CHAP. I.
Of the state of the question, and the occasion of writing the letter to the Vicar of Gr.

The Author of the Coale from the Altar defended against him that made the holy Table; in respect of libelling, railing, falsi­fying his authorities, and all those accusations returned on the Accusers head. The Minister of Lincolnshires advantage in making his owne tale, and altering the whole state of the questi­on. The Vicar cleared from removing the Communion Table of his owne accord; as also from a purpose of erecting an Altar of stone, by the Bishops letter. That scandalous terme of Dresser, not taken by the writer of that letter from the country people. The Vicars light behaviour at bowing at the name of J [...]SUS, a loose surmise. The Alderman, and men of Gr: repaire unto the Bishop. The agitation of the businesse there. The letter written and dispersed up and down the countrey, but never sent unto the Vicar. The Minister of Lincolnshire hath foulely fal­sified the Bishops letter. A parallel betweene the old and the new Editions of the letter.

IT was an old, but not unwitty application of the Lo: Keeper Lincolns, One who had beene a singular friend to that towne when he was in place. when he was in place; that as once Tully said of Plato, In irridendis Oratoribus maximus Orator esse videbatur: so he might also say of N. appointed speaker of the Parliament for the [Page 2] house of Commons, Sect. 1. that with great eloquence he had desired to be excused from undertaking that imploy­ment, for want of eloquence. The same may be affir­med as truely, I am sure, more pertinently, of this Non-nemo, M ^r Some body; In the licence. some Minister of Lin­colne Diocesse: Charging the Doctor whom hee un­dertaketh, with libelling, hee hath shewed himselfe the greatest libeller; accusing him of railing, he hath shewed himselfe the veriest railer; and taxing him for falsifying his Texts and Authors, hath shewed himself the most notorious falsifier that ever yet put pen to pa­per. And first, hee chargeth him with libelling, upon a new pag. 1. but witty Etymologie of the Lo: Chauncel­lour S. Albans, that a libell was derived from two words, a lie, and a bell; of which, the Doctor made the lie, and sent it for a token to his private friend; the bell being put to by that friend, in commending it to the Presse, and ringing it abroad over all the Coun­trey, p. 1. Nor is it placed there onely in the front to disport the Reader, but it is called a libell, p. 21. and p. 60. The whole booke nothing but a libell against a Bi­shop. p. 58. and that you may perceive he is no change­ling, but ad extremii similis sibi, the same man through­out; a libell it is called againe towards the latter end. p. 220. Here is a libell with a witnesse, a libell publi­shed by authority, a licenced libell, printed with li­cence, as himselfe confesseth, p. 4. For whosoever made the lie, you make his Majesty, in effect, to be the author of the libell: because you cannot but conceive, that no man durst have printed his Declaration in the case of S. Gregories Church, without his Majesties ex­presse consent, and gracious approbation. Or if you would be thought so dull, as not to apprehend a thing [Page 3] so cleere, Cap. 1. yet must the publishing of this libell rest in conclusion on my Lord high Treasurer, at whose house the book was licenced. Which is so high pag. 4. a language against authority, against the practice of this Realm for licencing of books, and finally against the honour of the Star-Chamber, on whose decree that practice and authority is founded; as was never uttered and printed with, or without licence, by any subject of England before this time. But this concernes not me so much, as the higher Powers: I onely touch upon it, and so leave it: and with it turne the libell back on this uncertain cer­taine Minister, who daring not to shew himselfe in the Kings high way, was faine to seeke out blind paths, and crooked lanes, in them to scatter up and downe those guilty papers, which are indeed a libell both for name and nature. For if a libell bee derived from a lie and a bell, it serves this turn exceeding fitly. First M ^r. Some-body, this some Minister, makes the lie, telling us of an answer writ long agoe by a Minister of Lincoln­shire, against a booke that came into the world but the yeere before; and then hee sends it to the Lord B [...] of Lincolne, Deane of Westminster, who forthwith puts a bell unto it, an unlicenced licence, and rings it over all the country; pag. 1. And it did give an Omen of what na­ture the whole book would prove, by that which follow­eth in the Title; Printed for the Diocese of Lincolne. Whereas indeed it was not printed either for that Di­ocese, or for any other, but calculated like a common Almanack, for the particular Meridian of some one dis­contented humour; with an intent that it should gene­rally serve for all the Puritans of Great Brittain. Or if you are not willing it should be a libell, to gratifie you for this once, let it be a Low-belt▪ A thing that makes a [Page 4] mighty noise to astonish and amaze poore birds, that comming after with your light, you may take them up, and send them for a token to Pere Cotton, or carry them along with you, when you goe your selfe with the next shipping for New-England. But being a low-bell and a libell too, take them both together, Vt si non prosint singula, juncta juvent.

Your second generall charge is Rayling, Oyster­whore language as you call it, p. 98. And being some minister, some great man, such a one as Theudas in the Acts, who boasted of himselfe that he was some body: you think it a preferment to the Doctor, to weare your livery, which you bestow upon him with a badge, (that you may know him for your owne) and call him scurrilous railer, p. 140 Railing Philistin. p. 191. and Railing Doctor, p. ult. Where do you finde him pec­cant in that peevish kinde, that you should lay such load upon him? What one uncivill, much lesse scur­rilous passage, can you deservedly charge him with, in his whole answer to that letter, which you have tooke upon you to defend, maugre all the world? The worst word there, if you finde any one ill word in it, was I trow good enough for your friend I. C. a Se­paratist from this Church, at that time; perhaps a Se­baptist by this time: who by the Answerer is supposed to be the writer of that letter; and might have beene supposed so still, for ought you know, had not you told us to the contrary, and got your Ordinaries hand to the Certificate. But be hee what hee will, pray Sir who are you, that you should quarrell any man for rai­ling, being your self so ready a master in that art, that howsoever your fingers might perhaps be burnt, your lips assuredly were never touched with a Coale from [Page 5] the Altar. Quin sine rivali. I will not seeke to break you of so old a trick; which I am very well contented you should enjoy without any partner. Onely I will make bold to deale with you, as Alexander did with his horse Bucephalus, [...] Plut. take you a little by the bri­dle, and turne you towards the Sunne, that other men may see how you lay about you, though your self doe not. Hardly one leafe from the beginning to the end, wherein you have not some one Title of honour to be­stow upon him; which without going to the Heralds, I shall thus marshall as I finde them. Poore fellow, p. 2. and 61. Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Bar­retter, p. 3. Wrangler, p. 4. Haughty companion, p. 5. Doughty Doctor, p. 21. This animal, p. 24. Scribler, p. 26. Cumane creature, and fawning Sycophant, p. 35. Animal ratione risibile, a most ridiculous creature for his reasoning, p. 42. Pamphletter, p. 58. and poore pam­phletter, 85. Firebrand, p. 62. most injudicious and tri­fling Novice, p. 65. Iudicious Rabbi, p. 76. A divine of Whims and singularity, p. 77. Mountebank, and madman, p. 88. Impostor, p. 94. Calfe, p. 103. Squea­mish gentleman, p. 120. Poore Doctor, p. 132. and 158. A thing that cannot blush, p. 141. Mushrom, and au­dacious companion, p. 150. This man of rags, p. 154. Bishop Would [...]bee, p. 159. Impudent companion, p, 188. Blinking Doctor, p. 190. Base sycophant, p. 191. Whif­ler, p. 203. Braggard, p. 227. and to conclude with Railing Doctor. p. ult. He manus Trojam erigent? Is this the meanes to save your Si Troja dextra defendi pous est, &c. p. 60. Troy from ruine, of which you tell us, p. 60? No other way to shew your Zeale unto the cause, but by forgetting all good man­ners? Such stuffe as this, till you, and your confede­rate M ^r H. Burton came in print together, hath not [Page 6] beene set to open sale, since Walgraves presse, was the presse for Puritan P [...]mphlet [...] in Q. Elizabeths time, whereof see Mar. Marre-Prelate, Epist. to the Con­vocation p 23. Walgraves presse, in London, and that of T. C. which you wot of in the City of Coventry, Holy table, pag. 5. have been out of work. Burton & you, the onely two that have revived that kinde of lan­guage, which since old Martin Marre-Prelates daies hath not seen the Sun; but being now brought again into the world, and on a thorow perusall; confirmed and licenced, you may proceed for your part, Cum privi­legio, none dares touch you for it. Fortunate man, whose very railings are allowed of, as being In the licence. most orthodoxe in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England; and therefore very fit to be printed, there is no question of it. Nobis non licet esse tam di­sertis: For us poore fellowes as wee are, it is not our ambition to looke upon that height of eloquence, which you so prosperously have attained to. Or could we reach it, (being, I think, a matter feasible) we should be sure to have a check for it, not an approbation. But I will [...]ase you of that feare. Non In Philip. 2. tractabo ut Consu­lem, ne ille quidem me ut consularem; however it was Tullies plea, shall bee none of mine; I must remem­ber who I am, not what you merit: and therefore, in my answers to your sleights and cavills, I will re­ply ad rem, and not ad hominem. You have some Coales upon your head already: In using you thus gent­ly, I Rom. 12. 20 shall heape on more; which is an honester revenge than you ever studied, and better than you have deserved.

The first two faults you charge him with, were on­ly criminall, in which the Star-Chamber, or the Guild Hall might afford you remedy: but that which fol­lowes in the last, is Capitall; clipping the Kings owne coine, and such as is made currant within this king­dome: [Page 7] a generall falsifying of his Majesties Declara­tions, Lawes, Injunctions; of all bookes, either prin­ted here, or imported hither. The whole booke, as it is a libell against a Bishop, so every leafe thereof is a mali­cious falsification of some Author or other. p. 58. Quae­risne aliquid dici brevius? Could any man have spoke more home, and used fewer words? In case this bee not, [...], nothing ever was. What? not one leafe without some falsification, and a malicious one to boote, of some Author or other? Assuredly, if so, you may justly call him false-fingred gentleman, bold man, a nibler at quotations, & what else you please. There is not a friend hee hath, but will thanke you for it. But if your challenges bee but such as those you mention, p. 23. in calling Ploydon Judge, being but a Counsellour at Law, (no such malicious falsification, if you marke it well) and setting downe Sir Robert, for Sir Edward Coke, a mistake onely of the Printer: have you not made your triumph before the victory? The Author saw those errors, and saw them mended too, before you observed them: both of them being cor­rected in the second edition, which followed close up­on the first, within one fortnight; and which you can­not but have seene, though you dissemble it, onely to make your brethren merry when you meet together. For in your 90. pag. encountring with a passage of Bi­shop Latimers, you cite it from the author, as in p. 16. and so it is indeed in the second edition: whereas those words of Bishop Latimers are p. 15. in the first. This is no honest dealing to beginne with; yet this is that which wee must looke for, Par my & par tout, as you know who say. And for the And mends it by a kinde of Sa­cril [...]dge, by taking from a noble Gen­tleman his name given in [...]ap­tisme, p. 23. sacriledge you complaine of, had it been the Authors (as it was not) [Page 8] of all men else, you have least reason to accuse him; having your selfe offended in the self-same kinde, by taking from him his name given in Baptisme. For in your 88. pag. you call him Iohn Coal, as if you knew him from his cradle: which, if the Church book may be trusted, and those which are yet living that affirme the same, was not the name given by his Godfathers, and Godmothers; though you may finde it in your Had the Do­ctor kept him to his Accidence. p. 23. Accidence, if you seeke it there. And yet it is no wonder neither, that it should be thus: it being in some places a received custome, that children when they come for Camdens Remain [...]s. Confirmation, do change the names which they had given them at the Font: Sufficient ground for you to deale thus with the Author; and by what name soever he was called in Baptisme, to have him entituled by your owne. You tell us of some other things, wherein hee doth both pag. [...]. faine and faile, as you hunt the letter: but what you say, you say with­out booke. For upon examination it will soone ap­peare, that he hath fained in nothing, whatsoever you say; nor failed in any thing, which you say he faines. And were it tolerable in another, to runne the wild-goose chase upon C [...]n-none, and Common (or tri­ [...]iall) law. p. 23. words and letters, which is a sport you much delight in; I have a friend in store should follow this train-scent with you, for your best prefer­ment, and give you three for one in the bargaine too. But for your fainings and your failings, & whatsoever other falsifications you can charge upon him; we shall see more hereafter when you bring them forth. Mean time you may be pleased to know how ill this office doth become you. You know who said it well enough, Rom. 2. 21. Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thy self? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? [Page 9] And being that you came so lately from your Acci­dence, you cannot but remember the first example in Verba accusandi, damnandi, which you are most per­fect in: if not, Ile tell you what it is, Qui alterum incu­sat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This is so easie to be Englished, that you need no construing booke; and tells you, who had need be told it, that it behoves you to take care that every thing bee well at home, before you come into the Court to accuse another. Otherwise you will prove such a Censor morum, as was Manutius Plancus in the Romane storie, Vell. Pat. l. 2. Qui nil objicere posset adolescentibus, quod non agnosceret senex: most guilty in your doting daies of those very crimes, which you have charged on them of the younger sort. Which said in generall, wee meane to lay before you plainly, without welt or guard, your jugling in the cariage of this businesse, as it relates unto the state of the questi­on, and other the Contents of your first Chapter: and after all those manifest and most notorious falsificati­ons and impostures which you have put upon the world, in your The Title. holy table. The holy table never was so made an Altar, as you have made it in that booke; by offering on the same such spotted, maimed, and most illegall sacrifices, to your faire Pulch [...]a La­verna, Da mihi fallere, da justūsanctum que vi­deri. Horat. Laverna.

First, for your stating of the question, you have an excellent advantage, (could you hold it fast) in ma­king, as you doe, your owne case, your own evidence, and your owne authorities. The principals in this bu­sinesse, were the Vicar of Grantham, the Alderman thereof, and my Lord Bishop of the Diocesse; the on­ly Accessary thereunto, the Bishops Secretary. Of all these there is none that either can, or will confute you in any thing you say, say you what you will. The Vicar [Page 10] hee is dead, and you may use him as you please; for mortui non mordent, as the saying is: But yet take heed, (and say a friend advised you to it) what you lay upon him. For though he cannot answer to your slanders now, hee may bring you to answer for them another day. The Alderman being set forth unto us for pag. 12. a discreete and modest man, as the letter tells us; pag. 7. A prudent and discreet man, as your booke informes us; did never shew his wisdome and discretion more, than that he was pag. 7. affraid to offend the Bishop. And being, if he be alive, as prudent and discreet as ever, must needs be now as much affraid to offend the Bishop, as before he was; and therefore you may say your pleasure, and call the Alderman, and the Aldermans letter to witnesse what you please to say; you are sure of that. As for the Bishop, from whose mouth you must have the sto­rie, hee hath good reason to confirme and justifie his owne relation; that it may set him off the better, and give the world a full accompt of his most moderate proceedings in a point so agitated. Then for the Se­cretary, being wee finde not in the storie, that he was any more imployed, than pag. 9, 10. sitting up with his Lord that night, fetching the booke of Martyrs out of the hall, and borrowing Bishop Iewels workes from the Parish Church, and giving out the letters as his Lord directed, he was but [...], a living instrument; and if ex­amined, can say nothing that will doe you hurt. So that in case, the Bishop can but keepe your counsell, as no doubt hee will; and M ^r Alderman hath not lost his ancient prudence and discretion, which God for­bid, you may stand forth, and tell your tale, and tell it with as high a confidence, as if wee were obliged to take all for Gospell. This you conceive at least, [Page 11] & goe on accordingly: not thinking that in some main points, those For besides it is uncertain whe­ther he be of the Voisinage, &c. of the voisinage & the same Province can detect you; or that there is no way to bring truth to light, but by confession of the parties. Now in your storie of the businesse, pag. 3. you tell us that the Vicars head was full of [...]rotchets. First, pag. 6. turning out of the towne the Lecturers there, being two grave and painfull preachers, as you set them forth. For being salaried by the Parish (to which the Bishop was so good a friend) you cannot but extoll them, whatsoever they were; or what just cause soever the poore Vicar had to rid the towne of them. Then for the second Crochet, that was, you say, the removing of the Communion table from the upper part of the quire, where it was comely placed be­fore, (and had stood time out of minde) unto the Altar­place, as he called it; and telling M ^r. Alderman (who out of his discretion, must needs question the Vicar for it) that he had done it, and would justifie it. What proofe have wee for this, (for of the other you bring none) I meane, that the Communion table stood in the upper part of the Quire, in such a comely fashion, for so long continuance; and that it was removed by the Vicar onely, without consulting with the Chancellour, or perhaps the Ordinary? For proofe of this we are re­ferred to M ^r Aldermans letter. Then that the Vicar called the Communion table by the name of Tresle, saying that he would build an Altar of stone at his owne charge; and that the rude people made reply, that hee should set up no dressers of stone in their Church: What proofe have we of that? M ^r Aldermans letter. Next pag. 7. that he used light gestures in bowing at the name of Jesus, so as sometimes his booke fell down, and once him­selfe, to the derision of those that were not so well affected [Page 12] to that religious Ceremony: What evidence to make that good? M ^r Aldermans letter. These are the most materiall things in the whole relation, so farre as it concerned the ground of the whole proceeding; and for the proofe of all we must take your word, aswell as M ^r Aldermans letter. For what if M ^r Alderman writno such letter, or if he writ it on the Post-fact on­ly, to make good your tale; or if you make more of it than he mentioned in it: as who can tell but you may deale with M ^r Aldermans letters, as you have done throughout your booke with the Aldermans better? Or what if M ^r Aldermans letter say as much as you would have him, why would you have us credit M ^r. Aldermans letter, to the discredit of the Vicar; espe­cially as things stood betweene them? the Alderman being most apparently not a party only, but dux parti­um, the leader of a party against his Minister. For you your selfe have told us, that pag. 6. M ^r Alderman (being nor pag. 6. Bishop, Chancellour, nor Surrogate, as I conceive him) commanded his owne officers, (Sergeants, and Beadles, and such fellowes) to remove the Table to the place where it stood before. Which being done ac­cordingly, he cries out first; and makes Whereupon the Alderman presently wrote unto his Lordsh. pag. 7. complaint unto the Bishop when he had no cause: but that hee thought it an high point of wisdome, being so prudent and discreet a man as you say hee was, to make sure worke there; and then a fico for the Vicar. So that the Alderman being both a partie, and the Plaintife too, is not to be admitted for a witnesse also, except it be by some new order of your owne devising; and like to be a rule hereafter in that The Doctor by his exquisite knowledge in the Can-none, & com­mon (or triviall) law. pa. 23. Can-none, and triviall law, the body of the which we daily looke for, of your setting out.

