their Bookes or examples to decline from the strict observation of Gods Law which peremptorily forbiddeth the making of Idolls bowing to them or before them This was this great learned mans judgment concerning Altars bowing to them William Wraghton in his hunting of the Romish Fox dedicated to King Henry the 8. Basil. 1543. writes thus of the Popish Prelates of England f. 12 Yee hold still Vestiments Popes incense and ALTARS organes crosses in the Church all which ordinances Constitutions Ceremonies the Pope hath devised maed Ergo ye still have the Pope Receiving Altars among Popish ordinances Ceremonies in receiving whereof the Pope is still retained William Salisbury in his Battery of the Popes Batter printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. dedicated to the Lord Rich. then Lord Chauncellour of England spends that whole discourse in condemning Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish and unfit to be tollerated in Churches to the end that the rude and simple people being better persuaded by manifest texts of Holy Scripture should not have occasion to murmer grudge or be offended neither with the godly proceedings of the victorious Metropolitan of England who as redoubted grand Captine hath first enterprised on this most notable feat nor with any other Bishop or Lawfull Officer that attempted to plucke downe and remove the Popish Altars out of Christs Churches and Temples in the maintenance whereof he was fully persuaded that all the learned Popistâ— would stifly continue as he there professeth in his Preface to the Reader In which Treatise after he had shewed Altars to be Jewish and Heathenish serving only for Sacrifices offrings which ended in and with Christs offâ—ing up of his body once for all be concludes thus So then now if it be a cleare case and that by the plaine text of Holy Scripture that since Christ was once offred on the Altar of the Crosse all carnall Sacrifices all manner of offrings that ever were wont to be offred upon the Altars be wholly extinguished utterly voyd and of none effect And in as much as no man being in his right witt when he advisedly perceiveth and plainely understandeth that the cause of the first invention and building of the Altars was for no other purpose but to burne or to offer Sacrifices oblations upon which manner of Sacrifices God will no longer accept but he will strait wayes acknowledge that their ought not any Altar to remaine to any use among us Christians after the death and passion of our Master Christ at which time as he protesteth himselfe saying Consumâ—tum est it is finished signifying thereby that Moses Law was not only by him prevented fulfilled and finished but that the same Law or any Commaundment Rite Ceremony or any other part there in contained as concerning any burthening or Jurisdiction over the Christians was to all intents ended taken away and fully determined and the Gospell as it were a new Law surrogated confirmed and established in steed of the old Therfore Christians thus freed from the Law ought to have no Altars but Tables For what husbandman be he never so simple will be about to plough his land with a whelebarowe to harrow it with a slede or to carry with an harrow what husbandman I say is so folish as to goe about to wede his corne with a sith to moye his hey with a weeding hoke and to tedde the same with a rake Is a leaden Cesterne made for to sayle on the Sea is a ship made to be drawne of horses as a waggon upon the Land do Noble men build sumptuons Palaces for their horses to stand in and lie themselves in old ruinons stables or doe men ordeine fetherbeds for their dogges and lye themselves in kennells who maketh a Garnar of an Oven or an Oven of a Garnar Or who maketh a threshing flore in his dwelling house and a herth in his barne who can make a pleasaunt a brave banketing house of filthy Schambles or of a stinking Slaughter house Yea or who had not rather have his Supper layed on a faire Table before him then on a bloudy Butchars Cradle And so likewise to apply some of these strong Anagogies and darke sayings to our purpose is not a Garnar more meete to lay up grain in than an Oven Is it not more meete to make a threshing flore in a barne then in a mans dwelling house And to make an herth to kendle fyre on in the middes of a mans house then by the moyes side in his barne And so who can make the Jewes old slaughter Synagoge to serve for the new Euangelike Banketing Temple Or who had rather eate the heavenly banket of the Lords Supper on a Jewish a heathenlyk or a Popish Altar then on a decentâ— a faire comely Table The unbeleiving Jew defieth Christes Table and his Supper also The unfaithfull heathen thinkes scorne of the same The Pope and his Papists make of it a God or a popet The Jew abhorreth utterly our religion The Heathen in no sence can away with it The Pope is well contented to be called a Christian yea to be thought to be Christ himselfe so that he give him leave to live like a Jew or a heathen And shall we seeke upon them Shall we be partakers of their damnable Ceremonies of their execrable Rites and cursed usages Or is Christes religion so unperfit of itselfe so needy and beggerly that it must borrow imbring Fastes of the heathen borrow Altars of the Pope borrow vestimentes of the Jewes besides an unnumerable sort of other like baggage which hath heen weeded now of late out of Christes Religion and now restored home to the owners thereof Therfore let us either render home againe unto the heathen the superstition of the imbring dayes and to the Pope his halowed Altars and unto the Jewes their Aarons vestimentes or els let us like good companions joyne together in a league with them and be tenauntes in Commune put our religion with theirs in hotch potche After which at the end of the Booke he proceeds thus S. Paul through the secret advertisment of the Holy Ghost did know before hand then if he had geven the name of an Altar unto the Lord his Table that there would be in time to come certaine Jewish teachers that would build and sett up Popish Altars in steed of Tables to serve the Lords Supper upon And surely the holy D. S. Augustine nor any other Godly writer would never have used this terme Altar so often after that sort as they did if they had had but the least inckeling in the world of foreknowledge what absurdity what inconveniencie and what mischiefe and abomination have been grounded on their translated termes And I pray yow what though S Augustine or other Doctours used to terme the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar which if it be as I take it I take it after the most sound and
