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
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
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
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
If any thinke I have gone to farre in this Let him know That it is only the zeale of doing your Majesty my Country and Mother Church of England faithfull service without feare or flattery it being now no time to mince things or dissemble longer which hath thus farre transported me In whose just important cause and quarrell how faint hearted soever others shew themselves I shal be ever ready through Gods assistance not only to spend my Liâ—e my Limbes my Fortunes and Liberty but my very Life and Soule Chusing rather to hazard all or any of these then to behold my God my Soveraigne my Country my Relâ—gion secretly undermined abused betrayed trampled upon or ruined and yet sit mute neither discovering the contrivers the instruments nor close cariages of such Antichristian treacherous disloyall designes for feare of any danger person or Prelate whatsoeverâ— And if J did it not when I had meanes and oportunity I should neither deeme my selfe a faithfull Servant to my God nor a loyall Subject to your Majesty my Soveraigne And now since I have lanched thus farre out into this tempestuous Ocean perchance with hazard of drowning or Pyrats unlesse your Majesty rescue me by a Patent of safe conduct and calme these boysterous Seas when they arise to overflow me give me leave to wade but one step further to acquaint your Highnes with the evill dangerous fruites of these lewd practises Bookes Innovations and then I shall cast anker in the secure Harbour of your Royall Grace and Protection 1. First they have produced aboundance of Schismes Factions â—arres discontents quarrels heart-burnings if not mutuall malice hatred and reproaches among your people in all places of your Realmes and quite rent asunder that ancient unity peace love and mutuall charity which flourished among them before these Innovations crept into the Church 2. Secondly they have not only grieved vexed the righteous soules but even quite dejected the spirits and broken the hearts of many thousand godly Lâ—ts and most faithfull Subjects to your Majesty who even pine away and languish under them for griefe and sorrow of heart 3. Thirdly they have bred a generall feare in the hearts an over-great jealousie in the heades of your Loyall Subjects of an approaching alteration of Religion and totall Apostasie unto the Sea of Rome They having little left to secure or arme them against this feare and jealousie but the syncerity of your Majesties owne Royal heart to our Religion your comfortable pious Declaracions now trampled by these Novellers under feet in open scorne and the zeale of divers of your Nobility to whom Gods truth and our Religion are dearer then their soules Which no doubt they will now declare by their actions in this time of need To your Majesties great joy and ease and the daunting of these strange audacious Innovatours though hitherto many of them have been over-silent 4. Fourthly they have caused many to turne Atheists Skeptickes or Newters in Religion seeing our Church so wavering and unconstant Many to fall off to Popery and hundred thousands of Papists from conversion by encouraging and hardning them in their Antichristian Errours and Superstitions to which they see us running if not flying so fast of late that they say they need not come towards us since wee are posting so fast to them 5. Fiftly they have caused thousands of godly Christians the best Preservatives against Plagues and Iudgments to flie out to forraigne Countries and Plantations Hundreds to seperate from our Church as now quite Romish and Antichristian And made thousands ready for to seperate it being now a common received opinion among many That our Churches especially our Cathedrals are now so farre Popish in all respects Latine Service only excepted which they say is countervayled by their merry all-sung never-wept Service which the people understand no more then Latine that we have now the same or at least as just cause to seperate from them as our godly Martyrs and Church had to seperate from Rome in the beginning of Reformation And though the same reasons hold not alike of all Churches for the present yet that they hold as firme in regard of the future since now wee and all our Churches are taught and commaunded to imitate our