[Page 13] But [...]e the letter his, or not, you think that you have gained three points. First, a good ground to change the tenour of your owne, charging the Vicar in your printed Copy, with an intent of setting up an Altar of stone, which was not▪ to be found in all the Manu­script: Besides, that you have brought him into some disfavour with his And having too much favour from his Dioce­san. pag. 5. friend, the Bishop, for daring to remove the Communion table, without leave from him. Next, for that slovenly and disgracefull phrase of Dresser, given in the Bishops written letter to the Communion table placed Altar-wise, and from him borrowed by M ^r Prynne, that is now found out to be a phrase of the rude peoples, as you call them; and on them fathered in the printed letter, to take off that scandall. Last of all, whereas bowing at the name of JESUS was in the written letter glanced at, as if it did procure derision from the lookers on: that is now turned wholly on the Vicar, and his light gestures in performance of that pious ceremony: the printed let­ter being altered and explained in that particular ac­cordingly. Having got thus much by the hand, you need say no more, but beare your head up bravely, and proclaime your victory. But as he in Macrobius said, Omne mcum, & nihil meum; so may you also say, did you deale uprightly, all this that you have got is nothing, and you may put it in your eye, without feare of Thi [...] blinking Doctor. pa. 190. blinking. For how may wee be sure that Monsieur the half-Vicar, as you call him, p. 70. did of his own head remove the Communion table without authority from the Bishop, Chancellour, or any of his Surrogates, pag. 6. as out of M ^r Aldermans letter you af­firme he did. It [...]eemes to me, that he acquainted the Diocesan with it, and found from him, if not an appro­bation, [Page 14] a toleration at the least, conditioned no umbra­ges and offence were taken by the Towne against it. For thus the letter; When I spake with you last, I told you that the standing of the Communion table was unto me a thing so indifferent, that unlesse offence and umbrages were ta­ken by the towne against it, I should never move it, or re­move it. Was not this faire leave think you, to make a triall, how farre the people would be pleased with the alteration, (and whether they would think it tended to It is wel [...] done that you af­fect decency and comelinesse, &c. pag. 13. decency and comlinesse in the officiating of Gods Di­vine service.) And on this leave the table was removed to the Altar place; and stood so, till the Alderman, pag. 12 a discreet and modest man, and far from any humour of Innovation, did by farre lesse authority bring it down againe, and was never checked for it. Nor can you say, that the word last there mentioned, (when I spake with you last) is to relate unto that time, when the Vi­car and the Alderman encountred at his Lordships house: Because it follows in the next words, that which I did not then suspect, is come to passe; viz. the Alder­man and better sort of the towne have complained against it. The conference then meant, wherein his Lord­ship shewed himselfe so indifferent in the businesse proposed unto him, must needs precede the Vicars action; as did the Vicars action the Aldermans riot; the Aldermans riot, the complaint; and the complaint, that sudden and tumultuary journey to his Lordships house, which drew out the learned letter now be­tweene us. And so your first report of the half-Vicars hasty running, before hee was sent, is, for the truth thereof disproved, or made very disputable. The o­ther branch thereof, touching the stone Altar that you talke of, is farre more improbable, and you are faine [Page 15] to chop & change the Bishops letter to make it good, Cap. 2. and yet cannot doe it. For whereas it was charged upon the Vicar in the M. S. Copies, that he should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire: you have it in the printed letter, that he should say he would upon his omne cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of his Quire: which is too great a diffe­rence to be an errour in the transcripts. Secondly, in­stead of that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, you now have made it that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars: and so by changing these to theirs, have turned a Pro­testant Table to a P [...]pish Altar. Thirdly and lastly, whereas the first section in the written copies, conclu­ded thus, therefore I know you will not change a table in­to an Altar: you have converted it to this, therefore. I know you will not build any such Altar; As great an al­teration in the businesse, as the words themselves. For had that beene the businesse then in agitation; and not the placing of the Table Altar-wise, his Lordship might have gone to bed that night, (as indeed he did) & ended all his letter with the first section; being bu [...] 24. lines in your owne printed Copy, and that corrup­ted too to serve your turne: whereas there is a large discourse against the placing of the Table Altar wise, amounting to above two leaves in your owne edition. I trow the writer of the letter was too good an Arti-Zan, [...], to spend himself upon the acces­sary, and let the principall be the least part of his care and study: especially considering how he might there­by gratifie the whole towne of Grantham, to which he had beene such a friend, when he was in place.

As little truth there is in your invention of the dresser, [Page 16] which you have turned upon the rude people: rude ones indeed, to give so vile and scandalous a name to a thing so sacred, in whatsoever posture it was placed or situated. What is it, I beseech you, that you have made the people say? that he (the Vicar) should set up no dressers of stone in their Church. Dressers of stone? It seemes the people were as rude as you describe them; so little conversant in matters which concer­ned the Church, that they were yet to [...]ee [...] in things which did concerne the kitchin. Had the discreet Al­derman no more discretion, than to informe his L ^p. of so rude a speech; and tell him in his eare a storie of a stone-dresser, when as he might aswell have told him a tale of a Tubb? Had the rude people, as you call them, applyed the name of dresser unto the holy table placed along the wall, the speech had beene more proper, though not lesse prophane. But now to put the name of dresser of stone into the mouthes of Coun­try people, who never heard of any such thing as a dresser of stone: shewes plainly, that neither any Altar of stone was ever purposed by the Vicar, which might occasion such an idle and absurd expression; nor that the writer of the letter tooke up the name of dresser from the Country people, but first invented it him­selfe. Adeo mendaciorum natura est, ut cohaerere non possint, said Lactantius rightly. Your tresle, and your dresser then, may both goe together, ultra anni solis (que) vias, to your deare brethren in New Engl. and their great Patriarke there, your good friend I. C. who as they care not now in what place they dispose of the holy table; so will they care as little, in a little while, by what name they call it. Of the same peece is that last observation made out of M ^r Aldermans letter, [Page 17] touching the Vicars light behaviour, Cap. 1. in bowing at the name of Jesus: his booke sometimes falling downe, and once himselfe. Which were it so, why doe you think that that should make your friends of Grantham deride the ceremonie, when not the ceremonie, but the Vicar was in fault, if such fault there was. Have you not seene some men behave themselves so apishly in the Pulpit, that others, and those good men too, have smi­led to note it? And yet I hope you will not thinke, that therefore they derided that religious ordinance of preaching, when not the ordinance, but the Prea­cher was the sole object of the merriment. Or if the men of Gr. or rather the rude people there, were so profane and impious, as upon that or any other such occasion to deride the ceremony, the writer of the let­ter might have spent his pains to better purpose, I have writ­ten to you some­what more at large, &c. let. pag. 13. in writing to them somewhat more at large, than he hath used to expresse himselfe in that kind, to bring them to a bet­ter understanding of their Christian duties. And you, the Champion of the letter, had done a better office, as I conceive it, to have reserved your selfe for the de­fence of that, and the tenor of it, if any Puritan in the pack should have writ against it, than thus to have dis­turbed your selfe with so little profit. But what if wee joyne issue with an Negat ionis fo [...]mula, quam foro Angliae, Reus, Actoris assertionem in­fici [...]tur. Spelm. Gloss. Absque hoc, and tell you there was no such falling, either of the booke, or man, as you please to say. For tell me of all loves, where was it, in the Reading pew, or at the Communion table, or in what place else? If in the reading pew, the deske and seat were able to have saved them both from falling; and so was the Communion table, if it had beene there: If not there, say man, where it was, and wee will have a melius inquirendum about it pre­sently. [Page 18] This is a trick of yours to disgrace the Vicar, on whom elsewhere you have left a staine, for taking his mornings draught before he went about it, p. 62. As if the man, not onely were not alwaies right pag 8. in the head peece, and That squir­rell. headed young man. p. 59. squirrell-pated, which might be some infirmity of nature: but that hee came unto the Church, disordered with drinke, and inter pocula told the people, quid dia poemata narrant of the name of JESUS, and so fell downe and worshipped, in stead of bowing.

In the remainder of the storie, you put an excellent speech into the mouthes of those of Grantham, partly commendatory of themselves, that they were all pag. 8. p [...]aceable and quiet men, save that they fought [...]ut not without s [...]riking, &c. pag. 8. once in the Church, about removing of the table; confor­mable in all things to the Kings lawes [...]cclesiasticall, save that they could not but deride the ceremonie of bowing at the name of Iesus; and willing to submit themselves to any Order which his Lp should appoint, concerning the situation of the Lords table, so it might stand according as they would themselves. And it was also partly ac­cusatorie of their Vicar, for putting down their week­ly Lecture, and partly of their owne ill fortune, that they should live in the midst of Recusants, who did be­gin already to deride and jeere this new alteration: not withou [...] [...]ome reflexion on his sacred Majestie, for Their chiefe governor being one of that p [...]o­fession himselfe. pag. 8. placing over them a chiefe Governour of that religi­on. His Majesty was much to blame, there is no doubt of that, for not consulting with the Alderman about the fittest man to be Ld Lieutenant of the Coun­ty: but more the Papists, to deride that decencie and situation of the Lords boorde, there, which they ap­prove of elsewhere in all our Churches. And I could [Page 19] tell you, did I thinke you would thanke me for it, that the conformity of our Church in this particular, ac­cording to the practice of approved Antiquity, doth more amaze the Papists, than ever it did those of Grantham: as knowing better than they doe, that the more neere we come to the ancient practice, the lesse they can upbraid us, and our Church with no­velty, which is now made the chiefest weapon that they fight withall. As for the Onely they represented to hi [...] Lp, that they were much sca [...] ­dalized with the putting downe of their sermons. ib. putting downe of Ser­mons, wherewith they were much scandalized, as your booke informs us, that was the very marrow-bone of the matter, the thing that most displeased the people, who must have Chaplaines of their owne, or else non vult fac. And had they had their tale of Sermons, it may bee probably conjectured, that M ^r Alderman had never removed the table, but rather left it for a text, on which the stipendarie Lecturers, there, might shew their store of zeale, and want of wisdome. But to goe on. The people having ended, and the Bishop forward in his speech, about the indifferencie of the matter, it was the Vicars Q. to enter, who came in pag. 8. pale, and wanne, and staring, obstupuit, steterantque comae, as you know who saith, was by the Bishop used with all lenity and sweetnesse: and at last, having told his L ^p (being His Lp was heard over-car­nest with the said Vicar, to tell him who they were that set him on these alterations. pag. 9. very earnest to get it out of him) who it was that set him on these alterations, his L ^p spake aloud that all might heare him, that hee had supped on that which the Vicar told him. It is an old saying and a true, audacter calumniare, necesse est ut aliquid haereat; by none more practiced than your selfe. For though you leave us in a wood, and tell us, that pag. 9. it is not knowne particularly, what they there discoursed of: yet by this blinde discovery you make men suspect, that [Page 20] some great man, to whom the Vicar did retain, in­couraged him, at the least, to [...]rect an Altar, if not to say Masse on it, when it was erected. Well then, the Bishop, being gone, betakes himselfe unto his study, where (as you say) he sate up most of the night, and in the morning (as you tell us) came abroad this pag. 21. filia unius noctis, this letter to the Vicar, which is now in questi­on, addressed unto the Vicar, being then in the house (if you tell us right) but lb. sent to the Divines of the Lecture of Gr. and by them shewed unto the Vicar. A letter of so strange a making, that it would puzzle the best Lecturer there, to tell exactly what it was; lb. digested in the former part into the fashion of a letter, but not so figuredly and distinctly in the latter: directed to no body, nor subscribed by any body. In all which sto­ry, there is nothing true, but that the papers were not sent unto the Vicar, but to some one or other of your Privados about those parts, the better to disperse it up and downe the Country: and that not on the mor­row morning, but some ten dayes after. For that it was directed to the Vicar, the whole proeme shewes, which could not be applyed unto any other; especi­ally these words, Now for your owne satisfaction, and my poore advice for the future, I have written unto you some­what more at large, &c.

That it was fashioned like a letter in the latter end, the conclusion shewes, even in your owne edition of it, Which I recommend unto you, and am ever, &c. And I would faine know what these words, am ever, did re­late unto, if not to the subscription following, which in my written copy was set downe thus (although not printed with the rest) and am ever, Your very loving friend, I. L.

[Page 21] To draw unto an end of this new-nothing, you tell us confidently (like all the rest) what pag. 12. satisfaction the poore Vicar had by this decision; having gained all the points, you say, excepting the forme of placing the Table, which was the onely point hee stood on: and that the Vicar after this did reap much fruit and profit from his Lordships favour, from whom he never re­ceived any favour, from that time forwards. So fine a storie have you told, and so little probable; that they that dwell farre off, and are not of the voisinage, can take you tripping.

Now for the letter it selfe, you tell us, that it pag. 11. va­rieth in some places in matter from the printed Copie, but little in forme. Nothing at all in forme, that is cer­taine, but much in matter: so much as you thought fit to alter in it, the better to set off the businesse, and give a faire face to so foule a cause. Those Copies which I met with, and compared, and had from very goods hands too, were word for word exemplified in the printed booke. And if you looke into Duck [...] lane for the old written copies, which, till the Doctors book came out, were sold for halfe a crowne a peece, and doubtlesse may be had there still, if not imployed to otheruses; you will find no such variance in the matter, as you would perswade us. Which variance, what it is, and how it alters in a manner the whole state of the question, wee shall see the better, by pla­cing columne-wise those particular passages, in which the variance doth consist, according to the old and the new edition, as hereunder followeth.

[Page 22-23]

Thus have I shewed in briefe your [...], your tricks and artifices, whereby you seeke to varnish a rotten cause: falsifying the very Text which you are to comment on, that it may fit your notes the better. A pregnant evidence that there is no faire dealing to be looked for from you, when you shall come either to repeate your adversaries words, or cite your Au­thors. But faire or foule, we must goe through with you now we have begun: and so on in Gods name.

CHAP. II.
Of the Regall power in matters Ecclesiasticall, and whether it was ever exercised in setling the Communion table in forme of an Altar.

The vaine ambition of the Minister of Linc: to be tho [...]gh [...] a Royalist. His practise contrary to his speculations. The Do­ctor cleared from the two Cavils of the Minister of Linc: touching the Stat. 1. Eliz. The Minister of Linc: [...]alsifieth both the Doctors words, and the Lo: Chancellour Egertons. The Puritans more beholding to him than the King. The Mi­nister [Page 28] of Linc: misreporteth the Doctors words, onely to picke a quarrell with his Majesties Chappell. A second on-set on the Chappell, grounded upon another f [...]lsification of the Do­ctors words. Of mother Chappells. The Royall Chappell how it may be said to interpret Rubricks. The Minister of Linc: quarrels with Queene Elizabeths Chappell; and for that pur­pose falsifieth both his forraine authors, and domestick eviden­ces Not keeping, but adoring images, enquired into in the first ye [...]re of Queene Elizabeth. That by the Queenes Injunctions, Orders and Advertisements, the Table was to stand where the Altar did. The idle answer of the Minister of Linc: to the Doctors argument. Altars and Pigeon-houses all alike, with this Linc: Minister. The Minister of Linc: false and faulty ar­gument, drawn from the perusers of the Liturgy, the troubles at Franck [...]ort, and Miles Huggards testimony. Of standing at the North-side of the Table. The Minister of Linc: produceth the Pontificall against himselfe. His idle cavils with the Do­ctor touching the Latine translation of the Common prayer Book. The Parliament determined nothing concerning taking downe of Altars. The meaning and intention of that Rubrick. The Minister of Linc: palters with his Majesties Declaration about S. Gregories. A copy of the Declaration. The s [...]mme and substance of the Declaration. Regall decisions in particular cases, of what power and efficacy.

PLutarch relates of [...] In vit. Alex. Alexander, that he did use to say of his two chiefe favourits, Craterus and He­phestion, that the one of them was [...], the o­ther [...], the one a lover of Alexander, the other of the King; Hephestion loved his person, as a private friend▪ Craterus his estate and Monarchy, as a pub­lique Minister. Princes are then best served, when these affections meet together; when those that ei­ther are about their persons, or under their domini­ons, Eupho [...]mio in Epistol [...] ad▪ Iacob. Reg. do Craterū cū Hephestione confundere, and love them not alone as men, but Princes, whom they doe [Page 29] most truly love. Both of these parts this Some-body▪ whom I am to deale with, would faine seeme to act: and he doth act them rightly, as a player doth, in a dis­guise or borrowed shape, which he can put off when he lists, & the play be ended. But yet for all his vizard it is no hard matter to discerne him, his left hand pul­ling downe, what his right hand buildeth; all that au­thority and regard which he bestowed upon the King in the speculation, being gone in [...], as they say, when it should be reduced to practise. Of the origi­nall of the Regall power, you tell us very rightly that it is from God, that the Kings pag. 32. of England have had the flowers of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, stuck in their Imperiall garlands, by the finger of Almighty God from the very beginning of this Christian Monarchy within this Island; and that the Kings Majesty may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the holy Table should be placed where the Altar stood. An excellent Royalist verily in your speculations. But look upon you in your practicks, and then you tell us in your corre­cted copy of the Bishops letter, that the Table (without some new Canon) is not to stand Altar-wise; which is di­rectly contrary to that before. I trow you are not ig­norant that the Church makes Canons, it is the work of Clergy men in their Convocations, having his Majesties leave for their conveening, and approbation of their doings. His Majesty in the Declaration before the Arti­cles hath resolved it so; & the late practise in K. Iames his raigne, what time the booke of Canons was com­posed in the Convocation, hath declared so too. If then the Table may not be removed & placed Altar-wise, without some new Canon; his Majesty may command it, for ought I see by you, and yet goe without. Or if [Page 30] you mean that any order from his Majestie, or inti­mation of his pleasure, shall be as forcible with you, as any Canon of them all; why doe you so much slight his Majesties Declaration about S. Gregories? For neither can the man indure it should be called an Act of Counsell, (which yet the Doctor never calls it, to his best remembrance;) or that it should have any influence beyond that one particular case, which first occasioned it: in no respect that it should have the operation of Canon, either to force obedience, or in­duce conformity. So that in fine, you deale no other­wise with his Majesty, than did Popilius Lenas with the great King Vel. Pat. l. 2. Antiochus, qui regē circumscripsit virgula, as the storie hath it. You draw a ring about him with your willow scepter, as if you meant to conjure him into a circle, and so keepe him there. Thus deale you also with his person, (for you would very faine be taken for Hephestion, as well as Crat [...]rus.) You tell us of pag. 59. his heavenly expressions used in that Declaration be­fore remembred; and yet think scorn to follow what he there allowes of: talke of his pag. 33. sacred Chappell, and the Saint of that Chappell; and in the same breath tell us, that Parish-Churches are as little bound to imi­tate the forme and patterne of the one, as you conceive your selfe obliged to imitate the piety and true devo­tion of the other. Saint of the Chappell! Lord how the man bestowes his holy water, when he hath a mind to it. Vir. Aeneid. Spargere rore levi & ramo felicis olivae, Lustra­vitque vir [...]s, in the Poets language. Yet no such Saint, I trow, as Ferdinando the third, of whom you say both in Regnavit annos 35. in qu [...]bus n [...]c fa­mes, nec pestis fuit in regno suo. pag. 27. the text, and in your margin, that in his long raigne of 35. ye [...]r [...]s, there was no touch of hunger or contagion. There was a Saint indeed, fit to be shewne [Page 31] unto the world, as a publike blessing: in reference to whom, and his most fortunate Empire, these wret­ched times have nothing whereof to glorie. Sir, that Parenthesis of yours, as it comes in impertinently, so it lookes suspiciously: and it had shewne more wisdome in you to have passed it by, than it can make for osten­tation of your reading, so to take it up.

