And so they ought them only to bow to or towards the Altar; Not at other times when there is no Sacrament, (Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament p: 463.) as now they do.) Thirdly, it implieth, a denial of the Scriptures and Articles of the Creed, which assure us, That Christ in his humane nature and corporal presence is wholly ascended into Heaven; That he hath quite lest the world, and is gone to his Father's; That he is set down at his Fathers own right hand; That he is no more corporally present upon Earth; That he cannot be corporally in many places at once, and never was so that we find in the Scripture; That the Heavens must contain him until his second coming to judgement: And the like, Acts 3. 21. cap. 1. 10. 11. John 14. 2. 3. 19 c. 16. 28. c. 17. 11. 12. c. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 10. 12. cap. 12. 2. And it is pointblank against the Homilies, Articles, Writers and established doctrine of the Church of England, to which these Rebellious sons of Belial have subscribed. If they mean only Christ's Spiritual presence, that certainly is as much at the Font, the Pulpit, the Bible, the common-prayer-book, as on the Table, as much in the whole Church and Choir, as in all, or any of these standing in them; Yea much more in every poor Christians heart and soul the true Temples of God, wherein Christ and his spirit dwell by faith; Ephes● 3. 17. c. 2. 21. 1. Cor. 6. 19 2. Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20. Therefore if this reason hold firm they must bow alike to or towards all and every of these, as well, and as oft as to the Table or Altar. III. QUESTION. Admit the Preposition true, I would demand of them, how they can prove this their assertion to be truly Orthodox; That men ought to bow and worship to and towards the place of Christ's special presence? What Scripture, Council, or Father hath taught them any such Doctrine? Certainly if this be good Divinity, then when ever they see the Pulpit, Bible, Font, Church, or any pious Saint of God though never so poor, they must for sooth bow 〈◊〉 them, because Christ is specially present in them, than they must no sooner look up to Heaven, but they must bow their knees and bodies to it, for that is God's Throne, Christ's Chair of Estate. indeed, and the place of their special residence, by the Scriptures express resolution: Yea then when ever they see the Paten or Chalice, which immediately contain the Bread and Wine, they must bow to them, because they are the place of Christ's special presence, rather than the Table or Altar, on which those vessels which contain the Sacrament only stand. IV. QUESTION. If this reason be folid, I would then demand but this Question, whether Christ be not more immediately, really, and spiritually present (yea and corporally too, if they hold any such presence in the Sacrament, as they seem to do,) in the Consecrated B●ead and Wine, then in the Chalice or Cup, or on the Table or Altar it sel●e? If so, (as all must necessarily grant) than it will inevitably follow from this reason, that they must much more adore and bow to the consecrated bread and wine, then either to the Altar or Table. If so, than I would demand of them: First, what is the reason they bow only to the Altar or Table, not to the consecrated bread and wine? Or in case they answer that they bow to both; How their bowing to the bread and wine differs from the Papists adoration of them, which our Church condemns as most gross Idolatry? Secondly, What is the cause why they bow to the Altar or Table, before the bread and wine are consecrated, when Christ certainly is not there present, in that manner as they fancy, and yet bow not to the bread and wine after consecration, when Christ is specially present in them? Thirdly, why many of them at the administration of the Sacrament, when as they have the bread and wine in their hands, bow down to the ground almost, as they come from, pass by, or go to the Table or Altar, out of their reverence and respect to the Table and Altar, and yet bow not at all to the consecrated bread and wine, which they hold then in their hands? Fourthly, whether bowing to and towards the Altar or Table so frequently and devoutly (as they deem it) when there is no Sacramental bread and wine upon it, and at the time of the Sacrament, even when they hold the Sacrament in their h●nds, and their not bowing to or towards, and adoring of the Sacrament itself (which is far more honourable than either the Table or Altar, which serve only for its consecration and distribution, and may put them more immediately in mind of Christ) be not an advancing & a preferring of the Table & Altar, not only before the Pulpit, the Font, the Bible, the Common-prayer Book, the Paten & the Chalice themselves, but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine, the Sacrament of Christ's Supper, and the Lord Christ himself, to whom they give no such congees, such solemn adoration, reverence, genuflexion, honour and respect? If so, than it is almost execrable and abominable; If not, then let them inform me; How that which is least bowed to, worshipped or adored, is most reverenced and respected, then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection; Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉, that the name jesus is more honourable, venerable, great and glorious than any other of our Saviour's ●ames, because it is and aught to be most cringed, capped and bowed to of all others? Till all these Quest●ons are resolved, I shall desire them to suspend this their capital reason. The 2 Reason. The second reason for this Ceremony is; Because the Altar and Table are Christ's mercy-seat, and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice, there made and presented to th● Trintry. So Mr. o Sermon of God's 〈◊〉, p. 2 4 19 Shelford Priest, here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity (opened so to Christ himself that made it, as if he himself had forgotten it, or were not able of himself to present its memory to his Father, without a Masse-Preists help) which Law Giles Widows thus seconds. p The Lawless kneelesse Schismatical Puritan. p. 34. 89. The Church is the place of God's presence; The Communion-Table the Chair of State of the Lord jesus, and his theifest place of presence in our Church: Where his PRIESTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God, offended with our daily sins. Where we sinned a resolution of my first Question; What is the end of our Novellers writing, preaching and contesting for altars and Priests, to wit, that we may have a Sacrifice again. And what Sacrifice is that? The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith, q Page 34. Widows; The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar, saith She ford, page 2. 19 And what kind of Sacrifice is this? A commemorative w●●●e Sh●●ford and the collier. And no other but so? Yea quoth Widows a propitiatory sacrifice likewise, to reconcile us to God, offended with our daily sins. And so we have now not only Altars and Priests, but the Sacrifice of the Mass itself in its full latitude, both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine, in Books la●ely printed by Authority, and not yet called in; How soon we may have all of them (as we have Altars Priests and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places) in point of practice, I leave to others to determine; This being made the reason why we bow to Tables and Altars, because they are Christ's mercy seat, and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice, etc. is there made and presented to the Trinity. This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar, to be no mercy Seat, and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory. I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirm, both by Scripture and reason. Secondly, when they have done this, then to make this appear in like manner by Scripture or solid arguments drawn from it, or at least by Fathers and Counsels, that Christians are bound to bow to Christ's mercy seat, or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered; The jews never doing it to the one, nor the Primitive Churches to the other. Till this be done I shall demur upon this Reason. The third Reason. The 3. Reason is this; r The lawless knee less Puritan, p. 89. The Tible & Altar are a sign of the place whe●e our Saviour was most dishonoured and crucified; Therefore we must bow unto them. So Giles Widows reasons in a Book licenced at Oxford by some learned Doctors. I answer: First, that this is a plain untruth, for they are neither a sign of jerusalem, Golgatha, the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly, if a truth, yet unable to Warrant this Ce●●monie; For what Scripture, reason or Author is there to just fie, that men ought to bow at the sign of the place where our Saviour was despised dishonoured and crucified. Thirdly, if this reason be good, than these Novellers must bow at and to the signs of jerusalem which hang up in every City, or to, or towards these Tavern Posts (which these bowers haunt much night and day, to make them nod, bow and reel the better to their Altars) where the sign of jerusalem hangs; For they are properly the sign of the place where our Saviour was most despised and crucified then the Table or Altar: Then likewise they must bow to every Map of jerusalem, of the holy Land, for they are signs of that place too; Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves, to which I wish these Cringers would all travel in pilgrimage, that so they might have the sight of the place itself to encourage them in this their bowing, which is better and more moving then the bare sign of it. Fourthly, this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Cross, because though they are no signs of the place where Christ was despised and crucified, yet they are signs of that on which he was despised and crucified, whereas the Table or Altar is a sign of neither. So that the Papists, if any, shall give him thanks for this reason. The fourth Reason. A fourth reason they produce in print is this: Let us learn of our Mother Church's, for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and return. Wherhfore to follow their good and holy pattern, we also are to do the like, both at our first coming in to God's house, and at our going out, so Shelford in his Sermon of God's house, p. 20. and the Coal too, p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge, this is the chief, if not the sole reason, why most men use this Ceremony. The Arch-Bishops both do & practise it for reasons best known to themselves; and the Prebends, Deans and Cathedral men with other Ministers and Curates in City, Court and Country, to imitate and please the Bishops, whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demur (as these writers, to wit, the collier in his C●ale, pag. 2. & Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechism in the Common-prayer-B●oke Dogmatise) else we shall soon find a speedy dissolution both of church and State. To this Reason than I answer: First, that Gods written Law, not our Prelate's examples, no further th●● warranted by God's word, Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Ministers and people's obedience in matters of faith; Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9 2 Pet. 1. 19 And it together with the the Laws of the Realm, and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament, (of which fort there are none now extant) the only rule for them to follow in matters of Ceremony. Since therefore this bowing is neither commanded by God's Law, nor any Statute or Canon confirmed by Parliament, and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. expressly prohibits all Rites and Ceremonies but such as are prescribed by Parliament, in the Book of Common-prayer, (as this is not) the Bishop's practice therefore or Cathedral usage, are no good arguments to persuade the practice of it. Secondly, God forbid, that the Bishop's practice should be the rules of men's obedience, many of them living and doing things quite contrary to Christ's precepts in all things. Christ prohibits them both to be or called Gracious Lords, Mat. 20. 25. 26. L●ke 22. 25. 26. 1 Pet. 5. 1. 23. And they desire both to be Lords, and to be so styled of all men, and style themselves so too; He prohibits them all civil temporal Offices, jurisdiction and Dominion, s Bishop White his Title to his Treatise of the Sabbath, and Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit. 2. they engross all into their hands. He would have them be content only with one sword, Ephes. 6. 17. to wit, of the spirit, the word of God, and they in despite of him will not only challenge and possess, but use and abuse both. He commands them to be lowly and humble, Matth. 11. 29. Col. 3. 12. And they study nothing else but to be proud and lofty; He enjoins them to be pitiful and merciful, even as he is merciful, Col. 2. 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 31. 32. Luke 6. 36. And they show themselves altogether pitiless and cruel. He wils them to be * 1 Tim. 3. 2. to 9 Tit. 1. 5. to 11. Eph. 4 31. 32. 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. patient, and yet who more choleric and angry? to be meek and gentle, yet who more insolent and inhuman? To be ready to pardon and forgive; And yet who so espiteful, malicious or revengeful? To be holy in all manner of conversation even as he is holy; And yet who so profane or in heart, in life? So malignant against purity, holiness, and holy men as they? To be apt to teach, and yet who more unfit or unwilling to preach than they? To preach the word in season and out of season, and that every day; Vnde necesse est in singules, ut ita dicam dies sementum facere, ut ipsa saltem assiduitate doctrinae, sermonem auditorum animi retinere possint. S. Chrysestom: l. 6. de sacer: Tom. 5. Col. 471. Yet they will neither do it themselves, and silence all others who desire to do it; Having made almost a famine of God's Word, throughout out the Land, Amos 8. 11. He presoribes them; to used his flock, (Acts 20. 28. joh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Ezech. 36. 6. to 17. joh. 10. 1. etc. ja. 40. 1. 2.) and they starve them; To seek his wand'ring sheep, and they run from and look not after them; To be Pastors to them, yet who such thiefs and murderers, who not only fleece, but kill, slay, devour, and suck the very blood of their sheep? To comfort his people, and speak comfortably to his inheritance, yet who such causes of grief, vexation, oppression, tears, and anguish of heart unto them, as they? He commands them to be blameless, yet who more scandalous and blame-worthy? Not selfewilled selfewilled; Yet who so violont, wilful and head strong in all their undertake? Not soon angry, yet who more touchy or outrageous? No strikers; Yet who strike more than they, and that with both Swords, with which they lay on like mad men almost in every place? Not given to filthy lucre, yet who more gripping and covetous? Not given to wine, yet who love or follow it more than they? Sober; Yet who so Incivill? Just; Yet who unjust, oppressive, or treacherous both in word and deed. Temperaie; Yet who more immoderate in all kind of pomp and luxury? Ruling well their own houses; Yet what a Bucer Enarrat. in Psal. 92 houses or servants so unruly, disorderly, irreligious or profane as theirs? Men having a good report of all men; b Quod si Pontifices nolunt de se turpia narrari, aut nefaria, nihil ejusmodi faciant: aut cum fecerint, non putent caipsa ita latere, ut & sciri & posteris narrari nequeant. Papir. Massa: Yet who so ill reported of as they? Men holaing fast the faithful word, as they have been taught; Yet who such Apostates from the truth, and revolters from the established doctrine of the Church, as they? Men able and williug by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers; Yet who so unwilling (if not unable) to do it, as many of them? God forbid. then that their example should be our precedents. I read in our learned Bale (Scriptorum Brit. Cent. 9 c. 97. p. 756. See Bishop Whites Orthodox paragr. 12. p. 63.) in the life of john White Bishop of Winchester, whom he styles Antichristi Romani terrificus Minister, Principum illusor, animorum carnifex, duplex & periurus, hypocrita, qui rostris & unguibus in regno Angliae restituere conatur, omnes Antichristi Rom●ni tyranides, idololatrias, faetida, & impia dognita universa; That as he changed his religion like a Weathercock with the times, so he had this distich bestowed upon him for his pains, by john Parkhurst. Candidus es recte, nec candidus es, Rogitas cur? Nomine candidus es, Moribus niger es. And may we not now say the like of some of our Candid Prelates, who like the Polypus change their colour with the Climate, and can shift themselves out of one colour into another at their pleasure, especially Black & White; Being sometimes all white in there surplesles, anon all black in their gowns, at other times speckled black and white in their Rotchets, wearing their Shirtsleeves (as a * Mr. Badgers young daughter's speech to Bis● Laud who asked him: Why he wore his shirtsleeves upon the top of his clothes Child once ignorantly to●d a Bishop) over their gowne-sleeves. Those who can thus easily change their garments from white to black, etc. can as easily alter their religion; As some of their Predic●ssours have done. Bishop Pilkington in his Exposition upon Aggeus, chap. 1. verse 9 tells us of some, Bishops here in England in Queen Mary's days, (which some begin to magnify) who in one years' space confirmed the p●eaching of the Gospel of Christ, and pure Ministering of God's Sacraments, & the same men within the same year, with the same impudent mouths and blasphemous tongues brought in the Pope, set up Jdols, banished Christ and his holy Supper, appointed for all men that will to receive it together, took way his holy Gospel, Table and Sacraments, and placed by their Authority the Mass for one shaveling to eat up all, and bless the people with empty Chalice, and burned his Preachers to fill their bellies. I cannot say that some of our Bishops, have in as short a time done the like, or as much as this comes to; Only this I dare say of some of them: c See the Orthodox faith, etc. in answer to a Popish Treatise, entitled WHITE DIED BLACK Dr. of Divinity, Deane of Carlisle then, now Bishop of Ely, to compare his and his brother's Doctrines and P●sitions there defended, with these since mentioned in his last Treatise, and in the High Commission Court. Qui colour Albus erat, nunc est contrarius albo. That they have in a short time altered their colour for the worse, and (like the Albans of whom d Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 2. Herodotus: l. 2. Plinic writes) grown black in their old age, when as they were white in their youth, contrary to the custom of all other people. I shall therefore deny this reason to be of force, and conclude with john e Balaeus, Cent. 9 c. 97. Parkhurst verses to England: Anglia furcatis nimium ne fidito mitris, Dic rogo, num serus sum tibi praemonitur? The fifth Reason. The fifth reason, is that I find in the learned and reverend Prelate, Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham, in his Institution of the Sacrament. Edit. 