Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	answer_v	king_n	lord_n	1,968	5	4.1168	3	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10197	A quench-coale. Or A briefe disquisition and inquirie, in vvhat place of the church or chancell the Lords-table ought to be situated, especially vvhen the Sacrament is administered? 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, Jewish, or popish, and not tollerable among Christians. All the pretences, authorities, arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford, Edmond Reeve, Dr. John Pocklington, and a late Coale from the altar, to the contrary in defence of altars, calling the Lords-table an altar, or placing it altarwise, 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.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1637 (1637)	STC 20474; ESTC S101532	299,489	452

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 ● 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 repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1.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 estatute● 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 Act● 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 dis●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

Elect●urs went to the Altar to sweare according to the tenour of the golden Bull. At last Maximilian led by the Arch-bishops of Mentz Colen was lifted up upon the Altar and TE DEUM sung played on the Organes CIRCA ALTARE about the Altar at the sides by the exalted King stood the Arch-bishop of Colen and Mentz and before his face stood the Arch-bishop of Treuier the other Princes accompaning and standing about them By which it is evident the High Altar at Frankford at the time of this Coronation stood not Altarwise against the East-wall of the Quire for the King sitting on the South-side of it just over against the Altar and these 5 great Princes sitting in distinct seates at his right hand in state the Altar was at least 5 seates distance from the East-wall and stood so that the Arch-bishops Princes and Nobles when the Emperour was eleuated on it stood round about it and him at the time of this royall solemnity The Heathen Altars likewise stood not against the East-wall of the Quire as appeares by Paulus in Curculione Nur● Ara veneris haec est ANTE horum fores Ovid. Motamorph l. 10. Ante fores horum stabat Iovis hospitis Ara. Iulius Caesar Bullingerus de Theatro l. 1. c. 22. p. 256. Latini Comae●i Aram in PROSCENIO CONSTITUUNT in Apolonis honorem c. Vide ibid. So that the placing of Altars against the East-wall is but a late Novelty even among the Papists themselves and so likewise this bowing to or towards the Altar For J finde no mention of it in the exact Discription of this Solemnity Only I read that when Maximilian was crowned at Aken the 31. day of March following they went into the Quire to the High Altar and there heard Masse Then the 3. day of April he offered at the Altar of the Virgin Mary That after some Hymnes sung and collects reade in the Quire Rex prostravit se super tapetum ad gradus Altaris totus in longum The King prosttated himselfe at the steps of the Altar upon a Carpet lying all along upon it And the Arch-Bishop of Colen super ●um sic proctratum legit reads over him thus prostrate Lord save the King with other two Collects Erge we must thus prostrate our selves when we come in 〈…〉 of the Church is no good argument it being a Ceremony 〈◊〉 for the King at his Coronation not to others and a 〈◊〉 not to or towards the Altars but at the steps of it to have an Arch-Bishop read a prayer over him and some speciall 〈◊〉 After which he sate downe in a Royall Seate before the Altar the Arch-Bishop of Mentz sitting on his right hand and Treuier on the left Then these Bishops tooke of the Kings upper garment and leading him between them ante Altare prostratu●in modum Crucis he prostrated himselfe in forme of a Crosse before the Altar the Arch-bishop of Colen saying divers prayers there specified over him and the Letanie The Letanie ended the Arch-Bishop of Colen standing before the Altar with his Pastorall staffe in his hand asked of the King six Questions the last whereof was this Wilt thou reverently exhibite due subjection and faith to the most holy Father and Lord in Christ the Pope of Rome to the holy Church of Rome The Popes were anciently sworne to the Emperour and elected by him now they must sweare to the Pope and be chosen by him and his three Arch-Bishop Electours who are still at his devotion See Gratian Distinctio 69. and Dr. Crakenthorpe of the Popes temporall Monarchie cap. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. After which Questions he was ledde by the Arch-Bishops of Mentz and Trevler to the Altar and putting two of the fingers of his right hand on the Altar Sayd I will and J shall faithfully performe all the premises as farre as God by his divine assistance shall enable me and the prayers of faithfull Christians shall assist me So helpe me God and all his Saints Which done these Bishoppes brought him backe before the Altar After that they leade him againe to the Altar qui prostravit se ad terram in longum and then the Arch-bishop of Colen reade a blessing and prayer or two over him Which done they annoynted him in severall places And 〈◊〉 returning before the Altar casting himselfe downe in manner of a Crosse the Arch-B●shop of Colen reade other prayers over him Then they girt him with a sword After that they set the Crowne on his head with severall Collects then leading them againe to the Altar he layd both his hands on the Altar and made this profession among other things in the vulgar tongue Which in truth made him a s●ave both to the Pope and Prelates rather then a King I will yeeld due and Canonicall honour to the holy Bishop and Church of Rome and to the other Bish●ps and Churches These things likewise which have been given conferred by Kings and Emperours to churches or Ecclesiasticall persons I will inviolably preserve and cause to be preserved by them the Lord Iesus Christ assisting me By which oath and practise the Emperours and Kings of the Romanes are made Vass●les to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or pos●●ssions A he●●sh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Manti● Cardi●alat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of M●ntz was made a Cardinall he tame up to the High Altar and there kneeling downe before it on both his knees the Popes Legate graced him with a red hats the badge of this h●s dignity which he put upon his head He kneeling downe before the Altar till the song of S. Augustins and S. Ambrose was sung So An●o 1066. Ho●eden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herro●d at the celebration of the Masse at Westminster Ante Altare in Oratione prostratus jaceret lay prostrate before the Altar in prayer VVhen our King Richard the first was to be crowned Houeden Annal pars poster●or p. 656. 657. 739. he came tothe Altar before the Arch-Bishops Bishops Clergie and People and kneeling downe on his knees before the Altar tooke the usuall Coronation-oath upon the Euangeli●ts and 〈…〉 After which 〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it 〈◊〉 his ●and So at his second Coronation he was ledde into the Cathedrall Church of S. Swithim at VVinchester 〈…〉 even unto the Altar ibi flexis genubus and 〈◊〉 with bended knees devoutly received a benediction from Hubert Arch-Bishop of Canterbury and from thence was ladde to his Throne I reade also that Hugh Abbot of Cluney and Hilde●●●●● whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together en●●●●● into a Country-Church Ante Aram injunctis lateribus 〈◊〉 in multam horam protracta Oratione Cast themselves downe before the Altar one by the others side and

spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it ●ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of

Augusta dedicated to S. Afra there were two Quiers in which were two Altars standing under two arches at the lower end of the Quire under the rayles which divided it from the body of the Church two Crucifixes and under them two Altars contening the Eucharist for the people Moreover in the body of the Church there were 4. Altars the first cheife of them was the Altar of S. Dionys Versus Occidentem in parte septentrionali non juxta murum SED QUASI IN MEDIO that stood towards the West not East in the North part not close by the wall but as it were in MIDDEST Thus was the Altar of S. Mary placed in Rome so that in the great inundation of Tiber in the dayes of Pope Nicholas the 3. the water ROTUNDE quatuor pedibus c. went round about it from foot high and more Anastasius writes of Pop● Theodorus that Pyrrhus Patriarck of Constantinople comming to Rome in his time about the yeare of our Lord 646. Fecit ei Cathedram poni juxta Altare he caused a chaire to be placed for him hard by the Altar honoring him as the Preist of the royall City Either therfore the Altar in those dayes stood neere the West end of the Quire where the Bishops chaires and Seates now generally are placed or in the midst of the Quire or else B●shops then usually sate at the East end of the Quire cheeke by will with the Altar where our Prelates will suffer no seates at all to stand for feare any should sitt above or in equipage with God Almighty The same Author relates that Pope Sergius about the yeare of our Lord 694. made a fowersquare vayle about the Altar in S. Peters Church having 4. white Curtaines and 4. scarlet ones IN CIRCUITU ALTARIS round about the Altar two of each side the Altar therefore stood not against the wall but some distance from it else this travarse or vayle of Curtaines could not inviron it round about In the great Cathedrall Church of Rome itselfe whence these Romanizers would seeme to take their paterne the Altar Anno Dom. 1547. even on Christmas day as William Thomas an eye-witnes in his History of Italy Thomas Becon vol. 3. f. 282. out of him report when the Pope himselfe and all the Cardinalls received the Sacrament STOOD IN THE MIDDEST of the Chaple or Quire upon every way and the Pope being brought behind or above it as our Prelates terme it was there in a Throne of wonderfull Majesty set up as a God sitting above Christ and God almighty himselfe by our Novellers Prelates language