Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	act_n	parliament_n	person_n	2,736	5	5.0257	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10197	A quench-coale. Or A briefe disquisition and inquirie, in vvhat place of the church or chancell the Lords-table ought to be situated, especially vvhen the Sacrament is administered? VVherein is evidently proved, that the Lords-table ought to be placed in the midst of the church, chancell, or quire north and south, not altar-wise, with one side against the wall: that it neither is nor ought to be stiled an altar; that Christians have no other altar but Christ alone, who hath abolished all other altars, which are either heathenish, Jewish, or popish, and not tollerable among Christians. All the pretences, authorities, arguments of Mr. Richard Shelford, Edmond Reeve, Dr. John Pocklington, and a late Coale from the altar, to the contrary in defence of altars, calling the Lords-table an altar, or placing it altarwise, are here likewise fully answered and proved to be vaine or forged. By a well-wisher to the truth of God, and the Church of England.	Prynne, William, 1600-1669.	1637 (1637)	STC 20474; ESTC S101532	299,489	452

acknowledge none as hereafter shall bee proved But wee see noe Reason why the Communion Table maye not bee sett IN THE BODY OF THE CHURCH as well as in the Chancell if the place bee more convenient and fitt to receive the Communicants But I praye you why the Altar rather sert in the Sanctuarie then the Font or Baptisterie They are both Sacraments as well Baptisme as the Lords supper why shoulde one bee preferred as holier then the other Thus this Doctor By all these authorities it is most apparent that by the expresse Resolution of the Common prayer booke confirmed by Act of Parliament Of Queene Elizabeths Injunctions the Bishops learned writers constant practice of the Church of England from the beginninge of Reformation untill now the Communion Table not to stand at the East end of the Chancell or Quire Altarwise against the wall especially when the Sacrament is administred but in the middest of the Church or Chancell and that soe it stood in the Primitive Church Nowe for the better discoverie of the place where the Table ought to stand it will not bee impertinent to enquire First where the Table of Shewbreade was placed 2. Where Iewish and heathenish Altars auncienly stood 3. How the Iewes Tables the Table at which Christ instituted the Sacrament were situated 4. How the Communion Tables were placed in the Primitive Church 5. What place is most proper Convenient for the Table 6. What reasons can bee produced for the placinge of the Communion Table Altarwise at the East end of the Chancell against the wall c. For the first of these it is most evident that the shewbread● Table a tipe of Christ the Sacramentall breads stood not in the Sanctum Sanctorum but without the vaile of the Tabernacle on the Northside not at the East side of the Tabernacle Exod. 26. 35. Heb. 9. 2. 3. 6. 7. which are expresse compared with the 1. Kings 7. 28. 1. Chron. 9. 32. c. 23. 29. c. 28. 16. 2. Chron. 4. 19. c. 13. 11. c. 29. 18. If the situation then of the Shewbreade Table maye bee any president for Communion Tables they ought to be placed not in the East end of the Chancell but in the Northside of the body of the Church as the shewbread Tables stood For the second wee must knowe that Altars were aunciently seituated heretofore in groves upon hills elevated places especially amonge the Idolatrous Gentiles Jer. 11. 13. Exod. 34. 13. Numb 23. 1. and 28. 29. Deut. 7. 5. c. 12. 3. 2. Kings 11. 18. c. 21. 3. to c. 23. 12. whence they are frequently stiled in Scripture high places and condemned by that name 1. Kings 2. 3. 4. c. 1● 31. 32. c. 14. 23. c. 15. 14. 2. Kings 12. 3. c. 14. 4. c. 15. 4. 35. c. 17. 29. 2. Chron. 17. 6. c. 32. 1. c. 33. 17. Jer. 42. 35. Ezech. 6. 3. c. 16. 16. 39. 25. In detestation of these high places in truth nought else but high-Altars God himselfe gave expresse charge to the Israli●es Exod. 20. 28. not to goe up by steps to his Altar that their nakednes bee not discovered And to plucke downe destroye all high places Numb 33. 52. 2. Chron. 17. 6. Ezech. 16. 