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I read thus. The like difference may be discerned between your manner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only, & ours in bowing, as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table, as when there is, which is not to the Table of the Lord, but to the Lord of the Table, to testify the Communion of all the faithful Communicants there at, even as the people of God did, in adoring before the Ark, his footstool. Ps. 99 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As daniel's bowing at prayer in C●ald●a, looking towards, the temple at jerusalem, where the Temple of God's worship was, Dan. 6. 10. And as David would be known to have done, Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple. Which words again are repeated for failing. Lib. 7. cap. 9 Sect: 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER. That I can hardly believe, that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons' own, but a trick of Legerdemain, thrust in by some other, without his privity, with purpose to blemish this incomparable piece of his, and draw a scandal upon him. My Reasons are three. First, because his judgement & practise formerly to my knowledge, have been otherwise in this particular, and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of jesus; And not above three months before this second Edition published, ●e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly, wherein he declared his judgement both against Altars, and placing of Lords Tables Altarwise, and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them. Therefore I cannot believe his judgement and practice so soon altered, unless there be such infection in Bishop's Rotchets, as to make them all turne-coates, as it hath made most of them. Secondly, because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords, or of Bishop * Just like his bowing not to the name of jesus, but to the Sense; Serm. on Phil. 2. 9 10. 11. Andrew's strain, then his, as the invention, not to the Table, but to the Lord of the Table, etc. evidenceth. Thirdly, because it is a contradiction to what himself professedly maintains in other places against the Papists, and in the words immediately foregoing, as appears by these two particulars: First, the Bishop in the words immediately preceding this addition, writes thus: c Pag. 462 That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE, so that they might COMPASS IT ROUND: This he proves in the marge●t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited: By Coccius. Tom. 2. Tract. de Altar; Out of Athanasius in the life of Antony, who writes thus: Altar, Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM. By Chrysostom: l. 6. de Sacerdotio. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: where the Priests are said to stand in a circle about the Altar: By Dionysius Areopogita: Ecclesiast. Hierarch. c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI col●ocatur: CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti: By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo. 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta: Concluding thus. These testimonies verify the same assertion of Dr., Fulke against Gregory Morton, c. 17. The Table stood so, that men might stand ROUND. ABOUT IT. Then comes in this addition, which begins thus: All this notwithstanding, you are not to think that we do hereby to oppose the Appellation of Priest & Altar, or yet the new situation thereof in our Church as convenient, and for order more decent, etc. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himself and the Primtive Church, in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altarwise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient, and for order more decent, than the situation of them in the midst. A thing which the Bishop (who throughout his Book pleads only for Antiquity against Popish Novelty) would never do. Since in the very Table of his Booke●, ●he hath this Reference: It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it. And here by the way. I cannot but observe the desperate impudence and sottishness of the times wherein we live. Bishop jewel and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth days, proved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Choir or Chancle, so asmen might stand round about them. Bishop Morton here, in his learned Book, from the same authorities positive affirms the like, and that in both the authorized Editions of his Book. The first An. 1631. and the second Edition. Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelate's judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings, so oft and so newly printed, with public approbation, Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath, and a nameless Colier in his d Pag. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57 Coal from the Altar (two ridiculous idle Pamphlets) within one year after, even by public licence too. must be set up to affront these learned Bishops, together with the Bishop of Lincoln's Letter to the Vicar of Grantham, and all the writers of our Church in this (& other particulars too) that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Choir in the primitive Church; And that these authorities these grave Bishops cite to prove it, are impertinent, and no ways evidence that they contest for. Good God, what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time, in the same Church, by men of the same religion, and both by Authority! Certainly, the Licensers of these Books, and Prelates that give way to them, deserve to be made examples for it to posterity, for shaming both our Church & our Religion, and making us laughing stocks to all the world, by authorising such contradictions. & idle Romish Pamphlets. But to return to the point. 2ly. The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes: (p. 462.) That the greeks and Latins more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar than a Table: Which they would not have done, had Altar, carried in in it, the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to do in applying the name Altar to God's people and to a Christian man's faith and heart. And both before and after he shows: (l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464.) That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar, placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven, which he proves by Irenaeus: l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com: in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers. But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name, the having use and situation of Altars in our Church, and of Priests too; From which he is so far: e Pag. 361. 462. That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this manner: Your f Bellarm. l. 1. de Missac. 2. dist. 5. Cardinal his objection is this: That Priest, Altar & Sacrifice are Relatives, and have mutual unseperable dependence one of each other. So he, and that truly, etc. But what if we shall say of this point of Appellations, that it was not so from the beginning, here unto we claim but your own common confessions. Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly abstain, from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos, & Altar: So your Cardinal & Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Mass. Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers, who have sought a proof of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar, used by the Apostle Paul, Hebr. 13. But also, themselves, who from S. Luke, Acts. 13. (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) concluded a proper Sacrifice. As if the Apostles had both abstained, and not abstained from the words of Priest and Sacrifice. And again, your jesuit Lorinus; (In Acts. 14. 22. de Sacerdote. Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum, ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij & Idolorum, concedo.) The New Testament (saith he) abstained from the word Sacerdos, as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament. So he, wherefore this and the English word Priest, having a different relation, one to a sacrificing Minister, (which is proper to the Old Testament,) the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter, in the New Testrment, which is Senior, and hath no relation to a sacrificing function. It must follow, that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament, for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New, perform as fond and fruitless a labour, as the patching of old vestments with new pieces, whereby the rent is made worse. But the Apostles did indeed forbear such terms in their speeches concerning Christian worship, whereof these your forenamed Disputers can give you a reason; Lest that (say g Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa, c. 17. they) the jewish Priesthood being as yet in force, might seem by using jewish Terms to innovate jewish rit●s. Which is enough to show, that you are persuaded they abstained from the use of these words for some Reasons. Thus he and much more against Priests: And against Altars likewise he hath sundry passages: p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing, seems not to be his. Here again I cannot but admire, that these terms of Priests & Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denied by our writers, together with Altars & Sacrifices themselves so notably refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1●35. should the selfsame years by doting Shelford, Widows & Reeve, and this year by Dr. Pocklington, and the nameless Colier be publicly maintained pointblank against the Bishop; And that they by public authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a material Altar, which this Bishop out of Aqui●as, the Divines of Colen, Bella●mine himself and Est●us, proves, 〈◊〉 be meant of it, but only of Christ himself, or of the Altar of the Gross; p. 416. 417. I fear therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishop's Chaplains, who licenced these New Pamphlets which pointblank oppugn the Bishops' book; Or else by some of these New Writers or their Friends. These Reasons (I say) induce me to believe, that this is not the Bishop's passage. But that which doth must prevail with me is this, * Fox Acts & Monuments. p. 1781. the sottishness of the difference, reason and proofs therein alleged, which savours neither of his judgement, learning, nor acurenes; All which I shall now examine. 1. First, the party here puts a difference between Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table, and Papists, which (saith he) is three fold: First, in the cause or reason of this bowing: Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it: Therefore by his own confession they bow not to or towards the Altar, out of any relation to, or occasion drawn from the Altar; Though Cardinal Pools Visitors in Cambridge enjoined the Scholars to bow to the ALTAR, as well as to the Hostia in Queen Mary's days. But Protestants bow towards the Table, to testify the Communion of all the fait● full communicants. thereout. Secondly, in the Object, papists bow to the Eucharist, Protestants to the Lord of the Table, not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly, in the time, Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it; Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon. The second difference, makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one. For they bow not to the Eucharist, or consecrated bread and wine; (See Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament, l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.) But as they apprehend and, believe it to be the very body & blood of Christ, ye● Christ himself both God and man: And so to him which these Protestants terms, the Lord of the Tabl●; Therefore the object of their bowing (at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine) is both one; And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions. The first and l●st liversity makes Protestant's worse then Papists, and that in these respects. 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partial, if not total cause of their bowing to or towards it. Wi●nes the 3. first reasons alleged for this Ceremony, all drawn from the Table, and M. Shelfords distinction, (See his Sermon of the Church p. 79.) that it is not terminativum cultus, sed MOTIVUM. But, the Papists have so much piety and religion in them, as neither to make it one or other, bowing towards it, ONLY to adore the Eucharist. Secondly, the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Ch●ist himself (as they believe) is really present on it; At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoined to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament. A clear evidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by, ● or done unto the Altar. But our Novellers (out stripping the Papists) how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it; When they both know and believe that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances; And when ●s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoin them so to do. (A plain evidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table, but to the Table and Altar itself;) Therefore their bowing is far worse, more unreasonable & absurd than the Papists in these two respects. 3ly. The Papists bow thus (Bishop Morton Ibid.) only to adore their breaden God, terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ: But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration, bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table: And why so? What to worship or honour him thereby No such matter; But to testify the Communion of all the faithful Communicants at the Table; Such a piece of new divinity, as I never read the like, except in some Popish Mass books, to wit, Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum, their Lady's Psalter, Primer, etc. which teach their Proselytes, to pray to God to move the Saints to pray to him for them. For who ever read of any immediate bowing and adoration to God, to testify only a communion among men? A bowing to the Lord of the Table, not to terminate itself in him, but by and the through him, to signify the Communion of all faithful Communicants at the Table? What is this but to make Christ and his worship a stalking horse to our brainsick fantasies? to adore them by and through Christ? And to erect a kind of new worshipping of him, not terminated in him, but given to him for some end, that is, out of him and beyond him. In this regard therefore this bowing is far more * Bishop Morton l. throughout. intolerable than the Papists: Theirs being at the most, a relative worship of God by or through the Hostia and our Novellers' adoration towards the Table, and their own fantasies in and through God himself, as this reason manifests, which I shall next examine. And here, first I shall demand, in what Scripture or author this reason of bowing to or towards the Lord's Table, is to be found, except in this: And what idle head was the first inventour thereof? Certainly, if there be any new thing under the Sun, (Eccles. 1. 9 10.) or any thing written of late that were never heard or thought off before, this reason is it. Secondly, I shall demand, where God requires this Ceremony in Scripture for any such end as this? And whether he will not be angry with us, for giving him such a worship as is neither required by him, nor terminated in him. Thirdly, what authority any man hath to institute any such adoration or Ceremony upon his own conceit, without ask either God or the King leave to do it? Fourthly, what thing there is in this our bowing to the Lord of the Table, towards the Table, that can lively and significanly represent 〈◊〉 to God or men the Communion of the faithful Communicants thereat? The rather, because this is no joint act of all the whole congregation together, but of some particulars only, and that severally by themselves. F●f●ly, how our bowing when there is no communion celebrated, can testify that, which is only really and truly signified by the Communion itself? Sixtly, whether it be not an high presumption in man, to dare of his own head to institue a Ceremony or external gesture, to signify that, which he hath long before particularly ordered to be signified by a Sacrament of his own institution? (l. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.) Seeing it imports a weakness & insufficiency in the Sacrament instituted by God himself, (and that in bread where many comes, & wine where many grapes are united together) to signify our Communion: l. Cor. 10. 16. 