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ— ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the â—â—â—â—swing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâ—es Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
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
Churches be consecrated or no And whether there doe burne a lampe or candle before the Sacrament And if there doe not that then it be provided for with expedition As Altars were thus erected bowed to pleaded for and countenaunced in Queen Maries time upon the revivall of Popery Communion Tables removed scoffed at so immediately upon her death the discent of the Crowne to Queen Elizabeth this religious Princes by her Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne commaunded the Altars in Churches to be removed which was done in many Churches in sundrie parts of the Realme before such Injunctions upon the alteration of religion and Tables to be placed for ministration of the Holy Sacrament according to the FOURME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED to witt the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. ratâ—fying the Common Prayer Booke which prescribes the Sacrament to be administred at a Table not at an Altar By which it is apparant that the ministring of it at an Altar is against not according to the Statute and so punishable thereby And hereupon Mathew Parker Archbishop of Canterbury in his Metropoliticall Visitation Anno 1560. had this Article of Inquirie among others Whether they had a comely and decent Table for the Holy Communion sett in place prescribed by the Queenes Majestyes Injunctions And whether your Altars be taken downe according to the Commaundement in that behalfe given After this Anno 1561. the Booke of Orders published by the Queenes Commissioners and Booke of Advertissements published Anno 1565. enjoyned decent Communion Tables standing on a frame to be made and sett in the place were the steps of the Altar formerly stood stiling them alwayes Communion Tables not once an Altar and putting them in opposition to Altars And the Canons made in the Synode at London Anno 1571. which neither the Epistoler and M. Prynne hath misquoted as the Coale doth falsely accuse them it being p. 18. in the English Copy then printed which they followed though p. 15. in the Latine which the Colier followed who it seemes never saw the English prescribe that Churchwardens shall see there be a faire joyned Table which may serve for the administration of the Holy Communion and a cleane cloth to cover it that they shall see that all Roodeloâ—ts in which wooden Crosses stood all other Reliques of superstition be clane taken away which being executed accordingly thereupon Hierom Osorius the Rhemists Dorman Harding Hart and other Papists complained against Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their severall writings that they had cast downe Images Churches Altars removed them out of their Churches and set up prophane unhallowed Tables to administer the Sacrament on in their steed which Act of theirs Bishop Jewell Gualther Haddon M. Fox M. Deane Nowel M. Thomas Bâ—acon D. Fulke and M. Carthwright D. Willet D. Reynolds not only justify as lawfull but as necessary commendable affirming that Queen Elizabeth the Church of England might as lawfully remove and breake downe Popish Altars Images and Crucifixes as Ezekiah and other good Kings of Judah and Israell demolished brake downe Heathenish groves Idolls Images Altars by Gods owne speciall commaund and approbation From all which particular passages we may clearly discerne That one of the first things which our owne other reformed Churches did upon the bringing in of Religion abolishing of Popery was the breaking downe and abandoning of Altars together with their name and placing of Communion Tables in their steed that the first thing againe the Papists did upon the restitution of Popery was the erecting of Altars casheering Communion Tables That the setting up of Altars turning Communion Tables into Altars or Altarwise is to no other end but to usher Masses Popery the inseperable concommitants followers of Altars which cannot subsist without them into our Church againe That our godly Martyrs Princes Prelates writers yea and our Church itselfe have constantly both in their Iudgments practise disputes condemned Altars as Iewish Heathenish Popish unlawfull unto Christians That they are contrary to the Statute of 1. Eliz. 1. 2. The Booke of Common Prayer Homilies Injunctions Canons Orders Advertissements and Articles of the Church of England were never yet written or preached for patronized enjoyned or erected but among and by Papists that to receive the Masse sett up Popery which fall or stand together with them And that the Communion Table is no Altar nor High Altar as our Novellers dreame and teach All this being thus premised I come now to give a particular answer to this 3. reason for placing Communion Tables Altar-wise First therfore I deny that the Communion or Lords Table is either an Altar or High Altar that it ought so to be stiled or reputed or that any Altars ought to be set up in our Churches First because the Scripture never tearmes the Lords Table an Altar but a Table 1. Cor. 10. 