them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâ—edecke or any of Christs Tribe Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it and that those Archbishops Bishops Preists and Ministers who will needs have set up Altars plead write dispute for Altars likewise waite on serve give attendance at the Altar are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal of their Tribe not Ministers of Iesus Christ nor any of his sacred Tribe none of which gave any attendance at the Altar This is the Apostles reason inference the very drife of his argumentation not mine let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it and evade or answer it as they may 6. Christians have no such sacrifices incense-offrings or oblations which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar All their Sacrifices now as prayer prayse liberality to the poore mortifying their lusts the offring up of their soules and bodyes â—living Sacrifice unto God are spirituall requiring neither a Preist much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hâ—sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâ—or 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. as Bishop Hooper and King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue Therfore they neither have nor ought to hâ—re any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine or the Lords Supper itselfe and a meanes to consecrate them This reason is fully warranted by our Saviours owne resolution Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty Yee fooles and blind for whether is greather the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they even as Christ our spirituall altar consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sacrifices Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine or the Lords Supper itselfe though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it and when they have the Sacrament itselfe in their hand to which they give no such adoration imply it to be so or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it for what need then any prayer or words of consecration therfore it is no Altar 8. Every Altar was and ought to be dedicated solemnly consecrated unto God with speciall oyntments sprinkling of blood and solemnities specially the Altar of incense and attonement and those Altars placed in the Temple else they were not to be used or reputed Altars Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to â—0 c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10 c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others of which more anon But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated nor solemnely dedicated sprinkled enoyled neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God or of our Church and State Therfore they neither are nor can be Altars 9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists and to usher Popery Masse Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting defiling of Gods house Sâ—crament the setting up of grosse Idolatrie must needs be sinnefull unlawfull to be abandoned of us But the erecting of Altars in our Churches the calling of Communion Tables Altars and turning of them Altarwise so reading second service administring at them will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists will usher Popery Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe c. as Bishop Hooper others forequoted authorities evidence and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull unlawfull to be abandoned of us now as they have been heretofore both in King Edward the 6. in Queen Elizabeths dayes 10. That which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive Church for above the 250. yeares after him either had or used in their Churches administration of the Sacrament that we who ought to imitate their example 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6. ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches But neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitive Church in her purest times for above 250. yeares after Christ either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. his Counsell against Altars Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table and not at an Altar as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion the comming unto the Lords Supper and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion Wherfore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church then the forme of an Altar therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale and some what blurred obseured I shall produce some few authorities to cleare it The third part of our owne incomperable Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie confirmed both by Statute the Articles of our Church and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us That all Christians in the Primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also Aâ—nobius doe
of the Apo. part 2. c. 1 divis 3. p. 315. reply to Hardin art 3. div 26. p. 145. * Notes on Exo. c. 20. 27. p. â—79 307. * Homely against the perill of Idâ—lat par 3. p. 50. 51 52. 75. Queene Elizabets Injunct n. 23. art of Ireland 52. t Synopsis Papismâ— the 9. gen Contr. qu. 6. Error 52 53. * In M. Chancies M. Wards case others l I Schismaticall Puritan p. â—… m Sermon of Gods house n Exposition of the Catech. in the CoÌ„mon prayer booke neere the end Coale from the Altar p. 52. o Godwyn ibid. l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. * Godwyn ibidein a Artic. 28 b Fox Acts monuments the later part c Godwyns Iewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. g Treatise of the Church or Godâ— house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. 19. h Exposition of the Catech. in the Communion booke toward the end i Page 6. 14. 15. 18. 32. 38. to 58. k Fox Acts Monu p 795. l Fox ibid. p. 879. * Note this * Note o Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. p Fox Acts Monu p. 1404. 1406. q Fox ibid. p. 888. r This the Common prayer Bokes themselves evidence and the Coale from the Altar confesseth p. 37. to 42. s 3. and 4. E 6. c. 1. t See Antiasminianisme p. 58. 59. 64 u B. White in the CeÌ„sure of D. Vastnicke other of the Bâ—s all that time Normington and others in their late Serm. M. Shelford in his 5. Treatises with many others x Fox Acts Monu p. 121. y Edit ult part 2. p. 18 44. z Pag. 1â—1 a Canons 1603. Can. 36. 37. 38. b See the Booke of Ordinat c B. Wrens late visit Articles d Bishop Montague in his Sermon before the King the last Lent e Shelford Reve B. White D. Pocklington the Coale from the Altar with others f Acts Monum p. 1282. g Ibidem p. 1333. h 1. Mariae c. 3. Sess. 2. i Fox ibid. p. 1344. 1345. k Fox ibid. p. 1404. 1406. l Fox ibid. p. 1512. 1515. m Fox ibid p. 1601. 1604. * Note See Fox p. 1211. n Page 20. 21. o Lame Giles his haultings q Lame Giles p. 37 r Fox ibid. p. 1610. s Fox Acto Monu p. 1652. 1653. t Fox ibid. p. 1703. u Fox ibid. p. 1781. x Fox ibid p. 1786. * Neere the end y Artic. 2. z Page 20. 21. a Se Haddon Câ—nt 〈…〉 l. 3. s. 271. b Annot. 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11. se. 18. 〈◊〉 Heb. â—0 sect 6. c M. Novel his Reprouse of Dormans proose â— 15. 16. 17 d in his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell e Reynolds Cons. with 〈◊〉 8. divis 4. f Answer to Hardings Preface Replie to Harding Art 3. div 26. g Contr. Osorum l. 3. f. 271. h Reproofe of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. 