17. Seventhly, whether this bowing only towards the Table be not one great step towards the adoring of the Eucharist on the Table; And whether these who yield to the one, will not easily be drawn to proceed on to the other? And so safest to avoid the first: for fear of being once taken with the second? which can hardly creep in among us if we withstand the first. Eightly, whether God being omniscient, and knowing what was firmest to advance his glory, reverence, worship and fear, knew not of these reasons produced by them for bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables, when the Scriptures were penned? If not, than he is not omniscient, and so not God. If he knew of them then, why did he not record them in Scripture, or prescribe this bowing, as necessary upon these new-coined reasons? If he knew them, and yet thought them not sufficient upon which to require or prescribe any such worship or Ceremony, and therefore passed them both over in silence, why should we dust and ashes presume to give God a worship, upon such weak principles as were not prevalent enough to move him to require it at our hands, or to cause Christ himself or his Apostles to practise it for our imitation? Wherefore let us ●ot make ourselves wiser than God, or more careful of his adoration then himself hath been, for fear the reward of all our pragmatical diligence in this nature, be but that of these who presume to add to the written word of God, (D●utr. 4. 2. Prov. 30. 6. Rev. 22. 18.) or at least that of the prophet, (Isay, 1. 11. 12.) Who hath required these things at your hands? I come now in the last place to examine the proofs of Scripture cited for this Ceremony, which being the same I have formerly answered, and all quoted to this purpose by doting Shelford (See hi● Serm. of God's house, p. 18. 19 20.) I shall pass them by; Only affirming thus much, that neither of these Scriptures warrant the reason here alleged for this bowing, or end for which they are cited; For what sense are there in these arguments: The people of God worshipped before the Ark, Daniel prayed towards the Temple, and David to; Therefore Christians ought to bow, not to the Table of the Lord, but the Lord of the Table, to testify the Communion of all the Communicants there at? This Logic and Divinity better beseems a collier then a Scholar, a bruit beast then a reverend Prelate; ●●erefore certainly none of his, but some man's who desired to Father this spurious frenticke passage upon him, to gain it cred● & applause by his deserved fame, and to cast a scandal & blemish on this his worthy work. If therefore it be none of his conception, I hope he will now no longer Father it; If his in truth, (which few Scholars dare or can believe) I hope he will now correct it, both for his own honour and the good of others, the very grossest oversight of profound Scholars, being apt to pas●e current with Novices, and some times with men of gravity and judgemen, for want of examination or overweening of the party's worth; As appears by B●shop Andrews Sermon on Phil. 2. 9 10. 11. Whose extravagant reasons and false quotations, to prove the bowing at the name of jesus a duty of that text, against the unanimous reasons of all Fathers, and expositors before him, but the Rhemists, Sorbenists, & 2 or 3 Jesuits (who never made this bowing a duty of the text, or a thing necessarily thence enforced;) are so approved, that now all ou● Pulpits, Schools, & late printed * Shelford, Reeve Rives, Pocklington, Dr. R●ad, Browne, Widows, adam's, Wren, Page, and I know not how many more, who bring it in by head & shoulders into their Sermons and writings. Pamphlets ●ing of nothing else but this his new-invented duty, & ridiculous childish reasons for to prove it, which well examined prove so irrational and unworthy such a deepe-learned Scholar, that his greatest admirours in other things would blush at them, & disclaim him for ever in them; As the Answer to that Sermon by way of Quaeres, will in part discover to such as shall peruse it. Having thus examined the Authorities and Reasons produced for this new bowing to Altars and Lords-Tables. I now proceed to the next point of the Question propounded; Whether it be a divine adoration, or only a civil worship? A divine adoration certainly it is; Being not done to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table, paralleled with worshipping towards God's Temple, worshipping at his footstool, daniel's prayer, etc. And so expressly determined by Mr. Shelford; (See the Serm: of God's house, p. 18. 19 20.) The forecited passage fathered on Bishop Morton, * In his devotions, the Prayer, when we are prostrate before the Altar. Mr. Cousins, Mr. Widows, Edward Reeve, and Dr. Duncombe in his Determination, & Dr. Pocklington Suuday no Sabhath, p. 50. C●ill worship it cannot be, because terminated they say in God, done in Gods own house and presence, not in any civil but religious respect; Done towards the Altar or Table, not as civil, but as sacred and religions things, to which no civil worship at all is d●e●● in any civil respect. If then it be a divine worship, as they hold i●, it must be either a sincere and genuine worship, or Superstitious: Not the former. First, because not instituted or prescribed by God in his word, no text so much as intimating, much less enjoining it, nor any one example in the New Testament 〈◊〉 it. Secondly, because never practised by the patriarchs or Prophets in the Old Testament, who never thus bowed to or towards Altars: nor by Christ or his Ap●stes in the new, who never thus inclined their knees or bodies to or towards Lords-Tables, nor yet, for aught we find, to God himself, unless it were in prayer only, Mat. 26. 39 Acts 20. 36. c. 21. 5. Ephes. 3. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. A thing worthy noting, taking off all hare-adoration only foe the body, not accompanied with prayer or some so other religious duty. Thirdly, Altars themselves under the Gospel, abolished by Christ's death, are not of divine institution, but contrary to it; Therefore the bowing towards, them, to honour God or worship Christ thereby, is superstitious & unlawful. Fourthly, had it been a worship of divine institution, its probable, that the Saints of God in the Apostles days, the primitive Church, and all succeeding ages would both have conscionably and constantly used it; And either fore-commaunded or enforced the observation thereof. But this they have not done. Therefore it is not of divine institution. Fi●tly, no divine worship due to God or required by him, is arbitrary to be done or not done at man's election; Neither can it be omitted without mortal sin; But this is arbitrary at man's election, and may be omitted without mortal sin, as the stoutest Champions thereof will and must onselfe; Since no b Rom. 4. 15. 1. Law of God or man prescribes it as necessary; Therefore it is no divine worship. Sxitly, no relative worship of God, john 3. 4. in, through, or by reason of any other Creature is of divine institution, there being no pa●t ●ne of any such worship in Scripture. This the Homily against the Peril of Idolatry plentifully proves. (See B●shop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament, l. 7. throughout; especially c. 8. Sect. 1. p. 547. 548.) But this (and so the bowing at the naming of jesus) is a relative, not an immediate worship. Therefore not truly divine. Seventhly, that which the most pious Christians, the most judicious & zealous Protestants in their writings and practice have censured & declined as evil & superstitious; And being only by the most igorant, blind, superstitious and Popish Persons most practised and contested for, that certainly is not any divine institution, nor any sincere adoration approved by God: But this bowing is such, as the premises, & experience witness; Therefore not of divine institution, or any sincere adoration approved by God. Eightly, that whose chief, Patrons are enforced to fly to mere forged authorities, and absurd ridiculous reasons of their own late invention, to justify and maintain it, that certainly is not truly divine. Such is this bowing to and towards Altars and Lords-Tables; As the premises testify. Therefore not divine. And so by consequence a mere * See Bish; Mort: Institution of the Sacrament, l. 8. c. 1. p. 557. Col. 2. 18. superstitious will-worship of man's invention, which God neither, approves of nor allows, Isay. 1. 11. 12. And being not of faith it must be sin, Rom. 14. 23. All which I desire our new Masters of Ceremonies to consider now at last, who perchance have not yet so much as ruminated on this point, but taken up this practice (as most men do new fashions) without any examination either of its lawfulness, decency, or conveniency; Contrary to the Apostles rule who adviseth us, (1. Thes. 5. 21. 22.) to prove all things, and to hold fast only that which is good; Abstaining from all appearance of evil; With this bowing certainly hath: First, because it is a new upstart innovation, prescribed by by no Law of God or man. Secondly, because it tends to erect, countenance and usher in a relative worship of God, in, by and through the Creature. Thirdly, because it seems to imply an actual transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christ's very body, and tends to usher in this doctrine, together with an adoration of the Hostia; and reservation of it on the Altar or Table in a Pix, the main ends for which it seems and is now taken up. For as kneeling at the Sacrament, first ushered in adoration of the Sacrament, so this bowing to the Table or Altar, must revive it, the true end for which it is now ●rged. Fourthly, because it hardens Papists in their Idolatrous superstition of adoring the Eucharist, and bowing to Crucifixes, Images, Crosses, condemned by us as most gross Idolatry. See the Homily of the Peril of Idolatry, Bishop Morton his 7. Book of the Institution of the Sacrament. Fiftly, because it gives general offence and scandal to most, especially those who are pious and judicious. Sixtly, because it tends to the erection of Altars, Priests and Sacrifices formerly abandoned, and gives Papists occasion not only in words but in writing also to vaunt and hope, that we are now apostatising and revolting unto Rome again. Seventhly, because it advenceth the Table and Altar above the Font, Pulpit, Bible, Chalice, Paten, yea and the consecrated bread and wine, to neither of which any such genuflexion is given. Eightly, because there is appearance of superstition and Idolatry in it, which is or may be committed by it, as probably as of the Papists adoring of the Eucharist; Upon these grounds therefore, all Christians should renounce it. * Bishop Morton, l. 7. through out, and p. 541. 542. 445. I come now to the last clause of the Question to inquire how this bowing to, a Of the Peril of Idolatry. Bishop Mortons' Institution of the Sacrament. l. 7. towards or before the Altar or Table differs either from the Pagans or Papists practise of bowing to or towards Images, Altars, Crucifixes, Crosses & the like, which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers expressly define to be Idolatry? For the Pagan Gentiles, it is evident, that they bowed to or towards their Altars, over or under which the Images or Statues of their Idol-Gods, which they worshipped towards the Altars stood, as the Papists and we have now our Crucifixes standing on or over our Altars either in Arras, Glass or Mettle, or in some Curious common Prayer-book standing on our Altars, only for a dumb show, adorned with two or three silver Crucifixes (in stead of Bosses) on the cover, in Imitation of these Pagans. That this of the Pagans is no fable, is evident first by Virgil. b Aeneid. l. 4. p. 171. 172. Aut ante or a Deum pingues spaciatur ad Aras, etc. Dicitur ante Aras media inter vumina divum, Multa jovem manibus supplex or ass supinis. c Aeneid. l. 5. p. 213. jamque dies epulata novem gens omnis & Aris FACTUS HONOS, etc. d Aeneid. l. 8. p. 279. Hanc Aram luco statuit quae maxima semper Dicetur nobis, & erit quae maxima semper, etc. Secondly, by, e De Arctitectura, l. 4. c. 5 8. Dr. Raynolds d●ldololat. Romanae Ecclesiae. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. p. 432. Vitruvius, who writing of the structure of Pagan Temples saith: That the Cells wherein the Images, of the Idol-Gods were placed, were built at the East end of the Temple, and that their faces looked westward; But the Altars ad Orientem versus towards the East (wher● 〈◊〉 Novellers situate them:) ut qui 〈◊〉 ad A●am 〈◊〉 la●es, out sacrificia facientes, spectent ad simulacrum sublimius A a s●um: That so those who came to the Altar to Offer or Sacrifice, might look toward the Image placed over the Altar ipsaque simulachra videantur exorien●●a contueri supplicantes & saecrificantes. And might seem to be●●●d the Images there set up both when they prayed and sacrificed. Thirdly, by Clemens, Alex●nd●inus, who writes: That the most ancient. Temples looked towards the West; Vt qui vultu Imaginis tuents stabant ad Orientem verterentur; That so those who stood with their faces towards their Images, might be turned toward the East, when they worshipped: Which that of * Ezech. 8. 16. Ezechi●l concerning the Idolaters of his age, well explains. And he brought me into the inner-Court of the Lords-house, and behold at the door of the Temple of the Lord between the porch and the ALTAR were about 25 men with their books toward the Temple of the Lord, and THEIR FACES TOWARD THE EAST, and they worshipped the Sun TOWARDS THE EAST. Hence we may clearly discern; Whence this custom of placing Altars, worshipping, praying & bowing towards the East (now much contended f●r) had its original, even from the Heathen Jdolaters worshipping the using Sun, and placing their Images and Altars at the East end of their Temples, towards which they bowed and looked when they prayed or sacrificed. De Origine Al●●rium. Whence Hospinian writes expressly: At this day most Altars among the Papists (mark it) are placed in prima Templorum parte, ET VERSUS ORIENTEM SPECTANT, in the forefront of their Churches, and look toward THE EAST; Quod etiam AB ETHNICIS SUMPSERUNT, which they likewise took from the Et●●uickes. For many of the Heathen adored the Sun for a God, whence in their public sacrifices they turned their faces toward th●rising Sun, etc. Wherefore the Lordin his Law commanded, that the Sanctum Sanctorum, in which the mercy-seat was placed, should stand not toward the East, but toward the West, lest the Israelites should seem to worship him after the manner of the Ethnics. Which I wish * See his visitation-Articles. Bishop Wren and other who will have the Readers Pew & all other seats so placed, that the Minister and people when they pray, may all look Eastward towards the Altar or Lords-Table (whereas the Rubric in the Common-prayer forecited enjoins the Minister to turn his face towards the people) would now at last consider: To avoid which practice the primitive Christians, (as he there proves at large out of the Authorities quoted by Bishop jewel, (yea and by Bishop jewel himself, whom he recites with honour and approbation) placed their Altars and Lords-Tables in the Midst of their Churches or Quires; Out of which our Novellers & collier would now remove them to imitate the Papists, and these Idolatrous Ethnics. Fourthly, this is apparent by Prudentius: jam si sub Aris ad sigillorum ped●● jaceatis, infra sectilem quercum siti, Quid esse vobis aestimem proiectitius? Fif●ly, g Epist. 49 Quaest 3. Tom. 2. p. 223. by S. Augustine, who writes, that the Pagan Idols were placed over their Altars honorabili sublimitate, in an honourable sublimity, ut a praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, that they may be minded, or looked upon by those that prayed or Sacrificed. Sixtly, by Horace (in an Image) h Epist. l. 2. Epist. 1. p. 276. See juvenal. Satyr. 12. 13. p. 115. 119. 121. Praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores I●r andasque tuum per nomen ponimus Aras. Seventhly, by Ovid i Fostorum l. 5. p. 88 Nos quoque tangit honos festis gaudemus & Aris. Turbaque caelestis ambitiosa sumus. Eightly, by the express testimony of the Scriptures, 2. Chron. 34. 3. 4. In the twelfth year josiab began to purge judah and jerusalem from the high places, and the groves and the carved Images, and the molten Images; And they broke down THE ALTARS of Baalim, and the IMAGES THAT WERE ON HIGH ABOVE THEM, or over them. Hence we find Altars and Jmages of the Heathenish & jewish Idolaters ever coupled together for the most part in Scripture both in point of erection and demolition, as Exod. 34. 13. Ye shall destroy their Altars and break down their Images, standing over or about them: So Deutr. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. there are the same words: 2 Kings 11. 18. And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal: And broke it down, his Altars and Images broke they in pieces, 2 Chron. 14. 2. And he took away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places, and broke down the Jmages, c. 33. 15. And he took away the strange Gods, and the Idol out of the house of the Lord, and all the Altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord, and cast them out of the City, Isay. 17. 7. 1. In that day shall a man look to his maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the holy one of Israel: And he shall not look to the Altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made, either the groves or the Images. Hose● 10. 1. 2. According to the multitude of the fruit he hath increased the Altars, according to the goodness of the land they have made goodly Images. He shall break down their Altars, he shall spoil their Images. So we read that Ahab reared up an Altar for Baal in the house of Baal, 1 Kings, 16. 32. And an Image of Baal which ●●horam put away: 2. Kings 3. 2. From all which texts, compared with 2 Chron. 34. 3. 4. it is apparent, that Pagan and Jewish Idolaters had the Images and Statues of their Jdols standing above or over their Altars, towards which they looked and bowed their bodies and kne●s both when they sacrificed and prayed: As is evident by Isay. 17. 7. 8. Exod. 20. 4. 5. c. 23. 24. Levit. 26. 1. Numb. 25. 2. josh. 23. 7. 16. judg. 2. 17. 19 1 Kings 19 18. 2 Kings 5. 18. c. 17. 35. 2 Chron. 25. 14. Isay. 2. 9 Rom. 11. 4. This our famous Dr. Reynolds testifieth and proves at large● De Romanae Ecclesiae Idelolatriae, l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. proving likewise that the Altars at Athens dedicated to the unknowen God had an Image over it, Acts. 17. which he manifests from. v. 16. 23. 24. 25. 29. 