Prelates and Cathedrals in all their Romish Rites and Ceremonies as their Mother Churches and true patternes of Imitation So that unlesse a speedy Reformation follow of these late Corruptions and Innovations halfe the Kingdome for ought I can conjecture are like either to turne professed Seperatists or else to leave the Realme To such a passe have your busy Prelates lately brought things by their new Devises Bookes Articles Ceremonies Superstitions and their Suppressing of Lectures Preaching and godly comformable Ministers Sermons of Lords-dayes after-noones Repetition of Sermons and the like 6. Sixtly they give a great occasion to Iesuites Seminarie-Priests and Friers of which there are now swarmes in England there being above 60. Benedictine Monkes only besides other Orders in England Anno 1624. as appeares by the Letter of Rudesindus Barlo President of the English FRIERS of that Order to the Câ—lledge of the Cardinals at Rome dated the 12. of December 1624. and many more no question of that order now Who at this present use few other Arguments to seduce your Majesties Subjects from their alleagiance and Religion to Popery then the fore-named Jnnovations and new printed Popish Bookes which they buy up with greedines Resiâ—dus Barlo in his fore-cited Letter to the Cardinâ—â—s of Rome to institute either Dr. Kellyson or Dr. Smith two of his order or both of them Bishops over the Priests in England writes very confidently That if one of these were made a Romish Bâ—shop here Latioâ—es intra unicum biennium fructus in Anglâ—cana missione aspecturi sitis quà m hactenus in â—adem nullo existente Episcopo per sexaginta jam elapses annos conspexoritis They should see more joyfull fruites in this English mission within one two yeares then before they had seen in three-score when there was no Bishop And I may as truely say that since these Innovations have growen publike and got head among us these new Bookes been licensed and all Confutation of them stopped at our Presses the Priestes Iesuites and Popish Monkes who have now a Bishop or two at least have perverted more by meanes of them alone for they could never hurt or wound us but with our owne men and weapons then in sixtie yeares before As therefore the encrease of Papists was one maine ground and chiefe cause lately alleadged in the Star-chamber of resuming the London-Derry plantation into your Majesties hands So the selfe same reason should now move your Majesty to recall these severall Innovations and burne up these late Novell ridiculous Pamphlets in affront of our best and solidest Writers which withdraw so many from your Alegiance and give the Priests and Iesuites cause to triumph over us yea to
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
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
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
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
of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. â— 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever oâ— to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Edâ— 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves for making they for submitting to any such Rites Ceremonies or Constitutions are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603 By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring unto them administer the Sacrament yea read the 2. service as they call it at the Table even when there is no Sacrament that all the Communicants shall come up to receive that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri the Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative contrary to this objected clause of the Statute and to the first clause thereof which enacts That no manner of Parson vicar or other Minister what soever shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use or by open fact deed or thenreatning compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have fâ—â—o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament other Rites Ceremonies of the Church of England being then but newly corrected published there might there upon as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or
