all to make Puritans odious to your Majesty being the only men that keep both your Crowne and Religion safe J shall therefore humblie beseech your Majesty when ever you heare any Legends or Declamations against Puritans hereafter to consider from what kinde of Persons they proceed and to put them that utter them to make proofe of what they say or else to brand them with an hot-iron in the cheekes or forehead with an S for slaunderers And then you will never heare any more fables of Puritans with which your Royall eares are now so oft abused by the Iesuite Contzens Disciples VVho gives this as one chiefe rule how to usher Popery into any Christian State to slaunder and disgrace the Puritans and zelots to make them odious both to Prince and people and then Popery will breake in without any opposition or noyse at all 2. Secondly By this perverting of this Prayer the chiefe Odium against Iesuites Priests and Papists the chiefe Authourâ— of this horrid treason is mittigated and taken off that so they may take roote among us againe to the ruine both of Church State and without Gods speciall protection of your Sacred Majesty to whom they will ever be treacherous as they have alwayes been to all Christian Princes and Republikes that would not be their slaves and Vassals to yeild universall obedience to them in what ever they should commaund 3. Thirdly By this Metamorphosis of whose Religion is Rebellion whose Faith is Faction c. into Those workers of iniquity who turne Religion into Rebellion and Faith into Faction The Romish Religion is acquitted and purged from that damnable treasonable Rebellious factious Doctrine of the lawfulness of deposing and murthering Christian Kings and Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or enemies to the Roman Church and Faith Of which the first prayer the Statute of 3. Iacobi c. 4. in the forme of the Oath of Supremacy the Homilies and Writers of our Church and among others Dr. John White in his Defence of the way to the true Church c. 6. c. 10. Sect. 5 6. 7. 8. and Dr. Richard Crakanthrop in his Treatise of the Popes Temporall Monarchie c. 1. and 11. Which Authours chapters I shall humblie desire your Majesty and all that love either your safety or Religion seriously to read over at their best leisure and then let them love Popery Priestes and Iesuites if they can or dare prove them deeply guilty both in pointâ— of Theory and Practise And if all these fayle yet their obstinate refusall of the Oath of Supremacy which only enjoynes them to renounce this Doctrine of King-killing proves them deeply guilty of it and can your Majesty trust such neare about you who will by no meanes sweare they will not murther nor deprive you Now for any thus farre to gratify Traytours and Rebels as to acquit them from that very Doctrine which makes them such even then when they are quilty of it must needs be a danegrous if not a Trayterous Act perillous to your Majesty and the whole Realme 4. Fourthly This Alteration extenuates the greatnes and execrable odiousnes of that horrid Treason both in respect of the Actors and that desperate Doctrine which moved them to committ it And to mince or extenuate such an unparalleld treason as this so execrable to all the world Is nothing else but to turne Traytour and become guilty of the same treason or of another as bad as it Yea it is to be feared that those who wil be so perfidious as after thus many Yeares to goe about to extenuate and lessen such a Treason have a minde to turne Traytours themselves atleast wise to favour Treason and Traytours and have treasonable hearts within them 5. Fiftly This corruption is a large step to the abolishing of the memory of this never to be forgotten Treason and of that solemne Holy-day on the 5. of November instituted by Act of Parliament for this very end that our unfained thankfulnes for our happy deliverance from this Hellish designe might NEVER BE FORGOTTEN but be had in A PERPETUALL REMEMBRANCE that ALL AGES TO COME may yeeld prayses to the Divine Majesty and have in memory THIS IOYFULL DAY OF DELIVERANCE they are the words of the Act. For when such a treason begins once to be blanched slighted and the solemne gratulatory Prayers instituted for its remembrance thus miserablie to be corrupted the next step can be no other but the abrogating both of the Booke itselfe and the solemnity kept in remembrance of the treason And then when this is effected the next newes we shall heare of from Rome will be the deniall of the Fact that there was ever any such treason plotted though sundrie Histories specifie it As they have long since published in print that Henry Garnet the Iesuite and Arch-plotter of it had no hand therein And that there was never any Pope Ione though above 20 ancient Popish Writers record there was such a one and shee a Pope a strumpet a most say an English woman 6. Sixtly It is apparant that this alteration was made only to gratify the Priests the Jesuites Papâ—sts and men Trayterously affected Since all loyall Subjects and true-bred English spirits cannot but abhor it Therefore who-ever were the Authours or occasions of it be they either Arch Prelates Bishops Priests or other for J cannot yet certainly discover the parties neither have I any sufficient meanes or Commission to doe it it being a thing worthy your Majesties owne Royall Discoverie as the Powder-plot itselfe was your Fathers KING JAMES his owne ever-blessed detection if it be not Arch-Traytours and Rebels yet J dare proclaime them no friends to your Majesty nor yet to the Church or State of England or to the Religion we professe but enemies to them all and friends to none but Rome whose iustruments they were in this particular 3. The third corruption and forgery is in the very Articles of Religion of the Church of England at first compiled in King Edward the 6. his raigne Anno 1552. Revised and re-established Anno 1562. in Queen Elizabeths dayes after that Anno 1571. confirmed by Act of Parliament 13. Eliz. c. 12. and printed both in Latine and English the same yeare by the Queens Authority The 20 Article in all these ancient Editions and all others in Queen Elizabeths raigne as likewise in the Articles of Ireland taken verbatim out of the English printed at Dublin Anno 1615. and twice reprinted at London An. 1628. 1629. Artic. 75. of the Authority of the Church runs thus It is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Words c. But the Bishops to advance their owne usurped Authority gaine some colour to arregate to themselves a power of prescribing new rites and Ceremonies have forged a New Article of Religion and added it unto this without either your Majesties or
the Parliaments privity or consent and cuâ—ningly obtruded it on the Church of England Making this Article now to run thus The Church hath power to decree Rues and Ceremonies and Authority in Controversies of Faith And yet so farre runnes the Bishops forgery and addition it is not Lawfull for the Church to ordaine any thing that is contrary to Gods Word written c. Which whole first clause to yet Is no part of the Article but a meere forgery and imposture of the Bishops Whose glosse is as pernicious as the text or woise For by Church they understand nothing else but Bishops Making the sence of this forgery to be this The Church that is the Bishops in their Visitations Consistories and High Commissions as they now de facto expound it witnes their late new Visitation Articles Rites and Ceremonies which they would hence justify and Authorize and likewise the Cleargie in their Conuocation without the King and Parliaments consent have both power to decree Rites and Ceremonies and Authority in matters of Faith An exposition Doctrine quite contrary to the Statutes of 25. H. 8. 6. 19. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. and all Acts concerning Religion Heresie Bishops and the like yea directly repugnant to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles And quite opposite to the Scriptures and all ancient VVriters who never tooke the word Church for Bishops or Cleargie-men only but for the whole Congregation and as well as much for the common-people as the Bishops and Ministers as the 19. Article next preceeding it and our Writers plentifully witnes This forgery how ill soever glossed is thrust into both the late Editions of the Articles Anno 1628. published by your Majesties speciall commaund and made a part of the 20 Article notwithstanding your Majesty in your Declaration before both these Editions Expressely prohibited The least difference from the Articles of the Church of England allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes or any varying and departing from them in the least degree in which it is not to be found Nor yet in the Articles of Ireland n. 75. taken verbatim out of this 20. Article printed in London the very same yeare or in the Addition of those Articles An. 1629. a yeare after these two last impressions If the Bishops here reply that they found it added in Rogers his Exposition on the Articles printed some yeares before J answer that Coppy was not the Authorized Authenticke Originall by which they should be directed but a bastard Coppy with which your Majesty would not have your poore Subjects cheated or deluded Your Majesty therefore prohibiting any the least difference from the Articles allowed and authorized heretofore in Queen Elizabeths dayes by Parliament Prohibited them to insert this forged addition If they reply that they were ignorant of the Originall true Coppyes and knew not this to be a forgery I answer that this is very improbable that so many great Bishops should be altogether ignorant which were the true genuine Articles of our Church who had read subscribed and given them in charge to others so often But admit it true yet ignorance in this case is no plea at all for any man much lesse for Bishops And if they are so ignorant of the very Articles of our Church J hope your Majesty and others will thinke them very unmeet to be Bishops in our Church and trust lesse to their pretended knowledge judgement and learning in future times giving little credit to any thing they doe or say without examination of it since they are so really or affectedly ignorant of the very Articles of our Church in the which they pretend most skill But if they knew the very Originall Coppyes Articles as no doubt they did and that this clause was not in them but a meere late forgery most fraudelently and corruptly added to them Then they were accessaries wilfull consenters to this forgery to delude both your Majesty and the whole Church of England with it Yea protessed rebels against your Majesties Declaration before these two impressions made by their owne advice prohibiting the least difference from the sayd true Articles and Originals And so are they guilty of forgery treachery and contumacy against your Majesty in the highest degree If a man forge but a private Wil or Deed to cosen any private man of any Inheritance Lease or personal estate he shal be severely punished in the Star-chaÌ„ber fined pyllored if not loose his eares beside What punishments then doe they deserve who have thus corrupted the CommoÌ„-prayer-Booke the Prayers for the Gunpowder-treason and the Articles of Religion all ratified by Parliament so matters of Records to corrupt or rase Records or forge deeds the second time is felony and to forge a new Article of Religion to deceive your Majesty your whole Kingdom and that not only for the present but for all future ages Certainly hanging is to good for them Should a poore Puritane doe but halfe as much the Bishops would have drawen hanged and quartered him long ere this especially if the thing were derogatory to their Hierarchie and Epis. copall Iurisdiction But Bishops and their Agents thinke they may doe any thing in these dayes without check or censure Yet I hope your Majesty will not let them goe scot-free for these their forgeries corruptioÌ„s If not all done by their Commaund and privity yet doubtles by their connivance negligence and subsequent consents And is it not now high time for your Majesty to looke to these persidious Innovatours and to repose no trust in them any longer since they are lately growen so powerfull so insolent as thus to sophisticate to pervert these very Originall Records of the the Church of England to which they have subscribed and to forge new Articles of Religion to cheat your Majesty the whole Church of England with for feare they proceed to further forgeries of an higher nature VVee know that the Bishops of Rome have forged a Donation from Constantine and others with which they have deluded and troubled all the world thrust the Roman Emperours froÌ„ their Throne Territories and usurped a temporall Monarchie over all the world VVe know that the Bishops of England in King Richard the 2. and Henry the 4. his dayes forged two bloody Acts of Parliament against the true Professours of the Gospell to which the Commons never consented though they foisted their assents into them upon which tyrannous forged Acts most of our Martyrs were butchered thousaÌ„ds of godly ChristiaÌ„s loyall Subjects imprisoned martyred ruinated and stript of all their goods or else abjured by blood-sucking tyrannous Prelates Whether they may not in time proceed to the like attempts if not severely punished for those fore-past forgeries and corruptions of our Churches Parliamentary Records I humblie submit to your Majesties and all wise-mens considerations Ambition tyranny pride malice being boundles when
they have once overswolm'd the bankes of due moderation or growen impudent and unrulie especially in Bishops Having thus represented to your Majesties Royall view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions give me leave I humblie beseech your Highnes to adde to these two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England 1. The first by Dr. then Mr. Iohn Cosens and his confederates Who Anno 1628. the same yeare your Majesties Declarations were published sett forth a Booke intiteled A collection of private Devotions or the Howers of Prayer Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprized and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained to countenance all which in the Title and Epistle of this Booke he writes That these Devotions of his were after this maner published by Queen Elizabeth and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority to witt in the Preces of Horary sett forth by her Royall Authority Anno 1573. VVhen as there is no Analogie at all either in matter forme or method between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty nor any of his points of Popery in them as hath been proved by two particular Answers to his Devotions in print Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed but publikely sold among us approved by a Bishops license and now reprinted to abuse your Majesties poore Subjects encourage Papists and scandalize that ever-blessed pious Queen as the Authour and Patronesse of his grosse Popery An abuse not tollerable in a Christian State 2. The second is as bad or worse Anno 1631. One Iohn Ailward not long before a Popish Priest published a Booke intiteled An Historicall Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning Gods Election Affirming the Errours of the Arminians to be the Iudgement and Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes This Booke though written in professed opposition to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles to Suppresse Arminianisme yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppresse the truth was licensed by Mr. Martyn then Chaplaine to the Bishop of London now Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The whole Booke except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Coppy ef an Answer to a Letter wherein the Answerer purged himselfe and others from Pelagian Errours c. This Master-peece forsooth is pretended to be sett out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeths raigne by publike Authority and the Doctrine then taught and professed When this new Booke was printed no Coppies must come abrode as the Stationer then affirmed before the Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty and gained your Royall approbation thereof Not long after this it flies abrode ouer all the Realme to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects One of them comming to that learned Knights hands Sir Humphry Lynde better read in Fathers and Popish Authours then English Antiquities he was so much stumbled and greiued at it that he presently repaired with it to a Gentlemans study of his acquaintance Telling him there was a new Booke freshly published which proued the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians and that this was the Doctrine publikely taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne Saying withall it would doe infinite harme and desiring him to take some paines to answer it The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Booke but he presently discovered the grand Imposture Informing the Knight that this Coppy of a Letter c. was written by one Champenies whom Iohn Venon Divinity Lecturer of Paules in the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth expresly affirmed to be then a ranke Papist and a Pelagian and that in answer to this Verons Lectuâ— es of Predestination then publikely preached at Paules dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and printed by Authority in the second yeare of her Highnes raigne He likewise acquainted him that this Coppy of his Letter was printed about the third yeare of her Dominion without any Authours or Printers name thereto or place where or yeare when it was printed or any intimation at all that it was ever licensed All which were plaine evidences that it was printed in a corner without any license at all And whereas sayd he you desire a speedy Answer to it if you will give me but a paire of gloves I will show you two Answers to it already in print above â—0 yeares since by publike Authority and one of the first printed Coppies of this Letter to boote To which the Knight replied J am sure you doe but jest with me No sayd the other I am in good earnest wil you give me or wager a paire of gloves hereupon That answered he I will doe with all my heart Then sayd the Gentleman reach me hither those three Bookes he pointed to He did so The first was a Coppy of the Letter without name of Authour Printer date of time or place Which compared with that in this new Booke proved the same verbatim Now sayd the Gentleman you have seen the Originall I will shew you the Authour of it which he did in Verons Apology f. 37. and likewise two severall Answers in print The first by Iohn Veron himselfe fore-named intitled An Apologie in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and imprinted at London by Iohn Tisdale in the fourth yeare of her Raigne Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered The second by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Maries dayes Robert Crowly In his Apologie of those English Preachers and Writers which Cerberus the three-headed Dogg of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine under the name of Predestination Seen and allowed according to Her Majesties Injunctions and printed at London by Henry Denham Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in severall Sections and then answered Verbatim This Booke being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by publike Authority As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established When the Gentleman had shewed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Booke He likewise turned to some passages in Bishop Latymer which answered and cleared his words cited in this Booke from any such sence as it would fasten on them And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commaundements He shewed him first the Confession and Protestation of the Bishops Faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament and printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. Secondly A briefe and cleare Confession of the Christian Faith containing 100 Articles London 1584. Thirdly An Exposition upon certaine Psalmes London 1510. Jn all
which this godly Martyr did professedly in exprâ—â—e tearmes oppugne all the Arminian points now controverted and those this new Booke would fasten on him by over straining some of his words VVhich done Now said the Gentleman I have shewed you many full old Answers to your New Booke and proved it to be a meere lie and forgery from the beginning to the end yea the most grosse and greatest Imposture affront and impudent abuse that ever was put upon the Church of England VVherefore Sirâ— since you are acquainted at London-House and Lambeth I pray informe the Bishop and Arch-Bishop what you have seen and desire them to take some speedy course to rectify this most foule abuse He did so Yet the Booke was not called in in a weekes space or more VVhich the Gentleman perceiving went to Lambeth with his Bookes shewed the Arch-Bishop that then was what he had shewed the Knight Desiring his Grace that the Church of England might not have such an impudent strange Imposture thrust upon her VVhere upon he thanked the Gentleman Protesting he had shewed him that he never saw nor heard off before Desiring him to leave his Bookes with him for a weeke after which he would safely restore them VVhereupon these Bookes after they were halfe sold and dispersed over the Kingdome were only called in but not burned nor any publike Act made against them to discover the practise and Imposture Only the Gentleman was at the cost to send some of these old Bookes in answer of this new Pamphlet to the University Library at Oxford and to Cambridge acquainting some of his Friends there with this Decoy But now of late this Booke flies abrode into all parts is publikely sold in all Stationers shops and thousands of your Subjects ignorant of the fraud are meerely cheated and seduced by it the Licenser if not the Authour being since aduanced and the discouerer of this egregious Jmposture detestable both to God man most despitefully rewarded and miserablie traduced for his paines O tempora O mores that men should suffer for their good service in this kinde Now J humblie referre to your Majesties most serious consideration whether all these particular Corruptions Forgeries and Jmpostures the vndoubted verity whereor is soone discouered by the Bookes themselves which wâ—â— attest them doe not crie aloud to your Majesty for speedy redresse and proclaime the authours of them though never so great or powerfull unworthy of your Majesties grace unmeet to be trusted or credited by your Highnes any more for those who are thus treacherous and unfaithfull to their Religion and Mother Church how can they be loyall or trustie to your Majesty and worthy of the highest Censures your Royall Iustice can inflict upon them Your Majesty hath called God to witnes in A Declaration to all your loving Subjects who dare credit you without an Oath That it is and alwâ—yes hath been your hearts desire to be found worthy of that Title which you account the most glorious in all your Crowne DEFENDER OF THE FAITH And how can you better accomplish this desire of your heart or make yourselfe worthy of this most glorious Motto then by rectifying all these most grosse abuses and Jmpostâ—res By rooting out all Innovations and back slâ—dings unto Popery now crept into our Church by reducing all your Subjects to the unanimous profession of the long established Doctrine of the Church of England And by taking vengeance upon all the grand Authours and Executioners of the fore-mentioned Forgeries Impostures Innovations which dishonour your Royall Majesty greive all your Faithfull Subjects betray and scandalize our Religion make us a very derision prey and scorne to our Romish Aduersaries and draw downe the very plagues and vengeance of our offended God upon us whose judgements now call for a speedy redresse of these things at your Majesties hands whom they have most intollerablie and undutifully dishonoured For whereas your Roy all Majesty out of the piety and syncerity of your upright heart hath in your fore-specified Declarations most seriously protested in the very presence of God himselfe your perfect detestation of all Innovations in ` Doctrine or Discipline and backslâ—dings unto Popeâ—y professing and proclaiming that you will by no meanes tolerate or indure them much lesse then favour or enjoyne them Yet since these disloyall Novellers their Clients and Agents forgetting their duty both to God and your Majesty feare not to give out in private speeches and to intimite as much in print that your Majesty doth not only connive at but likewise underhand either countenance or commaund by Letter or Word of mouth all these their Innovations and Apostacies towards Rome with their putting downe of Lectures and preaching of their late silencing excommunicating and persecuting godly Ministers in sundrie Diocesses for not yeelding to these Jnnovations or not reading the late Declaration for Sports in proper person in their Churches which they humblie conceive not to be your Majesties and which requires no such thing that it should be read much lesse by Ministers themselves in proper person and gives no man Authority in case they read it not to suspend or silence them for it to the Jnnocent peoples prejudice only whose soules are starved and murthered by this meanes and that they doe nothing at all but what they are enjoyned by your Majesties Royall Instructions Endeavouring by these false Rumors to make your Subjects believe had they such a miraculous Faith as to credit this impossibilitie that your Majesty is the Originall Authority and under-hand enconrager of all these their execrable practises Ceremonies Novelties proceedings and backsliding Of purpose to draw all the Odium of them on your Highnes and thereby as much as in them lyeth to alienate your Subjects hearts and affections from your Majesty Which intollerable unpardonable scandal were it as true as it is false Yet it were their duty to forbeare such speeches or cast â—uch scruples into your Subjects mindes But since they are most nâ—torious falsehoods and disloyall Iesuiticall practises in the highest degree making your Highnes no better then a notorious Hypocrite or dissembler both towards God and Man as themselves are though all the world will be your Compurgatours to acquit your Highnes from any the least suspition of such dissimulation Your Majesty is now obliged both in point of honour and Iustice to aveng yourselfe of such undutifull Slaunderers and Detractors from your Sacred Fame and by a speedy redresse of all their Innovations Superstitions Ceremonies and Abuses to proclaime to all the world that they are none of yours but their owne spurious issues and that your words and Actions both in publike and private are ever consonant uniforme and the same in every respect without the least shadow of alteration much lesse of doubling either with God or Man If your Majesty now demaund of me who they are who have been the chiefe Authours and instruments of these grosse
abuses forgeries Innovations I answer that although it may prove dangeroos to me to nominate them in particular before your Majesty shall commaund me so to doe by reason of their over-swaying power Yet for your Majestiâ—s satisfaction herein who can judge of the Catt by her Claw I shall give your Highnes a Register of the names of some of the chiefe under-instruments by which you may easily discrie the heades and Grandes of this disloyall crew One of the first and chiefe instruments your Majesty in your Royall Declaration and Proclamation hath pointed out and nominated to my hands To witt Richard Mountague then Bachiâ—er of Divinity since that time punished with the fatt Bishopricke of Chichester for his notorious Schismes and Innovations whose Booke intituled Apello Caesarem published in the yeare 1625. as the words of your Highnes determine did open the way to those Schismes and Divisions which have since ensued in our Church For remedie and redresse whereof and for Satisfaction of the consciences of your good people your Majesty did not only by publike Proclamation call in that Booke of his which ministred matter of offence but to prevent the like danger for hereafter reprinted the Articles of Religion established in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory a plaine resolution that your Majesty intended to establish only the originall Coppy of the Articles confirmed in Parliament by Queen Elizabeth in which there is no such forgery or addition to the 20 Article as is before discovered not any other corrupted Coppy since and by a Declaration before those Articles did tie and restraine all opinions to the sence of those Articles that nothing might be left for private fancies and Innovations Yet notwithstanding this your Rayall care this Booke of his because not burn'd and the Authour rewarded advanced to be a governour in our Church before any publike recantation of his Errours is bought and sold And he not only in a new Latine Booke but likewise in a Court-Sermon at White Hall in Lent last in your Majesties Sacred presense forgetfull both of his duty and your Highnes Declaration hath presumed to plead not only for a Limbus Patrum bowing to Altars and rayling in Lords-Tables Altarwise but likewise for Altars Priests and unbloody Sacrifices offred upon Altars toe in professed defiance to this your Declaration For which some of your Majesties Courtiers who heard his Sermon then openly protested that he deserued to be hanged up in White Hall gate it were a goodly signe the signe of such a Bishops skin and Rochet thus exalted and that they wondred how the Arch-Bishops could sit by and heare such a Sermon and not commaund him out of the Pulpit So insolent is this first grand Agent growen because not punished but preferred for his first offences The next chiefe Fâ—ctor is Dr. Iohn Cosens whom I have formerly nominated a man likewise much honoured enriched aduanced euen to your Majesties service and the next in some mens voyce to be recommended to a Bishopricke if your Majesty reserve not the disposition of Bishoprickes to your selfe but suffer others to have a finger in their disposall and all for the good Seruice he hath done the Church of Rome the affronts he hath offred to the Church of England and using such reproachfull words against your Majesties Supremacy for which another happily might have had his head and quarters aduanced as high as London bridge ere this in Leiw of all â—ther preferments The happy successe of these two leading Instruments hath since encouraged many others to the like attempts as Dr. Lawrence Mr. Robert Shelford Priest Mr. Edmond Reeue Dr. Iohn Pocklington Dr. Peterâ— Heylin the Authour as most conclude of A Coale from the Altar Chownaeus and others in late printed Bookes and Sermons in hope of like preferments to broach many Arminian and Popish Doctrines Ceremonies Innovations coÌ„trary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England and in high contempt of your Majesties Declarations Which Bookes were licensed by William Bray and William Harwood Chaplaines to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that now is by Samuel Baker and Mr. Weekes Chaplains to the now Bishop of London and by Dr. Beale late Vice-Chancellour of the University of Cambridge Yea one of them denying your Majesties Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastiaâ—all and affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church and not have erred in fundamentals even in the worst times dedicated to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was liceÌ„sed by his Chaplaine William Harwood yea justified publikely by the Arch-Bishop in the High Commission in the Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Quid facient Domini audent cum talia Servi When the Chaplains dare license such Doctrines Bookes and Novelties by their Lords Authority it is much to be feared that their Lords themselves dare doe as much or more then this amounts to If your Majesty will but inquire of these new Authours and Licensers who are the men that cherish and countenance them By whose Privity and Authority they have presumed to attempt the writing and Licensing of such Bookes you may easily by these Rivulets trace out the Fountaines from whence all these Enormities Corruptions Forgeries and Innovations flow And if you shall vouchsafe with all to cast your Royall eye upon the Remonstrance touching the encrease of Popery Arminianisme and the decay of Religion presented to your Majesty by the Commons house the last Parliament it is a thousand to one but you will soone discover the very parties not only by guesse but by name Besides if your Majestie will once more cast your prying eye upon the late Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Bishop Peirce Bishop Monntague and other your Prelates and Arch-Deacons visiting in their owne names and by their owne Authority Or cause a diligent inquiry to be made in all places where Altars Images Crucifixes bowing to Altars Tapers rayling Communion-Tables Altar-wise reading Second-Service at the Altar Consecrations of Altars Churches Chappels are introduced urged and many godly conformable Ministers excommunicated silenced suspended persecuted for not submitting to these with other such Innovations and New-Doctrines By whose Authority and commaund these things are done and inforced Or by what Authority some Schollers Ministers and Lecturers have been refused to be admitted to holy Orders Benefices and Lectures for not subscribing to certaine New-Doctrines Ceremonies underhand propounded to them And with all take this into your Royall consideration that in three late printed Treatises Arch-Bishops Bishops and Cathedrall Churches are made the Originall Patternes by which all other Persons and Churches must be regulated in these very Innovations Your Majesty without any further helpe or character may infalliblie discover both the roots the fountaines and Seminaries from whence all the premises issue More particular light then this is neither yet safe for me to give nor necessary for your Majesty to require