39. yet the Popish Innovators are so sottish as even in dispite of God himselfe to erect high places high Altars to goe up by steps unto them in stead of Communion Tables to Christen the Lords Table with the name of an Altar and high Altar too The Golden Altar for incense was sett before the Arke of the testimony in the first Tabernacle And the Altar of burnt offeringe which was most holy was placed before the doore of the Tabernacle of the tent of the congregation Exo. 40. 5. 6. 10. to 34. that by Gods owne appointment And when a burnt offeringe of fowles was brought to the Altar the Preist was to wringe the blood of it out at the side of the Altar and to plucke awaye the Croppe with the Feathers and to cast it besides the Altar on the EAST parte by the place of the ashes Levit. 1. 14. 15. 16 Therefore the Altar of burnt offeringe did not stand Altar-wise against the East end of the Tabernacle or Temple When the Temple was built Solomon placed the Altar of incense covered with pure gold not with in but by the Altar The brazen Altar hee placed before the Lord at the Tabernacle of the congregation in the fore front of the house Another Altar hee erected in the middle of the Court before the house of the Lord on which hee offered burnt offerings and meate offerings and the fatt of the peace offerings And when the Temple was consecrated the Levites which were the singers with their soons and their brethren beinge arayed in white Lynnen havinge Cymballs and Psalteries and Harpes stood AT THE EAST END of the Altar to witt of the golden and brazen Altar and with them an 120 Preists soundinge with trumpetts All which is cleerely related 1. Kings 6. 22. c. 8. 64. 2. Kings 16. 14. 2. Chron. 1. 5. 6. c. 5. 12. c. 7. 7. Neither of these Altars therefore stood in the Sanctum Sanctorum in the East side or against the East wall of the Temple When Elijah built an Altar to the Lord in Mount Carmel hee made a trench round about the Altar as greate as woulde containe two measures of seede And the water ranne round about the Altar and filled the trench 1. Kings 18. 32. 35. His Altar therefore was placed in the middest where men might stand round about it not against a wall Wee reade of David that hee build an Altar to the Lord in the threshinge flowre of Araunah 2. Sam. 24. 18. 25. And that not against the East wall thereof but in the middest of it as is evident by Psal. 26. 6. I will wash my hands in innocencie soe wil I COMPASSE thyne Altar ● Lord. Wee reade in the 2. Kings 11. 11. that when Jehoash was Crowned the Gaurd stood every man with his weapons in his hand round about the Kinge from the right corner of the Temple to the left corner alonge by the Altar and the Temple The Altar therefore stood not in the corner or East end of the Temple but in the middest or neere the entringe into it In the 2. Kings 12. 9. wee reade that Jehoiada the Preist tooke a chest and bored a hole in the ●idd thereof and sett it besides the Altar on the right side as one commeth into the house of the Lord. So as the Altar stood not at the upper end of the Temple but neere the entry almost as our fonts nowe stand And c. 16. 14. It is recorded that Kinge Ahaz brought the brazen Altar which was before the Lord from the forefront of the house from betweene the Altar and the house of the Lord and put it on the northside of the Altar not the East Mana●●eh built Altars for al the

of her Commissioners in causes Eclesiasticall or of the Metropolitane of this Realme ordaine or publish such further Ceremonies or Rites as may be most for the advancement of Gods glory the edyfying of his Church and the due reverence of Christs Holy mysteries and Sacraments A power not personal sayth the Coale to the Queen only when shee was alone but such as was to be continued also unto her Successors So that in case the Common-prayer Booke had determined positively that the Table shoule be placed at all times in the vale of the Church or Chauncel which is not determined of or that the Ordinary by his owne oppointment could not have otherwise appointe which yet is not so the Kings most excellent Majesteye on information of the irreverent usage of the holy Table by all sorts of people as it hath been accustomed in these later dayes in sitting on it in time of Sermon otherwise prophanely abusing it in taking Accounts making Rates such like businesses