none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâ—sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâ—d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aâ—t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ— almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌ„secrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lâ—â—e Popish foâ—gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â— 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
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
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
thereby hath given encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishop other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them which resolution faithfully copied out of the Regestets of the Counsell-Table â—earing date the 3. of November 1633. the Author of the Coale from the Altar who ends with it bath at large relaved To this I answer first that this concernes only one particular Church no more and the reason of this order drawen from the example of the Cathedrall of Paules Sant Gregories proximitâ—e there to is not communicable to other Churches peâ—nliar to this alone Therefore it can be no president for others Secondly It was not here resolved that our Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise as the Colier argues neuber is there mention of any example save â— at of Pauls 〈◊〉 and that of late times sinde King Iames nor any Canon Rubrick Statute authority or writer produced by the opposities to justify this situation of the Table for all heir pretence of the practise of approved antiquity foisted in to the order where as the other side produced good antiquity authorityes for them as I am informed among others The Rubrike before the Communion the Queenes Injunctions the 82. Canon Bishop Iewell Bishop Babington Doctor Fulke with the Fathers quoted by them and an un interrupted presciption in all Parish Churches most Cathedrals from the beginning of reformation 3. Though his May stey ordered the Table should stand where it was placed by the Deane Chapter of Pauls direction upon this groud cheifly that it was the most convenient Place in that Church as not only the persons then present can depose but the order inselfe insinuates in these words Now his Majestey having heard a particular relation made by the Councill of both parties of all the cariage proceedings in this cause was pleased to declare HIS DISLIKE OF ALL INNOUATIONS receeding FROM ANCIENT CONSTITVTIONS grounded upon just warrantable reasons especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall orders goverment knowing how easily men are drawen to affect Novelties how soone in such cases weake judgments may be overtaken abused the insuing words which seeme to give particular reasons why this being but a Nouelty was tolerated passed over when as otherwise his Mayestey would not have connived at it His Mayesteye therefore deeming it an Innouation declaring thus his dislike of all Innouations this order is so farre from giving authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churces committed to them as the Author of the Coale infers that unlesse he will apply that ancient verse Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata To the Metropolitane Bishops other ordinaries that they love are incouraged to affect set up these Innouations which his Mayestey dislikes they must rather be discouraged then animated by this order to require the like in any much lesse in all the Churches committed to them And truly if al things be well considered they have little cause to be thus incouraged to require make this Innouation as they generally doe not being ashamed or afrayed to give it in charge to Church-wardens Ministers in their Visitation printed Articles and to excommunicate Church-wardings for not removing rayling in the Lords-Table Altar-wise as appeares by the Church-wardens of Ipswich Beckington Colchester and others For first the Statute of 25. H. 8. c. 19. Enasts vpon the Prelates Clergies joint Petition in Parliament That they the sayd Clergie in their Convocations Synods any of them in their severall Diocesse visitations Consistories or Iurisdictions from henceforth shall presume to attempt alleage claime or put in vre any Constitutions or ordinances Provinciall Synodals or any other Canons nor shall enact promulge or execate any such Canons Constitutions or ordicances provinciall by what soeuer name or names they may be called in their Conuocations in time coming which alway shal be assembled by authority of the Kings writ vnlesse the same clergie may have the Kings most royall assent to make promulge execute such Canons Constitutions ordinances provinciall or Synodall and the kings most royall assent vnder his great Seale he had to the same all which King James his Letters Patents before the Canons 1603. morefully expresse manifest Vpon peine of every one of the sayd Clergie doing contrary to this being thereof conuict to suffer imprisonment make fine at the Kings will The penalty of which Law every Metropolitane Bishop ordinary hath incurred some say a Praemineere to by printing making visitation Articles Injunctions in their owne names for altering rayling in Communion Tables Altar-wise many such Innouations without his Mayesteyes royall assent approbation under his great Seale of England had to the same 2. The 12. Canon 1603. ordaines this who soever shall hereafter affirme that it is Lawful for any sort of Ministers lay persons or either of them and Bishops with other ordinaries are certainly with in this number to joyne to gether make Rules Orders or Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall without the Kings authority shall submit themselves to beruled governed by them let them be excommunicate ipso facto not be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke those their wicked Anabapsticall Errors But our Bishops Arch-deacons other Ordinaries with the nameles Iudicious Learned Divine who writ the Coale from the Altar affirme that in print to all the world that it is lawfull for them either of them to make printe visitation Oathes Articles Injunctions Constitutions in causes Ecclesiasticall for the rayling in of Communion Tables turning them Altarwise other Nouell Ceremonies as standing vp at Gloria Patri the Gospell Athanasius the Nicene Creed bowing at the name of Iesus to Communion Tables Altars c. Yea to keep Consistories visitations without the Kings Authority vnder his great Seale licensing them to make or exccute any such Articles Constitutions Ordinances or to keep any Court or Consistorie and they enforce by visitations excommunications fines imprisonments the power of the High Commission divers of his Majesteyes Subjects to submit them selves to be ruled gouerned by them Therefore they are all ipso facto excommunicate by this then owne Canon so irregular all their proceedings nullities neither are they to be restored vntill they shall repent publikely reuoke these their wicked and their Anabaptisticall Errors Articles Oathes Constitutions which they have thus audasiosly imposed vpon his Mayesteyes loyall Subjects 3. His Mayestey in his Declaration to his louing Subjects of the causes which moued him to dissolve the last Parliament published by his Majesteyes speciall commaund Anno 1628. p. 21. 42. 43. Makes this most solemne protestation We call God to record before whom wee stand that it is and
alwayes hath been our hearts desire to befound worthy of that title which we accompt the most glorious in all our Crowne Defender of the faith NEITHER SHALL WEE EVER GIVE WAY TO THE AUTHORIZINGE OF ANY THINGE WHERE BY ANY INNOUATION MAY STEALE OR CREEP INTO THE CHURCH but preserue the vnity of Doctrine discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England had stood florished ever since Wee doe here professe to maintaine the true Religion Doctrine esta blished in the Church of England without admitting or conniving at ANY BACKSLIDING EITHER TO POPERY OR SCHISME Wee doe also declare that wee maintaine the ancient just Rights Liberties of our Subjects with so much constancy justice that they shall haue cause to acknowledge that under our goverment gracious protection they live in a more happy and free estate then any Subjects in the Christian world But the turning of Communion Tables into Altars so terming them the rayling of them in Altarwise so standing the forceing of the Communicants by seuerall rankes files to come vp to them there to receive kneeling at the rayle the enjoyning of Ministers to read the second service as they now Tearme it at the Table when there is no Communion to ducke to bow vnto it going to it returning from it at their ingresse to egresse from the Church all which Bishop Wren others in their late visitation Articles instructions have most strictly enjoined suspending excommunicating such Ministers Churchwardens who have refused to submitt to these otherlike Romish Nouelties are all of them direct Innouations not used nor heard of from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth raigne till of late they are contrary to the Purity of that Doctrine Discipline established in the time of Queen Elizabeth where by the Church of England hath stood florished euer since they are an apparent backsliding to Popery borrowed from the Papishs and brought in only to simbolize with them sett vp Masse and that all Popish Doctrines Rites Ceremonies againe by degres as the premises experience witnes They are contrary to the ancient and just Rights Liberties of the Subjects who ought not to have any such Nouelties thrust vpon them much lesse to be excommunicated fined suspended imprisoned thrust from their freeholds Lectures Cures but by the Law of the Land some speciall Act of parleament as the Statute of Magna Charta c. 29. The late Petition of Right 3. Garoli with other Acts therein recited expresly resolve Therefore they are all directly contrary to his Majesteyes Declarations this his most solemne Christian Protistation both to God All his Loyall Subjects Neither hath his Majestey given the least way to the Authorising of them or any of them or given any admittance or conniuance to them or given any authority or encouragement to the Metropolitane Bishops or other Ordinaries to require the like in all other Churches committed to them as the nameles Author of the Coale most impudently falsely to his Mayesteyes great dishonor reproach hath a vowed in print the Bishops their officers given out in speeches to couler ouer these all other their late Popish Innouations brought in fomented by themselves alone in affront of this his Majestoyes declaration royall pleasure signified this is print by Speciall Command to all his Loyall Subjects whose heares were not so much overjoyed at the sight of it at first as now they are overgreiued to see the Metropolitanes Bishops Ordinaries this blacke Collier in his blushlesse Coale from the Altar so insolently apparantly to thwart affront bid defiance to it by all these with other their dangerous Popish Innouations by suspending silencing excommunicating all such faithfull Ministers Lecturers Church-wardens People who out of Conscience towars God Loyalty to his Mayesteyes Lawes obedience to this his royall Declaration refuse to submit vnto them which they hope his Mayestey vpon information of this their most desperate insolency exorbitant disloyalty rebellion against his Lawes Declaration will not only consider but most seuerely punish to his poore Subjects comfort releife 4. His Mayesteye to shew his further detestation against these Innouations in his Declaration before the 39. Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes commaundment London 1628. which Declaration was made vpon mature Deliberation with the advise of so many of our Bishops as might conueniently becalled together thus signifieth his royall pleasure therein That wee are supreme Gouernour of the Church of England and that if ANY DIFFERENCE ARISE about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soeuer thereto belonging THE CLERGIE IN THEIR CONVOCATION not euery Bishop or ordinary in his Dioces as the Coale order of the Councill Table oited in it which doubt lesse in this was not rightly entred or Copied and determines IS TO ORDER AND SETTLE THEM But how of their owne heades without any speciall Commission from his Minyestey Noe I warrant you having FIRST obtained LEAVE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE SO TO DOE AND WEE APPROVING THEIR SAID ORDINANCES AND CONSTITUTIONS providing that none bemade CONTRARY TO THE LAWES AND CUSTOMES OF THE LAND That of our Prinely care that the Churchmen may doe the worke which is proper vnto them the Bishops Clergie from time to time in Convocation vpon their humble desire SHALL HAVE LICENCE UNDER OUR BRODE SEALE to deliberate of and to doe all such things as being made plaine by them ASSENTED TO BY VS shall concerne THE SETLED CONTINUANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE of the Church of England now established FROM WHICH WE NOT ENDURE ANY VARYING OR DEPARTING IN THE LEAST DEGREE Where his Mayestey the Bishops themselves expressely determine against the Coales Doctrine Bishops Practise 1. That if any difference arise about the externall Policie concerning Injunctions Canons or other Constitutions what soever thereto belonging or the true sence and meaning of them not the Metropolitane or Ordinaries in their seuerall Iurisdictions nor yet the High Commissioners but the whole Clergie in Convocation is to order them Therefore this difference concerning Alters the situation ray ling in of Communion Tables the reading of the 2. service at them receiving at them the like which euery Bishop Arch-deacon Chancellor Surregare now takes vpon hâ—m perempterily to order Alter at his pleasurs 2. That the whole Clergie in Convocation can neither deliberate on nor Order or settle any thing in these or such other particulars or differences unlesse they first obtaine leave from his Mayestey vnder his brode seale so to doe He also approve their said ordinances Constitutions by his orâ— aâ—d seale Letters Parents Therefore the Metropolitane himselfe the Bishops Arch deacons other Ordinaries with their vnder-Officers can order or settle nothing in these particulars or others nor
the Kings free Chappels much lesse then any of his Vniversities which are more peculiar to his Majestie and more to be respectâ—d and of they did they incurred a Praemunire Therefore if the Archbishop would come to visit them in his owne name and right as Archbishop only they must and would withstand him according to their oaths and duties both to his Majestie the Vniversity But if he woâ—ld come as the Kings visit uâ— and substitute only and in his name and right alone with a speciall Commission or Patent under his greatâ—â—eale they would willingly submit to his visitation otherwise not This contestation grew so great that at the length it came to be heard and descided before his Majestie and his honourable privy Counsell at Hampton 〈◊〉 â— Whereupon the opeâ—ing â— hearing of the case pretended by the Vniversitâ—es Arch-bishops was whether his Majestie or the Arch-bishops or which of them should be supreme in causes Ecclesiasticall and sole visitour of the Vniversities in Law righâ— The Arch-bisop declared that he desired not to visit the Vniversity out of any ambition or desire of Innovation c. But only to rectify some enormities of lâ—ng Continuance And what were they There were some Chappels belonging to certaine Colledges in that Vniversity the which had never yet been consecrated and yet divine service Sacraments were ministred in then and had beene so for many yeares and for instaÌ„ce he named Eâ—â—â—nuel Colledge for one which hath been used as a Chappel ever since the yeare of our Lord 1524 and Sidney Sussex Colledge Chappell used from An 1598. till this present So that the consecration of these two Chappels were the principall cause at least pretence of this great contestation before the Arch-bishop and Vniversity A weighty matter God wootâ— to trouble his Majestie and whole Counsell with when as there is neither Scripture Law nor Canon of our Church in force to justifie such a consecration but Lawes and authoritiâ—â— store against it Bishop Pilkington Walter Haddon Mr. Fox and others much jeare and deride the madnesse folly and superstition of Cardinall Poole and his Deputie visitors of this very Vniversity of Cambridge for digging up Mr. Bucers and Paulus Fâ—gius bores out of S. Maries Church iâ— Cambridge â— yeares after they were interred And interdicting and nâ—w conâ—ecrating the Church againe as prophaned by them for feare their Masses and divine service there used should be nothing worth the place being made prophane and unholy by these Heretickes funerals as they judged them When as the Church was holy enough to say Masse in for three yeare space before all that would not heare itâ— must be imprisoned although the parties lay there buried And is it not then a farre greater madnes superstition and ridiculous frenzie for our dominering Arch-Prelats to deeme these two Chappels prophane places unfitt to administer the Sacraments aâ—d celebrate divine service in because never yet consecrated by a Bishop not only after three but almost threescore yeares use and practise of divine service Sermons and Sacraments in them WheÌ„ as neither his predecestâ—â—rs Whiâ—gift Bancroft and Abbot men very ceremonious and much addicted to superstition ever so much as moved any such question concerning the necessity of their consecration And there is no such Canons Law and Doctrine to enforce the consecratioÌ„ of them now as were to justifie the rehallowing of S. Maries in Queen Maries time which the Popish Canon Law then approvâ—d O that these great Prelates were as zealous to preach the word of God and patronize the authorized Doctrines of our Church as they are for these superstitious ridiculous Romish trifles fitter for Schoole-boyes to sport themselves with all then for great and grave Bishops ever imployed in the highest State and Church affaires to trouble both the Vniversity King Counsell and themselves with all If any here reply that the Counsell of London An 1236. under Cardinall Otho the Popes Legate first of all ordained and decreed here in England that Churches should be consecrated whereas before that time as the words of the Constitution witnesse divers Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches in England had been built many years before and used as Churches and yet were never consecrated J answer that it seemes till this Constitution even in those times of superstitious grosse blindness Consecration was not held a thing of any moment or necessity much lesse then should it be so reputed now Yet as those ancient Churches must then for this Legates gaine be all consecrated within a certaine space that he might have a round fee from every of them or else be wholy suspended and interdicted so must these ancient Chapples now by this Popish Canon After this Constitution the Bishops by Bulls from the Pope tooke upon them to consecrate Churches Chapples and Church-yeards in their owne names and rights till the abolishing of the Popes usurped power and restoring the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne An. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 20. 21. 26. H. 8. c. 1. After which Acts the Bishops durst not consecrate any Chapple Church or Church-yeard till they had obtained a speciall License from the King under his broad Seale for them and their successours enabling and authorizing them to doe it Which Licence they after much suite to the King Henry the 8. obtaâ—ned in the 31. yeare of his reigne the Coppy whereof I shall sett here downe The King to all men unto whome these presents shall come greeting Know yee that wee out of our speciall grace certaine knowledge and meere motion have granted and given License and by these presents for us and our heires doe grant and give License as much as in us is to the most reverend Fathers in Christ Thomas Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Edward Arch-bishop of Yorke and to the reverend Father in Christ John Bishop of Bath and Wells and also to all other Bishops and Suffraganes within our Realme of England that they and every 〈◊〉 them may consecrate any Churches Chappels or Church-yeards in our Kingdome of England already built and finished as well for the administration and receiving of all Sacraments and Sacramentals to be ministred in them oâ— any of them As for the use of the buriall of dead persâ—ns within the same Churches or Church-yeards and euery of them c. And wee further will and grant by these presents thaâ— our Chancellour of England shall make or cause to be made and deliver or cause to be delivered to any of the foresaid Arch-bishops and Suffraganes from time to time as often as there shall be need so many and such a number of our Letters Patents with speciall and sufficient words aâ—d clauses to be made in due forme of Law for the execution of the Premises and to be sealed under the great Seale as shal be necessary and fitt for the premises or any of them by his discretion c. Notwithstanding the
Electâ—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 Nurâ— 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 Comaeâ—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 â—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 prostratuâ—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-Bâ—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 sâ—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 Bishâ—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 Vassâ—les to the Pope and Prelates their hands being thereby tyed from the invading any of their exorbitant usurped Priviledges or posâ—â—ssions A heâ—â—sh policy worthy observation Anno Dum. 1518. Jacobi Mantiâ— Cardiâ—alat us Alberti Epise Mogunt Rerum Germ Scriptores Tom. 2. p. 399. VVhen Albertus Arch. Bishop of Mâ—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 hâ—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 Anâ—o 1066. Hoâ—eden Annql pars prior p. 447. J reade that King Herroâ—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 posterâ—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 Euangeliâ—ts and 〈…〉 After which 〈◊〉 in the Arch-Bishop an 〈…〉 And taking the Crowne from the Altar put it 〈◊〉 his â—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 Hildeâ—â—â—â—â— whiles he was an Arch-Deacon riding together enâ—â—â—â—â— 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