in which manner the Altar stood there long before yet continues scituated as I am informed And in S. Peters Church at Rome as D. Andrew Board an eye-witnes to in Cardinall Wolsies dayes in his Booke of the Abuses of Rome M. Thomas Becon out of him vol. 3. f. 281. relate the Sacrament Altar are both in a Chapple not in the East but Northside of the Church and S. Peter and S. Paul lie interred in a Chapple under an old Altar at the very lower part or end of the Church not the upper If Altars therfore even in the very Cathedralls of Rome itselfe are thus seated in the middest of the Chapple or Quire in the North not East end yea at the very lower part and end not East or upper end of the Churches● Our Roman Novellers have no ground or Couler at all left them for their East●rly situation of Altars or Tables with one side against the wall or to place them at the upper end of the Church or Quire as they call it since the old Altar under which S. Peter Paul lie buried at which the Romanists affirme they consecrated the Sacrament and sayd Masse stand thus at the lower part or end of the Church the Preists Prelates a●d people taking the upper hand thereof and sitting above it as the Pope himselfe doth above the High Altar The 3. objection is this The Jewes and Pagans Altars stood in the middest of their Quiers and Temples Therfore Christians Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand at the East-end Altar-wise against the wall as now they are placed I answer 1. That this is a mad consequence For if we will imitate the Iewes and Gentiles in setting up Altars then we have cause to imitate them in the forme and situation of our Altars if we will reject the latter as Iew●sh heathenish much more Altars themselves as more Iewish and heathenish then their sit us 2. I answer That the argument is a meere Nonsequitur For admit we ought not to imitate neither Iewes or Getiles in situating our Altars or Communion Tables in the middest as they did yet will it follow Ergo we must place them against the East-wall or end of the Church or Chauncell Certainely Ergo we should place them at the West North or South-side of the Church or Quire is as good a consequent 3. Our Novellers will needes imitate the Gentiles Jewes in their Sanctum Sanctorums Mercie-Seates Copes Miters Aaronicall attires vestments Organs Singing-men a world of Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies Orders Pastimes Festivals Consecrations why not then in the standing of their Altars having no Divine Prohibition to hinder them in this particular as they have in all or most of the others 4. The Altars of the Iewes were placed in the middest of the Tabernacle Temple Court of the Temples by diuine institution direction so situated in pagan Temples by the very dictate of Common reason as the most vsefull ●itting and de●ent scituation therfore Christians should rather imitate then directly thwart them in this particular having both Gods institution and right rectified reason to induce them thus to doe The 4. objection is this The Communion Tables in all Cathedrall Churces and in al his Majesteyes Chapples are so situated where Ecclesiasticall discipline is best observed therfore they ought there to be placed in all other Chapples I answer 1. but I know not neither doe I beleiue the Axtecedent to be true for certaine I am that in many Cathedrals with in these few yeares by name in the Cathedrall of Salisbury Winchester Exeter Bristol Worcester Carlile and others the Communion Table stood East West a good distance from the wall not Altarwise against it with in the memory of some men yet aliue it stood so in all Cathedrals of England in all or most of the Kings Chapples If they haue been otherwyse situate of late yeares as the Tables in many Churches haue been contrary to Law it is but an innouation introduced by some violēt Innouators without any Lawfull authority for what end all England sees and knowes to well So as I may truly thus retort the argument that the Tables in Cathedrall Churches and the Kings Chapples stood not Altarwise but Tabllewise till now of late dayes when their

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. ● 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 o● 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. Ed● 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 f●●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