may by the last clause of the side for the due reverence of Christs holy mysteries Sacraments with the advise Counsel of the Metropolitane comaund it to be placed where the Altar stood to be railed about for the greater decency To this I answer first That a possead Esse non valet consequentia The Kingh by virtue of this Act by the advise of the Metropolitanne may commaund the Table to be placed where the Altar stood there rayled in Ergo it ought there to be placed railed in before or without the Kings Commaund is no good Argument yea the contrary holds good The Table ought not so to beplaced or railed in but by his Magesteyes expresse Commaund that by some publike Act and writing under his great Seale as is evident by Queen Elizabeths Injunctions the Booke of Orders Anno 1561. the Booke of Advertissements Anno 1565 with the Statute of 25. H 8. ● 19. the King being to Cammand nothing of this nature to all his Subjects but by matter of Record under his great Seale as all his Proclamations writs doe testify But his Majesteye hath yet given noe such expresse commaund by any publike Act or writing under his great Seale Therfore it ought not to be done 2. This branch of the Statute takes away all power from the Metropolitane Prelates Ordinaries to ordaine or publish any new Rites or Ceremonies what soever o● to alter any formerly prescribed or established vesting this power only in the Queens Majesteyes her Commissioners Metrapolitane being only to advise her in cause she require their advise but not to doe any thing them selves in their owne names either with or with our the Queenes advise they being as some say in a Premunire if they doe it by the State of 25. H. 8. c. 19. compared with 27. H. 8. c. 15. 35. H. 8. c 16. 3. 4. Ed● 6 c. 11. his Majesteyes and the Bishops owne resolution in the Declaration before the 39 Articles of Religion reprinted by his Majesteyes speciall Commaund London 1628. By what right or power then I pray with what great affront to his Majesteyes Prerogrative Royall can or doe our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deacons Ordinaries officials in their severall visitations take upon them to prescribe new rites Ceremonies of their owne devising to print pubblish them in their owne names without any Commission from his Majesteyes in their visitation Articles to injoyne Ministers Church-wardens Sidemen to submit unto them suspending questioning excommunicating them in case they refuse to doe it when as them selves for making they for submitting to any such Rites Ceremonies or Constitutions are ipso facto excommunicated by the 12. Canon made in Convocation Anno 1603 By what right or authority doe they now set up Altars insteed of Tables order give in charge in printed Articles that Communion Tables shal be changed removed sett Altarwise against the East end of the the Chauncel there rayled in that the Ministers shall bow cring unto them administer the Sacrament yea read the 2. service as they call it at the Table even when there is no Sacrament that all the Communicants shall come up to receive that all men shall stand up at Gloria Patri the Gosple Athanasius the Nicene Creed bow at every naming of Iesus Woemen to be Churched with vayles not without things no wayes prescribed by the Booke of Comon prayer or Commaunded by his Mayestey under the great Seale suspending silencing depriving excommunicating Ministers and vexing his Mayesteyes subjects severall wayes for not submitting to these their Novell Articles Injunctions being all Derogatorie to his Majesteyes Ecclesiasticall Prerogative contrary to this objected clause of the Statute and to the first clause thereof which enacts That no manner of Parson vicar or other Minister what soever shall wilfully or obstinately standing in the same use or by open fact deed or thenreatning compell cause procure or maintaine any person vicar or other Minister in any Cathedrall or parrish Church or Chapple to use ANY OTHER RITE CEREMONY ORDER FORME OR MANNER of celebrating the Lords Supper Mattens Evening song Administration of the Sacraments then is mentioned and sett forth in the Booke of Common Prayer and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England under the penalties therein expressed which Booke neither prescribes