66. i His Catech. vol. 1. f. 484. k Answer to the Rhemish Test on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. Apoâ— 6 sect 2. l Synopsis Papismi Contr. gener 9. Error 53 54. 55. m Confer with Hart eÌ„h. 8. sect 4. m Shelford of Gods house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. The Coale from the Altar Sunday no Sabb. p 15 27 28 29 43 48. 50 a Orig. l. 15. 4. b â—n their Diâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Summa Angelica 〈◊〉 Altare Consâ—o Alt. Rhem. Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. d Summa Ang. Tit. Altare Cons. Alt. D. Rainold 〈◊〉 with Hart c. 8. diois 4. 5. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe f. 66. e Fox Acts monumâ— p. 1211. f Godwin Moses and Aaron l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 1. f Hom. 17. Sup. Iesum Nave toâ— 1 s. 158 f. 6. g In L am Ier. l. 2. zain Btbl. PatruÌ„ tom 9. part 1. p. 167. c. h Enarrat in Ps. 118. Oct 3. Tom. 2. p. 422 c. i In 7 Psal. Poenitent â— 235 c k Exposit. â—n Exod. c. 20. to 4. Col. 112. 113. l Comment in Apoc. c. 47. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 526. m In Festo Omnium Sanctorum Serm. 4. Col. 292 c. n Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4â— 5. Hos. 14 2. Heb. 13. 15. o Nazianz. Orat. in laudem Basily 21 Oratio p De verbis Domini secundum Joan. Serm. 46. Tom. 10. p. 225. q Theodoret Dial. Atreptus c. 11. r Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. De Pomitentia Hom. 7. Tom. 5. Col. 746. B. Hom. 45. in Ioan. Hom. in Psal. 22 216. Hom. 1. deverbus Isaiae vidi Dom. s Com. in Natuum c. 1. Tom. 5. p. 137. t Theophylacâ—t Evar. in 1. Cor. 11. u Oecumenius in 1. Cor. c. 11. x Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Eusebius Caesariensis apud Damascenum Paralel l. 3. c. 47. Petrus Blesensis Hom. 20. in Litania Maâ—ai Niceph. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 41. Euthymius in Psal. 22. Concil Nicenum can â—lt apud Servum Tom. 1. p. 347. Gratianus de consecrat distinct 2. p B. Iewel Replie to Harding Art 30 divis 26. p. 145. D. Reynold conâ—â—rence with Hart p 476. 477 478 M. Nowell his Reprofe of Dormans proufe p. 15. 16. 17. D. Fulke and M. Cartwright Conâ—ut of the Rhemish Testament on Heb. 13. sect 16. 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. * Quod nullum Altarenovit cum sit ex Tribu Iuda in quo nemo assistit Altari c. Ibidem a Third Serm. upon Ionah b Fox Acts 〈◊〉 p. 1211. * See the Rhemish Notes M Cartwright on this Text. d Gratian. de Consec Distinct. â— Summa Angelica Tit. de Consecrat Altaris e Serm. 3. on Jenah f 1. Elz. c. 12. g Art 35. h Can. 36. 37. i Contra Cels. l. 4. 8. k Contra Demetriadem l Advers Geutes l. 6 m Acts 5. n Defence of the Apologie Artic. 3. 26. Divis. p. 145. o Contra Celsum l. 4 p Arnobius l. 6. a Contra Ceâ—s l. 8. Tom. 4. f. 101 Cels. Aras simulachra delubro nos aut diffugere QVO MINVS FVNDENTVR c. b Contra Cels. l. 7. f. 96. 97. l. 4. f. 46. 47. e Instit. l. 6 De verâ— Cultu c. 24. e Instit. l. 2 c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 11. 17. 18. 19. d Se Thoâ—â— Becons Reliques of Rome fol. 322. a. e Page 45â— 46. 47. Object Answer f Cookes Censura p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. g Censura p. 59. 60. 61. g So he stiles it also l. 5. p. 540. 541. h Se Aug. de Sanctis Serm. 11. B. Iewells Replie 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 i Reliq of Rome of Church Goods vol. 3. f. 322. k Censurae Pat 〈◊〉 p. 80. l See Greg. Nys Orat. 3. de resur all the Fathers on that Text.
some late printed Bookes The Church of Rome to be a true Church and never to have erred in any fundamentall points no not in the worst times And publikely maintaining the Pope or Papacy not to be Aâ—tichrist and Antichrist yet not to be come in open affront to our Homilies Articles Authorised Writers of all sorts and the professed position of all the Reformed Churches of the world So much doe some of your Prelates and Priests now dote upon the Whore of Rome and her abominations Yea such hath been the monstruous unparalled presumption of these undutifull persidious Innovatours since these Declarations published by your Majesty that they have dared to purge corrupt sophisticate and Innovate the publike Records and Monuments of the Church of England ratified by sundrie Acts of Parliament without your Majesties privity To such an hight of insolency are they growen I shall instance only in 3. particulars worthy your Majesties yea the whole Kingdomes consideration and the severest Censures that your Royall Justice can inflict First they have purged corrupted the Booke of Common-Prayer in two severall places the first whereof so neerely concernes your Majesty your Royall Confort and Princely Issue that J should be no lesse then an Arch-Traytor to you all should I not discover but conceale it In the ancient Common-prayer-Bookes there was this Collect prescribed for the Queen Prince and Royall Issue O God who art the Father of thine Elect and of their seed we humblie beseeth thee to blesse our most gracious Queen c. These busy Innovatours to testify their loyalty and duty to your Majesty your Queen and Royall Issue have presumed to expung you all out of the Catalogue of Gods Elect and to ranke you all in the number of Reprobates and Castawayes with one dash Blotting this clause who art the Farher of thine Elect and of their seed quite out of this Collect in all the late Common-prayer-Bookes VVhereby they have done as much as in them lies not only to deprive your Majesty and your Princely Jssue of that temporall Crowne of Soveraignty over these your Realmes to which you are Elected by God but also to rob both your Majesty your Noble Queen your Royall Issue your most Illustrious Sister and her Princely Progenie of that eternall Crowne of glory likewise to which both Charity and Loyalty enjoyne us to believe you are Elected through Gods free grace and everlasting decree Elect in the Collect being taken in both these sences VVhether these pragmaticall Refiners of this prayer deserve not a Tiburne-Tippet at the least for this bold attempt I humbly submit to your Royall Majesty 2. The second alteration they have made in the Booke of Common-prayer is in the Epistle for Palme-Sunday small in appearance but great in consequence All the Common Prayer-Bookes before the yeare of our Lord 1629. as likewise Tyndals Couerdales 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 Latine Writers and Translations but two of late to witt the Beza and Castalio who render it Ad nomen not IN nomine as all others doe in this maner That IN the name of Iesus every knee should bow c. But these Innovatours to Jdolize the name Iesus 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 yeare of our Lord 1629. the very next yeare after your Majesties 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 originall the sence 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 nonsence As appeares by turning IN into AT in all the texts of Scripture where this phrase IN the name is used As Math. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Iohn 16. 23. Whatsoever yee shall aske the Father IN my name he will give it you Acts 3. 6. IN the name of Iesus Christ of Nazareth stand up and walke Acts 9. 27. 2. 