But let your practice goe, and come we to your spe­culations, in which you have said much, and produced good proofe, to shew the true originall of the right of Kings. Bellarm. Vtinam sic semper errasset, said once the learned Cardinall, of Calvin. It had been well if you had never handled any other argument. But good Sir, let the poore man live, and grow up under you, if you please, whom you expose so much to the publick scorne, and tantum non endite of treason against his Majesty. Assuredly the poore soule meant well, when he attempted to free the Statute 1. of Eliz. from some, (perhaps some Ministers of Lincolnshire) who had restrained it to the person of the Queene that was, and that it could not any way advantage the King that is. If he hath failed in any thing, I pray you let him have your pitty, and not your anger. Alas good Sir, you know it is impossible Terence. nos illico nasci senes, that wee should all of us be experienced Statesmen at the first dash. We must first serve our time, and weare out our Indentures, before we come to those high mysteries, which any schoole boy might have taught you from Printed 1615. his Deus & Rex. Thinke you that no man ever knew till you found it out, that Kings had their autho­rity from God alone? or finde you any thing in the Doctor, which affirmes the contrary? the Doctor, as before was said, thought fit to cleere the Statute 1. of [Page 32] Eliz. from those that went about to restraine all au­thority of ordaining rites and ceremonies unto the person of the Queen, because there is no mention in that clause of her heires and successors. To cleare which point he brought in sixe severall Arguments, borrow­ed, as hee tells you there, both from the common Law, and the Act it selfe. The foure first, as it seemes, you are content should stand without further censure; save that you tell him that the fourth was taught him by some As those Probationers did, which (p [...]adven­ture) some Iustic [...] his Clerk might tell you of. p. 25. Iustice his Clerk, and make your selfe merry with the fift and [...]ixt. How justly, let the Reader judge, when he heares the businesse. The question was, whe­ther the King lost any thing of that power which was acknowledged by that Statute to be inherent in the Queene when she was alive, for want of these few for­mall words, her heires and successors. And it is Coale from the Altar, p. 61. an­swered fiftly from a resolution in the law, in a case much like: ‘it being determined by that great Law­yer Ploydon, (for so the last edition calls him) that if a man give lands to the King by deed inrolled, a fee-simple doth passe, without these words successors and heyres, because in Judgement of Law the King never dyeth.’ This is an argument à comparatis▪ And what see you therein with your Eagles eyes, (the Doctor being but a blinker, pag. 190. as you please to style him) that you should fall upon him with such scorne and laughter, and tell him that he doth deserve but pag. 25. a simple fee, for his impertinent ex [...]mple of this fee-simple. The Argument was good to the point in hand, which was not what the King could doe by his power Originall, that which he claimes onely from the King of Kings, which was never questioned: but how far hee might use that Statute, if occasion were, for the [Page 33] ordaining of such rites and ceremonies, as he with the advice of his Metropolitan, should think fit to publish. You may call in your laugh again, for ought I see yet: but that you have a minde to shew your teeth, though you cannot bite.

But his pag. 25. next pranke, you say, is worse, where hee affirmes, ( most ignorantly, and most derogatorily to his Majesties right and just prerogative) that the Statute 1. of Eliz. 2. was a confirmative of the old law: whereas his Author hath it rightly, that it was not a Statute in­troductorie of a new law, but declaratorie of the old. This is the hint you take to introduce your studied dis­course of the power of Kings in ecclesiasticis, which neither is ad rem, nor Rhombum: but that you would doe somewhat faine to be thought a Royalist; how­ever the poor people take it to be so deserted. For tell mee in good earnest, doth the Doctor say that the said Statute 1. of Eliz. was onely confirmative, and not de­claratorie of the old? Doth he not say expressely as you would have him? ‘Last of all, Coal, p. 61, 62. (saith his book) it may be argued, that the said clause or any thing therein contained, is not indeed introductory of any new power, which was not in the Crown before, but rather decla­ratorie of the old, which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings, (as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah) and amongst others to ours also.’ If after­wards he use the word confirmative, you might have found his meaning by his first, declaratorie: & not have falne upon him in so fierce a manner, as if he had beene onely for confirmative, and for declaratorie not one word. But your next prank is worse than this, where you affirm with confidence and scorn enough, pag. 26, 27. that this right is not united to the Crown of England onely, as this [Page 34] scribler seemes to conceive, but to all other Christian Crowns, and chalenged by all Christian Princes according­ly. Terence in Andria, Act. 1. S [...]. 5. Proh deum atque hominum fidem! that ever man should write thus, and beleeve his Creed, in that which doth relate to the day of Judgement. For sure the Do­ctor saith as much, as all your studied nothing comes to, that the said power did Coal [...]rom the Altar, p. 60. anciently belong (what, to this Crown alone, as you make him say? No but) to all Christian Kings, (good Sir note this well) as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah, and amongst others to ours also. Not unto ours alone, but among others to ours al­so. Or if this yet be no foule dealing, we will try once more. You tell us, with great joy no question, pag. 31. That to maintain that Kings have any part of their authority by any positive law of nations, (as this scribler speaks of a ju­risdiction, which either is or ought to be in the Crown by the ancient lawes of the Realm, and is confirmed by 1 El. c. 1.) is accounted by that great personage (the L ^d Chancellour Egerton) an ass [...]rtion of a treasonable nature. But by your leave a little Sir, that passage of a jurisdiction, which ei­ther is or ought to be in the Crowne by the ancient lawes of the Realm, is not the Doctors, but Sir Edward Cokes, and cited from him whō you have honoured with the title of a deep learned man in his faculty, p. 25. affirming there that he hath stated the whole question rightly: as here, immediately on the recitall of the words before re­peated, you take great paines, more than you needed, to give his words a faire construction. If it was right­ly said by Sir Edw. Coke, why not by the Doctor? If no such treasonable matter in the one, why doe you charge it on the other? This is the thing complained of in the Court-historian: Vel. Pa [...]. l. 2. Invidiam non ad causam, sed ad volunt atem personasque dirigere. But yet Gods [Page 35] blessing on your heart for your affection to Sir Ed­ward: you deale with him far better and more ho­nestly, than with your Lords great Master, the L ^d Chancellour Egerton: whose words you chop off with an hatchet, as if you wanted patience to heare him out. You cite him in your margine thus: It was ne­uer taught but either by Traytors, (as in Spencers bill in Edw. 2. time,) or by treasonable Papists, (as Harding in the Confutation of the Apologie) that Kings have their au­thority by the positive law. Why stop you there? why doe you not goe forwards like an honest man? Have you a squinancie in your throat, and cannot? I will do it for you. Reade on then, [...]a [...]e o [...] the [...] p. 99. ‘ by the positive law of nations, and have no more power than the people hath, of whom they take their temporall jurisdicti­on; and so Ficlerus, Simanca, and others of that crew: Or by seditious Puritanes and Sectaries, as Buchanande jure regni apud Scotos, Penry, Knox, and such like.’ This is flat felony, beleeve mee, to rob your Readers of the best part of all the businesse. For here we have two things which are worth the finding: First what it is, which, as you say, is by that honoura­ble personage made to be of treasonable nature: viz. not onely to maintaine that Kings have their authori­ty by the positive law of nations, but that they have no more power than the people hath. Next, who they be that teach this doctrine, not onely Traitors, and treasonable Papists, as you make him say, but also seditious Sectaries and Puritanes, Buchanan, Knox, and Penry, and such like. Nor was it taught by them, the leaders onely, but as it followeth in that place, by these, and those that are their followers, and of their facti­on, there is in their pamphlets too much such traiterous [Page 36] seed sowne. The Puritans are, I see, beholding to you, for lending them so fine a cloake to hide their kna­very. And hereupon I will conclude, how great a Royalist soever you pretend to be, you love 'the King well, but the Puritans better.

From the originall and fountaine of the soveraigne power, wee must next follow you unto the exercise thereof. And here you aske the question, pag. 32. How doth the Doctor make it appeare, that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter? or that there is (as he avows) any publick order for the same? viz: for placing the Communion Table Altar-wise. To this you answer, (for you play all parts) that he shall make it cock-sure by three Apodicticall demonstrations: which are, as afterwards you dispose them, the practice of his Majesties Chappell, the Queenes Injunctions, and his most excellent Majesties declaration about S. Gre­gories. But first, before we proceed further, let mee aske one question: Where doe you finde the Do­ctor say that his most excellent Majesty hath com­manded any such matter? No where, most certaine, in the booke; nor any where that I can tell of, but in the mint of your imagination, where there is coynage all the yeere of these poore Double a piece of brasse coyn in France, of which five goe to an Engl [...]sh penny. double ones. The Doctor saith indeed, ‘His sacred Majesty hath already decla­red his pleasure in the case of S. Gregories, and there­by given incouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them.’ Co [...]l, p. 63. Incouragements are no Command,, you had best say so howsoever. For if they were, I could soone tell you in your eare, who is a very disobedient subject. But let that passe, cum coe­teris erroribus, and see if that be better which comes [Page 37] after next. I would faine hope some good of you, but I finde no ground for it: you misreport him so excee­ding shamelesly in every passage. The first (you say) of his three Apodicticall demonstrations, (as you please to slight them) is, that it is so pag. 32, 33. in his Majesties Chap­pell, where the ancient Orders of the Church of Eng­land have beene best preserved, and without which (per­haps) we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of divine service. The Chappell of the King being the best Interpreter of the law which himself enacted, wherein the Communion Ta­ble hath so stood as now it doth, sithence the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth, what time that Rubrick in the Common-prayer-booke was confirmed and ratified. Thus you re­port the Doctors words, and with shame enough. The Doctor saith not any where, (exclusively of the Cathedralls, as you vouch him here) that the ancient Orders of the Church of England have beene best preser­ved in his Majesties Chappell, without the which (per­haps) we had been at a losse, &c. These are your words, and not the Doctors. The Doctors words are these: ‘ Coal from the Altar. p. 26▪ 27. For certainly the ancient orders of the Church of England have beene best preserved in the Chap­pels of the Kings Majesty, and the Cathedrals of this Kingdome (good Sir marke you that;) without the which, perhaps, we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves, for the whole forme and fashi­on of divine service.’ Here you leave out, most wil­fully, to say no worse, and the Cathedrals of this King­dome, not so much to belye the Doctor, as to devise some quarrell with his Majesties Chappell, which you cast many an evill eye at. And thereupon conclude most gravely, pag 35. To what use serve our grave and wor­thy [Page 38] Metropolitans, our Bishops, our Convocation house, our Parliaments, our Liturgies, hedged in and compassed in with so many Lawes, Rubricks, Proclamations, and Confe­rences, if we had been long before this at a losse in England for the whole form and fashion of divine service, but for one Deane, and so many Gentlemen of the Kings Chappell. Lord what a grosse of words is here drawne together, to fight with nothing but a poore fancy of your own; at most with one poore Deane, and a few simple gen­tlemen of that contemptible place, the Kings Chap­pell Royall. Lesse strength, and fewer weapons would have beene sufficient, to drive this silly troope before you; whom you might easily have scattered with your very breath, and made them waite upon your triumph at the first words speaking. Dicite Io Paean, & Io bis dicite Paean. Never did any story tell of such a conquering combatant, since King William the Conquerour.

As little truth you use in citing of the other passage from the Doctors text; and far lesse modesty in your second onset on his Majesties Chappell. You make the Doctor say, The Chappell of the King, being the best Interpreter of the law which himselfe enacted, wherein the Communion table hath so stood as now it doth, since the beginning of Queene Elizabeth, &c. and then flie out upon him without all pitty, pag. 35. Where did the man ever heare of any Chappell in the Christian world, that gave forme and fashion of divine service, to whole Provinces? Good Sir have patience but a little, I will pay you all. And tell me I beseech you first, where did the Doctor ever say they should? The former place you guelded in the very middle, and this you cut off in the end. Take the whole passage as it lieth together, Coal f [...]om [...]e Altar, 51, 52. you [Page 39] will finde it thus. ‘For if wee looke into the former practise either of the Chappels of the King, the best Interpreter of the law which himselfe enacted, &c. as before we had it: or of Collegiate and Cathedrall Churches, the best observers of the forme and order of Gods publike service; the Vicar had good war­rant for what he did.’ Here you leave out again the Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, to pick a second quarrell with his Majesties Chappell: the Doctor say­ing no where, as you make him say, that the Parochi­all Churches are to precedent themselves (expresly and exclusively) by the Chappell Royall (though had he said so, you would hardly make your part against him) but that they are to precedent themselves by the mother Churches. Finding such store of Spanish, French, Italian, Greeke, and Latin cited in your Margin, onely out of a poore ambition to shew your store: I need not doubt but you can understand a peece of English. Reade me this therefore which occurres in the 6. Pa­ragraph of the second Section, C [...]al. p. 27. immediately upon these words, Without the which perhaps we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of divine service. For there it followeth, ‘And therefore if it bee so in the Chappels and Ca­thedrall Churches, as the Epistoler doth acknow­ledge, it is a pregnant argument that so it ought to be in the Parochials, which herein ought to precedent and conform themselves, according to the patterne of the Mother Churches.’ The Mother Churches, note you that; not the Mother Chappels. So that you might aswell have saved your needlesse disputation, about the inward and the outward motion of the Prin­ces minde; as those most triviall, and indeed unduti­full [Page 40] inferences which you make upon it, I have heard often of a mother Church, but now behold a mother Chap­pell, p. 42. and worse than that, Teach not the daugh­ter therefore against all antiquity, to jet it out before the mother, p. 37. you might have also spared you pag. 35, 36, 37. se­verall observations of publishing the new Missall by Pope Pius Quintus, not at the sacred Chappell, but S. Peters Church; the merry case, (or, as you should have called it, the ridiculous case) of S. Martins hood; the distinct service in the Chappels of Salamanca, from those that are in Parish Churches; the severall uses of singing service in this Church, the ancient courses in some others. All these are onely toyes to take up the time with, and conclude nothing to the purpose which we have in hand, as they confute not any thing that the Doctor saith. Yet since you speake so despicably of his Majesties Chappell, and the use thereof; pag. 36. as one that never heard till now the use of the Chappell: I trust you will not say that the Kings Chappell is set out in a contrary way, to that required in a law of the Kings owne making; or that the constant usage of the Chap­pels in this particular, since the first making of that law, may not be thought to be a good Interpreter of the law it selfe. You know the old saying well enough, that praxis sanctorum, est interpres praeceptorum. And there­fore being it hath beene still, as now it is, in K. Ed­wards Chappell, whom the pag. 114. judicious divine, M ^r. Hooker calleth Edward the Saint, and Queene Eliza­beths, and of K. Iames, and of his Majestie now living, (whom God long preserve) whom your self have ho­noured with the style of Saint: We may conclude, that the Kings Chappell in this kinde, or the Kings practise in his Chappell, may be, and is the best Interpreter of [Page 41] those Rubricks, Lawes, and Canons, which you else­where speake of. Nor could you preach a worse, though perhaps no more welcome doctrine to your deere disciples, than that his Majesties Chappell is not ordered as it ought to be: who presently might make this use thereof, that they would be as little carefull to observe the law in their severall Parishes. Regis ad ex­empl [...]m. You know right well what follows, though you will not follow it. If therefore the Communion table doe stand Altar-wise in his Majesties Chappell, as most sure it doth; and that it be a sinne against many precepts, to doubt or whisp [...]r, but that the King doth wise­ly and religiously in it, as p. 34. you say it is: why should not that give law to the Parish-Churches; or why should you debarre them from a conformity with that, which seemes so wisely and religiously done, in the Chap­pell Royall? Here is a riddle indeed, if you talke of riddles.

Having been bold, (as never any man was more) with his Majesties Chappell, you cannot leave off so, but you must have a fling at Qu: Elizabeth, and hers: and pag. 37. wish the Doctor had not named at all the beginning of Qu: Eli­zabeth. For then say you, therewas an Altar in the Chap­pell, and the very old masse officiated thereupon. The ve­ry old Masse? What is your meaning? I hope you doe not thinke, though you speake suspiciously, that that which hath beene since officiated thereupon, is a Masse too, though somewhat newer Missale An­glicanum, in Alt. Damasc. p. 716.; the Eng­lish Masse, as your good friends the Puritans have been pleased to call it. Nor need you be so sorry for name­ing the beginning of Q [...]een Elizabeth, as if you would have passed it over with a So it pour non dict, for feare the Doctor (of whose credit you are very carefull) [Page 42] should be suspected for some hopes of having the old Masse set up againe: as p. 51. you tell him what great hope he hath, of having one day an Altar and a sacrifice for joy of his diagram. The Doctor speaks not of pla­cing the Communion table, so as it stood in the begin­ning of Queen Elizabeth; but saith C [...]al. p. 51. that in the Chap­pell Royall it hath so stood as now it doth, since the begin­ning of Queene Elizabeth: i. e. for 80. yeares toge­ther without interruption or alteration. In the begin­ning of her raigne, and ever since the beginning of her raigne; are two different things: and this you could not but observe, but that you had a minde to quarrell with that excellent Lady; for which I trow, your bre­thren, who now so much adore her memory, will conn you little thankes in private. For whereas that most excellent Lady followed therein the practise of her brother Vide Bish: Hoopers 3. Ser­mon on Ionah, before K. Edvv. King Edw. 6. and kept her Chappell up in that forme and order as was most fit both for the decencie of Gods publike service, and the magni­ficence of her owne royall State: wee are now told that this was done pag. 38. in marg. Pour flatter les Catholiques, & les Princes estrangers, only to flatter with the Catholiques, (this flattering with the Catholiques, you very cunning­ly left out in your translation) and with forraigne Prin­ces. Nay, if Du Chesne may be beleeved (or rather if you may bee beleeved that belie Du Chesne) all this was done, not out of piety, but policy: Ibid. in marg. Et par my cette innovation laissa plusieurs choses qu'elle jugea in­differentes, come les Orgues, les Ornaments d'eglise, quoy que plus pour police que pour religion: as you cite the words. Andre du Chesne, an honester man than you, tells us no such matter. For having named the Organs and Ornaments of the Church, Histoire d' Angleterre l. 21. §. 10. he brings in Musick, [Page 43] the names and dignities in the Ecclesiasticall Hierar­chie, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Canons of Churches, Curates, Priests and Deacons, as also Lent, and ab­stinence from flesh on Fridayes and Saturdayes. Then addes, what you have made him say of Organs, & the Church Ornaments, (and not the Ornaments of her Chappell onely) that this was done plus pour police, que pour religion, more for policy than religion. Which words, if you observe him well, are not to be referred to all that went before (for then Arch-Bishops, Bi­shops, Priests and Deacons had beene retained onely in point of policy) but to the keeping of Lent and other fasting dayes. Wherein du Chesne hath spoke no more than what is extant in the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 5. where it is said expressely, that the forbearing of flesh was meant onely politickly, for the increase of fi­shermen and mariners, &c. Or if you thinke, as I do, that he did not consult the Statute for it; then out of doubt, he borrowed it from Inlib. 3. Sanders de schismate Anglicano, where it is said terminis terminantibus, in this case of Lent, and fasting dayes, and in this onely, Non religionis, sed publici tantum commodi causa hoc ip­sum mandari. Your other French-man, the freedome of whose language you so much commend, tooke his hint from the same hand also: and you are but a Do­ctor Slanders, to joyn with him and them in any thing, which tends to the dishonour of so brave a Lady. This said, you wheele about to fetch another blow at the Queenes Altar, placing a crucifixe on the same, (which stood there but a little while) and then de­mand whether the Parish Churches were to take pat­terne by this, when as not any of the subjects might in their private houses possesse a crucifixe. For proofe of [Page 44] which you cite the 45. Article of &c. for the Regall visitation, viz. pag. 39. Whether you know any that keepe in their houses, any undefaced Images, tables, pictures, and cut off all the rest with an &c. Reade on then, pictures, paintings, and other Monuments of fained and false mi­racles, pilgrimages, Idolatry, and superstition, and doe adore them. Voyla Monsieur, not the possessing, but the adoring of the cruci [...]ixe, was enquired into. Wel­fare the French-men yet, who I leave him to my Margin, where he shall finde two or three French-men, who out of the freedome of the nation, will be sure, parler [...]out, &c. p. 39. out of the freedome of their nation, will be sure, parler tout, and conceale nothing that ever they heard of. You have a more retentive fa­culty, and you make your best of it. Your next quota­tion, that Images of Christ be not onely defects, but also lies, for which you vouch the Homily against the perill of Idolatry, is [...] dictum, nothing unto the point in hand; but that you are a venturous gamester, and love to have at all, whatsoever it cost you. For if you take the reason of the Homily with you, part 3. p. 42 which is, that of the God-head which is the most excellent part of Christ, no Image can be made: it will appeare that in the mea­ning of the Homily, the images or picture of a mortall man, may not be only called a defect, but a lie also; be­cause no picture can be made of the soule, which is the most excellent part of the whole man. But either speak more unto the purpose, or else hold your peace.

