situation hath been changed without yea against both Law and Canon Therfore the Lords Tables in all other Churches Chapples ought thus to be situated As for the practise in his Mayesteyes Chapples since he came to the Crowne I am utterly ignorant of it But when he was Prince of Wales I once receiued the Sacrament in his Chapple at Sant Iames then the Communion Table at the Time of the Sacrament administration was placed in the middest of the Chapple and white linnen Clothes like Table Clothes were spread upon the deskes of the Seates where in the Communiantâ— sate round about in a decent manner the Ministers delivering them the Sacrament in those seates and this they then certified me had been and was the custome of administring the Sacrament there both in Prince Henries his Majestyts time Whether the Custome be different at Whitehall or other his Majestyes Chapples I know not since I never was at any Sacrament there but of the other I was an eye-witnes and many who have beene ancient servants both to Prince Henry his Majesty can testify this to have been the Custome I cannot therfore thinke that the King Princes Chapples doe jarre or vary in this particular But admit they should yet vivendum est legibus non Exemplis his Majestyes subjects must live according to his Lawes in this particular not according to the patterne of his Chapples exempt as from all Episcopall Iurisdiction as all other Churches Chapples should be as well as they if this argument hold good so from ordinary Rules and Lawes which bind the Subject But to give a more particular answer I say that admit the Antecedent true yet the consequence is infirme We know that Cathedrall Churches have Deanes Prebends Canons Singing-men Choristers Organists Virgerers Copes Sackbuts yea Kits Cornets oft times in them that they sing not read their whole divine Service prayers to I doubt me much whether with any serious contrition compunction since S. James writes thus c. 5. v. 13. If any man be merry let him sing Psalmes if any man be sorry or afflicted let him pray not sing Salomon sayth Prov. 25. 20. As he that taketh away a garment in cold weather as vineger upon niter so is he that singeth songs too much more then with an heavy heart Will it therfore follow Therfore all Papish Churches Chapples ought to have such Officers Instruments chaunting We know that many Cathedralls now I know not by what Law have no Communion Tables in them but High Altars so they terme them elevated on High with many steps and ascents their very exalted situation name being clearly derived from the Idolatrous High places of the Gentiles so oft condemned in Scriptures Num. 33. 52. Deutr. 33. 29. 1. Kings 12. 31. 32. c. 14. 23. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 31. 1. c. 34. 3. Jer. 17. 3 Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. which were nothing but High Altars situated in High places Shall therfore all our parish Churches Chapples have no Communion Tables in them though prescribed by our Statutes Common prayer-Prayer-Booke Articles of Religion Homilies Injunctions Canons writers but High-Altars only which all these decree We know that these new erected Cathedrall High Altars have much furniture as Tapers Basons Cushions yea and Crucifixes expresly condemned by our Homilies as unlawfull either to be made or used in Churches standing on them Which M. Andrew Melvin that famous Scottish Poët Divine thus wittily describes in Latine Verse In Aram Anglicanam ejusque apparatum Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo regia in Ara Lumina coeca duo pollubra sicca duo Num sensum cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum Lumine coeca suo flumine sicca suo Romano an Ritu dum regalem instruit Aram Purpuream gemino mact at honore lupam Si Christi haec Mensa est cur Missae est structa paratu Cur versa in tenebras Lux in inane Latex Si sensus cultusque Papae sit clausa Britannis Cur sacra cum castâ Biblia clausa prece Cur quae pulsa prius presto est caliginis umbra Quò calamistra trucis philtraque blanda Lupae Which may be thus Englished upon the Altar Furniture thereof in England Why on Court-Altars two Bookes clasped lie Two lightless Lights two empty Basons drie Does England in Gods worship lock-up Sense Darke in her Beames dry in Streames influence Whilst with Romes Rites shee Royall-Altars Decks Offers shee not Romes Whore in all respects If `t is Christs Board why is it Mass-like trim'd Why has it empty Fonts Lights wholely dim'd If Romes Dumbe-Showes be from the Britans banisht Why are our Bibles Shut our pure Prayers vanisht Why are Romes Foggs brought back expell'd before What meane the Tyres sweet Drafts of that bace Whore Shall it therfore follow because these Cathedrall Altars have such trinkets standing on them ergo every parish Church Chapple ought to have such furniture standing on their Altars Communion Tables to I trow not unlesse there were some Law or Statute for it since the Rubricke of the Common Prayer Booke the 82. Canon Prescribes that at the Communion time the Table should have no other furniture but a white linnen cloth upon it and that at other times during diviue service only it should be covered with a Carpet of filke or other decent stuffe so that all these other Popish Trinkets now standing on it in Cathedrall Churches are both against the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. the Booke of Common Prayer the Canons yea and the Queenes Injunctions as the High Altar is This argument therfore now much insisted on is invalid untesse our Cathedrals werè more conformable to our Lawes Canons in those particulars then now they are The 5. Objection is this That the Queenes Injunctions commaund the Communion Tables to stand in the place where the Altar stood Ergo they ought to be placed Altar-wise To this I answer that the words of the Queenes Injunctions published Anno 1559. by the advise of her most honorable Counsaile are these For the Tables in the Church Whereas her Majesty under standeth that in many sundrie parts of the Realme the Altars of the Churches be removed and Tables placed for the administration of the Holy Sacrament ACCORDING TO THE FORME OF THE LAW THERFORE PROVIDED and in some other places the Altars be not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other Order to be taken by her Majestyes Visitours In the order where of having for uniformity there seemeth no matter of great moment so that the Sacrament be duly reverently Ministred yet for observation of one uniformity THROUGH THE WHOLE REALME and for the better imitation of THE LAW IN THAT BE HALFE it is ordered that no Altar be taken downe but by oversight of the curate of the Church and the Church-wardens or one of them at the leastâ—
of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the common-Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. â— 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever oâ— to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Edâ— 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves for making they for submitting to any such Rites Ceremonies or Constitutions are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603 By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring unto them administer the Sacrament yea read the 2. service as they call it at the Table even when there is no Sacrament that all the Communicants shall come up to receive that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri the Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative contrary to this objected clause of the Statute and to the first clause thereof which enacts That no manner of Parson vicar or other Minister what soever shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use or by open fact deed or thenreatning compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have fâ—â—o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament other Rites Ceremonies of the Church of England being then but newly corrected published there might there upon as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of common-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
bolstred up by some great Prelates neare your Majesty As that he hath received two or three great livings for his encouragement since and is now lately advanced to be your Majesties Chaplaine in Ordinary and an head of a Colledge in Cambridge to helpe to poyson that Fountaine of learning and religion with the drugges and dregges of Rome to the great griefe and discontent of thousands Honest Mr. Smart his prosecutour for shewing himselfe a faithfull Subject to your Majesty being in the meane time violently thrust out of his Preberdary of Durham and his Benefice deprived degraded imprisoned fined and utterly ruinated in his Estate by your High Commissioners at Yorke though a man every way conformable to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England only for opposing these Innovations of his and preaching a Sermon against them in the Cathedrall at Durham That of the Poet being here really verified Dat veniam Corvis vexat Censura Colnmbis These things no doubt have been concealed from your Majesty Which now being discovered I trust you will lay them to heart and learne to distinguish good Subjects from bad in despite of all calumnies cast upon them by these persidious instruments I have the rather given your Majesty this hint of Dr. Cosens his words and practises whom the Papists of Durham now much honour and challeng for their owne because he was one of the first men that brought Altars into our Church and the first I heare off that turned his Communion Table Altar-wise and then into an Altar Mr. Burgin one of his Disciples was the next that imitated him who taking away his Communion-Table erected an Altar in the East-end of the Chancle of his Parish-Church within the Bishopricke of Durham Which Altar made of a Gravestone he layd upon a wall of stone not a frame adorning it with guilded hangings Which done he read Second Service at it though above halfe his Parishioners could neither heare nor see him and fell devoutly to adore it till at last his foot hanging in his gowne he unhappily fell downe against the Altar-steps brake all his nose and face so as he sacrificed his owne blood both upon the steps Altar itselfe in stead of Christs and was not able to walke abroade in many dayes after From these two presidents and beginnings have all those other Innovationâ— of this Nature sprung which now spread themselves farre and neare over all your Realmes of England Scotland and Ireland too So farre more prevalent and powerfull is Dr. Cosens and his party then either your Majesty your Lawes Declarations and loyall Subjects or the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England All which with the Booke of common-Common-prayer must now be Subject to their correction and controll 2. The second publike Monument of our Church which these Innovatours have corrupted is the Eucharisticall prayer in the Booke of common-Common-prayer appointed for the 5. of November in perpetuall thankfulnes to God for the deliverance of your Royall Father your Majesty and the whole Realme from that infernall divelish matchlesse Powder-plot of the Papists prescribed and set forth by the expresse Statute of 3. Iacobi â— 1. which corruption nearely concernes your Majesty yea the whole Realme and in my poore understanding deserves as heavy a Censure as any of those Powder-Traytors suffered All the Bookes of this kinde from 3. Iacobi till 1635. rendred the chiefe passages in this prayer in these tearmes Roote out that Antichristian and Babilonish Sect which say of Ierusalem downe with it downe with it even to the ground c. And to that end strengthen the hands of our Gracious King the Nobles and Magistrates of the Land with Iudgement and Iustice to cut off these workers of Iniquity VVHOSE RELIGION IS REBELLION VVHOSE FAITH IS FACTION VVHOSE PRACTICE IS MURTHERING OF SOULES AND BODIES and to roote them out of the confines of this Kingdome This prayer which some have observed not to have been read but purposely omitted in your Majesties Chapple the two fift of Novembers last past be like by their direction who have since perverted it in the last Edition 1635. is thus treacherously Metamorphosed Roote out that Babilonish and Antichristian Sect OF THEM which say of Ierusalem c And to that end strengthen the hands of our Gracious King c. to cut off THOSE for THESE workers of Iniquity VVHO TURNE RELIGION INTO REBELLION and FAITH INTO FACTION In which strange alteration there are these notorious treacheries yea villanies included not to be stighted over 1. First there is a diverting of the maine edge and substance of this Prayer from the Iesuites Priests Papists and Antichristian Babilonish Sect of Rome particularly designed in the first Prayer-Bookes upon those Loyall Subjects and Religious Christians whom the Papists at first and prophane licentious Romanizing spirits since have slaundered with the name of Puritans On whom as these Hellâ—sh Traytours and their Confederates would have fathered this damnable plot at first had it taken effect as blessed be God it never did to make them more odious to the World Which themselves confessed upon their examinations and our Historians record So they have now turned the whole scope of this prayer and by cousequence the very practise and treason itselfe upon these poore Innocents The only men aymed at in this alteration And the chiefe men declaimed against both at Court Westminster Paules and our Universities in the Sermons there preached of late yeares on the fift of November wherein most have paralleld them with And many affirmed them to be farre worse then any Priests or Iesuites So much wee poore Puritans never yet guilty of the least treason or Rebellion against their Princes in this Iland nor of any such forgeries Jnnovations or Romish practises as I have here discovered beholding to the Iesuites Priests and some English Prelates who have been guilty of many hundred treasons Conspiracies and Rebellions against your Majesties Royall Progenitors as our Historians and writers witnesse And here by the way your Majesty in despite of envy and calumny may take Notice First that those who are now slaundered under the name of Puritans are your best and loyallest Subjects because most hated and slaundered by Iesuites Priests and Traytors who would Father all villanies and treasons on them And hate them most of any people because truest to their Soveraignes 2. Secondly that no kinde of people in the World are So much slaundered and traduced as they though the Innocentest men of all othors This the practise of the Papists to translate this Powder-plot with all their treasons and rebellions from themselves to them and most Sermons preached before your Majesty can witnes VVherein such things are broached such slaunders raysed of Puritans by Poeticall braines and yet vented out in the Pulpit as sacred Oracles which the Divell himselfe would blush to relate and the Auditours know to be meere sigments And
yea rather abound with more and more stupendious Conjurations then they But S. Augustine who in his time complained of the multitude of Ceremonies if he were now alive what would he thinke of that immense and prolix number of Ceremonie◠〈◊〉 in use For writing to Ianuarius he thus speakes of Ceremonies Notwithstanding he hath laden with servile burthens Religion itselfe which the mercy of God would have to be free with very few and most manifest Ceremonies of Celebration that the condition of the Iewes is now more tollerable then that of Christians Who although they acknowledge not the time of liberty yet they are Subject to the rudiments of the Law not to human presumptions or Instiâ—â—â—ons Thus Augustine And verify the condition of this our time is much to be deplored that the Fathers of the Church either will not or cannot with the same edge of their minde cut off these and such like Ceremonies or rather TRIFLES from the Church where with they discerned and corrected these former vices of Ordalium or triall by fire But those being damned and abolished as Superstitious they still hold fast and retaine these Consecrations QUAMVIS PUERILIA ET DELIRIA SINT although they are Childish things and Dotages framed and coâ—piled out of them How much more equall then moderne Papists was Pope Grâ—gorie who writes That the rules of the Holy Fathers were delivered according to the circumstances of time Place person and instant busines But these having no regard neither of time nor place noâ— busines nor person nor of any other thing but their owne will and vaine glory Nâ— pusillis in reâ—us 〈◊〉 ceâ—eâ—a voluâ—â— Will not submit to the truth even in these triviall things Thus this Arch-Bishop of these Dedications so much now contested for by his present Successoâ—r Ouâ— of what spirit he hath here determined to our hands I 〈◊〉 not recite 〈◊〉 A QUENCH-COALE OR A breife disquisition or Inquirie in what place of the Church the Communion Table ought to bee situated especially when the Sacrament is administred IT hath been a great Question lately raysed and much agitated among us by some Innovating Romish spirits In what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords Table ought to stand specially at the time of the Sacraments administration whether in the Body or midst of the Church Chancell or Quire or at the East end of the Quire Alterwise where some now rayle it in and plead it ought of right to stand The Rubricke in the Comon prayer booke before the Communion thus resolves this question The Table at the Communion tyme havinge a faire white Lynnen cloath upon it shall stand IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH OR IN THE CHANCELL where morninge prayer and eveninge prayer bee appointed to be said And the preist standinge AT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE shall saye the Lords prayer with this Collect followinge c. Queene Elizabeths Injunctions published in the first yeare of her Raigne when the former Rubricke was made thus explaine and define this question The holy Table in every Church when the Communion of the Sacrament is to bee distributed shal be soe placed in good sort with in the Chancell as whereby the Minister maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number communicate with the sayd Minister And after the Communion done from tyme to tyme the same holy Table to bee placed where it stood before Therefore it is not to be moveable not fixed or rayled in at the East end of the Chancell The Canons Anno 1603. Can. 82. thus second the Injunction Whereas wee have no doubt but that in all Churcheâ— with in the Realme of England convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed for the celebration of the holy Communion wee appoint that the same Tables shall from tyme to time bee kept and repaired inconvenient and decent manner and covered in time of divine service with a Carpett of silke or other decent stuffe and with a faire lynnen cloath at the time of the administration as becommeth that Table and soe stand savinge when the said holy Communion is to bee administred At which time the same shal bee placed in so good sort with in THE CHURCH OR CHANCELL as thereby the Minister maye bee the more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants alsoe more conveniently and in more number maye communicate with the sayd Minister Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe best knewe the meaninge of the Rubricke and Injunctions made that very yeare did by speciall direction place the Communion Tables throughout all Churches of England in the bodie of the Church or Chancell some distance from the wall with the two ends standinge East and West and the two sides North and South in which sort they have stood noe lesse then 73. yeares or more And in such Churches where the Tables coulde not conveniently stand alwayes in the body of the Church or Chancell they then placed them in some other convenient place where they might best stand givinge direction accordinge to the Rubricke and Queenes Injunctions for removinge them into the midst of the Church or Chancell when the Sacrament shoulde bee administred as the sayd Rubricke Injunctions and Canons prescribe In the yeare of the Lord 1533. there was a short and pithie treatise touchinge the Lords supper compiled as some gather by M. William Tyndall and printed at the end of his workes wherein p. 476. 477. hee wisheth that the holy Sacrament were restored unto the pure use as the Apostles used it in their time After which hee prescribes this forme of administringe it wishing that the secular Princes woulde commaund and establish it To witt That the breade and wyne shoulde bee sett before the people in the face of the Church upon the Lords Table not an Altar purely and honestly laide c. Then let the Preacher whom hee would have to preach at least twise every weeke exhort them lovingly to drawe neere unto this Table of the Lord c. This donne let him come downe to witt from the pulpit and accompanied honestly with other Ministers come forth readily unto the Lords Table not the Altar the congregation nowe SET ROUND ABOUT IT aud alsoe in their other convenient seates the Pastor exhortinge them all to praye for grace faith and love which all this Sacrament signifieth and putteth them in minde of Then let there bee read openly and distinctly the 6. chapter of John in their mother tongue c. Where this Author prescribes a Table not an Altar and that to stand in the face of the Congregation not at the upper end of the Quire that soe the Congregation might sit ROUND ABOUT IT thus receive This hee determines to bee accordinge to the pure use of the Sacrament in the Apostles time and that which our Martyrs then desired to bee