9. He preached boldly at Damascus IN the name of Iesus 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 Nonsence and so it doth in this very text Phil. 2. 10. As some have manifested at large in particular Treatises of this Subject and Ceremonies of bowing at the name of Iesus when it is pronounced brought in by Popes with indulgences for idolatrous ends and not knowne not used in the Primitive Church for above 1200 yeares 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-Booke to omit the changing of Minister into Priest in some places I cannot certainly informe your Majesty But if common same and circumstances may be creditedâ— they were some of your greatest Prelates this day living One of the chiefe instruments imployed in this good service who can discover the parties that sett him about this worke Then a Chaplaine to a great Bishop now to your Majesty was Dr. Iohn Cosens as I was long since informed by your Majesties Printer Mr. Norton upon the first discovery and inquirie after this abuse A fit instrument for such a purpose Who but the yeare before was accused in Parliament for dangerous words against your Majesty and the Reformers of our Religion To witt That your Majesty was no more Supreame Head of the Church of England next and immediately under Christ then the Boy that rubbed his horse heeles That the Reformers of our Church when they tooke away the Masse tooke away all Religion and the whole service of God They called it a Reformation but it was indeed a Deformation That the Masse was a good thing and a good word As also for setting up Images an Altar and no lesse then 220 Tapers 16 Torches on Candlemas-day in the Cathedral Church of Durham coutrary 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 Assises 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 capitall in other men he hath been so
all to make Puritans odious to your Majesty being the only men that keep both your Crowne and Religion safe J shall therefore humblie beseech your Majesty when ever you heare any Legends or Declamations against Puritans hereafter to consider from what kinde of Persons they proceed and to put them that utter them to make proofe of what they say or else to brand them with an hot-iron in the cheekes or forehead with an S for slaunderers And then you will never heare any more fables of Puritans with which your Royall eares are now so oft abused by the Iesuite Contzens Disciples VVho gives this as one chiefe rule how to usher Popery into any Christian State to slaunder and disgrace the Puritans and zelots to make them odious both to Prince and people and then Popery will breake in without any opposition or noyse at all 2. Secondly By this perverting of this Prayer the chiefe Odium against Iesuites Priests and Papists the chiefe Authourâ— of this horrid treason is mittigated and taken off that so they may take roote among us againe to the ruine both of Church State and without Gods speciall protection of your Sacred Majesty to whom they will ever be treacherous as they have alwayes been to all Christian Princes and Republikes that would not be their slaves and Vassals to yeild universall obedience to them in what ever they should commaund 3. Thirdly By this Metamorphosis of whose Religion is Rebellion whose Faith is Faction c. into Those workers of iniquity who turne Religion into Rebellion and Faith into Faction The Romish Religion is acquitted and purged from that damnable treasonable Rebellious factious Doctrine of the lawfulness of deposing and murthering Christian Kings and Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or enemies to the Roman Church and Faith Of which the first prayer the Statute of 3. Iacobi c. 4. in the forme of the Oath of Supremacy the Homilies and Writers of our Church and among others Dr. John White in his Defence of the way to the true Church c. 6. c. 10. Sect. 5 6. 7. 8. and Dr. Richard Crakanthrop in his Treatise of the Popes Temporall Monarchie c. 1. and 11. Which Authours chapters I shall humblie desire your Majesty and all that love either your safety or Religion seriously to read over at their best leisure and then let them love Popery Priestes and Iesuites if they can or dare prove them deeply guilty both in pointâ— of Theory and Practise And if all these fayle yet their obstinate refusall of the Oath of Supremacy which only enjoynes them to renounce this Doctrine of King-killing proves them deeply guilty of it and can your Majesty trust such neare about you who will by no meanes sweare they will not murther nor deprive you Now for any thus farre to gratify Traytours and Rebels as to acquit them from that very Doctrine which makes them such even then when they are quilty of it must needs be a danegrous if not a Trayterous Act perillous to your Majesty and the whole Realme 4. Fourthly This Alteration extenuates the greatnes and execrable odiousnes of that horrid Treason both in respect of the Actors and that desperate Doctrine which moved them to committ it And to mince or extenuate such an unparalleld treason as this so execrable to all the world Is nothing else but to turne Traytour and become guilty of the same treason or of another as bad as it Yea it is to be feared that those who wil be so perfidious as after thus many Yeares to goe about to extenuate and lessen such a Treason have a minde to turne Traytours themselves atleast wise to favour Treason and Traytours and have treasonable hearts within them 5. Fiftly This corruption is a large step to the abolishing of the memory of this never to be forgotten Treason and of that solemne Holy-day on the 5. of November instituted by Act of Parliament for this very end that our unfained thankfulnes for our happy deliverance from this Hellish designe might NEVER BE FORGOTTEN but be had in A PERPETUALL REMEMBRANCE that ALL AGES TO COME may yeeld prayses to the Divine Majesty and have in memory THIS IOYFULL DAY OF DELIVERANCE they are the words of the Act. For when such a treason begins once to be blanched slighted and the solemne gratulatory Prayers instituted for its remembrance thus miserablie to be corrupted the next step can be no other but the abrogating both of the Booke itselfe and the solemnity kept in remembrance of the treason And then when this is effected the next newes we shall heare of from Rome will be the deniall of the Fact that there was ever any such treason plotted though sundrie Histories specifie it As they have long since published in print that Henry Garnet the Iesuite and Arch-plotter of it had no hand therein And that there was never any Pope Ione though above 20 ancient Popish Writers record there was such a one and shee a Pope a strumpet a most say an English woman 6. Sixtly It is apparant that this alteration was made only to gratify the Priests the Jesuites Papâ—sts and men Trayterously affected Since all loyall Subjects and true-bred English spirits cannot but abhor it Therefore who-ever were the Authours or occasions of it be they either Arch Prelates Bishops Priests or other for J cannot yet certainly discover the parties neither have I any sufficient meanes or Commission to doe it it being a thing worthy your Majesties owne Royall Discoverie as the Powder-plot itselfe was your Fathers KING JAMES his owne ever-blessed detection if it be not Arch-Traytours and Rebels yet J dare proclaime them no friends to your Majesty nor yet to the Church or State of England or to the Religion we professe but enemies to them all and friends to none but Rome whose iustruments they were in this particular 3. The third corruption and forgery is in the very Articles of Religion of the Church of England at first compiled in King Edward the 6. his raigne Anno 1552. Revised and re-established Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeths dayes after that Anno 1571. confirmed by Act of Parliament 13. Eliz. c. 12. and printed both in Latine and English the same yeare by the Queens Authority The 20 Article in all these ancient Editions and all others in Queen Elizabeths raigne as likewise in the Articles of Ireland taken verbatim out of the English printed at Dublin Anno 1615. and twice reprinted at London An. 1628. 