middest of all the people Thus this Jewell of the Church From whose words it is apparant that the Communion Table in the Apostles times and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ stood in the middest of the Church or Chancel not at the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches beinge thus placed in his time Which bookes of his beinge A defence both of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England against the Papists Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie that men of our owne Church as they pretend should bee soe impudent as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him and justifie the Papists doctrine is a cleere demonstration to mee That by the very doctrine and practice of the Church of England the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVNCELL especially when the Sacrament is administred and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell like a Dresser a side Table or Popish Altar to the end it maye not bee thence removed and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The namelesse Author of the Coale from the Altar takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell yea then Bishop Baâ—ington D. Fulke M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers is bold to write without blushinge That the authorities of Eusebius Augustine Durandus and the 5. Councell of Constantinople doe not prove that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church or Chauncell that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge and shapes severall answeares for to shift them To that of Eusebius hee sayth This proves not necessarily that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church or in the middle of the same as the Epistoler doth intend when hee sayth the middle The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall yet it maye bee well interpreted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South as since it hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the middest of the Temple the better to conforme unto them To which I answeare 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell that is sayth he in the East end of it or in the middest of the East end as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe or the midst of it the middest of the Church or Chancell But these beinge distinct and different things the midst of the Church or Chancell can bee not more interpreted to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them then the East wall or midst of the East end of the Quire can bee the midst of the Church So that this evasion is but a meere nonsence Bull And had Eusebius intended any such thinge he woulde have thus expressed himselfe that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire not in the midst of the Church or Quire and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving 2. I answeare that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied and not only soe but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other one denyinge that it was in the midst the other confessinge and provinge the contrary Nowe whereas hee writes that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria I answeare that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest The greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it and havinge the Altar in the midst like this In the edifying whereof Paulinus Bishop of Tyre whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts was the chiefe meanes and director And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes either before or not long after this wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise as nowe they are situated which hee can never doe I shall take it as a generall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell That which hee adds that it was done perchance to please the Jewes is but his owne fancie no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge And admitt it true yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple though not out of any Iewish fancie or conceit but by Gods owne direction is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe then any Popish Altars fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire only by a bold Friers or Popes direction without Reason Scripture president or divine direction to warrant it To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople he replies that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth signifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar soe as there was no parte thereof that was not compassed by the people noe more then if a man shoulde saye that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne and all his Nobles about him it needs or could bee thought that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare First That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Circle as hee confesseth soe the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle and to hemne it in on every side If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill as all must acknowledge good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence and not improperly 2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
people and the ignorant evill perswaded Preist will dream alway of Sacrifice Therfore were it best that the Magistrates remove all the Monuments and Tokens of Idolatry and superstition then should the true Religion of God sooner take place which he thus seconds in his 8. Sermon upon Ionah A great shame it is for a Noble King Emperour or Magistrate contrary to Gods word to deteyne or keep from the devill or his Ministers any of their goods oâ— Treasure as the Candles Images Crosses vestiments Altars For it they be kept in the Church as things indifferent at length they will be maintayned as things necessary as now we find true by late wofull experience And in his 4. Sermon upon Jonah hee proceeds thus But this prayer of Jonas is so acceptable it might be thought of some men that the place where Jonas prayed in should have beâ—tered it as the foolish opinion of the world is at this time that judgeth the Prayer sayd at the High Altar to be better then that which is sayd in the Quier that in the Quier better then that which is sayd in the body of the Church that in the body of the Church better then that which is sayd in the Feild or in a mans Chamber But our Prophet sayth the Lord hath no respect to the place but to the heart faith of him that prayeth And that appeareth For penitent Jonas prayeth out of the whales belly and miserable Job upon the dung heape Daniell in the Cave of the Lyons Hieremie in the claypit the theife upon the Crosse S. Stephen under the Stones wherfore the grace of God is to bee prayed for in every place and every where as our necessity shall have need and wanteth solace Although I commend the prayer made to God in the name of Christ to belike in every place because that our necessity requireth helpe in every place yet I doe not condemne the publike place of prayer whereas Gods word is preached his holy Sacrament used and common prayer made unto God but allow the same and sory it is no more frequented haunted but this I would wish that the Magistrates would put both the Preist Minister and the people into one place and shut up the partition called the Câ—auncell that seperateth the Congregation of Christ one from the other as though the vayle and partition of the Temple in the old Law yet should remaine in the Church where indeed all signes types are ended in Christ And in case this were done it should not only expresse the dignity grace of the New Testament but also cause the people the better to understand the things read there by the Minister and also provoke the sayd Minister to a more study of the things he readeth least he should be found by the Iudgement of the Congregation not worthy neither to read nor Minister in the Church further that such as would receive the Holy Communion of the body and blood of Christ might both heare and see playnly what is done as it was used in the Primative Church when as the abomination done upon Altars was not knowne nor the Sacrifice of Christs precious blood so conculcated and troden under feet Hereupon as also upon M. Bucers forecited opinion to this purpose and William Salisburyes Battery of the Popes Batereulx London 1559. and not upon M. Calvins Letter as the late Author of a Coale from the Altar misreports p. 29. 40. all the Altars in England by the King and his Councells direction were utterly taken away out of all Cathedrall Collegiate Parish Churches and Chappell 's and Tables sett up in their steed in such manner as they stood till now of late to witt in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as appeares by that is storied of Bishop Farrar by M. Fox concerning the Church of Carmarthen in Wales where the Archdeacon of Carmarthen in his visitation under this good Bishop finding an Altar sett up in the body of the Church for Celebration of the Communion contrary to the King and Councells Ordinance caused the sayd Altar to be taken away and a Table TO BE SET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH which the Vicar removing Bishop Farrar himselfe in the third yeare of King Edwards Raigne Commaunded the Vicar to sett the Table WITHOUT THE CHANCELL againe neere the place where it stood before for the ministration of the Communion After this in the 5. 6. yeare of King Edwards Raigne as Altars themselves were quite cashered out of the Church according to the prophesie of William Mauldon who in thâ— dayes of King Henry the 8. when the Masse most flourished and the Altars with the Sacrament thereof were in most High veneration so as in mans reason it might seeme unpossible that the glorie opinion of them soe depely rooted in the hearts of 〈◊〉 many could by any meanes possible so soone decay and vanish to naught yet not withstanding he being under the age of 17. yeares by the spirit no doubt of prophesie declared to his Parents that they should see it shortly even come to passe that both the Sacrament of the Altar and the Altars themselves with all such plantations as the Heavenly Father did not plant should be plucked up by the rootes c. so the very name of them was wholly expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Convocation and Parliament and the name of Gods-boord Lords-Table Table and Holy-Table inserted and retained both in the Rubricke and Order for the Celebrating of the Communion therein prescribed the Table enjoyned therein at the tyme of Celebrating the Communion to stand in the body of the Church or Chauncell And in the Homilies then published by the King and Parliaments authority the name of Altar was wholly omitted in the Homilies concerning the right use of the Church and of the worthy receiving the Sacrament and the name of the Lords Table only used and mentioned in them as he that reades them may discerne A truth so cleare that the nameles Author of the Coale from the Altar p. 39. 40. confesseth that the former Liturgie wherein was the name of Altar was called in by Parliament 5. and 6. C. 6. 11. and the word Altar left out of the Common-Prayer Booke then established yeâ— upon this only ground not from any scandaâ— which was taken at the name of Altar by the Common people but from the dislike taken against the whole Liturgie by Calvin who was all in all with my Lord Protector c. A very likely tale I promise you As if the whole Parliament and Clergie of England would be so rash or inconsiderate as to alter their whole Liturgie formerly confirmed by Parleament only to humor M. Calvin without any Scripture reason or other convincing considerations and upon no other groundes Certainly either this ground of the Alteration is but forged and conjecturall though positively layd downe or else the Church of England
7. 10. as they are this day among the Papists with many Jewish and Superstitious Ceremonies oylings sprinklings exorcismes Reliques of Sancts orisons I know not what other fonde conceites but Communion Tables were never so consecrated either in the primitive or Christian Churches of latter times 2. Altars wee ever accompanied with Preistes Sacrifices burnt offrings peace offringe c. Exod. 40. Levit. 1. 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. Hebr. 7. 1. to 15. 1. Kinge 18. 20. to 37. among the Jewes and Gentiles with Masses Massepreistes Pixes consecrated Hostiaes Tapers Basons Candelstickes Crucifixes Images Sancts Reliques Altar-cloathes Massing vestiments to adde gestures Fooleries but Communion Tables only with Ministers and preachers of the Gospell a chalice plater bread and wine without more or other furniture but a decent cloth to cover them 7. In their effects the one tending to maintaine erect propagate and usher in Gentilisme Judaisme Popery Masse Massepreists Transul stantiation and Superstition among Christians and to corrupt the doctrine administration and right use of the Sacrament the true cause why the Primitive Christians why all reformed Churches and our owne Church abandoned and cast them out The other to abandon them and to restore preserve perpetuate the purity and integrity of the Doctrine use and administration of the Sacrament according to its primitive institution as the so eâ—â—â—ed and subsequent authorities evidence at large and King Edward the 6. with his Councell both in their Letter to Bishop Ridley and in their 6. reasons why the Lords board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar punctually resolve 8. Because all Altars Sacrifices Preist the Temple itselfe where the Altar stood for the Jewes had no Altars in their Ordinary Synagogues but only in and about their Temple to shew that we Christians should have no Altars in our Churches which succeed their Synagogues not the Temple were but types and shadowes of Christ the true Altar Preist and Temple Col. 2. 16. 17. Heb. 7. l. to 15. c. 13. 10. as all the Fathers generally all Commentators and Christian writers accord and therfore vanished at his death as the whole Epistles to the Hebrewes Galathians Colossions c. 2. prove at large Hence the Apostle calls Christ himselfe our Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 6. 9. c. 8. 3. 5. c. 9. 13. doe the like as Expositors old and new togeather with King James himselfe in his Paraphrase upon the Apocalypse our owne Martyrs writers generally accord Hence Origen most pertinently resolves thus The truth therfore was in the Heavens but the shadow and example of the truth on earth and whiles this shadow did continue on earth there was an heavenly Hierusalem there was a Temple there was an Altar there were High Preists and Preistes But when as in the comming of God our Saviour descending from heaven truth sprang out of the earth the shadowes and examples full to the ground For Hierusalem fell the Temple fell ALTARE SUBLATUM EST the Altar was taken away c. SI ALTARE VIDER IS DESTITUTUM c. If thou shalt see the Altar destitute be not thou sad thereat If thou find not the High Preist doe not thou despaire EST IN CAELIS ALTARE there is an Altar in Heaven an High Preists of future good things stands by it chosen of God according to the order of Melchisedecke Hence Paschatius Rhadbertus most pertinently concludes REPVLIT Dominus ALTARE SVVM DE ECCLESIA in qua CHRISTVS ALTARE CREDITVR ESSE Hostia Sacrificium Pontifex Sacerdos The Lord hath thrust his Altar out of the Church in which Christ is BELEEVED TO BE THE only ALTAR obligation and Sacrifice High Preist And S. Ambrose Gregory the great Beda Andreas the Archbishop of Caesaria S. Bernard with divers other Fathers expresly resolve ALTARE DOMINI CHRISTVS that Christ himselfe is the Altare of the Lord the Altar meant both in the Hebrewes and Apocalyps and that all Altars were but types of him and ceased with him And though some of the punier Fathers 260. yeares after Christ and since doe sometimes by a figurative and improper speach call the Communion Table but more commonly only the Sacramentall bread and wine representing the body and blood of our Saviour the Altar in respect of the Sacrifices of prayer and prayse there offred at the receiving of the Sacrament thence called the Eucharist of the Collections and Almes there and there given by the Communicants for the releife of the poore which are called a Sacrifice an oblation Heb. 13. 16. Math. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. and in as much as Christs body and blood who is the true Altar are there mistically distributed not out of any relation to or analogie between Jewish Heathen Altars and Tables or because the Sacrament is in truth a reall Sacrifice as the Papists and our ignorant Popish Innovators fondly dreame yet they most usually and properly terme it only the Lords Table or Boord and the Sacrament administred there at the Lords Supper as appeares by sundrie passages in Nazianzen Augustine Theodoret Chrysostomeâ— Hieron Oecumenius Theophylact other Fathers All these are cited by Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington D. Rainolds our writers they stiling the Crosse whereon Christ suffred was Sacrificed the Altar of the Crosse yea faith the heart and mind of godly men an Altar as frequently as the Communion Table and in the selfe same figurative and improper sence Hence S. Hierom iu Psal. 25. 31. Tom. 6. p. 30. B. 46. B. writes thus Altare fidelium fides est FAITH IS THE ALTAR OF THE FAITHFVLL And the same Father Comment in Marc. 9. Tom. 6. p. 58. 79. Gregorie the great Homil. 22. Super Ezechiel f. 209. E. F. averre Altare Deiest Corbonum Histia Sacrificia bona opera fidelium THE ALTAR OF GOD IS A GOOD HEART the good workes of the Faithfull are the oblation and Sacrifices And Origen Contra Celsum l. 8. tom 4. fol. 101. writes to the same effect Celsus chargeth us Christians that we shunne ALTARS Images Idoll Temples that so they may not be erected c. whiles that he seeth nothing in the meane time that we in the meane while have the mind of just men insted of Altars and temples from which without all doubt the sweet odors of Incense are sent forth vowes I say and prayers from a pure conscience Let whoever will therfore if he please make inquiry of these Altars which I have last mentioned and compare them with these Altars which Celsus hath brought in truly he may plainly understand that they verily are inanimate and in processe of time will become corruptible but these our Altars shall so long continue in the immortall soule as long as the reasonable soule shall continue Now these Fathers thus stiling both the