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
How say yow by the Sacrament of the Altar Wood. Yow meane the Sacrament of the body bloud of Christ Jesus Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar and so I say Wood. You meane Christ to be the Altar doe yow not Chich. I meane the Sacrament of the Altar in the Church what is it so strange to yow Wood. It is strang to me indeed if yow meane the Altar of stone Chich. It is that Altar that I meane Wood. I understand not the Altar so Chich. No I thinke so indeed and that is the cause that yow be deceived I pray yow how doe you understand the Altar then Wood. If you will give me leave till I have done I will shew yow how I understand the Altar and where it is Chich. Yes yow shall have leave to say your mind as much as yow will Wood. It is written Math. 18. That wheresoever two or three be gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest among them and whatsoever they aske the Father upon earth it shal be granted them in heaven agreeing to the 5. of Math. saying When thou commest to offer thy gift at the Altar and there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee leave there thy offring and go first be reconconciled to thy brother and then offer thy gift The Preistes would have interrupted mee but the Bishop bad them let me alone Chich. Yow shall heare a prety conclusion anone Wood. I pray yow let me make an end and then find fault with me if you can Now to the matter In these two places of Scripture I prove that Christ is the true Altar whereon every Christian man and woman ought to come and offer their gifts First wheresoever the people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come and offer our gift if we be in love and charity if we be not we must leave there our offring and goe first and be reconciled to our brother and agree with him quickly and so forth and then come offer the gift Some will say how shall I agree with my adversary when he is not nigh by a hundred miles may I not pray till I have spoken with him To all such I answer if yow presume to pray among the faithfull wishing any evill to any man woeman or child thou as kest vengeance upon thy selfe For no such as keth any thing else of the Lord in hâ—s prayer wherfore agree with thy adversary that is make thy life agreeable to Gods word Say in thy heart without dissimulation that thou as kest God and all the world forgivenesse from the bottome of thy heart intending never to offend them any more Then all such may be bold to come and offer their gift their prayer on the Altar where the people of God be gathered together Thus have I shewed yow my mind both of the Altar and of the offering as I understand it Chich. Doe yow understand the offring and the Altar so I never heard any man understand it so no not Luther the great hereticke that was condemned by a generall Councell his picture burned Wood. If he were an hereticke I thinke he understood it not so indeed but I am sure all Christians ought to understand it so Chich. O what vaine glory is in yow as though yow understood all things and other men nothing Heare me I will shew yow the true understanding both of the Altar and the offring on the Altar We have an Altar sayd Paul that yee may not eat of Meaning thereby that no man might eate of that which was offered on the Altar but the Preist For in Paules time all the living that the Preist had the people came offered it on the Altar mony or other things and when the people came to offer it and then remembred that they had any thing against their brother then they left their offring upon the Altar and went and were reconciled to their brother and they came againe and offered their gift and the Preist had it This is the true understanding of the place that yow have rehearsed wherfore yow be deceived Wood. My Lord that was the use in the old Law Christ was the end of that But indeed I perceive by Paules words the Sacrifice was offered in Paules time yet that maketh not that it was well done but he rebuked it Wherfore it seemeth to me that yow be deceived To passe by that learned Martyr M. John Philpot with our famous Thomas Beacon who in their forecited passages interpret the Altar in this Text to be Christ himselfe not any materiall Altar either of wood or stone The judicious solide D. William Fulke in his confutation and answer of the Rhemist Testament Heb. 13. 10. sect 6. doth thus expound this Text The Apostle speaketh expresly of partipation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observation of the Leviticall Sacrifice Therfore this place is brutishly abused to prove that the Christians have a materiall Altar as the Papists have many The Apostle meaneth Christ to be the Altar not the Table whereon the Lordes Supper is ministred which is called an Altar but unproperly as the Sacrament is called a Sacrifice For he saith We have an Altar which is but one where as the Popish Altars and Communion Tables are many But Isychius sayth This Altar is the Altar of Christes body ye abuse Isychius for he sayth that the Altar is the body of Christ it selfe Such an one sayth he may not come neither to the vaile nor to the Altar that is to the body of Christ to doe the ministery thereof For that hath Paul writing to the Hebrewes taught to be the vaile and the Altar The same he sayth l. â— c. 4. Know thou that S. Paul understandeth that the intelligible Altar is the Lords Body for he sayth we have an Altar whereof they have no power to eate which serve the Tabernacle namely the body of Christ. For it is not Lawfull for the Jewes to eate of it This Altar of necessity is in the entrance of the Tabernacle of witnesse that is in the entrance of the heavens because we have entrance into the Heavens with him It is manifest therfore that Hesychius meaneth not the Ppish Altars but the body of Christ in Heaven the mystery whereof is celebrated on the Lords Table which of the ancient Fathers is called indifferently a Table as it is indeed and an Altar as it is unproperly But that it is called of them a Table and was indeed a Table made of boardes removeable set in the midst of the people not placed against a wall I have shewed sufficiently by the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers
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
wherein no riotous or disordered manner to be used that the HOLY TABLE IN EVERY CHURCH be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood there commonly covered as thereto belongeth shal be appointed BY THE VISITORS and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shal be so placed in good sort with in the Chauncell the Rubricke before the Communion and 82. Canon saye with in the body of the Church or chancell which makes me suspect that Church was omitted in the printing of these Injunctions as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer ministration the Communicants also more conveniently in more number communicate with the sayd Minister and after the Communion done from time to time the same HOLY TABLE to be placed where it stood before In which Injunction much wrested insisted on by the Cole these particulars are remarkable to stoppe the mouthes of our moderne Innovators First that Communion Tables are no Altars nor ought to be so stiled they being here put in opposition contradistinction one to the other though some now confound bind them together as one 2. That all Altars were removed ordered to be removed by vertue and forme of a Law therfore provided to witt the Statute of Eliz. c. 2. confirming the Booke of Common prayer which abandoned them Therfore the bringing in setting up of Altars now and the calling of Communion Tables Altars is against that Law and the Booke of Common Prayer 3. That the setting up continuance of Communion Tables and the calling of them by this name was and yet is according to the forme of the Law in that behalfe the removing of them and altering of their name to Altars or High-Altars against the Law 4. That all Altars were generally removed enjoyned to be removed in all Churches and Chapples through the whole Realme and an Holy Communion Table decently made and set up in every Church therfore no doubt in all Cathedralls in the Queenes owne Chapples for better example unto others So that the erecting of Altars in them or any of them must needs be a late Novelty contrary to Law to this Injunction and a grosse Non-conformity 5. That the care of Taking downe Altars setting up Communion Tables was committed to the Curate Church-wardens of each parish not the Bishop yet now these must be enforced to be the instruments to set up Altars and displace the Tables Altarwise 6. That the power of keeping Visitations belongs only to the Queen her Successors that none ought to visit in their owne names and rights but in hers as their Visitours having first obtained a Commission under their great Seales so to doe as the Statutes of 1. Eliz. c. 1. compared with 26. H. 8. c. 1. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1. Ed. 6. c. 2. 32. H. 8. c. 15. 31. H. 8. c. 10. 25. H. 8. c. 8. c. 21. c. H. 5. c. 1. 14. Eliz. c. 5. and the Pattents of all the Bishops in Edward the 6. his Raigne abundantly evidence 7. That the ordering of the Situation covering of the Communion Tables is referred not to the Bishop or Ordinary of the Diocesse but to the Queenes Visitors who were then specially appointed by her Commission as they were in King Henry the 8. King Edwards dayes many of them being Lay-persons Which Visitours placed them Tablewise not Altarwise in such sort as they stood in all our Churches ever since till with in these two or 3. yeares last past 8. That the Communion Table ourght not to be fixed and railed in Altarwise against the East end of the Chancell and there to stand unmoveable even when the Sacrament is administred the Injunctions expresly prescribing that where ever it stand before yet when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed it shal be removed into such part of the Chancell or into the body of the Church as the Rubricke of the Common prayer Booke runs as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard c. after the Communion done from time to time the same Holy Table to be placed as it stood before Which word shal be is not a baer arbitrary permission only as the Colier p. 50. 51. 