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
Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
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
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
wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood there commonly covered as thereto belongeth shal be appointed BY THE VISITORS and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shal be so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon saye with in the body of the Church or chancell which makes me suspect that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer ministration the Communicants also more conveniently in more number communicate with the sayd Minister and after the Communion done from time to time the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before In which Injunction much wrested insisted on by the Cole these particulars are remarkable to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators First that Communion Tables are no Altars nor ought to be so stiled they being here put in opposition contradistinction one to the other though some now confound bind them together as one 2. That all Altars were removed ordered to be removed by vertue and forme of a Law therfore provided to witt the Statute of Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them Therfore the bringing in setting up of Altars now and the calling of Communion Tables Altars is against that Law and the Booke of Common Prayer 3. That the setting up continuance of Communion Tables and the calling of them by this name was and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars or High-Altars against the Law 4. That all Altars were generally removed enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls in the Queenes owne Chapples for better example unto others So that the erecting of Altars in them or any of them must needs be a late Novelty contrary to Law to this Injunction and a grosse Non-conformity 5. That the care of Taking downe Altars setting up Communion Tables was committed to the Curate Church-wardens of each parish not the Bishop yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars and displace the Tables Altarwise 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen her Successors that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers as their Visitours having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence 7. That the ordering of the Situation covering of the Communion Tables is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse but to the Queenes Visitors who were then specially appointed by her Commission as they were in King Henry the 8. King Edwards dayes many of them being Lay-persons Which Visitours placed them Tablewise not Altarwise in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since till with in these two or 3. yeares last past 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell and there to stand unmoveable even when the Sacrament is administred the Injunctions expresly prescribing that where ever it stand before yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed it shal be removed into such part of the Chancell or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard c. after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before Which word shal be is not a baer arbitrary permission only as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it but a direct prâ—â—â—pt as is the later-clause by his owne confession else the Churchwâ—rdens might choose whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised I come now to answer the objection being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them First then I answer that this clause set in the place where the Altar stood implies not but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle for all Altars were not so situated before this Injunction The Altar in Carmarthen Church was placed in the middest of the Church without the Quire The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches Chapples built North or North and South stood at the South end of the Quire not the East in many Churches some Altats stood one way some an other some West some North and South as walafridus Strabus witnissethâ— but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire as the Promises evidence The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres or Chauncles in the place where now he would have them situated which he can never doe else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe but marre his cause make poinct-blanke against him since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall but in the place where the Altar stood so that where the Alter was placed in the midst west North or South end of the Church or Chancle the Table was to be there situated likewise 2. By The place where the Altar stood is not to be interpreted so precisely that it must stand in that particular individuall place or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood for this certainly was not the meaning but in the place that is in that end of the Church where the Altar stood to witt in the midst of the Church if the Altar stood there or in the East West North or South end of the Church where the Altars were so severally situated or in the Chauncel where the Altar formerly stood in the Channâ—le that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction not that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere as our Innouators expound it is most apparant by these Reasons 1. First Because the
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ— Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overâ—t for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ„ any irreverÌ„ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
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
Table when they consecrats the Sacrament or marry any man warrants or proves a custome to bow to or towards the Lords Table never in use till now of late See the Common Prayer-Booke the Rubricke before Communion and Mariage Secondly this is alleadged as an extraordinary example only of one and shee a woman who in ancient times might not come neare the Altars nor touch the Altar-clothes by the Canons Gratian. de Consedratione Distinct. 1. Rodulphus Tungrensis de Canonum observantia Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 254. B. in an extraordinary case at an extraordinary time of the night when none were present in the Church This swallow therefore makes no Summer proves no generall practise or custome then but the contrary The sixt Antiquity The sixt is that of Eutropius the Eunuch Socrates Scholast Eccl es Hist. l. 6. c. 5. who incurring the Emperour Arcaaius displeasure tooke the Church for his Sanctuary and lay along at the foote of the Altar I answer That there is no prostration to or towards the Altar to adore it but to be secured by it a flying to it only as a Sanctuary by a guilty person fearing death not a voluntary adoration of it or bowing to it by an innocent person â—n no danger of his life Therefore impertinent our bowers not lying downe along at the feet of our Altars as they did The seaventh Antiquity The seaventh is the example of Paulus the Novatian Bishop of Constantinople who perceiving his Church to be in great immineÌ„t danger of burning by reason of a fearce fire fell prostrate before the Altar referring unto God in his prayer the preservation of his Church and so by his uncessant earnest prayers miraculously preserved the Church from burning Socrates l. 7. c. 39. in the Booke 38. in the English Nicephorus Eccles. Hist. l. 14. c. 41. I answer That here was no prostration or bowing to or towards the Altar but only a prostration in prayer before it Which proves nothing Besides Nicephorus makes no mention of the Altar but only relates that Paulus went into the Sanctuary and there prostrated himselfe in prayer Finally this case is extraordinary upon an extraordinary occasion Neither doe the Historians mention it to prove any reverence then given to the Altar but only to shew the force and fruite of prayer which can quench even the most raging flames of fire In a word We reade here of a bowing and prostration in prayer before the Altar but not of any bowing or prostration to the Altar without any prayer The thing only in dispute For which there is not one example in any Authour till above 500 yeares after Christ. The eighth Antiquity The eight is that of Rusticus a Cardinall Deacon of Rome about the yeare of our Lord 550. Contra Aâ—ephalis Disputatio Bibl. Patrum Tom. 6. Pars 2. p. 225. G. 229. E. where he writes thus Wee all adore the Crosse and by it him whose Crosse it is yet wee are not sayd to coadore the Crosse wâ—â—h Christ neither by this is there one nature of the Crosse and of Christ. Similiter adorare Altare â—oadorare Altari Trinitatâ— non dicimur sed potius per Altare Nec enim Tabernaculum in Eremâ— nec Arca nec Templum nec Altaria ab antiquis coadorabantur concolebantur neque una est Dei horum facta Natura Hae verò creaturae non coadorentur Trinitati sed per eas Trinitas adoretur Nec non clavos quibus fixus est lignum venerabilis Crucis omnis per totum mâ—rdum Ecclesia absque â—lla contradictione adorant c. To which I answer First that this is one of the Papists new forged Fathers not heard of in the Church till now of late Besides they branded him for a Schismaticke and a man then deprived by the Pope and cannot certainly define whether this be his work See Biblioth Patrum before his workes Secondly this worke must not be so ancient or else the Authour is a great lyar it being that the vniversall Church did not adore the Crosse and Nay es universally in that age nor adore God and Christ in by and through Altars Crucifâ—xâ—s and Images nor yet in 50 yeares after as is apparant by Pope Gregory the first Registr lib. 7. Epist. 109 l. 9 Epist. 9. No nor yet in 300 yeares after witnesse the Councell of Constantinople Anno 754. Mathew Westminster Hâ—â— 793. Houeden Annal. pars l. p. 405. The Councell of Paus An. 824. Agobardus his booke de Picturis Imaginibus Our owne Homilies aganst the Perill of Idolatrie together with Zonarus in his Annals Nâ—celus in his Annals Eutropius in his Romane History and the other Centurie writers witnessing as much This Authour therefore being either a bastard or a lyer will not stand them much in stead Thirdly I answer if our Novellers will take advantage of this authority which I have quoted for them let them take him all or none That I presume they will not doe for then they must adore the Crosse the Crucifix and Nayles wherewith our Saviour was pearced and that they will not doe I suppose as yet If therefore they disclaime him in this why not in that of adoring the Altar Fourthly he writes expresly that they did adore the Altar and not coadore the Trinity with it but rather adore the Trinity by or through it Now thus to adore the Altar or God with or by or through it is no lesse Idolatrie by our owne Homilies â— and all our writers resolution Whereupon Dr. Duncombe in his determination at Cambridge disclaimed utterly any worshipping or adoring God by or through the Altar even in his defence of bowing to or towards it This Idolatrous adoration of the Altar and President will not stead them but quite spoyle their cause The ninth Antiquity The ninth that may be objected is that of Stephanus Edvensis a Bishop An 950. Cap. 12. de Sacramento Altaris Where he writes That the Preist coming to the Altar in his Massing-vâ—stâ—ents osculatnr Evangelium Altare kisseth the Bible and the Altar signifying him thereby who with the kille of his meare nation hath made both one in the incaruation of the Iewes and Gentiles He holds or stands at Tenet dexteram partem Altaris the right hand-side of the Altaâ— because Christ was promised in the Law to the Jewes before he preacheâ— to the Gentiles After that the Gosple is removed from the right hand or corner of the Altar to the left by the Deacon or Preist the right hand is attributed to the Iewes for the veneration of the Law the left to the Gentiles for their execrable Idolatrie The Gosples Doctrine committed to them was first repulsed by the Iewes Whence the Gosple ought to be read on the left side of the Altar towards the North c. O profound reason and divinity After the Preist inclinans seante Medium Altaris bowing himselfe or kneeling downe before the middest of the
in his hist. of the Sabbath part 2. c. 7 8. a Treatise of Gods house p. 2. b Service Sacraments 1. a Shelford p. 2. 7. â— b Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. c Fox Acts monum p. 1703. d Ibidem p. 1211. e Fox Actâ— monum p. 1404. 1406. * Rerum Germanic Script m. 1. p. 5â—0 591. * Platina Nâ—col 3. * De Vitis pont Rom p. 68. 69. * See Thomas Beacons reliq of Rome Object 3. a Coale froÌ„ the Altar p. 30. 53. 54. Answer 1. b Se Orme â—ods Pagano-Papisâ— l Francis de Croy his 3. Conform Object 4. Se the Coale p. 26. 27 28. 51. 52. a The hom against the Perill of Idol Se p. 41. 42. 61 b An. Mel. Musoe print An. 1620. p. 24. * Sorde sepulta sua * Pingit religioâ—a lupam So the first Copy but the corrected as in the Text. Object 5. A Coale from the Alt. p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 48. to 53. Answer * 37. H. 8. c. 17. Fox Acts Monum p. 1181. 1192. B. Iewels life before his workes sect 25. Answer 1. o Fox Acts Monuments p. 1404. 1406. p Dc Reâ—us Ecclesiasticis l. 4. c. 19. q Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. 1212. r Page 19. s Page 51. Alatitâ—dine t Page 23. 24. v Page 23. x Fox Acts monuments p. 1211. 1212. y Coale p. 20. 71. z Page 13 a 5. 6. E 6. 1. Ely â— 2. Fox Acts Mounments p 1211. 1212. Object 6. b Coale p. 22. Answer 1. c In their fore cited places words Object 7 d Coale p 58 59 60 61. c. Answer 1. e Bishop Wrens visitation Articlos which other k Cole pag. 62. 8 Object l Coale from the Altar pag. 11. 65. 66. where it is insiuuated * Fox acts Monuments p. 1212. Answer 1. m Declaration before the 32 Articles concerning the dissolution of the Parleament p. 21.42 Object 9. n Coale from the Altar p 63 64 c Answer 1. o Bishop Wren in his Articles for Norwich Diocesse Bishop Percie for Bath and Wels. p In their seueral visitation Articles * Doctor Heylyn as most giue out some Circumstances discover q Papc 21. 42. 43 * where 25. or 30. yeares makes a good Prescription * Who licensed it * Like a Persecutor not an Apostle * It seemes they come to Church with poluted hands sâ—inking soules that they thus needed water incense * One Preist can consecrate the Sacrament what need then 4. neither of them a Bishop contrary to the Canons to Consecrate the Altar It sermes the Altar is more holy then the Sacrament which hath but one to hallow it * Defiled belike with the very Consecration of the Altar have Altar-clothes * It s well they would allaw an afternoone sermon to grace this Dedication since they admit none their since * Quod Nota. * Quod Nota. * This was an holy Dedication of an Altar indeed belike it was to Bacchus not to God a Aquinas 1â— 2â— quaestioÌ„ 1. Artic 1. 2. 1â— Quaest 6. Ar 1. 2. b Aquinas 1â— 2â— Quaest 1. Ar. Iâ— Ar 32 â— 2. 2â— qu. 189. Ar 〈◊〉 c Aquinas 1â— 2â— qu. I. Art 3 qu 96 Art 1. 1. 2â— qu. 8. Art 2. So Occhum Scotus BonaveÌ„ture Aegydius DuraÌ„dus Lambard Medis Vil la Bacon all the Schoolmen Keckerman Zabarell Magyrus Ruuio all Logiciaha e GeÌ„ 8. 20. Levit. 1. 6. to 9. c. 2. 9. c. 7. 31. Exod. 20. 24. f Bellarm. de Missa I. 1. c. 2. Sum. Angelica Tit. Altar g Fox Acts Montiments p. 121. 1212. B. Morton Institution of the Sacrament p. 463. h MagnuÌ„ Chron Belgioâ—â—m i Thomas Beconlikeliques of Rome k Page â— l Homilie of the wor thy receiving of the SacrameÌ„t part 1. p. 198. Ediâ— 1632. m P. 200. q Col. p. â— 16. 17. r Colefronâ— the Altar p. 4. line 19. 20. s Epistle to the reader I am to advertise thee c. Thou wouldest take notice and so many doe that the RomaÌ„â— is the words of the Author t Of the Sacram. part 1. p. 198. u Which some scaÌ„dalously terme An unrevereÌ„s unseemly gesture as if Christ his Apostles were unreverent instituted received the SacrameÌ„t in an unreverent unseemly manner w In imitaâ—ion of Popish Preists whoâ—â— so title themselves in the fronts of their bookes * See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. lib. 6. c. 3. Sect. 1. 2. 3. x B. Morton Ibid p. 415. 461 y D. Reynolds confer with Hart. p. 446. to 473 D. Fulke Rhem. Testament Notes on Heb 7. c. 9. 10. z Heylyn Pocklinton others a B. Morton Instit. of the Sacrament â—6 c 3. b Pag. 134 135 142. 144. 145. See B. Morton his Institution of the Sacrament l. c. 3. throughout and in the proceeding and enseâ—ving â—hapters D Fulke and Mr. Cartâ—rigâ— in the conâ—utation of the Râ—em Testament on Hebr. 7. 8. 9 10. to the sameâ—â—â—pose c See Bis-MortoÌ„ his Institution of the Sacrament l. 6. c. 3. 4. 5. 6. throughout d Of the worthy receiving esteeming of the Sacrament p. 200. e 2 Tim. 4 1â— 2. 1 Tim. 3. 2 f 27. Eliz. c. 2 See Rastall Recusantes Ieâ—uites Seminary-Preistes Rom. service and SacrameÌ„nts c. g See Raâ—â—all Title Mort h See summa Angelica Rosella Tit. consecrat c. Et ratr de Consecrationis distinct 1. 16. Antonâ— Corseti Râ—portoriuÌ„ Tit. Consecratio i Of the Idolat The right use of the Church the time and place of prayer k Foliâ— 91. 92. 93. l Page 210 414 m Exposition of Ageus c. 2. v. 2. 3 and c. 1. v. 7. 8. n Acts 7 p 1 Tim. 2. * Note this q Iohn 4 r 2. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 27â— H. 8â— cap. 15. 37. Hâ— 8. c. 17â— 32. H. 8. c. 3 a Deus Natura Gratia in sundâ—â—e pages b Sunday no â—abbath p. 2â— 48. Edit 1. c See Bis â—â—audes Wrens Pearce Whites and other of their Articles to this purpose * Creâ— Church the Chappell at Hamorsâ—â—th others d Summa Angelica Tit. consâ—cratio Ecclesiae * See Pontificale Episcoporum de consecratione Ecclesiae Mr. Calfe hill his answer to Marshall F. 93. 94. 95. 96. e Of the Perill of Idolatrie f See Summa Angelica Rosella Tit Symonia g Seâ— Brook Fitz. habent Ristal Tit. extortion * 1636. h Of the Perill of Idolatrie The Right use of the Church The Time and Place of Prayer i 2 H. 5. c. 21. H. 8. c. 21. Cooks Iustitutes f. 344. a. and other Law books there cited l 1. Eliz. c. 1. m Antiqu. Ecces Brit in late Fox Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p. 1774. to 1782. n Antiqu Eccles. Brit passim o 36. H. 8. p. 13. p See 5. H. 6. parts â—â— in this Roâ—s q Cooks Institut F. 334. a Brooke Praemunire 21. 21. E. 3 60. a