the word Sacerdos denoting a sacrificing or massing Preist It is a Rule both in Philosophy Diuinitie Omnia agunt propter finem All things especially all Rationall agent aime at some vltimate vttermost or finall end in all their Actions Much more then in their serious writings Polemicall discourses We know againe that it is an vndoubted Maxime in the Schooles that finis causa finalis est primus in intentione vltimus in executione agentis The first thing in Intention of the agent though the l●st in execution And that Omnia med in sum et agunt propter finem all middle causes are and worke only to produce the end Et non sunt volita nisi propter finem These things being undoubted truths past all dispute And it being as true likewise that Altars themselves Preists being but instrument subordinate relatine things 〈◊〉 for some other vse the ●●nation of Tables Altarwise being but ● ceremony the vtmost end or final cause therof being of themselves since none is so simple to ses vp an Altar only because he would have an Altar or to turne the Lords Table Altar-wise only because he desires it should be so plated or to style himselfe affoctedly a Priest only for the Titles sake no more but for some further end all these serving to no vse or purpose at all simplie considered but only with relation to some further end The sole Question then wil be what this end should be To which if our Innouators late Colliar would giue a direct Answer in down right English termes it can be no other but this That the end they strive for in contending for Altars Priests turning Tables Altarwise is only to vsher in a Sacrifice into our Church since Cardinall Bellarmine B. Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament twice printed of late l. 6. c. 5. sect 15. p. 46. expresly resolve That Preists Altar Sacrifice are relatives haue mutuall vnseperable dependance one on the other since there can be no other use of these but only for sacrifice as both the scriptures and the Papists acknowledge the Coale ingenuously confesseth p. 8. 14. 15. 16. But what sacrifice is this Certainly that sacrifice which may now be brought into our Church can be no other but that which formerly vpon the beginning of reformation was cast out but that sacrifice was only the Idolola●rous Popish sacrifice of the Masle Therefore this certainly is the Sacrifice they would bring in againe by these Altars Preists Communion Tables seated Altarwise If they reply that they doe it only for the more decent celebration of the Lords Supper I answer that a Table is farre more decent for such ● purpose then an Altar a Table posture then an Altar situation a Minister then a Preist since we neuer read in scripture of any supper or eating at an Altar since Christ himself instituted the Supper at a Table which Table if we believe the Cronickle● of Flaunders Gharles the Emperor Anno 1350. remoued from Noremberge to Prague as most precious relique which the Church of Rome flath yet to shew if you dare belieue them though shee neuer consecrates the Sacrament 〈◊〉 it which me thinkes shee should then dve I but in an Altar 〈◊〉 at an Altar since we finde no mention in scripture of any Preists but only of Apostles and Ministers 〈◊〉 at this Table If they reply as the Coale doth that they 〈◊〉 only to him 〈◊〉 Commemoratue Sacrifice which our Church allowes not ● Prepitiatory as the Papists make their Masse I answer first that our Church allowes not so much as of a Commemoratiue Sacrifice neither doth shee in her Homilies or Articles stile the Sacrament of the Lords Supper so much lesse in her Common prayer Booke Injunctions Canons or statntes neither doth the Colier alledge one passage in any of all these to proue this bold assoueration either p. 8. or p. 15. 16. where like a beggerly Pedlar he layes open all his shrids stolen wares 2. The Church of England euen in that very homilie he cites p. 8. expresly condemnes this Commemroratory Sacrifice in these words Wee must take heed then saith the Homily least of a Memory it BE MADE A SACRIFICE If not A SACRIFICE then not a commemoratiue Sacrifice vnlesse they will grant a commemoratiue Sacrifice to be no Sacrifice which is a contradiction to say we must take heed least of the MEMORY we make it A SACRIFICE Is all one as to say wee must take heed that we make it not a commemoratiue Sacrifice a Memorie a Sacrifice being here put in direct opposition contradistinction one to an other in this clause in the following parts of the Homily which 4. seuerall times cals the Sacrament A MEMORY A COMMEMORATION AND OUTWARD TESTIMONY of Christs death but neuer a Sacrifice commemoratiue or Propitiatory Both which it expresly clubs downe in these words Now it followeth to haue with this knowledge a sure constant saith not only that the death of Christ is avay lable for a redemption of all the world c but also that he made vpon the Crosse A TRVE AND SVFFICIENT SACRIFICE for thee a perfect cleansing of thy sinns so that then acknowledge no other sauiour redeemer Mediator Advocat Intercessour but CHRIST ONLY Herein thou needest no other mans helpe NO OTHER SACRIFICE therfore neither commemoratiue 〈◊〉 propitiatory for this vniuerfull Negatiue includes both or 〈◊〉 NO SACRIFICING PREIST 〈◊〉 New Preist● observe this well to which they haue subscribed NO MASSE let those who labour might and maine to usher it into the Church by degrees consider this No meanes established by mans injunction Therefore no A t●r Preist Sacrifice or Table seated Altar-wise All which this homily strikes dead at once and our Common-Prayer-Booke and 39. Article too almost in the selflame words 3. A commemoratiue Sacrifice is a meere Bull and contradiction For as the picture of a man is no man or of fire no fire or of a Chalice or Sacrament no C●alice or Sacrament So the commemoration of Christ Sacrifice is in truth no Sacrifice nor kinde nor species of a Sacrifice but only a shadow or memoriall of a Sacrifice So that this is but a Mountebancks chear and distinction to delude children fooles with all not warranted by any Scripture or judicious Orthodox divine 4. The Sacrament neither is nor can be a sacrifice for every sacrifice whether legall or Euangelicall is a religious seruice holocast worship or 〈◊〉 offered up by men to God himselfe Numb 28. 2. 3. 4. Psal. 4. 5. Psal. 5● 14. Psal. 66. 15. Mat. 3. 3. Rom. 12. 1. H●b 9. 14. 5. 1. 7. Heb. 13. 15. 1 Pet. 2. 5. Whence the Booke of Common-prayer after the receiving of the Sacrament prescribes this Eucharisticall prayer And thus we offer present unto thee O Lord our selues our