52. glosseth it but a direct prâ—â—â—pt as is the later-clause by his owne confession else the Churchwâ—rdens might choose whither they would remoue the Table after the Sareament ended to the place where it stood before These Propositions plainly expressed in the Injunction thus premised I come now to answer the objection being in truth the only thing our Innonators colorably alledge for them First then I answer that this clause set in the place where the Altar stood implies not but all Communion Tables should be placed against the Eastwall of the Chauncle for all Altars were not so situated before this Injunction The Altar in Carmarthen Church was placed in the middest of the Church without the Quire The Altar in the Sauoy Church and other Churches Chapples built North or North and South stood at the South end of the Quire not the East in many Churches some Altats stood one way some an other some West some North and South as walafridus Strabus witnissethâ— but generally they ever stood in the middest of the Quire as the Promises evidence The Author of the Coale therefore must prove that all the Altars in all our Churches and Chapples stood against the Eastwall of the Quieres or Chauncles in the place where now he would have them situated which he can never doe else this clause of the Injunction will little helpe but marre his cause make poinct-blanke against him since it prescribes not the Table to be placed in the East end of the Quire Altarwise against the wall but in the place where the Altar stood so that where the Alter was placed in the midst west North or South end of the Church or Chancle the Table was to be there situated likewise 2. By The place where the Altar stood is not to be interpreted so precisely that it must stand in that particular individuall place or in that forme and manner as the Altar stood for this certainly was not the meaning but in the place that is in that end of the Church where the Altar stood to witt in the midst of the Church if the Altar stood there or in the East West North or South end of the Church where the Altars were so severally situated or in the Chauncel where the Altar formerly stood in the Channâ—le that this only is the true meaning of the Jnjunction not that the Table should be placed just where the Altar stood or in that maner with one side against the East wall of the Quiere as our Innouators expound it is most apparant by these Reasons 1. First Because the
Statutes of Mort c. In witnesse whereof c. Witnesse the King at Westminster the 1â— day of November in the 31. yeare of the reigne of King Henry the 8 c. Teripsum Regem From which Patent truely transcribed out of the Rolls where it it is in Lattine I observe First that the Arch-Bishops had then no Lawfull right 〈◊〉 power at all to consecrate Churches Chappels or Church-yeards without a speciall License from the King himselfe under his Great Seale Therefore by like reason not to keep Consistories Visitations inflict Ecclesiasticall Censures suspend or silence Ministers and the like without such a speciall grant or Licence And so their Episcopall jurisdiction not â—ure divino but meerly humane by the Kings grant and institution Secondly that after such a License given them by the King under his great Seale they cannot yea ought not by Law to consecrate any Church Chappel or Church-yeard without suing forth a specâ—all Patent out of the Chauncery under the Great Seale particularly and by name authorizing them with sufficient words and clauses to consecrate such such a Church Chappel or Church yeard in speciall much more then must they have the like speciall Patent and Commission to keep Courts Visitations suspend or silence Ministers and the like which Licenses and Commissions now they sue not out but goe on of their owne heads in and by their owne Episcopall authorities for the most part for which a Paemunire lies against them Thirdly that every consecration is and makes a Mortmaniâ— Therefore it is against the Law and must have a speciall License and warrant from the King under his Great Seale as this Patent prescribes Fourthly this Patent allowes neither the Bishops nor their Officers to take any fees at all for any such consecrations Therefore the fees they exact for them are meere extortions for which an Inditement or Bill lyeth in the Sta-chamber Fifthly they cannot inforce any man or Parish to have their Chappels Churches or Church-yeards consecrated unlesse themselves require and desire it may be done as some words in the Patent which for brevity sake I have omitted manifest and the words may nor shall consecrate implieth as much Sixtly that this gives them no power at all to consecrate Altars or Altar-clothes which have a distinct peculiar forme of Consecration but only Churches Chappels Church-yeards After this King Henry the â— in the 37 yeare of his reigne by his Letters Patents to the Bishop of Oxford among other things granted him power to proceed to the Consecration of Churches and Church-yeards within his Diâ—cesse Moreover without speciall grant from the King they had no such power For which cause it was then specially inserâ—eâ— into this and other Bishops Patents And thus long the Consecration of Churches with all other Popish Superstitions and Ceremonies almost continued in use But upon the change and reformation of religion which is worthy of observation iâ— quite vanished away as did many other Popish Superstitions by the abolishing of the Masseâ—Bookes Primers and Ceremonials which prescribed the manner and forme of Consecrating Churches Chapples and Church-yeardes by the Statutes of 2. 3. E. 6. c. 1. 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. Whence I finde not in all the Patents made to Bishops in King Edwardâ— dayes by the provision of the statutes of 1. E. 6. c. 2 One syllable authorizing them to consecrate Churches Chapples or Church-yeards though all other parts of Ecclesiasticall and Episcopall jurisdiction as keeping of Courts Visitations Probale of Wills granting of Letters of Administration suspending of Ministers upon Legall and just groundes c. be particularly granted them in those Patents Yet how To be executed only NOMINE VICE ET AVTHORITATE NOSTRIS REGIIS in oâ—â— owne Royall Name Stead and Authority not their owne as the Patents of Scory Couerdale 5. Ed. 6. parsf in the Rolls with many others testify Neither have any Bishops since Henry the 8. this clause of Consecrating Churches Chapples 〈◊〉 Church-yards inserted into heir Patents in these latter dayes from the King under his Great Sâ—ale authorizing them to keep Consistories Visitations prove Wills grant Lâ—â—ters of Administration Suspend Silence or deprive Ministers or inflict any Ecclesiasticall Censures upon any Subjâ—ct Therefore they have not authority at all in point of Law to execute any of those particulars aud what ever they doe in any of them is Coram non judice and but a meere Nullity especially their Consecration of Churches Chapples Church-yeards Altars for which they have neither Patentâ— Statute Article Injunction Canon or Orthodox Writer of our Church Or for those long since antiquated Bacchanalian feasts of Dedication which they would now receive But of this enough for this present in which I have been the more prolix because it is a poiet of Law not hitherto discussed fully by any that I have mett with QVESTION IIII. The 4. Question I shall propound is this What Law or Canon there is to enjoyne Ministers to read the Epistle and Gosple or second service at the High-Altar or Lords Table or to suspend them if they refuse to doe it when there is no Communion The reason of this demaund is five-fold 1. Because in truth there is no Statute Law Injunction or Canon extant prescribing any such thing 2. Because the Rubricke before the Communion ordaines that the TABLE AT THE TIME OF THE COMMVNION shall stand in the body of the Church or Chancle WHERE MORNING AND EVENING PRAYER BE APPOYNTED TO BE SAID and the Preist standing at the NORTH SIDE of the Table shall say the Lords prayer with thi collect following c. And the Rubricke at the end of the Communion ordaines thus Vpon the Holy-dayes if there be no Communion shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion untill the end of the Homily concluding with the generall prayer c. But it sayth not that it shall then be sayd at the Communion Table Whence I observe 1. That theâ— Rubricke ties not the Minister to say second service at the Lords Table but at such times only as there is a Communion 2. That when he reades service at it the Table ought not to stand Altar-wise against the East-wall of the Church but 〈◊〉 be removed and placed in the body or MIDDLE of the Church or Chappel where Morning and Evening Prayer be appointed to be sayd So as the Prâ—â—st ought not to goe up to the Table or high Altar but they ought to be removed and brought downe to him as is cleare by thâ—s Rubricke and more perspicuous by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the 82 Canon forecited if you read Whence I argue thus The Minister ought not to read Second service at the Altar but then only when it is removed and brought downe into the body and middle of the Church or Chancel to celebrate the Communion at as the Rubricke Injunction Canon resolve But the Table is not thus
to be removed or placed but at the time of the Communion unlesse they will grant that it ought alwayes to stand in the middest of the Church or Chancel which they profestedly deny witnesse the Rubricke Institution and Canon Therefore they ought not to read Second Service at it but only when there is a Commiâ—â—ion Thirdly because the Rubricke before Te Deum saith that the Epistle and the Gospell shall be read where the two Lessons are with a loudvoayce that the people may heare the Minister that readâ—th them and the Minister Atanding and turning himselfe as â—he may best be heard of ALL such as be present Therefore this is direct that the Second Servicâ— whereof the Epistle and Gospell are a part must be read in the Reading Pâ—w where the Lessons are when there is no Communion Because there he may best be heard of ALL present and that he must not turne his fuce East but West to the people Fourthly because the Table is instituted and placed in Churches not to read divine Service at but to Consecrate and minister the Lords Supper at This is the sole use for which it serves As the Font is ordained only for Baptismâ— the 〈◊〉 for reading and the Chest or pâ—oremans loâ— in every Church for Almes So it for the L Sâ— as is clear by 1 Coâ—â— 10. 16. 21 C. 11. 20. 2â— c. The Common-prayer-booke The Homilies of the worthy receiving of the Sacramntâ— of the right use of the Church of the Râ—pairing and keeping cleare of Churches Queen Elizabeths Inâ—unctions Canons sett ouâ— 1511. p 18. and Can 1603. Can 8â— 82. 83. 