21. only prescribes a Table only not an Altar for the administration of the Sacrament 2. Because our Common Prayer Booke Homilies Articles Canons Injunctions writers doe the like distinguishing the Communion Table Altars as opposite contradistinct things inconsistent one with the other abandoning not Altars only themselves but the very name of Altars as Jewish and Heathenish 1. Cor. 9. 13. c. 10. 18. 19. being quite expunged so as it is not to be found in our Booke of Common Prayer Articles Injunctions Homilies Canons which never terme the Lords Table an Altar either properly or improperly 3. Because Altars Lords Tables differ much one from the other 1. In matter the one being made of stone gold brasse or earth for the most part Exod. 20. 24. 25. c. 38. 30. c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 16. Jos. 8. 30. 31. the other only of wood 2. In forme the one almost quite square Exod. 7. 12. c. 30. 1. 2. 3. 10. c. 37. 26. c. 38. 2. Rev. 9. 13. the other not so broade as long the one having hornes oft times to which delinquents fled and layd hold the other not 3. In name appellation that in all languages 4. In use the one being only to offer Sacrifices incense burnt offrings on Exod. 31. 128. c. 37. 25. c. 38. 1. Lev. l. 7. 9. being therfore called an Altar Altare Ara from the Sacrifices and fires burning on it as Isiodor Cilepine Holicke and others witnes the other only to eat and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 21. c. 11. 20. 21. 2. Sam. 9. 7. Lu. 22. 30. 5. In institution the one Legall Iewish Typicall Heatheâ—sh the other Euangelicall Christian of which anon the one instituted before and under the Law the other only under the Gospell 6. In their appendices attendants circumstances For First Altars were usually consecrated both among the Jewes and Gentiles Exod. 40. 10. 11. Numb
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
thankesgiving the Cup of blessing as the Apostles Doctrine and practise of the Fathers teach us your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread who doe take away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament doe give in your Masses meere bread indeed by your owne Confession the Common bread that goeth under the name of* Holy bread I would to God M. Hart you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4. consider more deepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse the treacherous meanes whereby your Masters Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhemes doe seeke to maintaine it Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar or of the cleane offring the principall places whereon their shew standeth they goe about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple partly by discrediting us with falâ—e reproches partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers Which two kinds of profe doe beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie part 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Tabernecle That is the Altar whereon Christes body is offered Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Answer The Apostle speaketh expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observations of the Leviticall Sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly vers 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate Christ therfore is the Altar yea our Preist and Sacrifice too Further you abuse this place to prove your materiall Popish Altars which are many but the Apostle sayth we have an Altar speaking of one This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed that Christ is the true Altar whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar remember that thy brother hath ought against thee c. Likewise Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the middest Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come offer our gift Fox p. 1991. Col. 2. By David Dickson who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus We have an Altar c. Such as will eate of Jesus be partakers of him must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle by keeping on foot continuing the Ceremonies appertaynances annexed there unto such Feastes such Jubil es such Altars such sprinklings Holy water such Preists and vestimentes c. as Levi had He calleth Christ by the name of the Altar because Hee is the thing signified by the Altar by the Sacrifice and by she rest of the Leviticall Ceremonies Then 1. those Ordinances of Leviticall Service were figures of Christ some in one part some in another and Hee is the Accomplishment of them even the Truth of them ALL The true Tabernacle the true Preist the true Sacrifice the true Altar c. 2. Christes selfe is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath Our Altar is He only and nothing but hee the Apostle knoweth no other The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James himselfe who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel 9. v. determines thus I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs which cryed with a loud voyce How long wilt thou delay ô Lord since thou art Holy true to revenge our blood For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs that the soules lying under the Altar to wiâ—t in the safegard of Jesus Christ who is the only Altar whereupon by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps to wit our humble prayers to God the Father did pray their blood did cry to Heaven crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked Thus all these with sundrie other writers of our Church together with all Protestant writers whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himselfe not of Communion Tables and Altars Therfore it proves not that the Communion Table is or may be called an Altar though the Fathers some times improperly stile it so contrary to the Scripture language yet not in that sence