1. Which being a clear undeniable truth; I would first know what difference at all there is, between those Idolatrous Pagans, Papists, and our late Innovatours? (See Francis de Croy his threefold Conformity, part. 1. and Ormered his Pagano-Papismus.) These Ethnics had Altars: So have the Papists and wee: They had the Images of the Idols, they worshipped in their Temples, and these standing in the East end of their Temples above and over their Altars; And we have the Image of our Saviour on the Cross (which our Homilies hold unlawful to be made, much more unlawful to be set up in Churches) standing either upon our Altars, or above them, in Tapestry, or Glass-windows, or both, just as have the Papists. They when they worshipped, prayed or Sacrificed to their Idol-Gods, bowed and turned their faces towards their Altars and Images; So do the Papists towards their Altars and Crucifixes, and so do we: Where then lies the difference? If they reply, that the Pagans' terminated their worship only in their Altars and Images, adored the Altars and Images themselves, not God in, by, or through them. Our own Homilies will take away this evasion both of the Papists and our Novellers, (See the Peril of Idolatry, part. 3. p. 50.) where we read thus. Furthermore in that they say, they do not worship their Images (or Altars) as the Gentiles did their Idols (or Altars) but God and the Saints whom the Images (& Altars) do represent, and therefore that their bowings before Images (& Altars) be not like the Idolatry of the Gentiles before their Idols (& Altars:) S. Augustine, Lactantius and Clemens do prove evidently, that by this there answer they be all ONE with the Gentiles Idolaters: The Gentiles (saith S: Augustine. in Psal. 135.) which seem to be of the purer religion, say: We worship not the Images, but by the corporal Image, we do be hold the Signs of the things we ought to worship. And Lactantius saith: (Instit. l. 2. c. 2, 3.) We fear not the Images, but them after whose likeness the Images be made, and to whose name they be consecrated. And Clement saith, that Serpent the devil uttereth these words by the mouth of certain men; We to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images: Which surely is most false. See how in using the same excuses which the Gentiles Idolaters pretended, they show themselves to join with them in Idolatry. For notwithstanding this excuse S. Augustine, Clemens & Lactantius prove them Ido-Iaters. Thus the k Ouid. Fastorum. l. 4. Macrobius Saturn. l. 1. c. 7. juvenal: satire. 12. Virgil. Aeneid. l. 8. p. 230. l. 11. p: 353. Copa. p. 563. Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 16. c. 37. Su●tonij, Caligula. Sect. 13. Tatianus Orat. adv. Graecoes. Baruch. 6. 10. Homilies; And Dr. Reynolds, De Idolat. Rom. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 86. etc. Dr. john White his way to the Church: Sect. 51. n. 7. 8. p. 207. 208. Bishop jewel, Bishop Alley, Bishop Abbot, Bishop Usher, Dr. Fulke, Dr. Wille, Dr. Field, and all other of learned writers, in their Tracts concernng Images and their Adoration. out of these and other Fathers. Where then is the difference between Pagans, Papists, and our late Novellers in these particulars? (To which I may add the Tapors on our Altars, used by the Pagans, and condemned by our l Part. ●. p 50. 51. 75. Par●. 1. p. 38. Francis 〈◊〉 Croy his first Conformity, c. 25 Orm●rod. Pag●. no-papismus semb. 37. 123. 124. 125. Homilies and Writers, as Heathenish and Superstitious;) Certainly I can yet find none. If they reply; That they can only worship before the Altar, Table and Crucifix, but do not worship the Altar, Table or Crucifix itself, as the Pagans and Papists did & do. I answer: That as bowing, kneeling, and worshipping before God; Is the same in Scripture phrase, with bowing, kneeling, praying to, and worshipping God himself: witness, Deut. 26. 10. 1 Sam. 1. 12. 15. 19 2 Chron. 20. 18. Psal. 2. 27. Ps. 72. 9 Ps. 86. 9 Ps 95. 6. Ps. 96. 9 15. Ps. 98. 6. 9 Isay. 6. 23. Dan. 6. 10. 11. 26. Mich. 6. 6. Rev. 3. 9 c. 4. 10. 5. 8. c. 7. 10. c. 15. 4. compared with Isay. 45. 23. c. 49. 23. c 60. 1●. Rom. 14. 1●. Hebr. 11. 21. Gen: 24. 26. 4. c. 47. 31. Exod. 4. 31. c. 12. 27. c. 34. 8. 1 Chron. 29. 10. 2. Chron. 7. 3. c. 29, 29, 30. Neh: 8, 6. Ps. 72. 9 with other texts. And as bowing, kneeling and falling down before men, is all one with bowing, kneeling and falling down to men; Gen: 49, 8. 1 Sam: 25, 23. 2 Sam: 14, 33 c. 24, 20. 1 Kings 1. 16. 23. 2 Kings 2. 15. Prov: 14. 9 paralleled with Gen: 27. 29. Exod: 11. 8. 1 Kings 2. 9 1 Chron: 21. 21. So bowing, kneeling, worshipping, or falling down before or towards Images or Altar, the very same in Scripture language & account, wit● bowing, kneeling, worshipping, or falling down to Images, or Altars, 2 Charon. 25. 14. Isay. 44. 15. 17. 19 (which junius renders, Procumbit CORAM EO:) Dan: 3. 3. 5, 6. Luke 4, 71. If thou therefore wilt fall down or worship BEFORE me, all those shall be thine; Compared with Exod: 20, 5. Levit. 26. 1. Matth. 4. 9 This is the resolution of our Homilies, p. 20. and 44. to 75. of William Wraghton in his Rescuer of the Romish Fox (where this is excellently cleared) and generally of all our Writers against Images, and, m See Bishop Morton Institution of the Sacrament, l. 7. and Dr. Reinolds de Idolot. Eccles. Rom. Adoration of the Eucharist, the thing now clearly a● med at in this Ceremony, as Dr. Heylyn in his late History of the Sabbath intimateth, if not in the Coal too. This Cloak therefore is to short to cover their nakedness, neither will it serve the turn. If they say, they have no eye at all at the Altar in this their bowing, nor yet at the Crucifix over it; And that neither of these are the termina●iōs, or total or particular object of their bowing towards them; All which they must affirm and make good to acquit themselves from relative worship and Idolatry. I answer; That this is but a mere forgery and pretext. For first, Shelford in his Authorized Book (Page 19) faith; That the Altar or Table is motivum cultus; The moving cause of this their worship & ●doration towards it; Therefore certainly it hath some Influence into it, and some share in it. Secondly, as it is the object that stirs up this worship (for were n See the Homily against the Per●ll of ●d latrie, part. 3. which argues thus on case of Images. there no Altar or Table, ●here would not be any such bowing to to or towards the place where it stands, a plain evidence that it is both the original cause, if not the object of this worship,) so it is the only visible object to which it is directed, in which it is terminated, their eye, mind, and bodily incuruation being all leveled at it alone; Else why should they not as well bow toward the Font, Pulpit, or any other part of the Church indifferently, but to and towards it alone; God being everywhere alike present, (as Honorius Augustodunensis formerly shows,) and no more confined to the Altar or Table, then to any other part of the Church. Thirdly, it is not terminated objectively in God or Christ, because done to them, only to 〈◊〉 the Communion of all the faithful Communicants at the Table or Altar to which we bow, as the Passages fatl●●red on Bishop Morton (Page 403.) witnesseth: Therefore terminated only in the Table or Altar. Fourthly, all the reasons produced to appropriate this bowing to or towards the Altar and Table, & to justify the lawfulness thereof, are only drawn from the Altar itself. The reasons therefore of its use and lawfulness being drawn only from the Altar and Table; This bowing without question must have relation to them, as its Object & Termination. Fiftly, the situation of the Tables Altarwise, and elevating and raising the ground in some places higher than before, the gracing of it with Crucifixes, Altarclothes, Arras hangings, Candlesticks, Basins, Cushions and other Massing furniture, the better to induce men to adore and bow unto it, is a strong argument in my judgement, that they bow directly to it, making it the immediate object of their bowing, and worship not God, whose presence they now confine to the Altar, and never adore in this manner but in, by, through, on or towards the Altar or Table. Sixtly, the bowing to it when there is no Sacrament at all on it, nor cause to deem God specially present at or on it, (See Bishop Mort on, p. 463.) is an invincible argument, that they do i● to the Table or Altar, and not simply towards it. And to put this out of further doubt. 1. First, I have heard many of them confess, that they do bow unto the Altar. 2. Secondly, I have heard them exhort and persuade others to bow to it. 3. Thirdly, I have heard them preach for bowing not towards but To the Altar and Table; And few Sermons have there been of late times either at Court, Paul's Cross, or our University Churches, wherein there have not been some Passage either to justify, press, excuse, or persuade the bowing To Altars & Lords-Tables. If any man think this a slander, which thousands can witness, then hear in the last place Books printed by Authority, confessing it in direct terms. Giles Widows in his Lawless kneelesse Schismatical Puritan, p. 89. printed at Oxford by Licence An: 1632. And that Popeling Thomas Browne in his Sermon at S. Mary's, Oxford 1634. plead not only for Altars and bowing towards them, but for bowing AT & TO them: So that by the judgement of Oxford-Scriblers and Licensers; This bowing is to the Table & Altar. Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5. Treatises printed by Licence 〈◊〉 Cambridge (to his eternal infamy) p. 17. 18. 19 20. though in words he minseth the matter; That he would not have them give divine worship to god's Table, but to worship God towards it; Yet he confesseth, that the Altar is motivum cultus, and bids us direct our aspect TO it, and bow our bodies towards it; And makes it at least a partial object of this genuflection. Edward Reeve in his Exposition on the Catechism in the common-prayer-book is downright, for removing Tables Altarwise, and bowing TO them. If these crack-braind writers have not weight enough; Then hear one since them all, in stead of all. Dr. john Pocklington, a greet learned Dr. of Divinity, late Precedent of a College in Cambridge, Chaplain to a great Bishop, and that in a Visitation-Sermon (the most profane and scurrilous ever yet printed, if not preached) entitled Sunday no Sabbath; Licenced by that Apostate William Bray, Chaplain to the now Archbishop of Canterbury (a great zealot and Precisian, heretofore an earnest preacher against Altars and profane Sabbath-breakers whiles a Lecturer) March. 15. 1635 and twice printed in the year of our Lord 1636. who as in his first Edition, p. 48. seems to infer; That the Sacrament can not be consecrated without an Altar; So p. 50. he concludes his Sermon thus: And if we do not only bend or bow our body TO his blessed Board, or HOLY ALTAR (so he oft times calls it) but fall flat on our faces so soon as ever we approach in sight thereof, what Patriarch, Apostle; blessed Martyr, holy or learned Father would condemn us for it? or rather would not be delighted to see their 〈◊〉 so honoured, and their devotion so reverently imitated, and so good care taken to have it continued in the Lord's house, on the Lordsday, by the Lords Saints, unto the Lords coming again. This bowing therefore being not only towards, but TO the Table, (which is made at least the partial Termination & Object of it, if not the total or principal) how it differs from the Pagans or Papists relative worship of Idols, Images, Pictures, Altars, or how it can be excused from impiety and most gross idolatry (as bad as that of the ●aplanders who worship a red clout upon a stick, to use the comparison of the I●suite Coster) I cannot possibl●e discern. * Enchiridion: De Sacraem. Eucharistiae, c 8: ●. Decimo●Bis: Morton Institution of the Sacrament, l 7. c. 8. Sect. 2 p. 549. And that it is the same in all respects with the Papists derived from them, set up to reduce us back to Rome, and harden Papists in their idolatry, give me leave to relate a late story to you. On * An. 1636 Monday, Thursday last, some Citizens of London of good quality went with other of their friends to Whitehall, to see the Ceremonies of the Monday and washing of the poor men's feet: Which when they had beheld some of the company desired to see his Majesty's Chapel at Whitehall: They did so; And in the Chapel found one of the Queen's women of their acquaintance at her prayers before the Crucifix: Who seeing them drawing ●eer her, left off her devotions, and came & saluted them. W●●●s they were viewing the Chapel and talking together, in comes a Gentleman, a Papist, and makes a low Congee to the ground almost, and after that a second, the one to the M●ar● the other to the Crucifix, and so departs. Whereupon one of the Company spoke thus to the Popish Gentlewoman 〈◊〉 Lord will you never see and give over your most gross Idolatry of worshipping Images, stocks and stones; With other words to like purpose, The Popish Gentlewoman defended this practice the be●● she could and whiles they were discoursing about it in one side of the Chapel in came Dr. Browne of S. Faiths, then newly made Dea●e of Hereford; and as soon as ever he entered in at the Chapel door, he bowed 3. several times together down to the ground to the High Altar, on which he fi●●d his eyes; After which coming up into the midst of the Chapel he fixeth his eyes upon the Crucifix, and boweth down to the ground to it: Which they all beholding & wondering at; Law you now (quoth the Popish Gentlewoman, to the Citizen who discoursed with her) this is done of your own men, a great Dr. and one of his Majesties own Chaplains; See you how he bowed to the Altar and Crucifix, far lower and oftener than the Popish Gentleman did; And can you blame that in us which your own Doctors do? I tell you, you must and will all come to this ere long. In truth replied the Citizen, you have Nonplussed me, I can not tell what to say, I never thought to have seen Dr. Browne do such an Act as this. By this time the Dr. was come hard by them, and most of them being his familiar acquaintance, one of them steps to him, and saith O, Mr. Dr. we little thought to have met, you here. The Dr. not seeing them before, and knowing that they observed this his bowing, like one deprehended in the very act of spiritual adultery, wa●ed as pale as ashes, and was in such a perplexity for the present, as if he would have fallen down dead in the place, having not a word to reply; Which they per●● lying, 〈◊〉 into some other discourse, that he might recollect his spirit. This I shortly after received by accident from the parties thee 〈◊〉 eye-witnesses of the fact, being people of no mean 〈…〉 it to diverse. What then may we conclude from this, 〈◊〉 that we are now in this particular more Idolatrous and Popish than the Papists themselves, that we have many a Papist mas●ed under● Protestant's hood, who are not ashamed to be Papists, but only that they are so soon and suddenly discovered to be such at unawares, and that it is high time for his most Excellent, Majesty our most Gracious Sovereign Lord King Charles, Defender of our faith and Religion, with all his faithful Officers and Subjects to look about them; To prevent these Romish Innovations, Rel●pses and gross, Back slidings to Paperie in time, (expressly prohibited by his Majesty, both in his royal Declaration before the 39 Article, and concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament, p. 21. 22. 42.) When as his own advanced Chaplains (and I would he had no more such of them but this one) are grown such Popelings, as to commit such notorious Idolatry in his own royal Court and Chapple, to the encouraging and confirming of Papists in their most gross superstition and Idolatry, and grieving of the Souls of all his truehearted loyal Subjects, whose love will prove his strongest guard against all those treacherous Romish janissaries jesuits & Assinates, whose faith is faction, whose very religion is rebellion; whose practice the murdering of men's souls and bodies, especially of Christian Princes, as many of our Writers, and the Book for the 5. of November, (miserable gelded and corrupted in this very particular in the last impression, 1635. it were worth the enquiring by whom and whose authority, to discover a new n●st of Traitors, at leastwise to our religion, if not our King and State:) at large relate. See Mr. William Tyndall his Practice of Popish Prelates, Obedience of a Christia●man. Dr. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry the 8. Henry Stalbridge his exhortatiory Epistle, Dr. john White his Defence of the. Way, c. 6. 9 10. 11. Since than there is now no material solid justifiable difference at all between the Pagans, Papists, and our Romanizing Novellers bowing to Altars, Images, Crucifixes & Lords-Tables, as the premises witness, needs must we now not only pass lentence against it, but abandon and abhor it, as most gro●●e idolatry; Yea as that which no doubt (among other several particulars of our late backsliding to the Church of Rome) hath been one cause o See the Homily of the Time and place of Prayer, The second part of the Peril of Idolatry: The exhortation for the fast: The last great plague. of drawing down that Plague and Pestilence, which now spreads itself every where among us, with these other spiritual & temporal judgements which now we languish under, and are likely to increase upon us to our utter ruin. And have we not all cause to fear the very extremity of God's wrath to be poured on us, of which he hath given us visible prognostickes from heaven? I shall name but one of many, upon the 23. day of February last passed in Sussex and sundry places of the Kingdom, from 8, till 9● of the Clock in the morning there was seen by many persons of good quality (who have testified it under their hands) three Suns near together (a thing ve●y rare) and at the same time a Rainbow (such as was never seen the like but once) differing from ordinary Rainbows in these 7. remarkable particulars: 1. First, where as all other Rainbows are in p Iris est inflectio solis in nube. Magyrus Keckerman & others. some watery thick cloud, this was in no cloud at all ou● in the clear open air. 2. Secondly, where as other Rainbows are ever in direct opposition to the Sun, so as he that turns his face to the bow, turns his back on the Sun, this stood directly Southeast in the same quarter that the Sun the●● was. 3. Thirdly, other Rainbows are commonly lower than the Sun, and one end of them seems almost to touch the earth; This was far higher than the Sun goes in the Sommer-solstice none being ever seen so high by many degrees. 