The Doctors 2. Argument, (according as you please to new mould his booke) is taken (you say) from the Queens Injunctions; more pertinently, pag. 40. you confesse, than was the former frō the Queens Chappell, but that it hath not any solidity to rest upon. Why so▪ Do not the Queens Injunctions say, I [...]junct. for Tables in the Church. that if the Al­tar were tooke downe (which they commanded not) the holy Table should be decently made and set in the place [Page 45] where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth. Yes, but you say, pag. 41. there followeth somewhat which this false fingred Gentleman left out, viz. and as shall be appointed by the Visitors: There­upon you conclude that placing and adorning of the table was referred to the Commissioners, who in their Orders, tertio of the Q [...]eene, appointed That the table should stand where the steps within the Quires and Chan­cels stood, and should be covered with silke or buckram: and having said so, winde your horne, And there, if you be a good Hunts man, you may winde your horne, and blow the fall of that Injunction. p. 41. and blow the fall of the Injunction. In all this there is no solidity, and as little truth. Those words, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors, relate not to the placing of the table, which was determined of in the Injunction, but to the covering of the same, wherein the said Injunctions had determined nothing. For marke the words; ‘ The holy Table in every Church shall be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood; What more? and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors; & so to stand, saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, &c.’ What thinke you now? what is referred unto the Vi­sitors, the placing of the table, or the covering only? Not the placing surely, as you finde in the last period of the said Injunction; viz. And after the Communion done, from time to time (not till the Visitours should determine otherwise) the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before. Then for the Orders of the yeare 1561. can you finde any thing in them that crosseth the Injunction? Take the whole Order as it lieth, and then winde your horn. Orders taken the 10. day of Oct. &c. Order 4. ‘ It is ordered also, that the steps which be as yet at this day remaining in any Cathe­drall, Collegiate, or Parish Church, be not stirred or [Page 46] altered, but be suffered to continue. And if in any Chancell the steps be transposed, that they be not erected againe, but that the steps be decently paved, where the Communion Table shall stand out of the times of receiving the Communion, having thereon a faire linnen cloth, with some covering of silke, buckram, or other such like [...] for the cleane [...]ping of the said cloth.’ No order here, for altering the Communion table from that place and posture in which it had beene situated by the Queenes Injuncti­on: or that it should stand where the steps within the Quires or Chancels stood; much less, as you have made it in your falsified Copie of the Bishops letter; where the steps to the Altar formerly stood: as if they would not have it stand close along the wall, but neere unto the steps, and so from the wall, as you thence most shamefully collect. Now whereas it is appointed fur­ther in the said Orders, Order 5. that there be fixed upon the wal over the said Communion board, the tables of Gods pre­cepts imprinted for the said purpose; or as in the Advertise­ments partly for due or [...]er, &c. Printed. 1584. p. A. 4. 2. adver­tisements of An. 1564. upon the East-wall over the said table: the Doctor laying all together conclud [...]d thus, that being the table was (by the Injunction) to bee placed where the Altar stood, above the steps, (as by the Orders,) and under the Commandements (as by the Orders and Advertisements;) therefore it was to stand all along the wall. Against this you have no­thing to replie, but bold conjectures. pag. 42. Why not as­well in the place of the steps, and endwise to the wall? and pag. 43. why not the Commandements over the Com­munion board, that is, in some higher place where they may be seene, although the table stand in the midst of the Quire? and why not pag. 43. over the Commu­nion [Page 47] table, that is, over the end of the table? I see you are excellent at Tick tack, as you have beene alwaies, and will not let a why not passe, if it come in your way. But this is, as Domitian said of S [...]neca's stile, Arena [...]ine calce; and hangs together, as we say in the English proverb, like pebbles in a withe. But so, it seemes, you will not leave us. You have another answer to the Queenes Injunction, touching the setting of the table in the place where the Altar stood: which is, that it might stand above the steps with the end Eastward, and the side Northward, and pag. 44. yet obey the words of the Injunction, and be in the place where the Altar stood. How so? Be­cause, say you, the Injunction was directed to her Majesties subjects, not to her Mathematicians, and therefore was more likely to use the terme of a common and ordinary, than a proper and Mathematicall place. And so the place of the Altar, in this Injunction, is not all and in all di­mensions, but some part onely of the room which the Altar filled. I gather by your style, you are some great body, some Minister, as the Licence stiles you; & doubt not but you have many servants, although not many Mathematicians, attending on you. And let me put you a familiar case, this once. It is a thing I use not often. Suppose you have an old side-board, or Court-cupboard standing in your dining-room; & you command your servants (being no Mathematicians, suppose that too) to take the [...]aid old side-board, or Court-cupboard away, & set another in the place: If he should set it end-wise, where the other stood side-wise, would not your bloud be up, and your black staffe about his eares? Your dif­ference out of Aristotle between [...] and [...], serves for nothing here, more than to make a shew, and to deceive poore people that understand it not. And yet in confidence of the cause, you tell the Do­ctor, [Page 48] that pag. 45. for the great pains he hath taken, with his line and levell, in finding out the place where the Altar stood; he might have spared it all against the building of a new Pigeon-house. Horat. Naturam expellas furca licet; I see there's a prophanesse in your bones, which will ne­ver out. Never did man speak of sacred things, with so little reverence. Dressers, and Pigeon houses, and whatsoever scandalous conceit comes next to hand, we are sure to heareof. It would do better, as I take it, if when you write next of a sacred argument, some boy or other might cry out to you, as heretofore the Priest did when he was to sacrifice, Virgil. Procul hinc, pro­cul esto prophane. And so much for your first and se­cond answers, to the Queenes Injunction.

Now for the 3. in which you have disposed the flower of all your Armie, your very Ianizaries, you tell us with like confidence, that pag. 47. if by these In­junctions, the table was to stand where the Altar stood; then should the said Injunctions vary from the rites, which but few daies before had been prescribed by Parliament, to be used in the booke of Common-prayers. How prove you that? Marry say you, the Minister appointed to reade the Communion, is directed to reade the Commandements, not at the end, but the North side of the table, which implyes the end to be placed towards the East great window. 2. It was practiced so in K. Edwards time, as is (not proved, but) endeavoured to be proved out of the troubles at Francofurt. 3. Because it is very likely that Cox, Grindall, and Whitehead ( being halfe the number of the per [...]sers of the Liturgi [...] which was to be confirmed in the Parliament following) would observe that ceremonie in placing the Communion-table, which themselves abroad, and at home had formerly pra­cticed. These are the Arguments we must trust to, to [Page 49] confirme the point; but these will not do it: for they are onely say-soes, and no proofes at all; and might as justly be denied by us, as venturously affirmed by you. But we will scan them severally, beginning first with that comes last, and so proceeding ascendendo, untill all be answered. First then, Cox, Grindall and White­head, made not up halfe the number of the Perusers of the Liturgie. The Author whom you cite, Camden in Eliz. An. 1558. names us eight in all, Parker, Bill, May, Cox, Grin­dall, Whitehead, Pilkington, and Sir Thomas Smith; all joynt-Commissioners in the business. So that unless it may be proved that three and three makes eight; (and if it may be proved you are more cunning at Arithmetick, than in all the Mathematicks beside:) Grindall, and Cox, and Whitehead made not halfe the number. But let that passe for once, how shall wee know that they did place the Communion-table end-long, both at home and abroad? For this we are di­rected to the troubles at Francofurt, pag. 23. and 24. in which there is not any word that reflects that way. All we finde there, is the recitall of a letter sent from the conformable English-men at Strasburgh to the schismaticall congregation of the English-men in Francofurt, about reducing them unto the booke of Common-prayers established in the latter end of K. Edward 6. which letter was delivered to them, by M ^r. Grindall and M ^r. Chambers, and signed by 16. of their hands, Grindals being one; but not one word of Cox or Whitehead. Or grant this too, that Grindall, Cox and Whitehead placed their Communion table, end-long, when they were abroad, and might be fearefull of offending those amongst whom they lived: yet would it be no good conclusion, that therefore they [Page 50] appointed it should be so here, where they were safe and out of danger; and had the countenance of the Q [...]eene, who liked old orders very well, for their in­couragement. You saw this well enough, and there­fore dare not say it for a certaine, but It being very like, that Cox, G [...]nd [...]ll, &c. p [...]g. 47. a likely mat­ter: and likelihoods, I trow, (except it be for you) are no demonstrations. This said, your second argument about the practise in K. Edwards time, endeavoured to be proved from the troubles at Francofurt, is al­ready answered: Your poore Which the writer of the [...]etter ind [...]avou­red to prove. pag. 46. indeavours, and your simple likely-ho [...]ds may well go together. Nor is there any thing in all that relation, which concernes this practise; more than a summary of the orders in K. Edwards booke drawne up by Knox and others of that crew, to be sent to Calvin; by his determinat [...] sentence to stand or fall: where it is onely said, that the Minister is to stand at the North-side of the table. Which being a recitall onely of the Rubrick in the Common-prayer booke, makes but one Argument with the first; or helps, God wott, but very poorely for the proofe of that. But where you knock it on the head, with saying that the placing of the table end-long, with one end towards the East great window, was the last situation of that table in K. Edwards time; and call pag. 47, 48. Miles Huggard for a witness: most sure Miles Huggard tels you no such matter. Displaying o [...] Protestants. An. 1556. p. 81. For thus saith Miles. ‘ How long were they learning to set their table, to minister the said Communion upon? First they placed it aloft, where the high Altar stood. Then must it be set from the wall that one might go betweene: the Ministers being in conten­tion on whether part to turne their faces, either to­wards the West, the North, or South. Some would [Page 51] stand west-ward, some north-ward, some south­ward.’ How say you now? Doth Miles say any thing of placing the table end-long? No point. He saith it was removed from the wall where at first it stood, that one might goe between the said wall and it; and so I hope it might standing North and South: but that it was placed endlong, not one word saith Miles.

Your out-works being taken in, come wee unto the fort it selfe, the Rubrick: where it is said, the Minister standing at the North-side of the Table, shal say the Lords Prayer. The Doctor answered this before in his Coal from the Altar, viz. Coal, p. 23. ‘ That being in all quadrangular and quadrilaterall figures there were foure sides, though commonly the narrower sides be called by the name of ends: the Minister standing at the north-end of the table, doth performe the Rubrick, the table standing in the place where the Altar stood; as well as standing at the North-side, in case it stood with one end towards the East great window. And this he did conceive the rather▪ because that in the Common-prayer booke done into Latine, by the command, and authorized by the great Seale of Qu. Eliz. it is thus translated, Ad cujus mensae Sep­tentrionalem partem, Minister stans, or abit orationem dominicam; that the Minister standing at the North-part of the table shall say the Lords Prayer.’ This is the summe of his discourse: what reply make you? First, entring on a vaine discourse, touching the raptures of the soule, when it is throughly plunged in the study of the Mathematicks, and therein shewing your notorious ignorance, in mis-reporting the in­ventions of Archimed [...]s and Pythagoras, which wee will tell you of hereafter; you fall on this at last for [Page 52] the maine of your answer. pag. 52. Loquendum est cum vul­go, when we speake to the people of a side, we must take a side as they take it; and that the Doctor was too blame to dispute out of Geometry against custome, and that with people which are no Geometricians: pag 49. Poore subjects that are penally to obey Lawes and Canons, not being to be spoken to according to the Rules of Art. pag. 53. You tell us further, that every Art hath to it selfe its owne words of art, and thereupon produce an Epitaph on the Chanter of Langres, full of odde musicall notes, and pretty crotchets in that chanting faculty. And with another tale pag 57. of Euclide, and certaine Diagrams drawne in the sand by the Egyptians; advise the Doctor to re­member, that the Rubrick was written for the use of the English, and not of the Gyps [...]es. Of all this, there is little that requires an answer, consisting all of flourishes, and fencing-tricks; but not one handsome ward to keepe off a blow. For speake man, was that Rubrick written for the Laitie, or for the Clergie; for the poore subjects, as you call them, or a learned Ministery? I trust you are not come so far, as to beleeve that every Cobler, Tayler, or other Artizan, may take his turne, and minister at the holy Altar: though you have some­thing here and there, which without very favourable Readers may be so interpreted. If so, as so it was, the Rubrick being onely made for the direction of the Clergie, and amongst those the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, (whom I presume you neither will nor can condemne of so much ignorance:) why doe you talke so idly of poore subjects that are penally to obey lawes and Canons, and ignorant people that are not to be spoken [...] by Rules of Art?

But this, it seemes, hath beene your recreation [Page 53] onely. For pag. 55. not to dally with us longer, you tell the Doctor, that learned men in these very particular cere­monies, which we have in hand, have appropriated the word sides to the long, and the word end, to the short length of an oblong square. This, if well done, is worth the seeing: and how prove you this? Gregory the 13. who had about him all the best Mathematicians in Europe, when he renewed (or changed) the Calendar, doth call them so in his Po [...]tificall. Non sequitur. This is the strangest sequele that I ever heard of. Nor can it possibly hold good, unlesse it had beene said withall, that in the setting out the said Pontificall, he had con­sulted with those Mathematicians, in this very thing, by whose advise and counsell he renewed the Calendar. And be that granted too: what then? Why then say you, in his Pontificall he makes no more sides of an Al­tar, [...]han of a man, to wit, a right side, and a left side; calling the lesser squares, the anterior and posterior part thereof. For proofe of this, you cite him thus: Et thu­ri [...]icat Altare undique ad dextrum & sinistrum latus, pag. 144. And then againe, in anteriori & posteriori parte Altaris, pag. 142. of your Edition, Venet. 1582. being in mine of Paris, 1615. pag. 232. & 247. But cleerely this makes good what the Doctor saith. For the anteriour part must needs be that at which the Priest stands when hee doth officiate; which by their order, is with his face to the East: and the posteriour, that which is next the wall, which pag. 183. you call the back-side of the Altar. And then it must needs be, that the two sides thereof, as they are called in the Pontificall, must be the North-end, and the South-end, which justifieth directly the Doctors words, when he affirmeth Coal from the Altar. p. 24. ‘that the Rubrick, (according to [Page 54] the meaning and intent thereof) is aswell fulfilled by the Minister, standing at the North end of the Table, placed along the wall, as at the north side of the same standing towards the window.’ I hope you have no cause to brag of this discovery. That which comes after, concerneth the translation of the booke of Common prayer, pag. 56. by Walter Haddon, as you con­jecture: which you except against, as recommended to a few Colledges, and not unto the Church of Eng­land: and yet acknowledging in your margin, that it was recommended unto all the Colledges, which are the Seminaries, no doubt, of the Church of England. 2. That it never was confirmed by Act of Parliament, or by K. Iames his Proclamation; but take notice of the authorizing thereof under the great Seale of Qu. Elizabeth, no lesse effectuall for that purpose than a Proclamation. 3. That in that translation pag. 57. the Ca­lendar is full of Saints, and some of them got into red scarlet; which howsoever it may cast some scandall on the Queene, (whom you have a stitch at) is nothing to the prejudice of that translation of the Rubrick. 4. That D ^r Whitaker, when he was a young man, was set by his Vncle, the Deane of Pauls, to translate it again into Latine, which makes you thinke that other version was either exhausted, or misliked. Misliked you cannot say, till you bring a reason; and if it was so soone ex­hausted, it is a good argument that it was well done, and universally received. Lastly, you fly to your old shift, affirming, that those times considered, the Li­turgie was translated rather to comply with the forraigne, than to reigle and direct the English Churches. Which were it so, yet it makes nothing to this purpose. For whether it be pars septentrionalis, the northerne part, [Page 55] or latus septentrionale, the northerne side, it must be equally displeasing to the forraigne Churches, (for you meane onely those of the Church of Rome) in which the Priest officiating is injoyned to stand in medio Al­taris, with his back towards the people; being a dif­ferent way from that prescribed the Minister in the Liturgie of the Church of England. Certes you doe but dallie in all you say; and shew your selfe a serious trifler, but a sorry disputant.

Securi de salute, de gloria certemus Tacit. de vit. Agri [...]. I must have one pull more with you about this Rubrick; and since you give so faire an hint, about the Statute which con­firmes it. The Parliament 1. of Qu. Elizabeth began at Westminster, Ian. 23. An. 1558. and there continued till the 8. of May next following: in which there passed the Act, for uniformity of Common prayer, and service of the Church, and administration of the Sacra­ments, cap. 2. Together with this Act there passed another, inabling the Queene to delegate what part she pleased, of her supreame power in Ecclesiasticis, to such Commissioners as she should appoint, according to the forme in that Act laid down. Presently on the dissolving of the said Parliament, the Queene sets out a booke of Injunctions, aswell to the Clergie, as to the Laitie of this Realme: in one of Injunct. for Tables in the Chu [...]ch. which Injunctions, it is cleere and evident, that howsoever in many and sundry parts of the Realme, the Altars of the Churches were removed, and Tables placed for the administration of the Sacrament: yet in some other places the Altars were not then removed, upon opinion of some other order to be taken by her Majesties Visitours. This put together, I would faine have leave to aske this question: The Rubrick ordering that the Minister should stand at the [Page 56] north-side of the Table, (there where tables were;) and in so many places of this Kingdome, the Altars standing as before: where should the Minister stand to dis­charge his duty? Not in the middle of the Altar, as was appointed in the Liturgie of K. Edw. An. 1549. That was disliked and altered in the Service-booke of the yeere 1542. confirmed this Parliament. Nor on the North-side, as you cal a side: for that supposeth such a situation, as was not proper to the Altar. Therefore it must be at the northern end, or narrower side there­of, as before was said; or else no Service to be done, no Sacraments administred. The Parliament was so farre from determining any thing touching the taking downe of Altars, that a precedent Act 1 Mar. cap. 3. for punishment of such as should deface them, was by them continued. This was left solely to the Queene, the Metropolitan and Commissioners, to be done, o [...] not done, as might seeme most convenient to them: and yet the Parliament confirmed that Rubrick for standing at the north side of the Table. And for the Queene, the B ^p yeelds it in his letter, that shee and her Commissioners (or as your altered Copie hath it, she and her Counsell) were content the Altars should stand still as before they did: the Injunction leaving it as a thing indifferent, and of no great moment, so that the Sacrament be duely and reverently administred. Neither did the Commissioners in their Visitation, determine any thing for taking downe of Altars, where they found them standing, that wee can meet with in their Orders of the yeere 1561. Nor need you stick at the word Table, mentioned in the Rubrick, confirmed in that Parliament, as if that did imply, or intimate the necessary taking downe of Altars. For you your selfe [Page 57] have told us, that sacrifice and Altars being relatives, no sooner pag. 16. was the sacrifice abolished, but these (call them what we will) are no more Altars, but tables of stone and timber; in the Epistle to the Vicar. So then, that which was once an Altar, when there was a sa­crifice, (the sacrifice of the Masse you mean) is now be­come a table only; whether of stone or timber, that's no way materiall: and therefore standing as they did when the Act was made, the Minister could not pos­sibly officiate at the north-side, unlesse you call the nar­rower end, a side, as the Doctor doth; and as your selfe doe, did you understand your selfe, out of the Pontificall. Besides, the meaning of the Act is to be considered, not the words alone: which was to fixe the Minister to some certaine posture. For in K. Ed­wards first Liturgie, An. 1549. the Minister was ap­pointed, as before is said, to stand in medi [...] Altaris, with his back towards the people. After, when as the King had commanded to take downe the Altars, and to set up tables, then followed first a difference a­bout the situation of those Tables; some being placed like Altars, and some like tables, according as we have it in the Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 700. Here­upon followed that confusion which Miles Huggard speakes of amongst the Ministers themselves: some standing north-ward, some south-ward, and some west-ward. For remedy whereof, it was appointed in the second Liturgie, that hee, the Minister, should have some certaine point, whereupon to fixe: your selfe af­firming, pag▪ 48. that this contention was determined by the Rubrick, still in force, for the North-side of the Table. So that the meaning of the Rubrick being onely this, to assigne the Minister some certaine point whereon to [Page 58] fasten his aspect, in his officiating at the holy table▪ that meaning is aswell complyed withall, in standing at the north or narrower side thereof, placed along the wall; as standing at the longer side, with one e [...]d towards the East great window. Nay I will goe a lit­tle farther, and put it to consideration, (and no more than so) whether the Rubrick ordering that the Mi­nister shall stand at the North side of the Table, doth not imply the Tables standing Altarwise, close along the wall, if within the Chancell; and close to the partition, if within the Church. And I propose it on this ground: Because in case it had been meant in the composure of that Rubrick, that the holy Table should stand endlong, and farre off from the wall, or the partition, the fittest posture for the Minister had beene at the East-end thereof, with his face down­wards, towards the people. Certaine I am, that in that posture he would be best both seene and heard of all the Congregation, (better by farre than standing at either side thereof either north or south) which seemes to be the thing most stood upon in the Bishops letter to the Vicar. But I propose this onely as a con­sideration; I affirme it not.