1629. Artic. 75. of the Authority of the Church runs thus It is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Words c. But the Bishops to advance their owne usurped Authority gaine some colour to arregate to themselves a power of prescribing new rites and Ceremonies have forged a New Article of Religion and added it unto this without either your Majesties or
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe 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 dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. â— 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever oâ— to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Edâ— 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves 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 doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring 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 Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall 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 compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have fâ—â—o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke 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 comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of Common-prayer and Ordination of Ministers wherein there is not one syllable concerâ—ing any such consecrations nor any forme of prayer or service institâ—ted for all or either of them as there is for all other rites Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites Ceremonies Formes of Prayer and Consecrations then such as are comprised and prescribed in thâ—se two Bookes It is infallable that they have utterly abolished and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches Church-yards Chappels and Altars as Iewish Popish Superstitious or at least superfluous and quite excluded it out of our Church As for our Canons Homilies Iâ—junctions and Articles of Religion there is not in all nor any one of them inferred â—re title concerning these Consecrations Which condemne and exclude them by their silence The Homilies likewise have some glances against them For our writers Mr. Tyndall in â—is obedience page 136. 152. of a Christian man William Wraâ—ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox Iohn Bale B of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome Mr. Calâ—r hill in his booke against Marshall Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and deâ—â—ed those Consecrations as Superstitious Iewish Popish and Antichristian styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches Chappels and Altars invâ—nted only for profiâ—â— and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake And to name no more reverent Pilkirgâ—on seveaâ—ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to deligâ—â— the people but where the Gospell is preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are conâ—ent with an honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all It is written that God dwels not in Temples made with handes nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes but he is a â—spirit an invisible substance and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not in outward wordes only of the â—ippe but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart and the whoâ—e power of the mind earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone and timber but hath willed as to pray in all places and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse which is thought to be more in one place then in another All the Earth is the Lords and he is present in all places hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water to make one place more holy then the rest are no better then the Iewes deceaving the people and teaching that only to be holy which they have censed crossed oyled and breathed upon For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then
another Woman believe me the time is come whâ—n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem nor in this hill but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth So is it now said the place makes not the man holy but the man makes the place hâ—ly and ye shall not worshippe your Jdols Stockes and Stones neither at Wilsingham Ipswich Canterbury nor Sheve for God chuses not the people for the places sake but the places for the peoples sakeâ— But iâ— ye be in the middest of the feild God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers as in any Abbey or Burrey yea a thousand times more for the one place he hates as defiled with Idolatry and the other he loves as undefiled and cleane If the good man lye in prison tyed in chames or at the stake burned for Gods cause That place is holy For the holinesse of the man and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him As Tertullian saith yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in to praise our God c. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard nor Christen moldes as they be called when it it is no better then other Earth but rather worse for the conjuring that Bishops use about it It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves the Widdows Sonne going to buriall Christ buried without the city c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city which custome remaineth to this day in many godly places As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead so it is now and one place is as holy as another to be buried in saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall be glorified at the last day againe but seemely to be buried and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts and unreverent using of the same for the same purpose IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed as they say with their conjured water crossings censings processions c. But blessed be that God our Lord which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies which they devise to fill their bellies and maintaine their authority by Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament nor yet commanded now either to us oâ—â— them but forbidden to be used of all both of us and them We be no longer under shaddowes but under the truth Christ hath fulfilled all and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Churchâ— to continue to the end Thus and much more this Bishop who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops tearming these creatures ravening Wolves Lyâ—ns Beares and such other ravening Beasts for mercilesnes rapâ—ne and cruelty If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Sâ—â—tutes Commonâ—prayerâ— boâ—ke