4. Other Rainbows are seen only at a certain distance, 5. or 6. miles about, and that but one way whetherwards it is reflicted; This seemed above 30. miles' distance every way. 5. Fiftly, other Rainbows continue but a short space, and then vanish: This a full hour from 8. till 9 of the clock, as long as the 3 Suns continued. Sixtly, other Rainbows are flitting and move with 〈◊〉 cloud wherein they are: This was fixed, continuing in the same place a full hour. Seventhly (which is the strangest of all, principally to be considered) whereas all other Rainbows stand with the 〈◊〉 downward in this manner ● this appeared all the while with the horns upward thuss which makes it the more terrible; The bow as all know (and we of this Nation especially who have won so many battles by it) is a Military or warlike instrument; Now as long as the back of their bow is towards the Archer and the horns from him towards his enemy, it is a Sign of peace and safety, that he hath no intent at all to shoot, hurt, or slay him; But when once the Archer tur●es his bow the contrary way with the ●tring and horns toward himself, and the back of the bow towards his enemy, than its a sign he is angry and intends to shoot and slay him: The application is obvious, God hath a bow, (a warlike Instrument) as well as man, which Scriptures often mention: (See Ps. 7, 12. Lam. 2. 4. c. 3, 12.) This bow immediately after the flood, when he out of his infinite goodness entered into a covenant of mercy and peace, with Noah and his posterity, placed in the cloud for a token of this Covevant between him and the Earth: (See Gen. 9 13. 14. 15. 16.) And becanse it was a token only of love, grace and peace, he placed it with the horns downward, and the back towards Heaven, to testify and proclaim peace and mercy to the world; Now when God shall thus in a●unusuall miraculous manner invert this bow of his, turning the horns of it towards Heaven and the back upon us in such a visible and notorious fashion, that many Counties of the Kingdom at once might & did take notice of it (though few such serious notice as they should,) what can we thence in all probability conclude; But that we having so long waged war against Heaven with our prodigious shameless manifold open sins, (See jer. 3. 8. 9 jer. 3. 3.) and so far broken our covenant and long continued league with God m the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of his ordinances, he hath now a resolution to break off his covenant of peace & of grace with us, and to denounce open war against us from Heaven; And therefore hath bend his bow, turned the string of it towards Heaven; and the back of it upon us, and made ready his arrows upon the string to discharge them against the faces of us his on gracious rebels & enem●ies, who proceed to provoke him daily more and more. Psal. 7. 12. Psal. 11. 2. And hath not God himself (if I may so speak) made this very Commentary on this text and Prodigy? Hath he not shot abroad his (Psal. 95. 5. 6.) Arrows of the Plague and Pestilence among us, and made them in Newcastle, London and other places (where they have wounded thousands to death) even (jer, 46. 10.) almost drunk with our blood? Yet (Isay. 5. 25. c. 9 12. 17. 31. c. 10. 4.) for all that his anger, (this bow and arrow of his) is not turned away, but still stretched aut and full bend against us: Neither can we either Imagine or divine when the arrows of this his pestiferous qui●er willbe spent, since they fall thicker among us every day, and we have not yet put on the arms of public fasting, prayer, humiliation and repentance, (bu● rather of feasting, dancing, masking, playing, chambering, dallying, and what not,) the only armour of proof that can ward off their deadly stroke. But when God hath short out this chief of Plague Arrows at us with this bow of his; Shall we then think he haith no other arrows to let fly against us? O! I Cannot but with fear and troubling suspect the contrary. Never was there any such Rainbow as this seen before in any age, (for aught I can find in story) but one, and that was here in England too, pertending the heaviest woeful days and tidings to it, that ever it heard or saw before; For th●● Month, time of the day, form & continuance, it was the same with this, only differing in the day of the month and apparition of two Suns then, whereas now there were three. Which Mr. Fox thus relates (See Acts & Monuments Edit. 1610. p 1333.) and Dr. Hackewell out of him, (See 〈◊〉 for the government of the worldy l. 2.) who accounts it one of the strongest prodigies that ever he read off: Upon the●● 5. day of February An. 1555. that was seen (saith Fox) within the City of London (where some saw this last sight too) about 9 of the clock in the forenoon strong sights. There was seen two Suns both shining at once, the one a good pretty way distant from the other (as these 3. now seen were.) it the same time was also seen a Rainbow turned contrary, and a great deal higher than hath been accustomed. The common standing of the Rainbow is thuss. But this stood this●, with the head downward and the feet as it were upward. Both these sights were seen as well at West-minster, in Cheapside, on the southside of Paul's as in very many other places, and that by a great number of honest men. Also certain Aldermen went out of the Gulled hall to behold the sight: What these prodigies did then protend, the subsequent story of Queen Mary's bloody unhappy days (at large recorded in the Acts & Monuments, and other histories of our own) can witness; And Mr. Fox his marginal Note annexed to this passage (strong sights seen before the coming in of King Philip & Subversion of Religion) can testify. God forbid I should he so presumptuous as peremptorily to determine that these late Apparitions should bode us any such black ominous events; The piety of our most gracious Sovereign, his zeal and care for religion, manifested both in his own private practice and in his forementioned Declarations; Together with his most admirable clemency, prohibit me from the very thoughts of any such unluckey Divination. But were it not for this confidence and full persuasion of his Majesty's incomparable goodness, clemency, zeal and love to our Religion, for which all succeeding ages will adore his memory; And were it not for those many godly Christians of all sorts and ranks of men, which are every where scattered up and down among us (though many by our Bishop's tyranny have been forced to fly the Realm, & more like to follow) through the open desperate designs and practices of some swaging domineering Prelates, who do what they list on the one hand; And the secret treacheries of the Jesuits, Priests & Papists on the other hand to undermine our Religion, and ruin both it, Church, State & all else at once are such, and our backslidings toward Rome within these 4 years past, so great and manifold, that I should not only fear, but expect the selfsame consequents now, which then ensued. But blessed be our good God, our gracious King is safe (and for ever may he be so) and so our Religion and we seem in despite of all the hellish powderplots now prepared to blow up us and it at once; Which Plots being here in part discovered, and laid more fully open in some other new printed Troatises, I doubt not but his most royal Majesty and honourable Lords, (who hitherto (out of State policy and abundant clemency) have convinced all these late dangerous Innovations, the better to discover, and more justly to proceed against the plotters and fomenters of them, sufficiently detected by name in the last Parliaments remonstrance to this purpose) will now at last when the Romish Priests and Projectors are grown so open insolent and notorious, provide a speedy remedy to the eye of all good subjects, to wit, the extirpation of that generation of Vipers, which hath long been gnawing out their own mother's bowels; The prosperity and flourishing of our Religion, Church, State, the diversion of all gods inflicted & menaced judgements, and their own eternal honour. To which blessed work, as I have here contributed my poor 〈◊〉 on deavours, so I hope all true English hearts that have 〈◊〉 sparlie of loyalty in them to their Sovereign, love to 〈◊〉 Country, or zeal to the established Religion of our 〈◊〉 Which in their breast, will now without more delay 〈◊〉 most assistance, (it being now high time or 〈◊〉) thus to do. 〈◊〉 no man say these things stood now upon are but trivial, 〈◊〉 they either are or make way for that which is the main 〈◊〉. That which Chrysostome writes in a like race, (See 〈…〉 Cor. 3.) I may truly apply to this: Hoc parum non 〈…〉 Imò vero est fere ●●tum; Ci●o eum neglectum sit 〈◊〉 Parva itaquè nunquam despiciamus, ne in magna in●●●●●. It is a true saying of Pope Gregory the first, (See Maral. 〈◊〉 13.) and we have found it experimentally true in these 〈◊〉 here debated. Qui modica spernit paulatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 curare parva negligimus, inseusibiliter seducti, au●●●● 〈◊〉 majora perpetiamus. Esus quippe potusque ad Lu●●●● 〈◊〉 L●sus (as our playing with Popish novelties, Ceremonies and royes hath done) ad idololatriam traxit: Quia s●in vanitatis culpa nequaquàm cau●è compescitur, ab iniquitate pro●●●● men● incauta devoratur. I. shall therefore desire all those who deem these things trifles, to ruminate on these two Fathers words; And diligently to consider whether they tend; Then I presume they will change their judgements. Much more might be said concerning these Questions & matters here debated; But this I hope will suffice for the present, I shall therefore close up all with the words of Dr. Edward Chulover in his Sermon entitled Paul's Peregrinations, delivered at Paul's Cross Anno 1617. London 1623. p. 316. to 329. Let us now travel from Athens into England, from the world under the Law, to the world under the Gospel, and consider what it is, wherein we are to imitate these Gentiles; Concerning their Altars, and what it is wherein we must leave and forsake them. Altars, as they are properly so taken for those on which the typical or supposed real Sacrifices were offered, are now ceased and taken away. Our Saviour when he was lifted up upon the Cross, bad Altars to be beaten down; When he rend the veil of the Temple, the Earthquake shook their foundation; When he died, their parts were acted and went out. The Papists that they may screw the Pope farther into the mystery of iniquity, will have him maintain one Lesson, which themselves confess to be a note of Antichrist, and that is, that jewish Ceremonies are not yet ceased, at the least in matters of Sacrifices and Altars. But perhaps they had rather be beholden to the Gentiles for them. For if we would believe Cardinal Baronius, we may see their lustral water, Baron. Auval. ann. Dom. 44. and sprinkling of Scpulchres, in juvenal sixth Satire, Lights in Scpulchres, in Suetonius & Octavius, Lamps lighted on Saturday, in Gevecas. 96. Epist. Distribution of Tapers amongst the people, in Macrobius his Saturnals. But more lively may we see it in their Altars: 1. First, Brush● de Monast. Germano, fol. 129. Virgil. in multiplying the number of them in every Church; God allows but two Altars to the Temple, and Bruschius reckons 51. in one Church in ulme's, taking their pattern belike from Venus' Temple, of which the Poet; Ubi Templum illi centumque Sabeo thure calent arae: But God teacheth no such Arithmetic, as to multiply Altars, because Ephraim (saith he) hath made many Altars to sin, Host 8. 2. Secondly, they imitate the Gentiles in dedicating their Altars to such as it is unknown, or at the least uncertain if ever any such were in the world, as to S. George, S. Catharine, and S. Christopher, doing no otherwise then did the Romans, who consecrated Altars, Dijs incertis, to their uncertaives Gods, or these Athenians, who built them Deo ignoto, to their unknown God. But we need not much seek to know whom they follow in these devotions, when as it is a main Argument urged by Bellarmine, that Altars and Sacrifices were used by the Gentiles, therefore they must still be retained by Christians: I know not what antiquity they pretend, nor what they can find in the Primitive Church, to prove the lawfulness of them, we deny not, but that the Fathers might term the Table of the Lords supper an Altar: And that first, in respect of the similitude it hath to the Altar of the Old Testament, for that on it are placed the Sacraments of Christ's body, which before was figuratively offered up by the Priest upon the Altar. Secondly, because on it were laid the Oblations and Offerings, which well disposed people were want to bestow upon the poor, & this we will grant them; But that there were any such Altars in use in the Primitive Church as they pretend we absolutely deny. We have an High Priest (saith the Author to the Hebrewes) who needeth not daily as those Priests to offer Sacrifice, nor that he should offer himself as often as the High Priest entereth into the Holy place, every year with the blood of others, for than must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world, hath he appeared to put away sin by that Sacrifice himself Chap. 9 v. 25. 28. Well then, Altars of Stone and Metals are now * Note. banished the Christian world, by the decree of our Lord Christ jesus, and herein we must observe that Precept of our Saviour to his Disciples; Go not into the way of the Gentiles in these things imitate them not; But what do we, therefore altogether shun Altars, & Jmages, & Temples? It was an old imputation indeed of Celsus & others, against Christians in the Primitive Church, as it is now of the Romans against us, that we abandon these Ceremonies, & relinquish them, to which my answer at this time shallbe no other then what Origen gave Celsus; Celsus affirms (saith he) that we shun Altars and Images, because he takes it to be the belief of that invisible & inexplicable Communion we maintain; When in the mean time he perceives not, that to us the minds of the just are for Altars & Temples; From which doubtless are sent forth these most sweet odours of Incense, vows I mean, and Prayers from a pure Conscience: We are not therefore ambitious in moving Altars, or framing Images, which heretofore have been the Tabernacles of Devils, and C●ges of uncleme Spirits; But rather embrace such living Altars, as one whom we see to burn the true fire of zeal, kindled not by vestal Virgins, but by the Spirit of God. Let any man (adds that Father) make an inquiry into those Altars which we expound, and compare them with those which Celsus (I will say which the Pope would bring in,) or the Images which are fixed in the mind of them which worship God with Phydias or Policletus', or whom he ever men list to select of cunning Artisicers, and he shall plainly see, that these inanimate and senseless Colossuses shall decay and corrupt with time, whereas these living Sanctuaries shall be immortal, and continue for ever. Shall we fear (Beloved) lest Altars & Images be taken away, or Churches lose somewhat of their Grace and Government. I must tell you with S. Ambrose, that neither our Prayers nor Sacrifices stand in need of such trimming, the best adorning of Sacraments, is not Tissues & Silk, or embroidered Canopies, or spangled Crucifixes, or painted Poppets, or any the like faceing, * 〈◊〉 our 〈…〉 their High Altars note this. Popery sets forth her Altars, more like Pageants than places which favour of Christ's simplicity, but the redeeming of Captions, etc. But now what should we admire those Altars whose covering our Saviour Christ pronounced to be but untighteous Mammon, or those Censers whose metal S. Peter was not ashamed to confess that he had none 〈◊〉 Cry not therefore, Templum Domini, etc. The Temple of the Lord, etc. as did sometimes the jews, jer. 7. He is the Temple of the Lord, in whom true faith dwelleth, who is clothed with justice as with the veil of the Tabernacle, in whom not Temperance alone, or Abstinence sing their parts, but in whom the whole set of virtues make a complete Choir; Wouldst thou therefore like the Gentiles build an Altar, and yet not as did these Athenians to the unknown God? Why, see matter and stuff prepared to thine hand, the Prophets and Apostles for the foundation, Christ himself for the chief Cornerstone: Wouldst thou lay it over with pure & refined metal? Why, see the word of God, it is like Gold 7. times purified in the fire. Wouldst have a Beast to slay? Mortify and kill thy beastly affections, which otherwise would kill thee. Wantest thou a knife to kill them; Take the Sword of Preaching not into thine hand, but into thy heart, that is, it which is sharper than a twoedged sword, & cutteth to the dividing and separating of soul and Spirit. Are all these things prepared, and lackest thou yet fire to consume them? Why zeal must be that fire, without which all these will profit thee nothing. O beloved! if these were the Sacrifices of the Romanists, or these the Altars of Papisme, I would change my speech, and most heartily request you to join hands with them, and let the seamelesse coat of Christ to suffer rupture and division no more between us. No longer should thy blessed name (sweet jesus) bear reproach among the uncircumcised infidels for our separation, but if their Altars be but the Pope's Exchequers, and the Priests but like the Publicans, which sit there at the receipt of custom; Go out of Babylon, let us treat no longer with her upon Articles of agreement. What Erasmus saith of the Altars of our time, the same verdict * Ad Gulcel. Absasem Apol● S. Bernard gives of the Altars of his time, by the height of such sumptuous and wonderful vanities (saith he) men are more incited to offer then to adore. Thus riches are swallowed up by riches, thus money draws in money, because I know not by what means (but so it is) where men see most, there are they most willing to give. On Altars therefore is presented the beautiful portraiture of some Saint, and it is thought so much the more holy, by how much the more beautiful. Men run to kiss it, they are invited to enrich it, and more are astonished at things curious, then inclined to adore things religious; O vanity of vanities, and yet not greater vanity than madness, the Church abounds in the Walls, and wants in her poor; She clothes her stones with gold, and leaves her Son naked, to the cold, the maintenance of the poor serve to satisfy the eyes of the rich, the curious find matter to delight them, the distressed find no bread to sustain them. But are these the devotions which Rome so vaunteth of? Well might S. Austin (in Psalm. 