or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators doe to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and set upp Masse againe If any object in the second place as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth and before him M. Shelford that the Lords Table may be called an Altar yea the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar though the Scripture never stile either of them thus First Because the Fathers some times phrase them so 2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. râ—vived by El. c. 2. termes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar 3. Because the Common Prayer Booke in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. cals the Lords Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar 4. Because our Godly Martyrs as John Fryth Archbishop Crammer John Lambert John Philpot Bishop Latimer and Bishop Ridley call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Sacrament of the Altar the Communion Table an Altar as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify from whence that Pamplâ—t concludes thus So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged neither the Prince or Prelates the Preist or people dissenting from it some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law To the first of these Reasons I answer First that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table an Altar but the Lords Table the Lords Supper the Communion of Christs body blood we ought therfore to stile them so as the Scripture doth 1. Cor. 10. 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them which are proper genuine since we ought to speake as Christ and God hath taught us
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
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of Common-prayer and Ordination of Ministers wherein there is not one syllable concerâ—ing any such consecrations nor any forme of prayer or service institâ—ted for all or either of them as there is for all other rites Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites Ceremonies Formes of Prayer and Consecrations then such as are comprised and prescribed in thâ—se two Bookes It is infallable that they have utterly abolished and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches Church-yards Chappels and Altars as Iewish Popish Superstitious or at least superfluous and quite excluded it out of our Church As for our Canons Homilies Iâ—junctions and Articles of Religion there is not in all nor any one of them inferred â—re title concerning these Consecrations Which condemne and exclude them by their silence The Homilies likewise have some glances against them For our writers Mr. Tyndall in â—is obedience page 136. 152. of a Christian man William Wraâ—ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox Iohn Bale B of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome Mr. Calâ—r hill in his booke against Marshall Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and deâ—â—ed those Consecrations as Superstitious Iewish Popish and Antichristian styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches Chappels and Altars invâ—nted only for profiâ—â— and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake And to name no more reverent Pilkirgâ—on seveaâ—ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to deligâ—â— the people but where the Gospell is preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are conâ—ent with an honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all It is written that God dwels not in Temples made with handes nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes but he is a â—spirit an invisible substance and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not in outward wordes only of the â—ippe but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart and the whoâ—e power of the mind earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone and timber but hath willed as to pray in all places and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse which is thought to be more in one place then in another All the Earth is the Lords and he is present in all places hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water to make one place more holy then the rest are no better then the Iewes deceaving the people and teaching that only to be holy which they have censed crossed oyled and breathed upon For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then
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-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
the Pagans is no fable is evident first by Virgil. Aut ante or a Deum pingues spaciatur ad Aras c. Dicitur ante Aras media inter uumina divum Multa Iovem manibus supplex or asse supinis Iamque dies epulata novem gens omnis Aris FACTUS HONOS c. Hanc Aram luco statuit quae maxima semper Dicetur nobis erit quae maxima semper c. Secondly by Vitruvius who writing of the structure of Pagan Temples saith That the Cells wherein the Images of the Idol-Gods were placed were built at the East end of the Temple and that their faces looked westward But the Altars ad Orientem versus towards the East wher◠〈◊〉 Novellers situate them ut qui 〈◊〉 ad Aâ—am 〈◊〉 laâ—es out sacrificia facientes spectent ad simulacrum sublimius A a sâ—um That so those who came to the Altar to Offer or Sacrifice might looke toward the Jmage placed over the Altar ipsaque simulachra videantur exorienâ—â—a contueri supplicantes saecrificantes And might seeme to beâ—â—â—d the Images there set up both when they prayed and sacrificed Thirdly by Clemens Alexâ—ndâ—inus who writes That the most ancient Temples looked towards the West Vt qui vultu Imaginis tuents stabant ad Orientem verterentur That so those who stood with their faces towards their Images might be turned toward the East when they worshipped Which that of Ezechiâ—l concerning the Idolaters of his age well explaines And he brought me into the