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
so often as he shall doe any good or pions thing For God desires not a Sacrifice neither of a male creature neither of death blood but of a man and of life To which Sacrifice there is no need of Lawrell or sacred leaves to adore the Altar or rushes or greene turfes which verily are most vaine but of those things that are brought forth out of a sincere heart Therfore upon the Altar of God which is truly the greatest and is placed in the heart of man which cannot be defiled with blood is layd righteousnes Pretence faith innocence chastâ—ty abstinence What meane Temples what Altars what finally Images themselves which are either the monuments of dead or absent persons After which he disputes excellently against Images shewing why Christians had none and concludes that Dâ—â—â—lls were the Authors of Images wherfore without doubt there is no Religion where ever there is an Image From all these Fathers answers therfore it is most cleare and evident that the Christians in their times had neither Images nor Altars and that they held them both unlawfull unnecessary ranking them both together as Paganisme Iudaisme Idolatrâ—â— they then using no Altars no not to consecrate the Sacramention for feare of inclining to Gentelisme or Iudaisme or hardning the Iewes or Gentiles in the use of their abolished idolatrous Sacrifices or Altars 3. These Histories forecited which affirme that Pope Sixtus the second about th◠〈◊〉 65. or 294 or after first brought in Altars into the Church will quite take of this absurd evasion For these Altars thus introduced by him were not for any bloody or externall Sacrifice such as the Iewes or Gentiles used but only to consecrate receive the Sacrament at as all acknowledge If then Altars even to administer the Sacrament at were then first brought into the Church and not before as Historians generally accord then certaynely the Christians before that time had no Altars â—o not for the câ—lâ—brating of the Lords Supper on and so these authorities of Origen Arnobius Minucius Faelix and Lactantius must necessarily be intended as all the forecited writers and our Homilies interpret them that Christians had no Altars at all in those times no not to celebrate the Sacrament on and then the shift in the Coale that they had Altars for this purpose but not for any bloody or externall Sacrifices must need be fabulous and forged having no Authority that I know to backe it in any writer Now whereas to justify this apparant falsehood as I have manifested it the authority of some Fathers before Origen or Arnobius stiling the Lord Table an Altar is pretended and so the name and thing itselfe used and knowen among Christians before that age I answer that these authorities in truth when once examined will vanish into smoke To take them according to their Antiquity not their Order The ancient maine Authority is that of Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar But this I shall afterward prove to be meant only of Christ himselfe not of the Communion Table as all the Fathers and ancient expositors our owne writers and Martyrs and all Protestant Divines accord without dissent or question So that this proves nothing That of the Apostles Canons the 〈◊〉 in pretended Antiquity hath been long since disclaimed branded as counterfeit coyne by all our learned writers and many Papists themselves yea as a spurious brat of some later age many hundred yeares after the Apostles and the puriest of these Fathers Neither are Ignatius his Epistles of any better authority being all forgid spurious aâ— M. Cooke hath undeniably proved them But admit them true yet they made little to the purpose For that of his 6. Epistle ad Maguesianos is but this Runne all together into the Temple of God as to one Altar to one Jesus Christ the High Preist of the only begotten God That in his 9. Epistle to the Philadelphians but this There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one blood of his shed for us and one Cup which is distributed to us for all man one Altar to all the Church And that in his 7. Epistle of Tarsenses but this Esteeme Widdowes continuing in chastity as the Altar of God Neither of these stile the Communion Table the Altar the two first of them being meant of Christ the Church itselfe the last and first used figuratively and by way of similitude only the first applied to the Church the other to Widdowes neither to the Communion Table the thing in question That of Irenaeus the next auncient is to as little purpose his words advers Haereses l. 9. c. 20. being but these David was a Preist to God although Saul persecuted him Omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem yea all just men have a Preistly order or are Preists So all the Apostles of the Lord are Preists who neither inherit Feiles nor houses but alwayes serve God and the Altar of whom even Moses in Deutr. spake in the benediction of Levie who sayth to his Father and Mother I have not knowne thee c. Which Text speakes not of the Communion Table nor of any proper Preists or Altars but only of spirituall metaphoricall Preists Altars For it termed all righteous men Preists that attend on God and his Altar he sayth the Apostles were such when they plucked the eares of corne they then waiting on God and the Altar which was long before the Communion Table or Lords Supper was instituted so that here the Altar if properly meant is not the Lords Table but the Iewish Altar and that before the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted If allegorically and spiritually it is meant only of Christ our spirituall Altar Heb. 13. 10. Rev. 65. 9. on whom all the faithfull who are spirituall Preists 1. Pet. 2. 9. Rev. 1. 6. doe waste not of the Lords Table at which none but Ministers serve and consecrate So that this makes nothing to the purpose What Irenaeus meanes by the Altar will appeare more evidently by his owne words Adv. Haer. l. 4. c. 34. where as he stiles the Sacrament of the Lords Supper not the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but the Eucharist with which he joynes no other oblation used among Christians but only that of prayse and thankgiving neither of which requires an Altar so he writes that God will have us also offer a gift at the Altar to witt the Sacrifice of prayer and prayse frequently without intermission And least any one should here dreame of a materiall Altar here on earth he explaines himselfe what he meanes by the Altar and where this Altar is scituated in the very next words EST ERGO ALTARE IN CAELIS c. Therfore our ALTAR IS IN THE HEAVENS For thither all our prryers are directed Irenaeus therfore neither knew nor spake of any Altar that Christians then had but of Christ himselfe who is now in
heaven neither doth he so much as once stile the Lords Table an Altar nor make mention of an Altar whereat the Sacrament was administred throughout his workes His authority therfore might well have been spared The next Father is Tertullian out of whom two passages are alleadged One out of his Booke de Poenitentia where he remembreth Geniculationem ad Aras Bowing and ducking to Altars now much in use But certainely Altars in that age had not obtained so much dignity as to be adored bowed to since the consecration of them came in long after in Pope Felix time as M. Thomas Becon writes out of Sabellicus and Pantaleon neither can it be proved that Christians in that age used to bow to Altars This authority therfore is suspicious to put it out of doubt Erasmus Rhenanus Junius M. Cooke prove it not to be Tertullians but some conterfeit thrust upon him the phrase being certainely none of his no nor some things mentioned therein so ancient as his age This counterfeit authority therfore will not stand the Coale in any stead The second passage is that in his Booke de Oratione c. 14. Nonne solemnior â—rit statio tuaâ—siâ—ad Atam Deisteris Here is standing only at the Altar mentioned not kneeling or bowing to or at it So that these two Authorities seeme to thwart one another at the first view To this I answer that though this Booke be generally conceived Tertullans yet I suspect that the additions after the end of the Lords prayer explained where in this passage is are none of his For I find this passage in them Sic die Paschae quo communis quasi publica jejunij religio est merito deponiemus of culum c. which intimates that Christians on Easter day did Keep a common publike Fast â—nd therfore refused to kisse one anotherâ— And it makes Easter day not to be Stationum dies a day of praying standing as the next words prove Now it is certaine that Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis writes that the Christians in his age thought it a great wickednes to fast or to pray kneeling on the Lords day being the joyfull day of Christs resurrection much more then to doe it upon Easter day and that the Christians did not fast but rejoyce in remembrance of Christs resurrection from Easter to whitsontide No Ecclesiasticall writer extant then making mention of any solemne fast or praying kneeling observed by Christians in that age on Easter day who thereon ever used to Feast and rejoyce applying that of the Psalmist to this day and Feast Psall 118. 24. This is the day which the Lord hath made we will rejoyce and be glad in it This passage makes me suspitious that the later part of this Booke is none of his Adde to this That Cyprian a great admirer of Tertullian whom he stiled his Minister makes no mention of this Booke or of Tertullian or of any Altar or Stations at the Altar or Kisse of peace or other such Customes Ceremonies in his Exposition or Commentary on the Lords Prayer which is probable he would have done had Tertullian writen any such Booke as this or had these Ceremonies or Altars been then in use they being both Countrymen flourishing successively in the same Church Moreover this Booke makes mention of Hermas Booke intitled the Pastor by way of approbation and gives an answer to an objection out of it when as in his Booke de Pudicitia he thus censures it as counterfeit Scriptura Pastoris ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apocrypha falsa adultera judicatur as the Bookes now passing under his name are accounted Moreover in this very Booke of Tertullian in his Booke de Corona Militis so in S. Cyprian on the Lords Prayer the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is by both of them ioyntly stiled the Eucharist both of them interpret Give us this day our dayly bread of Christ who is our living and true bread which came downe from heaven whose body the Sacramentall bread is esteemed and on whom we dayly feed in the Sacrament and Eucharist Now both of them stiling the Sacrament the Eucharist and speaking not of any Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar but only of spirituall bread to be eaten of us neither of a Table we may doubt this passage to be none of his Beside this that famous Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria flourishing but 240. yeares after Christ very neare Tertullians time writes thus to Sixtus Bishop of Rome that an ancient Minister who was a Bishop long before him a plaine evidence that Ministers Bishops were then both one and so promiscuously stiled being present when some were baptised hearing the interrogatories and answers came weeping and wailing to him falling prostrate at his feet confessed and protested that the baptisme where with he was baptised of the heretickes was not true whereupon he desired to be rebaptized which he durst not doe but told him that the dayly Communion many times ministred might suffice him when he had been present at the LORDS-TABLE and had streched forth his hand to receive the holy food and had communicated and of a long time had been partaker of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ I durst not againe baptise him but bade him be of good cheare of a sure faith and boldly to approch unto the Communion of the Sincts But he for all this morunneth continually horror with draweth him from the LORDS-TABLE and being intreated hardly is persuaded to be present at the Ecclesiasticall prayers In which auncient undoubted Epistle to the Pope himselfe we have not mention at all of any Altar or Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar but twice together the name of the Lords Table also of a dayly Communion holy food ministring and partaking of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ c. Which being the proper genuine undoubted language of that age makes me doubt these passages of Tertullian to be forged or corrupted He as also Justine Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus oft times making mention of the Lords Supper the Eucharist bread and wine receiving the Eucharist at the hands of the Presidents or cheife Ministers and the Tables to but never of any Sacrament of the Altar nor of an Altar but only here Finally all the forequoted Fathers Authors expresly determine that the Christians and Fathers of the Primitive Church for above 250 yeares after Christ had no Temples Altars nor Images at all and that Altars were first brought in by Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265. after Tertullians age This authority therfore of his all others cited in the Coale great part of D. Pocklingtons Sunday no Sabbath concerning the Antiquity of Churches Temples Altars and Bishops chaires among Christians with in 200. yeares after Christ must needs be fabulous
none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâ—sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâ—d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aâ—t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ— almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌ„secrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lâ—â—e Popish foâ—gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â— 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