A QUENCH-COALE OR A briefe Disquisition and Inquirie in what place of the Church or Chancell the Lords-Table ought to be situated especially when the Sacrament is administred VVherein is evidently proved that the Lords-Table ought to be placed in the MIDST of the Church Chancell or Quire North and South not Altar-wise with one side against the wall That it neither is nor ought to be stiled an Altar That Christians have no other Altar but Christ alone who hath abolished all other Altars which are either Heathenish Iewish or Popish and not tollerable among Christians All the Pretences Authorities Arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford Edmond Reeve Dr. Iohn Pocklington and A late Coale from the Altar to the contrary in defence of Altars calling the Lords-Table an Altar or placing it Altar-wise are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vaine or forged By a well-wisher to the truth of God and the Church of England Hebr. 7. 12. 13. For the Priesthood being changed there is made of necessity a change also of the Law For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to an other Tribe of which no man gave attendance at the Altar Augustinus de verbis Domini secundum Joannem Serm. 42. Christus quotidie pascit Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Printed in the yeare 1637. To the High and Mightie Prince CHARLES By the Grace of God King of Great Brittaine France and Ireland Defender of the Faith c. MOST DREAD SOVERAIGNE THE bleeding and almost desperate Condition of the long established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England of late yeares not only secretly undermined by Popish Priests and Jesuites but openly oppugned affronted by some English Priestes and Prelates in divers Visitation-Articles Sermons and printed Bookes licenced for the Presse to the intollerable contempt of your Majesties late pious Declarations Hath made me so presumptuous as not only to compile but likewise to recommend this unpolished Quench-Coale to your Royall Personage Wherein like a plain-dealing English-man I have according to my poore ability not only defended the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England in the particulars now oppugned against those treacherous rebellious Sonnes of hers who have professedly both in their Sermons practises and printed Bookes oppugned them out of her owne Records and Writers which I have principally made use of but likewise discovered and layd open without flattery or partiallity their desperate practises aymes plots and intentions to suppresse and roote out our syncere Religion and usher in Popery by degrees Together with the method and progresse they have made and prosecuted in this their pernicious designe The reasons inducing me to dedicate this rude incompt Discourse which I had neither time nor opportunity to polish to your Sacred Majesty were these 1. First to acquâ—int your Highnes with the severall dangers wherewith the Religion Doctrine and Discipline by Law establishest in the Church of England are now surrounded and those open affronts and oppositions made of late yeares against it Of which I presume your Majesty who commonly see with other mens eyes and heare with other mens eares as most Princes are forced to doe have not beene yet so fully acquainted as your faithfull Subjects could desire especially by your Prelates 2. Secondly to informe your Majesty how grosly some of your Prelates and Chaplaines have abused your Highnes and your Subjects eares and eyes both in the Pulpit the Counsell-Chamber and in printed Bookes in the point of Altars and their situation of Communion-Tables Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire Which Altars Situs of Lords-Tables they have peremptorily affirmed to be consonant to the practise of approred Antiquity Yea to the Statutes Doctrine Canons and Discipline of the Church of England When as it is most apparant That the primitive Church laand Christians had no Altars but Tables only for aboue 260 teyeares after Christ And that then and ever since till now of late both their Tables and Altars were alwayes placed in the MIDST of their Quires or Churches As J have here plentrifully manifested And that they neither bowed to nor towards their Altars as these new Doctours falsely dogmatize 3. Thirdly To present unto your Majesty the many dangerous Innovations and backslidings to Popery that have crept into our Church of late and now are publikely justifyed in print yea enjoyned by some of your potent Prelates and enforced on your poore Subjects especially godly Ministers under paine of suspension excommunication deprivation yea fining imprisonment and utter ruine in your High Commissions at first erected to suppresse all Poperie Innovations Errours and Episcopall enchroachments upon your Eeclesiasticall Prerogative but now used as the chiefe Instruments to countenance and set them up in professed opposition and rebellion against your Majesties Lawes Proclamations and two late pious Declarations to all your loning Subjects VVherein your Majesty to the unspeakeable joy of all your true-hearted people calling God to record before whom you stand hath made this solemne Protestation That you will never give way to the authorizing of any thing whereby ANY INNOVATION may steale or creep into the Church but preserve that unity of Doctrine Discipline established in the Time of Queen Elizabeth whereby the Church of England hath stood florished ever since That you doe professe to maintaine the true ReligioÌ„ Doctrine established in the Church of England without ADMITTING OR CONNIVING AT ANY BACKSLIDING TO POPERY OR SCHISME That you will not INDVRE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING JN THE LEAST DEGREE from the seâ—â—d Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England now established And that you will esteeme those subordinate Officers and Ministers that shal be but negligent in seeing this your Declaration executed much more then those who apparantly oppugne it as culpable both to God and your Majesty And will expect that hereafter they give you a better account Yet notwithstanding both these your royall Declarations Some of your Prelates who were both privies and parties to them with others of your Clergie have since their publication not only suffered many Jnnovations to creep and steale into our Church admitted and connived at many backslidings to Poperie and Romish Schisme and permitted nay licensed in print many varyings and departings in the highest degree from the setled established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England But likewise been the chiefe Authours and fomenters yea the open Abbettours and Commaunders of them both in the Pulpit High Commission their Visitation-Articles Synodes and in printed Bookes Especially in setting up justifying writing and preaching for Images Crucifixes Altars Priests Sacrifices of the Altar bowing to Altars to Communion-Tables and rayling them in Altarwise with other particulars else-where specified in this Discourse In which we have lately backslided not only towards Popery but quite Apostatized to it as the Priestes the Papists glory and cracke in every place justifying in
they have once overswolm'd the bankes of due moderation or growen impudent and unrulie especially in Bishops Having thus represented to your Majesties Royall view these 3 grand forgeries and corruptions give me leave I humblie beseech your Highnes to adde to these two other late Jmpostures obtruded on the Church of England 1. The first by Dr. then Mr. Iohn Cosens and his confederates Who Anno 1628. the same yeare your Majesties Declarations were published sett forth a Booke intiteled A collection of private Devotions or the Howers of Prayer Wherein was much Popish Trash and Doctrine comprized and at least 20 several points of Popery maintained to countenance all which in the Title and Epistle of this Booke he writes That these Devotions of his were after this maner published by Queen Elizabeth and were heretofore published among us by her High and Sacred Authority to witt in the Preces of Horary sett forth by her Royall Authority Anno 1573. VVhen as there is no Analogie at all either in matter forme or method between these Devotions of his and those devout Prayers of her Majesty nor any of his points of Popery in them as hath been proved by two particular Answers to his Devotions in print Yet these Devotions of his were never yet suppressed but publikely sold among us approved by a Bishops license and now reprinted to abuse your Majesties poore Subjects encourage Papists and scandalize that ever-blessed pious Queen as the Authour and Patronesse of his grosse Popery An abuse not tollerable in a Christian State 2. The second is as bad or worse Anno 1631. One Iohn Ailward not long before a Popish Priest published a Booke intiteled An Historicall Narration of the judgement of some most learned Bishops concerning Gods Election Affirming the Errours of the Arminians to be the Iudgement and Doctrine of the Church of England and of the Martyrs and Reformers of it both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes This Booke though written in professed opposition to your Majesties Declaration before the 39. Articles to Suppresse Arminianisme yet now made the only iustrument to advance it and suppresse the truth was licensed by Mr. Martyn then Chaplaine to the Bishop of London now Arch-Bishop of Canterbury The whole Booke except some 3. or 4. leaves containing nothing else but a Coppy ef an Answer to a Letter wherein the Answerer purged himselfe and others from Pelagian Errours c. This Master-peece forsooth is pretended to be sett out by the Bishops and Reformers of our Church in the inception of Queen Elizabeths raigne by publike Authority and the Doctrine then taught and professed When this new Booke was printed no Coppies must come abrode as the Stationer then affirmed before the Bishop of London had presented it to your Majesty and gained your Royall approbation thereof Not long after this it flies abrode ouer all the Realme to the great amazement and disturbance of many of your Subjects One of them comming to that learned Knights hands Sir Humphry Lynde better read in Fathers and Popish Authours then English Antiquities he was so much stumbled and greiued at it that he presently repaired with it to a Gentlemans study of his acquaintance Telling him there was a new Booke freshly published which proued the Martyrs and Reformers of our Church to be professed Arminians and that this was the Doctrine publikely taught and printed by Authority in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths-raigne Saying withall it would doe infinite harme and desiring him to take some paines to answer it The Gentleman no sooner turned ever two or three leaves of the Booke but he presently discovered the grand Imposture Informing the Knight that this Coppy of a Letter c. was written by one Champenies whom Iohn Venon Divinity Lecturer of Paules in the first yeare of Queen Elizabeth expresly affirmed to be then a ranke Papist and a Pelagian and that in answer to this Verons Lectuâ— es of Predestination then publikely preached at Paules dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and printed by Authority in the second yeare of her Highnes raigne He likewise acquainted him that this Coppy of his Letter was printed about the third yeare of her Dominion without any Authours or Printers name thereto or place where or yeare when it was printed or any intimation at all that it was ever licensed All which were plaine evidences that it was printed in a corner without any license at all And whereas sayd he you desire a speedy Answer to it if you will give me but a paire of gloves I will show you two Answers to it already in print above â—0 yeares since by publike Authority and one of the first printed Coppies of this Letter to boote To which the Knight replied J am sure you doe but jest with me No sayd the other I am in good earnest wil you give me or wager a paire of gloves hereupon That answered he I will doe with all my heart Then sayd the Gentleman reach me hither those three Bookes he pointed to He did so The first was a Coppy of the Letter without name of Authour Printer date of time or place Which compared with that in this new Booke proved the same verbatim Now sayd the Gentleman you have seen the Originall I will shew you the Authour of it which he did in Verons Apology f. 37. and likewise two severall Answers in print The first by Iohn Veron himselfe fore-named intitled An Apologie in Defence of the Doctrine of Predestination Dedicated to Queen Elizabeth and imprinted at London by Iohn Tisdale in the fourth yeare of her Raigne Wherein this whole Letter is fully answered The second by that famous Learned Man and exile for Religion in Queen Maries dayes Robert Crowly In his Apologie of those English Preachers and Writers which Cerberus the three-headed Dogg of Hell chargeth with false Doctrine under the name of Predestination Seen and allowed according to Her Majesties Injunctions and printed at London by Henry Denham Anno 1566. Wherein this whole Letter is at large recited in severall Sections and then answered Verbatim This Booke being nothing else but a particular professed Answer to it by publike Authority As directly contrary to the truth and Doctrine of the Church of England then taught and established When the Gentleman had shewed him these two printed ancient Answers to this new Booke He likewise turned to some passages in Bishop Latymer which answered and cleared his words cited in this Booke from any such sence as it would fasten on them And to answer the Passage in it out of Bishop Hoopers Preface before his Exposition on the ten Commaundements He shewed him first the Confession and Protestation of the Bishops Faith dedicated to King Edward the 6. and the whole Parliament and printed at London Cum Privilegio Anno 1550. Secondly A briefe and cleare Confession of the Christian Faith containing 100 Articles London 1584. Thirdly An Exposition upon certaine Psalmes London 1510. Jn all
which this godly Martyr did professedly in exprâ—â—e tearmes oppugne all the Arminian points now controverted and those this new Booke would fasten on him by over straining some of his words VVhich done Now said the Gentleman I have shewed you many full old Answers to your New Booke and proved it to be a meere lie and forgery from the beginning to the end yea the most grosse and greatest Imposture affront and impudent abuse that ever was put upon the Church of England VVherefore Sirâ— since you are acquainted at London-House and Lambeth I pray informe the Bishop and Arch-Bishop what you have seen and desire them to take some speedy course to rectify this most foule abuse He did so Yet the Booke was not called in in a weekes space or more VVhich the Gentleman perceiving went to Lambeth with his Bookes shewed the Arch-Bishop that then was what he had shewed the Knight Desiring his Grace that the Church of England might not have such an impudent strange Imposture thrust upon her VVhere upon he thanked the Gentleman Protesting he had shewed him that he never saw nor heard off before Desiring him to leave his Bookes with him for a weeke after which he would safely restore them VVhereupon these Bookes after they were halfe sold and dispersed over the Kingdome were only called in but not burned nor any publike Act made against them to discover the practise and Imposture Only the Gentleman was at the cost to send some of these old Bookes in answer of this new Pamphlet to the University Library at Oxford and to Cambridge acquainting some of his Friends there with this Decoy But now of late this Booke flies abrode into all parts is publikely sold in all Stationers shops and thousands of your Subjects ignorant of the fraud are meerely cheated and seduced by it the Licenser if not the Authour being since aduanced and the discouerer of this egregious Jmposture detestable both to God man most despitefully rewarded and miserablie traduced for his paines O tempora O mores that men should suffer for their good service in this kinde Now J humblie referre to your Majesties most serious consideration whether all these particular Corruptions Forgeries and Jmpostures the vndoubted verity whereor is soone discouered by the Bookes themselves which wâ—â— attest them doe not crie aloud to your Majesty for speedy redresse and proclaime the authours of them though never so great or powerfull unworthy of your Majesties grace unmeet to be trusted or credited by your Highnes any more for those who are thus treacherous and unfaithfull to their Religion and Mother Church how can they be loyall or trustie to your Majesty and worthy of the highest Censures your Royall Iustice can inflict upon them Your Majesty hath called God to witnes in A Declaration to all your loving Subjects who dare credit you without an Oath That it is and alwâ—yes hath been your hearts desire to be found worthy of that Title which you account the most glorious in all your Crowne DEFENDER OF THE FAITH And how can you better accomplish this desire of your heart or make yourselfe worthy of this most glorious Motto then by rectifying all these most grosse abuses and Jmpostâ—res By rooting out all Innovations and back slâ—dings unto Popery now crept into our Church by reducing all your Subjects to the unanimous profession of the long established Doctrine of the Church of England And by taking vengeance upon all the grand Authours and Executioners of the fore-mentioned Forgeries Impostures Innovations which dishonour your Royall Majesty greive all your Faithfull Subjects betray and scandalize our Religion make us a very derision prey and scorne to our Romish Aduersaries and draw downe the very plagues and vengeance of our offended God upon us whose judgements now call for a speedy redresse of these things at your Majesties hands whom they have most intollerablie and undutifully dishonoured For whereas your Roy all Majesty out of the piety and syncerity of your upright heart hath in your fore-specified Declarations most seriously protested in the very presence of God himselfe your perfect detestation of all Innovations in ` Doctrine or Discipline and backslâ—dings unto Popeâ—y professing and proclaiming that you will by no meanes tolerate or indure them much lesse then favour or enjoyne them Yet since these disloyall Novellers their Clients and Agents forgetting their duty both to God and your Majesty feare not to give out in private speeches and to intimite as much in print that your Majesty doth not only connive at but likewise underhand either countenance or commaund by Letter or Word of mouth all these their Innovations and Apostacies towards Rome with their putting downe of Lectures and preaching of their late silencing excommunicating and persecuting godly Ministers in sundrie Diocesses for not yeelding to these Jnnovations or not reading the late Declaration for Sports in proper person in their Churches which they humblie conceive not to be your Majesties and which requires no such thing that it should be read much lesse by Ministers themselves in proper person and gives no man Authority in case they read it not to suspend or silence them for it to the Jnnocent peoples prejudice only whose soules are starved and murthered by this meanes and that they doe nothing at all but what they are enjoyned by your Majesties Royall Instructions Endeavouring by these false Rumors to make your Subjects believe had they such a miraculous Faith as to credit this impossibilitie that your Majesty is the Originall Authority and under-hand enconrager of all these their execrable practises Ceremonies Novelties proceedings and backsliding Of purpose to draw all the Odium of them on your Highnes and thereby as much as in them lyeth to alienate your Subjects hearts and affections from your Majesty Which intollerable unpardonable scandal were it as true as it is false Yet it were their duty to forbeare such speeches or cast â—uch scruples into your Subjects mindes But since they are most nâ—torious falsehoods and disloyall Iesuiticall practises in the highest degree making your Highnes no better then a notorious Hypocrite or dissembler both towards God and Man as themselves are though all the world will be your Compurgatours to acquit your Highnes from any the least suspition of such dissimulation Your Majesty is now obliged both in point of honour and Iustice to aveng yourselfe of such undutifull Slaunderers and Detractors from your Sacred Fame and by a speedy redresse of all their Innovations Superstitions Ceremonies and Abuses to proclaime to all the world that they are none of yours but their owne spurious issues and that your words and Actions both in publike and private are ever consonant uniforme and the same in every respect without the least shadow of alteration much lesse of doubling either with God or Man If your Majesty now demaund of me who they are who have been the chiefe Authours and instruments of these grosse
