not a posture peculiar to the action of doxologie and glorifying God as is evident by our Church which sometimes as in our Communion Service requireth it from our knees fol. 19. An objection easie to be answered The Observator no where saith that standing is a posture peculiar to the Gloria Patri as not to be communicated to any other part of Divine worship it being practised at the Gospels and required at the Creed and so the first part of this Objection falls without more ado And 2. though the Communion Book require kneeling in the people when Gloria in excelsâ—s is said or sung by the Priest yet is not this required unto it as it is a doxologie a giving of glory unto God but as it is an invocation on Christ our Saviour to have mercy on us and to receive those prayers which are offered to him And kneeling doubtless is the most proper posture in the act of prayers required therefore in all such as receive the Sacrament because it is given them with a prayer by the Priest or Minister That many things may be retained in a Church reformed ex vi Catholicae consuetudinis especially where there is no Rule to the contrary The Pamphleter alloweth well enough with a Bene Bene but sayes withal that it is litle to the purpose there being in the Act of Uniformity a Vae or Woe to him who shall willingly use any other Rite or Ceremony c. then is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer fol. 19. I thought our Author had been such an enemy to all etcaeteras because of the mysterious import as you know who said which they carry with them especially in a Law or Canon that no such shamâ—full thing for he calls it somewhere a shamefull c. if my memory fail not should have been found in all his writings but I see he can make use of them when there is occasion and that too in the citing of a Law or Statute which as he saith doth binde all men to a strict conformity to the very letter of it I finde by this that our Author is better at the Bar then upon the Bench not so much studied in the Querks and Quorums of a Commission as in the ferreting and fingring of a Statute-law in which no Barrester of them all no not the Utter Barrester of Lincolns Inne is to be named the same day with him For what an Argument had here been for Mr. Prinne if he could have seen so far into this mill-stone of the Law as our Author can against bowing at the name of Jesus no where appointed in the Rubricks of the publique Liturgie but first retained ex vi Catholicaâ— consuetudinis required afterwards by the Queens injunctions and finally by the Canons of 603. Neither of which could stand before the face of an Act of Parliament if produced against them What a brave Argument could our Author have hinted and held forth to Harry Burton never the Princes Tutor Sir you are out in that though honoured by you with that title in the sheetes unpublished against standing up at the Holy Gospels had he been consulted in the case as he should have been Against how many men might he have brought his Action in the times of conformity for standing up at the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds at the Te Deum Benedictus and the other Hymnes all Trespasses against this Statute which binds all men as we are told by this man of Law to a strict conformity to the very letter of it But the best is there is no such thing in all that Statute as our Author speaks of no Vae or Woe to him who shall willingly use any other rite or Ceremony c. then what is set forth in the Book of Common Prayer The Statute speaks of Parsons Vicars or other whatsoever ministers that ought or should sing or say the Common Prayer or minister the Sacraments enjoyning such under the Penalties therein mentioned not to use any other Rite Ceremony Order Form or Manner of celebrating the Lords Supper openly or privily or mattens Evensong Administration of the Sacraments or other open Prayer then is mentioned and set forth in the said Book Nothing in this to restrain men from using any one or none single Rites or Ceremonies which had been formerly in use and against which there is nothing directed or commanded in the publique Rubricks no such matter verily but a Command that no man in the Quality of a man in Orders shall use any other Rite Ceremony Order Form or manner of celebrating the Lords Supper or officiating the morning and evening Prayer It is then the whole Form and Order of celebrating Divine offices which is here required and not the restraint from using any one single Rite or Ceremony other then such as are contained in that Book For were it otherwise to expound or understand none but such men as were enabled to officiate the publique Liturgie had been restrained from using any such Rites or Ceremonies as were here cut off with an c. the people being left at liberty to use such Rites and Ceremonies c. as they had a minde to without any Vae or woe at all or any Penalty whatsoever in that Statute mentioned unless it may be granted as I think it will not that every person so offending is or may be possessed of some spiriturall Benefices and Promotions of which to forfeit one whole years Profits for the first offence Nor doth the Statute speak of such who shall willingly use any other Rite or Ceremony c. our man of Law is out in that too as in all things else but of such only as shall willfully and obstinately stand in the same And I conceive our Author is so good a â—ritick in a plain piece of English as to understand the difference between the doing of a thing willingly and standing obstinately and wilfully to it