the Primative Church But there is but one only Altar of the Christians even Jesus Christ the Sonne of God and of the virgine Mary of whom the Apostle speaketh on this manner Heb. 13 We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eate which serve in the Tabernacle Our Altar is not of stone but of God Not Worldly but Heavenly not visible but invisible Not dead but living upon the which Altar whatsoever is offred unto God the Father it can none otherwise be but most thankfully and most acceptable And like as Christ administring the most Holy mysteries of his body blood to his Disciples sat downe at the Table So likewise his Giustes that is so say his Apostles sitting at the same Table receaved that Heavenly food sitting But the Massemonger delivereth not the Sacramentall bread unto the Communicants except they first of all kneele downe with great humility reverence that they may by this their gesture declare shew evidently to such as are present that they worship honour that bread for a God which is so great so notable wickednesse as none can exceed when it is plaine evident by the ancient writers that the Geastes of the Lords Supper long and many yeares after Christes resurrection sat at the Table So farre is it of that they either after the manner of the Jewes stood right up or after the custome of the Papists kneeled when they should receave the Holy mysteries of the body blood of Christ. So in his Cathechisme f. 484. To the same purpose he proceeds thus Father What thinkest thou is it more meet to receave the Supper of the Lord at a Table or at an Altar Sonne At a Table Father Why so Sonne For our Saviour Christ did both institute this Holy Supper at a Table and the Apostles of Christ also did receive it at a Table And what can be more perfect then that which Christ and his Apostles have done All the primative Church also received the Supper of the Lord at a Table And S. Paul 1. Cor. 10. speaking of the Lords Supper maketh mention not of an Altar but of a Table Ye can not be partakers sayth he of the Lordes Tables and of the Devills also Tables for the ministration of the Lords Supper continued in the Church of Christ almost 300. years after Christ universally and in some places longer as Histories make mention So that the use of Altars is but a new invention and brought in as some write by Pope Sixtus the second of that name Moreover an Altar hath relation to a Sacrifice And Altars were built and set up at the Commandement of God to offer Sacrifice upon them But all those Sacrifices doe now cease for they were but shadowes of things to come therfore the Altar ought to cease with them Christ alone is our Altar our Sacrifice our Preist Our Altar is in Heaven Our Altar is not made of stone but of flesh blood of whom the Apostle writes thus Heb. 13. We have an Altar whereof it is not Lawfull for them to eat which serve the Tabernacle Furthermore the Papists have greatly abused their Altars while they had such confidence in them that without an Altar or in the stead thereof a Super-altare they were perswaded that they could not duely truly and in right forme minister the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ. And this their Altar and Superaltar likewise must be consecrate have prints and charactes made therein washed with oyle wine and water be covered with a cloth of hayer and be garnished with fine white linnen clothes other costly apparell or els whatsoever was done thereon was counted vaine unprofitable The use also of Altars hath greatly confirmed maintained the most wicked error and damnable heresie which the Papistes hold concerning the Sacrifice of the Masse while they teach that they offer Christ in their Masse to God the Father an oblation and Sacrifice for the sinnes of the people both of the living and of the dead and by this meanes they greatly obscure and deface that most sweetsmelling alone true perfect and sufficient Sacrifice of Christes death And therfore all the Altars of the Papists ought now no lesse to be throwen downe and cast out of the Temples of the Christians then in times past the Altars of the Preistes of Baal So far is it of that they be meet to be used at the Celebration of the Lords Supper Finally who knoweth not that we come unto the Lords Table not to offer bloody Sacrifices to the preformance whereof we had need of Altars but to eate and drinke and spiritually to feed upon him that was once crucified and offred up for us on the Altar of the crosse a sweet smelling sacrifice to God the Father yea and that once for all Now if we come together to eate and drinke these Holy mysteties so spiritually to eate Christes body and to drinke his blood unto salvation both of our bodies soules who seeth not that a Table is more meet for the celebration of the Lords Supper then an Altar Father Thy reasons are good and not to be discommended But what sayest thou concerning the gestures to be used at the Lords Table Shall we receave those Holy mysteries kneeling standing or sitting Sonne Albeit I know confesse that gestures of themselves be indifferent yet I would wish all such gestures to be avoyded as have outwardly any appearance of evill according to this saying of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. Abstaine from all evill apparaunce And first of all forasmuch as kneeling hath been long used in the Church of Christ at the receiving of the Sacrament thorow the doctrine of the Papistes although of it selfe it be indifferent to be or not to be used yet would I wish that it were taken away by the authority of the hier powers Father Why so Sonne For it hath an outward appearaunce of evill When the Papist thorow their pestilent perswasions had made of the Sacramentall bread and wine a God then gave they in Commandment streight wayes that all people should with all reverence kneele unto it worship honour it And by this meanes this gesture of kneeling creept in and is yet used in the Church of the Papistes to declare that they worship the Sacrament as their Lord God and Saviour Whence M. Roger Cutchud in his 1. 2. Sermon of the Sacrament An. 1552. printed Cum Privilegio Anno 1560. writes Many comming to the Lords Table doe misbehave themselves so doe the lookers on in that they worship the Sacrament with kneeling bowing their bodies knocking their breasts with Elevation of their hands If it were to be elevated served to the standers by as it hath beene used Christ would have elevated it above his head He delivered it into the hands of his Disciples bidding them to eate it not to hold up their hands
to receive it not to worship it so delivered it to them SITTING not kneeling Only God is to be so honered with this kinde of reverence no Sacrament for God is not a Sacrament neither is the Sacrament God Let us use it as Christ and his Apostles did If thou wilt be more devout then they were be not deceived but beware that thy devotion be not Idolatrie But I would wish with all my heart that either this kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament were taken away or els that the people were taught that that outward reverence was not given to the Sacrament and outward signe but to Christ which is represented by that Sacrament or signe But the most certaine sure way is utterly to cease from kneeling that there may outwardly appeare no kind of evill according to this Commaundment of S. Paule 1. Thess. 5. Absteine from all evill appearaunce Lest the enemies by the continuance of kneeling should be confirmed in their error and the weaklings offended and plucked backe from the truth of the Gospell Kneeling with the knowledge of godly honour is due to none but to God alone Therfore when Satan commaunded our Saviour Christ to kneele downe before him worship him He answered It is writen thou shalt worship the Lord Math. 4. Standing which is used in the most part of the reformed Churches in these our dayes I can right well allow it if it be appointed by common order to be used at the receaving of the Holy Communion And this gesture of standing was also used at the Commaundment of God of the old Jewes Exod. 12. when they did eate the Paschall Lambe which was also a Sacrament and figure of Christ to come as our Sacrament is a signe figure of Christ come and gone Neither did that gesture want his mysteries For the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that they had a further journey to goe in matters of Religion and that there was a more cleare light of the Gospell to shyne then had hethereto appeared unto them which were wrapped round about with the darke shadowes of ceremonies againe that other yea and these more perfect Sacraments were to be given to Gods people which all things were fulfilled and came to passe under Christ the authour of the Heavenly doctrine of the Gospell and the institutor of the Holy Sacramentes Baptisme and the Lords Supper Now as concerning sitting at the Lords Table which is also used at this day in certayne reformed Churches if it were received by publique authority and common consent and might conveniently be used in our Churches I could alow that gesture best For as it is be doubted but that Christ and his Disciples sate at the Table when Christ delivered unto them the Sacrament of his body and bloud which use was also observed in the primative Church and long after So likewise it is most Commonly that we Christians follow the example of our M. Christ and of his Disciples Nothing can be unreverently done that is done of the example of Christ of his Apostles We come together to eate and drinke the Holy mysteries of the body and bloud of Christ we have a Table set before us is it not meet and convenient that we sitte at our Table The Table being prepared who standeth at his meat yea rather who sitteth not downe when Christ feed the people he bad them not kneele downe nor stand upon their feet but he commaunded them to sit downe John 6. which kind of gesture is most meet when we assemble to eate and drinke which thing we doe at the Lords-Table Neither doth the sitting of the Communicants at the Lords Table want her mystery For as the standing of the Jewes at the eating of the Lords Passeover signified that there was yet to come another doctrine then the Law of Moses even the preaching of the glorious Gospell of our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesu other Sacraments then Circumcision and the Passeover even the Sacraments of Baptisme and the Lords Supper So in like manner the sitting of the Christen Communicants at the Lords Table doth signifie preach and declare unto us that we are come to our journeyes end concerning Religion that there is none other doctrine nor none other Sacraments to be looked for then those only which we have already receaved of Christ the Lord. And therfore we sitting downe at the Lords Table shew by that our gesture that we are come to the perfection of our Religion and looke for none other doctrine to be given unto us Notwithstanding as I sayd before gestures are free so that none occasion of evill be either done or offred In all things which we call indifferent this rule of S. Paul 1. Thess. 5. is diligently to be obeyed Abstayne from all evill apparaunce Father I doe not disalow thy Iudgment in this behalfe But come of tell me what sayest thou concerning the vestures which the Ministers use at the ministration of the Lords Supper Sonne In some reformed Churches the Ministers use both a surplesse a cope in some only a surplesse in some neither cope nor surplesse but their owne decent apparell Father And what thinkest thou in this behalfe Sonne When our Lord and Saviour Christ Jesus did minister the Sacrament of his body blood to his disciples he used none other but his owne Commone dayly apparell so likewise did the Apostles after him and the primative Church likewise used that order so was it continued many yeares after tyll superstition began to creep into the Church After that time fonde foolysh fansye of mans idle brayne devysed without the authority of Gods word that the Minister in the divine service and in the ministration of the Holy Sacraments should use a white linnen vesture which we now commonly call a Surplesse Untill this tyme the Church of God continued in the simplicity of Christ of his Apostles requiring no paynted visores to set forth the glory beauty of our Religion which is then most glorious and most beautifull when it is most simple none otherwise setforth then it was used and left unto us of Christ of his Apostles And contrarywise it is then most obscured defaced when it is dawbed over with the vile vayne colours of mans wisdome although outwardly never so gorgious and glorious Afterward as superstition grew and encreased so likewise the people began more and more to be liberall in giving to the Church and in adourning decking trimming the Temples of the Christians yea that so much the more because they were now perswaded that such Temples and will workes pleased God deserved remission of sinnes everlasting life By this meanes came it to passe that the simple and plaine Tables which were used in the Apostolike and Primative Church were taken away and standing Altars set up and gorgeously decked with sumptuous
same For the continuance whereof their Preistes needed also succession but Christ is a Preist for ever without succession as the Apostle Heb. 10. plainly teacheth Our service and Sacrifice now is the often and thankfull remembraunce of that only Sacrifice in the receiving of the Holy Sacrament at the Lords Table according to his owne institution Hoc facite in memoriam mei Doe this in remembrance of me with spirituall feeding by faith also upon that his most precious body and bloud so by him for us offered Touching the pulling downe of your Altars I answer they are justly destroyed as were those wicked Altars by Asa Josaphat Ezechias Josias godly Kings of Juda destroyed 4. Reg. 18. c. 22. 4 Reg. 23. 2. Para. 14. a. 3. 2. Para. 17. b. 6. 2. Para. 31. a. 1. 2. Para. 34. a. 4. For as abominable Idolatrie was committed on before your Altars as ever was upon and before those If yow require prouses hereof you shall have them in their due places of the Masse of Idolatrie to Images after which he complaines thus of the Papists also of Christians we have made us Jewes and your selves of Ministers of the Gosple have yow made Jewish and Aaronicall Levites yow have on Aarons robes yow use his gestures yow have brought in his incense his censers his Altars his candles his candlestickes his belles and his banner his gold and his silver into the service and Temple of God Of the which beginning of things S. Hierome in his time much coÌ„plained And would to God yow had done no worse then thus to make us your selves altogether Juish by your shadowes imitating and counterfeyting the old Law Elegant Walter Haddon M. Fox in his answer to Hierom Osorious lib. 3. fol. 271. write thus concerning Altars Now whereas thou sayest that Images signes Crosses and Altars are cast downe I suppose that this part of the Complaint doth not much appertaine to Luther or the Ministers of the Euaâ—gelicall doctrine when as they never put any hands to the pulling downe of them Neither is it equall that those who are but private men should by force Tumults take liberty to themselves to doâ— any thing in the Common wealth or Church But if the Magistrates by their lawfull authority because they see it agreeable to the word of God doe piously and quietly doe their office therein what hath Osorius a private man and a stranger here either to scould at or to intermedle with it If King Sebastian shall thinke meet to cherish and follow these parts of the Roman Superstition in Altars in Images in Pictures and adoring Images he hath the voyces of the Scripture on the one side of Monkes on the other to which he may chuse whither he will harken he may doe in his Reipublike at his perill and pleasure But on the other side if Elizabeth Queen of the English the Scripture leading her shall thinke meet that these filthinesses of impure superstition which no Christian may endure without the danger of himselfe and of his rightly to be driven from the Empire cast out of the Realme verily shee doth nothing therein which may not plainly be defended by the perspicuous authority of the sacred Scripture and by the great examples of the most approved Kings Unlesse perchance Osorious shall thinke the memory of Ezekiah Josiah Jehosaphat not much to be appladed who both destroyed Altars and Images Groves and breake in peeces the brasen Serpent or then Gedion also who when he was no King cut downe the Grove and overturned the Altar what therfore that which in the Carnall Law was lawfull to the Kings of the Jewes shall it be lesse lawfull to our governers Magistrates in the spirituall Kingdome or Christ Or shall that then which in them was thought worthy of prayse reward by the verdict of the Scriptures be condemned of impiety in Christian Princes now After which he proceeds to justifye this action in breaking downe and abolishing Images Altars by Histories Fathers and Councells in the Primative times D. Fulke in his Confutation of the Rhemist Testament on the 1. Cor. c. 11. sect 18. fol. 287. determines thus of Altars But yow proceed say for this prophane Tables are removed and Altars consecrated Christ and his Apostles were to blame if it be as yow say to minister upon prophane Tables without consecrating of Altars But who shall beare witnes for consecration of Altars who but S. Augustine Serm. 255. de tempore And who shall warrant us that this Sermon is not falsly intituled to S. Augustine as a great number of those Sermons are But admit it be Augustines owne auctority yet he speaketh only of consecrating of Altars not for this end to discerne the Lords body and bloud For that their Tables and Altars were dedicated to the Holy use of ministration it is not the matter we stand upon but whither they were consecrated for this end They were called Altars unproperly as the Sacrament was called a Sacrifice the Ministers sacrificing Preists Levites yet were they neither in matter for me nor use like unto your Popish Altars of stone that were set against a wall For they were Tables of wood and so commonly were called as it is manifest by S. Augustine Ep. 50. Bonifacio And Optatus l. 6. both speaking of the rage of the Donatists which brake or shaved or scraped the boardes of the Altar or Table IT STOOD IN THE MIDDEST THAT THE PEOPLE MIGHT STAND ROUND ABOUT IT Euseb. l. 10. c. 4. ad Paulin. tyr ex Aug. de verb. Dom. secund Joan. Serm. 46. It was removeable carried by the clerkes August Quaest. vet nov Test. q. 101. Or otherwise as appeareth by Optatus l. 6. Therfore it is nothing like Popish Altars So on Matthew 23. fol. 46. sect 7. he determines thus Popish Altars that are set up to overthrow the Altar of the Crosse are not Holy but cursed And so is all that pertaineth to them Neither have they perfection of the Lords Altar that was in the Temple which was a figure of Christs only true Sacrifice once offered that never can be sacrificed againe as S. Augustine Sayth Neither did the Altars of the temple sanctifie by touching for then the murtherer vvhich tooke hold of the hornes of the Altar should be sanctified whom God commaunded to be drawne from thence executed Exod. 21. 14. 1. Reg. 2. 28. Neither if any man had offered any other gift then that God which commaunded had the gift been made Holy by touching the Altar for it was the ordinance of God by which the Altar sanctified the gift and not any quality in the Altar It is like you are sicke of the disease of the Pharisees which was covetousnes as Chrysostome and Theophylact note by magnifying the gifts of the Altar M. James Calfhill in his Answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse London 1565. the Preface to the Reader writes