inner-Court of the Lords-house and behold at the dore of the Temple of the Lord between the porch and the ALTAR were about 25 men with their bookes toward the Temple of the Lord and THEIR FACES TOWARD THE EAST and they worshipped the Sunne TOWARDS THE EAST Hence we may clearly discerne VVhence this custome of placing Altars worshipping praying bowing towards the East now much contended fâ—r had its originall even from the Heathen Jdolaters worshipping the using Sunne and placing their Images and Altars at the East end of their Temples towards which they bowed and looked when they prayed or sacrificed Whence Hospinian writes expresly At this day most Altars among the Pâ—pists marke it are placed in prima Templorum parte ET VERSUS ORIENTEM SPECTANT in the forefront of their Churches and looke toward THE EAST Quod etiam AB ETHNICIS SUMPSERUNT which they likewise tooke from the Etâ—â—uickes For many of the Heathen adored the Sunne for a God whence in their publicke sacrifices they turned their faces toward thâ—rising Sunne c. Wherefore the Lordin his Law commaunded that the Sanctum Sanctorum in which the mercy-seat was placed should stand not toward the East but toward the West least the Israelites should seeme to worship him after the maner of the Ethnickes VVhich I wish Bishop Wren and other who will have the Readers Pew all other seates so placed that the Minister and people when they pray may all looke Eastward towards the Altar or Lords-Table whereas the Rubricke in the Common-prayer fore-cited enjoynes the Minister to turne his face towards the people would now at last consider To avoyd which practise the primitive Christians as he there proves at large out of the Authorities quoted by Bishop Iewell yea and by Bishop Iewell himself whom he recites with honour and approbation placed their Altars and Lords-Tables in the Midst of their Churches or Quires Out of which our Nouellers Colier would now remove them to imitate the Papists and these Idolatrous Ethnickes Fourthly this is apparant by Prudentius Iam si sub Aris ad sigillorum pedâ—â— Iaceatis infra sectilem quercum siti Quid esse vobis aestimem proiectitius Fifâ—ly by S. Augustine who writes that the Pagan Idols were placed over their Altars honorabili sublimitate in an honorable sublimity ut a praecantibus atque immolantibus attendantur that they may be minded or looked upon by those that prayed or Sacrificed Sixtly by Horace in an Image Praesenti tibi maturos largimur honores Iâ—r andasque tuum per nomen ponimus Aras Seventhly by Ouid Nos quoque tangit honos festis gaudemus Aris. Turbaque caelestis ambitiosa sumus Eightly by the expresse testimony of the Scriptures 2. Chron. 34. 3. 4. In the twelfth years Iosiab began to purge Iudah and Ierusalem from the high places and the groves and the carued Images and the molten Images And they brake downâ— THE ALTARS of Baalim and the IMAGES THAT WERE ON HIGH ABOVE THEM or over them Hence we finde Altars and Jmages of the Heathenish Iewish Idolaters ever coupled together for the most part in Scripture both in point of erection and demolition as Exod. 34. 13. Ye shall destroy their Altars and breake downe their Images standing over or about them So Deutr. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. there are the same words 2 Kings 11. 18. And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal And brake it downe his Altars and Images brake they in peeces 2 Chron. 14. 2. And he tooke away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places and brake downe the Jmages c. 33. 15. And he tooke away the strange Gods and the Idol out of the house of the Lord and all the Altars that he had built in the mount of the house of the Lord and cast them out of the City Isay. 17. 7. 1. In that day shall a man looke to his maker and his eyes shall have respect to the holy one of Israel And he shall not looke to the Altars the worke of his hands neither shall respect that which his fingers have made either the groues or the Images Hoseâ— 10. 1. 2. According to the multitude of the fruite he hath increased the Altars according to the goodnes of the land they haue made goodly Images He shall breake downe their Altars he shall spoyle their Images So we read that Ahab reared up an Altar for Baal in the house of Baal 1 Kings 16. 32. And an Image of Baal which â—â—horam put away 2. Kings 3. 2. From all which texts compared with 2 Chron. 34. 3. 4. it is apparant that Pagan and Jewish Idolaters had the Images and Statues of their Jdols standing above or over their Altars towards which they looked and bowed their bodies and kneâ—s both when they sacrificed and prayed As is evident by Isay. 17. 7. 8. Exod. 20. 4. 5. c. 23. 24. Levit. 26. 1. Numb 25. 2. Iosh. 23. 7. 16. Iudg. 2. 17. 19. 1 Kings 19. 18. 2 Kings 5. 18. c. 17. 35. 2 Chron. 25. 14. Isay. 2. 9. Rom. 11. 4. This our famous Dr. Reynolds testifieth and proves at largeâ— De Romanae Ecclesiae Idelolatriae l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 46. proving likewise that the Altars at Athens dedicated to the unknowen God had an Image over it Acts. 17. which he manifests from v. 16. 23. 24. 25. 29. 1. Which being a
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ— pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ— he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ— Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ— of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ— Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ— prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ— Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origâ—n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ— non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis â—ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ— nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veriâ—as ambraÌ„ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâ—d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌ„g maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam
some late printed Bookes The Church of Rome to be a true Church and never to have erred in any fundamentall points no not in the worst times And publikely maintaining the Pope or Papacy not to be Aâ—tichrist and Antichrist yet not to be come in open affront to our Homilies Articles Authorised Writers of all sorts and the professed position of all the Reformed Churches of the world So much doe some of your Prelates and Priests now dote upon the Whore of Rome and her abominations Yea such hath been the monstruous unparalled presumption of these undutifull persidious Innovatours since these Declarations published by your Majesty that they have dared to purge corrupt sophisticate and Innovate the publike Records and Monuments of the Church of England ratified by sundrie Acts of Parliament without your Majesties privity To such an hight of insolency are they growen I shall instance only in 3. particulars worthy your Majesties yea the whole Kingdomes consideration and the severest Censures that your Royall Justice can inflict First they have purged corrupted the Booke of Common-Prayer in two severall places the first whereof so neerely concernes your Majesty your Royall Confort and Princely Issue that J should be no lesse then an Arch-Traytor to you all should I not discover but conceale it In the ancient Common-prayer-Bookes there was this Collect prescribed for the Queen Prince and Royall Issue O God who art the Father of thine Elect and of their seed we humblie beseeth thee to blesse our most gracious Queen c. These busy Innovatours to testify their loyalty and duty to your Majesty your Queen and Royall Issue have presumed to expung you all out of the Catalogue of Gods Elect and to ranke you all in the number of Reprobates and Castawayes with one dash Blotting this clause who art the Farher of thine Elect and of their seed quite out of this Collect in all the late Common-prayer-Bookes VVhereby they have done as much as in them lies not only to deprive your Majesty and your Princely Jssue of that temporall Crowne of Soveraignty over these your Realmes to which you are Elected by God but also to rob both your Majesty your Noble Queen your Royall Issue your most Illustrious Sister and her Princely Progenie of that eternall Crowne of glory likewise to which both Charity and Loyalty enjoyne us to believe you are Elected through Gods free grace and everlasting decree Elect in the Collect being taken in both these sences VVhether these pragmaticall Refiners of this prayer deserve not a Tiburne-Tippet at the least for this bold attempt I humbly submit to your Royall Majesty 2. The second alteration they have made in the Booke of Common-prayer is in the Epistle for Palme-Sunday small in appearance but great in consequence All the Common Prayer-Bookes before the yeare of our Lord 1629. as likewise Tyndals Couerdales Thomas Mathewes and the Bishops Bibles used in our Churches till Anno 1612. read that text of Phil. 2. 10. according to the original the Fathers all Latine Writers and Translations but two of late to witt the Beza and Castalio who render it Ad nomen not IN nomine as all others doe in this maner That IN the name of Iesus every knee should bow c. But these Innovatours to Jdolize the name Iesus and usher in the Ceremony of Capping and bowing to it thereby to make way for bowing to Images Altars Adoration of the Eucharist and other Romish Innovations in the yeare of our Lord 1629. the very next yeare after your Majesties Declarations turned this IN into AT the Name as one Prelate did the like before in the New Translation of the Bible for the same purpose contrary to the originall the sence and scope of the place the Fathers all former Common-prayer-Bookes the very rules of our English Dialect There being no such phrase in the whole Bible nor in any English Author that ever I yet read as AT the name except only in this mistranslated corrupted text But only IN the name AT the name being pure nonsence As appeares by turning IN into AT in all the texts of Scripture where this phrase IN the name is used As Math. 28. 19. Baptizing them in the name of the Father of the Sonne and of the Holy Ghost Iohn 16. 23. Whatsoever yee shall aske the Father IN my name he will give it you Acts 3. 6. IN the name of Iesus Christ of Nazareth stand up and walke Acts 9. 27. 2. 9. He preached boldly at Damascus IN the name of Iesus And Acts 16. 8. 1. Cor. 5. 4. Ephes. 5. 2. 2. Thes. 5. 20. 2. Thes. 3. 6. In all which if we convert IN into AT and read them AT the name it makes both the English and text Nonsence and so it doth in this very text Phil. 2. 10. As some have manifested at large in particular Treatises of this Subject and Ceremonies of bowing at the name of Iesus when it is pronounced brought in by Popes with indulgences for idolatrous ends and not knowne not used in the Primitive Church for above 1200 yeares after Christ What ever some have written or preached to the contrary to abuse your Majesty and Subjects with their Fables Who they were that originally caused these two alterations and Corruptions of the Common-prayer-Booke to omit the changing of Minister into Priest in some places I cannot certainly informe your Majesty But if common same and circumstances may be creditedâ— they were some of your greatest Prelates this day living One of the chiefe instruments imployed in this good service who can discover the parties that sett him about this worke Then a Chaplaine to a great Bishop now to your Majesty was Dr. Iohn Cosens as I was long since informed by your Majesties Printer Mr. Norton upon the first discovery and inquirie after this abuse A fit instrument for such a purpose Who but the yeare before was accused in Parliament for dangerous words against your Majesty and the Reformers of our Religion To witt That your Majesty was no more Supreame Head of the Church of England next and immediately under Christ then the Boy that rubbed his horse heeles That the Reformers of our Church when they tooke away the Masse tooke away all Religion and the whole service of God They called it a Reformation but it was indeed a Deformation That the Masse was a good thing and a good word As also for setting up Images an Altar and no lesse then 220 Tapers 16 Torches on Candlemas-day in the Cathedral Church of Durham coutrary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England All which particulars were substantially proved against him both in the Parliament-house and at the Assises at Durham where he was found guilty upon an Indictment Yet in stead of punishments answerable to these his offences some whereof would have been capitall in other men he hath been so