43. 49.) then wish those of his time to forbear Sacrificing & Altars, if this be all the fruit of them. Alas! he shows himself far from allowing such impostures, (saith he) If thou hast a fat Bull, reserve him not for the Altar, as if jewish or Gentilish Sacrifices were in use, but kill him for the poor, though they cannot drink the blood of Goats, yet they can eat the flesh of Bulls, and he which said unto thee. If I hunger, I will not tell it thee, will then tell thee I was hungry, and thou gavest me to eat. But what Altar then would he have us to erect to God? What Sacrifices, thinks he, ascend best pleasing in his sight? Why, he turns us to the Psalmist. Offer unto the Lord, the Sacrifice of praise, an humble and a contrite heart shalt thou not despise. So then wouldst thou build an Altar? Why, the loftiest Altar thou canst build, is a lowly heart: Wouldst thou have something to offer, see an oblation passing the blood of Goats and Calves, and Sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving. Well might we hear, lest God should have required something without us, something in the house that the M●thes had corrupted, something in the Garner, which the Mice or vermin had consumed; Something in the Field, which the Fox or Wolf had devoured; But he sends us to ourselves, and to our immodest Closet, which none but God can unlock, (saith Austin) thine Altar is thy conscience, offer thereon the Sacrifice of praise. We are secure, we go not into Arabia for Frank incense, neither do we rip up the bowels of the earth for Stories to beautify our Altars, If Paul could find an Altar abroad; Know. Christians have it at home, within their own breasts. If all these Authorities be not sufficient, take but one more for all, past all exception fresh in memory; To wit, the testimony of the reverend learned Prelate D. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his justitution of the Sacrament set forth by public Authority and approbation Anne 1631. and since 〈◊〉 Anne 1635. with enlargements. Where L. 6. c. 3. S●ct. 8. p. 416. 417. and c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. (if the latter be his Addition) where thus he writes: If furthermore we speak of the Altar you will have it to be rather on earth below, and to that end you object that Scripture Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar (saith the Apostle) whereof they have no right to eat, that serve at the Tabernacle; This some of you greedily catch at, for proof of a proper Sacrifice in the Mass, (See the Rhemists in their Annot. upon the place, & Mr. Breerly in his Book of the Liturgy, Tract. 3. Sect. 3. Sub. 4.) and are presently repulsed by your Aquinas, expounding the place to signify either his Altar upon the Cross, or else his body, as his Altar in Heaven; Mentioned Apocal, 8. and called the golden Altar. Aquinas, istud Altare vel est Crux Christi 〈…〉 If we ourselves should tell you, how some one affirmeth, that this Altar, spoken of by 〈◊〉 the Apostles is the body of Christ himself in Heaven's upon which and by which all Christians are to● often up their Spiritual Sacrifice of Faith Devotion, Thankfulness Hope and Charity; You would presently answer, that this one cea●ainely is some Lutheran or Calvinist● the words are so contradictory to your R●mish Gatbe not with standing you may find all this in the Antididagma of the Divines of 〈◊〉. Antididagm: 〈◊〉 de Miss●, Sacrificie Post 〈◊〉 (Habemus Altar) Heb. 13. Et Apoe. 8. (Aure●m Altar) in que & per quod omnes Christiani universa Sacrifitia fid●i devotionis, gratiarum actionis, Spei, & Charitatis De● Patri debent offer. Atque it a sit ut Christus sit Altar, Sacerdos, & Sacrificium. August. 〈◊〉 de 〈◊〉 Besides your Argument drawn from the word Altar, in this Scripture is so feeble and lame a Soldier, that your Cardinal was content to leave it behind him, because many Catholics (saith he) interpret it otherwise. Bella● Quia non desunt 〈◊〉, qui interpretantur 〈◊〉 vel de Cruse, vel de Christo ipso, 〈◊〉 L. 1● de Missa. c. 14. And indeed, who is of so shallow a brain, as not to discern notorious conconscionablenesse of your disputers, who confessing that the Apostles in their times did Abstain from the words Sacrifice, Priest & Altar, do notwithstanding allege the word, Altar, in the text to the Hebrews, for proof of a proper Altar in the Mass. Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuit ●stius. Estius Comment. in 13. ad Hebr. (Habemus Altar) Thomas Altar his interpretatur C●u●m Christ's, ●l i●sum Christum, de quo edere, inquit, est fructum passionis percipere, & ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari. Crucem Christi pr●prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est. Vnde Ecelesia ●●cat A●am, Cru●is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam, quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit (jesum extra p●rtam passum esse) ire in ara Crucis obiatum; Vt taceam, quod toties in hae Epistola, atqu● ex institute per Antithes●m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernacul●, cum Christe ●●ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentie●●m Sacrific●● incruenti nonae legis, non multum verisimile est, eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem, velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrifici● incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere; Sed potius cruenti in Cruse oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare hu● pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruse oblatum, Panis vocatur, fide manducandus. Vt joh. 6 P●nis quem ●g● dabe. He adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas, which is that here by Altar is meant the Cross of Christ's sufferings Which he collecteth out of the text of the Apostle, wher● he saith of the Oblation of Christ's Passion, that it was with out the gate, and observeth, for confirmation-sake, that th● Apostle often, of purpose, opposeth the Sacrifice of Chri●● upon the Cross to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testa●ment, so far as never to make mention of the Sacrific● of the New Testrment, So he, what is, if this be not ou● Protestantiall profession, concerning this word Altar, t● prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christ● Cross; And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Mass. But we are cited to consult with the ancient Fathers be it so, if then we shall demand where our Highpriest Christ jesus is, to whom a man in fasting must repair; Orig●n resolveth us, saying: He is not to be sought here on Earth at all, but in Heaven. Origen jejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiqu● non in terris quaerendus est, sed in Coelis. Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo. In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindered by persecution, that he cannot partake of any Sacramental Altar on Earth, Gregory Nazianzen will fortify him, as he did himself, saying: I have another Altar in Heaven, whereof these Altars are but Signs; A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind, there will I offer up my Oblations; Gregor Nazianzen. Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt, ut aliud habeo, cujus figurae sunt ea, quae nec oculis ●ernimus, super quod nec ascia, neo manus aseenda●, nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est, sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo, in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium, Oblationes & Holocausta, tanto praestantiora, quanio veri●as ambran Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference (doubtless) as between Signs and things, etc. For your better apprehension of this truth, if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament, propounded it, in the place where he with his Disciples, gave it unto them, to be Eaten and Drunken; Then tell us where it was ever known, that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking? In God's Book we find Levit. 9 that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eat their Oblation on, but besides the Altar. Neither may you think it any Derogation to this Sacrament, that the place whereon it is Celebrated, is not called an Altar of the Lord, seeing the Spirit of God, by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes; For the Apostle, as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely, The Supper of the Lord, & the vessel prepared for the Liquid: The Cup of the Lord; So did he name the place whereon it was set: The Table of the Lord, and the contemners thereof, Guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord; And thereupon did denounce the vengeance & Plague, which fell upon profane Communicants, the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter. 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop pointblank against Pocklington, Shelford, Reeve & the collier, who in the point of Altars, and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to material Altars or Lords-Tables, are more Popish than the very Jesuits and Papists themselves, who as the Bishop here proves, disclaim this most gross sottish interpretation of the text: I wonder therefore of the strong impudency of those two Apostates, Bray & Baker, (very zealous Puritans, and eager men heretofore against Altars, Images, bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus, Images, Sacrifices, Sabbath-breaking, etc. but now are hot against them) since Bishop's Chaplains, as eager against them, when they were Lecturers, who dare licence such Popish trash, in direct opposition to Bishop jewel, yea Bishop Morton printed but one year before, by public licence; And more I marvel at the carelessness of their two great Lord Prelates, who permit them thus to do without control. But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned, because they are so wholly taken up with the world and worldly affairs, belonging not to their functions, that they have no time at all to think of God, Religion, or any part of their Episcopal function, & so suffer their Chaplains to do what they please; Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopric (which they gape after) for their pains, in licensing such Romish Pamphlets, at these in public affront, not only to the Articles, Homilies, most eminent writers, and established Doctrine of our Church, but even of his Majesty's most religious Declarations both before the 39 Articles, and after the last Parliaments dissolution, and the eternal infamy & scandal of our Church, which they cannot expiare with their lives. Well, how ever they brave it out for the present, a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long, to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates, the mildest term, that charity itself (if regulated by truth) can give them for their treachery in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Books as these; which act plainly manifests, that having so long maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasy of the Saints, that themselves are both turned Apostates, to make good their Doctrine by practice and example. But of this enough. Only let me conclude of them & the new English Priests & Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas, who thus Caracterizeth them: * De Excidio & Conquest. Brit. Rerum Brit: Script. p. 134. 135. Sacerdotes habet Britania, sed insipientes; quam plurimos Ministros, sed impudentes; Clericos, sed raptores subditos: pastors, ut dicuntur, sed occisioni animarum lupos paratos; (quip non commoda plebi providentes sed proprij plenitudinem vontris quaetentes:) Ecclesiae domus habentes, sed turpis lucri gratia eas adeuntes; rar● sacrificantes, & nunquam puro corde inter ALTARIA stantes: Praecepta Christi spernentes, & suas libidines rebus omnibus implere curantes: Sedem Petri Apostoli immundis pedibus usurpantes, sed merito cupiditatis in judae traditoris pestilentem Cathedram decidentes: Veritatem pro inimico odientes, ac mendatijs ac si charissimis fratribus faventes: justos innopes immanes quasi angues torvis vultibus consicantes, & sceleratos divites absque velo verecundiae respectu sicut coelestos Angelos venerantes, etc. Cuius 〈◊〉 CARBONE IGNITO DE ALTARI forcipe Cher●●●● advc●o ●abia, & Isai●, inundata su●●? * Which will serve for an answer to Dr. Alexander Read Parson of Fifield in Essex, his late idle Visitation Sermon, (newly printed 1636.) upon this very Text. Throughout which be makes his own private fantasy, the sole rule of Decency, without one word of Scripture to backe them. A Note upon 1. Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order. Tending to search out the truth in this Question: Whether it be Lawful for Church-Covernours to Command indifferent decent things in the administration of God's Worship? Written by a judicious divine and pertinent to the matters debated in the Quench-Coale. ALL (I conceive) that this place holdeth forth touching the point of Decency and Order, may be summed up in these particulars. 1. First, that the whole Church and every member thereof are to perform all the duties of God's worship in a decent & orderly manner. 2. Secondly, what the Church and Members thereof are to do in this kind; That the Church-governors may and ough to see it done. Thirdly, that it being the duty of Church-governors to see that all things in the Cougregation be done decently & orderly; It is therefore their part in eminent measure to be able to discern and judge what is decent and undecent, what is orderly & disorderly. Now, when I say, it is their part, I mean, it is their duty; Their place and authority requireth it, not that they always have a power and Spirit of discerning to judge a right in this case; For, it seemeth, the Highpriest with the rest of his Brethren and Prophets, yea and David himself, all of them thought it decent to bring back the Ark of the Lord upon a New-Cart, which afterward David himself see and confessed it, was not done after due order, 1. Chron. 15. 13. From whence it appeareth (since they also are subject to errors in this kind) that it will not be safe for them to judge and declare the decency of things by no better a rule then their own wisdom, judgement & pleasure; But even they also as well as the people must be guided by such rules as the Holy Ghost directeth us unto in this case, which are the holy and infallible Scriptures, and with Scripture, Nature and Civill-Customes; Yea and I willingly also admit the lawful Custom of the Church or Congregation in which a man liveth: For to judge of Decency by all these Rules we have warrant in Scripture, as 1. Cor. 14. 34. 1. Cor. 11. 14. & 16. And indeed, they who are to approve themselves in all their proceedings, (as * 2. Cor 4. 2. When Peter and Paul commauded us to obey our Superiors they commanded to obey the Bishops in the Doctrine of Christ, not in their own. Tyndals' Answer to Mr. Moor's first Book, p. 286. Paul dia) and as all Church-Masters ought to do, to every Man's conscience in the sight of God, aught to be seriously guided by these patterns. It is not fit for them (I say) to give for the ground of their proceedings, their own wisdom and pleasure, but it be hoofs them to justify their doings therein from such rules, as every good Conscience may see approvable, 2. Cor. 1. 12. 13. Fourthly & lastly, this place in hand houldeth-foarth also farther this truth, that whatsoever thing the Church seeth by those former rules to be indifferent and decent, or which Church-governors shall by these rules declare so to be, those things may and ought lawfully to be done. For farther clearing whereof, and the better describing of the power of Church-governors in these matters; It may be observed that of decent things lawful to be done in God's Church, some are; Indifferent and decent; As to preach in a Gown or Cloak, whereof the one is no more necessary or expedient than the other. But now they are become Laudable Ceremonies, whereas before they were but Ceremonies alone. Now are they become necessary rites godly Institutions, seemly ordinances, when as afore they had no such names. john Bales Image of both Churches on Apoc. 13. f. 108. 1. 2. Decent and Expedient; As to abide in single life, or to enter into marriage; Of which though marriage in time of persecution be indifferent, yet single life is more expedient, to prevent the troubles of the Flesh, 1. Cor. 7. 3. Necessary and decent, either always; As a Woman to keep silence in the Church: Or at lest Hic & Nunc, in some places and at some times, so as the neglect thereof would be uncomely and unexpedient, by light of 1. Nature. 2. Scripture. 3. Custom. As, a * 1. Cor. 11. 5. to 11. Woman to be unvailed in the Congregation in Eastern Countries, so, to abstain from blood, whilst the eating of it was offensive to the jews. Now, for such things as are necessary and 〈◊〉, Church-governors have power to give order and commandment concerning them. As did the Synod at jerusalem touching those things, which they called Necessary, to wit, Necessary during the time of the offence of the Jews. Which was necessary to be avoided: Acts. 15. 28. Of such things as are decent and expedient, Church-governors also have power 〈◊〉 declare the Decency and Expediency of them, yea and to advise and persuade the practice of them; But not to give an Order or Law to bind the people thereunto farther than themselves shall find it expedient and decent for themselves. Thus in point of abiding in Single-life, in time of the Church's Distress, the Apostle gives his advice and judgement: 1. Cor. 7. 25. 40. Yea and persuaded to it, for avoiding trouble in the flesh, Vers. 26. & 28. but would not bind them to it, neither in point of Conscience nor of outward practise●, as having no command for it from the Lord, V. 25. In which respect he calleth such a commandment (if he had given it) a Snare, V. 35. And herein the power of the Church-governors falleth short of the authority of Civil Magistrates, who may in civill-matters make binding Laws for any thing expedient, for publike-weale, which subjects are readily to submit 〈◊〉, 1. Pet. 2. 