Hâ—milies Canons Articleâ— Injunctions Writers and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himselfe in a Booke printed at Lordâ— n◠〈◊〉 An 1562. the same yeare he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them to consecrate Churches Chappels Church yards and Altars accounting them alltogether prophane unlesse they have defiled conjured I should have said consecrated them with their new devised Ceremonies Orisons Consecration Rites and Ceremonies takenout of Popist Masse-bookes Ceremonials Rituals at large related in Summa Rosella Summa Angelica Bochellous Gratian Ivo Lyderwood Hostrensis with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars and treatises of this subject deserving rather derision then imitation If they have no Law at all for it but only the Popes Canon Law as they have not aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament is derogatory to the Kings prerogative the subjects liberties and the Lawes and Statuâ—es of the Realme Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations as things of infinite moment How hotte they have beene upon consecration of Altars appeares not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton of which before but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches in Mâ—gaâ—len Colledge 〈◊〉 Oxford in Clare-hall Petorhouse Queenes Collâ—dgâ— with diâ—en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration adorned with Tapors Candlestickes Basons Crucifixes Crosses rich Altar-clothes clasped brave Bookes with Crosses in steed of Bosses Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions rich hangings and dayly adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations to the great greife of all good Christians who mourne to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened disguised with the Reliques Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. Câ—llins in 〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much extâ—lled like an Apostazing Pander preaching openly in S. Maries Churchâ— That it is sitt wâ—e should meet the Papists halfeway both in preaching and practise Which he and others there have not oâ—â—â— done but almost if not quite râ—nâ—honâ—â— unto them as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara that moderne Reconciler vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke To the great incouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction Who vauâ—â— thatâ— they need no step one foote to us who are running withal speed to come home to them unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome to drive us home againe for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree with all their migâ—â— and man How earnest and zealous our Prelates have bâ—â—â— in their consecration of Churches Chappels and Church-yards placing great holinesse in this Ceremony yea and necessity too And evident not only by their late visitation Articles wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets that it be by no meanes prophaned but likewise by sundrie late consecrations and contests about this Ceremonie I shall instance only in â— particulars omitting all the rest together with the solemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones then men whom he can finde
Crucifix in the mid lest two Candlestâ—ckes at the least one placed at the right hand another at the left which shall stand alvvayes on it but especially on all Holy-dayes unlesse the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order VVhich Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an haires breadth though I say this Counsell decreed all this and more yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar Therefore it seemes to be a thiâ—g of no great request even among the Papists who bow only to the Hostia on it Bâ—shâ— Mâ—tons Iâ—stitution of the Sacram p. 463. not to the Altar it selfe or towards it These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be produced by any for bowing to Altars And all these if duely weighed are nothing at least to sway with any Protestant or syncere Christian. As for bowing to or towards the Lords 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 stâ—â—ed Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. Nicâ—ph Gâ—eg f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacramâ—nt p. 303. there is not one syllable in all my reading nor I thinke in any man else to be found If any demaund now of me how I prove that the primitive Châ—rch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars Lords Tables and therefore we ought not now to doe it I answer that I can manifest it sundrie wayes 1. Because I finde no such thing either in the Fatâ—eâ—s or Ecclesiasticall Historians where all the Rights and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church are accurately sett downe and aâ—scribed See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoniâ—s 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 sâ—â—â—nce by them 2. Because the Primitive Church and Chrâ—stians for 260 yeares 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 farre disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Prophane Tables and Oysterboards Acts Monum Edit ult pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497. 3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred yeares after Christ prohibited all Christianâ— to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday and from Easter till Whitson-tide on any weekeday in honour of Christs resurection holding it an offence and sinne so to doe even in the act of prayer and adoration it selfe As Tertullians vvords in his Booke De Corona Militis witnesseth Die Dominica jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare And these subsequent Authorities doe likewise manifest it Iustin 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 deemâ—d it a sinne to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those dayes the cheife time of theâ— Christian and publicke assembles especially for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Ivo Carnotâ—â—ses Decretal Pars 1. c. 25. 34. It is certaine therefore that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tablesâ— as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacrament much lesse bovved their heâ—ds or knees at the naming of Iesus as some ignorant shallovv-pated Novellers now pretend and give out without proofe or shaddovv of truthâ— 4. Because the Fathers condemned as Idolatry all bâ—wing to or towards Images or Idols all worshipping 〈◊〉 God in by through or towards them Holding divâ—◠〈◊〉 and adoration a thing peculiar to God alone 〈…〉 immediately to God himselfe without any such 〈…〉 â—elpes of Images or Altars condemning all relative wâ—rship as derogatory to his Majesty See the Homily of the 〈◊〉 of Idolatrie Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints Therefore this vvorshâ—pping and adoring of God in by through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table is a thing utterly coÌ„demned by them to be detested of all which would have hardned the Gentiles in their Idolatrie for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches and carefully Tertulliani Apologia wiped of these Cauils of 〈◊〉 Pagans who sâ—â—ndered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne the Crosse an Asses head and the like Concluding