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
some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved rectified supplied before a new Parliament might be called to d ee it or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament All which questions in conveniences defests would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified without any need of future alierations Rites or Ceremonies or continuing this power to her Heyres Successors which are purposely omitted in this clause This appeares most clearly by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes HER HEIRES and Successors and though the 2. clause saith that he who shall be convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles omitting her Heires abolissing all forraigne power repugnent to the same and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors their Commissioners power only to punish all Heresies Errors Scismes contempts offences Abuses enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes Statutes not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes so new He resies Errors Ecclesiasticall offences not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or Inâ—isdiction before These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld And here I wonder much that the Colier should alleadge and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. which enacts that all Ecclesiasticall power together with all such Iurisdictions priviledges superiorities preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State persons for reformation order correction of the same and of all manner Errors heresies scismes abuses offences contempt enormites shall for ever by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme c. was not an Jntroductions of a New Law but confirmative of an old annexing no newâ— but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State persons be as he truly confesseth for ever united to the Crowne to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name appoint from time to time only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in from by under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall correct vice sinne what soever to all such persons as his Majestey to witt by speciall Patent Commission shall appoint thereunto As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis can or dare affirme their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters Patents or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale to keepe visitations Consistories to make and imprint visitation Oathes Articles in their owne names impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names rights or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales in they owne names alone not his Majesteyes contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne Dioces had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne dignity and his Loyall subjects Liberties or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute this grand objection to maintaine his Altars new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction The S. Objection is this That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity the matter shal be referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church and there it ought to stand I answer first the Argument followes not For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing but only when and wher there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parrish concerning the use practise of the said Booke not whenâ— and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire all taking it for granted that it ought not so to be placed but to stand in that place manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation â— time all most out of mind till now Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place where there is or can be none touching the placing of the Lords Table the Ordinary in this case can not must not make any innouation but order that it must stand in that place forme as was at first ordained by the Queeâ—es Commissioners where it stood ever since it being his Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall especially when the Sacrament is administred is contrary to these Books the Queenes Jnjunctions Canons writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause but is expresly prohibited by it so to doe The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quierâ—
the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the lâ—st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the â—â—nation of Tables Altarwise being but â— ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idololaâ—rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such â— purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickleâ— of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not â— Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preistâ— observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A tâ—r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no Câ—alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5â— 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. Hâ—b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our