Crucifix in the mid lest two Candlest●ckes at the least one placed at the right hand another at the left which shall stand alvvayes on it but especially on all Holy-dayes unlesse the Bishop at some times shall otherwise order VVhich Popish Constitution Bishop Wren with other of our Prelates and Novellers now follow to an haires breadth though I say this Counsell decreed all this and more yet there is not a syllable in it concerning bowing to the Altar Therefore it seemes to be a thi●g of no great request even among the Papists who bow only to the Hostia on it B●sh● M●tons I●stitution of the Sacram p. 463. not to the Altar it selfe or towards it These I suppose are the prime Authorities that can be produced by any for bowing to Altars And all these if duely weighed are nothing at least to sway with any Protestant or syncere Christian. As for bowing to or towards the Lords Table which I have proved not to be an Altar nor yet to be of right so styled but only the Lords Table as even in times of superstation it hath been st●●ed Cent. Magd. Cent. 8. Col. 677. Cent. 9 Col. 243. Nic●ph G●eg f. 10. Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacram●nt p. 303. there is not one syllable in all my reading nor I thinke in any man else to be found If any demaund now of me how I prove that the primitive Ch●rch and Coristia is bowed not to Altars Lords Tables and therefore we ought not now to doe it I answer that I can manifest it sundrie wayes 1. Because I finde no such thing either in the Fat●e●s or Ecclesiasticall Historians where all the Rights and Ceremonies used in the Primitive Church are accurately sett downe and a●scribed See Cent Magd. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. cap. 6. de Ceremoni●s Ritibus Eccles. so as this of all other had it been a thing of that moment and so much practised as some now fable would not have been passed over in s●●●nce by them 2. Because the Primitive Church and Chr●stians for 260 yeares after Christ or more had no Altars at all among them as I have else where proved Therefore no bowing to Altars And to Tables we never read that any bowed no not in times of Popery when they so farre disdained Lords-Tables that they contemptuously styled them Prophane Tables and Oysterboards Acts Monum Edit ult pars 3. p. 85. 95. 497. 3. Because the Christians in the Primitive Church for many hundred yeares after Christ prohibited all Christian● to bow their knees or kneel on any Lordsday and from Easter till Whitson-tide on any weekeday in honour of Christs resurection holding it an offence and sinne so to doe even in the act of prayer and adoration it selfe As Tertullians vvords in his Booke De Corona Militis witnesseth Die Dominica jejunium nefas ducimus vel de geniculis adorare And these subsequent Authorities doe likewise manifest it Iustin Martyr Quaest. 115. Tertullian ad uxorem Hierom Advers Luceforianos de Ecclesiasticis observationibus c. 29. Radulphus Tungrenfis de Canonum observantia Proposit. 23. p. 458. A. Concil Nicaenum Can. 20. Carthag 6. Can. 20. Constantinop 6. Can. 90. Turonense sub Carolo Magno Can. 37. Gratian de Consecratione Dist. 3. Origen Homil. 4. in Num. Cyprian Centur in Orat Domini Centur. Magd. 3. c. 6. col 135. If then the Primitive Christians prayed and worshipped standing and deem●d it a sinne to kneel either in prayer or any other act of adoration or worship on those dayes the cheife time of the● Christian and publicke assembles especially for receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Ivo Carnot●●ses Decretal Pars 1. c. 25. 34. It is certaine therefore that they used not in their Assemblies to bow their bodies or knees to or towards High Altars or Lords Tables● as certain that they kneeled not at the Sacrament much lesse bovved their he●ds or knees at the naming of Iesus as some ignorant shallovv-pated Novellers now pretend and give out without proofe or shaddovv of truth● 4. Because the Fathers condemned as Idolatry all b●wing to or towards Images or Idols all worshipping 〈◊〉 God in by through or towards them Holding div●● 〈◊〉 and adoration a thing peculiar to God alone 〈…〉 immediately to God himselfe without any such 〈…〉 ●elpes of Images or Altars condemning all relative w●rship as derogatory to his Majesty See the Homily of the 〈◊〉 of Idolatrie Bishop Ushers answer to the Iesuites Challenge of Images and praying to Saints Therefore this vvorsh●pping and adoring of God in by through and towards the Altar and Communion-Table is a thing utterly cōdemned by them to be detested of all which would have hardned the Gentiles in their Idolatrie for which cause they suffered no Images in their Churches and carefully Tertulliani Apologia wiped of these Cauils of 〈◊〉 Pagans who s●●ndered them with the worshipping of the Rising Sunne the Crosse an Asses head and the like Concluding and prot●sting that adoration and worship was due to God alone and that immediately 5. Because they reputed Christ only the true Altar the only Altar in ●eaven which they adored all other Altars were Iewish or Pagan reliques abolished by Christs death which had no Authority to warrant them in the Scripture Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. See Bishop Mortons Institution of the Sacramēt Edit 2. p. 415. 