abuses forgeries Innovations I answer that although it may prove dangeroos to me to nominate them in particular before your Majesty shall commaund me so to doe by reason of their over-swaying power Yet for your Majestiâ—s satisfaction herein who can judge of the Catt by her Claw I shall give your Highnes a Register of the names of some of the chiefe under-instruments by which you may easily discrie the heades and Grandes of this disloyall crew One of the first and chiefe instruments your Majesty in your Royall Declaration and Proclamation hath pointed out and nominated to my hands To witt Richard Mountague then Bachiâ—er of Divinity since that time punished with the fatt Bishopricke of Chichester for his notorious Schismes and Innovations whose Booke intituled Apello Caesarem published in the yeare 1625. as the words of your Highnes determine did open the way to those Schismes and Divisions which have since ensued in our Church For remedie and redresse whereof and for Satisfaction of the consciences of your good people your Majesty did not only by publike Proclamation call in that Booke of his which ministred matter of offence but to prevent the like danger for hereafter reprinted the Articles of Religion established in the time of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory a plaine resolution that your Majesty intended to establish only the originall Coppy of the Articles confirmed in Parliament by Queen Elizabeth in which there is no such forgery or addition to the 20 Article as is before discovered not any other corrupted Coppy since and by a Declaration before those Articles did tie and restraine all opinions to the sence of those Articles that nothing might be left for private fancies and Innovations Yet notwithstanding this your Rayall care this Booke of his because not burn'd and the Authour rewarded advanced to be a governour in our Church before any publike recantation of his Errours is bought and sold And he not only in a new Latine Booke but likewise in a Court-Sermon at White Hall in Lent last in your Majesties Sacred presense forgetfull both of his duty and your Highnes Declaration hath presumed to plead not only for a Limbus Patrum bowing to Altars and rayling in Lords-Tables Altarwise but likewise for Altars Priests and unbloody Sacrifices offred upon Altars toe in professed defiance to this your Declaration For which some of your Majesties Courtiers who heard his Sermon then openly protested that he deserued to be hanged up in White Hall gate it were a goodly signe the signe of such a Bishops skin and Rochet thus exalted and that they wondred how the Arch-Bishops could sit by and heare such a Sermon and not commaund him out of the Pulpit So insolent is this first grand Agent growen because not punished but preferred for his first offences The next chiefe Fâ—ctor is Dr. Iohn Cosens whom I have formerly nominated a man likewise much honoured enriched aduanced euen to your Majesties service and the next in some mens voyce to be recommended to a Bishopricke if your Majesty reserve not the disposition of Bishoprickes to your selfe but suffer others to have a finger in their disposall and all for the good Seruice he hath done the Church of Rome the affronts he hath offred to the Church of England and using such reproachfull words against your Majesties Supremacy for which another happily might have had his head and quarters aduanced as high as London bridge ere this in Leiw of all â—ther preferments The happy successe of these two leading Instruments hath since encouraged many others to the like attempts as Dr. Lawrence Mr. Robert Shelford Priest Mr. Edmond Reeue Dr. Iohn Pocklington Dr. Peterâ— Heylin the Authour as most conclude of A Coale from the Altar Chownaeus and others in late printed Bookes and Sermons in hope of like preferments to broach many Arminian and Popish Doctrines Ceremonies Innovations coÌ„trary to the established Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England and in high contempt of your Majesties Declarations Which Bookes were licensed by William Bray and William Harwood Chaplaines to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury that now is by Samuel Baker and Mr. Weekes Chaplains to the now Bishop of London and by Dr. Beale late Vice-Chancellour of the University of Cambridge Yea one of them denying your Majesties Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastiaâ—all and affirming the Church of Rome to be a true Church and not have erred in fundamentals even in the worst times dedicated to the present Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was liceÌ„sed by his Chaplaine William Harwood yea justified publikely by the Arch-Bishop in the High Commission in the Censure of Dr. Bastwicke Quid facient Domini audent cum talia Servi When the Chaplains dare license such Doctrines Bookes and Novelties by their Lords Authority it is much to be feared that their Lords themselves dare doe as much or more then this amounts to If your Majesty will but inquire of these new Authours and Licensers who are the men that cherish and countenance them By whose Privity and Authority they have presumed to attempt the writing and Licensing of such Bookes you may easily by these Rivulets trace out the Fountaines from whence all these Enormities Corruptions Forgeries and Innovations flow And if you shall vouchsafe with all to cast your Royall eye upon the Remonstrance touching the encrease of Popery Arminianisme and the decay of Religion presented to your Majesty by the Commons house the last Parliament it is a thousand to one but you will soone discover the very parties not only by guesse but by name Besides if your Majestie will once more cast your prying eye upon the late Visitation Articles of Bishop Wren Bishop Peirce Bishop Monntague and other your Prelates and Arch-Deacons visiting in their owne names and by their owne Authority Or cause a diligent inquiry to be made in all places where Altars Images Crucifixes bowing to Altars Tapers rayling Communion-Tables Altar-wise reading Second-Service at the Altar Consecrations of Altars Churches Chappels are introduced urged and many godly conformable Ministers excommunicated silenced suspended persecuted for not submitting to these with other such Innovations and New-Doctrines By whose Authority and commaund these things are done and inforced Or by what Authority some Schollers Ministers and Lecturers have been refused to be admitted to holy Orders Benefices and Lectures for not subscribing to certaine New-Doctrines Ceremonies underhand propounded to them And with all take this into your Royall consideration that in three late printed Treatises Arch-Bishops Bishops and Cathedrall Churches are made the Originall Patternes by which all other Persons and Churches must be regulated in these very Innovations Your Majesty without any further helpe or character may infalliblie discover both the roots the fountaines and Seminaries from whence all the premises issue More particular light then this is neither yet safe for me to give nor necessary for your Majesty to require
Calendas we may well demurre to this second reason Of which more fully anon Only to retort the reason let me argue thus The place where God is most specially present by his grace ought to be bowed unto But God is most specially present by his grace in Heaven in the Church-Bible and midst of his people not at the East end of the Church where none must sit neare him as I bare else-where proved And in every good Christians heart Ergo these not the Table are to be bowed unto As for his Chaire of State That it ought alwayes to be bowed unto I thinke when it is in the ward-robe Cart Imbroy derers or upholsters shop c. should have been excepted he must shew us some Law or Statute for it ere we can beleeve it And though some men bow unto it now and then because the King sits some times personally in it This Gentleman must prove that God sits personally some-times on the Table which he can hardly doe But he and others tell us that God sits alwayes there Very good Then I thus retort the similitude No Man is so sottish to bow to the Kings Chaire of State when the King himselfe is sitting in it but only when he is absent For when the King his in it they never doe it but bow only and immediately to the King without any respect to the Coaire Therefore since God is alwayes sitting on the Table they ought not to bow or doe any reverence to it at all And so this Simitude cuts the throate of their cause if rightly paralleld and applied This will likewise overthrow his Argument for the the placing of the Table Altar-wise else-where at large refelled Here also writes he it is to be considered unto the honouring of Gods holy name of his Table rather in what place of the Chauncell Gods Board or Seat should stand Doth not nature itselfe teach us that in every common house the Seate of the chiefest should be above every inferiour And should not Christianitie teach us that no Seate of any person much lesse of any of the Laity it seemes then the Cleargie may sit above God himselfe if they please should be above Gods mercy Seate the Sacred Communion-Table in the Chauncell c. And when as the Lords-Table is set in the uppermost place within the Chauncell is it not decent that the ends thereof thus this Expositour and Patron of the Common-Prayer-Booke dares controll it be towards North and South The Holy Ghost commaundeth all things to be done decently and according unto order Ergo Lords Tables ends must be turned North and South against the expresse order of the Common-Prayer-Booke And if it ought so to be in all things much more ought it to be in every thing about Gods house especially in the standing of his Sacred Seate As if this Seate stood very undeceâ—tly and quite out of order unlesse the Ends of it stood North and South contrary to order But of this meâ—ry profound Divinity hereafter This only by the way for a Breakfast The Authour having in all this forgotten his good Instruction in his Epistle to his Parishioners That we are all bound in conscience for to learne believe and obey whatsoever is commaunded in the Commuuion-Booke Homilies Booke and Constitutions or Canons Booke All which condemne his bowing to and placing of the Table North and South And so by his owne censure not speaking according to the Communion Booke Doctrine J may with a safe conscience before God affirme that there is no light of Gods holy spirit within him They are his owne words and censure of all those who speake not according to the Communion Booke Doctrine which himselfe professedly speakes against in all these and other passages But enough of this ridiculous Ignoramus who hath wronged the Pope exceedingly in giving the Titles of HOLINESSE and HOLY FATHER to our Bishops whom he makes absolute Popes in many Passages of his crack-brainde Treatise NOTE THIS It appeares by Num. 1. 50. c. c. 2. v. 2. 17. That the Tabernacle of the Lord stood in the midst of the Campe of Israel and the Levites were there commaunded to encampe ROVND ABOVT IT To which that text of Rev. 5. 11. c. 7. 11. hath relation as Learned Mr. Meade there proves at large It is also evident by Numb 3. 26. c. 4. 26. And the hanging for the dore of the gate of the Court which is by the Tabernacle ROVND ABOVT c. That the Passage in the Counsell of Constantinople where the same phrase is used is to be taken properly as Bishop Jewel and others interpret it not as the Collier hath most absurdly perverted it the words being the same both in Latine Greeke and English in all places TO THE CHRISTIAN READER CHRISTIAN READER it is storied of Croesus his dumbe-borne Sonne that when he saw a Persian Captaine going to stay his Father his filiall affection was so stirred in him at the sight that though he never spake before yet then he brake forth into these words O man doe not kill Croesus And so saved his Fathers life What this dutifull Sonne thus unexpectedly uttered being ever before tongue-tied out of his endeared love to his naturall Father I am here constrained out of my loyall respects to my spirituall Mother the Church of England publikely to speake to some treacherous seeming-Sonnes of hers who have almost stabbed her to the heart under a specious pretence of fighting for her in some late printed workes O man doe not murther and betray my Mother the Church of England Even as Iudas once did our Saviour with a kisse whiles you are in outward appearance contending wholy for her Alas when I behold you writing professedly against her Homilies Articles and the Booke of Common-Prayer to which you have all subscribed When I see you raking the very ashes and mangling the deceased Carcases of her most eminent Iewel Raynolds Whitaker Fulke Willet Perkins with other of her most victorious triumphant Champions over Romes greatest Goliahs whom you never durst so much as looke upon by way of Opposition in their life times proclaiming professed hostility to their authorized Writings When I behold you siding with the Papists maintaining their Antichristian Errours Doctrines Ceremonies abuses before all the world without blush or shame Defending their Erronious Writers against our famous Orthodox Authours whose blessed memories you seeke causelesly to steine When I behold you avowing even in print That the Church of Rome is a true Church That personall Succession of Bishops is requisite and Essentiall to make a true Church That the Arch-Bishops and Bishops of England derive their lineall Succession and Episcopall dignity from S. Peters Chaire and the very Sea of Rome and that we should not acknowledge them for Bishops in case they either did not or could not doe so That the Pope of Rome or Papacy is not the Antichrist Nor Antichrist yet come or
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are 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
into our Church againe yet secretly by degrees with as little noyse as might be by those severall Stratagemes and meanes which that cunning-pated Iesuite Adam Contzin in his Booke of Politickes printed at Mentz Anno 1621. hath prescribed them for that purpose Which they prosecute and follow to an haires-breadth To effect this Plot the better according to the Popes consultation and direction in his Conclave they first vented all the Arminian points in printed Bookes Which though at first oppugned by many to their hazard have now under a pretence of silencing all controversies in this kinde quite silenced the truth itselfe Being now publikely printed and preached every where without controll contrary to his Majesties Proclamation concerning the inhibiting and calling in of Mountagues Booke which led the Dance in his Declaration before the 39. Articles And concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament Which are now made snares only by these potent Confederates contrary to his Majesties pious intention to suppresse the truth and bring those into trouble who defend it against Arminian Novelties or Popish Tenents either by printing or preaching Next after this they began to crie up practise and enjoyne mâ—ny superstitious Popish Ceremonies especially bowing at the name of Iesus both in time of Divine Service and Sermons to the end it might usher in bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes with adoration of the Sacramentall bread and wine Which Ceremonie getting head by violence many suffring for opposing it and others either ignorantly or cowardly submitting to it though not prescribed in the Booke of Common-Prayer Then they began at first in some private places to set up Images Altars yea Crusifixes in Churches directly contrary to our Homilies To call Lords-Tables Altars To turne them Altar-wise or into Altars and bow downe unto them And because an Altar without a Priest was to no purpose they next begin to tearme themselves with other Ministers by no other name but Priestes Yea Priestes to dance attendance on these new Altars both in their Sermons Bookes and VVritings VVhich being done but secretly in corners as every Evill is bashfull at first and creepes up but by degrees these new devises also gotâ— ground by litle and litle some potent Bishops setting them on and countenancing them under hand Crushing such who chiefly oppugned these Innovations in the High-Commission and elsewhere And having thus by publike Censures and these underâ—and Devises given open countenance to them and disheartned people from opposing them they grew in a short time so impudent as openly to plead for Jmages Altars Priestes turning of Communion-Tables Altar-wise bowing to them and at the name of Iesus reading of Second Service at them standing up at Gloria Patri the Gospell c. and that not only in the Pulpit but in the High-Commission and in print setting some shallow-pated fellowes as Giles Widdowes Reeve and Shelford in the fore-front to breake the Ice to see how the people would relish them And then when these men had borne the brunt and blame for a while and the strangenes of the things was almost vanished seconding them with others of better note and parts to give greater Countenance to them that people might the more willingly embrace these Innovations VVhich being thus once pleaded for in print our Bishops the chiefe Plotters and fomenters of them begin first more covertly under-hand by way of persuasion and intreatie and now at last openly in their Visitation-Articles by way of peremptorie commaund one pragmaticall impudent Prelate giving the first onset and then others seconding him in their fore-plotted order to enjoyne all these Innovations Popish Practises and Ceremonies to be put in full execution throughout their Diocesse And now they are growen so impudent as to excommunicate suspend yea Censure in the High Commission all such Church-wardens and Ministers who out of Conscience towards God Obedience to his Majesties Lawes and Declarations or love to Religion dare oppose or not subâ—â—ie unto 〈◊〉 many Church-wardens being excommunicated for not 〈◊〉 in the Table Altarwise And many Ministers suspended excommunicated put from their Livings if not field 〈◊〉 imprisoned too especially in Bishop Wrens and Bishop 〈◊〉 Diocesse for not bowing to the Altar and as the names Iesus not reading Second Service at the High Altar 〈◊〉 Lords-Table for opposing the rayling in of the Table Altar-wise without Lawfull Authority or preaching against or not yeelding to these Popish Proceedings VVhich have lately gotten such head in most places that now all thing except Latine Service are prepared for the Masse in many Churches which added to these Novelties will make us perfect Papists For we have Altars with Altar-clotheâ—â— Tapers Bisons and other Romish furniture on them Priestes Crucifixes bowing to Altars coming up to the Altar and there kneeling downe to receive all Popish Trinekets and Massing Ceremonies Copes Organs Vestments especially in our Cathedrals which now must be Patternâ— of Imitation to all other Churches in the Diocesse all which being but meere Preparations for the Masse how soone that also may steale in upon us if his Majesties pious care with other our Magistrates vigilancie and inferiour Minister out-cries who are over-silent in such an exigent prevent 〈◊〉 not with speed by these active hot-spurs machinations who have made such a swift progresse in all the other particulars which they impudently presse and justice with braâ—eâ— faces and obdurate hearts not fearing already to stile thâ— Lords Supper an unbloody Sacrifice the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and to maintaine a corporall presence in the Eucharist I feare to divine And when Masse is once installed and sett up the next thing these Novellers are to effect Popery wil be perfectly restored with it and then face well all our Religion which we have enjoyed with all externâ— peace and felicity attending it Now 〈◊〉 it is plaine according to the moderne Papists and these Innovatours Doctrine that there can be no Masse without an Altar or Super-Altar No Altar but at the East end of the Church as remote from the people as they he for the better officiating of private Masse And neither Masse nor Altar without a Sacrifice a Sacrament of the Altar and a Priest to Consecrate and Offer it The oppugning of these Innovations the immediate Harbengers and fore-runners both of Masse and open Poperie without which there can be no Masse and Poperie can never get head among us and by conniving at which without â—â—ong and sodaine Opposition both Masse and Popery the things principally aâ—med at without which these other are to no purpose will presently perke up and get quiet possession among us to the utter overthrow of our Religion must needs be of great consequence 〈◊〉 know that when a Ciety is beleaguerd whiles the 〈◊〉 and Out workes are safe and defended the Citty is in no danger of surprisall But if the Enemies once get them all is in danger to be lost Our Lords-Tables Ministers Lords