Next, wee must follow you to the third Argument of the Doctor, drawne from the exercise of that su­preme power in Ecclesiasticis, which is invested in the King. For granting pag. 42. that the King may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the Table should be placed where the Altar stood: you onely seeme to doubt pag. 58. whether his Majesty hath any way decla­red his pl [...]asure▪ that hee would have it so or not. Before you asked the Doctor where the King com­manded it, as if not any thing but an expresse com­mand, [Page 59] had the power to stir you: when other men, as wise as you, have thought the intimations of a Prince, in matters The Bishop entring into a discourse of the indifferencie of this circum­stance. p. 8. of indifferent nature, (as you acknow­ledge this to be) sufficient inducements for a subject to conforme thereto. Now you have changed your style, and onely stand on the denyall, that his most sacred Majesty hath not in this case declared his plea­sure: you meane, perhaps, not so declared it, as that it pleaseth you to obey his pleasure. The Doctor saith Co [...]l, p. 63. in briefe, that his sacred Majesty hath hereupon already declared his pleasure in the case of S. Gregories, and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them. Your answer is as short, but not halfe so sweet, pag. 58. that it is most untrue, that his Majesty hath declared in that Act, one word of his plea­sure hereupon: i. e. (as you expound your selfe) a­gainst the contents of the Bishops letter. Most gravely spoken. What had his Majesty to doe with the Bi­shops letter, that he should signifie his pleasure there­upon, when as the merit of the same was not called in question? Aquila non capit muscas, you know the proverbe. The businesse then in question, was the standing of the Table in S. Gregories Church, which by the Ordinary there, was placed Altar-wise: and his most sacred Majesty did thereupon declare his plea­sure, approving and confirming the Act of the said Or­dinary. You chalenge this as most untrue, and present­ly fall foule on the poore man, for libelling against the Bishop, malicious falsifying of his Authors in every page: and finally (your owne turne served) for com­ming to that height of impudency, as ponere os in coelum, to out-face heaven it selfe, and mis-report the justice of [Page 60] so divine a Maiesty. Why so? Because, say you, If we abstract from this Declaration, (which the bold man hath printed for an Act of Counsell) the allegations, which he, the said bold fellow, calleth the relations of both parties; and his Maiesties iust pleasure for the dis­solving of the appeale: the remainder will prove a full confirmation of the Bishops letter. If so, then Virgil. frange leves calamos, & scinde Thalia libellos, the Doctor tooke much paines to little purpose. And that it is so, you are peremptorie, as in all things else, because the Declaration tels us, ‘That the liberty given by the Communion booke, or Canon, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniencie, is not to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish, much lesse to the particular fancie of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinarie, to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing it self, and for the time when and how long, as he may finde cause.’ These are his Ma ^ties words indeed, men­tis aureae verba bractcata, as you rightly call them: but they oppose not any thing that the Doctor saith. You finde not in the Doctor, that the placing of the holy table, or the interpreting of those Canons and Rubricks which concerne it, was either left to the discretion of the Parish, or to the particular fancie of any humorous person in the same: which is the onely thing which that part of his Majesties Declaration doth re­late unto. That which the Doctor saith is this, that by the declaration of his Majesties pleasure in that pre­sent businesse, there was incouragement given to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries to doe the [Page 61] like: i. e. to place the holy table in the severall Chur­ches committed to them, as it was placed in S. Grego­ries by the Ordinary thereof. This I am sure, his Ma­jesties words, which you applaud so, doe not contra­dict. And on the oth [...]r side, that the whole Declara­tion laid together, gives that incouragement to the Ordinaries, which the Doctor speakes of, you might plainly see; but that you had no mind that any Ordi­narie should be incouraged to so good a work; which you deride and scorn throughout your booke, as shall be shewn more fully in the next Chapter. Mean time, that all the world may see, how wilfully you shut your eyes, and stop your eares, against whatever is contai­ned therein, which you like not of; I will once more set down the said Declaration, and after, gather thence some few observations, either to cure you of your wil­fulnesse, or to shame you for it.

• [Page 62]Present, the Kings most excellent Majestie.
• L [...]: Arch B. of Cant.
• Lo: Keeper.
• Lo: Arch B. of York.
• Lo: Treasurer.
• Lo: Privie Seale.
• Lo: D. of Lennox.
• Lo: High Chamberlain.
• E. Marshall.
• Lo: Chamberlain.
• E. of Bridgwater.
• E. of Carlile.
• Lo: Cottington.
• M. Treasurer.
• M. Comptroller.
• M. Secretary Cooke.
• M. Secretary Windebank.

THis day was debated before his Majesty sitting in Counsell, the question and difference which grew about the removing of the Communion table in S. Gregories Church, neer the Cathedrall Church of S. Paul, from the middle of the Chancell to the upper end, and there placed Altar [...]wise, in such maner as it stan­deth in the said Cathedrall & Mother Church, (as also in all other Cathedrals, and in his Ma­jesties [Page 63] owne Chappell) and as is consonant to the practise of approved Antiquity. Which re­movall and placing of it in that sort, was done by order from the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls, who are Ordinaries thereof, as was a­vowed before his Majesty by D ^r. King, and D ^r. Montfort, two of the Prebends there. Yet some few of the Parishioners, being but five in num­ber, did complaine of this Act by Appeale to the Court of Arches, pretending that the booke of Common-prayer, and the 82. Canon, doe give permission to place the Communion ta­ble, where it may stand with most fitnesse and convenience. Now his Majesty having heard a particular relation made by the Counsell of both parties of all the cariage and proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare his dislike of all Innovation, and receding from ancient constitutions, grounded upon just and warran­table reasons, especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall order and government, knowing how easily men are drawne to affect novelties, and how soone weake judgements in such ca­ses may be over-taken and abused. And he was also pleased to observe, that if those few Pari­shioners might have their wills, the difference [Page 64] thereby from the foresaid Cathedrall mother Church, by which all other Churches depend­ing thereon ought to be guided, would be the more notorious, and give more subject of dis­course & disputes that might be spared, by rea­son of S. Gregories standing close to the wall thereof. And likewise for so much as concerns the liberty given by the said Common booke or Canon, for placing the Communion table in a­ny Church or Chappell with most conveni­ency: that liberty is not so to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Pa­rish, much lesse to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing it self, and for the time, when and how long, as hee may finde cause. Vpon which consideration his Majesty declared him­selfe, That he well approved and confirmed the Act of the said Ordinary, and also gave command, that if those few Parishioners before mentioned, doe proceed in their said appeale, then the Dean of the Arches (who was then attending at the hearing of the cause) shall confirme the said Or­der of the aforesaid Deane and Chapter.

[Page 65] This is the Declaration of his sacred Majesty, faith­fully copyed out of the Registers of his Counsell-Table. Out of the which I doe observe, first, that the Ordinary did de facto, remove the Communion-Table from the middle of the Chancell, and place it Altar wise at the upper end. Secondly, that in the doing of it, they did propose unto themselves, the patterne not alone of their owne Cathedrall mother Church, but of all other Cathedralls, and his Ma­jesties Chappell; and therewithall the practice of approved Antiquity. Thirdly, that his most excel­lent Majestie upon the hearing of the businesse, de­claring his dislike of all Innovations, did yet ap­prove the order of the Ordinary; which shewes, that hee conceived it not to be any variance from the an­cient constitutions of this Church. Fourthly, that all Parochiall Churches ought to be guided by the pat­terne of the Mother Church, upon the which they doe depend. Fifthly, that not the people, but the Ordinary, is to interpret as well the R [...]brick as the Canon, touching the most convenient placing of the holy table. Sixthly, that i [...] pertaineth to the place and function of the Ordinary to give directions in that kinde, both for the thing it selfe (how it shall stand) and for the time, when and how long, (it shall so stand) as hee findes occasion. And last of all, that notwithstanding any thing that was objected from the said Canon and Communion booke, his Ma­jesty did well approve the Act of the said Ordinary; and not approve it onely, but confirme it too: giving command to the Deane of the Arches, that he should finally and judicially confirme the same, if the appeale were followed by the said Parishioners. This is, I [Page 66] trow, a Declaration of his Majesties pleasure; not onely in relation to the present case, that of S. Gregories then and there by him determined; but to all others also of the same nature. Hee that so well approved that Act of the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls; would questionlesse approve the like in another Ordinary. [...]or being the case is one, the Chappells Royall still the same, the Mother Churches no lesse to be followed by the Parochials in one place than others: why should you thinke the sentence or decision should be diffe­rent? Or if you thinke this Declaration of his Maje­sties pleasure is no incouragement to other Ordinaries, to bring the Parish-Churches to conforme with the Cathedrals in this particular; because his Majesty doth not say, in termes expresse, that hee would also very well approve the like in all other Ordinaries: you doe notoriously bewray, either your ignorance or wilful­nesse, or some worse condition. For know you not that Maxime in the Civill lawes, Cod. l. 1. [...]. 14. l. 1 [...]. Sententia Princi­pis jus dubium declarans, jus facit quoa [...] omnes? or that the Civill Lawyers say, Rex solus judicat de causa à jure non definita? If not, consult that learned case of the Post-nati, stated by the Lord Chancellour Egert [...]n, pag. 107. whom you have elsewhere cited, and must neede have seene. The Declaration of the Kings plea­sure, what ever you thinke of it, is no triviall mat­ter: and that not onely in such things as hee shall command, but such as he alloweth of, confirmes, and sets his approbation on them. The booke of Iust. Instit. lib. 1. Insti­tutes, if you went no further, could tell you somewhat to this purpose: Where it is said, (construe it as you list your selfe) Quodcunque Imperator per epistolam con­stituit, vel cognoscens decrevit, (N. B.) legem esse con­stat: [Page 67] and is to stand for good in whatsoever case & busi­nesse of the same nature; unlesse it be in personall mat­ters of praemium & poe [...]a, and such like. Regall decisi­ons in this kind, are like the ruled cases (as they cal thē) in the Common law; or the Responsa prudentum, the judgements and determinations of the Reverend Sages in that profession, extant in their Reports, Terme-bookes, and Commentaries: First made in reference to the cause which was then before them, but of au­thority (as the least directive) in all other businesse of the like condition, till over-ruled in open Court by e­quall both authority and judgement. And it is a good rule in such bouts as this, Post-nati. pag. 41. De similibus ad similia iu­dicium & argumentatio recipiuntur. Last of all, for the Canon lawes, (that you may see how much all lawes condemne you for your obstinate folly) what is the whole body of the Decretals (one of the greatest parts thereof) but a collection of particular Rescripts and decisions made by severall Popes, upon particu­lar and emergent cases? which being so made, are still remaining on record as judgements, sentences, or de­cisions for all and every cases of the like condition; Volentes igitur ut hac tantum compilatione omnes utan­tur, in judiciis & in scholis, as in the Proeme to the worke. This is, I trust, enough to sheild the Doctor from your fury, for saying onely that by this Declara­tion of his Majesties pleasure, in that one particular, the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries had no small incouragement, to reduce private Parish Chur­ches to an uniformity with their Cathedrall. Against the which, as you have not one word to say, but your owne ipse dixit, that it is untrue; and your own mecum st [...]tui, that nothing shall perswade you to the contra­ry, [Page 68] as long as M ^r. Alderman of Gr: and the good peo­ple of the Diocesse are not pleased withall: so might we well have saved this labour, and left you to the sin­gularity of your sullen humour. And so I leave you for this time; onely, I cannot choose but marvell why you should lay such impudency to the Doctors charge, for pag. 58. misreporting the Iustice of so divine a Maiestie; which he reports in the same words he found it copi­ed forth unto him; or calling him bold fellow, for prin­ting it for an Act of Counsell, being a Declaration of his Majesties pleasure at the Counsell board, and which you call an Act your selfe, in the self-same page: or finally correcting him, for saying the Relation of both parties, not the Allegation; when as the word Relation onely is in his copy of the Act. Had he dealt so with you, you would have called him halfe a dozen times, Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Barretter; and I know not what: you being in this case like the Cock, that is well fed with Garlick before the fight, who seekes to over-match his Adversary, rather with ranknesse of breath, than strength of body.

CHAP. III.
Of the Episcopall authority in points of Cere­monie; the piety of the times, and good worke in hand; and of the Evidence produ­ced from the Acts and Monuments.

The Minister of Linc▪ arts and aims, in the present businesse. Dan­gerous grounds laid by the Minister of Linc: for overt [...]rowing [Page 69] the Episcopall and Regall power. Cap. 3. He misreports the meaning of the Councell of Nice, to satisfie his private spleene. The Mi­nister of Linc: overthrowes his owne former grounds by new superstructures; protesteth in a thing against his cōscience. Char­geth the Doctor with such things as he findes not in him. De­nieth that any one thing may have two knowne and proper names; therefore that the Communion table may not be called an Altar also; and for the proofe thereof doth falsifie his owne authorities. The Doctor falsified againe, about the Canons of the yeare 1571. The Minister beholding to some Arch-Dea­cons for his observations. Their curtalling of the Bishops pow­er, in moving or removing the Communion table, to advance their owne. The piety of the times, and the good worke in hand, declared, & defended against the impious and profane de­rision of the Minister of Linc: The testimonies of Fryth, and Lambert, taken out of the Acts and Monuments, cleared from the [...]avils of the Minister of Linc: The Minister of Linc: [...]uts off the words of Lambert, Fox, Philpot, and Bishop Lati­mer, and falsifieth most foulely the Acts and Monuments: Corrects the Statute and the Writ about the Sacrament of the Altar: Pl [...]ds poorely for the Bishop of Lincolne and Deane of Westminster, in the matter of Oyster-boards and Dressers: and falls imp [...]rtinently foule on the Bishop of Norwich.

SVnt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum Collegisse i [...] ­vat, &c. Horat. Carm. 1. lib. 1. For still I follow him up and down in his owne fancies. The Poet tels us of some men that had a great delight in the Olympick exercises, in hope to winne the prizes which were there proposed. Our Some-body, some Minister, some I know not who, hath an itch that way; a great desire to get the prize; and I cannot blame him. Terrarum Dominos evehit ad deos? What? to be hoysted up by the common people, as a man more than mortall, one so like the gods, that it is hard to say whether he or Iupiter be the better man? Who would not venture a fall, to finde such applause? [Page 70] especially considering with what [...]ase it may be at­tained. And certainely in two things he is very like them. For he doth onely raise a dust, colligere pul­verem, as the Poet hath it, and labour what he can evitare metam, to shoot as wide as it is possible from the mark he aimes at: not caring (so he looke like some furious driver, and make his chariot wheeles run on, and rattle,) how it succeeds with him in the maine of the Argument. In the last Chapter, as he tells us, he hath pag. 60. 61. reduced into a body all the Regall; and in this, all the Ecclesiasticall power, which the poore fellow, whosoever he was that wrote the Coal from the Altar, conceived to be any way opposite to his Lord­ships letter. In doing which, and patching up a bro­ken Cento, out of particular and (by him) dismembred passages, collected here and there tumultuously from the Doctors booke; he raiseth such a filthy dust, that one can hardly see what it is he aimes at; and yet he may come off the better, if he misse his mark. How­ever having undertaken him, we must do our best, to blow away this dust, and cleere the passage, that every one may see his courses, and what poore shifts he useth to attaine the prize he so much longeth for. The Doctor saith in severall places of his booke, ‘that the Ordinary, of his owne authority, may, if he please, appoint the Communion-table to stand Altar-wise: that his most sacred Majesty hath given in­couragement to the Bishops and other Ordinaries so to do, in his decision of the case about S. Gregories: and therefore as the case then stood with the Doctors friend, being it was exacted of his Ordinary, it did require more of his obedience, than his curiosity. Otherwise should all men be so affected as to demur [Page 71] on the commands of their Superiours, in matters of exteriour order and publick government, till they are satisfied in the grounds and reasons of the said commands; or should they flie off from their duty, at sight of every new device that was offered to them; there would soone be a speedy dissolution both of Church and State. And to that purpose there was used a speech from Tacitus, Hist. l. 1. viz. Si ubi [...]ubeantur quaerere singulis liceat, pereunte obse­quio imperium etiam intercidit.’ So farre you cite him rightly, (which I wonder at, being a fault you are not guilty of too often) save that you left out that of every new device, there mentioned: as loath to be con­ceived Whereas in­deed he is but a Divine of inv [...]n­tion, &c. p. 1. a Divine of invention; affecting as you do, to be accounted one of judgement. What you replie to this we shall forthwith see: that which concernes the incouragement given to the Bishops and other Ordinaries, by his sacred M ^tie, first being wiped off in this short parenthesis pag. 61. the contrary whereof you have shewed in the precedent Chapter. Short work, beleeve me, you have as readie a way to confute an Adversarie, as he that undertooke to confute the Cardinall, with these two words, Mentiris Bellarmine. But since you do appeale to your performance in that Chapter, we must observe your method also, (being you are so good an Artist) and [...]ell you with more truth, though not more words, that I have shewne the contrary in the former Chapter, to that which you affirme in this so bravely.