418. 461. 462. Therefore unfitt to be bowed to or towards or to be the objects of any relative worship as most now make this their bowing Upon all which grounds I conceive I may safely assirm● at least till our Novellers shall be able to prove the contrary that the Primitive Church and Christians never used to bow to Altars or Lords Tables and that there are no Fathers nor Antiquities to just●fy this usage In the Discription of the election of Maximilian to be King of the Romanes in the month of Ianuary An. 1486. Rerum Germanicarum Scriptores Tom. 3. p. 22. 23. 24. 28. 29. 30. 32. I 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉 E●●perour in the Cathedrall Church at F●ankf●●d 〈…〉 for him to sit in Ad Altaris 〈…〉 A th● South-side of the Altar where the Gosple is usually read higher then the other seates just over against the Altar That the Arch-bishop of Mentz the Duke of Bavar●● the Count Palatine of Rhene Maximilian Arch-Duke of Austria and the Duke of Burgundie sate on his left hand The Arch bishop of Colen the Duke of Saxonie and the Marqu●sse of Brandenburge on the left hand And the Arch-bishop of Treuier neither on the right hand 〈◊〉 the left but just before the Kings face before the Altar On the same side of the Quire sate divers other Bishoppes On the North-side of the Altar sate many Bishops Earles Dukes and Nobles All which in order went and offered at the Altar After which the King came and received his Crowne at the High Altar Masse being ended the Princes

and other pastimes Epist. Dedicat Antiqu Connival l. 1. c. 16. fol. 36. c. 23. fol. 67. c. 25. fol. 74. 75. c. 33. f. 133. to 138. and l. 3. c. 2l 22. so much contested for now of late All which the primitive Christians abandoned as well as Altars But though these Novellers have neither Statute Canon Scripture nor Antiquity for this new invented Ceremonie yet doub●l●sse being reasonable creatures they must have some reasons for it True they thi●ke they have so But if their reasons be but examined they are in truth meer lying 〈◊〉 crackbrainde fantasies of their owne invention not warranted by any Scripture or registred in any Father or Authour no● known to Durandus See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉 or Mirologus See De Divinis Offici●s l●b or any other Romanists who have taken upon them to give a reason for every one of their Ceremonies though never so superstitious or ridiculous If any desire to know their Reasons they are these 1. First they say they doe must bow to or towards the High-Altar and Lords-Table because it is the place of Christs speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of estate wherein he 〈◊〉 See Giles Widdowes his Lawlesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puri●●●●● p. ●9 Shelfords Sermon of Gods house p. 2. 4. 18. 19. 20. Reeve his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-Prayer-Booke neare the end Which reason I have already proved falce Only I shall demaund these few Questions of them I. QVESTION By what Scriptures or Fathers they can make good this proposition That the High-Altar or Lords-Table is the speciall place of Gods presence upon Earth and his Chaire of state wherein 〈◊〉 II. QVESTION What they meane by this speciall presence whether his corporall or his divine presence If his corporall that implyes first a Transubstantiation of the Sacramentall bread and wine into the very body bloud of Christ. Secondly a perpetuall reservation of the consecrated bread thus transubstantiated into Christs body on the Altar Lords-Table else the reason holds not but only at the time whē the Sacrament is administred and the consecrated bread wine is standing on the Table And so they ought them only to bow to or towards the Altar Not at other times when there is no Sacrament Bishop Mortons I●stitution of the Sacrament p 463. as now they doe Thirdly it implyeth a denyall of the Scriptures and Articles of the Creed which assure us That Christ in his humane nature and corporall presence is wholy ass●nded into Heaven That he hath quite lest the world and is gone to his Father● That he is sett downe at his Fathers owne right hand That he is no more corporally present upon Earth That he cannot be corporally in many places at once and never was so that wee find in the Scripture That the Heavens must containe him untill his second comming to judgement And the like Acts 3. 21. cap. 1. 10. 11. John 14. 2. 3. 19. c. 16. 28. c. 17. 