middest of all the people Thus this Jewell of the Church From whose words it is apparant that the Communion Table in the Apostles times and in the Primitive Church for above 1300. yeares after Christ stood in the middest of the Church or Chancel not at the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall And that it ought nowe thus to stand in the Churches beinge thus placed in his time Which bookes of his beinge A defence both of the doctrine and practice of the Church of England against the Papists Commaunded to bee had in every Church for Ministers and the people to reade And therefore it seemes a strange prodigious insolencie that men of our owne Church as they pretend should bee soe impudent as publiquely to affront and refute his doctrine in print but farr stranger they shoulde doe it by publique license to disparage him and justifie the Papists doctrine is a cleere demonstration to mee That by the very doctrine and practice of the Church of England the Communion Table ought to stand in the MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH OR CHAVNCELL especially when the Sacrament is administred and that the railinge of it in against the wall at the East end of the Chauncell like a Dresser a side Table or Popish Altar to the end it maye not bee thence removed and that the people maye come up to it by severall rankes and files to receive the Sacrament is a meere Popish Innovation contrarie both to the doctrine and practice of the Church of England The namelesse Author of the Coale from the Altar takinge upon him to be farre wiser and learneder then Bishop Jewell yea then Bishop Baâ—ington D. Fulke M. Bucer and all the learneddest writers is bold to write without blushinge That the authorities of Eusebius Augustine Durandus and the 5. Councell of Constantinople doe not prove that the Communion Table in their times stood in the midst of the Church or Chauncell that B. Jewell is mistaken in their meaninge and shapes severall answeares for to shift them To that of Eusebius hee sayth This proves not necessarily that the Altar stood either in the body of the Church or in the middle of the same as the Epistoler doth intend when hee sayth the middle The Altar though it stood alonge the Easterne wall yet it maye bee well interpreted to bee in the middle of the Chancell in Reference to the North and South as since it hath stood And were it otherwise yet this is but a particular case of a Church in Syria wherein the people beinge more mingled with the Jewes then in other places might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church as was the Altar of Incense in the middest of the Temple the better to conforme unto them To which I answeare 1. That the first parte of this reply is in a sort meere nonsence The Altar was placed in the middest of the Church or Chancell that is sayth he in the East end of it or in the middest of the East end as if the East end of the Church or Chancell were the Church or Chancell it selfe or the midst of it the middest of the Church or Chancell But these beinge distinct and different things the midst of the Church or Chancell can bee not more interpreted to bee the middest of the Eastwall or end of them then the East wall or midst of the East end of the Quire can bee the midst of the Church So that this evasion is but a meere nonsence Bull And had Eusebius intended any such thinge he woulde have thus expressed himselfe that they placed the Altar against the midst of the East end wall of the Church or Quire not in the midst of the Church or Quire and compassed about it and the Sanctuary with woodden Railes wrought up to the topp with artificiall carving 2. I answeare that The second parte of the Replie is a plaine concession of what hee formerly denied and not only soe but a confirmation of it with an annexed reason Soe that here wee have one peece of the Coale against the other one denyinge that it was in the midst the other confessinge and provinge the contrary Nowe whereas hee writes that this was but a particular case of one Church in Syria I answeare that it seemes this famous Temple was one of the first Christian Churches that was built and consecrated by the Christians after our Saviours death and soe became a generall patterne for all the rest The greate Church at Hierusalem beinge built round or ovall like to it and havinge the Altar in the midst like this In the edifying whereof Paulinus Bishop of Tyre whoe passed all others for rare and singular guifts was the chiefe meanes and director And till hee can produce an example of some Churches in the Primitive tymes either before or not long after this wherein the Table or Altar stood against the East wall of the Quire Altarwise as nowe they are situated which hee can never doe I shall take it as a generall and sufficient proofe for the settinge of the Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell That which hee adds that it was done perchance to please the Jewes is but his owne fancie no Historian or writer so much as insinuatinge any such thinge And admitt it true yet the Jewes situatinge of the Altar of Incense in the midst of the Temple though not out of any Iewish fancie or conceit but by Gods owne direction is a fitter patterne for Christians to followe then any Popish Altars fixed station at or against the East end of the Quire only by a bold Friers or Popes direction without Reason Scripture president or divine direction to warrant it To that of the 5. Counciil of Constantinople he replies that although 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it selfe doth signifie a Circle yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cannot bee properly interpreted round about the Altar soe as there was no parte thereof that was not compassed by the people noe more then if a man shoulde saye that hee hath seene the Kinge sittinge in his Throne and all his Nobles about him it needs or could bee thought that the Throne was placed in the middle of the presence as many of the Nobles beinge behinde him as before him for which hee cites Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. V. 11. To which I answeare First That as the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Circle as hee confesseth soe the proper signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to compasse or stand round about the Altar in a Circle and to hemne it in on every side If this then bee the proper meaninge of the words of this Councill as all must acknowledge good reason have wee to take them in their proper sence and not improperly 2. This word and phrase is soe taken and interpreted in the Scripture as Psal. 26. 6. Psal. 128. 3. 1. Sam. 16. 11. Rev. 4. 6. and c. 7. 11.
Phocas the Emperors permission to the honour of all Sancts in the Church of S. Peter the Cheife of the Apostles Altars have been placed not only towards the East but likewise distributed into other parts and quarters of the Church These since they were so placed either unpossibly or by necessitie wee dare not disapprove Let every man abound in his owne sence The Lord is high to all those whoe call upon him in truth and salvation is farr from sinners Let us drawe neere to us Thus hee Gregorie Nazianzen in his 21. Oration p. 399. declaming against the unworthie Bishops and Ministers of his age sayth thus They intrude them selves unto the most holy Ministeries with unwashen hands and mindes as they say and before they are worthy to come unto the Sacraments they affect the Sanctuary it selfe and CIRCUM SACROSANCTAM MENSAM permuntur protenduntur and are pressed thrust forward ROUND ABOUT THE HOLY TABLE not Altar esteeming this order not an example of virtue but a maintenance helpe of life A cleare evidence that the Communion Table was then so scituated that the Ministers might goe and stand round about it S. Chrysostome in his first Homilie upon Esay 6. 1. I sawe the Lord sittinge c. hath this passage concerninge the Lords Table doest thou not thinke that the Angells stand ROVND ABOVT THIS DREADFVLL TABLE AND COMPASSE IT ON EVERY SIDE with reverence A cleare Evidence that the Table was soe placed in Churches in his age that men and Angells might stand round about and Compasse it on every part To witt in the middest of the Church or Quire as S. Augustine his coaetanean witnesseth in plaine words where no doubt it alwayes stood as the learned Thomas Verow testifyeth till private Popish Masses wherein the Preist only receiveth removed it to the East end of the Quire or Chauncell neere the wall as remote as might bee from the people If any object as the late Coale from the Altar doth that Socrates Scholasticus and Nicephorus write That in most Churches in their tymes the Altar was usually placed toward the East I answeare First that before their dayes in Eusebius Chrysostomes Augustines the Emperour Zeno his tyme it stood in the midst of the Church or Quire and soe it did in Durandus his age 1320. yeares after Christ and in the Greeke Churches anciently and at this day as Bishop Jewell hath formerly proved 2. Neither of these two Authors affirme that the Altar or Communion Table stood at the East end of the Church or Quire close against the wall as nowe they are placed the thing to be proved but only toward the East part of the Church ad Orientem versus sayth Nicephorus that is neerer to the East then to the West end of the Church to witt in the middest of the Chauncell or Quire which in many Churches was placed at the East Isle then as our Chauncells Quires are nowe though not in all as is evident by the forequoted authorities Soe as the argument hence deduced can bee but this non sequitur Altars in their dayes stood usually toward the East end of the Churches to witt in the midst of the Quires Chauncells which stood Easterly as our Communion Tables stood till nowe of late Therefore they stood Altarwise against the East wall of the Church or Chancell as some Novellers nowe place them whereas the argument hold good the contrarie waye They were placed toward the East end of the Church therefore not in the verie East end Altarwise since toward the East is one thinge and in the East another as toward London in case of scituation or travell is one thinge in London another That which is toward London beinge not in it as hee whoe is toward Marriage is not yet actually maried Wee reade of Daniell that hee prayed toward Hierusalem Dan. 6. 10. yet hee was then in Bable many miles from it Wee reade likewise of certaine Idolaters and of noe others but them in Scripture for the Jewes usually prayed Westward the Tabernacle and Temple beinge soe scituated whoe had their backs toward the Temple of the Lord and their faces toward the East worshipped the sunne towards the East yet they sâ—ood not in the East end but in the inner-Court of the Lords house at the doore of the Temple betweene the porch and the Altar which stood West not East ward yea the Scripture makes a manifest difference betweene toward the East and in the East Gen. 2. 14. 1. Kings 7. 25. 1. Chron. 9. 24. c. 12. 15. 2. Chron. 4. 4. c. 31. 14. Joel 2. 20. Math. 2. 1. 2. This objected authoritie therefore makes against not for our Innovators whoe can produce noe one authenticke writer testimonie or example for above a thowsand yeares after Christ to prove that Altars or Lords Tables stood or were scituated Altarwise against the East wall of the Quire in such manner as nowe they place them there beinge many pregnant testimonies to the contrarie that they stood in the midst of the Quire Church or Chauncell where nowe they ought to stand as they did in former ages I come nowe to the 5. thinge to examine what place is most proper and Convenient for the situation of the Communion Table especially when the Sacrament is administred Noe doubt the midst of the Church or Chauncell not the East end of it where it is newly placed as the Rubricke of the Communion booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the 82. Canon the fore-cited Fathers and writers resolve in expresse tearmes and that for those ensuinge reasons which under correction cannot bee answeared First because the table at which our Saviour originally instituted the Sacrament was placed in the midst of the roome hee and his Disciples sittinge then round about it and soe administringe and receivinge it as the premises manifest Nowe wee ought to immitate our Saviours institution and example as neere as maye bee 1. Cor. 11. 1. 23. 24. Eph. 5. 1. 2. 1. Pet. 2. 21. John 2. 6. not only in the substance of the Sacrament but likewise in all decent and convenient Circumstances whereof the scituation of the Table in the midst of the congregation is one Amonge the 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a table then of an Altar published by Kinge Edward the 6. and his Councill this was the 5. and Cheifest Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at a Table not at an Altar wherefore seinge the forme of a Table is more agreeable with Christs institution then the forme of an Altar therefore the forme of a Table is rather to bee used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the holy Communion The same argument holds as firme in the situation of the Table The placinge of it in the midst of the Church or Chauncell is more agreable with Christs institution then the standinge of
it Altarwise against the wall at the East end of the Quire Therefore this situation of it is rather to bee used then the other 2. Because this is most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles Fathers and primitive Church in the purest tymes as I have already manifested of the reformed Churches beyond the Seas 3. Because it is most consonant to the booke of Common prayer Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops owne Canons and the judgement of our best writers 4. Because it is the most usuall and proper situation of tables amonge all Nations in all ages both a broade at home whoe place their Tables at which they eate and drinke in the midst of their dyninge roomes at least wise in such sorte that men maye sitt or stand round about them The Lords Table therefore beinge a table to eate and drinke at 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. 20. 21. c. 11. 20. and the Communion it selfe usually tearmed both in Scripture all sortt of writers from the Apostles dayes till nowe the Lords supper â— Coâ— 11. 20. this scituation of it must bee fittest decentest which is Common to all suppinge tables doth best expresse resemble the nature of a supper by standinge in the midst of the Communicants and their sittinge standinge or kneelinge round about it altogeather not by severall files and turnes like soe many bidden-guests Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise like a Dresser or sideCubberd not a Table the causinge of men to come upp to the raile by severall files and there to receive by turnes kneelinge doth neither expresse the one to bee the Lords table nor the other to bee the Lords supper 5. Because this scituation of the table in the midst will more move the simple people from the superstitious opinions of the Popish Masse Altars Preists sacrifices and private Masses where the Preist alone Communicates drawe them upp to the right use of the Lords supper Whereas the placinge of it Altarwise against the East wall of the Chauncell nowe urged is nothinge else but to usher Altars Preists publique and private Masses adoration of Altars and the Hostia transubstantiation and the whole body of Poperie into our Church againe as the Papists themselves doe every where cracke vaunt and all whoe are not wilfully blinded maye at first viewe discerne by wofull experience This forme of scituatinge the Lords Table and administringe the Sacrament was used in the primitive Church till Poperie private Masses thrust it out When Poperie Masses Masse Preists Transubstantiation Altars adoration of the Hostia other Popish trash were abolished this scituation of it was againe revived as a Soveraigne Antidote against these popish innovations and soe hath continued eversince The alteringe therefore of it must needs tend to the introduction of those things againe soe ought with all diligence and courage to bee with stood 6. Because this scituation is most orderly and decent and that in 5. regards First Because the Minister thereby maye bee more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer his administration and Consecration which many cannot heare when the table stands at the furthest end of the Quire or Chauncell in most greate Churches and parishes 2. Because there the CoÌ„mmunicants alsoe maye more conveniently and in greater number communicate with the Minister then they can doe when the Table stands at the end of the Quire or Chauncell as remote as maye bee from the people Both these reasons are rendred in the Common prayer booke Queene Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82. Canon neither can they bee gaine sayd 3. Because the Communicants when the table stands in the midst maye more easily see the Minister when and howe hee consecrates the Sacrament then when hee is more remote and maye the better make their Confession to Almightie God and saye Amen to every prayer as they are enioyâ—ed 4. Becanse it is lesse troublesome to the Minister to distribute and to the people to receive the Sacrament at his hands the nearer both of them are to the Communion Table 5. When the Table stands in the midst all the Communicants maye receive togeather in the seates next adjoyninge to the table without any disturbance disorder noise or stirr as they are expressely Commanded to doe 1. Cor. 10. 16. 17. c. 11. 20. to the end c. 13. 40. 23. to 34. whereas this newe dâ—vise of settinge the Table at the East end of the Chauncell against the wall and causinge the Communicants to come upp in severall disorderly rankes and squadrons to the raile and there to receive divides the Communion Communicants and Congregation makinge so many Communions and Congregations as there are Companies breeds a Confusion disorder disturbance noise distraction and oft tymes a Contention in the Church in causinge the people to march upp and downe some one waye and some another to contend whoe shall first receive or take the uppermost place to crowd thrust and hinder on the other in passinge to and fro drives many from the Sacrament whoe woulde else receive it breeds many quarrells factions schismes and divisions betweene the Minister the people hinder the Communicants much in their Meditations prayers reverence devotion attention singinge enforceth the people whoe are olde blinde lame sicke impotent to march upp to the Minister to receive whoe shoulde rather come to them inverts the practice Custome of our Church ever since reformation lengthens the administration and puts all into a Combustion yea into Confusion causinge many to turne Papists and Seperatists 7. The Lords Supper is called of us in our Litargie Homiles Articles THE COMMUNION his Table the COMMUNION TABLE Now that which is thus common ought to be placed IN THE MIDDEST of the people in a Common not a peculiar place as the Latine phrase IN MEDIO CONSTITUTUM or COLLOCATUM ever used to expresse a thing that is Common the Scriptures quoted in the next insuing reason evidence Whereas the placing of the Table so farre from the people the rayling of it in that so none but the Minister may have accesse unto it destroyes both the Communion Communion Table in appropriating it to the Minister and sequestring it from the people 8. The Communion Table ought to bee placed in the midst of the Church and Congregation because that is the place wherein God Christ have especially promised their Gracious presence as the ensuinge Scriptures evidence not at the East end of the Church or Chauncell as our Novellers fondly dreame Magisterially determine Hence Psal. 46. 5. God is sayd to bee in the MIDDEST of his holie place and Cittie Psal. 48. 9. Wee have thought of thy lovinge kindnesse oh God in the MIDST of thy Temple Jer. 14. 9. yet thou ô Lord art in the MIDST of us and wee are called by thy name Hosea 11. 9. I am God and not man the holie one in the MIDST of thee Joell 2.