13. But * See Dr. Barnes his Discourse, that men's constitutions bin● not the conscience: p. 297. to 301. Church-governors have not the like power in matters Ecclesiastical, to make binding Laws for any thing expedient in the Church's behoof, unless Necessity be joined with expediency. Objection. Against this it may be objected, Paul had power to command Philemon that which was convenient; Therefore he might make a Law commanding the Church some expedient decent things. Answer. It follows not; For first, it's one thing to give a Commandment for once, another thing to make a Law to bind One always to do the like. Secondly, it is one thing to command a particular person, who may owe himself to a Church-Governour, as Philemon did to Paul: Another thing to command, yea to give a standing command and binding Law to a whole Church, to whom he professeth himself a Servant or Minister, as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority, but * 1. Cor. 4. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 1. 14. Simile. Stewardly or Economically, to wit, when he speaks in his Lords or Master's name, not in his own. As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Master's Spouse, but when he speaks or shows his Master's command or directions, not his own. But, Note this of such things as are only Indifferent & Decent, I do not find in Scripture that ever Church-governors did lawfully advise & persuade them; Much less charge and command them. And that this place in hand, 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power (though it be much urged to this end) may appear from these reasons. First, the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things, but of Necessary-Decent things, the neglect whereof was undecent, and disorderly, by the light of Nature, Scripture and Custom. As * 1 Cor. 11. to 17. c. 14. 2. to 38. for Men to wear long-haire, women to,, be bareheaded, and for women to speak in the Congregation, as also for men to speak many of them at once. Secondly, the words of this place run not thus, Let all decent things be done; Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-governors to be decent be done, but thus, Let all things, to wit, all Ecclesiastical matters; As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church, all the duties of God's worship; Whether Praying, Prophesying, Psalms or Sacraments, or the like, be done decently & orderly, in orderly and decent manner: But whether in that decent manner, which Church-governors do appoint, or in some other, that the Apostle limitteth not, but only requireth that all be done decently, which if it be done, his rule here prescribed is observed and followed. 3. Thirdly, the same may appear out of this place by this argument. If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-governors to command indifferent decent things, than he that should transgress the commandment of the Church therein, should also transgress the commandment of the Apostle: As, look what Order or Acts of justice any civil Governor doth by virtue of the Commission of the King, He that violateth such Acts, or trangresseth such Orders, transgresseth also against the Commandment and Commission of the King. But, it appeareth to be otherwise in this case, (See D. Barnes, That men's Constitutions bind not the Conscience, p. 297. to 300.) as for instance. If the Church-Governour command a Minister to preach always in a Gown (it being indifferent & decent so to do) he that shall now and then preach in a cloak, transgresseth the command of the Church; But not of the Apostle: For he that preacheth in a cloak, preacheth also decently, or else whereto serveth Tertullians' whole Book, de Pallio. Now, if so be it be done decently, than it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point. But, because this point is of great consequence both for Church-governors and others to be truly informed in, give me leave to clear the same from some other arguments; To wit, that it is not in the power of Church-governors to command indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law. (Prelates and Cleargymen may be right well assured, that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the gospel, and are blocks in Christian men's ways, that they can neither know nor observe the same his gospel in liberty of conscience, nor so attain a ready way to Heaven. john Paru●y his Articles. Fox Acts & Monuments, p. 50●.) First then, that which exceeds the bounds of Apostolical authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty, that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to command. But to command indifferent decent things, by order of Law, exceedeth the bounds of Apostolical authority, and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty. Ergo, etc. The former of these, to wit, that to command indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolical authority, appeareth from the Commission granted to the Apostles, which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-governors, * This was the Argument of joannes de Wesalia, Abb: Uspergensis, Paraleip●mena, p. 419, to prove. Quod Prae lati non habent autoritatem instituendi leges. Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission, to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commanded them. Now, all things whatsoever he hath commanded them are Necessary, not indifferent for the people to observe: If therefore the Apostles over & above the Commandments of Christ, which are necessary, should teach the people to observe indifferent things also, which Christ hath not commanded, they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission, 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION. It will be in vain to object, that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith, not of Government and Order: Answer. unless it could be proved, that our Saviour elsewhere did enlarge this Commission, and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency: Which for aught I can s●e no man goes about to do, unless it be from this place of the Cori, which hath been already cleared (as I hope) from any such meaning. As for the second or latter part of the Assumption, that to command Indifferent Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty, is of itself evident. For, whereas (for Example,) a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will, 1. Cor. 7. 39 If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any command of his, though they had received that Gift of Continency, yet he had then straightened and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular, 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION. It is wont to be excepted against them, that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedom of outward Actions, but in the freedom of Conscience. As long therefore as there is no Doctrinal necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulness of the use of outward things, Christian Liberty is preserved, though the use and practise of outward things be limited. ANSWER. Whereto I answer; The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty, not only in point of Conscience for lawfulness to marry; But even in outward * See 1. Cor. 9 4. 5. 6. 1. Tim. 4. 3. ●. Actions and practice. Let him do (saith he) what he will, he sinneth not, let him be married, Vers. 36. As who should say, the Conscience being free from sin in it, I will put no tie on the outward practice to restrain it. 2. Argument. The second Reason may be this; They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantial things or matters of Indifferency, they (surely) make a binding Law, that all men shallbe of one mind or of one practice in such things. But the former is true, from the rule of the Holy-Ghost, binding all Christians, even the Apostles as well as others, Rom. 14. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not, and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Ergo, etc. OBJECTION. But if it be said here, that this place speaketh only of private Christians, not of Church-governors. Answer. I answer; The place speaketh of Christians private and public, † See Niceph. Cal. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c 33 34. 35. Socrates Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c 21. 22. l 7. c. 28. 35. seeing it reserveth and referreth the judgement of our Brethren in such like things, not to public persons, but only to Christ, Ver. 4. 10. Third Argument. The third Argument or reason is this: They who did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practice of all Christians wheresoever they came, they (surely) did not make Laws and bind Christians to accommodate themselves to their judgements and practice in the use of things Indifferent: But the Apostles of Christ (and the Christians too in the primitive Churches) did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practice of all Christians wheresoever they came; As appeareth from the * See Acts 21 23 24 26 27. Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. to 25 in the English translation. Apostles Example 1. Cor. 9 10. 21. 22. 23. To the Jews (saith he) I became a jew, etc. Ergo, etc. OBJECTION. But, here it may be objected, though the Apostles rather chose to use their Liberty and their lenity then their authority in these indifferent things, wheresoever they came; Yet if they had pleased, they might have used their Apostolical authority in binding all Churches to their judgements and practice in such things. Answer. 1. Hereunto I answer, first, that doubtless if they had received any such authority, they would in some place or other, and at one time or other have claimed it and practised it; For, a sword never used rusteth in the scabbard; And, Frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum. It is a true Axiom, and pertinent to that we speak off. 2. Secondly, I say, that the Apostle himself doth clear the point, when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himself even to the weaknesses of Christians, Note this. lest he should abuse his authority in the Gospel, 1. Cor. 9 18. 19 20. O that such Governors as plead so their Succession to the Apostles, and do challenge in sundry passages of government Apostolical authority, would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolical Spirit! Fourth Argument. Let a 4. Argument be this, That if the Synod of the Apostles and Presbyters and Brethren of jerusalem did reach their authority no farther than to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoke & burden of Necessary things, & that only during the time while they continued Necessary; Then * See 1. Cor 7. 5. to 40. Col. 2. 19 20. 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Mar. 7. 7. 8. 9 Matth. 15. 9 Gal. 1. 10. 11. 12. may not any Succeeding Synod reach their authority to lay upon the Church Commandments and Canons of Indifferent things; For, this Synod at jerusalem was and ought to be the pattern and precedent of all Succeeding Synods; For, Primum in unoquoque genere est mensura reliqu●rum. And our Saviour teacheth us to refute abetrations from Primitive patterns with this, (Matth. 19 8.) Non sic fuit ab initio. From the beginning it was not so: But the Synod at jerusalem reached their authority no farther than to lay Commandments upon the Disciples only touching Necessary things, Acts 15. 28. Necessary (I say) either in themselves (as abstaining from Fornication;) or at least in respect of present offence, as abstaining from blood, etc. And let me conclude this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his intercourse with the Apostle Peter, about a matter of this kind: If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe Indifferent things or Ceremonies of the jews; Then other Church-governors willbe as much blame-worthy for compelling Christians by Law & by grievous censures, to observe the Ceremonies now in question, though they were Indifferent. But, the Apostle Paul tells us, that Peter was to be blamed in this case, Gala. 2. 11. 14. Ergo, etc. OBJECTION. Now, if any except thereat (as some are wont to do in this case) and say, that Peter was therefore blamed, because the Ceremonies to which he compelled the Gentiles were not urged as things Indifferent, but as Necessary to justification and Salvation. ANSWER. I answer; This is but a mere evasion, and will stand them in no stead; For, it is certain, Peter did not account them as necessary, he knew the contrary, nor did he so use them himself, nor so compel others to them; But, knowing his Liberty for him (a jew) to use them among the jews, he used them when the Jews came down from jerusalem, out of a tender care to prevent their offence. OBJECT. But, you will urge again, and say: The false Teachers did urge them as necessary. ANSWER. I answer; What then? So did the Christian jews at jerusalem, yet Paul himself used them there, Acts. 21. 23. 24. 26. 27. notwithstanding the corrupt opinion of worship and Necessity which they put upon them, as much as ever did the false Teachers in Galatia. OBJECTION. Why then (will you say) did Paul blame that in Peter, which he practised himself? Answer. He had indeed blamed Peter for that which he practised himself, if he had therefore blamed him for practising such Ceremonies, because they were urged by others with a corrupt opinion of Necessity and worship. QVERE. What was then the difference that made the practice of Paul lawful in using the Ceremonies at jerusalem, and the practice of Peter unlawful in using the same Ceremonies at Antioch? ANSWER. I answer. The difference was this: Though that corrupt opinion of the necessity of the Ceremonies prevailed alike in both places; Yet the Ceremonies themselves had not the like warrant in both places. In jerusalem they were known to have been the Commandments of God, and were not yet known to the Christian jews to have been abrogated, and therefore at Jerusalem they had warrant from God to use them, to avoid the offence of the weak jew there; But at Antioch and in all other Churches of the Gentiles they were, (at best) but things Indifferent, as having never been commanded of God there; Whence it was, that Peter saw his Liberty to forbear them there at his first coming. QVERE. What was then the Sin of Peter in resuming the practices of the Ceremonies there? ANSWER. His Sin was double. First, the abuse of his authority in the Church, for that unawares by his Example he compelled the Gentiles to the use of such Ceremonies, as himself saw Liberty to forbear amongst them; And which having never been commanded by God to them, he had no power to impose on them. His other sin was, the dissembling or concealing of his Christian Liberty which he should then (then) have stood upon, when he saw the false teachers urge these Ceremonies upon the Gentiles as well as upon the jews, to the prejudice of their Christian Liberty. When things that are indifferent are commanded to be done of necessity (as now all our Prelates Ceremonies are) then are not the same to be obeyed, because the same destroyeth our freedom in Christ. Dr. Barnes saith: men's Constitutions bind not the Conscience. p. 300. The Sum of all this will lead us by the hand one step farther, namely; If it be a sin in Church-governors to command (especially upon strict penalty) Indifferent decent things; It willbe a sin also in Ministers, and in private Christians to subscribe Ex animo, and to yield obedience by Conformity to such commands, although the Ceremonies were as good (indeed) as they were pretended (which I believe they are not) Indifferent-Decent-Things. For, doth not such voluntarily Subscription and Conforming to them build up our Church-governors, yea and with them (that which is most to be taken to heart of us, our Sovereign civil Governors also in the confidence, that such commandments are as well lawfully given by them, as received and obeyed, yea confirmed and allowed by us? Now, to build up or edify a Brother to sin is properly to offend a Brother; For the proper Definition of an offence is, that which edifieth a Brother unto Sin, as the original word expresseth it, 1. Cor. 8. 10. and so to sin against a Brother, is to wound his Conscience; Yea, and as much as in us lieth, to cause him to perish for whom Christ died; Which is no better then Spiritual Murder of his Soul. Now, if thus to edify any Brother to Sin be so heinous an offence, how much more heinous an offence is it, to edify our Governors to the giving & urging of such commandments, yea and to the sharp Censuring of all others, as refractory and factious persons, who choose rather to undergo the loss of the greatest Comforts they enjoy i● this World, then to wound the Consciences either of themselves or of their Governors. It is true, by forbearing obedience to those commandments we offend the Spirits of our Governors, and make them to be (though causelessly) offended with us; But by yielding obedience to these things we should offend their Consciences in edifying them to sin, and provoke the Lord to be offended with them. Better they be offended with us, without fault, then through our fault God to be offended with them and us. It is not for Christians; Much less for Ministers, to redeem outward peac● and Liberty at so de●re a price as the hazard of the blood of so many precious Souls, especially of our Governors in highest place and Authority. What then shall we think of those a Our Prelates ought to be our Servants as the Apostles were to teach us Christ's Doctrine, and not Lords over us to oppress us with their own. Peter called it tempting of the Holy Ghost, Acts 15. to lad the Heathen with aught above that w●●ch necessity and Brotherly Love requireth, and Paul rebuketh the Corinthians and Galath●ans for their overmuch obedience, warneth all men to stand fast and not to suffer themselves to be brought into bondage. Tyndal Answer to Moors, 1. Book, ●. 285. 286. Lordly Domineering Prelates, who not only take upon them to enforce both Ministers and people to the observation and practice of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer, further than the Sta●u●e of 1. Eliz. c. 2. and the Law authorizeth them; But likewise by their New-printed Vsi●ation Oaths and Articles, presume (like so many Pipes and Parliaments) contrary to the Law of God, the * 25 H. 8. c. 19 21. 