packing to Rome their mother or to some English Seminaries or Cloysters where they may say and sacrifice Maâ—â—e Sure our Homilies informe both them and us that we have no need of Masse or Sacrificing Preists neither yet thankes be to God have wee any Masses to be chaunted unlesse our Cathedrall divine service may be so tearmed which comes nearest Masse of any in our Parish Churches standing in need only of Preaching Ministers not Sacrificing Masse-Preists condemned by our statutes as direct Traytâ—rsâ— to our King and State And if those Jnnovators will-needes enroll themselves in this order of Preists I should not envy them the horne of a Tyburne â—ippert to grace their order and neckes with all nor yet the shaving of their Crownes to the very shoulders â—o use Father Latymers speeches â— which they well demerit in stead of that Egregâ—am verò laudem spolia ampla which pricke them on to asâ—ume this new title office of Preists and Preistshood QVESTION III. The third Question J shall propose to them and all our Prelates is this what Law Canon or ground they have for the Consecrating of Altars a Ceremony already begun at Wolverhampton as you have heard which will shortly creepe up by degrees in other places Or for Consecrating Churches Chappels or Churchyeards Statute I am certaine there is none for it yea sure I am that all the statutes against Mort. concerning divine service and Sacraments and the Booke of Common-prayers with divers of our learned Writers are against it To make this cleare in few wordes 1. First it is apparent that every Consecration of a Church Chappell or Church-yard makes a Mort This is the expresse resolution of the whole Parliament Realme in the Statute of 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastal Mort. â— and 13. E. 1. c. 32. against Crosses But Mort are directly against the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme as appeares by Brook Fiz and Rastall in their Titles Mort Therefore these Consecrations are so too 2. Secondly they are expresly opposite to the Statutes of 2. and 3. E. 6. c. 1. 5. and 6. E. 6. c. 1. If these statutes with that of Jacâ— c. 5. were duely executed we should not have so many of those bookes in the Realme as now they are which are freely printed and sould openly in every Stationers shoppe 1. Eliz c. 2. 8. Eliz c. 1. and 3. and 4. E. 6. c. 10. 12. All which for the abandoning of all superstitious service and to take away all occasions of dive sity of opinions rites Ceremonies in our Church clearely and utterly abolish extinguish and forbid for ever to be used or kept in this Realme all bookes called Missals Breviaries Officials Manuals Processionals Legends Primers or other Bookes whatsoever heretofore used for service of the church written or printed in the English or Lattin tongue With all other manner of Rites Ceremonies divine service Consecrations or publike formes of prayer then such only as are mentioned and prescribed in the Booke of Common prayer and other rites aud Ceremonies of the Church of England and in the Booke of Ordination ratified by these Acts In neither of which is there one syllable or Title extant concerning the Consecration of Churches Chappels or Churchâ— yardes or Altars nor any forme of prayer prescribed for the purpose as there is both for the Administration of the Lords supper Baptisme whether publike or private Mariage Buriall of the Dead Churching of Women visitation of the sicke confirmation of Children Ordination of Deacons and Ministers Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and â—ll other thinges our Church deemes lawfull or necessary Since therefore these statutes have professedly in direct tearmes abolislâ—e 〈◊〉 those Popish Books and Pâ—â—mers wherein the manner prayers and service for consecrating of Churches Chappels Church-yards or Altars are prescribed and established in their places the Booke of Common-prayer and Ordination of Ministers wherein there is not one syllable concerâ—ing any such consecrations nor any forme of prayer or service institâ—ted for all or either of them as there is for all other rites Ceremonies which our Church holds necessary And since they expresly prohibite all other Rites Ceremonies Formes of Prayer and Consecrations then such as are comprised and prescribed in thâ—se two Bookes It is infallable that they have utterly abolished and abrogated this Ceremony of Consecrating of Churches Church-yards Chappels and Altars as Iewish Popish Superstitious or at least superfluous and quite excluded it out of our Church As for our Canons Homilies Iâ—junctions and Articles of Religion there is not in all nor any one of them inferred â—re title concerning these Consecrations Which condemne and exclude them by their silence The Homilies likewise have some glances against them For our writers Mr. Tyndall in â—is obedience page 136. 