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâ—ons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ— is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâ—pists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ— from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâ—ed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
as venerable as worthy to take place and precedency as the Table both in respect of matter use relation to God and Christ and divine institution undoubtedly they are therefore to be all ranked in an equipage as the lavers Shewbread Tables and Altar were in Solomons Temple which stood one by the side of the other 2. Chron. c. 4. 5. 6. If the East end of the Church or Quire be the most worthy and fittest for the Tables scituation nowe why was it not so for the Arke the Altar and shewbread Table heretofore why did those never stand in the East end of the Temple but in the West the midst of it or in the Court as the premises Manifest Certainely if the East end of the Temple or Synagogues had no such dignitie no preheminenâ—ie or implements in them heretofoâ—e by divine appointment our Novellers can have little reason to pleade that they ought to have any such precedency honour or use nowe The third reason alleaged for the placinge of Communion Tables Altarwise at the East end of our Quires and Chancells is because they are High Altars So Saelford Reeves and the Coale from the Altar and Bishop Mountague in his least Lent Sermon stile them contrarie to the dialect of our Church after the Popish language This is the true reason why they are placed Altarwise to bringe in Altars Preists bowinge to Altars kneelinge at and before them to adore the Hostia to which wee are already proceeded and in fine to sett upp publique and private Masses yea the whole body of Poperie againe For which these are immediate preparatives of which they are reall parts and adjuncts This and this only is the true undoubted cause all others meere idle pretences to delude the people why our Communion Tables are now turned into Altars in many places lately rayled in Altarwise in most parishes against the East wall of the Quire And that this alone is the true cause in those Prelates Churchmen who originally presse it not only the qualities doctrines and actions of the parties themselves which every mâ—ns Conscience experience visibly discernes unlesse he be strangely hoodwinckt but the things themselves compared with the historie of former tymes declare For if wee looke into the storie of the Church wee shall finde that the first thing that was done upon the beginning of reformation was the pullinge downe of Altars and settinge upp of Communion Tables and the first thinge againe acted upon the restitution of popery was the settinge up of Altars turninge Communion Tables into Altars as now our Prelates doe upon which Masses presently were sayd Thus we reade that in the yeare of our Lord 1528. upon the Reformation of Religion at Berne Constance Geneâ—a Basill Stransburge and other Cittie 's the first thinge they did was this they proclaymed that Masses ALTARS Images in all places shoulde bee abolished and there upon the Images and Altars with Ceremonies and Masses were accordingly removed and abolished in them all About the yeare of our Lord 1556. The Waldoyes in Piemont beinge sommoned pressed to forsake God and revolt againe to Idolatrie which they had begun to cast of agreed togeather to make a solemne protestation that they woulde utterly forsake the false Religion of the Pope and live and die in the maintenance and confession of Gods word and truth Whereupon they sayd lett us all goe to morrowe into the Temple to heare the word of God after let us cast to the ground all the Idolls and ALTARS to which they all agreed sayinge let us soe doe yea and that the very same houre in the which they have appointed us to bee at the Councill house Whereupon the next daye after they assembled themselves in the Church of Body as soone as they came into the Temple without any further delaye they beate downe the Images cast downe the ALTARS After Sermon they went to Billers where they beate downe their Images and ALTARS Our famous Kinge Edward the 6. about the beginninge of Reformation in his Raigne gave order to pull downe Altars and sett upp Communion Tables in most Churches of the Kingdome And to the ende that all of them might bee totallie abolished Bishop Ridley to oppease all diversity about the forme of the Lords board and to procure one Godlie uniformity exhorted all his Diocesse unto that which he thought did best agree with Scripture with the usage of the Apostles with the primitive Church and which might Highly further the Kings most Godly proceedings in abolishing of divers vaine and superstitioâ—s opinions of the Popish Masse out of the hearts of the simple which would be more holden in the minds of the people by the forme of an Altar then of a Table as the King and Councell in their 1. and 3. reasons had resolved and to bring them to the right use taught by Holy Scripture of the Lords Supper Hereupon I say he appointed the forme of a right Table to be used in his Diocesse according to the King Councells instructions and consideration and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standing by the High Altars side And upon this occasion as it most probable he wrote his booke DE CONFRINGENDIS ALTARIBUS of breaking downe Altars registred by Bishop Bâ—le among other his workes though not now extant that I can find Not long before this John Hoper Bishop of Gloster afterwards a Martyr as was that worthy Ridley preaching before King Edward the 6. in his 3. Sermon upon Jonah printed Anno 1551. Cum Privilegio tooke occasion thus to Censure Altars and to move the King utterly to demolish them If question now be asked is there then no Sacrifice left to bee done of Christian people yea truly but none other then such as might be done without Altars and they be of 3. sorts The first is the Sacrifice of thankgiving Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hos. 14. 2. Heb. 13. 15. The second is beneficence and liberality to the poore Mich. 6. 8. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Heb. 13. 16. The 3. kind of Sacrifice is the mortifying of our owne bodies and to die from sinne Rom. 12. 1. Math. 12. Luke 14. If we studie not dayly to offer these Sacrifices to God we be no Christian men seing Christian men have no other Sacrifices then these which may and ought to be done without Altars There should among Christians be no Altars And therfore it was not without the great wisdome and knowledge of God that Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church lacked Altars For they knew that the use of them was taken away It were well then that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables according to the first institution of Christ to take away the false persuation of the people they have of Sacrifices to be done upon Altars For as long as the Altars remaine both the ignorant
Apocryphall He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches in the Authors quoted or in truth misquoted by him for materiall Churches which they meane only of the Christian Congregations who had then no publike Churches but only private places in Woods Chambers Vaults Caves and the like to meet in as Tertullianâ— Bishop Jewell and our owne Homilies witnes But admit this Booke Passage to be Tertullians owne yet then it may be a question whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table or that place wherein the Christians mett Ara signifying a Sanctuarie as well as an Altar If the place wherein the Christians assembled as the words preceeding drift of the place import Sle militer de statlonum diebus non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis Deo obligat Nonne solemnor erit statio sâ—ad Aram Dei steteris to wit after the Sacrament received Accepto corpore Domini reservatio utrumque salarum est participatio Sacrificij executio officij which cannot properly be intended that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood standing still in the place that they received in but that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled till all prayers divine offices were fully ended If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe then it makes nothing to the purpose if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe then it will inevitably follow hence that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing not kneeling and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However it is but a single Testimonie therfore ought not to â—ver-ballance those many pregnant weighty punctuall authorities to the contrary The last authority to prove the name use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius in Oâ—igens time is S. Cyprians Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale but the words not cited The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill to approch to the Altar of God c. whence we behold and beleive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God ne apud Altare consistere that they should not persevere to stand at the Altar or any more to handle it And that they should contend with all their might that such should not returne againe ad Altaris impiamenta contagia fratrum to the polluting of the Altar and contagion of the brethren The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Furnis It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer of any mans will since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices and to prayers and orisons The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple and Altar divine service had no inheritance or temporall portion allotted them among their brethren but others manuring the earth they should only worship God c. Therfore Victor since against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter a Tutor non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose necessarie factum servetur a nobis simul caeteris fratribus detur exemplum ne quid Sacerdotes ministros Dei Altari ejus Ecclesiae vocantes ad saeculares molestias devocet The third is his Epistle to Januarius Porro autem Eucharistia unde baptizati unguntur oleum in Altari sanctificatur sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam qui nec Altare habuit nec Ecclesiam unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse quando constet oleum sanctificari Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse And in his Oration de Coena Domini we find only once mention of the Lords Table twice of an Altar To these authorities I answer first in generall that the often mention of an Altar in these places rather argues the Epistles this Sermon not to be Cyprians then that the Christians in his time had Altars which all the forecited Fathers Authors deny 2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian and many places in him corrupted as D. James M. Alexander Cooke have proved among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini which mentions Altars with other of his workes to be none of his but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian these Epistles for ought I know may be his or some others most at least many of the Epistles or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes being spurious 3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age Dionysiusâ—Alexandrinus as I have proved in his Epistle registred by Eusebius living about S. Cyprians age twice termes it only the Lords Table 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles seemes to stagger at them nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written nor what the parties were to whom or concerning whom they were directed 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body blood the Table in S. Paules words only the Lords Table And in his Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament which all coufes to be his he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament writing that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euangelicall truth and Dominicall tradition nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any thing then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema That Christ only is to be heard therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done but that Christ who is before all men hath first done Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man but the truth of God For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ I find
faithfullist understanding the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched For thus I understand them The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar which Altar betokeneth the Crosse which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherfore good Christian brethren let us that are homely fellowes not be ashamed of the old Termes that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread by the name of the Lords Supper or the Communion partaking of the body bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper lett us both have it and call it the Lords-bord or the Lords-Table and not a borrowed towell nor a Popish stone Altar nor yet a wodden Altar with a Super-altar And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought the Popes glace and his faire Ladyes of Rome Thus he John Bale Bishop of Osyris in his Image of both Churches or parâ—phrase upon the Revelation as he makes Christ himselfe the only Altar spoken of and intended Rev. 6. 9. c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke he reckons up beades Altars Images Organs Lights c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church terming them the very filthy dreggs of darknes All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shal be plucked away by the evident word of God and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appeare For no longer continueth the whore then whoredome is in price Take away the Rites and Ceremonies the Jewels and Ornaments the Images and lightes their Lordships and Fatherhodes the Altars and Masses with the Bishops and Preists and what is their Holy whorish Church any more Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9 reckons up Altars Copes Masses Trentals among other Popish abominations which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony how wickedly soever they had lived And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all as for the eyes their God hanges in a rope Images gilded painted carved most finely copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners with Reliques and Altars for the eares singing ringing and Organs piping for the nose frankincense sweet to wash away sinnes as they say Holy water of their owne holying and making Preists an infinite sort Masses Trentalls driges and pardones c. But where the Gospells preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are content with an Honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all but have only a pulpit a preacher to the People a Deacon for the poore a Table for the Communion with bare walles or els written with Scriptures haveing Gods eternall word sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares and last of all they should have good discipline correct faults and keepe good order in all their meetings Learned M. Thomas Becon in his workes in Folio printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. dedicated by name to both their Archbishops all the Bishops of England by them approved hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars some whereof I shall transcribe at large In his Humble supplication unto God for the restoring of his Holy word written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus Moreover heretofore we were taught to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode a strang Sacrifice for sinne commaunded to be built up as though calfes goates sheep such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron for the sinnes of the people and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table and after the example of Christ to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken and his bloud shead for our sinnes But now the sacrificing â—orcerers shame not both in their private talke and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne and of the Primative Church used at the Ministration of the Holy Communion and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars and upon those they sacrifice offer dayly say they that is they kill slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is there is no remission and forgivenes of sinnes If thorow their Massing sinnes be forgiuen then must the Sacrifice that there is offred be slain and the bloud thereof shead If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Masses a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people so followeth it that they murder kill and slea Christ yea and shed his bloud at their Masses and so by this meanes we must needes confesse that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers then honest and pure Tables But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death dyeth no more Death hath no more power over him For as touching that he died he died concerning sinne once And as touching that he liveth he liveth unto the God his Father If Christ therfore died no more then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more If they sacrifice him no more then are they but jangling juglars and their Masses serve for none other purpose but to keepe the people in blindnesse to deface the passion and death of Christ and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies in all pompe and honor with the labor of other mens hands and with the sweat of poope mens browes so farr is it of that they with their abominable Massing stincking sacrificing put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead as they make the unlearned simple people to beleive Ah Lord God heavenly Father if thou were not a God of long suffring of great patience how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries and so much detestable blasphemyes which the wicked Papists committ against thee thy sonne Christ in their Idolatrous Masses at their Heathenish Altars As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel the Altars of the Lord were cast downe and other Altars were reared and set up to Baal even so now the Tables
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â— E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ— shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ— this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâ—ented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Popâ— Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else Bâ—shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churchesâ— Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their Eastâ—rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates aâ—d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iewâ—sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull â—itting and deâ—ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violeÌ„t Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their
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—