the Table Altar not only before the Pulpit the FoÌ„t the Bible the Common-prayer Booke the Paten the Chalice themselves but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine the Sacrament of Christs Supper and the Lord Christ himselfe to whome they give no such congies such solemne adoration reverence genuflexion honour and respect If so then it is almost execrable and abâ—minable Jf not then let them informe me How that which is least bowed to worshipped or adored is most reverenced and respected then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉 that the name Iesus is more honourable venerable great and glorious then any other of our Saviours â—ames because it is and ought to be most cringed capped and bowed to of all others Till all these Questâ—ons are resolved J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason The 2 Reason The second reason for this Ceremonie is Because the Altar and Table are Christs mercy-seate and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to thâ— Trintry So Mr. Shelford Preist here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity opened so to Christ himselfe that made it as if he himselfe had forgotten it or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father without a Masse-Preists helpe which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds The Church is the place of Gods presence The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus and his theifest place of presence in our Church Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes Where we sind a resolution of my first Question What is the end of our Novellers writing preaching and contesting for altars and Preists to wit that we may have a Sacrifice againe And what Sacrifice is that The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith Widdowes The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar sayth She ford page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this A commemorative wâ—â—â—e Shâ—â—ford and the Colier And no other but so Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes And so we have now not only Altars and Preists but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine in Bookes laâ—ely printed by Authority and not yet called in How soone we may have all of them as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places in point of practise I leave to others to determine This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars because they are Christs mercy seat and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice c. is there made and presented to the Trinity This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar to be no mercy Seate and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirâ—e both by Scripture and reason Secondly when they have done this then to make this appeare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it or at least by Fathers and Councels that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered The Iewes never doing it to the one nor the Primitive Churches to the other Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Reason The third Reason The 3. ReasoÌ„ is this The Tible Altar are a signe of the place wheâ—e our Saviour was most dishonoured and câ—ucified Therefore wee must bow unto them So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned Dâ—ctours I answer First that this is a plaine untruth for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem Golgatha the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly if a truth yet unable to VVarrant this Ceâ—â—monie For what Scripture reason or Authour is there to just fie that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified Thirdly if this reason be good then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie or to or towards these Tauerne Posts which these bowers haunt much night and day to make them nod bow and reele the better to their Altars where the signe of Ierusalem hangs For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem of the holy Land for they are signes of that place too Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing which is better and more moving then the bare signe of it Fourthly this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Crosse because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and crucified yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither So that the Papists if any shall give him thankes for this reason The fourth Reason A fourth reason they produce in print is this Let us learne of our Mother Câ—urches for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne VVherefore to follow their good and holy patterne we also are to doe the like both at our first coming in to Gods house and at our going out so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 20. and the Coale too p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge this is the cheife if not the sole reason why most men use this Ceremony The Arch-Bishops both doe practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves and the Prebends Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Ministers and Câ—rates in Citty Court and Country to imitate and please the Bishoppes whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre as these writers to witt the Colier in his Câ—ale pag. 2. Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Bâ—oke Dogmatize else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State To this Reason then I answer First that Gods written Law not our Prelates examples no further thâ—â— warranted by Gods word Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19. And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament of which fort there are none now extant the only rule for them to follow in matters of
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