84. with all writers old and new I ever mett with all have the Licenses and Injunctions run thus Whereas her Majesty understandeth c. And Tables placed for ministration of the holy Sacrament according to the forme of Law therefore provided Hence Mathew Parkers visitation-Articles An 1560. Art 2. thus Whether have you in your Churches c. A comly and decent Table FOR the HOLY COMMVNION c. The Canons in Convocation Anno 1571. p. 18. thus Church-wardens shall see there be a faire repaired Table which may serve for the Administration of Holy Communion and a câ—eane Cloth to cover it A convenient Pulpit whence the Heavenly doctrine may be taught c. The 28. Can 1603. thus Whereas we have no doubt but that in all Churches within the Realme of England therefore in Cathedrals too which had then no Altars convenient and decent Tables are provided and placed to what end to read Service at No But for the celebration of the holy Communion c. And likewâ—se that a convenient seate be made for the Minister to READ SERVICE IN With a comly decent Pulpit for the preaching of Gods word Can. 83. Since then the use of the Table by these and infinite other testimonies yea by the resolution of all our Preâ—utes â—isitation Articles is only instituted for the celebration of the Lords Supper at it And the 28 Canon with the Rubricke before Tâ— Deum expresly confines the reading of divine service to the Ministers State appointed for that purpose It is cleare that the Minister ought not to read Second Service at the Table but only when there is a Communion That the reading of Service at it on other times is a meere abuse and perversion of that end for which it was instituted And Bishoppes may with as much reason and Law enjoyne them to reade Second Service at the Font in the Pulpit or at the Poore mans box as at it Fifthly Because the Queenes Injunctions the 82 Canon and Arch bishop Laudes very first Article for his Metropoliticall visitation expresly prescribe That when ever the Minister shall reade Service at the Table it shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancle as thereby the Minister shall be the more coveniently heard of the Communicants in his prayer and administration and the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number may communicate with the said Minister Which words compared with the Rubricke before Te Deum are a direct resolution that the Minister ought not to reade any prayers at the Table but when there is a Communion Which being most cleare No Bishoppes may or ought to enjoyne Ministers to reade Second Service at the Table or Altar when there is no Communion neither can they suspend any for not doing it And if any Bishop persuade or enforce Ministers to reade Service thus both the Bishop and they as D. Wreâ— Bâ—shop of Norwich with many of his Clergie have done incurre the penalties of the Act of 1 Eliz. c. 2. and may be indited fined and imprisoned for it by this Law It being a saying of divinâ— sâ—rvice in another manner and forme and an using of other rights and Ceremonies then are prescribed in the Booke of Common-prayer Which together with the Queens Injuctions and Canons condemnes this Innovation which was never used or urged in Parish Churches till now Neither is there any president for it in Antiquity but only in Popish Churches of late yeares All that can be alledged for it is that which Shelford and the Colier produce for Altars and bowing to them The practise of our Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches being most Popish corrupt and most opposite to our Lawes and Canons of all other in their i Crucifixes Images Tapors Altars Altar-adorations Vestments Chaunting lascivious Musicke Gesticulations with a World of other Romish Antichristian Reliques and Ceremonies All which are condemned by the Homilies against the Perill of Idolatrie of the time and place of Prayer The Common Prayer-Booke 3. 4. E. 6. c. 10. 1. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iac. c. 5. and all our writers till of late being fitter our detestation then Imitation To which I answer 1. That we must live by precepts not Examples Our Cathedrals in this and sundrie other particulars are contrary to our Lawes and Canons in point of practise therefore to be detested corrected and reformed by our Lawes and made like to other Churches Not our Laws Canons and Churches to be squared by them the worst of any 2. The Rubricke of the Common Prayer-Booke in the end of the Communion prescribes in direct termes That in Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches where be many Pâ—eists and Deacons they shall ALL receive the Communion with the Minister EVERY SVN-DAY AT THE LEAST except they have a reasonable cause to thâ— contrary By which it is cleare that there ought to be a Communion celebrated every Sunday in every Cathedrall Collegiate Church and that every Preist and Deacon of the Church ought then to receive it with the Minister unlesse he hath a reasonable cause to the contrary And who can this Minister be but the Bishop Ergo Bishops are but Ministers and ought to receive the Sacrament every Sunday in their Cathedrals Ergo to be alwayes Resident at their Seas and no dancing attendance on the Court. The
it selfe is neither 3. Thirdly it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple Not any genuflâ—ction or chringing to the Temple But this bowing of our Novellers is not simply towards but likewise to the Altar as Reeue D. Pocklington acknowledge Now bowing to and towards the Altar are in some respects two distinct things Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar 4. Fourthly this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture Improperly and Properly Improperly for a praying in some private place not only out of the Temple but even out of the sight and veiwe of it Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were whether in captivity exile or their owne Country 1. King 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts Properly For worshipping or praying in the Temple as 1. King â— 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sence and it will not avayle our Novellers David in his private devotions even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple did worship or pray towards it Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it or David did worship God towards that is in his Temple Ergo they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables and be mewed up within them by â—ike Popish authority are but frenticke ridiculous consequents Yet the best that can be drawne â—â—om these texts to justify these Ceremonies 5. Fiftly the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For 1. First they had a divine premission and authority if not a precept so to doe 2. Secondly a promise from God himselfe to heare graâ—â—â— their prayers made towards the Temple Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings Chronicles Daniel and the Psalmes Viz 1 King 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or â—â—wards Altars or Tables but a direct precept against it which many read at the Altar Table to witt the second Commaundement Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them extending as well to Tables as to Images Idols or any other creatures though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar Neither have we any promise of reward or of answering our prayers made to us for this cringing to Altars and Tables Their practise thereof warrants not ours 3. Thirdly the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe as Divines generally accord and that in many respects too tedious here to mention Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worship towards the Temple to teach them alwayes to looke forwards towards Christ which was to come in the flesh as to their only Sanctuary helpe and refuge in all conditions the only Mediatour and intercessour to whom they must pray the only High Preist Sacrifice Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple but never towards Synagogues Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables High Altars 4. Fourthly the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in and to put his name there where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God to meet to worship him and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King 7. 29. 30 c. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove that the High Altar or Communion Table is the speciall place of Gods presence the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in Sure the Scriptures informes us that VVHERESOEVER two or three Mat. 18. 20. are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the MIDDEST of them And thereupon commaunds us To pray EVERY where c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it as they doe 5. Finally the Jewes whether they were East West North or South from the Temple or it from them worshipped and prayed towards it But our Innovatours as they will have all Altars stand Eastward so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East and Altars standing towards the East These texts therefore with Davids worshipping towards the Temple on which they principally relie make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables which no Fathâ—r or Orthodox expâ—siter that I have seen ever deduced from the Scriptures Yea but if these doe not avayle them Mr. Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. acquaints us with some others that will as Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God and worship at his footstoole Eâ—go the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church is to bow to the Lords Table which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar and to worship God towards it Oh sencelesse Divinity and childish Logicke Who ever read of such distâ—acted inferences Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar Or had this footestoble here mentioned been the Altar or this worship a meere bowing of the bâ—dy towards the Arke or to it and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it there had been some shaddow of worshipping that is of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar but not of bowing to or towards it much lesse to or towards the Lords Table which is neither an Altar noâ— hâ—th any Analogie with the Altar nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul as this Dâ—eamer doteth as I have else where proved at large But since we read not in Scripture that David ever worshâ—pped or bowed to or towards the Altar And this sâ—o esâ—â—â—le here by his owne confeâ—â—on was the Arcke but by Davids owne expâ—sition Gods holy mountaine oâ— Hâ—ll Zâ—on Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping not a bowâ—ng but prayer Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie Yea but if these texts fall shâ—rt yet others come fully home as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl bowed themselves and worshipped Ergo Potlid Therefore we must bow downe and worshâ—p the Alâ—ar or Communion Table Had thâ—se either bâ—wed themselves to or towards the Altar the inference had been somewhat tolerable though
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 doubâ—lâ—sse being reasonable creatures they must have some reasons for it True they thiâ—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 noâ— known to Durandus See Rationale Divinorum 〈◊〉 or Mirologus See De Divinis Officiâ—s lâ—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 Puriâ—â—â—â—â— p. â—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 wheÌ„ 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 Iâ—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 assâ—nded into Heaven That he hath quite lest the world and is gone to his Fatherâ— 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 Ephesâ— 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 〈◊〉 theÌ„ 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 Sâ—crament as they seeme to doe in the Consecrated Bâ—ead and Wine then in the Chalice or Cup or on the Table or Altar it selâ—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 hâ—nds and their not bowing to or towards and adoring of the Sacrament it selfe which is farre more hoâ—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