another Woman believe me the time is come whâ—n ye shall worshipp neither at Jerusalem nor in this hill but the true worshippers shall worshipp God in spirit and truth So is it now said the place makes not the man holy but the man makes the place hâ—ly and ye shall not worshippe your Jdols Stockes and Stones neither at Wilsingham Ipswich Canterbury nor Sheve for God chuses not the people for the places sake but the places for the peoples sakeâ— But iâ— ye be in the middest of the feild God is as ready to heare your faithfull prayers as in any Abbey or Burrey yea a thousand times more for the one place he hates as defiled with Idolatry and the other he loves as undefiled and cleane If the good man lye in prison tyed in chames or at the stake burned for Gods cause That place is holy For the holinesse of the man and the presence of the Holy Ghost in him As Tertullian saith yet there should be common places appointed for the people to assemble and come together in to praise our God c. Those who in the Apostles times were buried in no Church or Church-yard nor Christen moldes as they be called when it it is no better then other Earth but rather worse for the conjuring that Bishops use about it It appeares in the Gospel by the Legion living in graves the Widdows Sonne going to buriall Christ buried without the city c. That they buried not in hallowed Churches by Bishops but in a severall place appointed for the same purpose without the city which custome remaineth to this day in many godly places As it then was lawfull and no hurt to the dead so it is now and one place is as holy as another to be buried in saving that comely order requires the bodies not to be castaway because they are the Temples of the Holy Ghost and shall be glorified at the last day againe but seemely to be buried and an honest place to be kept severall from Beasts and unreverent using of the same for the same purpose IT IS POPISH TO BELEEVE that which the Bishops doe teach That place to be more holy then the rest which they have hallowed as they say with their conjured water crossings censings processions c. But blessed be that God our Lord which by the light of his word doth confound all such wicked and fond fantasies which they devise to fill their bellies and maintaine their authority by Although these Ceremonies in the old Law were give by Moses for the hardnesse of the people to keepe them exercised that they fall not to the Idolatry of the Gentiles yet is there no mention of these in the new Testament nor yet commanded now either to us oâ—â— them but forbidden to be used of all both of us and them We be no longer under shaddowes but under the truth Christ hath fulfilled all and taken away all such darke kind of Ceremonies and hath placed the cleare light of his Gospell in the Churchâ— to continue to the end Thus and much more this Bishop who liberally censures all Lordly Non-preaching Dominering Bishops tearming these creatures ravening Wolves Lyâ—ns Beares and such other ravening Beasts for mercilesnes rapâ—ne and cruelty If then these Consecrations be thus contrary to our Sâ—â—tutes Commonâ—prayerâ— boâ—ke Hâ—milies Canons Articleâ— Injunctions Writers and thus derived by this reverent Bishop himselfe in a Booke printed at Lordâ— n◠〈◊〉 An 1562. the same yeare he 39. Articles of Religion were promulged and ratified I would gladly know by what Law or Authority our Bishops or their Delegates now take upon them to consecrate Churches Chappels Church yards and Altars accounting them alltogether prophane unlesse they have defiled conjured I should have said consecrated them with their new devised Ceremonies Orisons Consecration Rites and Ceremonies takenout of Popist Masse-bookes Ceremonials Rituals at large related in Summa Rosella Summa Angelica Bochellous Gratian Ivo Lyderwood Hostrensis with other Canonists in their Tales of Consecration of Churches and Altars and treatises of this subject deserving rather derision then imitation If they have no Law at all for it but only the Popes Canon Law as they have not aboli shed by sundry acts of Parliament is derogatory to the Kings prerogative the subjects liberties and the Lawes and Statuâ—es of the Realme Then why are they now of late so madde upon these consecrations as things of infinite moment How hotte they have beene upon consecration of Altars appeares not only by the new consecrated Altar at Wolverhampton of which before but like wise by the new erected and much adored high Altars in most Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches in Mâ—gaâ—len Colledge 〈◊〉 Oxford in Clare-hall Petorhouse Queenes Collâ—dgâ— with diâ—en other Colledges in the Vniversity of Cambridge solemntly dedicated with some kinde of consecration adorned with Tapors Candlestickes Basons Crucifixes Crosses rich Altar-clothes clasped brave Bookes with Crosses in steed of Bosses Crimson and Scarlet Cuinions rich hangings and dayly adred with superstitious idolatrous geniculations to the great greife of all good Christians who mourne to see these Fountains of learning thus desperately poysened disguised with the Reliques Sorceries and Ornaments of the Romish whose Whom the divinity Professour of Cambridge D. Câ—llins in 〈◊〉 publike Sermons hath of late yeeres much extâ—lled like an Apostazing Pander preaching openly in S. Maries Churchâ— That it is sitt wâ—e should meet the Papists halfeway both in preaching and practise Which he and others there have not oâ—â—â— done but almost if not quite râ—nâ—honâ—â— unto them as as Franciscu de Sancta Clara that moderne Reconciler vaunts it sundry places of his printed Booke To the great incouragement and triumph of all the Roman Faction Who vauâ—â— thatâ— they need no step one foote to us who are running withal speed to come home to them unless Gods present plagues 〈◊〉 judgments for our desperate Apostasie stay our progresse and some stoute private Champions and royall Edicts encounter us in the way to Rome to drive us home againe for never a Prelate will or dares to doe it many of them spurring us 〈◊〉 in this holy pilgrimage to S. Peters Chaire whence D. 〈◊〉 lington tells us they derive their Pedegree with all their migâ—â— and man How earnest and zealous our Prelates have bâ—â—â— in their consecration of Churches Chappels and Church-yards placing great holinesse in this Ceremony yea and necessity too And evident not only by their late visitation Articles wherein they take great care of the holy consecrated graund they have hallowed with their Rochets that it be by no meanes prophaned but likewise by sundrie late consecrations and contests about this Ceremonie I shall instance only in â— particulars omitting all the rest together with the solemne consecration of the foundation stones of the repaire of Paules which were very solemnely blessed by the Bishoppe who hath farre more charity towards sencelesse stones then men whom he can finde
to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion unlesse they will grant that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church or Chancel which they profestedly deny witnesse the Rubricke Institution and Canon Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it but only when there is a Commiâ—â—ion Thirdly because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce that the people may heare the Minister that readâ—th them and the Minister Atanding and turning himselfe as â—he may best be heard of ALL such as be present Therefore this is direct that the Second Servicâ— whereof the Epistle and Gospell are a part must be read in the Reading Pâ—w where the Lessons are when there is no Communion Because there he may best be heard of ALL present and that he must not turne his fuce East but West to the people Fourthly because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches not to read divine Service at but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at This is the sole use for which it serves As the Font is ordained only for Baptismâ— the 〈◊〉 for reading and the Chest or pâ—oremans loâ— in every Church for Almes So it for the L Sâ— as is clear by 1 Coâ—â— 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2â— c. The Common-prayer-booke The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramntâ— of the right use of the Church of the Râ—pairing and keeping cleare of Churches Queen Elizabeths Inâ—unctions Canons sett ouâ— 1511. p 18. and Can 1603. Can 8â— 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus Whereas her Majesty understandeth c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament according to the forme of Law therefore provided Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An 1560. Art 2. thus Whether have you in your Churches c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus Church-wardens shall see there be a faire repaired Table which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion and a câ—eane Cloth to cover it A convenient Pulpit whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught c. The 28. Can 1603. thus Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the Realme of England therefore in Cathedrals too which had then no Altars convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed to what end to read Service at No But for the celebration of the holy Communion c. And likewâ—se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN With a comly decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies yea by the resolution of all our Preâ—utes â—isitation Articles is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it And the 28 Canon with the Rubricke before Tâ— Deum expresly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose It is cleare that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table but only when there is a Communion That the reading of Service at it on other times is a meere abuse and perversion of that end for which it was instituted And Bishoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service at the Font in the Pulpit or at the Poore mans box as at it Fifthly Because the Queenes Injunctions the 82 Canon and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said Minister Which words compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum are a direct resolution that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table but when there is a Communion Which being most cleare No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar when there is no Communion neither can they suspend any for not doing it And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus both the Bishop and they as D. Wreâ— Bâ—shop of Norwich with many of his Clergie have done incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited fined and imprisoned for it by this Law It being a saying of divinâ— sâ—rvice in another manner and forme and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons condemnes this Innovation which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity but only in Popish Churches of late yeares All that can be alledged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars and bowing to them The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches being most Popish corrupt and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes Images Tapors Altars Altar-adorations Vestments Chaunting lascivious Musicke Gesticulations with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer The Common Prayer-Booke 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late being fitter our detestation then Imitation To which I answer 1. That we must live by precepts not Examples Our Cathedrals in this and sundrie other particulars are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise therefore to be detested corrected and reformed by our Lawes and made like to other Churches Not our Laws Canons and Churches to be squared by them the worst of any 2. The Rubricke of the Common prayer-Prayer-Booke in the end of the Communion prescribes in direct termes That in Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches where be many Pâ—eists and Deacons they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST except they have a reasonable cause to thâ— contrary By which it is cleare that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedrall Collegiate Church and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary And who can this Minister be but the Bishop Ergo Bishops are but Ministers and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas and no dancing attendance on the Court. The
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
reasons produced to appropriate this bowing to or towards the Altar and Table to justify the lavvfulnes thereof are only drawen from the Altar it selfe The reasons therefore of its use and lawfulnes being drawen only from the Altar and Table This bowing without question must have relation to them as its Object Termination Fiftly the situation of the Tables Altar-wise and eleuating and raysing the ground in some places higher then before the gracing of it with Crucifixes Altar-clothes Arras hangings Candlestickes Basons Cushions and other Massing furniture the better to induce men to adore and bow unto it is a stroâ—g argument in my judgement that they bow directly to it making it the immediate object of their bowing and worship not God whose presence they now confine to the Altar and never adore in this maner but in by through on or towards the Altar or Table Sixtly the bowing to it when there is no Sacrament at all on it nor cause to deeme God specially present at or on it See Bishop Mort on p. 463. is an invincible argument that they doe iâ— to the Table or Altar and not simplie towards it And to put this out of further doubt 1. First I have heard many of them confesse that they doe bow vnto the Altar 2. Secondly J have heard them exhort and perswade others to bow to it 3. Thirdly I have heard them preach for bowing not towards but To the Altar and Table And fevv Sermons have there been of late times either at Court Paules Crosse or our Universitie Churches vvherein there have not been some Passage either to justify presse excuse or persuade the bovving To Altars Lords-Tables If any man thinke this a slaunder vvhich thousands can vvitnesse then heare in the last place Bookes printed by Authority confessing it in direct tearmes Giles Widdowes in his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan p. 89. printed at Oxford by License An 1632. And that Popeling Thomas Browne in his Sermon at S. Maries Oxford 1634. plead not only for Altars and bowing towards them but for bovving AT TO them So that by the judgement of Oxford-Scriblers and Licensers This bowing is to the Table Altar Mr. Robert Shelford in his 5. Treatises printed by License 〈◊〉 Cambridge to his eternall infamie p. 17. 18. 19. 20. though in words he minseth the matter That he would not have them give divine worship to gods Table but to worship God towards it Yet he confesseth that the Altar is motivum cultus and bids vs direct our aspect TO it and bow our bodies towards it And makes it at least a partiall object of this genuflection Edward Reeve in his Exposition on the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Booke is downe-right for removing Tables Altarwise and bowing TO them If these crack-braind writers have not weight enough Then heare one since them all in stead of all Dr. Iohn Pocklington a greet learned Dr. of Divinity late President of a Colledge in Cambridge Chaplaine to a great Bishop and that in a Visitation-Sermon the most prophane and scurrilous ever yet printed if not preached entitled Sunday no Sabbath Licensed by that Apostate William Bray Chaplaine to the now Archbishop of Canterbury a great zelot and Precisian heretofore an earnest preacher against Altars and prophane Sabbath-breakers whiles a Lecturer March 15. 1635 and twice printed in the yeare of our Lord 1636. who as in his first Edition p. 48. seemes to inferre That the Sacrament can not be consecrated without an Altar So p. 50. he concludes his Sermon thus And if we doe not only bend or bow our body TO his blessed Boorde or HOLY ALTAR so he oft times cals it but fall flat on our faces so soone as ever we approch in sight thereof what Patriarch Apostle blessed Martyr holy or learned Father would condemne us for it or rather would not be delighted to see their 〈◊〉 so honoured and their devotion so reverently imitated and so good care taken to have it continued in the Lords house on the Lords-day by the Lords Saints unto the Lords comming againe This bowing therefore being not only towards but TO the Table which is made at least the partiall Termination Object of it if not the totall or principall how it differs from the Pagans or Papists relative worship of Idols Images Pictures Altars or how it can be excused from impiety and most grosse Jdolatrie as bad as that of the â—aplanders who worship a red cloute upon a sticke to use the comparison of the Iâ—suite Coster I cannot possiblâ—e discerne And that it is the same in all respects with the Papists derâ—ved from them set up to reduce us backe to Rome and harden Papists in their Jdolatrie give me leave to relate a late story to you On Munday Thursday last some Citizens of LondoÌ„ of good quality went with other of their friends to VVhitehall to see the Ceremonies of the Munday and washing of the poore mens feet VVhich when they had beheld some of the company desired to see his Majesties Chapple at VVhite-hall They did so And in the Chapple found one of the Queens women of their acquaintance at her prayers before the Crucifix VVho seeing them dravving â—eer her left off her devotions and came saluted them Wâ—â—â—s they were vewing the Chapple and talking together in comes a Gentleman a Papist and makes a low Congie to the ground almost and after that a second the one to the Mâ—arâ— the other to the Crucifix and so departs Whereupon one of the Company spake thus to the Popish Gentlewoman 〈◊〉 Lord will you never see and give over your most grosse Idolatrie of worshipping Images stockes and stones With other words to like purpose The Popish Gentle-woman defended this practise the beâ—â— shee could and whiles they were discoursing about it in one side of the Chapple in came Dr. Browne of S. Faithes then newly made Deaâ—e of Hereford and as soone as ever he entred in at the Chapple doore he bowed 3. seuerall times together downe to the ground to the High Altar on which he fiâ—â—d his eyes After which coming up into the midst of the Chapple he fixeth his eyes upon the Crucifix and boweth downe to the ground to it Which they all beholding wondring at Law you now quoth the Popish Gentle-woman to the Citizen who discoursed with her this is done of your owne men a great Dr. and one of his Majesties owne Chaplaines See you how he bowed to the Altar and Crucifix farre lower and oftner then the Popish Gentleman did And caÌ„ you blame that in us which your owne Doctours doe I tell you you must and will all come to this ere long In truth replied the Citizen you have Noâ—plussed me J can not tell what to say I never thought to have seene Dr. Browne doe such an Act as this By this time the Dr. was come hard by them and most of them being his familiar acquaintance one of them steps to him
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ— pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ— he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ— Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ— of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ— Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ— prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ— Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origâ—n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ— non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis â—ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ— nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veriâ—as ambraÌ„ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâ—d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌ„g maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam
to commaund a particular person who may owe himselfe to a Church-Governour as Philemon did to Paul Another thing to commaund yea to give a standing commaund and binding Law to a whole Church to whom he professeth himselfe a Servant or Minister as 2. Cor. 4. 5. over whom he hath no authority but Stewardly or Economically to witt when he speakes in his Lords or Masters name not in his owne As the Steward in a family hath not power over his Masters Spouse but when he speakes or shewes his Masters commaund or directions not his owne But of such things as are only Indifferent Decent I doe not find in Scripture that ever Church-Governours did lawfully advise perswade them Much lesse charge and commaund them And that this place in hand 1. Cor. 14. 40. doth not give them any such power though it be much urged to this end may appeare from these reasons First the place speaketh not of Indifferent Decent things but of Necessary-Decent things the neglect whereof was undecent and disorderly by the light of Nature Scripture and Custome As for Men to weare long-haire women to be bare-headed and for women to speake in the Congregation as also for men to speake many of them at once Secondly the words of this place run not thus Let all decent things be done Or let all things judged or declared by the Church-Governours to be decent be done but thus Let all things to witt all Ecclesiasticall matters As all the Ordinances of God that are done in the Church all the duties of Gods worship Whether Praying Prophesying Psalmes or Sacraments or the like be done decently orderly in orderly and decent maÌ„ner But whether in that decent maner which Church-Governours doe appoint or in some other that the Apostle limitteth not but only requireth that all be done dâ—cently which if it be done his rule here prescribed is observed and followed 3. Thirdly the same may appeare out of this place by this argument If this place of the Apostle did give power and authority to Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things then he that should transgresse the commaundement of the Church therein should also transgresse the commaundement of the Apostle As looke what Order or Acts of Iustice any civill Governour doth by vertue of the Commission of the King He that violateth such Acts or trangresseth such Orders transgresseth also against the Commaundement and Commission of the King But it appeareth to be otherwise in this case See D. Barnes That mens Constitutions binde not the Conscience p. 297. to 300. as for instance If the Church-Governour coÌ„mand a Minister to preach alwayes in a Gowne it being indifferent decent so to doe he that shall now and then preach in a cloake transgresseth the commaund of the Church But not of the Apostle For he that preacheth in a cloake preacheth also decently or else whereto serveth Tertullians whole Booke de Pallio Now if so be it be done decently then it is all that the rule of the Apostle requireth in this point But because this point is of great consequence both for Church-Governours and others to be truely informed in give me leave to cleare the same from some other arguments To witt that it is not in the power of Church-Governours to commaund indifferent decent things in the worship of God by Order of Law Prelates and Cleargy-men may be right well assured that God never gave unto them authority to make and establish so many Ceremonies and Traditions which be contrary to the liberty of the Gosple and are blockes in Christen mens wayes that they can neither know nor observe the same his Gosple in liberty of conscience nor so attaine a ready way to Heaven Iohn Paruâ—y his Articles Fox Acts Monuments p. 50â— First then that which exceedes the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty that is not in the power of any Church-Governour to commaund But to commaund indifferent decent things by order of Law exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority and straightneth the bounds of Christian Liberty Ergo c. The former of these to witt that to commaund indifferent decent things exceedeth the bounds of Apostolicall authority appeareth from the Commission graunted to the Apostles which was the largest Commission that ever Christ gave to any Church-Governours Math. 28. 20. Where our Saviour giveth them Commission to teach all Nations to observe all things whatsoever Christ had commaunded them Now all things whatsoever he hath commaunded them are Necessary not indifferent for the people to observe If therefore the Apostles over above the Commaundements of Christ which are necessary should teach the people to observe indifferent things also which Christ hath not commaunded they shall exceed the bounds of their Commission 1. Cor. 14. 37. 1. Cor. 7. 6. 10. OBJECTION It will be in vaine to object that our Saviour here speaketh only of matters of Doctrine and Faith not of Government and Order unlesse it could be proved that our Saviour else-where did enlarge this Commission and gave them more illimited power in matters of Government and Order or Indifferency Which for ought I can sâ—e no man goes about to doe unlesse it be from this place of the Cori which hath been already cleared as I hope from any such meaning As for the second or latter part of the Assumption that to commaund IndiffereÌ„t Decent things straightneth the bound of Christian Liberty is of itselfe evident For whereas for Example a single man or woman are at Liberty to marry where they will 1. Cor. 7. 39. If the Apostle had bound them from marriage by any commaund of his though they had received that Guift of Continencie yet he had then straightned and deprived them of their Liberty in that particular 1. Tim. 4. 3. 4. Col. 2. 20. 21. OBJECTION It is wont to be excepted against them that Christian Liberty stands not in the freedome of outward Actions but in the freedome of Conscience As long therefore as there is no Doctrinall necessity put upon the Conscience to limit the lawfulnes of the use of outward things Christian Liberty is preserved though the use and practise of outward things be limitted ANSWER Whereto I answer The Apostle in this case leaveth the people of God at Liberty not only in point of Conscience for lawfulnes to marry But even in outward Actions and practise Let him doe saith he what he will he sinneth not let him be marryed Vers. 36. As who should say the Conscience being free from sinne in it J will put no tye on the outward practise to restraine it 2. Argument The second Reason may be this They who are not to judge or censure another in differences about circumstantiall things or matters of Indifferency they surely make a binding Law that all men shal be of one mind or of one practise in such things But the former is true from the rule