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â— E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ— shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ— this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâ—ented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Popâ— Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else Bâ—shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churchesâ— Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastâ—rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates aâ—d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iewâ—sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull â—itting and deâ—ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violeÌ„t Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ— Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overâ—t for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ„ any irreverÌ„ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
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
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
the Kings free Chappels much lesse then any of his Vniversities which are more peculiar to his Majestie and more to be respectâ—d and of they did they incurred a Praemunire Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his owne name and right as Archbishop only they must and would withstand him according to their oaths and duties both to his Majestie the Vniversity But if he woâ—ld come as the Kings visit uâ— and substitute only and in his name and right alone with a speciall Commission or Patent under his greatâ—â—eale they would willingly submit to his visitation otherwise not This contestation grew so great that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majestie and his honourable privy Counsell at Hampton 〈◊〉 â— Whereupon the opeâ—ing â— hearing of the case pretended by the Vniversitâ—es Arch-bishops was whether his Majestie or the Arch-bishops or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiasticall and sole visitour of the Vniversities in Law righâ— The Arch-bisop declared that he desired not to visit the Vniversity out of any ambition or desire of Innovation c. But only to rectify some enormities of lâ—ng Continuance And what were they There were some Chappels belonging to certaine Colledges in that Vniversity the which had never yet been consecrated and yet divine service Sacraments were ministred in then and had beene so for many yeares and for instaÌ„ce he named Eâ—â—â—nuel Colledge for one which hath been used as a Chappel ever since the yeare of our Lord 1524 and Sidney Sussex Colledge Chappell used from An 1598. till this present So that the consecration of these two Chappels were the principall cause at least pretence of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and Vniversity A weighty matter God wootâ— to trouble his Majestie and whole Counsell with when as there is neither Scripture Law nor Canon of our Church in force to justifie such a consecration but Lawes and authoritiâ—â— store against it Bishop Pilkington Walter Haddon Mr. Fox and others much jeare and deride the madnesse folly and superstition of Cardinall Poole and his Deputie visitors of this very Vniversity of Cambridge for digging up Mr. Bucers and Paulus Fâ—gius bores out of S. Maries Church iâ— Cambridge â— yeares after they were interred And interdicting and nâ—w conâ—ecrating the Church againe as prophaned by them for feare their Masses and divine service there used should be nothing worth the place being made prophane and unholy by these Heretickes funerals as they judged them When as the Church was holy enough to say Masse in for three yeare space before all that would not heare itâ— must be imprisoned although the parties lay there buried And is it not then a farre greater madnes superstition and ridiculous frenzie for our dominering Arch-Prelats to deeme these two Chappels prophane places unfitt to administer the Sacraments aâ—d celebrate divine service in because never yet consecrated by a Bishop not only after three but almost threescore yeares use and practise of divine service Sermons and Sacraments in them WheÌ„ as neither his predecestâ—â—rs Whiâ—gift Bancroft and Abbot men very ceremonious and much addicted to superstition ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration And there is no such Canons Law and Doctrine to enforce the consecratioÌ„ of them now as were to justifie the rehallowing of S. Maries in Queen Maries time which the Popish Canon Law then approvâ—d O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church as they are for these superstitious ridiculous Romish trifles fitter for Schoole-boyes to sport themselves with all then for great and grave Bishops ever imployed in the highest State and Church affaires to trouble both the Vniversity King Counsell and themselves with all If any here reply that the Counsell of London An 1236. under Cardinall Otho the Popes Legate first of all ordained and decreed here in England that Churches should be consecrated whereas before that time as the words of the Constitution witnesse divers Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches in England had been built many years before and used as Churches and yet were never consecrated J answer that it seemes till this Constitution even in those times of superstitious grosse blindness Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity much lesse then should it be so reputed now Yet as those ancient Churches must then for this Legates gaine be all consecrated within a certaine space that he might have a round fee from every of them or else be wholy suspended and interdicted so must these ancient Chapples now by this Popish Canon After this Constitution the Bishops by Bulls from the Pope tooke upon them to consecrate Churches Chapples and Church-yeards in their owne names and rights till the abolishing of the Popes usurped power and restoring the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 1. After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapple Church or Church-yeard till they had obtained a speciall License from the King under his broad Seale for them and their successours enabling and authorizing them to doe it Which Licence they after much suite to the King Henry the 8. obtaâ—ned in the 31. yeare of his reigne the Coppy whereof I shall sett here downe The King to all men unto whome these presents shall come greeting Know yee that wee out of our speciall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion have granted and given License and by these presents for us and our heires doe grant and give License as much as in us is to the most reverend Fathers in Christ Thomas Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke and to the reverend Father in Christ John Bishop of Bath and Wells and also to all other Bishops and Suffraganes within our Realme of England that they and every 〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches Chappels or Church-yeards in our Kingdome of England already built and finished as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministred in them oâ— any of them As for the use of the buriall of dead persâ—ns within the same Churches or Church-yeards and euery of them c. And wee further will and grant by these presents thaâ— our Chancellour of England shall make or cause to be made and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Arch-bishops and Suffraganes from time to time as often as there shall be need so many and such a number of our Letters Patents with speciall and sufficient words aâ—d clauses to be made in due forme of Law for the execution of the Premises and to be sealed under the great Seale as shal be necessary and fitt for the premises or any of them by his discretion c. Notwithstanding the
Statutes of Mort c. In witnesse whereof c. Witnesse the King at Westminster the 1â— day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8 c. Teripsum Regem From which Patent truely transcribed out of the Rolls where it it is in Lattine I observe First that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches Chappels or Church-yeards without a speciall License from the King himselfe under his Great Seale Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories Visitations inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures suspend or silence Ministers and the like without such a speciall grant or Licence And so their Episcopall jurisdiction not â—ure divino but meerly humane by the Kings grant and institution Secondly that after such a License given them by the King under his great Seale they cannot yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church Chappel or Church-yeard without suing forth a specâ—all Patent out of the Chauncery under the Great Seale particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses to consecrate such such a Church Chappel or Church yeard in speciall much more then must they have the like speciall Patent and Commission to keep Courts Visitations suspend or silence Ministers and the like which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out but goe on of their owne heads in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part for which a Paemunire lies against them Thirdly that every consecration is and makes a Mortmaniâ— Therefore it is against the Law and must have a speciall License and warrant from the King under his Great Seale as this Patent prescribes Fourthly this Patent allowes neither the Bishops nor their Officers to take any fees at all for any such consecrations Therefore the fees they exact for them are meere extortions for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber Fifthly they cannot inforce any man or Parish to have their Chappels Churches or Church-yeards consecrated unlesse themselves require and desire it may be done as some words in the Patent which for brevity sake I have omitted manifest and the words may nor shall consecrate implieth as much Sixtly that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes which have a distinct peculiar forme of Consecration but only Churches Chappels Church-yeards After this King Henry the â— in the 37 yeare of his reigne by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford among other things granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Diâ—cesse Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no such power For which cause it was then specially inserâ—eâ— into this and other Bishops Patents And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use But upon the change and reformation of religion which is worthy of observation iâ— quite vanished away as did many other Popish Superstitions by the abolishing of the Masseâ—Bookes Primers and Ceremonials which prescribed the manner and forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples and Church-yeardes by the Statutes of 2. 3. E. 6. c. 1. 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edwardâ— dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2 One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches Chapples or Church-yeards though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction as keeping of Courts Visitations Probale of Wills granting of Letters of Administration suspending of Ministers upon Legall and just groundes c. be particularly granted them in those Patents Yet how To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS in oâ—â— owne Royall Name Stead and Authority not their owne as the Patents of Scory Couerdale 5. Ed. 6. parsf in the Rolls with many others testify Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches Chapples 〈◊〉 Church-yards inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes from the King under his Great Sâ—ale authorizing them to keep Consistories Visitations prove Wills grant Lâ—â—ters of Administration Suspend Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Subjâ—ct Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law to execute any of those particulars aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice and but a meere Nullity especially their Consecration of Churches Chapples Church-yeards Altars for which they have neither Patentâ— Statute Article Injunction Canon or Orthodox Writer of our Church Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication which they would now receive But of this enough for this present in which I have been the more prolix because it is a poiet of Law not hitherto discussed fully by any that I have mett with QVESTION IIII. The 4. Question I shall propound is this What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers to read the Epistle and Gosple or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it when there is no Communion The reason of this demaund is five-fold 1. Because in truth there is no Statute Law Injunction or Canon extant prescribing any such thing 2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table shall say the Lords prayer with thi collect following c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Communion ordaines thus Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homily concluding with the generall prayer c. But it sayth not that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table Whence I observe 1. That theâ— Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table but at such times only as there is a Communion 2. That when he reades service at it the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body or MIDDLE of the Church or Chappel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd So as the Prâ—â—st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him as is cleare by thâ—s Rubricke and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon forecited if you read Whence I argue thus The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar but then only when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at as the Rubricke Injunction Canon resolve But the Table is not thus
last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to witâ— the use of reading second service at the Table now foâ—â—ooâ—h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can â—eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious violâ—ters of the statute of 1â— Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastwâ—rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct aâ—thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth thâ—â— the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops coâ—â—ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bishâ—p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell â—ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that â—e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris collâ—cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. â—ulke