152. of a Christian man William Wraâ—ghton in his hunting and Rescuing of the Romish Fox Iohn Bale B of Osyrus in Ireland in his Image of both Churches in sundry places Thomas Becon in his Reliques of Rome Mr. Calâ—r hill in his booke against Marshall Mr. Fox in his booke of Martyrs And many other of our writers haue expresly censured and deâ—â—ed those Consecrations as Superstitious Iewish Popish and Antichristian styling them conjuring rather then hallewing of Churches Chappels and Altars invâ—nted only for profiâ—â— and reserved only to Bishops for gaine sake And to name no more reverent Pilkirgâ—on seveaâ—ely censures these Consecrations in these ensewing wordes The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to deligâ—â— the people but where the Gospell is preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are conâ—ent with an honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishop at all It is written that God dwels not in Temples made with handes nor is worshipped with any worke of mans handes but he is a â—spirit an invisible substance and will be worshipped in spirit and truth not in outward wordes only of the â—ippe but with the deepe lighes and groanes of the heart and the whoâ—e power of the mind earnest hearty calling on him in prayer by faith And therefore he doth not so much require of us to build him an house of stone and timber but hath willed as to pray in all places and hath taken away that Iewish and Popish holinesse which is thought to be more in one place then in another All the Earth is the Lords and he is present in all places hearing the petitions of them that call upon him in faith Therefore those Bishops which thinke with their conjured water to make one place more holy then the rest are no better then the Iewes deceaving the people and teaching that only to be holy which they have censed crossed oyled and breathed upon For as Christ said to the woman thinking one place to be more holy to pray in then
as in the places fore-cited so in his Defence against Gâ—egory Martin writes thus The Table anciently stood as men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT AND NOT AGAINST A WALL AS YOUR POPISH ALTARS stand which is easy to prove and hath often times been proved and it seemes sayth he to Martin of the Papists you confesse as much VVhich words of his are both cited and approved of by Bishop Morton who concurs both in words and judgement with him in his two late Editions of his Institution of the Sacrament This Hospinian proves by sundry authorities and by that of the Counsell of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Survis Crab Binius and others render CIRCVMCIRCA ALTARE round about the Altar as the word doth properly signify even in Sacred Scripture other authours as Bishop Iewel Bishop Morton both resolve I shall therefore close up this Quaere with the words of the Iesuite Vasquez more moderate then many of our Novellers Nihilominus certum est c. Although there be many Authours to witt of late time which he there cites for the placing of Altars towards the East Yet it is certaine that it is NO SINNE or offence to situate not only lesser Altars but likewise the High Altar and Quires and Chancles too which he there speakes of towards other climates or parts of the world For this tradition how-ever some urge it as necessary and a binding Law non est de earum numero quae sub praecepto nobis volita fuerunt It is not of the number of those traditions which have been left unto us under any precept VVhich he proves out of the forecited words of Walafridus Strabâ— adding out of Nicephorus that men have diveâ—sly ordered those things in former times Which the example of the Church of Antioch doth manifest out of Socrates wherein the Altar stood westward it being free for Christians in these things vel hanc vel illam consiâ—â—tudinem amplecti to embrace either this or that custome in the siâ—uation of their Altars Lords Tables and Quires Much more theâ— to rayle in or not rayle in their Altars or Lords Tables Altar-wise at the East end of the Quire or to come up to the rayle as Bishop Wreâ— will now inforce all his Diocesse by his new iuvented Articles to receive contrary to the custome of all our churches from Queen Elizabeths time till now yea contrary to the practise in the dayes of Popery and in the primitive time when the Laity came not into the Quire or Chancle to receive but only to offer as is evident by Concilium Toâ— et â—â—um 4. Can. 16. in choro clerus communiceâ— Extra Chorum populus Concil Eluber Can. 76. Sardicense Can. 10. Agathense Can. 2. 