and protâ—sting 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 â—eaven which they adored all other Altars were Iewish or Pagan reliques abolished by Christs death which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons Institution of the SacrameÌ„t Edit 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. Therefore unfitt 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 assirmâ— 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 justâ—fy this usage In the Discription of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romanes in the month of Ianuary An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32. I 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 Eâ—â—perour in the Cathedrall Church at Fâ—ankfâ—â—d 〈…〉 for him to sit in Ad Altaris 〈…〉 A thâ— South-side of the Altar where the Gosple is usually read higher then the other seates just over against the Altar That the Arch-bishop of Mentz the Duke of Bavarâ—â— the Count Palatine of Rhene Maximilian Arch-Duke of Austria and the Duke of Burgundie sate on his left hand The Arch bishop of Colen the Duke of Saxonie and the Marquâ—sse of Brandenburge on the left hand And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉 the left but just before the Kings face before the Altar On the same side of the Quire sate divers other Bishoppes On the North-side of the Altar sate many Bishops Earles Dukes and Nobles All which in order went and offered at the Altar After which the King came and received his Crowne at the High Altar Masse being ended the Princes
c. But what if wee shall say of this point of Appellations that it was not so from the beginning here unto we claime but your owne common confessions Viz. g That the Apostles did willingly absteine from the words Sacrifice Sacerdos Altar So your Cardinall Durantus your great Advocate for the Roman Masse Whereby they have condemned not only other your Romish disputers who have sought a proofe of your proper Sacrifice in the word Altar used by the Apostle Paule Hebr. 13. But also themselves who from S. Luke Acts. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluded a proper Sacrifice As if the Apostles had both absteined and not absteined from the words of Preist and Sacrifice And againe your Iesuite Lorinus In Acts. 14. 22. de Saâ—erdote Ab hoc abstinet Novum Testamentum ut magis proprio antiqui legis Sacrificij Idolorum concedo The New Testament saith he absteined from the word Sacerdos as from that which is more proper to the Old Testament So he vvherefore this and the English word Priest hauing a different relation one to a sacrificing Minister which is proper to the Old Testament the other as it is derived from the word Presbyter in the New Testrment which is Senior and hath no relation to a sacrificing function It must follow that your Disputers seeking to urge the signification of a sacrificing office proper to the Old Testament for proof of a sacrificing act proper to the New performe as fond and fruitlesse a labour as the patching of old vestments with new pieces whereby the rent is made worse But the Apostles did indeed forbeare such tearmes in their speeches concerning Christian vvorship whereof these your fore-named Disputers can give you a reason Least that say they the Iewish Priesthood being as yet in force might seeme by using Iewish Termes to innovate Iewish ritâ—s Which is enough to shew that you are persuaded they absteined from the use of these words for some Reasons Thus he and much more against Priests And against Altars likewise he hath sundrie passages p. 415. 416. 417. 419. both which this addition allowing seemes not to be his Here againe I cannot but admire that these tearmes of Priests Altars thus shunned by the Apostles and denyed by our writers together with Altars Sacrifices themselves so notablie refelled by this Bishop both An. 1631. 1â—35 should the selfesame yeares by doting Shelford Widdowes Reeve and this yeare by Dr. Pocklington and the namelesse Colier be publikely maintained point-blanke against the Bishop And that they by publike authority should which the Rhemists and Bryelly expound that of Hebr. 13. 10. of a materiall Altar which this Bishop out of Aquiâ—as the Diuines of Colen Bellaâ—mine himselfe and Estâ—us proves 〈◊〉 be ment of it but only of Christ himselfe or of the Altar of the Grosse p. 416. 417. I feare therefore that this Clause was added by some of those Bishops Chaplains who licensed these New Pamphlets which point-blanke oppugne the Bâ—shops booke Or else by some of these New Writers or their Freinds These Reasons I say enduce me to beleeve that this is not the Bishops passage But that which doth must prevaile with me is this the sottishnes of the difference reason and proofes therein alledged which savours neither of his judgement learning nor acurenes All which I shall now examine 1. First the partie here puts a difference betweene Protestants bowing to the Altar and Table and Papists which sayth he is three fold First in the cause or reason of this bowing Papists bow towards the Altar only to adore the Eucharist which is on it Therefore by his owne confession they bow not to or towards the Altar out of any relation to or occasion dravvne from the Altar Though Cardinall Pooles Visitoâ—s in Cambridge enjoyned the Schollers to bow to the ALTAR as well as to the Hostia in Queen Maries dayes But Protestants bow towards the Table to testify the CommunioÌ„ of all the faitâ— full communicants thereâ—â—t Secondly in the Object â—apists bow to the Eucharist Protestants to the Lord of the Table not to the Table of the Lord. Thirdly in the time Papists bow only when the Eucharist is upon it Protestants when no Eucharist is thereon The second difference makes Papists and Protestants bowing both one For they bow not to the Eucharist or consecrated bread and wine See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. But as they apprehend and beleeve it to be the very body bloud of Christ yeâ— Christ himselfe both God and man And so to him which these Protestants termes the Lord of the Tablâ— Therefore the object of their bowing at leastwise according to the Papists Doctrine is both one And so in this respect no diversity in their genuflexions The first and lâ—st liversity makes Protestants worse then Papists and that in these respects 〈◊〉 Prot 〈◊〉 make the Table or Altar the partiall if not totall cause of their bowing to or towards it Wiâ—nes the 3. first reasons alledged for this Ceremonie all drawne from the Table and M. Shelfords distinction See his Sermon of the Church p. 79. that it is not terminativum cultus sed MOTIVUM But the Papists have so much piety and religion in them as neither to make it one or other bowing towards it ONLY to adore the Eucharist Secondly the Papists never bow to the Altar or Table but when the Eucharist and Châ—ist himselfe as they beleeve is really present on it At which time both by their Canons and Doctrine they are enjoyned to bow towards it only to adore the Sacrament A cleare euidence that no part of their bowing is either occasioned by â— or done unto the Altar But our Novellers out stripping the Papists how to or towards the Table even then when there is no Eucharist on it When they both know and beleeve that Christ is not there really present neither in his person nor in his ordinances And when â—s neither the Doctrine nor Canons of our Church enjoyne them so to doe A plaine euidence that they bow not only or principally to the Lord of the Table but to the Table and Altar it selfe Therefore their bowing is farre worse more unreasonable absurd then the Papists in these two respects 3ly The Papists bow thus Bishop Morton Ibid. only to adore their breaden God terminating their worship intentionally only in Christ But our Novellers make Christ only a stalking horse in this their adoration bowing not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table And why so What to worship or honour him therebyâ— No such matter But to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table Such a peece of new divinity as J never read the like except in some Popish Masse bookes to witt Officium beatae Mariae secundum usum sacrum their Ladies Psalter Primer c. which teach their Proselites to pray to God to move