Your answer to the next is more, but not more ma­teriall. The Doctor told you that the Ordinary of his owne authority, might (if he pleased) appoint the Com­munion table to be set up in the place where the Altar [Page 72] stood, and there placed Altar-wise as in the Mother Churches, and the Cappels Royall. And he had good authority, he thought, for what he said; His sacred Majesty having so declared it in the decision of the case about S. Gregories: affirming then and there, ‘that it properly belongeth to the place and function of the Ordinary, to give direction in that point, both for the thing it selfe, and for the time, when and how long, as he may finde cause.’ O mentis aureae verba bracteata, pag. 59. His Majesties Rescript fit to be written in plates of gold, is this, and this onely, con­cerning the point of controversie. However you ap­plaud not His Majesties approbation and confirmation of what was done by the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls, in the case there handled; as crossing ex diametro your owne resolutions: yet this particular clause you have selected for an Euge tuum, a passage not to be extold sufficiently. But not being constant to your selfe, we must expect [...] you should confute it, and so eate your words. Nor do you meane our expecta­tion should be frustrate. For entring on a vaine discourse of Episcopall government, which is to be, you say, by pag. 65. Canan Law, not by Canon shot: you fall to telling us, that they neither have, nor challenge any exorbitant power [...]ver their Clergie, Lawes, Canons, and Acts of Parliament (with a [...], (especially over [...]ct of Parliaments;) that they must governe with a power of moderation, not of domination; that sitting in their Chaires they are to judge according to the Ca­nons, and not of the Canons: pag. 66. that whatsoever power the Pr [...]lates had in former times of making Canons, and inflicting penalties in the same, it was all taken from them by K. Henry 8. and therefore if the Ordinaries [Page 73] now command where there is no Canon in force, it layes a burden and grievance upon the subjects, from which they may appeale as a thing unjust; and Appeales being in the Canon Law, as ancient in the Church of God as the Canons themselves; and purposely allowed of, because possibly a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling and wasp [...]sh humour of his owne, in stead of a Canon; Hereupon you conclude, (whatever hath beene said of his sacred Majesty in those his mentis [...]u [...]eae verba bract [...]ata) that it is untru [...], pag▪ 67. that the Or­dinary hath any authority of his own, (as he is Ordinary) to place the holy table in one or other situation. And therefore for your part, (Let the King use his plea­s [...]e in approving and confirming what he hath a minde to;) pag. 69. the Liturgie continuing as it is, you had far leiver [...]e [...]e that should obey (without offence to any man in place be it spoken) than he that should peremptorily command i [...] this kind of Alteration. And as for the obedience of the people, the Ordinary may indeed expect it, pag. 68. If hee command according to the Lawes and Canon [...] con­firmed, for otherwise he is in his excentricks, and moves not as he ought to doe: Nay, if the Ordinary should command where there is pag. 66. no law or former Canon in force, being it is a thing unjust that he should so doe, it is by consequence, of a nature, whereunto obedience is n [...] way due. pag. 67. Not that you would advise any Clergie­ [...]an of what degree soever, to oppose his Ordinary, either in this or any other particular of so low a nature; no God forbid; you have more wit I trow then so; but that you have a minde to lay such grounds, as any factious spirit may flie out upon, without more advi­sing. For tell me, to what purpose else is all this dis­course? His Majesty being the best Int [...]rpreter of the [Page 74] Canon, hath left the matter absolutely unto the Ordi­narie, as properly belonging to his place and function: yet if the Ordinarie doe command it, hee is in his ec­centricks, commands a thing for which there is no law or Canon, judgeth not by the Canons, but of the Canons, governes his Clergie as a Generall doth his Army in a drunken mutinie; rather affects a domina­tion than a moderation, and finally proposeth some­what out of a peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour, to which obedience is not due, non si me obsecres. What is this Here i [...] not onely I. C. but T. C. up and down, p. 70. up and downe thinke you, I. C. or T. C. as you phrase it pag. 70? This is an excellent kinde of Argumentation, to weaken not alone the Epis­copall, but the Regall power: as if the one had no au­thority to interpret Rubricks; nor the other to pro­ceed according unto that interpretation. Hee that can gather any better conclusion from such factious pre­mises, must have some Lincoln Logick, which never grew in either University. I will not tell you here, that I conjecture you doe aime at some particular, in this extravagant discourse; as if all matters of the Church were carried in a higher straine than they ought to be; because in a more orderly and canoni­call way than your queasie stomack can admit of: but I must tell you needs, that you have falsified most a­bominably the Councell of Nice. You tell us, it is possi­ble, a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour of his owne in stead of a Canon; from which there lyeth an Appeale by the Canon Law: And for that purpose cite those words of the Councell of Nice, cap. 5. [...]. But as you doe translate them falsely, for your private aime; so you have made the Councell [Page 75] say what it never meant. The Councell speaks not there of any possibility, that Bishops should propose unto themselves their owne peevish, waspish, wrangling humours, in stead of Canons. All that it saith is this, [...] &c. Concil▪ Nicen. c. 5. ‘It is required that no man should bee excommunicate by his Bishop, either out of weaknesse, stomack, or any other kind of harshnesse; and that there should be Synods twice in every yeer, for the particular examination of such matters.’ Call you this a proposall of their owne waspish, wrangling and peevish humours, in stead of Canons? But that you have a Licence to say what you list, you durst ne­ver have said it.

And yet, I thinke wee may forgive you both this and that extravagant discourse which before wee spake of. For you have made us very faire amends, Amends for Ladies saith the play, in that which fol­loweth; and so confute your selfe to save me a labour. You tell us out of B ^p Bilson, pag. 66, 67. That whatsoever by the lawes of God, the Prince, or the Church, is once constitu­ted, is no longer to be mooted upon, but absolutely obeyed by all inferiours. And what God, the King, and the Church have directed, is not to be put to deliberation, but to execution. Your Author, a most reverend and lear­ned man, speaks plainer than you doe, who doe affect most miserably in all your style too much of the Bar­rister. Perpet. go­vernment of Ch. [...]. 14. p. 295. ‘What is decreed (saith hee) by Superi­ours, must not by inferiours be debated whether it shall take place or no; but be rather obeyed with readinesse. So that in all cases determined by the lawes of God, the Church, and the Prince, consul­tation is both superfluous and pr [...]sumptuous; exe­cution is onely needfull.’ And now I would as­sume, [Page 76] did I not thinke it would offend you, but by the King it is determined, that it doth properly belong unto the Ordinarie to place the Communion Table where hee thinkes most fitting, in reference both to place and time. Ergo, what ever you have said in your last discourse, is either to a very factious and unduti­full purpose, or to none at all. In the next place, you grant it to be true as the Doctor saith, pag. 67. That in all doubts that doe arise, how to understand, doe, and execute the things contained in the Liturgie, a deciding power is left to the Bishop of the Diocesse: But then you say, pag. 67. It is as true, that the Doctor dasheth out with an &c. the maine pr [...]viso of this power; so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this booke. What then? There­fore it is untrue, that the Ordinarie hath an authority of his owne (as he is Ordinarie) to place the holy Table in one or other situation, more than what is given him (in case of doubt and diversity onely) by the foresaid Preface. This is just hide and seeke, or the blind-mans buf [...]e. The Preface gives the Ordinarie a deciding power, in case of doubting or diversitie, and in that case onely: yet when there is a doubt, and difference about the pla­cing of the Table, either he hath no such deciding po­wer, or else may not use it. The Ordinarie hath no authority, but what is given him by the Preface, and the Preface gives him an authority which he may not exercise. These are like sick mens dreames, Horat. de [...]te. Cujus, velut aegri somnia, vanae Finguntur species, things of ill coherence. And if you hope to save your selfe by the proviso, so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this book, you are wide as ever: that contrariety which you dreame of, being taken away, by that decision of his Majesty, which you have honoured with your Eu­logie [Page 77] of mentis aureae. Nay you goe further at the last, and cut your owne throat with your owne weapon: pag. 68, 69. Affirming that in a case of doubt, diversitie, and am­biguity, the Bishop, or Ordinary, is punctually to be obey­ed by those of his jurisdiction: excepting onely when his said command doth expresly oppose an Article of the beliefe, one of the ten Commandements, or the generall state and subsistence of Gods Catholike Church. I think you are not of opinion, that placing the Communion Table Altar-wise, is expresly opposite to either of the three here mentioned: being, as you professe else­where, a The Bishop entring into a discourse of the indifferencie of this circum­stance. p. 8. circumstance indifferent. Nor shall you chall [...]ge mee for leaving out your preamble to this [...]esolution, If hee command according to the lawes and Canons confirmed: unlesse you can make good, which I thinke you cannot, that any thing commanded ac­cording to the lawes and Canons confirmed, may op­pose expresly an Article of the faith, &c. Besides, that in your following words you speake more generally, without relation unto lawes and Canons confirmed, pag. 69. that in all other cases whatsoever (except before ex­cepted) that are dubious, the inferiour is bound to beleeve his superiour. This point, you say, well poised, would cleer a world of errors both in the Church and Common­wealth; but was here handled either very imperti­nently, or against your selfe. For your Protest, that pag. 69. you have not heard of any L ^d Bishop that hath exa­cted of his Diocesse, the placing of the holy table, as this man would have it; Horat. credat Iudaeus appella, Non ego. I am too well acquainted with you, to take up any thing on credit. For harke you in your eare, what meane the bleating of those sheepe? pag. 68. this fellowes jumbling against the King and the Bishop, tanquam Re­gem [Page 78] cum Regulo, like a Wren mounted on the feathers of an Eagle? You are not such a Sphinx, I hope, but you may meet an Oedipus at one time or other. And pray you tell me ere we part, whether did you borrow that trim conceit out of the Newes from where little Pope Reg [...]lios hath p [...]ayed such Rex. pa. 7. Ipswich, or lent you it to H. B. before hand, to try how it relished? An excellent piece it was, beleeve me, and such a one as doth deserve the guerdon in Virgils Eclogue, Egl. 3. Et vitula tu dignus, & ille.

Having thus battered downe the Episcopall power, for placing or displacing the Communion Table, which yet stands fast enough for all your assaults; you sallie next upon the Vicar, Monsieur the halfe Vi­car, pag. 70. as you call him. Angry you are at somewhat, but you dare not say what. Where doth the Doctor say (as you charge upon him) that Monsieur the halfe Vicar should have power to remove (of his owne head) the Communion Table; or to call that an Altar, which his Rubrick calls a Table, and no otherwise; to be inabled to doe this by the Canons, and to be Iudge, yea a more compe­tent Iudge of the conveniencie of the standing thereof, than the Ordinarie, and his Surrogates; not permitting the Church-Officers to doe what they are injoyned by their immediate Superiours? These Myrmidons, I as­sure you, swarmed out of your strong fancy onely, and are not extant any where in the Doctors booke, nor by you hudled up in your broken Cento. You one­ly charge the Doctor there, pag. 61. for saying that the Vi­car might desire to have an Altar, i. e. to have the Com­munion Table placed Altar-wise, at the upper end of his Quire. And why not so? Desire to have a thing done thus, and thus, implies not any grant of power to doe it. To have a power of ones owne head to remove the [Page 79] Table, and to desire to have the Table placed Altar-wise; are as farre asunder, as you are from obtaining the office of an Arch B▪ although perhaps you may desire it. Nor doth the Doctor say in ter [...]inis, that it was lawfull for the Vicar to call that a [...] Altar, which the Rubrick calls no otherwise than a Table; but that Coal. the Epistoler (whosoever he was) had no reason to suspect, that any propitiatory sacrifice was aimed at by the Vi­car of Gr. although he used the name of Altar for the ho­ly table. Or had the Doctor said so in terms expresse; had it been either ^h novum crimen, or ante h [...]c tempus inauditum? May wee be sure, upon your word, that because pag. 76. names were first invented to divide and sever one particular thing from another; or that a thing can­not have two proper and distinct names; therefore the holy Table may not be called an Altar. Is it not told us in the letter, Coal from the Altar, p. 32, 33, 73. that in the Old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar, and a Table: an Al­tar in respect of what is there offered unto God; and a Ta­ble, in respect of what is there (or thence) participated by men. And have not you your selfe informed us ou [...] of Cardinall [...]eron, that it is ever called a Table when it points to the Communion, and an Altar when it points unto the sacrifice, pag. 102. I see your memorie is not altogether so good as your invention. Severall re­spects may give the [...]ame one thing, two names; as se­verall capacities to the selfe- [...]ame person. There is a licence to your booke, subsigned Iohn Lincoln Dean [...] of Westminster. Bishop of Lincoln, and Deane of West­minster, are two distinct and proper names; and yet no doubt you would be sorry they should not both be­long to the same one man. Your other reason, that it should not▪ Letter to the [...] Vicar. be called an Altar, because the Church [Page 80] in her Liturgie and Canons doe call it a table onely, is no such And is a s [...]ronger one than your head-piece is capable of, p. 75 strong one, but that an ordinary head-piece may be fit to hold it. The Liturgie and Canons both, doe call the Easterne part of the Church by the name of Chancell Rubr. befo [...]e the Communion, and [...]anon 82.. The Table in Communion time shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancell. So the Liturg [...]e. The Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancell. So the Canon Rubr. befo [...]e the Communion, and [...]anon 82.. What then? Therefore, according to your reason, the Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Chancell onely; why doth the Epistoler so often call it a Quire, and you not check him for it? That which you bring us from Barba [...]us, pag. 75. that where wee have a Law and Canon to direct us, how to call a thing, we ought not to hunt after reasons and conceits to give it ano­ther appellation; besides, that it is nothing to the pur­pose, is by you falsified of purpose, to helpe at need. Barbatus hath not in your margin any one sylla­ble, that lookes that way: Barbatus in Clement. de elect. c. 1. n. 11. Vbicunque habemus le­gem vel Canonem, non debemus allegare rationem, nisi lege vel Canone deficiente. What hath this rule to doe with names and appellations, that speaks of neither? You should first learne to construe a piece of Latine, before you take upon you to be a disputant. There is another pretty fetch concerning Altars, which I will put off to the sixt Chapter, where wee shall looke on that discourse, which you have given us, piece by piece of the name of Altar, though sorry you should force me to waste my time in such a needlesse [...] as this is.

What followes next in your said Cento? Because pag. 61, 62. for any thing the Canon tells us, the Vicar was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, than the [Page 81] Bishops immediate officers the Church-wardens were, or ought to have: and that he did not any thing against the Canon, in causing the table to be disposed of to a more con­venient place than before it stood in. Where finde you this? Not in the Doctor certainly, if you marke him well. The Doctor speakes not any thing of the Canons generally, (as you make him speak) but of that one particular Canon, which was alleaged in the letter. The Vicar, as before you charged it, desired to have an Altar, i. e. the Communion table placed Altar-wise at the upper end of his Quire. The Bishop reasoneth a­gainst this out of the Canons, Anno 1571. that not the Vicar, but the Church-wardens were to provide (uten­sils, saith your new Edition) for the Communion, and that not an Altar, but a faire joyned Table. The Do­ctor hereunto replyes, Coal from the Al [...]ar, p. 10. ‘that for any thing those Canons (and not the Canon) tell us, the Minister (as in this case the Vicar) was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, being so provided, than the Church-wardens were or ought to have. And that the Vicar did not any thing in this case against the Canon (i. e. the Canon then proposed) for he provi­ded not the table, but onely caused the table which he found provided, to be disposed of to a more con­venient place than before it stood in.’ Have you found any thing in those Canons that affirmes the con­trary? If yea, why▪ doe you not produce it? If not, why make you such a clamour upon no occasion? The Doctor neither there, nor elsewhere, doth justi­fie the Vicars Act, peromnia; nor indeed in any thing, if he did any thing in this, against the Canon: but saith in one Coal, p. 10. place what he did▪ and in another what hee thought Coal, p. 51. to be most convenient. Nor could the Do­ctor [Page 82] but conjecture out of the Preamble of the letter, that the Vicar did acquaint the Bishop with his desires, and found from him a toleration at the least, if not an approbation, as before I said. Yet upon this weake ground, which will beare no foundation of a solid building, you runne into a long and vaine discourse, of the authority and office of Bishops, Archdeacons, and Church-wardens: for ostentation of your reading, and that you have a minde to traduce the Doctor, as if hee held [...]ome I am sure this te [...]t is in the hig [...]est degree I [...]suiticall. p. 71. Iesuiticall tenets which might in time prove prejudiciall to the estate of Bishops. All that I can collect from thence, is, that you are beholding for your observations to one or more Archdeacons of your neere acquaintance: who were not willing, as it seemes, to take all this paines for you, and doe no ho­nour to themselves. Yet let me tell you as a friend, you trust them somewhat further than a wise man would; and suffer them to plume themselves with the Bishops feathers: taking that power unto themselves, which you full faine would fixe originally in the Dio­cesan. For what say you, from them, to the point in hand? whether or not the Vicar ought to meddle with the holy table. It is, say you, pag. 78. not the Ordina­ry, but the Apostles themselves, that have turned the Parsons and Vicars from being active in this kinde, to their diviner meditations. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God to serve table. Since when, from the first Deacons, then appointed, to our pag. 79. present Arch­deacons (in whose office the ancient power of the Deacons is united and concentred) Incumbents have beene exclu­ded from medling with the Vtensils of the Church, or Or­naments of the Altar. But see you not withall, that by this reason the Bishops are excluded also. For were [Page 83] they not the Apostles, of whom it is affirmed, that it was no reason that they should leave the word of God to serve tables? And who sustaine the place and office of the Apostles at this day, if not the Bishops? See what credulity, and too much confidence in your friends hath brought upon you. I question not the matter now, meaning to meete with that hereafter. Besides, you suffer your Archdeacons to use the name of Altar without offence; which you conceived to be so capitall a crime in Monsieur Vicar. pag. 79. Ornaments of the Altar,—The very Altar it selfe with the Raile a­bout it,—To move and remove the Altar: Altar thrice used in halfe a page, and you check not at it. The rest of your dismembred Cento, and the good sport you make your self, touching the advancing of the Church-wardēs above their Minister, & whatsoever other shreds you have patched together for your more delight, are not considerable in this place, or to this purpose. It is the Doctors undertaking, to answer to your argu­ments, and not your scornes: Nor loves he, howso­ever you like of it, to have his portion with those men that sit in the seate of the scornfull.