nor mentions all or any of these Nouell Rites Ceremonies The Coalier therfore might well have f●●o ne this objection which fals so heavy upon him these Prelates which set him no worke to blow a brode his Coale from the Altar to kindle a combustion in our Church 3. I answer that this clause is meerly personall to the Queen because she and her Commissioners only is named in it not her Heires Successors their Commissioners that for two reasons First for the Parleament then knew her syncerity love to Religion and her desire to aduance it of which she had given good Testimonie all King Edward the 6. time but especially in Queen Maries dayes therfore they would trust her with such a power But they then knew not neither could they divine who might chance to be her Heyre or Successor to the Crowne nor what they might prove in point of Religion Therfore they would not adventure to intrust them with such an authority who might peraduenture overturne the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church with the due use reverence of Christe holy misteries Sacraments formerly setled by this Act the Booke of Common prayer by vertue or coulor of this clause without a Parliament but limited it only to the Queen 2. Because the Booke of Common Prayer administration of the Sacrament other Rites Ceremonies of the Church of England being then but newly corrected published there might there upon as comonly it fals out upon all Alterations grow some questions doubts inconveniences about it or

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 ●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 proximit●e there to is not communicable to other Churches pe●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 ● 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

late licensed Books Bishop Wrens Bishop Mountagues and Bishop Peirce their Visitation Articles e Chownaeus Collect 16. 17. 18. Mr. Robort Shelford Priest Treatise concerning Antichrist f For 〈◊〉 against Disobedience and wi●full Rebellion Serm. 3. 4. 5. g Of Ireland n. 80. h Bishop Downham Bishop Abbot Dr. Beard Mr. Squire Mr. Powel Richard Brightwell Thomas Becon and others of Antichrist i Rev. 17. 5. 15. 16. k 1. Eliz. c. 2. 13. Eliz. c. 12. 3. Iacobi c. 1. l Col. 3. 12 1. Thos 1. 4. 1. Pet. 4. 1. 2. 2. Iohn 1. 2. Thes. 2. 13. m Ephes. 1 4 5. 6. 7. 11 12. Rom. 11. 5 6. * Bishop Latimer his 2 and 5. Sermon before King Edward the 6. n Lame Giles his Haultings and certaine Quaeries propounded to the Bowers at the name of Iesus Qu. 1. 2. 3 4. o Ibidem And the Appendix concerning bowing at the name of Jesus p See a briefe Historicall Narratiō of some notorious Acts and Speeches of Mr. Iohn Cosens at the end of Mr. Peter Smarts Sermon Printed at Edinburg An. 1628 * See the Homily against the perill of Idolatry q Iuveual Satyr 2. r See qua● p. before * added s D. Raynolds de Idolatria Rom. Eccles Epist. ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. p. 21. 22. t Speeds History of Great Britaine p. 1252. 1233. v Mr. Tyndals Practise of Popish Prelates D. Barnes his Supplication● to King Henry the 8. Fox Acts and Monuments p. 321. 409. 410. 479. 533. 168 to 234. Antiquitates Ecclesiae Brit. Godwin in the lives of Anselme Becket Edmond Odo William Arundell Laughton Stratford Scroope Poole Wolsey Adam de Orlton and other Bishops x See Dr. Raynolds de Idol Eccles. Rom. Epist. Ad Angl. Seminaria Sect. 5. y Speeds History p. 1252. 1253. z Mr. Boltons Discou●se of true happines p. 193. a Polit. l. 2 c. 17. 18. 19 b Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. c Dr. White his Defence of the way c. 6. 10. The Homily for Whitsunday D. Barnes his Supplication to King Henry 8. d On Whitsunday and of wilfull Rebellion e Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Part. 3. The Institution of a Christ●ā manchap of Orders Dens Rex f 3. Iacobi c. 4. Deus Rex g 3. Iacobi c. 1. h Beyerlinke Chro nog● p. 309. i Speeds History p. 1249. Sect. 33. k See Cookes Pope Ione and the Authours quoted by him Ioannis Valerion de Sac● dotum Barbis Polychronicon l. 5. c. 30. Caxion● Chronicle part 5. An. 885. Volateranus Cem. 1. 22 f. 228. Marianus Scotus l. 3. Ae●as 6. Anno 854. Col. 152. Martini Poloni Supputation●s An. 855 Col. 152. Papa 109. l 3. Iacobi c. 1. 2. 