5. 50. Cypr. Epist 52. Innocentius 1. Epist. 22. Niciph Eccles Hist â— 12. c. 41. Chamir l. 9. de Coena Domini c. 1. Dr. Featly his grand sacraledge p. 391. with others forequoted And the Rubricke of the Booke of Common-Prayer sett forth in 2. and 3. Ed. 6. which appoints the people to be placed in the Quire the men on the one side the women on the other side and there to receive And likewise King Iames his Proclamation new printed before the Bookes of Common-Prayer admonisheth all men that hereafter they shall not expect nor attempt any further alteration in the common and publicke for me of Gods service from this which is now established c. it being necessâ—ry to use constancy in the holding of the publicke determinations of States for that such is the unquietnâ—sse and unstedfastnesse of some dispositions as Wren other Novellors and the Colier now affecting every yeare new formes of things as if they should be followed in their unconstancy would make all actions of States ridiculous and contemtible VVhereas the stedfast maintaining of things by good advice established is the Weals of all Common Wealthes which J would wish our Novellers to ruminate upon QVESTION VI. The 6. Quaere I shall put to these Innovatours is this VVhat Statute Canon Scripture Anâ—iquity or reasons they have for bowing to or towards Communion-Tables or Altars VVhether their cringing and bowing be a divine adoâ—ation or only a civill worship And how it differs from the Pagans and Papist bowing and practise of adoring Altars Crucifixes Crosses and Images which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers define to be Idolatrie This Question is Tâ—â—partie and the cheife of all the rest not hitherto debated fully in print by any J shall therefore crave leave to be the more copions in it beginning with the first branch thereof Law Canon Injunction Constitution of our Church enjoyning and prescribing any such bowing or Ceremonie I never yet met with any no not in times of Popery except that of Cardinall Pooles Popish Visitours in Queen Maries dayes in the Vniversity of Cambridge fore mentioned Scripture there is not any direct in point only some texts are strained and miserablie perverted to this purpose As 1 Psal. 5. 7. and Psal. 138. 2. In thy feare will I worship towards thy holy Temple The nearest texts they can ciâ—e for their purpose and yet farre enough from it For what Logician will not deride this argument David would and did worship towards the Temple at Ierusalem Ergo we must bow downe and worship to or towards our Altars or Communion Tables David and the godly Israelites being in their houses or else-where out of the Temple worshipped that is prayed towards it Ergo Christians when they come in or goe out of our Churches must bow downe to the Table or Altar VVhat coherence of vigour is there in this argument What beast had he reason would thus dispute Had they hence inferred Ergo we must alwayes adore bow downe to or worship God towards not in our Churches and Chaples This had been a more probable inference though unsound Because the Iewes worshipped and prayed towards their Temple only which is vanished Not towards their Synagogues of which our Churches is rather patternes and successours then of the Temple which was but one not many and that a type of our Saviour abolished shortly after his death nor of our Churches built long since after another forme and to an other purpose then it But to answer the texts fully 1. First the worship towards the Temple here mentioned was not bare bowing downe of the body only as these Novellers dreame to or towards it or the Altar or Temple but a praying towards it as is evident by Psal. 28. 2. 1 King 8. 20. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan 6. 10. Therefore it warrants no bowing to or towards the Altar or Lords Table without prayer 2. Secondly it was a worship towards the Temple only not towards the Altar in the Temple And so makes nothing for bowing towards the Altar or Table For the Church or Chapple