But non bonum est ludere cum Sanctis. What sport soever you are pleased to make with him; take heed how you offend against God and piety. The piety of these times, though you are fully bent to make sport therewith, is no such waking dreame, that you should set your selfe to d [...]ride it, in so grosse a manner. The Doctor tells us of that letter, that it Coal from the Altar. p. [...]. was spread a­broad of purpose, the better to discountenance that unifor­mity of publike Order, to which the piety of these times is so well inclined;—of purpose to distract the people, and hinder that good worke is now in hand. This is the [Page 84] game you have in sent, and having taken up the cry, follow it up and downe over all the booke: not here alone, where ex professo you pursue it, but pag. 188. 192. 197. 214. 228. &c. This, be it what it will, you tell us, is as pag. 64. yet in abeyante, pendant in the ayre, you know not where; and like yer long to fall upon our heads, but you know not when: pag. 83. that you have open­ed your eyes as wide as possibly you can, but cannot disco­ver it: Or pag. 84. if there be such an especiall inclination of these times to piety, it is a peculiar piety (you assure us so) differing from the piety of former times. And there­fore you do pag. 85. reasonably presume that this good work in hand is but the second part of sancta Clara, with whom you make the Doctor tamper in points of I am af [...]raid [...] judicious Divines that tamper so much in doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in discipline with Sancta Petra. p. 71. doctrine, as in the points of discipline with sancta Petra. But tell me I beseech you, conceive you uniformity, and uni­formity of publike Order in the officiating of Gods di­vine service, to be no good worke? And finde you not the piety of these times, inclinable in an higher degree to that uniformity, than any of the times before? When did you ever finde a King, that did so seriously affect Church-worke; or that hath more endeavoured to advance that decency and comlinesse in the perfor­mance of divine Offices, which God expecteth and re­quires, than his sacred Majestie? His owne example in the constant keeping of the houres of prayer, and most devout behaviour in the acts thereof: thinke you they are not sweet incitements unto all his subjects, to follow those most pious steps in the which he walks? Vel. Paterc. l. 2. Recte facere cives suos Princeps optimus faciendo do­cet. His Majesties religious carriage in the house of God, and due observance of those Orders which the law requires in common people, is a more excellent [Page 85] Sermon upon that text, than ever you yet preached on any. They must be needs exceeding dull, or some­what worse, which will not profit very much by such heavenly doctrine. If you have opened your eyes so wide, as you say you have, it is not that you cannot, but you will not see it; and are growne blinde, not out of want of sight, but want of piety. Adde to all these, the Princely zeale of his magnificent heart, for the repai­ring of S. Pauls; by which example, questionlesse, the other Churches in this land will fare the better. And adde to that, his Majesties most sacred care, that in all places where he comes in Progresse, what scantnesse of roome soever was wont to be pretended, no conse­crated place shall bee prophaned by those imploy­ments, to which they have beene put in the times be­fore. And see you nothing all this while, no good worke, no piety? Then looke into those Countrey Churches, to which his Majestie in his times of Pro­gresse repaires most frequently for hearing and atten­ding Gods publike service: leaving the privacy of his owne Court, and presence, to set a copy to his people, how to performe all true humility and religious ob­servations in the house of God. If you see nothing yet, and that there must be something which hath spoiled your eye-sight; it is the too much light you live in: by which you are so dazeled that you cannot see this part of piety, or else so blinded that you will not. And we may say of you in the Poets language, Sunt tenebrae per tantum lumen obortae. Then to goe forwards, descendo, can you remember any Metropolitan of and in this Church (and gather all your wits about you) which hath more seriously endeavoured to promote that uni­formity of publike Order, than his Grace now being? [Page 86] His cares and consultations to advance this worke, to make Hierusalem (if such as you disturbed him not) at unity within it selfe, are very easie to be seene: so easie, that it were sensibile super sensorium ponere, to insist long on it. The very clamours raised upon him, by those who love nor unity nor uniformity, and have an art of fishing with most profit, in a troubled water; are better evidence of this, than you have any in your booke to maintaine the cause. Nor heare wee any of the other bels, which are not willing for their parts to make up the Harmony; but that great Tom rings out of tune. For when did you or any other know the Prelates, generally, more throughly intent upon the work committed to them; more earnest to reduce the service of this Church to the Ancient Orders, ap­pointed in the Common-prayer booke? It is not long since, that we had but halfe prayers in most Chur­ches; and almost none at all in some, your friend I. Cottons for example. See you no alteration in this kinde? Is not the Liturgie more punctually observed of late, in the whole forme and fashion of Gods service, than before it was? Churches more beauti­fied and adorned than ever since the Reformation; the people more conformable to those reverend gestures in the house of God, which though prescribed be­fore, were but little practised? Quisquis non videt, coecus; quisquis videt, nec laudat, ingratus; quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est; August de Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 7. as the Father hath it. This, if ingratitude to God, and obstinate malice to his Church, hath not made you blinde, you cannot choose but see, though you would dissemble it: And if you see it, do you not thinke it a good worke? and is there not a piety of and in these times, which more [Page 87] inclines to the advancement of that worke, than of the former? would any man, that onely weares a forme of godlinesse, make this his May-game; and scornefully intitle it the pag. 85. imaginary piety of the times, and the Platonicall Idea of a good worke in hand? Take heed, for vultu l [...]ditur pietas. Laughed you but at it in your sleeve, you had much to answer for; but making it your publick pastime, you make your selfe obnoxious to the wrath of God and man, both for the sinne and for the scandall. And as for the good worke in hand, in case you will not help it forwards, (as I doubt you will not;) doe not disturb it with your factious and schismaticall Pamphlets.

Having made merry with your friends, about the inclination of these times to piety, and the advance­ment of so good a worke as the uniformity of publick order: you pass, I know not how, to the Acts and Monuments, and the examination of such passages as were thence taken by the Doctor. Perhaps you are a better Artist than I take you for: And being it is Art is celare artem, you meane to tender to the world such an Art of writing, as hath no art in it. But the lesse cunning, the more truth, as we use to say. If we could find it so, it were some amends; and though I see but little hope, yet I meane to trie. The Doctor told you in his Coal. p. 14. Coale from the Altar, that ‘not a few of those which suffered death for opposing the grosse and carnall doctrine of transubstantiation, did not onely well enough indure the name of Altar, but without any doubt or scruple called the Lords Supper sometimes a sacrifice, and many times the Sacrament of the Altar.’ So that if they indured it well enough, in others, or used it themselves without [Page 88] doubt or scruple; it is as much as was intended by the Doctor. And for the proofe of this, he first brings in Iohn Fryth, relating in a letter to his private friends, that they his adversaries examined him touching the Sacrament of the Altar; whether it was the very body of Christ, or no. These are pag. 86. you say their words, not his. Why man, whose words soever they were in the first proposall, doth not he use the same without doubt or scruple? finde you that he did stumble at them, or dislike the phrase? Had he beene halfe so quarrelsome at the phrase, as you are, he might have testified his dislike in a word or two; the Sacrament of the Altar, as they call it. Your selfe informe us from him, that in some cases, at sometimes, he used that qualification, as viz. p. 308. I added moreover that their Church (as they call it) hath no such power and authority, &c. An Argument there of his dissent, none here: their Church as they call it, there; the Sacrament of the Altar here; no dislike at all. You might have suffered the poore man to rest in peace, and not have called him Vouz avez Fryth, Let him in Gods name come up to the [...]. pag. 87. to the barre to so little purpose. The second witnesse was Iohn Lambert, who also used the word or phrase with as little scruple. Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 401. As concerning the other six Articles I make you the same answer, that I have done un­to the Sacrament of the Altar, and no other. You quar­rell this, as that before, being you say pag. 87. their words, not his; and hereunto we make that answer as unto the former: They were their words in proposition, his in rep [...]tition; especially the repetition being such as s [...]ewed no dislike. But where you tell us of his An­swer, Ibid. viz. I neither can nor will answer one word; and thereupon inferre, Iohn Lambert answers there not one word for you: thats but a touch of your old trick, in cut­ting [Page 89] short quotations when they will not help you. Iohn Lambert being demanded, not whether he ap­proved the name of Sacrament of the Altar, but whe­ther he thought that in the Sacrament of the Altar, there was the very body and blood of Christ in likeness of bread and wine; replyed, I neither can ne will answer one word: what, ends he there, as you have made him? no, by no meanes: I neither can ne will answer one word Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 401. other­wise than I have told you since I was delivered into your hands: which was, that he would make no answer of what hee thought, till they brought some body to accuse him. Iohn Lamberts other testimony used by the Doctor is, as followeth. ‘Christ being offered up once for all in his owne person, is yet said to be offered up, not onely every yeare at Easter, but also every day in the celebration of the Sacrament, because his oblation, once for ever made, is thereby represented.’ Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 435. These words you challenge as not his. How so? Because it followeth in the place. pag 88. Even so saith S. Augustin. Even so saith S. Augustin? what, and stops he there, as if he onely said those words from that Reverend Father? Had it beene so, we had lost nothing by the hand, the words being his in the Originall, and Lam­berts in the Application: but it is not so. For thus it followeth in the place; ‘Even so, saith Augustine, is the Sacrament of Christs body, the body of Christ; and the Sacrament of Christs blood; the blood of Christ in a certaine wise or fashion.’ You may call home the Montebank, (for ought I can see) which you Vouz avez An honest man, Iohn Lambert. Put stand you by for a Monte­bank, Iohn Coal. p. 8 [...]. bestow upon the Doctor; and keepe him to your selfe till the Doctor needs him. Touching Archbishop Cranmer, can you shew us any where, [Page 90] that at the terme or phrase of Sacrament of the Altar, he did take offence? if not, you give the Doctor what he Coal. pag. 14. there affirmes. And since on your discovery, which I thanke you for, I finde it was Iohn Fox, and not the Arch Bishop, which drew up those allega­tions against the six Articles (which following so im­mediatly on the Arch Bishops opposition See the Acts and Mon. part. [...]. p. 443. to those Articles, might very easily be mistooke for his, by one that is not so much studied in the booke as you seeme to be) wee have lost nothing by the change. I trow if M ^r. Fox tooke no offence thereat, you will have little thankes for your great precisenesse. Oh but, say you, there followeth pag. 88. such a peale after it, as none but a mad-man would cite him for this purpose: viz. This monstrous Article of theirs in this forme of word [...] as it standeth, &c. What? doth Iohn Fox call it a monstrous Article, onely because the Sacrament is there called, the Sacrament of the Altar? If not, you might have kept your mad-man to your selfe, as you doe your Montebank. This monstrous Article of theirs in the forme of words as it standeth, is, that the Sacrament of the Altar is the very naturall body of Christ, the selfe same which was borne of the Virgin Mary. This you dash out with an &c. to make your partizans bele [...]ve, that no entitle the Lords Supper, by the name of the Sacrament of the Altar, was in Iohn Fox his judgement, a monstro [...] [...]ticle. Vt magno it populo.

In citi [...] [...]ohn Philpot, you proceed accordingly. Coal. pag. 15. The D [...]r told you out of him, ‘in what re­spects the old Writers doe sometimes call the Sa­crament of the body and blood of Christ, amongst other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar.’ To this you make reply, [Page 91] pag. 89. that he hath dealt with Philp [...]t, exceeding hardly, cutting off the head and feet of his discourse, and thereby making the quotation, almost as true a Martyr, as the man himselfe. First for the head of his discourse, it is no more than this; ‘ Acts and Mon. part. 3. p. 23. I must needs ask a question of my Respondent D ^r. Chadsey, concerning a word or twaine of your supposition i. e. of the Sacrament of the Altar, what he meaneth thereby, and whether he take it, as some of the ancient Writers do, terming the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar.’ This is the head. Where I am sure he hath lopt off the head, which had a shrewd tale to tell. p. 89. is the shrewd tale it hath to tell? Doth not the head confesse that it was called so by some ancient Writers? And what more finde you in Leaving the relation like Philopoemens A [...]mie, all belly. pag. 89. the belly? Then for the feete. Demanding (as you make him say) ‘whether he tooke it as the Ancients did, or for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacra­ment hangeth: and finding that they meant it this later way, he declares himselfe, Then I will speake plaine English, that the Sacrament of the Altar, is no Sacrament at all.’Had you reported Philpot rightly, we should have no great cause to How like you Iohn Philpot. pag. 89. like him: but it is you that martyr the quotation, and not the Doctor. ‘His question was, Acts and Mon. part 3. pag. 23. whether they tooke it other­wise than the Doctors did, as for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacrament hangeth, and to be all one with the Sacrament of the Masse, as it is at this pre­sent in many places. And finding that they tooke the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Masse to be all one; then, quoth Philpot, I will speake plaine English, the Sacrament of the Altar which yee reckon to be all one with the Masse, once [Page 92] justly abolished, and now put in full use againe, is no Sacrament at all, neither is Christ present in it.’ See you Sir, how you cheat and abuse your Reader, lea­ving out, in the question, and to be all one with the Sa­crament of the Masse; and in the answer, that they tooke the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Masse to be all one; and in the resolution, which yee reckon to be all one with the Masse once justly abolished? You should have dealt more faithfully in your quota­tions of those bookes, in which each petty Chapman will finde your falshood.

The other passage which you cite from the said Ioh [...] Philpot, out of the Acts and Monuments, part 3. pag. 553. viz. as touching their Sacrament, which they terme of the Altar; and so make it their terme, not his; that is answered in, and with the former. Hee doth not say, The Sacrament which they terme of the Altar; but their Sacrament which they so terme, that is, the Masse. The Sacrament of the Altar was the Fathers language; to call their Masse so, was their owne. Your other instance touching Philpot, out of the same part, pag. 571. we shall see hereafter. Concerning Bp Latimer, the Doctor told you, Coal from the Altar, p. 15. that hee plainly granteth, that it (i. e. the holy Table) may be called an Altar, and so the Doctors call it in many places; but there is no propitiatory sacrifice but onely Christs. You, in your repetition, leave out this, It may be called an Altar, and make the Doctor say no more, than that old Latimer plainly granteth, that the Doctors call it so in many places: and thereupon inferre, he doth not pag. 90. call it so himselfe. Then for the Doctors, (having first called upon him to speake truth, and shame the de­vill, for he is the old clipper of speeches) you tell us that [Page 93] it followeth in old Latimers words, that they may be deceived in some points, though not in all things: I be­leeve them when they say well, or as it is in the margin, pag. 91. Doctores legendi [...]s [...]nt cum venia; which you con­strue thus, the Doctors must be pardoned if they some­times slip in their expressions. No matter for the mar­gin, that comes out of season. I trust you will not ju­stifie all the marginall notes in the Acts and Mon. But as for Latimers speech, that they might erre in some points, though not in all things; it seemes hee did not thinke that they erred in this; himselfe affirming positively, that it may be called an Altar, as the Doctors call it; though you leave that out. You may take with you home the old clipper of speeches, to wait upon the Mountebank, and the Madman, that are there alrea­dy. To the first place Coal from the Altar, p. 15. alledged from B. Ridley, viz. that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the very body and bloud of Christ; you answer onely as before, that they are their words, and not his; pag. 91. the words articulated upon him, and not his own. But whose soever they were in the proposition, he useth them without doubt or scruple in the repetition; which was the onely point that they were produced for. Against the other passage of that Reverend Prelates, that the word Altare in the Scrip­ture doth signifie as well the Altar whereupon the Iewes were wont to offer their [...]burnt sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper; and that S. Cyril meaneth by this word Altare, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord, &c. you have nought to answer: confessing plainly that In [...]nswering to that place of [...] objected to t [...]e Bishop of Lincoln, &c. [...]e saith as you say. p. [...]. he saith as the Doctor doth. Which is the onely faire dealing he hath found yet from you; though after you would faine retract, pag. 92. affirming that the B ^p of Lincoln would smile very heartily, to see [Page 94] that such a passage, as this is, should be brought by the Doctor, to defend his Altars. Let them laugh that winne.

That which comes next after, is the Act of Parlia­ment, 1 Edw. 6. cap. 1. of which the Doctor tells us, Coal from the Altar, p. 16. that ‘it was resolved in the same, that the whole Communion should be restored, which in effect was a plaine abolition of the former Masse; yet the Act was entituled, An Act against such persons as shall speak irreverently against the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, commonly called the Sacra­ment of the Altar. Hee tells us also, that in the body of the Act, that there was a Writ determined of, up­on such delinquencies, wherein it is expresly called Sacrosanctum Sacramentum Altaris: and that the said Act being repealed 1 Mar. cap. 1. was after­wards revived by Qu. Eliz. and every branch and member of it, 1 Eliz. cap. 1.’ So that the Act being still in force, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to this day entituled in the Statute law, the Sacram [...]nt of the Altar. This Statute you affirme to be produced by the Doctors with the same felicity as the Martyrs were, pag. 92. that is, to witnes point blank against himself: the D ^r, on­ly peeping over the wicket, but, as you say, not daring for his eares to open the doore, and looke into the body of it. Why doe you thinke the Doctor should be such a flincher? First, as you say, pag. 93. because the Sacrament of the Altar was not the name, but the addition onely to the name of the blessed Sacrament; the very name it self being the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: the one the name, the other the pag. 94. nick-name, as you call it. This said; Ibid. you fall upon the Doctor, and bid him come with shame enough into the body of the Act, and [Page 95] see what impostures he printeth for the people: because for [...]ooth it is there called the comfortable Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, commonly called the Sacra­ment of the Altar, and in Scripture the Supper and Table of the Lord. Good angry Sir, doe you find any imposture here on the Doctors-part? Affirmes hee otherwise, than that the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per was, and is by that Statute (still in force) entituled also by the name of Sacrament of the Altar? It is, you say, a penall law, and being it was a penall law, it was to speak ad captum vulgi. Doe you not call to mind, that you told us lately of the Queenes Injunctions, pag. 44. that they were directed to her Subjects, not unto her Mathe­maticians; and of the Rubrick in the Liturgie, that it was made for people pag. 52. that were no Geometricians: and then conclude the point out of Chancellour Egerton, that pag. 54. words must be taken sensu currenti, custome and use being the best expositor both of Lawes and words? Take the Impostor home with you to make up the messe; and then you have a Mountebank, a mad man, the de­vill an old clipper of speeches, and the said Impostor to keepe you company.

You challenge upon all, and on no occasions, a spe­ciall interest in antiquity; and cite, as you have cause sometimes, some of the Ancients that call it the Sa­crament of the Altar: yet tell us, upon better thoughts, that it is called so indeed, but not by the law of God, pag. 95. nor by the law of man; but commonly, that is, by the common error and Popery of these times. The Papists are behol­ding to you, for giving them such interest in the An­cient Fathers. The Fathers call it so, and it was cal­led so only by the common error and Poperic of these later daies. Doe not you make the Fathers exceeding [Page 96] young, or Popery exceeding old, in that you make the Fathers and Popery of an equall standing. Your slender observation, that in those times this very Sacrament was called the Masse, and allowed to be called so by Act of Parliament, (you meane it is so called in the Liturgie, confirmed that Parliament, 2. & 3. Edw. 6. c. 1.) is not worth the noting. Yet thereupon you make this inference, that if the Doctor shall report of you, that you have said Masse, when you have onely admi­nistred the Communion, you will have your remedy against him, as in case of slander. And well you may. You know that Statute is repealed, there being another Liturgie confirmed by Parliament, which makes void the old. But so it is not with the Statute touching the Sacrament of the Altar, which is as much in force as the second Liturgie. Nor need you feare that any man will report of you, that you have said Masse, when you have only administred the Communion: though some perhaps may say (and bid you take the remedy that the law allowes you) that you, or some good friend of yours, have offered to say Masse, there where you ought to have administred the Com­munion onely. Be not too busie on your chalenges, as you love your selfe; lest some adventurous Sword­man bid you doe your worst, and take up the wa­sters.