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ— pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ— he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ— Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ— of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ— Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ— prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ— Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origâ—n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ— 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 hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis â—ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ— 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 veriâ—as ambraÌ„ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. 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 knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke 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 Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie 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 c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâ—d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall 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 tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌ„g maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise 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 Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
printed all as most thinke in England to recoÌ„cile us to Rome who makes good use of our Novell Authours Vniversity Acts To hearten his Roman Catholick and seduce Protestants * Widdâ—wâ— Shelford and Reeue especially 〈◊〉 to make sport in akiâ—de s 2. Pet. 2. 22. * Had a Puritan as they stile them spoken but halfe so muchâ— he should have been fined imprisoned pilloried lost his eares ere this * Some reported it of Canterbury t In a Dr. new Pamphlet stolen out of Studley his rayling Booke for the most part and of the same Subject â— Edmond Reeve the Catechism in the Communion Booke expouÌ„ded p. 206. v 2. ChroÌ„ 6. 28 29. 30. c. 7. 13. 14. 15 c. 2. 12. 13 14. 15. 16 17. 18. Zeph. 2. 1. 2. 3. Luke 13. 3. 5. x I say 49. 23. Rom. 13 1. 2. 3. Psal. 101. 3. 4â— 6. 7. 8. y Psal. 11â— 5. Psal. 135. 10. 〈◊〉 Iob. 12. 18. 19. z Psal. 91. 5. 6. 7. a Isay 38. 1. 21. which sicknes most accord to be the plague of which the Emperour Theodosius the third died Griâ—â—ston Imperiall History p. 281. and the King of late with sundrie heretofore b Mr. Tyndals practise of Popish Prelates D. Barnes his Supplication to Henry the â— D. Iohn 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 Popes temporall Monarchie c. 10. 11. 12. c Of the Popes temporall Monarchie c. 1. p. 24. 25. 26. d Beâ—anut Controâ— Angl. q. 3 n. 14. 15. 16. e Per Canes intelligâ— nâ—ur partim Reges Imperatores Ibid. nu 15. f Ecclesia est Mandra sive Grex aut 〈◊〉 jumâ—â—â—stâ—rum sive Asinorum clitellariorum aut Sagmariâ—rum Gasp. Sciop in Praesat ad Imper. in Summa Cap. 147. g Cum nos Christiani simus Dei jumenta sive pecora subjugalia equi muli sive Asini Clitellarij Dossuarij Sarcinarij Idem in Eccles c. 147. p. 534. h Ibid. in Marg. i Ibid. k Illi enim sunt Homines sive Agasones Muliones Iugarij Illi nos Fraenant illi loro alligant nos agunt nos stimulant nobis jugum imponunt Ibid. p. 534. l Ibid. p. 535. m Bonus intelligens Asimus audit Consilia praeceptasal Malionis Ibid. p. 536. n Ibid. in Marg. o Tum caeteros Asinos qui sonitum tiâ—â— tinnabuli de collo vestro pendentis audiunt viaâ— ingredi faciatis Ibid. p Ibid. p. 536. 537. q Declaration concerning the Parliaments Dissolution p. 21. r Grimstons Imperiall History in the life of FerdinaÌ„d p. 684. s Lib. 2. c. 1. 2. Inter Scripta Anglicana p. 56. 57. Regi summam procurationem Regni Christi competerâ— Quibus opus sit Regi ad hoc negotium Consiâ—â—â—â—ijs 1. Paâ—al 13. a The Communion Booke Catechisme expounded p. 132. Ibidem p 134. c Ibid. p. 136. 137. a Herodaâ—i Clio. p. 34. Solinus Hist. p. 175. b Luke 22. 41. c Articles of Religion 25. and Canon 36. 37. d Chowneus Reeve Shelford Pocklington Heylyn Bis White Bishop Mountague Bish Wren with sundrie others have defended these Positions between them in printed Bookes others have done the like in Sermons yea in the High Commission * Among the Bishops it is so e L. 2. c. 17. 18. 19 See the Booke called Looke about you f P. 20. 21. 42. * Against the Perill of Idolatrie * The Church-warders of Berkington Ipswitch Colchester and others g Coale from the Altar p. 26. 27. 28. 51. 52. h Bish White Dr. Hylyn Dr. Pocklington Reeâ—e c * Antiquitaâ—es Ecclesiae Brit p. 85. 86. 87 ‡ Fox Acts Monuments p. 1404. 1406. ‡ See his life before his works Sect. 25. a Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. b De verb. Domini secundum Ieannem Serm. 42. c Actio 1. * Sunday no Sabbath p. 27. * p. 54 53. d Ration divin l. 5. e In Ephes. 2. Hom. 3. in 2. Cor. Hâ—mil 18. f De Saeramento Encharistica * A Coale from the Altar p. 53. to 57. D. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 27. Edit 1. * Page 53. 54. 55. 56. * Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 3. 4 * Walafridus Strabus de rebus Eccl. l. 4. c. 19. * A Coale from the Altar p. 45. 55. * A good Quire for those novellers whoe plead soe much of late for sanctum sanctorum * 1. Eliz. c. 2. 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. g Shelford his sermon of Gods house p. 2. 4. c. 15. 17. 19. Reeves his exposition of the Cathechisine in the CoÌ„munion booke D. PocklingtoÌ„ Sunday no Sabbath a Coale from the Altar k OriginuÌ„ l. 6. c. 19. l De univ l. 5 c. 9. m In their severall dictionaries Chorus n Serâ—ius in Virgil. 〈◊〉 6. o Aenâ—id l. 4. p Aenâ—id l. 8. q Genialium dierâ— l 4. c. 17. f. 226. 227. r Ibidem see Herodian Zonaras Lampridius and Grimston in his life s Deipnosoph l 13. c. 1. t GenialiuÌ„ dierum l. 4. c. 17. u Laconica Instit. x Lacaedemon Respublica * Page 30. z See Guâ—â—el Stuckius Anti. Convivaliâ— passim * Acts 26. 24. a Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22. b Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34. c De Rebuâ— Eccl. 〈◊〉 â—â—st l. 4. c. 19. * Se 2. Chr 6 20. 21. 34 38. Ps. 138. 2. d Dan. 6. 10. * Pope Vigilius was the first who ordained that those who sayd Masse should torne their haces towards the East D. Barnes Iohn Bale in the life of Vigil d Tom. 1. Col. 1281. e De verbis Dom. secund loan Serm. 42. * Reliques of Rome chap. of Church Goods fol. 322. vol. 3 * Coale froÌ„ the Altar p. 56 57. objection f Eccl. hist. l. 5. c. 22. g Eccl. hist. l. 12. c. 34. i Ezech. 16 17. 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. m Fox Acts and monum p. 1211. o Fox Acts monuments p. 1211. * M. Thomas Vegon Reliq of Rome ch of Church Goodes s. 322. p Fox Acts monu p. 1404. 1406. the foregoing testimonies q 1. Cor. 15. 40. * B. Hooper Sermon 4. on Ionas r In the CoÌ„munion Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8 Can. 18. s And in the Homily of the right use of the Church p. 8. Can. 18 Gratian. de Consec Dist. 1. * He might have added Masse or Popish Preist t Rationale divin l. 4. See B. Iewells Reply to Harding Article 3. divi 26. p. 145. fo D. Pockl. arg Sundno Sabbath p. 43. 44. u Iohn 15. 1. 2. 4. 5. Rom. 11. 16. 17. 18 Rev. 2. 7. c. 22. 2. x Reply to Hardinge Art 3. div 26. p. 145. defence of the â— Apol. parte 2. ch 1. divâ— 3. p. 315. 316. y Notes on Exod. 20. 27. p. 279. 307. * Defence