after it is done Had any of these things been found in the Observator he had been told of forging and falsifying the Record and I know not what But in our Author it is only one of those Piae fraudes which necessarily conduce to the advancing of the Holy cause and so let it goe I might expect a fee of my Author for this point of Law whom otherwise I finde like enough to have entangled himself in the danger of that Statute pleading so strongly as he doth for standâ—ng not only at the Gospels but also at the Epistles and second Lessons though neither the Rubricks of the Liturgy nor any Canon of the Church do require it of us His following maxime that standing is the most proper posture of Attention I like wondrous well and I like better that he saith it becometh him not to have his Hat on when his Lord and Master speakes to him fol. 19. But for all I would have him take a speciall care lest whilst he thus zealously pursueth Order he out-run authority as we
already sufficiently ratified by the dcerâ—e of the former Synod With this all parties seem contented and the Canon passed So easily may the weak Brethren be out-witted by more able heads To make this matter plainer to their severall capacities I will look upon the two Subscribers as upon Divines and on the Pamphleter our Author as a Man of law Of the Subscribers I would ask whether Saint Paul were out in the Rules of Logick when he proved the Abrogating of the old Covenant by the superinducing of the new Dicendo autem novum veteravit prius c. that is to say as our English reads it in that he saith a new Covenant he hath made the first old Heb. 8. 13. and then it followeth that that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away that is to say the old being disanulled by the new there must necessarily follow the Abolishment of its use and practice Nor find they any other Abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath than by the super-inducing of the Lords day for the day of Worship By means whereof the Sabbath was lesned in authority and reputation by little and little in short time was absolutely laid aside in the Church of Christ the 4th CoÌ„mandement by which it was at first ordained being stil in force So then according to these grounds the Articles of Ireland were virtually though not formally Abbrogatad by the super-inducing of the Articles of the Church of England which is as much as need be said for the satisfaction of the two Subscribers taking them in the capacity of Divines as before is said Now for my Man of law I would have him know that the first Liturgy of King Edward the sixth was confirmed in Parliament with severall penalties to those who should refuse to officiate by it or should not diligently resort and repair unto it 2 3. Edw. 6th c. 1. But because divers doubts had arisen in the use and exercise of the said Book as is declared in the Statute of 5 6. Edward 6. c. 1. for the fashion and manner of the ministration of the same rather by the curiosity of the Ministers and mistakers than of any other worthy cause therefore as well for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof as for the more perfection of the said order of Common service in some places where it is necessary to make the same prayer and fashion of Service more earnest and fit to stir Christian People to the true honouring of Almighty God The Kings most Excellent Majesty with the assent of the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament aâ—embled and by the authority of the same hath caused the foresaid Order of Common service entituled The Book of Common Prayer to be faithfully and Godly perused explaned and made fully perfect Which Book being thus fitted and explaned approved by the King and confirmed in the Parliament in the 5 6 years of his reign was forthwith generally received into use and practice in all parts of the Kingdom the former Liturgy being no otherwise suppressed and called in than by the superinducing of this the Statute upon which it stood continuing un-repealed in full force and vertue and many clauses of the same related to in the Statute which confirmed the second But fearing to be censured by both parties for reading a Lecture of the wars to Annibal I knock off again Now forasmuch as the Observator is concerned in this certificate being said to have abused the said Convocation with such a grosse mistake so manifest an untruth I would fain know in what that grosse mistaking and the manifest untruth which these men speak of is to be discerned The Premises which usher in this conclusion are these viz. But that the least motion was then or there made for the suppressing of those Articles of Ireland hath no truth at all in it The Conclusion this therefore the Observator and whosoever else hath or doth averr that the said Articles either were abolished or any motion made for the suppressing or abolishing of them are grosly mistaken and have abused the said Convocation in delivering so manifest an untruth But first the Observator speaks not of any motion made there for the suppressing of those Articles The Proposition for approving and receiving the Confession of the Church of England might be made effectually and so it seems it was without any such motion And therefore if the Observator stand accused in that particular the manifest untruth and grosse mistake which those men dream of must be returned upon themselves And on the other side if he be charged with this grosse mistake and man fest untruth for no other reason but that he saith those Articles were