11. 12. c. 13. 1. 1. Pet. 3. 22. Heb. 10. 12. cap. 12. 2. And it is point-blancke against the Homilies Articles Writers and established doctrine of the Church of England to which these Rebellious sonnes of Belial have subscribed If they meane only Christs Spirituall presence that certainly is as much at the Font the Pulpit the Bible the Common-Prayer-Booke as on the Table as much in the whole Church and Quire as in all or any of these standing in them Yea much more in every pore Christians heart and soule the true Temples of God wherein Christ and his spirit dwell by faith Ephes● 3. 17. c. 2. 21. 1. Cor. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 13. 5. Gal. 2. 20. Therefore if this reason hold firme they must bow alike to or towards all and every of these as well and as oft as to the Table or Altar III. QVESTION Admit the Preposition true I would demaund of them how they can prove this their assertion to be truely Orthodox That men ought to bow and worship to and towards the place of Christs speciall presence What Scripture Councell or Father hath taught them any such Doctrine Certainely if this be good Divinity then when ever they see the Pulpit Bible Font Church or any pious Saint of God though never so pore they must for sooth bow 〈◊〉 thē because Christ is specially present in them then they must no sooner looke up to Heaven but they must bow their knees and bodies to it for that is Gods Throne Christs Chaire of Estate indeed and the place of their speciall residence by the Scriptures expresse resolution Yea then when ever they see the Paten or Chalice which immediately containe the Bread and Wine they must bow to them because they are the place of Christs speciall presence rather then the Table or Altar on which those vessels which conteine the Sacrament only stand IV. QVESTION Jf this reason be folid I would then demaund but this Question whether Christ be not more immediately really and spiritually present yea and corporally too if they hold any such presence in the S●crament as they seeme to doe in the Consecrated B●ead and Wine then in the Chalice or Cup or on the Table or Altar it sel●e If so as all must necessarily graunt then it will inevitably follow from this reason that they must much more adore and bow to the consecrated bread and wine then either to the Altar or Table If so then I would demaund of them First what is the reason they bow only to the Altar or Table not to the consecrated bread ond wine Or in case they answer that they bow to both How their bowing to the bread and wine differs from the Papists adoration of them which our Church condemnes as most grosse Idolatrie Secondly What is the cause why they bow to the Altar or Table before the bread and wine are consecrated when Christ certainely is not there present in that manner as they fansie and yet bow not to the bread and wine after consecration when Christ is specially present in them Thirdly why many of them at the administration of the Sacrament when as they have the bread and wine in their hands bow downe to the ground almost as they come from passe by or goe to the Table or Altar out of their reverence and respect to the Table and Altar and yet bow not at all to the consecrated bread and wine which they hold then in their hands Fourthly whether bowing to and towards the Altar or Table so frequently and devoutly as they deeme it when there is no Sacramentall bread and wine upon it and at the time of the Sacrament even when they hold the Sacrament in their h●nds and their not bowing to or towards and adoring of the Sacrament it selfe which is farre more ho●ourable then either the Table or Altar which serve only for its consecration and distribution and may put them more immediately in mind of Christ be not an advancing a preferring of

cleare undenyable truth I would first know what difference at all there is between those Idolatrous Pagans Papists and our late Innovatours See Francis de Croy his three-fold Conformity part 1. and Ormered his Pagano-Papismus These Ethnickes had Altars So have the Papists and wee They had the Images of the Idols they worshipped in their Temples and these standing in the East end of their Temples above and over their Altars And we have the Image of our Saviour on the Crosse which our Homilies hold unlawfull to be made much more unlawfull to be sett up in Churches standing either upon our Altars or above them in Tapestrie or Glasse-windowes or both just as have the Papists They when they worshipped prayed or Sacrificed to their Idol-Gods bowed and turned their faces towards their Altars and Images So doe the Papists towards their Altars and Crucifixes and so doe wee Where then lies the difference If they replie that the Paga●s terminated their worship only in their Altars and Images adored the Altars and Images themselves not God in by or through them Our owne Homilies will take away this euasion both of the Papists and our Novellers See the Perill of Idolatrie part 3. p. 50. where we read thus Furthermore in that they say they doe not worship their Images or Altars as the Gentiles did their Idols or Altars but God and the Saints whome the Images Altars