and saith O Mr. Dr. wee little thought to have mett you here The Dr. not seeing them before and knowing that they obserued this his bowing like one deprehended in the very act of spirituall adultery waâ—ed as pale as ashes and was in such a perplexity for the present as if he would have fallen downe dead in the place having not a word to replie Which they perâ—â— lying 〈◊〉 into some other discourse that he might recollect his spirit This I shortly after received by accident from the parties thee 〈◊〉 eye-witnesses of the fact being people of no meane 〈…〉 it to divers What then may we conclude from this 〈◊〉 that we are now in this particular more Idolatrous and Popish then the Papists themselves that we have many a Papist masâ—ed underâ— Protestants hood who are not ashamed to be Papists but only that they are so soone and sodenly discovered to be such at unawares and that it is high time for his most Excellent Majesty our most Gracious Soveraigne Lord King Charles Defender of our faith and Religion with all his faithfull Officers and Subjects to looke about them To prevent these Romish Innovations Relâ—pses and grosse Back slidings to Pâ—perie in time expresly prohibited by his Majesty both in his royall Declaration before the 39. Article and concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. 22. 42. When as his owne advanced Chaplaines and I would he had no more such of them but this one are growen such Popelings as to commit such notorious Idolatrie in his owne royall Court and Chapple to the encouraging and confirming of Papists in their most grosse superstition and Idolatrie and greiving of the Soules of all his true-hearted loyall Subjects whose love will prove his strongest guard against all those treacherous Romish Ianizaries Iesâ—ites Assinates whose faith is faction whose very religion is rebellion whose practise the murthering of mens soules and bodies especially of Christian Princâ—s as many of our Writers and the Booke for the 5. of November miserablie guelded and corrupted in this very particular in the last impression 1635. it were worth the inquiring by whom and whose authority to discover a new nâ—st of Traytours at leastwise to our religion if not our King and State at large relate See Mr. William Tyndall his Practise of Popish Prelates Obedience of a Christiaâ—man Dr. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry the 8. Henry Stalbridge his exhortatiory Epistle Dr. Iohn White his Defence of the. Way c. 6. 9. 10. 11. Since then there is now no maâ—eriall sollid justifiable difference at all between the Pagans Papists and our Romanizing Novellers bowing to Altars Images Crucifixes Lords-Tables as the premises witnesse needs must we now not only passe lentence against it but abandon and abhor it as most groâ—â—e Jdolatrie Yea as that which no doubt among other several particulars of our late backsliding to the Church of Rome hath been one cause of drawing downe that Plague and Pestilence which now spreades it selfe every where among us with these other spirituall temporall judgements which now we languish under and are likely to increase upon us to our utter ruine And have we not all cause to feare the very extremity of Gods wrath to be powred on us of which he hath given us visible prognostickes from heaven I shall name but one of many upon the 23. day of February last past in Sussex and sundrie places of the Kingdome from 8 till 9â— of the Clocke in the morning there was seen by many persons of good quality who have testified it under their hands three Sunnes nâ—are together a thing veâ—y rare and at the same time a Raine-bow such as was never seen the like but once differing from ordinary Raine-bowes in these 7. remarkable particulars 1. First where as all other Raine-bowes are in some watry thick cloud this was in no cloud at all ouâ— in the cleare open ayre 2. Secondly where as other Raine-bowes are ever in direct opposition to the Sunne so as he that turnes his face to the bow turnes his backe on the Sunne this stood directly South-east in the same quarter that the Sunne theâ—â— was 3. Thirdly other Raine-bowes are commonly lower then the Sunne and one end of them seemes almost to touch the earth This vvas farre higher then the Sunne goes in the Sommer-solstice none being ever seen so high by many degrees 4. Other Raine-bovves are seen only at a certaine distance 5. or 6. miles about and that but one vvay vvhethervvards it is reflicted This seemed above 30. miles distance every way 5. Fiftly other Raine-bowes continue but a short space and then vanish This a full houre from 8. till 9. of the clock as long as the 3 Sunnes continued Sixtly other Raine-bovves are flitâ—ing and moue vvith 〈◊〉 cloud vvherein they are This vvas fixed continuing in the same place a full houre Seventhly vvhich is the strangest of all principally to be considered whereas all other Raine-bowes stand with the 〈◊〉 downeward in this maner â— this appeared all the while with the hornes upward thusâ— which makes it the more terrible The bow as all know and we of this Nation especially who have wonne so many battles by it is a Military or warlike instrument Now as long as the backe of their bow is towards the Archer and the hornes from him towards his enemie it is a Signe of peace and safety that he hath no intent at all to shoote hurt or slay him But when once the Archer turâ—es his bow the contrary way with the â—tring and hornes toward himselfe and the backe of the bow towards his enemie then its a signe he is angrie and intends to shoote and slay him The application is obvious God hath a bow a warlike Instrument as well as man which Scriptures often mention See Ps. 7 12. Lam. 2. 4. c. 3 12. This bow immediately after the flood when he out of his infinite goodnes entred into a covenant of mercy and peace with Noah and his posterity placed in the cloud for a token of this Coveuant between him and the Earth See Gen. 9. 13. 14. 15. 16. And becanse it was a token only of love grace and peace he placed it with the hornes downeward and the backe towards Heaven to testify and proclaime peace and mercy to the world Now when God shall thus in aâ—unusuall miraculous maner invert this bow of his turning the hornes of it towards Heaven and the backe upon us in such a visible and notorious fashion that many Counties of the Kingdome at once might did take notice of it though few such serious notice as they should what can we thence in all probability conclude But that we having so long waged warre against Heaven with our prodigious shâ—meles manifold open sinnes See Ier. 3. 8. 9. Ier. 3. 3. and so farre broken our covenant and long continued league with God m the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 of his ordinances he hath now a
shal be done Upon his retorne he brings downe a Pursevant and Proces with him to arrest Mr. Burroes only for prosecuting him in the Kings behalfe enters his house and first by pollicy after that by power seekes to apprehend him sets the whole Towne in an uproare gets the Sessions adiourned 9. weekes longer to the end that he may escape the punishment of the Statute and remove the Inditemeut thence into the Kings Bench for delay Thus are the Kings good Subjects abused by a packe of Iewde companions and the High Commission made the Instrument not only of oppressing his Majesties best subjects but of patronizing knaues and offenders in their open contempts against his Majesties Lawes and Declarations the chiefe use it now serves for Master Burroes threatens them all with the Star-chamber for a conspiracie and denying him and the Kings Iustice And so the matter yet hangs in suspence This case is like to be a president for all England to follow And if all people where Communion-Tables are turned into Altars or rayled in Altarwise or they inforced in a new maner to come up to the rayle to receive will preferre the like Inditements against their Ministers yea and Bishops too the chiefe Agents in these Novelties upon the second clause of the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. whereupon they are to be imprisoned 6. whole monthes without bayle or mainprise upon the first Conviction and Inditement and to forfaite one whole yeares profits of all their Ecclesiasticall livings promotioÌ„s And for the second to be imprisoned and deprived of all their livings ipso facto for the third to forfait all their goods and be for ever made uncapable of any Ecclesiasticall living or preferments Our busy Romish Innovatours will shrinke in their bornes we shal be no more troubled with Altars rayling in Lords-Tables or ascending up to them to receive For their ease encouragement in which good work I shall here seâ—t downe the Coppy of his Inditement which the Iury hath formed against Nucoman the Minister as a president worthy generall imitation in all places where is need Iuratores pro Domino Rege praesentant quod cum in Statuto Parliamenti Dominae Elizabethae nuper Angliae Reginae tenti apud Westmâ— in Com Midd Anno regni sui primo inactitatum ordinatum inter alla existit quod si aliquis Persons Vicarius sive alius Minister culuscunque generis qui cantare vel pronunciare debet communeÌ„ praecatlonem mentional in libro câ—i titulus Liber communis praecationis ac administrationisâ— SacrameÌ„torum ac aliorum vituum Ceremoniarum Ecclesiae Anglicanae in praedicto Statuto specificatus de vel post festum nativitatis S. Johannis Baptistae Sessionem dicti Parliamenti tunc proximè sequentis uti recusaret dictis communibus praecationibus sive administrare Sacramenta in tali Cathedrali vel Parochiali Ecclesia suis alijs locis in quibus eadem administrare assuesere deberet talibus ord ne forma quemadmodum in dicto libro specificantur editaque existunt vel praefracte aut obstinate persistens in eodem uteretur ullo alio ritu Ceremonia Ordine Forma sive modo celebrationis Cenae Dominicae aperte vel privatim sive Matutinis vel Vespertinis administratione Sacramentorum vel alijs apertis precibus quaÌ„ in dicto libro coÌ„memoratur prescribitur vel predicaret declarent aut loqueretur quicquam in dero gationem sive depravationeÌ„ dicti libri vel alicuius rei inde coÌ„teÌ„tae vel alicuius inde partis ac legitimè coÌ„victus erit inde secundum huius Regnileges per veredictionem duodecim hominum aut per propriam confessionem vel per insignem criminis evidentiam perdet ac fòristaciet dictae Dominae Reginae haeredibus Successoribus suis pro primâ— offensu proficâ—um omnium suorum spiritualium beneficiorum sive promotionum provenientium vel emergentium per bonum annum integrum proxime post huiusmodi convictionem Ac etiam quod persona