abolished as they charge it on him they should have first shewed where he saith it before they fell so rudely and uncivilly on a man they know not The Observator never said it never meant it he understands himself too well to speak so improperly The word he used was abrogated and not abolished The first word intimating that those Articles were repealed or disannulled of no force in Law whereas to be abolished signifieth to be defaced or raced out that so the very memory of the thing might perish The word abrogated rightly and properly so taken is Terminus forensis or a term of Law derived from the custom of the Romans who if they did impose a Law to be made by the people were said Rogare Legem because of asking moving or perswading to enact the same velitis Iubeatisne Quirites c. from whence came prorogare Legem to continue a Law which was in being for a longer time and abrogare to repeal or abrogate it for the time to come unlesse upon some further consideration it were thought fit to be restored But giving these men the benefit and advantage of their own Expression and let the two words Abrogated and Abolished signifie the same one thing where is their equity the while for charging that as a grosse mistake and manifest nntruth in the Observator which must be looked on only as a failing or an easie slip within the incidence of frailty as we know who said in their friend our Author the Systeme the Body of Articles formed by that Church Anno 1615 were repealed saith the Historian Fol. 132. for abrogating the Articles of Religion established in the Church of Ireland saith the Observator pag. 240 241. both right or both wrong I am sure of that a grosse mistake a manifest untruth in both or neither And so farewell good Mr. Pullein wiâ—h Doctor Bernard I shall meet in another place In the next place whereas the Observator said that the abrogating of the Articles of Ireland was put on the Lieutenants score because Doctor Bramhall once his Chaplain and then Bishop of Derry had appeared most in it The Pamphleter answereth that there was never any Controversie in that Synod between the Lord Primate and that Bishop concerning those
the not promoting of it to compell them to desert their Stations and abandon their livings in which their very vitality and livelihood consisted Fol. 127. Then which there could be nothing more uncharitably or untruly said This as he makes there the first project of exasperation which Archbishop Laud and his confederates of the same stamp pitched upon to let his professed Enemies feel the dint of his spirit so doth he call it in the King a profane Edict a maculating of his own honour and a sacrilegious robbing of God All which though afterwards left out declare his willingnesse to make both Prince and Prelates and the dependants of those Prelates the poor Doctor of Cosmography among the rest feel the dint of his spirit and pity 't was he was not suffered to go on in so good a purpose Our Author having intimated in the way of a scorn or jâ—ar that the Divinity of the Lords day was new Divinity at the Court was answered by the Observator that so it was by his leave in the Countrey too not known in England till the year 1595. c. The Observator said it then I shal prove it now and having proved it in the Thesis or proposition will after return answer to those objections which the Pamphleter hath brought against it And first it is to be observed that this new Divinity of the Lords day was unknown to those who suffered for Religion and the testimony of a good conscience under Henry 8. as appeareth by John Fryth who suffered in the year 1533 in a tract by him written about Baptism Our fore-fathers saith he which were in the beginning of the Church did abrogate the Sabbath to the intent that men might have an Ensample of Christian Liberty c. Howbeit because it was necessary that a day should be reserved in which the people should come together to hear the word of God they ordained in stead of the Sabbath which was Saturday the next day following which is Sunday And though they might have kept the Saturday with the Jew as a thing indifferent yet they did much better Next to him followeth Mr. Tyndall famous in those times for his translation of the Bible for which and for many of his Doctrines opposite to the Church of Rome condemned unto the flames annâ— 1536. in the same Kings reign who in his Answer to Sir Thomaâ— More hath resolved it thus As for the Sabbath we be Lords over the Sabbath and may yet change it into Munday or into any other day as we see need or may make every tenth day holiday only if we see cause why neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday but to put a difference between us and the Jewes neither need we any holy day at all if the people might be taught without it The same Doctrine publickly defended in the writings of Bishop Hooper advanced to the Miter by King Edward and by Queen Mary to the Crown the crown oâ— Martyrdome in a Treatise by him written on the Ten Commandements anno 1550. who resolves it thus We may not think saith he that God gave any more holinesse to the Sabbath then to the other daies For if ye consider Friday Saturday or Sunday in as much as they be daies and the work of God the one is no more holy then the other but that day is alwaies most holy in the which we most apply and give our selves unto Holy works No notice taken by these Martyrs of this new Divinity The first speaking of the observation of the Lords day no otherwise then as an institution grounded on their forefathers a