1 Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. Statutes of the Realm, and their own 13. Canon (even of their own heads alone, (without the King's Authority or Licence under his great Seal) to impose new Popish Rites and Ceremonies of their own devising, b See B●shop Wrens Visitation-Articles. (is standing up at Gloria Patri, the Gospel and Nicene Creto; Bowing at the name of jesus, Praying toward the East, Bowing to Altars and Commu●on-Tables, and the like, of which there is not one syllable in Scripture, or B●●ke of Common-Prayer itself, and so are directly prohibited by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. which prohibits the use of any other Rites or Ceremonies then those expressed in the Book of Common-Prayer, under severe penalties, c I do believe stedfustly and faithfully, that you Bishops are ten times worse than the Great Turk. For he regardeth no more but rule and Dominion in this world, and you are not therewith content, but you will also rule men's consciences, yea and oppress Christ and his holy Word. Dr. Barnes, p. 284. to enforce them on Ministers and people against their consciences, by Excommunications, Suspentions, deprivations, imprisonments, threats and such like open violence? Certainly, we must needs conclude them to be mere d Acts 4. 1. ta 13. c. 5. 17. to 42. Fox Acts and Monuments 1610. pag. 415. 416. 417. 418. 428. 434. 435. 438. 552. 562. 567. 598. Antichristian tyrants, not the meek Disciples of our Lord jesus Christ, who never took such authority and State upon them, thus to tyrannize it over men's consciences, bodies & estates in things indifferent, much less in things unlawful, as many of the Ceremonies and Jnjunctions are; Against which all godly Ministers and people ought solemnly to protest, and to go on e 126. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. E●. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. boldly in their Ministry and Christian duty, in despite of all their threats, imprisonments, their suspentions and Excommunications to the contrary, which in truth are mere nullities, not only by God's Law, but by the f Gal. 5. 1. Laws and Statutes of the Realm, since our Bishops have no Lords Patents or Commission under the broad Seal Authorising them to exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction or Censures, or to keep any Visitations & Consistories; And since all their proceedings, suspentions, excommunications, are made in their own names, under their own Seals, not his Majesties, as they ought by Law to be. Wherefore g Exposition on the Prophet Abdias, the last page of all. Let us all now stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ (yea and the Laws of our Realm too) have made us free, and not be again entangled in the Prelate's yeokes of bondage, formerly grievous, but now intolerable. I shall close up all with Bishop Pillingtons' words. It is not meet that God should be King, and the Pope and Prelates to make Laws for him to rule by: But God rules by his own Laws. Gregorius Magnus Pastoralium, l. 3. c. 5. Aliter admonendi sunt subditi, & aliter Praelati. Illos, ne s●bjectio conterat; Jllos, ne locus superior extollat: Illi ne minus quae rubentur jmpleant; Illi, ne plus justo jubeant, quae compleantur. Illi ut humiliter subjaceant; Illi quoque ut temperanter praesint. Marsilius Pat: D●fensoris Paris: Pars 2. c. 28. Talium Decretalium ordinatores praeter licentiam fidelis Legislatoris aut Principis, ad ipsorum quoque observationem quenquam inducentes verbis su●reptilijs, quasi cogentes, comminando simplicibus eorum transgressoribus damnationem aeternam, aut blasphemias, five anathemata, vel alias maledictiones inferentes in quenquam verbo vel scripto, corporaliter sunt extremo puniendi supplicio, tanquam Conspiratores, & Civilis Schismatis concitatores. Est enim gravissima species CRIMINIS LAE SAE MAJESTATIS, quoniam IN PRINCIPATUM DIRECTE COMMITTITUR; Ad ejus etiam supremi pluralitatem, & consequenter per necessitatem ad solutionem cuiuslibet Politiae perducens. I should be glad to see this adjudged for Orthodox Law, as it is, and executed on our audacious Innovators, convicted of High treason by it. FINIS. A POSTSCRIPT. CHristian Reader, since the finishing of this Treatise a memorable Story hath fallen out in the Town of Colchester, in the County of Essex, worthy public knowledge, which I shall here relate. One Thomas Nuceman Parson of the Parish Church of S. Runwald in Colchester caused the Communion-Table in his Church to be removed and railed in Altarwise; Which done he enjoins all the Communicants to come up to the new rail, and there to kneel down and receive the Sacrament, refusing to administer the Communion to any but such who came up to the rail, though present in the Chancel and ready to receive it in the accustomed place and manner, and commanding the Churchwarden to present them to D. Aylot (the Archbishop of Canterbury his Surrogate, for that Town during his Metropolitical Visitation) for not receiving, when as they should have presented him for not giving them the Communion, when as they there proffered to receive it, after their ancient manner. One Mr. Burroes of that Parish being thrice put by the Sacrament, for not coming up to this new rail, and yet presented for not receiving, thereupon prefers a Bill of Indictment upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. against Nu●oman for this Innovation at Colchesters' Sessions: Which Indictment being ill drawn, and most of the grand jury Nucomans friends, an Ignoramus was retained thereon, and Dulman the Clerk that drew it, might have well been added thereto. This Indictment only exhibited so troubled Nucoman and Dr. Aylot, that the next Court-day Mr. Burroes is excommunicated for not appearing in Court, though he made his personal appearance, and there continued till the Court was risen, as he could prove by 20 witnesses, and the Dr and Register both confessed as much, (such strange justice and vexatious oppression now reigns in these spiteful, I should say spiritual Courts.) The next Lord's day, Nucoman publisheth the Excommunication in the Church, and then sends the Churchwardens to Mr. Burroes there present to command him to depart the Church: Who coming to him accordingly; He told them, that the Excommunication certainly was forged by Nucoman his enemy, that there was none granted against him in the Court, for he was present all the while; And how ever, it came not out in the King's name, under the King's Seal, and by an authority derived immediately from the King by special Letters Patents, as it ought by Law to do, and the express provision of the Statutes of 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. and therefore it was void in Law, neither would nor could he in point of loyally to his Majesty obey it, being not made by his authority. Whereupon the Churchwardens left him. Nucoman hereupon bids them carry him out of the Church; The Churchwardens refuse to do it. Then he chargeth the Constables to do it: Who c●●ming to Mr. Burro●s; he told them, that he was not excommunicated, that they had nothing to do in the Church, neither was it any part of their office but the Churchwardens to remove him, and therefore bid them to do no more than they could justify by Law, else they should smart for it. Upon this they left him. Nucoman hereupon puts off his Surplice, closeth his Book and g●eth out of the Church, the people follow him by degrees. Mr. Burroes sits still till about 11. of the clock when the Clerk came to shut the doors. The next day there was a great stir about this business, Nucoman would have this a disturbance against the Statute of 1. Mari●e. c. 3. Mr. Burroes said, that he was the disturber and the Dr, for publishing and granting such an illegate excommunication and giving over divine service without cause, and that he was not to go out by Law if the excommunication had been legal, but aught to have been carried out by the Churchwardens, and so was no disturber. Much ado there was about it. Mr. Burroes to clear the business goes to the Register and Dr. to know whether he was excommunicated or no, and for what cause. At first they denied he was excommunicated, neither would they believe that Nucoman had published any excommunication against him: Which when he made appear, they then told him he was excommunicated indeed by the Court: He demanded for what cause? They answered for not appearing: He replied he was present all the while in Court, and that they both knew to be true; And is this, said he, your justice to excommunicate men for not appeapearing, when they are all the while in Court? To which Dr. Aylot answered, ● Sir, you are an audacious fellow indeed, you will indite your Minister for Innovations, we will take you down in time, and teach you how to indite Ministers, I will excommunicate you ● all the Parishes round about and throughout England, and see who dares absolve you, for Inhibition I am sure you can have none. Will you so Mr. Dr. said he, I thought your power had not been so large as to reach over all England, nor your presumption and insolency so great as to excommunicate his Majesty's subjects thus against Law, for inditing these that break both his Majesty's Laws and Declarations; If you abuse me thus as you say, you will, I will not only go to Church notwithstanding your excommunication, but likewise bring you into the Star-chamber for abusing me in this manner. Well the * This Dr. is an high Commissioner, and when any man opposeth his extortions or Innovations presently he hath a dormant warrant and Pursuivant to arrest and vex the parties● With which course he hath so vexed & abused the Country and his Majesty's authority, that hanging is to good for him; The like have other Commissioners done. Dr. proceeds, excommunicates him upon no grounds in other Parish-Churches, threatens him with the High Commission, only for inditing Nucoman for abusing him as before, and bringing in Innovations. And doth not such a rejected wilful oppressing unjust Ecclesiastical judge deserve to be trussed up for such proceedings? Were § His 5. Sermon before King Edward, fol. 64. Bishop Latymer now alive, and should hear such a story of an Ecclesiastical judge, (and most of them are of the same Litter,) he would not stick to say before the King himself; I would wish that of such a judge in England now we might have the skin hanged up. It were a goodly sign, the sign of the judge's skin. And certainly till the skins of some of these Spiritual Devill-Iudges be fleyde off, and their necks graced with a Tiburne-tippet for their extortions and strange oppressions of his Majesty's people, in a way of justice, the people shall never live in quiet, but the Wolves will bite and devour them. Mr. Burroes, notwithstanding all this malice, proceeds in his resolution as well as the Dr. on the 2. of October last, being the Lordsday, he goes to his own Parish-Church, without any absolution, whereupon Nucoman gives over service and departs, and all the people after him; Then he goes to another Church where he was excommunicated; And after that to a third, they all do the like and leave the Church. On Monday the 3. of October, being the Sessions-day for the Town, he prefers a new Indictment against Nucoman for his Innovations, the Mayor and Recorder persuade him to desist, he refuseth to do it; Then they wish him to put it off till next Sessions, because it was a new case. He answered, the case was plain, and that he must by the Statute indite him this Sessions or not at all. Then they fall to persuade the jury, not to find the Indictment; The jury being stout honest men, notwithstanding find it, Billa vera, this Innovation of Nucoman being a notorious affront both against the Statute and his Majesty's late Declarations; They desire them to change their verdict; The honest men refuse to do it: Thereupon the Sessions is presently adjourned for 10. days. Nuoman posts to the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acuaint him with these proceedings, and to crave his direction what shallbe done. Upon his return he brings down a Pursuivant and Process with him to arrest Mr. Burroes only for prosecuting him in the King's behalf, enters his house, and first by policy, after that by power seeks to apprehend him, sets the whole Town in an uproar, gets the Sessions adjourned 9 weeks longer to the end that he may escape the punishment of the Statute, and remove the Inditemeut thence into the King's Bench for delay. Thus are the King's good Subjects abused by a pack of jewde companions, and the High Commission made the Instrument, not only of oppressing his Majesty's best subjects, but of patronising knaves and offenders in their open contempts against his Majesty's Laws and Declarations, the chief use it now serves for. Master Burroes threatens them all with the Star-chamber, for a conspiracy, and denying him and the King's justice; And so the matter yet hangs in suspense. This case is like to be a precedent for all England to follow; And if all people where Communion-Tables are turned into Altars, or railed in Altarwise, or they enforced in a new manner to come up to the rail to receive; will prefer the like Inditements against their Ministers (yea and Bishops too, the chief Agents in these Novelties, upon the second clause of the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2.) whereupon they are to be imprisoned 6. whole months, without bail or mainprize, upon the first Conviction and Indictment, and to forfeit one whole years' profits of all their Ecclesiastical livings & promotions; And for the second, to be imprisoned and deprived of all their livings ipso facto; for the third to forfeit all their goods, and be for ever made uncapable of any Ecclesiastical living or preferments; Our busy Romish Innovatours will shrink in their bornes, & we shallbe no more troubled with Altars, railing in Lords-Tables, or ascending up to them to receive. For their ease & encouragement, in which good work, I shall here se●t down the Copy of his Indictment, which the jury hath form, against Nucoman, the Minister, as a precedent worthy general imitation in all places where is need. juratores pro Domino Rege praesentant, quod cum in Statuto Parliamenti Dominae Elizabethae nuper Angliae Reginae tenti apud Westm● in Com: Mid: Anno regni sui primo inactitatum & ordinatum inter alla existit, quod si aliquis Persons, Vicarius sive alius Minister culuscunque generis qui cantare vel pronunciare debet communem praecatlonem mentional: in libro c●i titulus, Liber communis praecationis, ac administrationis● Sacramentorum, ac aliorum vituum & Ceremoniarum Ecclesiae Anglicanae, in praedicto Statuto specificatus, de vel post festum nativitatis S. Johannis Baptistae, Sessionem dicti Parliamenti tunc proximè sequentis, uti recusaret dictis communibus praecationibus, sive administrare Sacramenta in tali Cathedrali vel Parochiali Ecclesia suis aliis locis in quibus eadem administrare assuesere deberet, talibus ord ne & forma quemadmodum in dicto libro specificantur editaque existunt, vel praefracte aut obstinate persistens in eodem uteretur ullo; alio ritu, Ceremonia Ordine, Forma, sive modo celebrationis, Cenae Dominicae aperte vel privatim, sive Matutinis, vel, Vespertinis, administratione Sacramentorum, vel aliis apertis precibus, quam in dicto libro commemoratur & prescribitur vel predicaret, declarent aut loqueretur quicquam in dero, gationem sive depravationem dicti libri vel alicuius rei inde contentae, vel alicuius inde partis, ac legitimè convictus erit inde secundum huius Regnileges per veredictionem duodecim hominum, aut per propriam confessionem, vel per insignem criminis evidentiam perdet ac fòristaciet dictae Dominae Reginae haeredibus & Successoribus suis pro prim● offensu profic●um omnium suorum spiritualium beneficiorum sive promotionum provenientium vel emergentium per bonum annum integrum proxime, post huiusmodi convictionem; Ac etiam quod persona sic convicta carceri manciparetur per spacium sex mensium sine vadimenio vel manucaptione. Qu●dam tamen Thomas Nucomanus Parsona Parochialis Ecclesiae Sancti Runwaldi infra Colcecestriam in Comitatu Essex Clericus qui debet administrare Srcramenta in dicta Ecclesia modo Ritu & forma prout specificatur & statuitur in dicto libro 14. die Aprilis, Anno Regni Domini nostri Caroli, Dei gratia Angliae, Scotiae, F●anciae & Hiberniae Regis, fidei defensoris, etc. duodecimo, vi & armis, de sua Schismatica & factiosa dispositione, & Innovationis ambitu recusabat administrare Sacramentum Cenae Dominicae in dicta Ecclesia, modo Ritu & forma sicut in dicto libro commemoratur & prescribitur, ac etiam ad tunc & 〈◊〉 praeftacte & obstinate in eodem persistens aperte 〈◊〉 aliis Ritibus, Ceremonijs, ordine, forma, ac modo C●lebrandae Cenae Dominicae, quam in dicto libro specificatur & prescribitur, videlicet, in non collecando vel collocari faciendo mensam Dominicam tempore administratiovis praedicti Sacramenti in corpore dictae Ecclesiae sive Cancellae vel Chori eiusdem quò a communicatibus dictae Parochialis Ecclesiae magis convenienter audiretur i● sua precatione ac administratione, ac etiam ijdem Communicantes majori numero secum communicarent; Nec non in cogendo Communicantes & Parochianos dictae Ecclesia novo ac inusitato modo & forma ad novam repagulam circa mensam Dominicam & dictae Ecclesiae nuperime collocatam ascendere, ibidenque Cenam Dominicam flexis genibus procumbe●●es alternatim recipere, recusandeque administrare dictum Sacramentum Communicantibus & Parochialibus dictae Ecclesiae, ad dictam repagulam non ascendentibus, idque loco vitato eiusdem Ecclesiae idem accipere paratis & efflagitantibus contra ordinem, ritum ac formam in dicto libro edit: & specificat: & consuetudinem Ecclesiae Anglicanae hactenus usitatam & approbatam, ac etiam contra formam dicti Statuti, & pacem Domini Regis nunc, necnon in gravem contumatiam & Contemptum Declarationum dicti Domini Regis nuper editatorum, & in magnam perturbationem, inquietationem & distractionem Subditorum dicti Domini Regis, & perniciocissimum exemplum allorum Scbismaticorum ac Innovatorum, & suscitationem plurimarum Schismatum, lituum, contentionum & seditionum inter Ligies dicti Domini Regis. FINIS.