sic convicta carceri manciparetur per spacium sex mensium sine vadimenio vel manucaptione Quâ—dam tamen Thomas Nucomanus Parsona Parochialis Ecclesiae Sancti Runwaldi infra Colcecestriam in Comitatu Essex Clericus qui debet administrare Srcramenta in dicta Ecclesia modo Ritu forma prout specificatur statuitur in dicto libro 14. die Aprilis Anno Regni Domini nostri Caroli Dei gratia Angliae Scotiae Fâ—anciae Hiberniae Regis fidei defensoris c. duodecimo vi armis de sua Schismatica factiosa dispositione Innovationis ambitu recusabat administrare Sacramentum Cenae Dominicae in dicta Ecclesia modo Ritu forma sicut in dicto libro commemoratur prescribitur ac etiam ad tunc 〈◊〉 praeftacte obstinate in eodem persistens aperte 〈◊〉 alijs Ritibus Ceremonijs ordine forma ac modo Câ—lebrandae Cenae Dominicae quam in dicto libro specificatur prescribitur videlicet in non collecando vel collocari faciendo mensam Dominicam tempore administratiouis praedicti Sacramenti in corpore dictae Ecclesiae sive Cancellae vel Chori eiusdem quò a communicatibus dictae Parochialis Ecclesiae magis convenienter audiretur iâ— sua precatione ac administratione ac etiam ijdem Communicantes majori numero secum communicarent Nec non in cogendo Communicantes Parochianos dictae Ecclesia novo ac inusitato modo forma ad novam repagulam circa mensam Dominicam dictae Ecclesiae nuperime collocatam ascendere ibidenque Cenam Dominicam flexis genibus procumbeâ—â—es alternatim recipere recusandeque administrare dictum Sacramentum Communicantibus Parochialibus dictae Ecclesiae ad dictam repagulam non ascendentibus idque loco uitato eiusdem Ecclesiae idem accipere paratis efflagitantibus contra ordinem ritum ac formam in dicto libro edit specificat consuetudinem Ecclesiae Anglicanae hactenus usitatam approbatam ac etiam contra formam dicti Statuti pacem Domini Regis nunc necnon in gravem contumatiam Contemptum Declarationum dicti Domini Regis nuper editatorum in magnam perturbationem inquietationem distractionem Subditorum dicti Domini Regis perniciocissimum exemplum allorum Scbismaticorum ac Innovatorum suscitationem plurimarum Schismatum lituum contentionum seditionum inter Ligies dicti Domini Regis FINIS a Before the 39. Articles and concerning the causes of the dissolving of the Parliament An. 1628. b See Acoale from the Altar p. 64. the Order of the Counsell-Table concerning S. Gregories Church And Ibid. p. 15. 16. 17. 19. 53. to 58. * See 1. Eliz. c. 1. 8. Eliz. c. 1. c Before the 39 Articles and of the causes moving his Majesty to dissolve the last Parliament p. 20. 21. 22. 42. d See Shelford Reeve Chownaeus Browne Pocklington Heylyn Bishop White A Coal frrom the Altar the Female Glory with other
r Se Speeds History of great 〈◊〉 p. 106â—â— 1068. s Popes so Bishops have no scriptures for their hallowing of thinges B. Pilkington on Aggeus c. 2. 2. 10. t Exposit on Aggeus 1. v. 78. De vita Obitu M. Buceri u Acts and MonumeÌ„ts p 1777. to 1788. x Se Summa Angelica Rosella Tit. Consecratio Ecclesiae y Ioannis de Aton Câ—nstit Dom Othonis de consecratiâ—nis Eccles f. 5. 6 7. z 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mort. 8. a 31 H 8. In the Patent Rols pars 4â— b 15. R. 2. c. 5. Rastall Mortmanie 8 3. * 30â— 40â— a Church or Chapple c Sumâ—â— Angelica Tit Consecrat Altaris Pontificale Romanum d 37. H. 8. in the Râ—â—s pars prima * Note this Bishops then could not suspeÌ„d or deprive Ministers without a speciall Patent or CommissioÌ„ and that upon just and Lawfull causes warranted by some statute there in force Ergo now they cannot doe it And not one of theÌ„ having such a Paâ—ent or CommissioÌ„ at this day from the King all their suspensions and proceedings against Ministers and others are meere Nullities e Fox Actâ— Monuments p. 1147 999 5. 6. E. 6. c. 3. f Dedicacion for sport at the end The third reason of the 〈◊〉 4. Reasons * Have you a decent Communion Table to administer the Sacrament or CommunioÌ„ at This is the ordinary Article in all visitations The 5. reason g Sermon of Gods House p. 20. h A Coale from the Altar p. 11. 27. i Ivo Denetalium pars 2a c. 25. 26 28. 29. 34 25 August Epist. 118 ad Ianuarium Cyprianus de coena Domini Ambros l. 4. de Sacramentis c. 6 k See Hospinian de Origine Altarium Templorum And the Authorities in the beginning forecited l Walafridus Strabus de Rebus Eccles. c. 1. Eusebius Eccl. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. m Rationale Divin l. 1. c. 2 nu 15. n 〈◊〉 l 1. c. 7. nu 15. o De officijs l. 1. c. 3 p De Ecclesiasticis officijs lib. 3. c. 3. q De Instit Clericorum l. 1. c 33. r Rationale Divin l 1. c. 1. nu 18. s Page 56. t Page 56. u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu 1. u De Ritibus Eccles. l. 1. c. 17. nu 1. x CommeÌ„t in Rutr Missale par 1 Tit. 15. Sect. 2 y Cap. 17. Sect. 15. z Lib. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 462. Edit 2. a De Origine Altarium b Acts 14. 28. Iob. 10 24 Exod. 39 25. 26 c 19. 12. Num. 1. 50. Iosh. 6. 3. 4. 2 SaÌ„ 5. 9. Exod. 16. 13. 2 Cron. 4. 3. 2 Kings 6 14 15. Iob. 16. 13. Psal 7. 7. Ps. 17 9. Ps. 18. 4 5 Ps. 22. 12 16. Ps 88. 17. Ps. 103 3. Ps. 118. 10. 12. Jonab 2 3. 5 Luk. 21 20. Heb. 11. 30. c. 12. 1. RoÌ„ 20 9. â— Jeue 3. Qu. 83. Disp 233. co 2. n. 20 d De rebus Eccles. c. 4. e Eccles. Hist. l. 12. c. 24. f Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. g VisitatioÌ„ Articles for Norwich Diocesse i Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. k See Shelfords SermoÌ„ of Gods house p. 18 19 20. Bishops Mortons Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. p. 463. l â— King 8 29 30. 33 35 Dan. 9. 10 m 2 Châ—oÌ„ 7. 12. See the Homily of the right use of â—he Church n Exposition of the Catechisme in the Communion-Booke towards the end o Sunday no Sabbath p. 50. q See the Commentatours on 1 King 8. 2 Chor. 6. Ps. 5. 7. 138. 2. Dan. 6. 10 r See Bisâ—â—p Mâ—rt uâ—itution of the Sacrament p. 463. * Sermon of Gods house p. 18. s In the â—ncomiaâ—â—â—â—â— verses before his booke t D Walburton Dâ—â—me of Wels in a Sermon and others in their Sermons u Oratio 28 de Funere Patris p. 472. w See Ps. 21 12. Ier. 2 27. c. 32 33. 2 Câ—ron 29. 6. where the like phrase is used x De Bibliotheca Patrum Colonâ— Agrip 1618 p. 14 15. y Descriptor Eccl. Aâ—â— 34. z Annal ToÌ„ 1. An. 63 nu 17. a Censura scriptorum veterum p. 9 10. b Eccles. Hâ—eraâ—â—h l. c. 5. c Censura p. 50. 52. 54. d Dâ— Divinâ—s Ossicijs e De Paenitentia lib. Edit Rhenani ToÌ„ 2 p. 46. f See Cooke Censura p. 70. Rhenanus in argumento 〈◊〉 libri g Rhenanus La Cerda lâ—idem Tripart Hist. l. 9. c. 35. h See Tripart Hist. l. 9. c. 35 i Adversus eos qui hummae in Christâ— c. p. 565 k Cookes Censura 93. c. l Oratio 25 p. 443. m Bibl Patrum Tom. 10. p. 415. 416. E. c. n Bibliotâ— Patrum Tom. 12. pars 1. p. 1054. o Biblioth patr Tom. 14. p. 252 A 254. B. C. 256. B. * Therefore all of them stood not Easterly at the upper end of the Chancle o Sermon of Gods 〈◊〉 p. 2 4 19. p The Laâ—lesse kneelesse Schismaticall Puritan p. 34. 89. q Page 34. r The lawlesse knee lesse Puritan p. 89. s Bishop White his Title to his Treatise of the Sabbath and Bishop Morton in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. * 1 Tim. 3. 2. to 9. Tit. 1. 5. to 11. Eph. 4 31. 32. 1 Pet. 1. 15 16. 2 Tim. 4. 1. 2. 3. a Bucer Enarrat in Psal. 92 b Quod si Pontifices nolunt de se turpia narrari aut nefaria nihil ejusmodi faciant aut cum fecerint noÌ„ putent caipsa ita latere ut sciri posteris narrari nequeant Papir Massa * Mr. Badgers young daughters speech to Bisâ— Laude who asked him Why he wore his shirtsleeves upon the top of his cloths c See the Orthodox faith c. in aÌ„swer to a Popish Treatise entitled WHITE DIED BLACK Dr. of Divinity Deane of Carlile then now Bishop of Ely to compare his and his brothers Doctrines and Pâ—sitions there defended with these since mentioned in his last Treatise and in the High Commission Court d Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 2. Herodotus l. 2. e Balaeus Cent. 9. c. 97. * Iust like his bowing not to the name of Iesus but to the Sence Serm. on Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11. c Pag. 462 d Pag. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. e Pag. 361. 462. f Bellarm. l. 1. de Missac 2. dist 5. g Bellarm. l. 1. de Missa c. 17. * Fox Acts Monuments p. 1781. * Bishop Morton l. throughout * Shelford Reeve Rives Pocklington Dr. Râ—ad Browne Widdows Adams Wren Page and I know not how many more who bring it in by head shoulders into their Sermons and writings * In his devotions the Prayer when we are prostrate before the Altar b Rom. 4. 15. 1. Iohn 3. 4. * See Bish Mort Institution of the Sacrament l. 8. c. 1. p. 557. Col. 2. 18. * Bishop Morton l. 7. through out and p. 541. 542. 445. a Of the Perill of Idolatrie Bishop Mortons Institution of the
the Comon Prayer Booke not the Queene and the Parliament by especiall Law prouided for that purpose done the like neyther would she have taken such care for their generall removing or our Martyrs Writers been so earnest against them in their authorized workes but it relates only to some futher or other order to be taken by the Quenees visitors for the removing of them with order and direction to be given by them was noe matter of great moment but that in those places where the Altars were not yet removed upon opinion conceived of some other order to be taken by her Majesteyes visitors they might have been well removed without any such order from them as they were in many and sundry parts of the Realme besides according to the forme of the Law therfore provided For they hauing a Law authorising them to remove their Altars and to sett up Tables in their stead they might without only order from the visitours even according to the forme of the Law therfore provided removed their Altars and sett up Tables for the administration of the Holy Sacrament So that these words referred only to the Comissioners order direction for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables Altars themsilves or the removing of them simplie considered as the Coliar dreames and so his inference grounded on this is misinterpretation is as false as vaine the rather since neither of all these authorities alle adged terme the Lords Table an Altar but the Holy Table Communion Table or Lords Board Table only The 6. objection is this The orders published by the Queenes Commisioners Anno 1561. say that in the place where the steps were the Communion Table shall stand that there be fixed on the wall over the Comunion Board the Tables of Gods precepts imprinted for that purpose And the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565. orders thus The parrish shall provide a decent Table standing on a frame for the Communion Table c. And shall sett the ten Commaundements upon the East-wall over the side Table Which put together make up this Construction that the Communion Table was to stand above the Steps and under the Commaundements and therfore all along the wall on which the the Commaundements were appointed to be placed which was directly where the Altar had stood before I answer first that those two