to the Lord of the Table paralleled with worshipping towards Gods Temple worshipping at his foote-stoole Daniels prayer c. And so expresly determined by Mr. Shelford See the Serm of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. The fore-cited passage fathered on Bishop Morton Mr. Cozens Mr. Widdowes Edward Reeve aud Dr. Duncombe in his Determination Dr. Pocklington Suuday no Sabhath p. 50. Câ—ill worship it cannot be because terminated they say in God done in Gods owne house and presence not in any civill but religious respect Done towards the Altar or Table not as civill but as sacred and religions things to which no civill worship at all is dâ—eâ—â— in any civill respect If then it be a divine worship as they hold iâ— it must be either a sincere and genuine worship or Superstitious Not the former First because not instituted or prescribed by God in his word no text so much as intimating much lesse enjoyning it nor any one example in the New Testament 〈◊〉 it Secondly because never practised by the Patriarches or Prophets in the Old Testament who never thus bowed to or towards Altars nor by Christ or his Apâ—stes in the new who never thus inclined their knees or bodies to or towards Lords-Tables nor yet for ought we finde to God himselfe unlesse it were in prayer only Mat. 26. 39. Acts 20. 36. c. 21. 5. Ephes. 3. 14. Rom. 4. 10. 11. A thing worthie notingâ— taking off all hare-adoration only fo the body not accompanied with prayer or some so other religious duty Thirdly Altars themselves under the Gospell abolished by Christs death are not of divine institution but contrary to it Therefore the bowing towards them to honour God or worship Christ thereby is superstitious unlawfull Fourthly had it been a worship of divine institution its probable that the Saints of God in the Apostles dayes the primitive Church and all succeeding ages would both have conscionablie and constantly used it And either fore-commaunded or enforced the observation thereof But this they have not done Therefore it is not of divine institution Fiâ—tly no divine worship due to God or required by him is arbitrary to be done or not done at mans election Neither can it be omitted without mortall sinne But this is arbitrary at mans election and may be omitted without mortall sinne as the stoutest Champions thereof will and must onselfe Since no Law of God or man prescribes it as necessary Therefore it is no divine worship Sxitly no relative worship of God in through or by reason of any other Creature is of divine institution there being no paâ—t â—ne of any such worship in Scripture This the Homilie against the Perill of Idolatry plentifully proves See Bâ—shop Mortons Institution of the Sacrament l. 7. throughout especially c. 8. Sect. 1. p. 547. 548. But this and so the bowing at the naming of Iesus is a relative not an immediate worship Therefore not truely divine Seventhly that which the most pious Christians the most judicious zealous Protestants in their writings and practise have censured declined as evill superstitious And being only by the most igorant blinde superstitious and Popish Persons most practised and contested for that certainly is not any divine institution nor any syncere adoration approved by God But this bowing is such as the premises experience witnesse Therefore not of divine institution or any syncere adoration approved by God Eightly that whose cheife Patrons are inforced to flie to meere forged authorities and absurd ridiculous reasons of their owne late invention to justify and maintaine it that certainly is not truly divine Such is this bowing to and towards Altars and Lords-Tables As the premises testify Therefore not divine And so by consequence a meere superstitious will-worship of mans inuention which God neither approves of nor allowes Isay. 1. 11. 12. And being not of faith it must be sinne Rom. 14. 23. All which I desire our new Maisters of Ceremonies to consider now at last who perchance have not yet so much as ruminated on this point but taken up this practise as most men doe new fashions without any examination either of its lawfulnes decency or conveniency Contrary to the Apostles rule who adviseth us 1. Thes. 5. 21. 