in his hist. of the Sabbath part 2. c. 7 8. a Treatise of Gods house p. 2. b Service Sacraments 1. a Shelford p. 2. 7. â— b Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. c Fox Acts monum p. 1703. d Ibidem p. 1211. e Fox Actâ— monum p. 1404. 1406. * Rerum Germanic Script m. 1. p. 5â—0 591. * Platina Nâ—col 3. * De Vitis pont Rom p. 68. 69. * See Thomas Beacons reliq of Rome Object 3. a Coale froÌ„ the Altar p. 30. 53. 54. Answer 1. b Se Orme â—ods Pagano-Papisâ— l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform Object 4. Se the Coale p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52. a The hom against the Perill of Idol Se p. 41. 42. 61 b An. Mel. Musoe print An. 1620. p. 24. * Sorde sepulta sua * Pingit religioâ—a lupam So the first Copy but the corrected as in the Text. Object 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer * 37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts Monum p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect 25. Answer 1. o Fox Acts Monuments p. 1404. 1406. p Dc Reâ—us Ecclesiasticis l. 4. c. 19. q Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. 1212. r Page 19. s Page 51. Alatitâ—dine t Page 23. 24. v Page 23. x Fox Acts monuments p. 1211. 1212. y Coale p. 20. 71. z Page 13 a 5. 6. E 6. 1. Ely â— 2. Fox Acts Mounments p 1211. 1212. Object 6. b Coale p. 22. Answer 1. c In their fore cited places words Object 7 d Coale p 58 59 60 61. c. Answer 1. e Bishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other k Cole pag. 62. 8 Object l Coale from the Altar pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuuated * Fox acts Monuments p. 1212. Answer 1. m Declaration before the 32 Articles concerning the dissolution of the Parleament p. 21.42 Object 9. n Coale from the Altar p 63 64 c Answer 1. o Bishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocesse Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels. p In their seueral visitation Articles * Doctor Heylyn as most giue out some Circumstances discover q Papc 21. 42. 43 * where 25. or 30. yeares makes a good Prescription * Who licensed it * Like a Persecutor not an Apostle * It seemes they come to Church with poluted hands sâ—inking soules that they thus needed water incense * One Preist can consecrate the Sacrament what need then 4. neither of them a Bishop contrary to the Canons to Consecrate the Altar It sermes the Altar is more holy then the Sacrament which hath but one to hallow it * Defiled belike with the very Consecration of the Altar have Altar-clothes * It s well they would allaw an afternoone sermon to grace this Dedication since they admit none their since * Quod Nota. * Quod Nota. * This was an holy Dedication of an Altar indeed belike it was to Bacchus not to God a Aquinas 1â— 2â— quaestioÌ„ 1. Artic 1. 2. 1â— Quaest 6. Ar 1. 2. b Aquinas 1â— 2â— Quaest 1. Ar. Iâ— Ar 32 â— 2. 2â— qu. 189. Ar 〈◊〉 c Aquinas 1â— 2â— qu. I. Art 3 qu 96 Art 1. 1. 2â— qu. 8. Art 2. So Occhum Scotus BonaveÌ„ture Aegydius DuraÌ„dus Lambard Medis Vil la Bacon all the Schoolmen Keckerman Zabarell Magyrus Ruuio all Logiciaha e GeÌ„ 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9. c. 2. 9. c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24. f Bellarm. de Missa I. 1. c. 2. Sum. Angelica Tit. Altar g Fox Acts Montiments p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sacrament p. 463. h MagnuÌ„ Chron Belgioâ—â—m i Thomas Beconlikeliques of Rome k Page â— l Homilie of the wor thy receiving of the SacrameÌ„t part 1. p. 198. Ediâ— 1632. m P. 200. q Col. p. â— 16. 17. r Colefronâ— the Altar p. 4. line 19. 20. s Epistle to the reader I am to advertise thee c. Thou wouldest take notice and so many doe that the RomaÌ„â— is the words of the Author t Of the Sacram. part 1. p. 198. u Which some scaÌ„dalously terme An unrevereÌ„s unseemly gesture as if Christ his Apostles were unreverent instituted received the SacrameÌ„t in an unreverent unseemly manner w In imitaâ—ion of Popish Preists whoâ—â— so title themselves in the fronts of their bookes * See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3. x B. Morton Ibid p. 415. 461 y D. Reynolds confer with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Testament Notes on Heb 7. c. 9. 10. z Heylyn Pocklinton others a B. Morton Instit. of the Sacrament â—6 c 3. b Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Morton his Institution of the Sacrament l. c. 3. throughout and in the proceeding and enseâ—ving â—hapters D Fulke and Mr. Cartâ—rigâ— in the conâ—utation of the Râ—em Testament on Hebr. 7. 8. 9 10. to the sameâ—â—â—pose c See Bis-MortoÌ„ his Institution of the Sacrament l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. throughout d Of the worthy receiving esteeming of the Sacrament p. 200. e 2 Tim. 4 1â— 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2 f 27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Recusantes Ieâ—uites Seminary-Preistes Rom. service and SacrameÌ„nts c. g See Raâ—â—all Title Mort h See summa Angelica Rosella Tit. consecrat c. Et ratr de Consecrationis distinct 1. 16. Antonâ— Corseti Râ—portoriuÌ„ Tit. Consecratio i Of the Idolat The right use of the Church the time and place of prayer k Foliâ— 91. 92. 93. l Page 210 414 m Exposition of Ageus c. 2. v. 2. 3 and c. 1. v. 7. 8. n Acts 7 p 1 Tim. 2. * Note this q Iohn 4 r 2. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 27â— H. 8â— cap. 15. 37. Hâ— 8. c. 17â— 32. H. 8. c. 3 a Deus Natura Gratia in sundâ—â—e pages b Sunday no â—abbath p. 2â— 48. Edit 1. c See Bis â—â—audes Wrens Pearce Whites and other of their Articles to this purpose * Creâ— Church the Chappell at Hamorsâ—â—th others d Summa Angelica Tit. consâ—cratio Ecclesiae * See Pontificale Episcoporum de consecratione Ecclesiae Mr. Calfe hill his answer to Marshall F. 93. 94. 95. 96. e Of the Perill of Idolatrie f See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit Symonia g Seâ— Brook Fitz. habent Ristal Tit. extortion * 1636. h Of the Perill of Idolatrie The Right use of the Church The Time and Place of Prayer i 2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cooks Iustitutes f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited l 1. Eliz. c. 1. m Antiqu. Ecces Brit in late Fox Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p. 1774. to 1782. n Antiqu Eccles. Brit passim o 36. H. 8. p. 13. p See 5. H. 6. parts â—â— in this Roâ—s q Cooks Institut F. 334. a Brooke Praemunire 21. 21. E. 3 60. a