constitution of the Church the second placing no more Morality in a seventh-day then in a tenth-day Sabbath and the third making all daies wholly alike the Sunday no otherwise then the rest As this Divinity was new to those godly Martyrs so was it also to those Prelates and other learned men who composed the first and second Liturgies in the reign of King Edward or afterwards reviewed the same in the first year of Queen Elizabeth anno 1558. in none of which there is more care taken of the Sunday then the other Holydaies no more divine offices performed or diligent attendance required by the old Lawes of this Land upon the one then on the other No notice taken of this new Divinity in the Articles of Religion as they were published anno 1552. or as they were revised and ratified in the tenth year after no order taken for such a strict observation of it as might entitle it unto any Divinity either in the Orders of 1561. or the Advertisements of 1565. or the Canons of 1571. or those which â—ollowed anno 1575. Nothing that doth so much as squint towardâ— this Divinity in the writings of any learned man of this Nation Protestant Papist Puritan of what sort soever till broached by Dr. Bound anno 1595. as formerly hath been affirmed by the Observator But because the same truth may possibly be more grateful to our Author from the mouth of another then from that of the ignorant Observator I would desire him to consult the new Church History writ by a man more sutable to his own affections and so more like to be believed About this time saith he throughout England began the more solemn and strict observation of the Lords Day hereafter both in writing and preaching commonly call'd the Sabbath occasioned by a book this year set forth by P. Bound Dr. in Divinity and enlarged with additions anno 1606. wherein the following opinions are maintained 1. That the Commandement of sanctifying every seventh day as in the Mosaical Decalogue is moral and perpetual 2. That whereas all other things in the Jewish Church were taken away Priesthood Sacrifices and Sacraments his Sabbath was so changed as it still remaineth 3. That there is a great reason why we Christians should take our selves as strictly bound to rest upon the Lords day as the Jewes were upon their Sabbath it being one of the moral Commandements where all are of equall authority lib. 9. sect 20. After this he goeth on to tell us how much the learned men were divided in their judgements about these Sabbatarian Doctrines some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture long disused and neglected now seasonably revived for the increase of piety others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottome but because they tended to the manifest advance of Religion it was pity to oppose them seeing none have just reason to complain being deceived into their own good But a third sort flatly fell out with these positions as galling mens necks with a Jewish yoke against the Liberty of Christians That Christ as Lord of the Sabbath had removed the rigour thereof and allowed men lawful Recreations that his Doctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday on set purpose to eclipse all other Holy daies to the derogation of the authority of the Church that this strict
point of Episcopacy is that he makes our Author take it for granted that the Government of the Church by Bishops is a thing of indifferency and thereupon was much agrieved that the Clergy should binde themselves by Oath not to consent to any alteration of it On this occasion the Pamphleter flies out against them with no less violence and fury then Tully against Cataline in the open Senate crying in these great words Quousque abuteris patientia nostra how doth this Observator provoke us Assuredly the Gentleman is extreamly moved his patience much off the hinges Patientia laesa fit furor as the saying is One cannot tell what hurt or mischief he may do us now he is in this rage and fury and therefore Peace for the Lords sake Harry lest he take us And drag us back as Hercules did Cacus T is best to slip a side a while and say nothing till his heat be over and the man in some temper to be dealt with and then we will not fear to tell him that his own words shall be the only evidence we will use against him The introduction which he makes to his discourse against the Oath required by the new Canons instruct us That many asserted in good earnest that Bishops and Presbyters in Scripture phrase were of equivalent import and denoted the self same persons without the least distinction c. That thereupon the Prelates seeing their deer Palladium so deeply concerned and heaved at did first cause the Press to swarm with Books setting forth the right upon which Episcopacy was founded and finding how little this advantaged them they took measure from their professed Adversaries the Generall Assembly of Scotland and by their example framed the Oath as an Anti-Covenant This is the substance of the Preamble to those objections but that I would not stir the mans patience too much I had called them Cavils which our Author makes against that Oath that some things were expresly to be sworn to which were never thought to have any shew or colour of sacred right but were conceived Arbitrary and at the disposition of the State and to exact an Oath of dissent from Civill establishments in such things of indifferency was an affront to the very fundamentals of Government Now the Oath being made for maintenance of the Doctrine and Discipline or Government established in