22. to prove all things and to hold fast only that which is good Abstaining from all appearance of evill Whith this bowing certainly hath First because it is a new upstart innovation prescribed by by no Law of God or man Secondly because it tends to erect countenance and usher in a relative worship of God in by and through the Creature Thirdly because it seemes to implie an actuall transubstantiation of the bread and wine into Christs very body and tends to usher in this doctrine together with an adoration of the Hostia and reservation of it on the Altar or Table in a Pix the maine ends for which it seemes and is now taken up For as kneeling at the Sacrament first ushered in adoration of the Sacrament so this bowing to the Table or Altar must reuiue it the true end for which it is now â—rged Fourthly because it hardens Papists in their Idolatrâ—us superstition of adoring the Eucharist and bowing to Crucifixes Images Crosses condemned by us as most grosse Idolatrie See the Homilie of the Perill of Idolatrie Bishop Morton his 7. Booke of the Institution of the Sacrament Fiftly because it gives generall offence and scandall to most especially those who are pious and judicious Sixtly because it tends to the erection of Altars Priests and Sacrifices formerly abandoned and gives Papists occasion not only in words but in writing also to vaunt and hope that we are now apostatizing and revolting unto Rome againe Seventhly because it advenceth the Table and Altar above the Font Pulpit Bible Chalice Paten yea and the consecrated bread and wine to neither of which any such genuflexion is given Eightly because there is appearance of superstition and Idolatrie in it which is or may be committed by it as probablie as of the Papists adoring of the Eucharist Upon these grounds therefore all Christians should renounce it I come now to the last clause of the Question to inquire how this bowing to towards or before the Altar or Table differs either from the Pagans or Papists practise of bowing to or towards Images Altars Crucifixes Crosses the like which our Homilies with all our Orthodox writers expresly define to be Idolatrie For the Pagan Gentiles it is evident that they bowed to or towards their Altars over or under which the Images or Statues of their Idol-Gods which they worshipped towards the Altars stood as the Papists and we have now our Crucifixes standing on or over our Altars either in Arras Glasse or Mettle or in some Curious common Prayer-Booke standing on our Altars only for a dumbe shew adorned with two or three silver Crucifixes in stead of Bosses on the cover in Imitation of these Pagans That this of
late licensed Books Bishop Wrens Bishop Mountagues and Bishop Peirce their Visitation Articles e Chownaeus Collect 16. 17. 18. Mr. Robort Shelford Priest Treatise concerning Antichrist f For 〈◊〉 against Disobedience and wiâ—full Rebellion Serm. 3. 4. 5. g Of Ireland n. 80. h Bishop Downham Bishop Abbot Dr. Beard Mr. Squire Mr. Powel Richard Brightwell Thomas Becon and others of Antichrist i Rev. 17. 5. 15. 16. k 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. 3. Iacobi c. 1. l Col. 3. 12 1. Thos 1. 4. 1. Pet. 4. 1. 2. 2. Iohn 1. 2. Thes. 2. 13. m Ephes. 1 4 5. 6. 7. 11 12. Rom. 11. 5 6. * Bishop Latimer his 2 and 5. Sermon before King Edward the 6. n Lame Giles his Haultings and certaine Quaeries propounded to the Bowers at the name of Iesus Qu. 1. 2. 3 4. o Ibidem And the Appendix concerning bowing at the name of Jesus p See a briefe Historicall NarratioÌ„ of some notorious Acts and Speeches of Mr. Iohn Cosens at the end of Mr. Peter Smarts Sermon Printed at Edinburg An. 1628 * See the Homily against the perill of Idolatry q Iuveual Satyr 2. r See quaâ— p. before * added s D. Raynolds de Idolatria Rom. Eccles Epist. ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. p. 21. 22. t Speeds History of Great Britaine p. 1252. 1233. v Mr. Tyndals Practise of Popish Prelates D. Barnes his Supplicationâ— to King Henry the 8. Fox Acts and Monuments p. 321. 409. 410. 479. 533. 168 to 234. Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brit. Godwin in the lives of Anselme Becket Edmond Odo William Arundell Laughton Stratford Scroope Poole Wolsey Adam de Orlton and other Bishops x See Dr. Raynolds de Idol Eccles. Rom. Epist. Ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. y Speeds History p. 1252. 1253. z Mr. Boltons Discouâ—se of true happines p. 193. a Polit. l. 2 c. 17. 18. 19 b Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. c Dr. White his Defence of the way c. 6. 10. The Homily for Whitsunday D. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry 8. d On Whitsunday and of wilfull Rebellion e Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Part. 3. The Institution of a Christâ—aÌ„ manchap of Orders Dens Rex f 3. Iacobi c. 4. Deus Rex g 3. Iacobi c. 1. h Beyerlinke Chro nogâ— p. 309. i Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. k See Cookes Pope Ione and the Authours quoted by him Ioannis Valerion de Sacâ— dotum Barbis Polychronicon l. 5. c. 30. Caxionâ— Chronicle part 5. An. 885. Volateranus Cem. 1. 