3. Speeds History p. 125l 1255. 1256. 1257. * See 1. Eliz c. 1. 27. Eliz. c. 2. 3. Iacobi c. 1. 3. 4. 5. * Yea in the Latine and English Editions An. 1553. in King Edwards dayes m Mr. William Tyndall in his Treatise what the Church is Dr. Whitaker de Ecclesia Dr. Field of the Church Bishop Bilson of Christian Subjection c. part 2. p. 168. 169. 170. n See the Declaration concerning the dissoluti● of the Parliament p. 21. * Which they might doe well to study a while and give over their secular Offices and Affaires which make thē so blinde and ignorant in divine things o See Cromp●os Iurisdiction of Tit. Star-chamber and Rastals Abridgmēt forger of false deeds p 8. H. 6. c. 12. 5. Elz. c. 14. q See Dr. Crakenthorpe his defence of Constantine and of the Popes temporall Monarchie and excellent Treatise to this purpose r Fox Acts Monumēt p. 404. 405. 406. 481. 524. and Mr. Fullers Argument 25. H. 8. ● 15. s Cosen 's his Cosening Doctrine A tryall of Private Deuotions * Now Canterbury t An Apologie or Defence of the Doctrine of Pred●stination ● 37. u Se●m●s London● 1584. ● 311 312 325 326 327 124 125 126 134 164 165 178 208. 215 224 226 268 270 288 295 299 308 323 14● 142 18● 〈…〉 x 〈…〉 y Fol. 22 ●● 24. 29 40. 55 56 57. 60 63 64 65 78. ●● * It seeme● the Bishops are none of the learned ● men 〈◊〉 se well acqua●ted with ●e W●●ters and Doctrine of the Church of England as some private Gentlemē ar● z Concerning the Dissolution of the last Parliament p. 21. * Who would not laugh at these mad argumēts Pa●adoxes and Frantique passages of G●les Widdows Shelford Reeve many of which are as ridiculous and absurd as any in Ignoramus a Befo●e the 39. Articles And concerning the dissolution of the Parliament p. 21. 42. b A Coale from the Altar p. 36. * There was a Letter lately read in some Churches of Ipswitch as from the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the audience of all the people affirming that your Majesty had given the Arch-Bishop order and direction for rayling Communion-Tabes Altarwise and that all Communicants should come up to the Rayle and receive which much amazed the people and Dr. Aylot the Arch-Bishops surragate oft times affirmed the same in Court to divers who alleaged your Majesties ●awes and Declarations to the contrary * A Coale from the Altars phrase c Page 20. 21. d Apparatus ad Hist. Ecclesiast * 1636. * See B. Latymer his 5. Sermon before King Edward f. 64. e His first Sermon p. 5. 37. where he tearmes the Lords-Table an Altar Gods mercy Seate pleades for bowing towards it f His 5. Treatises Cambridge 1635. all absurd and Popish g His Communion Booke Catechisme expounded London 1635. the Epistles And p. 17. ●●22 35. 38. 39. 48. 60. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 77. 90. to 111. in the first Impression since torne out 127. to 141. 200. 201. 203. 20● 206. 211. 216. h Sunday no Sabbath Vile throughout i The History of S. George and of the Sabbath k Collectiones An. 1635. Collect. 16. 17. 18. 34. 35. l Thomas Browne his Sermon Oxon. 1634. The Female glory Dr. Cosens Collection of private Devotions reprinted 1636. Bishop Whites Treatise of the Sabbath day the latter part and Epistle Dedicatory Dr. Reades Visitation Sermon 1635. m Edmond Reeve his Communion Booke Catechisme expoūded Epistle Dedicatory and p. 20. 205. 206. 211. 216. Robert Shelford his Treatise of Gods House p. 20. A Coale from the Altar p. 1. 26. 27. 64. n Gen. 18. 24. to 33. Acts 27. 23. 24 Ier. 5. 1. Ezech. 22. 30. 31. Psal. 106. 23. Exod. 32. 10 c. * See a Booke intiteled The necessity of Seperation from the Church of England o Reeve p. 20. 205 206. 211. 216. Shelford p. 20 A Coale from the Altar p. 1 26. 27. 63. 64. p Nam sexaginta amplius Monachos Benedictinos Congregationi nostri subditos in Anglia memora 〈…〉 Apud N. le Maistre Instauratio Antiqui Episcoporum Principatus Parisijs 1633. l. a. p. 280. q Ibid. p. r See Franc●scus de Sancta Clara Edit 3.

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 In●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 new● 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 when● 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 ● 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 Quee●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 Quier●