receive it in the accustomed place and maner and commaunding the Church-Warden to present them to D. Aylot the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury his Surrogate for that Towne during his Metropoliticall Visitation for not receiving when as they should have presented him for not giving them the Communion when as they there profered to receive it after their auncient maner One Mr. Burroes of that Parish being thrice put by the Sacrament for not comming up to this new rayle and yet presented for not receiving thereupon prefers a Bill of Inditement upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. against Nuâ—oman for this Innovation at Colchesters Sessions Which Inditement being ill drawen and most of the grand Iury Nucomans friends an Ignoramus was retained thereon and Dulman the Clerke that drew it might have well been added thereto This Inditement only exhibited so troubled Nucoman and Dr. Aylot that the next Court-day Mr. Burroes is excommunicated for not appearing in Court though he made his personall apparance and there continued till the Court was risen as he could prove by 20 witnesses and the Dr and Register both confessed as much such strange justice and vexatious oppression now raignes in these spitefull I should say spirituall Courts The next Lords day Nucoman publisheth the Excommunication in the Church and then sends the Church-wardens to Mr. Burroes there present to commaund him to depart the Church VVho comming to him accordingly He told them that the Excommunication certainly was forged by Nucoman his enemie that there was none granted against him in the Court for he was present all the while And how ever it came not out in the Kings name under the Kings Seale and by an authority derived immediately from the King by speciall Letters Patents as it ought by Law to doe and the expresse provision of the Statutes of 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. and therefore it was voyde in Law neither would nor could he in poynt of loyally to his Majesty obey it being not made by his authority Whereupon the Church-wardens left him Nucoman hereupon bids them carry him out of the Church The Church-wardens refuse to doe it Then he chargeth the Constables to doe it Who câ—â—ming to Mr. Burroâ—s he told them that he was not excommunicated that they had nothing to doe in the Church neither was it any part of their office but the Church-wardens to remove him and therefore bid them to doe no more then they could justify by Law else they should smart for it Upon this they left him Nucoman hereupon puts off his Surplesse closeth his Booke and gâ—eth out of the Church the people follow him by degrees Mr. Burroes sits still till about 11. of the clocke when the Clerke came to shut the dores The next day there was a great stirre about this busines Nucoman would have this a disturbance against the Statute of 1. Mariâ—e c. 3. Mr. Burroes said that he was the disturber and the Dr for publishing and granting such an illegate excommunication and giving over divine service without cause and that he was not to goe out by Law if the excommunication had been legall but ought to have been carried out by the Church-wardens and so was no disturber Much adoe there was about it Mr. Burroes to cleare the busines goes to the Register and Dr. to know whether he was excommunicated or no and for what cause At first they denyed he was excommunicated neither would they believe that Nucoman had published any excommunication against him Which when he made appeare they then told him he was excommunicated indeed by the Court He demaunded for what cause They answered for not appearing He replied he was present all the while in Court and that they both knew to be true And is this said he your justice to excommunicate men for not appeapearing when they are all the while in Court To which Dr. Aylot answered â— Sir you are an audatious fellow indeed you will indite your Minister for Innovations we will take you downe in time and teach you how to indite Ministers I will excommunicate you â— all the Parishes round about and throughout England and see who dares absolue you for Inhibition I am sure you can have none VVill you so Mr. Dr. said he I thought your power had not been so large as to reach over all England nor your presumption and insolency so great as to excommunicate his Majesties subjects thus against Law for inditing these that breake both his Majesties Lawes and Declarations If you abuse me thus as you say you will I will not only goe to Church notwithstanding your excommunication but likewise bring you into the Star-chamber for abusing me in this maner Well the Dr. proceeds excommunicates him upon no grounds in other Parish-Churches threatens him with the High Commission only for inditing Nucoman for abusing him as before and bringing in Innovations And doth not such a rejected wilfull oppressing unjust Ecclesiasticall Iudge deserve to be trussed up for such proceedings Were Bishop Latymer now alive and should heare such a story of an Ecclesiasticall Iudge and most of them are of the same Litter he would not sticke to say before the King himselfe J would wish that of such a Iudge in England now we might have the skin hanged up It were a goodly signe the signe of the Iudges skinne And certainly till the skins of some of these Spirituall Devill-Iudges be fleyde off and their neckes graced with a Tiburne-tippet for their extortions and strange oppressions of his Majesties people in a way of justice the people shall never live in quiet but the Wolves will bite and devour them Mr. Burroes notwithstanding all this malice proceeds in his resolution as well as the Dr. on the 2. of October last being the Lords-day he goes to his owne Parish-Church without any absolution whereupon Nucoman gives over service and departs and all the people after him Then he goes to another Church where he was excommunicated And after that to a third they all doe the like and leave the Church On Monday the 3. of October being the Sessions-day for the Towne he prefers a new Inditement against Nucoman for his Innovations the Mayor and Recorder persuade him to desist he refuseth to doe it Then they wish him to put it off till next Sessions because it was a new case He answered the case was plaine and that he must by the Statute indite him this Sessions or not at all Then they fall to perswade the Iury not to finde the Inditement The Iury being stout honest men notwithstanding finde it Billa vera this Innovation of Nucoman being a notorious affront both against the Statute and his Majesties late Declarations They desire them to change their verdict The honest men refuse to doe it Thereupon the Sessions is presently adiourned for 10. dayes Nuoman posts to the Arch-bishop of Canterbury to acuaint him with these proceedings and to crave his direction what
of the Apo. part 2. c. 1 divis 3. p. 315. reply to Hardin art 3. div 26. p. 145. * Notes on Exo. c. 20. 27. p. â—79 307. * Homely against the perill of Idâ—lat par 3. p. 50. 51 52. 75. Queene Elizabets Injunct n. 23. art of Ireland 52. t Synopsis Papismâ— the 9. gen Contr. qu. 6. Error 52 53. * In M. Chancies M. Wards case others l I Schismaticall Puritan p. â—… m Sermon of Gods house n Exposition of the Catech. in the CoÌ„mon prayer booke neere the end Coale from the Altar p. 52. o Godwyn ibid. l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. * Godwyn ibidein a Artic. 28 b Fox Acts monuments the later part c Godwyns Iewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. g Treatise of the Church or Godâ— house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. 19. h Exposition of the Catech. in the Communion booke toward the end i Page 6. 14. 15. 18. 32. 38. to 58. k Fox Acts Monu p 795. l Fox ibid. p. 879. * Note this * Note o Fox Acts monum p. 1211. 1212. p Fox Acts Monu p. 1404. 1406. q Fox ibid. p. 888. r This the Common prayer Bokes themselves evidence and the Coale from the Altar confesseth p. 37. to 42. s 3. and 4. E 6. c. 1. t See Antiasminianisme p. 58. 59. 64 u B. White in the CeÌ„sure of D. Vastnicke other of the Bâ—s all that time Normington and others in their late Serm. M. Shelford in his 5. Treatises with many others x Fox Acts Monu p. 121. y Edit ult part 2. p. 18 44. z Pag. 1â—1 a Canons 1603. Can. 36. 37. 38. b See the Booke of Ordinat c B. Wrens late visit Articles d Bishop Montague in his Sermon before the King the last Lent e Shelford Reve B. White D. Pocklington the Coale from the Altar with others f Acts Monum p. 1282. g Ibidem p. 1333. h 1. Mariae c. 3. Sess. 2. i Fox ibid. p. 1344. 1345. k Fox ibid. p. 1404. 1406. l Fox ibid. p. 1512. 1515. m Fox ibid p. 1601. 1604. * Note See Fox p. 1211. n Page 20. 21. o Lame Giles his haultings q Lame Giles p. 37 r Fox ibid. p. 1610. s Fox Acto Monu p. 1652. 1653. t Fox ibid. p. 1703. u Fox ibid. p. 1781. x Fox ibid p. 1786. * Neere the end y Artic. 2. z Page 20. 21. a Se Haddon Câ—nt 〈…〉 l. 3. s. 271. b Annot. 〈◊〉 1. Cor. 11. se. 18. 〈◊〉 Heb. â—0 sect 6. c M. Novel his Reprouse of Dormans proose â— 15. 16. 17 d in his Preface before his Replie to B. lewell e Reynolds Cons. with 〈◊〉 8. divis 4. f Answer to Hardings Preface Replie to Harding Art 3. div 26. g Contr. Osorum l. 3. f. 271. h Reproofe of Dormans Proofe f. 15. 16. 17. 66. i His Catech. vol. 1. f. 484. k Answer to the Rhemish Test on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. on Hebr. 13. sect 6. Apoâ— 6 sect 2. l Synopsis Papismi Contr. gener 9. Error 53 54. 55. m Confer with Hart eÌ„h. 8. sect 4. m Shelford of Gods house p. 2. 4. 15. 17. The Coale from the Altar Sunday no Sabb. p 15 27 28 29 43 48. 50 a Orig. l. 15. 4. b â—n their Diâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Summa Angelica 〈◊〉 Altare Consâ—o Alt. Rhem. Notes on 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. d Summa Ang. Tit. Altare Cons. Alt. D. Rainold 〈◊〉 with Hart c. 8. diois 4. 5. M. Nowels Reproofe of Dormans Proofe f. 66. e Fox Acts monumâ— p. 1211. f Godwin Moses and Aaron l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 1. f Hom. 17. Sup. Iesum Nave toâ— 1 s. 158 f. 6. g In L am Ier. l. 2. zain Btbl. PatruÌ„ tom 9. part 1. p. 167. c. h Enarrat in Ps. 118. Oct 3. Tom. 2. p. 422 c. i In 7 Psal. Poenitent â— 235 c k Exposit. â—n Exod. c. 20. to 4. Col. 112. 113. l Comment in Apoc. c. 47. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 4. p. 526. m In Festo Omnium Sanctorum Serm. 4. Col. 292 c. n Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4â— 5. Hos. 14 2. Heb. 13. 15. o Nazianz. Orat. in laudem Basily 21 Oratio p De verbis Domini secundum Joan. Serm. 46. Tom. 10. p. 225. q Theodoret Dial. Atreptus c. 11. r Hom. 18. in 2. Cor. De Pomitentia Hom. 7. Tom. 5. Col. 746. B. Hom. 45. in Ioan. Hom. in Psal. 22 216. Hom. 1. deverbus Isaiae vidi Dom. s Com. in Natuum c. 1. Tom. 5. p. 137. t Theophylacâ—t Evar. in 1. Cor. 11. u Oecumenius in 1. Cor. c. 11. x Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 7. c. 8. Eusebius Caesariensis apud Damascenum Paralel l. 3. c. 47. Petrus Blesensis Hom. 20. in Litania Maâ—ai Niceph. Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 41. Euthymius in Psal. 22. Concil Nicenum can â—lt apud Servum Tom. 1. p. 347. Gratianus de consecrat distinct 2. p B. Iewel Replie to Harding Art 30 divis 26. p. 145. D. Reynold conâ—â—rence with Hart p 476. 477 478 M. Nowell his Reprofe of Dormans proufe p. 15. 16. 17. D. Fulke and M. Cartwright Conâ—ut of the Rhemish Testament on Heb. 13. sect 16. 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. * Quod nullum Altarenovit cum sit ex Tribu Iuda in quo nemo assistit Altari c. Ibidem a Third Serm. upon Ionah b Fox Acts 〈◊〉 p. 1211. * See the Rhemish Notes M Cartwright on this Text. d Gratian. de Consec Distinct. â— Summa Angelica Tit. de Consecrat Altaris e Serm. 3. on Jenah f 1. Elz. c. 12. g Art 35. h Can. 36. 37. i Contra Cels. l. 4. 8. k Contra Demetriadem l Advers Geutes l. 6 m Acts 5. n Defence of the Apologie Artic. 3. 26. Divis. p. 145. o Contra Celsum l. 4 p Arnobius l. 6. a Contra Ceâ—s l. 8. Tom. 4. f. 101 Cels. Aras simulachra delubro nos aut diffugere QVO MINVS FVNDENTVR c. b Contra Cels. l. 7. f. 96. 97. l. 4. f. 46. 47. e Instit. l. 6 De verâ— Cultu c. 24. e Instit. l. 2 c. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7 11. 17. 18. 19. d Se Thoâ—â— Becons Reliques of Rome fol. 322. a. e Page 45â— 46. 47. Object Answer f Cookes Censura p. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. g Censura p. 59. 60. 61. g So he stiles it also l. 5. p. 540. 541. h Se Aug. de Sanctis Serm. 11. B. Iewells Replie to Harding Artic. 20. divis 3. p. 440 441. Art 1. divis 9. p. 18. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. accordingly who use this very expression that the Altar is in heaven Christ the Altar i Reliq of Rome of Church Goods vol. 3. f. 322. k Censurae Pat 〈◊〉 p. 80. l See Greg. Nys Orat. 3. de resur all the Fathers on that Text.
Communion Tables were of a different forme from the Altars then in Churches being both longer broder then Altars wich were all most perfectly square but Tables all most as long againe as brode They could not therfore be situated in the same individuall precise place as the Altars stood being thus different in proportion forme from them This is the Coales owne argument even against it selfe 2. Because the Coale itselfe confesseth that Altars were incorporated fixed unto this wall that Tables were not to be so therfore they were not to be placed punctually in that place in such sort ar the Altars stood were placed by his owne confession 3. Because the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke prescribes that the Minister at the time of administring consecrating the Sacrament shal stand at the North side of the Table not at the North end which clearly determines that the Table ought to be situated Table-wise with the sides or Longest squares of it North and South not Altar wise with the ends of it North South and the sides of it East and West against the Wall as some popish Altars stood And therfore the Jnjunction never intended that it should be set in the very precise place where the Altar was in the selfe same manner as it was situated for the Table being but a long square not a perfect Quadratum hath but two sides two ends the narrowest square of it being ever in our Engish Tongue termed an end not a Side the longest square only a SIDE And though Geometricians vsually terme every square* Latus in Latine which we translate a side wich yet more properly signifieth the breadth then the length of a thing and so rather the end then the side yet we in our English phrase ever call the long square only the side and the Narrew the end The Rubrike therfore beeing first compiled in English for English men according to the usuall meaning of the English phrase not to shew any termes of Art or skill but to direct instruct both Ministers people in the most plaine familiar way the word North-side must needs ' be interpreted of the long-side of the Table standing Northward which we ever phrase the side not of the narrowersquare set Northward which we ever heretofore and still phrase the North-end Wherfore the shife used by the Coalier That the North-end and the North-side come both to one there being no difference in this case between them he that stands and ministreth at the North-end of the Altar standing no question at the North-side there of as inpropertie of speech we ought to call it cujus contrarium verum est since we neither use nor ought so to call it in our English dialect is but a mere ridiculous evasion a miserable shift Neither wil his Objection that the Communion prayer Booke done into Latine by command authorised by the great Seale of Queene Elizabeth in the 2. yeare of her raigne translates it Ad cujus mensae Septentrionalem pa tem c. avayle him Since SEPTENTRIONALIS PARS though it may signifie the Northerne end of the Table as well as the North-side in case the end of it were so situated yet here signifies only the North-side not end of the Table the North-side being the Norh-part of the Table as well as the end the originall English which it Translates the North-side not end and the Tables at the time of this Translation standing with the Long-side not the end of it towarâ— the North. 4. Because the Queenes visitors and the whole Kingdomne thus interpreted it even in point of practise by placing all the Communion Tables in all Churches at that very time by vertue of this Jâ—junction and the Rubrike not Altarwise with the two ends North and South and the sides East West along by the wall but Table-wise with the two long sides North and South and the ends East and VVest a good distance from the wall as they have stood from 1. Elizabeth till now of late without any Alteration as experience and all aged men who well remember how the visitors placed them with our fore cited writers prove past all contradiction Neyther were they thus placed by casualty but of set purpose to difference them from Popish Massing Altars even in point of situation to teach the people that thy were Tables to eate and drinke at not Side-Tables or dressers as the Epistoler observes If then the Queens owne visitors and all those throughout the Kingdome whether Ministers or Church wardens who had a hand inplacing the Communion Tables vpon the removing of Altars did thus interpret the Injunction not of the precise place where the Altar stood or manner of its standing with the one side against the East-wall of the Quiere under the East-window but only of that part of the Church where the Altar stood and there upon situated the Tables throughout all England and Wales not Altar-wise but Table-wise only as is before expressed an experimentall truth past all contradistion then certainely there can be nothing in this Injuncttion prescribing them to be now new placed Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Chancel in that precise forme place and manner as the Altars stood as our Novellers now froms hence most fondly contend 3 Finally admitt these words might â—simplie consider ed be taken in that strict senc as some now would haue them yet the following words and shal be appointed by the Commissioners not the Bishops or Ordinaries who are expresly excluded though the Coale would make the prime men which relate as well to the placing as to the covering of the Table leaves the manner and precise place of Situs to the Commissioners appointement since the very places wherein the Altars formerly stood were not so sitting to sett the Table in in many Churches as some other place in the same part of the Church or Chauncel All which considered this Injunction gives no warrant at all for the late removing of our Tables railing them in Altarwise for wich the Coale is so hote fiery Now where as the Coale would willinglie make the world beleive that this Injunction saith that the removing of Altars was a thing of no great moment so that for ought it appeares unto the Contrary neither the Article nor Homily nor the Queenes Injunctions nor the Canons 1571. haue determined any thing but that as the Lords-Supper may be called Sacrifice so may the Holy Table becalled our Altar and set up in the place where the Altar stood 2. I answer That these words in the Injunction There semeth noe matter of great moment referrs not to Altars as if the removing or standing of them were a matter of no great moment for then the Parleament King and Councel in King Edwards dayes would not have so carefully removed them out of Churches expuoged their very name out of