doe represent and therefore that their bowings before Images Altars be not like the Idolatrie of the Gentiles before their Idols Altars S. Augustine Lactantius and Clemens doe prove evidently that by this there answer they be all ONE with the Gentiles Idolaters The Gentiles saith S Augustine in Psal. 135. which seeme to be of the purer religion say Wee worship not the Images but by the corporall Image we doe be hold the Signes of the things we ought to worship And Lactantius saith Instit. l. 2. c. 2 3. We feare not the Images but them after whose likenesse the Images be made and to whose name they be consecrated And Clement saith that Serpent the devill uttereth these words by the mouth of certaine men Wee to the honour of the invisible God worship visible Images Which surely is most false See how in using the same excuses which the Gentiles Idolaters pretended they shew themselves to joyne with them in Idolatrie For notwithstanding this excuse S. Augustine Clemens Lactantius prove them Ido-Iaters Thus the Homilies And Dr. Reynolds De Idolat Rom. Eccles. l. 2. c. 3. Sect. 86. c. Dr. Iohn White his way to the Church Sect. 51. n. 7. 8. p. 207. 208. Bishop Iewell Bishop Alley Bishop Abbot Bishop Usher Dr. Fulke Dr. Wille Dr. Field and all other of learned writers in their Tracts concernng Images and their Adoration out of these and other Fathers VVhere then is the difference between Pagans Papists and our late Novellers in these particulars To which I may adde the Tapors on our Altars used by the Pagans and condemned by our Homilies and Writers as Heathenish and Superstitious Certainly I can yet finde none If they replie That they can only worship before the Altar Table and Crucifix but doe not worship the Altar Table or Crucifix it selfe as the Pagans and Papists did doe I answer That as bowing kneeling and worshipping before God Is the same in Scripture phrase with bowing kneeling praying to and worshipping God himselfe witnesse Deut. 26. 10. 1 Sam. 1. 12. 15. 19. 2 Chron. 20. 18. Psal. 2. 27. Ps. 72. 9. Ps. 86. 9. Ps 95. 6. Ps. 96. 9. 15. Ps. 98. 6. 9. Isay. 6. 23. Dā 6. 10. 11. 26. Mich. 6. 6. Rev. 3. 9 c. 4. 10. 5. 8. c. 7. 10. c. 15. 4. compared with Isay. 45. 23. c. 49. 23. c 60. 1● Rom. 14. 1● Hebr. 11. 21. Gen 24. 26. 4. c. 47. 31. Exod. 4. 31. c. 12. 27. c. 34. 8. 1 Chron. 29. 10. 2. Chron. 7. 3. c. 29 29 30. Neh 8 6. Ps. 72. 9. with other texts And as bowing kneeling and falling downe before men is all one with bowing kneeling and falling downe to men Gen 49 8. 1 Sam 25 23. 2 Sam 14 33 c. 24 20. 1 Kings 1. 16. 23. 2 Kings 2. 15. Prov 14. 9. paralleld with Gen 27. 29. Exod 11. 8. 1 Kings 2. 9. 1 Chron 21. 21. So bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe before or towards Images or Altar the very same in Scripture language account wit● bowing kneeling worshipping or falling downe to Images or Altars 2 Caron 25. 14. Isay. 44. 15. 17. 19. which Iunius renders Procumbit CORAM EO Dan 3. 3. 5 6. Luke 4 71. If thou therefore wilt fall downe or worship BEFORE me all those shall be thine Compared with Exod 20 5. Levit 26. 1. Matth. 4. 9. This is the resolution of our Homilies p. 20. and 44. to 75. of William VVraghton in his Rescuer of the Romish Fox where this is excellently cleared and generally of all our Writers against Images and Adoration of the Eucharist the thing novv clearly a● med at in this Ceremony as Dr. Heylyn in his late History of the Sabbath intimateth if not in the Coale too This Cloake therefore is to short to cover their nakednes neither will it serue the turne If they say they have no eye at all at the Altar in this their bowing nor yet at the Crucifix over it And that neither of these are the termina●iōs or total or particular object of their bowing towards them All which they must affirme and make good to acquit themselves from relatiue worship and Idolatrie I answer That this is but a meere forgery and pretext For first Shelford in his Authorized Booke Page 19. faith That the Altar or Table is motivum cultus The mouing cause of this their worship ●doration towards it Therefore certainly it hath some Influence into it and some share in it Secondly as it is the object that stirs up this worship for were there no Altar or Table ●here would not be any such bowing to to or towards the place where it stands a plaine evidence that it is both the o●igin●ll cause if not the object of this worship so it is the only visible object to which it is directed in which it is terminated their eye minde and bodily incuruation being all leuelled at it alone Else why should they not as well bow toward the Font Pulpit or any other part of the Church indifferently but to and towards it alone God being every-where alike present as Honorius Augustodunensis formerly shewes and no more confined to the Altar or Table then to any other part of the Church Thirdly it is not terminated objectively in God or Christ because done to them only to 〈◊〉 the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants at the Table or Altar to which we bow as the Passages fatl●●red on Bishop Morton Page 403. witnesseth Therefore terminated only in the Table or Altar Fourthly all the