Altar prayes to God the Father to give him the spirit of humility c. Which I have cited more at large to shew the ridiculous grounds of Popish Ceremonies I answer First that in all this there is not one word of bowing to or towards the Altar which certainly would here have been mentioned among other Ceremonies had it been then in use Secondly the last words mention only a kneeling downe at the Altar and that by the Preist at the time of Consecration to pray but no kneeling or bowing to the Altar either before after or without any prayer the Ceremony now contended fore This therefore is not home The tenth Antiquity The tenth is that of Honorius Augustodunensis de antiquo ritu Mâ—ssarum l. 3. c. 30. De Inclinationibus Dam Ecclesiam ingredientes ad Altare inclinamus quasi regem milites adoramus Aeterni quippe Regis Milites sumus cui semper in precinctu specialis militiae assumus Cum autem ad Orientem Occidentem inclinamus Deum ubique praesentem nos adorare monstramus Quem it a rationali motu ab ortu nostrae nativitatis usque ad occasum mortis sequi debemus sicut coelum ab Oriente in Occidentem naturali revolutione ferri videmus Quod Monachi expressius designavit qui se toto corpore ab Oriente in Occidentem girant To which I answer That this Authour lived 1120 yeares after Christ and is the first undoubted writer that makes mention of bowing to the Altar at the enâ—ring into the Church which I have met with all Which Ceremony as is likely began in his dayes But yet observe First he sayth they bowed To not towards the Altar only Which many of our Novellers deny they doe Secondly that the ground and reason of bowing to the Altar then is farre different from those reasons alleadged for it now They bowed thus Only to restify that they were Gods Soldiours ready at all times to doe him service Not from any reasons drawne from the Altar But wee forsooth must bow to it because it is Gods mercy seat the place of Christs speciall presence on Earth his Chaire of state to testify ouâ— Communion with the faithfull because it is the principall part of the Church And if all these faile because it is used in Cathedrall Churches Which reason they never dream'd on then Thirdly that as they then bowed to the Altar so likewise they bowed themselves both East and West to testify that God whom they worshipped was every where alike present But our men will only bow Eastward and have all Altars so situated not Westward And confine Gods speciall presence to their Altar and the East end of the Church as if he were not every where present alike Which is directly opposite both to their practise and reason here alleadged to the contrary Fourthly they bowed only to the Altar at their first entrance into the Church ours now not only at their coming in but every time they passe by it towards it repaire to it retire from it and at their going out of the Church besides Fiftly this in that age was the practise only of Monkes when they went to their houres of prayer for of them he speakes as is evident by the precedent and subsequent chapters with reference to these houres Therefore it is no proofe for Ministers or Laymens practise of it then or now The eleaventh Antiquity The eleaventh is that of Rudolphus Tungrensis florishing about the yeare of our Lord 1380. De Canonum observantia propositio 23. Who as he informes us in direct tearmes that Sixtus the second Anno 261 ordained That the Masse should be celebrated upon an Altar QUOD ANTEA NON FIEBAT which before that time was not done a cleare proofe that Christians for 261 yeares after Christ had no Altar in use so he writes That the Preist in that age read the Gosple at the left corner of the Altar according to the Roman Order that on the Right side he might be the readier to receive oblation and performe sacrifice That the Roman Order prescribes that incense with a Tapor should be caried before the Gosple when it was caried to the Altar or Readers seate And then relating divers Ceremonies about the Masse he sayth Sacerdos autem humiliationem Christi usque ad mortem Ctucis nobis indicat quando se usque ad Altare inclinat dicendo habe igitur ohlationem Et statim in sequentibus narrationem de Dominica passione orditur Quam usque ad supplices te rogamus observat Quosque juxta Altare se inclinans Christum in Cruce inclinato capite spiritum tradidisse signat To which I answer That this is no bowing to or towards the Altar But a bowing of the Preist as low as the Altar and by â—r besides the Altar not out of any respect or reverence to it but to shâ—w forth Christs humiliation unto the death of the Crosse as iâ— the Sacrament 1 Cor. 11. 24. 25. 26 instituted for that purpose and then celebrated were not sufficient for that without this idle Ceremonie to shew that Christ bowed his head when he gave up the Ghost as if Christ himselfe at his last supper or his Apostles after him could not have prescribed such Ceremonies for these ends had they thought them necessary Tâ—erefore it s no warrant or proofe of any bowing or inclination to or towards the Altar especially for other ends which is not so much as mentioned in this writer there being non Canon extant for it in his age The twelveth Antiquity The twelveth is that of Eugenius Roblesius Bibl. Patrum Tom. 15. p. 761. G. H. de authoritate ordine Officij Mâ—rzabarici among the Gothes Where J find no mention of the Preists genuflection to the Altar before the ordinary Masâ—e or in it But these passages after it Absoluta Missa Sacerdos genubus flexis juxta Altare recitat salve regina Dâ—nde deosculato Altare convertit se ad populum But in the Lenton Masses immediately after the Psalmes Sacerdâ—s genust xo supragradus Altaris recitat quasdam preces c. Hinc ante sacrificium oblationom Sacerdos genu flexo ad Altare recitat alias preces c. But all this proves only a kneeling and genuflection in prayer at the Altar not any bowing or incuruation to or towâ—rds it and that all the time of the Consecration by the Preist alone not by other at other seasous These are all the cheife Authorities I have hitherto observed which seem to give any colour to this bowing to or towards Altars which Ceremonie I cannot finde prescribed in any Bookes of Divine Offices Canonists Missals Caeremonials Primers Psalters Liturgies Masse-Bookes or Masses no not in the Popish Churches much leâ—â—e at home that have hitherto come unto my hands A strong argument and evidence in my judgement that it was never used in former times as now it is of late The fore-cited Authorities two only excepted and those late Popish
writers making nothing at all either for the lawfulnesse of this Ceremonie though many ignorant superstitious persons are deluded by them Most of these Authorities I confesse are not cited or objected by the opposites but least they might object or pervert them hereafter J have here propounded and answered them by way of anticipation and all others of this nature in answering these These are the only Authorities yet behind The first is that of the fift Generall Counsell Surius Tom. 2. p. 440. See Bish. Mortons Institution of the Sacram l. 7. c. 3. Sect. 3. p. 5. 15. of Constantinople Actio 1. where Iohn the Patriarch speakes thus Haec patienter sustinete fratres prius A DOREMUS SANCTUM ALTARE post hoc do vobis responsionem Et cum intrassent ad Sanctum Altare permansernnt clamantes Multi enim Imperarores c. To vvhich I answer First that this Patriarch speakes plainly of adoring the Altar it selfe not to or towards it or of the Hostia upon it VVhich our bowers themselves confesse to be Idolatrous Secondly the ensewing vvords prove that this adoring the Altar was only a going to the Altar there to pray not a bowing to the Altar it selfe of vvhich there is not a word unlesse wee will make this Patriarch a grosse Idolater in adoring the very Altar From which the Lollards both in France and England were so farre averse that they were called Pileati or Oeputials by the Papists Antiqu Eccles. Brit. 295. â—ó quod Altare praetergressi ex Pontificis instituto pixide incluso piâ—ei honorem non deferant Because they would not putt of their Caps to the Pix or Altar when they passed by them And if they would not so much as move their Caps to them much lesse did they bow their knees or bodies to or towards them This president therfore take it in one sence or other wil not advantage our Nouellers vnlesse they will confesse that they adore the Altar it selfe and not God towards it which makes them grosse Idolaters The second Authority The second is that of Cardinall Pooles Deputie visitours in Queen Maries bloody dayes who among other Noble Acts in that visitation decreed and prescribed Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. how many Pater Nosters and Ave Maries every man should say when he should enter into the Church and in his entrance AFTER WHAT SORT HE SHOULD BOW HIMSELFE TO THE ALTAR And how to the Maister of the house This Authority I confesse Is full for bowing not to the Hostia only as the passage in Bishop Morton would fable but to the Altar it selfe But yet observe first when and by whom this Ceremonie was prescribed In Queen Maries dayes by professed Papists and Champions for the Church of Rome Secondly to whom it was prescribed only to Schollars in the Universitie and no others Thirdly with what this Ceremonie was attended VVith Pater Nosters and Ave Maries Fourthly to whom it is likewise extended To the Maister of each Colledge as well as to the Altar and that in the Church it selfe Therefore certainly they then reputed it no religious worship or divine adoration as most now esteeme it Jf our Bishops and Novellers will take this for their patterne and president some of them being not ashamed to magnify Queen Maries and depresse Queen Eliz abeths dayâ—â— See Dr. Dupra his preface to the Vniversity Statutes at Oxford I shall then conclude with Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 2. 48. That they are lineally discended from S. Peters Chaire aâ— Rome and with a late Iesuite which I have not yet seen but heard of That the Iesuites need write no more for the Sacâ—ifice of the Masse for that we are writing for and setting up Altars so fast in England that they hope to see Masse there very shortly if these may have their will at least and God and his Majesty prevent it not with speed But if they are ashamed of such a president let them with like shame henceforth abandon such an Antichristinn Romish practise The third Authority The third is that of Odo Bishop of Paris in a Synode about the yeare of our Lord 1206. Bochellus Decreta Ecclesiae Gal. l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 81 p. 558. Summa reverentia honor maximus sacris Altaribus exhibeatur maximè ubi sacro sanctum corpus Domini reservatur Missa celebratur A very probable Authority for this Ceremonie To which I answer First that there is not one word in this Injunction concerning bowing to or towards the Altar And reverence and great honour might be given to it in such manner as it is given to Churches Fonts Pulpits Bibles and the like not by bowing to or towards them but by a reverend use and estimation of them free from superstition on the one hand And prophonesse on the other So as this Authority in truth proves nothing Secondly admit it meant of bowing to Altars yet it is to be given only to sacred consâ—crated Altaâ—s not to others But few or none of our Altars not one of our Lords 〈◊〉 ables have yet been so solemnely consecrated the reason why Papists refuse to bow to them 〈◊〉 it makes 〈◊〉 for any genuâ—lectio◠〈…〉 or Tables Thirdly this honour and reverence is 〈◊〉 to be given to those Altars only wheâ—c the body of Christ is a wayes 〈…〉 pix and Masse celebrated And thâ—â— say 〈◊〉 Papists in their private discourses 〈…〉 of the 〈…〉 46â— is thâ—t 〈◊〉 reason why thâ—y bow 〈…〉 cause Christs boâ—y is they imagine â—s the 〈…〉 as they bow not at all to or towards the body of Christ reserved on it But our Altars for ought I yet know 〈◊〉 have no body of 〈…〉 on them Therefore they are not yet to be bowed unto or reverenâ—ed by vertue of 〈…〉 likewise ordaines that 〈…〉 which l. 4. Tit. 1. c. 8â— p. 558. Which our Bishops urge with much vigour As for the Synod of 〈◊〉 An. 1583. though it decree many things concerning Altars as that none shall stand under the Organs Pulpit or against the Piltars of the Church or over against the High Altar or neare the Church-dores or any unfitting place That there shall not be above 7 Altars in any Church That all of them shall be of stone 7 handfuls and an halfe broade and 8 handfuls long That iâ— might have a faire Altar-cloth to cover it That a Cisterne of water See Bochellus Decreta Eccles. Gal. l. 3. Tit. c. 33. 34. p. 362. with two or three towels neare it for the Preist to wash hâ—s hands defiled with their unholy holy Sacrifice of the Messe That every Altar where the Bishop shall judge it may conveniently be done shall be rayled in with an Iron or stone rayle or at least with a woodden onâ— standing at least 7 hand-breathes distance from the Altar within which rayle no Layman may enter whiles that Masâ—e is celebrating That every Altar have its proper Ornaments and decent furnature as Altar-clothes towels a
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
reasons produced to appropriate this bowing to or towards the Altar and Table to justify the lavvfulnes thereof are only drawen from the Altar it selfe The reasons therefore of its use and lawfulnes being drawen only from the Altar and Table This bowing without question must have relation to them as its Object Termination Fiftly the situation of the Tables Altar-wise and eleuating and raysing the ground in some places higher then before the gracing of it with Crucifixes Altar-clothes Arras hangings Candlestickes Basons Cushions and other Massing furniture the better to induce men to adore and bow unto it is a stroâ—g argument in my judgement that they bow directly to it making it the immediate object of their bowing and worship not God whose presence they now confine to the Altar and never adore in this maner but in by through on or towards the Altar or Table Sixtly the bowing to it when there is no Sacrament at all on it nor cause to deeme God specially present at or on it See Bishop Mort on p. 463. is an invincible argument that they doe iâ— to the Table or Altar and not simplie towards it And to put this out of further doubt 1. First I have heard many of them confesse that they doe bow vnto the Altar 2. Secondly J have heard them exhort and perswade others to bow to it 3. Thirdly I have heard them preach for bowing not towards but To the Altar and Table And fevv Sermons have there been of late times either at Court Paules Crosse or our Universitie Churches vvherein there have not been some Passage either to justify presse excuse or persuade the bovving To Altars Lords-Tables If any man thinke this a slaunder vvhich thousands can vvitnesse then heare in the last place Bookes printed by Authority confessing it in direct tearmes Giles Widdowes in his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan p. 89. printed at Oxford by License An 1632. And that Popeling Thomas Browne in his Sermon at S. Maries Oxford 1634. plead not only for Altars and bowing towards them but for bovving AT TO them So that by the judgement of Oxford-Scriblers and Licensers This bowing is to the Table Altar Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5. Treatises printed by License 〈◊〉 Cambridge to his eternall infamie p. 17. 18. 19. 20. though in words he minseth the matter That he would not have them give divine worship to gods Table but to worship God towards it Yet he confesseth that the Altar is motivum cultus and bids vs direct our aspect TO it and bow our bodies towards it And makes it at least a partiall object of this genuflection Edward Reeve in his Exposition on the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Booke is downe-right for removing Tables Altarwise and bowing TO them If these crack-braind writers have not weight enough Then heare one since them all in stead of all Dr. Iohn Pocklington a greet learned Dr. of Divinity late President of a Colledge in Cambridge Chaplaine to a great Bishop and that in a Visitation-Sermon the most prophane and scurrilous ever yet printed if not preached entitled Sunday no Sabbath Licensed by that Apostate William Bray Chaplaine to the now Archbishop of Canterbury a great zelot and Precisian heretofore an earnest preacher against Altars and prophane Sabbath-breakers whiles a Lecturer March 15. 