the Church of England the Doctrine being confessed on all sides to be signanter and expresly pointed at and the discourse driving at the Government of the Church by Bishops who can conceive but that his Argument or Objection must tend that way also and that Episcopacy must be reckoned in the number of those things of indifferency for which there was no reason to require the Oath And though the Pamphleter would fain have it that Episcopacy is not in those things of indifferency but excluded rather yet this will do him as small service as the Press when it was said to have swarmed with Books had done the Bishops For first he doth not say that Episcopacy was not pointed at at all in those things of indifferency but not signanter and expresly our Author keeping a reserve or secret intention to himself upon al occasions Nor doth it help him secondly to say that the things there spoken of are such as never had any shew or colour of sacred right whereas Episcopacy in the very account of its adversaries hath some colour and shew of it fol. 39. Where first he pleadeth but very coldly for Episcopacy in giving it only some shew and colour which all Heresies Enthusiasticks and Fanaticall fancies all that have set up any other Government Papall Anarchicall Presbyterian do pretend unto And secondly it is not true hath any such colour or shew in the account of its adversaries Episcopacy as it stood in the Primitive times being by Beza called Humanus and Diabolicus as it stood in these latter ages An Humane invention in the first a Diabolicall institution in the last times of the Church and therefore questionless without any shew or colour of sacred right Nor doth he help himself much by the little Army raised out of the Northampton and Kentish forces under the command of the Lord Digby which is so far from putting the matter out of all dispute in the sense he meaneth that it rather doth conclude against him For if the Northampton-shire and Kent Exceptions limit themselves to Arch-bishops Arch-deacons c. our Author certainly is to blame in these two respects First that he did not limit his things of indifferency as they did before him And secondly that speakin such generall termes as he should think to help himself in the Postfact by their limitations T is true the History rendreth the Lord Digby as friend to Episcopacy when the London Petition came to be considered of in the House of Commons before which time he had begun to look toward the Court but telleth us not that he was so in the very first openings of the Parliament when the Oath required in the Canon was in most agitation And this I hope is fair for a Senior Sophister as you please to call the Obfervator who could have pressed these answers further but that the Gentlemans patience must not be abused nor himself provoked We must take care of that though of nothing else And so much for ouâ— Authors flutterings in the point of Episcopacy we will next see whether the persons be as pretious with him as the calling is CHAP. VI. The light excuse made by the Pamphleter for our Author in pretermitting Bishop Bancroft not bettered much in shewing the differences between the Doctrine of St. Augustine and Calvin Our Authors learned ignorance in the word Quorum The Observator cleared from foisting any thing into the Text of the History with our Authors blunderings in that point The disagreement between the Comment and the Text in the unfortunate accident of Archbishop Abbot Foisting returned upon the Author no injury done to Bishop Andrewes by the Observator Of Doctor Sibthorps Sermon and whether the Archbishop were sequestred from his Jurisdiction for refusing to license it The Pamphleters nice distinction between most and many in the repairing of St. Pauls and that these many did keep off in reference to the work it self The war against the Scots not to be called the Bishops war not undertaken by the King in defence of their Hierarchy nor occasioned by Archbishop Laud. The Scots Rebellion grounded upon some words of the King touching Abby-Lands in the beginning of his reign hammered and formed and almost ready to break out before the Liturgy was sent to them The Archbishop neither the principal nor sole Agent in revising that Liturgie Good counsels not to be measured by successe On what grounds the Liturgie was first designed to be sent to the Scots Disusing implies not an abrogation Abeiance what it is in the common Law The Communicants by what authority required to come unto the
King James he thought himself concerned I will not say obliged to bring them back again to that first subscription or to commend such a Liturgie to them as might hold some conformity with that of the Church of England To this end having restored the Bishops and setled the five Articles of Perth as necessarie introductions to it he gave order to the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy then assembled to compose a Liturgie for that Church desiring it might be as near the English forms as they could conveniently Wherin as he did little doubt of their ready obedience so questionless it had been finished by the sitting of the next Assembly if the long and dubious expectation of the match with Spain and the Kings death not long after had not layed it by So that King Char. had not only the general subscription of the nation never yet lawfully reversed but the order of King James registred in the Acts of the General Assembly to proceed upon and he proceeded on it accordingly as soon as by the Coronation and the ensuing Parliament