Authorities ever use the word Table and never stile the Lords Table and Altar as his Objector doth and would have it termed therefore it s most likely they would have it placed like a Table not an Altar 2. If both the Queenes Injunctions those Orders 1561 Advertissements 1565. doe also vnanimously prescribe the Communion Tables to stand Altar-wise why were they not all then placed so but stood Table-wise then and ever since why did our learned Bishop Jewell in that very age Bishop Babington Doctor Fulcke Doctor Willet Mr. Cartwright after him even in the Queenes owne time the first of them not above two yeares after the Advertissements in their Authorised workes maintaine that the Table ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Chauncell as it did in the primitive Church and publish this as the Doctrine of the Church of England proving defending it against the Papists whom they contended with if this were both the Doctrine of our Church the precept meaning of the Queenes Jujunctions Orders Advertissement that they should be placedâ— Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire yea if this were so why was Bishop Iewels workes prescribed to be had in all Churches to aff on t this situation of the Table in them all Certainely the Coliar must satisfy and solve these questions fully or else he must give me leave to thinke that he is as much out in his infer ence from these Authorities If the thing be well observed as he was inhis Conclusions from the Injunctions 3. I answer that that the Orders 1561. prescribing the Communion Table to stand where the steps of the Altar formerly stood coupled with the ensuing words prove that the Table was to stand Altar-wise with one side against the wall but a good distance from it as farre as the steps of the Altar stood before that the setting of the Tables of Gods precepts over the Communion Board or upon the East wall over the side Table is not so to be interpreted as if the Commaundements were to hang perpendicularly overâ—t for that they could not doe the Tables standing where the steps of the Altar stood but over it that is some good height above it not direstly over it is cleare First by the words them selves intimating as much for they say they shall be set or fixed on the East wall over the Communion Table over in both these places relating to the Wall next antecedent not to the Table at least-wise to the Wall as well as the Table now the wall by which the Table stands cannot be said to be perpendiculary over the Table but only over that is above it therfore neither the Table of the Commaundements affixed to it or written on it as it is in many Churches Thus Ioseph was saide to be set over all the Land of Egipt Gen. 41. 33 43. not in situation for so he could not be but in Authority and Iurisdiction that is he took place and had precedency commaund of all in Egipt or was above them or in higher authority then they Thus David useth the phrase Ps 66.12 Thou hast caused men to ride over our heades that is to be above us triumph over us So we say that such a picture hangs over such a doore or chimnie or window when it hangs above it though not direstly over it such a thing is over your head that is above it not directly over it 4. Admit over it be meant perpendicularly over it yet this makes not at all for its situation Altar-wyse but only Table-wyse over it must be interpreted over the East end of it next to the East wall not the East side of it placed against the wall that which hangs over the East end being as truly saide to be over the Table as that with hangs over the side or middle of it 5. Neither of these affirme that these Commaundements must hang over it when the Sacrament is administred neither prescribe they any thing how or where it shall then be seated but at other times Therefore it proves nothing at all that the Table ought to stand Altarwise at the East-end of the Quire at the time of the administration of the Lords Supper as he would thence inferre The 7. Objecteon for the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise is this The Statute of 10. Elizabeth c. 2. enacts that if there shall happeÌ„ any irreverÌ„ece or contempt to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church by the misusing of the Orders appointed in this Booke the Queenes Majesteye may by the advise
some defects or cause of alteration appeare in the Ceremonies and Rites therein prescribed which needed to be resolved rectified supplied before a new Parliament might be called to d ee it or perchanse not worthy the sommoning of a Parliament All which questions in conveniences defests would in likly hood appeere and be fully rectified without any need of future alierations Rites or Ceremonies or continuing this power to her Heyres Successors which are purposely omitted in this clause This appeares most clearly by comparing it with the two first clause of the Act where the forfaitures for offending against the first clause is severall times by expresse words limited and given to the Queens Highnes HER HEIRES and Successors and though the 2. clause saith that he who shall be convicted the 3. time shall for his 2. offence forfait to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen all his goods and chatles omitting her Heires abolissing all forraigne power repugnent to the same and it gives the Queen Her Heiers and Successors their Commissioners power only to punish all Heresies Errors Scismes contempts offences Abuses enormities Ecclesiasticall what soever contrary to former Lawes Statutes not power to make new Ecclesiasticall Lawes so new He resies Errors Ecclesiasticall offences not punishable by any Ecclesiasticall power or Inâ—isdiction before These two Statutes therfore are unfittly paralleld And here I wonder much that the Colier should alleadge and argue according to truth that the Statute of 10. Eliz. c. 1. which enacts that all Ecclesiasticall power together with all such Iurisdictions priviledges superiorities preheminences Spirituall and Ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the Eccesiasticall State persons for reformation order correction of the same and of all manner Errors heresies scismes abuses offences contempt enormites shall for ever by authority of this persent Parliament be united and annexed to the Jmperiall Crowne of this Realme c. was not an Jntroductions of a New Law but confirmative of an old annexing no newâ— but only the old Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction of right belonging to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme for if this power of visiting the Ecclesiasticall State persons be as he truly confesseth for ever united to the Crowne to be delegated from it to others whom they shall thinke meet to name appoint from time to time only by Letters Patents under the Great Seale as the following words of that Act 5. times together prescribe I wonder with what faces our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch Deacons and other Ecclesiasticall persons who have and ought to have no manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction but in from by under his Majestey to whom by wholy Scripture all authority is wholy given to heare determine all manner of causes Ecclesiasticall correct vice sinne what soever to all such persons as his Majestey to witt by speciall Patent Commission shall appoint thereunto As the Statute of 37. H. 8. c. 17. resolves interminis can or dare affirme their Episcopall Iurisdiction to be Iure divino or be so presumtuons as to take upon them without any Letters Patents or Commission from his Majestey under his great Seale to keepe visitations Consistories to make and imprint visitation Oathes Articles in their owne names impose them as binding Lawes upon his Majesteyes subjects or to exercise all kind of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdictions in their owne names rights or to send out their proces under theyr owne Seales in they owne names alone not his Majesteyes contrary to the expresse Statutes of 26. H. 8. c. 1. 25. H. 8. c. 19. 21. 37. H. 8. c. 17. 1 Ed. 6. c. 2. 1. Eliz. c. 1. 5 Eliz. c. 1. 8 Eliz. c. 1. as if every of them were both on absolute Monarch King and Pope in his owne Dioces had no Soveraigne over them to acknowledge Let them therfore hence forth either give over these their distoyall enchroachments upon his Majesteyes royall prerogative Crowne dignity and his Loyall subjects Liberties or else let the Colier for ever disclaime this Statute this grand objection to maintaine his Altars new Altered Communion Tables standing Altar-wise which overthrowes all Ep scopall inherent Iurisdiction The S. Objection is this That it is said in the Preface of the Booke of Common Prayer that if any doubt doe arise in the use and practising of the same Booke to appease all such diversity the matter shal be referred to the Bishop of the Diocesse who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same so that the same order be not contrary unto any thing conteined in that Booke Therefore it is in the Bishops power to cause the Table to beplaced and railed in Altar-wise against the East end of the Church and there it ought to stand I answer first the Argument followes not For first the Bishop hath no power given him by this clause to altar any thing but only when and wher there is a doubt and diversity risen in any parrish concerning the use practise of the said Booke not whenâ— and where there is no doubt concerning the situation of the Lords Table Altar-wise against the East Wall of the Quire all taking it for granted that it ought not so to be placed but to stand in that place manner as it hath done from the beginning of reformation â— time all most out of mind till now Therfore the Ordinary hath no power to order any thing in this case in most places and in case that any Popish Innouators have raysed a doubt in any place where there is or can be none touching the placing of the Lords Table the Ordinary in this case can not must not make any innouation but order that it must stand in that place forme as was at first ordained by the Queeâ—es Commissioners where it stood ever since it being his Majesteyes expresse commaund that there should be no Innouation in the least degree in any Church Ceremonies or Matters of Ecclesiasticall Discipline 2. The very words inhibits the Bishop of the Diocesse to make any order contrary to any thing contained in this Booke now the placing of the Communion Table Altar-wise against the East wall especially when the Sacrament is administred is contrary to these Books the Queenes Jnjunctions Canons writers and practise of our Church from the beginning of reformation till now Therfore the Bishop neither can nor ought to turne the Communion Tables Altarwise by vertue of this clause but is expresly prohibited by it so to doe The last argument to prove that Communion Tables ought to stand Altar-wise is this His sacred Majestey hath already declared his pleasure in the case of Sant Gregories Church neere Paules in London that the Communion Table Shall be placed Altar-wise against the East wall of the Quierâ—