1635 and twice printed in the yeare of our Lord 1636. who as in his first Edition p. 48. seemes to inferre That the Sacrament can not be consecrated without an Altar So p. 50. he concludes his Sermon thus And if we doe not only bend or bow our body TO his blessed Boorde or HOLY ALTAR so he oft times cals it but fall flat on our faces so soone as ever we approch in sight thereof what Patriarch Apostle blessed Martyr holy or learned Father would condemne us for it or rather would not be delighted to see their 〈◊〉 so honoured and their devotion so reverently imitated and so good care taken to have it continued in the Lords house on the Lords-day by the Lords Saints unto the Lords comming againe This bowing therefore being not only towards but TO the Table which is made at least the partiall Termination Object of it if not the totall or principall how it differs from the Pagans or Papists relative worship of Idols Images Pictures Altars or how it can be excused from impiety and most grosse Jdolatrie as bad as that of the â—aplanders who worship a red cloute upon a sticke to use the comparison of the Iâ—suite Coster I cannot possiblâ—e discerne And that it is the same in all respects with the Papists derâ—ved from them set up to reduce us backe to Rome and harden Papists in their Jdolatrie give me leave to relate a late story to you On Munday Thursday last some Citizens of LondoÌ„ of good quality went with other of their friends to VVhitehall to see the Ceremonies of the Munday and washing of the poore mens feet VVhich when they had beheld some of the company desired to see his Majesties Chapple at VVhite-hall They did so And in the Chapple found one of the Queens women of their acquaintance at her prayers before the Crucifix VVho seeing them dravving â—eer her left off her devotions and came saluted them Wâ—â—â—s they were vewing the Chapple and talking together in comes a Gentleman a Papist and makes a low Congie to the ground almost and after that a second the one to the Mâ—arâ— the other to the Crucifix and so departs Whereupon one of the Company spake thus to the Popish Gentlewoman 〈◊〉 Lord will you never see and give over your most grosse Idolatrie of worshipping Images stockes and stones With other words to like purpose The Popish Gentle-woman defended this practise the beâ—â— shee could and whiles they were discoursing about it in one side of the Chapple in came Dr. Browne of S. Faithes then newly made Deaâ—e of Hereford and as soone as ever he entred in at the Chapple doore he bowed 3. seuerall times together downe to the ground to the High Altar on which he fiâ—â—d his eyes After which coming up into the midst of the Chapple he fixeth his eyes upon the Crucifix and boweth downe to the ground to it Which they all beholding wondring at Law you now quoth the Popish Gentle-woman to the Citizen who discoursed with her this is done of your owne men a great Dr. and one of his Majesties owne Chaplaines See you how he bowed to the Altar and Crucifix farre lower and oftner then the Popish Gentleman did And caÌ„ you blame that in us which your owne Doctours doe I tell you you must and will all come to this ere long In truth replied the Citizen you have Noâ—plussed me J can not tell what to say I never thought to have seene Dr. Browne doe such an Act as this By this time the Dr. was come hard by them and most of them being his familiar acquaintance one of them steps to him
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
of the Holy-Ghost binding all Christians even the Apostles as well as others Rom. 14. 3. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth for God hath received him Ergo c. OBJECTION But if it be sayd here that this place speaketh only of private Christians not of Church-Governours Answer I answer The place speaketh of Christians private and publike seeing it reserveth and referreth the judgment of our Brethren in such like things not to publike persons but only to Christ Ver. 4. 10. Third Argument The third Argument or reason is this They who did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came they surely did not make Lawes and bind Christians to accommodate themselves to their judgements and practise in the use of things Indifferent But the Apostles of Christ and the Christians too in the primitive Churches did accommodate themselves in the use of Indifferent things according to the judgement and practise of all Christians wheresoever they came As appeareth from the Apostles Example 1. Cor. 9. 10. 21. 22. 23. To the Jewes saith he J became a Iew c. Ergo c. OBJECTION But here it may be objected though the Apostles rather chose to use their Liberty and their lenity then their authority in these indifferent things wheresoever they came Yet if they had pleased they might have used their Apostolicall authority in binding all Churches to their judgements and practise in such things Answer 1. Hereunto I answer first that doubtles if they had received any such authority they would in some placeÌ„ or other and at one time or other have claimed it and practised it For a sword never used rusteth in the scabbard And Frustra est potentia quae nunquam venit in actum It is a true Axiome and pertinent to that we speake off 2. Secondly I say that the Apostle himselfe doth clear the point when he confesseth he did thus accommodate himselfe even to the weaknesses of Christians least he should abuse his authority in the Gospell 1. Cor. 9. 18. 19. 20. O that such Governours as plead so their Succession to the Apostles and doe challenge in sundrie passages of government Apostolicall authority would also be pleased to study and emulate an Apostolicall Spirit Fourth Argument Let a 4. Argument be this That if the Synod of the Apostles and Presbiters and Brethren of Ierusalem did reach their authority no farther theÌ„ to lay upon the Disciples necks the yoake burthen of Necessary things that only during the time while they continued Necessary Then may not any Succeding Synod reach their authority to lay upon the Church Commaundements and Canons of Indifferent things For this Synod at Ierusalem was and ought to be the patterne and president of all Succeeding Synods For Primum in vnoquoque genere est mensura reliquâ—rum And our Saviour teacheth us to refute abetrations from Primitive patterns with this Matth. 19. 8. Non sic fuit ab initio From the beginning it was not so But the Synod at Ierusalem reached their authority no farther then to lay Commaundements upon the Disciples only touching Necessary things Acts 15. 28. Necessary I say either in themselves as abstaining from Fornication or at least in respect of present offence as abstaining from blood c. And let me conclude this Argument taken from the Apostle Paul his intercourse with the Apostle Peter about a matter of this kind If the Apostle Peter was to be blamed for compelling the Gentiles by his example to observe Indifferent things or Ceremonies of the Iewes Then other Church-Governours wil be as much blame-worthy for compelling Christians by Law by grevious ceÌ„sures to obserue the Ceremonies now in questioÌ„ though they were IndiffereÌ„t But the Apostle Paul tells us that Peter was to be blamed in this case Gala. 2. 11. 14. Ergo c. OBJECTION Now if any except thereat as some are wont to doe in this case and say that Peter was therefore blamed because the Ceremonies to which he compelled the Gentiles were not urged as things Indifferent but as Necessary to Iustification and Saluation ANSWER I answer This is but a meere evasion and will stand them in no stead For it is certaine Peter did not account them as necessary he knew the contrary nor did he so use them himselfe nor so compell others to them But knowing his Liberty for him a Iew to use them among the Iewes he used them when the Jewes came downe from Ierusalem out of a tender care to prevent their offence OBJECT But you will urge againe and say The false Teachers did urge them as necessary ANSWER I answer What then So did the Christian Iewes at Ierusalem yet Paul himselfe used them there Acts. 21. 23. 24. 26. 27. notwithstanding the corrupt opinion of worship and Necessity which they put upon them as much as ever did the false Teachers in Galatia OBIECTION Why then will you say did Paul blame that in Peter which he practised himselfe Answer He had indeed blamed Peter for that which he practised himselfe if he had therefore blamed him for practising such Ceremonies because they were urged by others with a corrupt opinion of Necessity and worship QVERE What was then the difference that made the practise of Paul lawfull in using the Ceremonies at Ierusalem and the practise of Peter unlawfull in using the same Ceremonies at Antioch ANSWER J answer The difference was this Though that corrupt opinion of the necessity of the Ceremonies prevailed alike in both places Yet the Ceremonies themselves had not the like warrant in both places In Ierusalem they were knowne to have been the Commandements of God and were not yet knowne to the Christian Iewes to have been abrogated and therefore at Jerusalem they had warrant from God to use them to avoyd the offence of the weake Iew there But at Antioch and in all other Churches of the Gentiles they were at best but things Indifferent as having never been commaunded of God there Whence it was that Peter saw his Liberty to forbeare them there at his first comming QVERE What was then the Sinne of Peter in resuming the practises of the Ceremonies there ANSWER His Sinne was double First the abuse of his authority in the Church for that unawares by his Example he compelled the Gentiles to the use of such Ceremonies as himselfe saw Liberty to forbeare amongst them And which having never been commaunded by God to them he had no power to impose on them His other sinne was the dissembling or concealing of his Christian Liberty which he should then then have stood upon when he saw the false teachers urge these Ceremonies upon the Gentiles as well as upon the Iewes to the prejudice of their Christian Liberty When things that are indifferent are commaunded to be done of necessity as now
all our Prelates Ceremonies are then are not the same to be obeyed because the same destroyeth our freedome in Christ. Dr. Barnes saith Mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 300. The Summe of all this will lead us by the hand one step farther namely If it be a sinne in Church-Governours to commaund especially upon strict penalty Indifferent decent things It wil be a sinne also in Ministers and in private Christians to subscribe Ex animo and to yeeld obedience by CoÌ„formity to such commaunds although the Ceremonies were as good indeed as they were preteÌ„ded which I believe they are not Indifferent-Decent-Things For doth not such voluntarily Subscription and Conforming to them build up our Church-Governours yea and with them that which is most to be taken to heart of us our Soveraigne civill Governours also in the confidence that such commaundements are as well lawfully given by them as received and obeyed yea confirmed and allowed by us Now to build up or edify a Brother to sinne is properly to offend a Brother For the proper Definition of an offence is that which edifieth a Brother unto Sinne as the originall word expresseth it 1. Cor. 8. 10. and so to sinne against a Brother is to wound his Conscience Yea and as much as in us lyeth to cause him to perish for whom Christ died Which is no better then Spirituall Murther of his Soule Now if thus to edifie any Brother to Sinne be so heynous an offence how much more heynous an offence is it to edifie our Governours to the giving urging of such commaundements yea and to the sharpe Censuring of all others as refractory and factious persons who choose rather to undergoe the losse of the greatest Comforts they enjoy iâ— this World then to wound the Consciences either of them selves or of their Governours It is true by forbearing obedience to those commaundements we offend the Spirits of our Governours and make them to be though causelesly offended with us But by yeelding obedience to these things we should offend their Consciences in edifying them to sinne and provoke the Lord to be offended with them Better they be offended with us without fault then through our fault God to be offended with them and us It is not for Christians Much lesse for Ministers to redeeme outward peacâ— and Liberty at so deâ—re a price as the hazard of the blood of so many precious Soules especially of our Governours in highest place and Authority What then shall we thinke of those Lordly Dominering Prelates who not only take upon them to enforce both Ministers and people to the observation and practise of the Ceremonies prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer further then the Staâ—uâ—e of 1. Eliz. c. 2. and the Law authorizeth them But likewise by their New-printed Vsiâ—ation Oathes and Articâ—es presume like so many Pâ—pes and Parliaments contrary to the Law of God the Statutes of the Realme and their owne 13. Canon even of their owne heads alone without the Kings Authority or Licence under his great Seale to impose new Popish Rites and Ceremonies of their owne devising is standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell and Nicene Creto Bowing at the name of Iesus Praying toward the East Bowing to Altars and Commuâ—on-Tables and the likâ— of which there is not one sillable in Scripture or Bâ—â—ke of Common-Prayer itselfe and so are directly prohibited by the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. which prohibites the use of any other Rites or Ceremonies then those expressed in the Booke of Common-Prayer under severe penalties to enforce them on Ministers and people against their consciences by Excommunications Suspentions deprivations imprisonments threats and such like open violence Certainly we must needs conclude them to be meere Antichristian tyrants not the meeke Disciples of our Lord Iesus Christ who never tooke such authority and State upon them thus to tyrannize it over mens consciences bodies estates in things indifferent much lesse in things unlawfull as many of the Ceremonies and Jnjunctions are Against which all godly Ministers and people ought solemly to protest and to goe on boldly in their Ministry and Christian dutie in despite of all their threats imprisonments their suspentions and Excommunications to the contrary which in truth are meere nullities not only by Gods Law but by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme since our Bishops have no Lords Patents or Commission under the broade Seale Authorizing them to exercise any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction or Censures or to keepe any Visitations Consistoriâ—s And since all their proceedings suspentions excommunications are made in their owne names under their owne Seales not his Majesties as they ought by Law to be Wherefore Let us all now stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ yea and the Lawes of our Realme too haue made us free and not be againe intangled in the Prelates yeokes of bondage formerly grievous but now intollerable I shall close up all with Bishop Pillingtons words It is not meet that God should be King and the Pope and Prelates to make Lawes for him to rule by But God rules by his owne Lawes Gregorius Magnus Pastoralium l. 3. c. 5. Aliter admonendi sunt subditi aliter Praelati Illos ne sâ—bjectio conterat Jllos ne locus superior extollat Illi ne minus quae rubentur jmpleant Illi ne plus justo jubeant quae compleantur Illi ut humiliter subjaceant Illi quoque ut temperanter praesint Marsilius Pat Dâ—fensoris Paris Pars 2. c. 28. Talium Decretalium ordinatores praeter licentiam fidelis Legislatoris aut Principis ad ipsorum quoque observationem quenquam inducentes verbis suâ—reptilijs quasi cogentes comminando simplicibus eorum transgressoribus damnationem aeternam aut blasphemias five anathemata vel alias maledictiones inferentes in quenquam verbo vel scripto corporaliter sunt extremo puniendi supplicio tanquam Conspiratores Civilis Schismatis concitatores Est enim gravissima species CRIMINIS LAE SAE MAJESTATIS quoniam IN PRINCIPATUM DIRECTE COMMITTITUR Ad ejus etiam supremi pluralitatem consequeÌ„ter per necessitatem ad solutionem cuiuslibet Politiae perducens I should be glad to see this adjudged for Orthodox Law as it is and executed on our audacious Innovators convicted of High treason by it FINIS A POSTSCRIPT CHristian Reader since the finishing of this Treatise a memorable Story hath fallen out in the Tovvne of Colchester in the County of Essex vvorthy publike knovvledge vvhich I shall here relate One Thomas Nuceman Parson of the Parish Church of S. Runwald in Colchester caused the Communion-Table in his Church to be removed and rayled in Altarwise Which done he enjoynes all the Communicants to come up to the new rayle and there to kneel downe and receive the Sacrament refusing to administer the Communion to any but such who came up to the rayle though present in the Chauncell and ready to