he had given contentment to that people And therefore they who can conclude that the Liturgie first grounded on their own subscription designed by their own generall Assembly revised by their own Bishops and confirmed by their own naturall and native King was or could be the ground of their taking Armes for I must not say the Scots rebelled though the Irish did may by the same Logick conclude as well that the Doctrine of Luther was the cause of the Insurrections of the Boors in Germany or that Tenterden Steeple was the cause of Goodwins sands We left the late Arch-bishop acquitted as we hope from being a principal occasion of the Scotch war we must next free him and the rest of the Bishops from introducing Innovations Popery Arminianisme and I know not what And first our Author told us of him that be tampered to introduce some Ceremonies bordering up on superstition disused by us and abused by them that is to say by those of Rome And being told by the Observator that if they were disused only they were still in force as appeared by the case of Knighthood the Pamphleter answered thereunto the word disused doth not at all imply that those Ceremonies were in force but rather layed aside by the Reformators observing how much they were abused by the Church of Rome and therefore not fit to be retained fol. 33. A piece of Law like this we had in the former Chapter where the Pamphleter had broached this Doctrine that the discontinuance of the execution that is to say of the Declaration of King James about lawfull sports was a tacite suppressing and calling of it in To that we referre the Reader for an Answer to this I adde now only by the way and ex abundanti that many things may be in abejance as your Lawyers phrase it which are not utterly lost and irrecoverable but carry with them a hope or longing expectance that though for the present they be in no man yet be in the hope and expectation of him who is next to enjoy them For as the Civilians say of Haereditas jacens that goods and lands do Jacere whilst they want a possessor and yet not simply because they lately had one and may shortly have another so the common Lawyers do say that things in like estate are in Abejance Thus Dr. Cowell hath defined that word in his Interpreter And this I take to be the case of those antient Ceremonies which were reduced into the Church by the Arch-bish though a while disused and this may serve for answer to the last Objection of this Pamphleter in the present point viz. that things abused may be lawfully restored to the Primitive use but then it must be saith he by lawfull authority and in a lawfull manner Which Rule of his I hold to be undoubtedly true in the Proposition but of no use at all in the application the Arch-bishop having in himself a lawfull power of restoring such antient Rites and Ceremonies as had been formerly disused only and not also abrogated and what he had not in himself was made up by the Kings authority of which more anon But next our Author tells us of this Arch-bishop that he commanded in his metropoliticall visitation that the Communion-table which formerly stood in the midst of the Church or Chancell should be placed at the East end upon a graduated advance of ground with the ends inverted and a wooden traverse of Railes before it To which the Observator answereth that the King had given sufficient authority to it a year before the visitation which our Author speaks of in the determination of the case of St. Gregory Church November 3. 1633. The Pamphleter hereunto replyeth that by the Arch-bishops out-running Authority he intended not his placing the Communion Table Altar-wise at the East of the Chancell so then we have gained that point if nothing else but by enjoyning a wooden Traverse of Railes to be set before it and commanding all the Communicants to come to it to receive the Sacrament fol. 27. which said he makes a long discourse to prove that by the Queens Injunctions and the 82. Canon the Table is to be placed within the Church or Chancell that the Communicants may in greater numbers receive the Sacrament which is best done saith he when the Table is in the Body of the Church or Chancell And against this or in defence of setting Railes before the Table so as the Communicant should come up to those Railes to receive He is sure that there is no such thing in the Declaration not a syllable that tends that way These Colworts have been boyled already served in and set by the Bishop of Lincolne on his Holy Table so that there needs no other Answer then what we finde in the Antidotum Lincolniense Chap. 7. and therefore I referre him thither for his satisfaction But since he hath appealed to the Declaration to the Declaration he shall go In which it is expresly said That for asmuch as concerns the liberty given by the said Common Book or Canons for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniency that liberty is not so to be understood as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish much less to the particular fancy of any humorous person but to the Judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point both for the thing it self and for the time when and how long as he may find cause So that his Majesties Declaration leaves it to the power of the Ordinary and the Archbishop as chief Ordinary enjoyneth the Table to be placed at the East end of the Chancell and the Communicants to come up to it to receive the Sacrament to which the adding of a Rail as a matter of decency and for keeping off disorders and profanations is