22 f. 228. Marianus Scotus l. 3. Aeâ—as 6. Anno 854. Col. 152. Martini Poloni Supputationâ—s An. 855 Col. 152. Papa 109. l 3. Iacobi c. 1. 2. 3. Speeds History p. 125l 1255. 1256. 1257. * See 1. Eliz c. 1. 27. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iacobi c. 1. 3. 4. 5. * Yea in the Latine and English Editions An. 1553. in King Edwards dayes m Mr. William Tyndall in his Treatise what the Church is Dr. Whitaker de Ecclesia Dr. Field of the Church Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection c. part 2. p. 168. 169. 170. n See the Declaration concerning the dissolutiâ— of the Parliament p. 21. * Which they might doe well to study a while and give over their secular Offices and Affaires which make theÌ„ so blinde and ignorant in divine things o See Crompâ—os Iurisdiction of Tit. Star-chamber and Rastals AbridgmeÌ„t forger of false deeds p 8. H. 6. c. 12. 5. Elz. c. 14. q See Dr. Crakenthorpe his defence of Constantine and of the Popes temporall Monarchie and excellent Treatise to this purpose r Fox Acts MonumeÌ„t p. 404. 405. 406. 481. 524. and Mr. Fullers Argument 25. H. 8. â— 15. s Cosen 's his Cosening Doctrine A tryall of Private Deuotions * Now Canterbury t An Apologie or Defence of the Doctrine of Predâ—stination â— 37. u Seâ—mâ—s Londonâ— 1584. â— 311 312 325 326 327 124 125 126 134 164 165 178 208. 215 224 226 268 270 288 295 299 308 323 14â— 142 18◠〈…〉 x 〈…〉 y Fol. 22 â—â— 24. 29 40. 55 56 57. 60 63 64 65 78. â—â— * It seemeâ— the Bishops are none of the learned â— men 〈◊〉 se well acquaâ—ted with â—e Wâ—â—ters and Doctrine of the Church of England as some private GentlemeÌ„ arâ— z Concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. * Who would not laugh at these mad argumeÌ„ts Paâ—adoxes and Frantique passages of Gâ—les Widdows Shelford Reeve many of which are as ridiculous and absurd as any in Ignoramus a Befoâ—e the 39. Articles And concerning the dissolution of the Parliament p. 21. 42. b A Coale from the Altar p. 36. * There was a Letter lately read in some Churches of Ipswitch as from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the audience of all the people affirming that your Majesty had given the Arch-Bishop order and direction for rayling Communion-Tabes Altarwise and that all Communicants should come up to the Rayle and receive which much amazed the people and Dr. Aylot the Arch-Bishops surragate oft times affirmed the same in Court to divers who alleaged your Majesties â—awes and Declarations to the contrary * A Coale from the Altars phrase c Page 20. 21. d Apparatus ad Hist. Ecclesiast * 1636. * See B. Latymer his 5. Sermon before King Edward f. 64. e His first Sermon p. 5. 37. where he tearmes the Lords-Table an Altar Gods mercy Seate pleades for bowing towards it f His 5. Treatises Cambridge 1635. all absurd and Popish g His Communion Booke Catechisme expounded London 1635. the Epistles And p. 17. â—â—22 35. 38. 39. 48. 60. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 77. 90. to 111. in the first Impression since torne out 127. to 141. 200. 201. 203. 20â— 206. 211. 216. h Sunday no Sabbath Vile throughout i The History of S. George and of the Sabbath k Collectiones An. 1635. Collect. 16. 17. 18. 34. 35. l Thomas Browne his Sermon Oxon. 1634. The Female glory Dr. Cosens Collection of private Devotions reprinted 1636. Bishop Whites Treatise of the Sabbath day the latter part and Epistle Dedicatory Dr. Reades Visitation Sermon 1635. m Edmond Reeve his Communion Booke Catechisme expouÌ„ded Epistle Dedicatory and p. 20. 205. 206. 211. 216. Robert Shelford his Treatise of Gods House p. 20. A Coale from the Altar p. 1. 26. 27. 64. n Gen. 18. 24. to 33. Acts 27. 23. 24 Ier. 5. 1. Ezech. 22. 30. 31. Psal. 106. 23. Exod. 32. 10 c. * See a Booke intiteled The necessity of Seperation from the Church of England o Reeve p. 20. 205 206. 211. 216. Shelford p. 20 A Coale from the Altar p. 1 26. 27. 63. 64. p Nam sexaginta amplius Monachos Benedictinos Congregationi nostri subditos in Anglia memora 〈…〉 Apud N. le Maistre Instauratio Antiqui Episcoporum Principatus Parisijs 1633. l. a. p. 280. q Ibid. p. r See Francâ—scus de Sancta Clara Edit 3.
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