As for the Writ, directed in the body of the Act to my LL. the Bishops, you say it doth not pag▪ 96. call it (as the Doctor falsifyeth the Act) Sacramentum Altaris, but onely that it was grounded on the Statute made con­cerning the Sacrament of the Altar. Why Sir, the Doctor doth not say, that the Writ calls it so expresse­ly; V. Coal from the Altar, p. 16. but that it is expresly called so in the Writ. [Page 97] And if you have no better answer to the Writ, than unto the Statute, both Writ and Statute will hold good against all your Cavills: and the poore Doctor may be How many Presidents of that writ, can t [...]is great La [...]yer shew in the book of Entries. p. 5. 95 Lawyer good enough to defend the Writ, al­though there were no Precedents thereof in the booke of Entries. You saw the weaknesse of this plea, and thereupon you adventure on a further hazard. You tell the Doctor, elsewhere, of his great presumption in offering to Correcting Magnificat, p. 77. correct Magnificat: and that being never in such grace, as to be made Lord Keeper of the great seale of England, he pag. 23. should presume to give a man a call to be a Iudge, who died but an Apprentise in the lawes. Yet now you fall on both those errours, of which you have already pronounced him guilty. For you must needs correct the Statute, which the whole Parliament (wiser I take it than your selfe) hath thought fit to stand: and tell us of the Writ, (which yet my Lord B ^p of Lincoln, when he was Lord Keeper, had no power to alter) that it pag. 97. ought to be issued con­tra formam Statuti concernentis sacrosanctum Sacra­mentum corporis & sanguinis Dominici; whereas the Statute gives no warrant for any such Writ to be issu­ed from the Court of Chancery. Had you authority of making either Writs or Statutes, I doubt not but your first Statute should be this, that it should be lawfull for any man wheresoever, or whensoever he saw the ho­ly Table placed Altar-wise, to call it a dresser; and then a Writ to be awarded against all those that should speak unreverently of your said service of the dresser. At least it should and might be lawfull for the rude people so to call it, and none so bold as to controule them. On them indeed you have trans-ferred it, in your new edition of the letter, to excuse the Bishop: [Page 98] but then you never tell us, as you might have done as well in the same Edition, how sorely they were repre­hended by the Bishop for it. Here very unseasonably, and by some pag. 98. Susenbrotus figure, you have brought it in; and seeme exceeding angry (as I think you are) that it should be so Prynned and pinned on the Bishops sleeve. But be not so extreamly angry though mass: Prynne may furnish you with as good a note as that when occasion serves; and recompence you for the use of your Dresser by some trick of law. But where you say, that Ibid. if one Bishop of Lincoln, and one Deane of Westminster, shall speake irreverently of the Protestants table, (I thought assuredly, it had been the Lords Ta­ble) calling it oyster-table, and oyster-boorde; by this new figure of the Doctors, all Bishops and Deanes of those two places must till the end of the world be supposed to doe so: you make a strange non sequitur which the Doctor meant not. Hee knowes there have beene many Bi­shops and Deanes of either, of such a noted piety, as no man can suppose it of them. All you can thence conclude is this: that as there was a Bishop of Lincoln, and a Deane of Westminster that called the Lords table standing Table-wise, or in the middle of the Chaun­cell, by the name of oyster-boorde: so to cry quitts with them, there is (as you have now discovered him) one Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, that calls it standing Altar-wise, by the name of Dresser. As for Iohn Fox his marginall notes of the blasphemous mouth of D ^r Weston, (the Deane of Westminster) calling the Lords table an oyster-boorde, pag. 85. and Bishop White, (then Bishop of Lincoln) blasphemously calleth the boorde of the Lords Supper an oyster-table: those you may either take or leave, as your stomack serves you. [Page 99] And sure it serves you very well, you had not falne else on the B ^p of Norwich with so good an appetite, and furnished some of your good friends out of the Index of your Author, with an excellent note, against the next Edition of the Newes from Ipswich. But this is not the onely thing wherein H. B. and you have im­parted notes to one another; as may most manifest­ly be discerned in that generall Parallel, which I have elsewhere drawne betweene you. At this time I shall onely note how much you are beholding unto your [...], the back-doors of your books, your Indexes. Here pag. 98 we are furnished with a note out of the Index of Iohn Fox, touching a Bishop of Norwich his send­ing forth letters of persecution. Pag. 129. you certifie us from the authority of the same learned Index, that Bi­shop Ridley ordered the Communion Table to be pla­ced, not Altar-wise, but as a Table. Nor could you en­ter into the Fathers but by this back-doore, and there you found by chance (such good luck you have) that, Sacrificium Altaris pag. 116 was foysted into the Index of S. Austin, by the Divines of Lovaine, as into others of the Fathers by the Priests and Iesuites. We now perceive what helps you had, to clog your margin with such a numerous and impertinent body of quotations, as serve for very little purpose, but to make a shew; a ge­nerall muster, as it were, of your mighty reading.

CHAP. IV.
Of taking down Altar [...] in K. Edw. time; altering the Liturgie first made; and of the 82. Canon.

The Doctor leaves the Minister of Lincolns Method, for this Chapter to keepe close to England. Altars not generally taken downe in the fourth of K. Edw. 6. The Minister of Linc. fal­sifieth the Bishops letter to the Vicar; and palters with a passage in the Acts and Mon. to make them serve his turne about the taking downe of Altars. A most notorious peece of non-sense in the new Edition of the letter. The Altars in the Church of England, beaten downe in Germany. Altars not beaten downe de facto, by the common people, but taken downe by order, and in fa [...]re proc [...]eding. Matters of fact may be made doctrinall sometimes, and on some occasions. The Order of the King but a kind of Law. The Minister of Linc. takes great paines to free Calvin from having any hand in altering the Liturgie. Land mark [...]s and bounds [...] downe, for the right understanding of the [...]. Calvin excepts against the Liturgy, pract [...]seth with the D. of [...], both when he was Pro­tector, and after. His correspondence her [...] with [...]. Hooper, and ill aff [...]ction to the ceremoni [...]s then by Law [...]stablished. The plot for altering the Liturgie so strongly laied, that it want for­ward notwithstanding the Dukes attainder, The [...] ignorance and most apparent falshoods of the Minister of Linc, in all this businesse. Calvin att [...]mpt [...] the King, the Counsell, and Archb. Cranmen. The date of his Letter to the Archb. cleered [...] given the first Liturgie by K. Edw. 6. asserted from the false construction of the Minister of Linc. as also that given to it by the Parliament. Archb. Bancroft, and Io. Fox, what they say thereof. The standing of the Table after the alteration of the Liturgie, and that the name of Altar may be used in a Church reformed.

HItherto we have followed you up and downe ac­cording as you pleased to leade the way; and [Page 101] seene what Arguments you had against the placing of the holy Table Altar-wise, Cap. 4. borrowed from the Regall and Episcopall power: or rather how you answer the Doctors Arguments from thence derived. We have gone also overall your Cavils, devised a­gainst his evidence from the Acts and Monuments; wherein he shewed you how indifferently, those holy men, Fryth, Lambert, Philpot, Latymer, and Ridley, used the name of Altar, calling the blessed Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar, without doubt or scruple. And howsoever you endeavoured to stop their mouths, that so they should not speake at all; or bribe them, that they might be drawn to serve your turne: yet they have shewne themselves right honest men, and stood to all things which they said at the first re­port. You may do well to deale more faithfully here­after, pag. 86. in your quotations of those bookes, wherein all sorts of men are so throughly versed. We also have made good the Statute, touching the Sacrament of the Altar, and the condition of the writ in the same awarded, from your vaine assaults; by which you cannot but perceive, that if a man should call the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, by the old knowne and common name, (as your selfe confesseth it to be) of Sacrament of the Altar; the Law will be his warrant in it against all your fury. So farre we have gone after you in your owne Method. But now we will crave leave, to col­lect out of you into one body, what ever more occurres betweene the Doctor and your selfe, of the point in hand, as it relates unto this Church, the Li­turgies, and Canons of the same; before wee looke abroad into forreine parts. And this we shall the ra­ther do, because you brought us in your last Chapter, [Page 102] through the Acts and Monuments, into the times of K. Edward the sixt, and Qu. Elizabeth: whom we are loath to part withall, before we have examined every passage which concernes those times and them that followed. First then, besides the statute before remem­bred, enacted by K. Edw. 6. and revived afterward by Q [...]. Elizabeth, wherein the name of Sacrament of the Altar is contained expresly: the King did set out certaine Injunctions giv [...]n by t [...]e most excellent Prince, Edward 6. &c. An. 1547. c. 9. Injuctions, in the said first yeere of his raigne, where it is called the blessed Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Liturgie of the yeere 1549. being the third yeere of that Kings raigne, it is agreed upon both sides, that the holy Table is generally called an Altar: every where called an Altar, as in the first, and almost every where, as in your second Edition of the Bishops Letter. Nor was it to be doubted, but that the old Altars being standing, the old name continued. The difference is, both for the time, how long they stood; and for the manner, how they were taken downe; and for the Liturgie it selfe, on what occasion it was changed.

First for the time, the Bishop tels us in his letter, that they stood a yeare or two in King Edwards time: Now you enlarge the time, to foure yeeres, as the D ^r. doth: saying pag. 88. they stood three or foure yeeres before the Kings declaration; but in the same you tell us also, that they stood not one compleat yeere, before the godly consideration of the people (that is, as you expound your selfe, the irregular forwardnesse of the people) had taken them to taske. That they stood foure yeeres at the least, the Doctor proves by an historicall deducti­on out of the stories of those times. Coal f [...]om the Altar. p. 28, 29. In which it doth appeare that An. 1547. the Act of Parliament [Page 103] was passe, wherein it was intituled the Sacrament of the Altar: that An. 1548. the Common-prayer booke was confirmed, although not published till the next, then neere at hand, which was 1549. where the word Altar is oft used, everywhere, or almost everywhere, you know not which. That in the said yeere 1549. an Order came to B ^p. Bonner from the Lords of the Councell, for abrogating private Masses, wherein it was appointed that the holy blessed Communion be ministred at the high Altar of the Church, and in no other place of the same, Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 662. And finally, that in the fourth yeere of his raigne (Novemb. 24. 1550) there came an Order from the Councell to B ^p. Ridley, (who succeeded Bonner) for taking downe the Altars in his Dioces. p. 699. which order comming to the B ^p. part. 2. p. 70 [...]. with certaine reasons also sent from the Lords of the Councell, the fore­named B ^p. of London, as the storie tels us, did hold his Visitation, ‘wherein he did exhort those Churches in his diocess, wherein the Altars did re­maine, to conforme themselves unto those other Churches which had taken them downe, and had set up in stead of the multitude of their Altars one decent Table in every Church.’ Which exhortation, as it seemeth, did prevaile so farre, that not long after the Altars were taken downe, and Tables set up in the Churches. That it was done thus in all other dioceses, the Doctor finds not any where, but in the letter to the Vicar: where it is said indeed, and no more but said, that on the Orders of breaking downe Altars, all dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables; all dioceses aswell as that of London, as your corrupted Copie hath it. For proofe of which, as you have [Page 104] falsified the Bishops letters to bring it in; so you have falsified the Acts and Monuments to make it good. For where the words run on in a continued stile or sense; you stop them where you list, to make them speake that, which they never meant. The words run thus in the Edition Acts and M [...]n printed. 1596. which you choose to make up the matter. ‘ Furthermore in the yeere next follow­ing, 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking downe of Altars in Churches, and setting up the Table instead of the same, unto Nicholas Ridley, who being Bishop of Rochester before, was then made B ^p. of London in Bonners place: the Copie and contents of the Kings letters are these as followeth.’ Here, say you, pag. 128. the full point should be, at setting up the Table instead of the same. And then a new period to begin with the following words, unto Nicholas Ridley, &c. By this device you thinke to have wonne the day, not seeing that by this fine fancy, you have made non-sence of the first period, and very strange English in the last. For let the first be thus; ‘ Furthermore in the yeere 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars, and setting up the Table in stead of the same:’ and then we shall have letters sent, to we know not whom; which would be answered and o­beyed, we know not when. Then take the second by it selfe; unto Nicholas Ridley (who being B ^p. of Ro­chester before, was then made B ^p. of London in Bonners place) the Copie and contents of the Kings Letters are these as followeth: and then you set the Cart be­fore the Horse, and give us such a kind of English, as is not justifiable by the grammar of the English tongue. Besides which handling of your Author, you venture on an affirmation that you have no ground [Page 105] for; nay I am sure you know the contrary to what there you say. You cite us p. 108, 109. elsewhere in your booke, the third Sermon of B ^p. Hooper upon Ionah, preached before K. Edw. An. 1550. say you, An. 1551. saith M ^r. Prynne, whose account I follow. And in that Sermon, ‘ It were well then (saith he) that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables, according to the first institution of Christ, to take away the false perswasion of the people, they have of sacrifices to be done upon the Altars. For as long as the Altars remaine, both the igno­rant people, and the ignorant and evill perswaded Priest, will dreame alwaies of sacrifice.’ By which it is apparent, that whatsoever had beene done by [...] ^p. Ridley, all other dioceses, aswell as that of London, did not agree on putting downe of Altars, and setting up of Tables, as you rashly say. Nor is it likely that the Altars generally were taken downe throughout the Kingdome, untill the second Liturgie was confir­med by Parliament, which was not till the yeere 1552 as you say your selfe.

Next for the manner how they were taken downe, you tell us in the Bishops letter, Letter (in the Coal.) p. 74. that the people being scandalized herewith (i. e. with Altars) in Country Churches, first beats them downe de facto, then the Supreme Magistrate, by a kind of Law, puts them downe de jure. Your Copie Letter (in the holy Table) p. 17. stilo novo relates it thus, as viz. that the people being scandalized herewith in Country Churches, first, it seemes, beat them downe de facto; then the Supreme Magistrate, (as here the King) by the advice of Archb. Cranmer and the rest of his Counsell did, An. 1550. by a kind of Law put them downe de jure, 4. Ed. 6. Nov. 24. This alteration you [Page 106] have made to shift the scene a little, and carry this tumultuous breaking downe of Altars, which you here describe, from hence to Germany. For you per­ceive by this, that he relates in the first place, pag. 186. to the reformation of Altars beyond the seas (because he speakes of Supreme Magistrates,) which the people began by way of fact, before the Magistrates established the same by way of Law. And this, you say, Luther complaines of against Carolostadius, that he chose rather to hew down, than dispute downe Altars. No question but the Angels which removed our Ladies chamber, from her house in Bethlem ^l unto her Chappell at Loretto, assisted you in the performance of this miracle. It could not possibly be the worke of a mortall man, to shift so suddenly a businesse of this weight, from England, to the parts beyond sea. Aeneid. l. 1 Nec vox homi­nem sonat. Happy man be your dole, that are so high­ly in the favour of your friends and followers, that whatsoever you say unto them is received as Gospell. You had not else adventured on so fine a Legend, but that you can command beleefe, even from very Infidels. Minut. Felix. Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut etiam crediderint alia monstrosa miracula. But tell me be­tweene you and me, I will keepe your counsell; how can this businesse relate unto those of Germany? be­cause, say you, he speakes of Supreme Magistrates. Why man. Your owne Then the Supreme Ma­gi [...]trate, p. 17. edition hath it Magistrate, not Magistrates; and will you flie off from your owne? Besides you tell us in the words immediatly before, that in K. Edwards Liturgie of 1549. it is al­most every where; but in that of 1552. it is no where called an Altar, but the Lords boord. Then you go on, and aske, why so? and presently returne this answer, [Page 107] because the people being scandalized herewith in Country Churches, first it seemes beat them downe de facto; and then the supreme Magistrate, &c. Kind-hearted Ger­manes, that liking not of Altars in K. Edwards Litur­gie, would beat them downe at home, in their owne Countries, because the people (which they never heard of) were scandalized herewith in England. Faith tell mee, doe you not thinke them very honest fellowes, and that a dozen of Grantham Ale were well bestowed upon them, by the Alderman there, for do­ing such an excellent piece of service, to promote the cause? I need not tell you more of this trim inven­tion, which made you falsifie the letter, with a long Parenthesis, as here the King, &c. to bring in this Pa­geant. Onely I shall advise you as a speciall friend, to take a care you see it entred in the next edition of the Acts and Monuments, which every time it comes into the world, growes bigger, by such hands as yours; and will, no doubt, in time grow great, and be Pellibus exiguis arcta­tur Livius in­gens. Mart. Li­vius ingens.

Well then, the Altars in the Church of England being thus beaten downe by the high-Germanes, what did the English doe themselves? No doubt but they did beat them downe too; and so they did: the one, in your imagination onely, that dainty forge of new devices; the other in very deed, de facto. And then the King came after with his bottle and bag, to learne of such good teachers what he was to doe in the case de jure. First beaten downe de facto, then put downe de jure: first by the people, after by the King; who as the Doctor told you in his Coale from the Altar, could not but come too late to carry any stroake at all in so great businesse, which they had done before he came. [Page 108] I warrant you, the King, being young, could not con­taine himselfe within doores, but must needs runne to see the sport, when hee heard them at it: and being come, thanked his good people for their paines, and so sent them home. But that your thoughts were ta­ken up amongst the Germans, you should have told your storie thus: viz. That first the people beat down some de facto, and then the King much taken with the example, put downe the rest de jure, and by publick order. Yet had you told it thus, the Doctor possibly might have questioned you for the relation: desiring you, as formerly, to tell where you find it: either that they were beaten downe, or beaten downe de facto by the common people. That they Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 699. were taken downe in the most part of the Churches of this Realme, the Kings let­ters tell us: but taking downe implies an orderly pro­ceeding; beating downe, hath none. And the Kings letters say withall, that they were taken downe on good and godly considerations: which as the Doctor thinks, Coal from the Altar, p. 41. implyes some order and authority from them that had a power to doe it; some secret Order possibly, from the Lord Protectour, or those that after signed the letter, who meant to try this way how the thing would relish, before they would appeare in it, or be seene to act it. Or put the case, some Bishops now, should on some grounds to them best knowne, give way unto the Clergie of their severall Diocesses, to place the Table Altar-wise; and then the King should signifie to the Bishop of Lincoln, that it was come un­to his knowledge, that in many places of the King­dome the holy table was removed to the Altar place on certain good and godly considerations: would this be an Argument unto future ages, that this was done [Page 109] de facto by the Countrie people? Besides, why should you think the people in most places of the Realme, were scandalized with Altars in the Countrie Churches; when in so many places of the Realme, they tooke up Armes, because the Masse was taken from them. Those enterprises which you speake of, of some cer­taine ( ^s) Zelots in the beginning of K. Edwards, Qu. Maries, and Qu. Elizabeths raigne, which sometimes you call good and godly considerations, and sometimes the irregular forwardnesse of the people, were before any law established: and therefore of no kin to these. Things were now setled by a law, and by that law the Altars were to stand as before they did. Nor durst the people in the most part of the Churches of the Realme have taken downe the Altars then by law established, on any private consideration how good so­ever: therefore I should rather think that it was done in some places, and by authority from some Ordina­ries, such whom the Lords found fittest for the altera­tion. You cavill with the Doctor, and reckon it I will give you a short tast of his faining and his failing. p. 2. a­mongst his fainings, for telling you what fine doctrine this was for the common people; viz. this your report of beating downe the Altars in the Country Churches: wherein he failes, you say, because the writer onely mentioneth it as a matter of Fact. But being it was such a Fact, as drew on the law, the kind of law you tell us of, which after put them downe de jure: think you to meet with no apt schollers, that can tell how to raise a doctrine out of the relation? ‘Our Ancestours in K. Edwards daies were zealous of the reformation, and beat downe those dressers; and why should we betray Gods cause, and suffer them to be advanced?’ Are you assured, that none amongst your partizans [Page 110] will applie it so, and after vouch you for their Author? As for the Order of K. Edward, which you have sligh­ted off with a kind of law, (as you did that in Q [...]. Eli­zabeths Injunctions with a kind of somewhat) you still stand to that, as being neither Act of Parliament, nor Act of Councell, but an Act of the King sitting in Coun­cell. A most pretty quillet pag. 128. Here is a subtilty in­deed, a subtilty in print, as they use to say. But take heed, nihil odiosius est nimio acumine. You should not spend too many of your nice distinctions upon Kings and Princes.

Now for the alteration of the Liturgie, which did indeed draw with it a full and finall alteration in the thing now talked of: you take great paines to make it visible unto the world, that Calvin had no finger in it. It had beene happy for this Church, if hee and Beza could have kept themselves to their meditations, and not beene curiosi in aliena republica, as they were too much. You say of Calvin that he was a Polypragmon pag. 144. and made his letters flie to all Princes in the world that did but looke towards a Reformation: and that no man pag. 145. conceives him to be more pragmatically zealous than you doe, even in those Countries which cared least for him. If so, why take you up the Bucklers for him, or thinke hee might not stickle here, as in other places? The Doctor drew a storie of it from his owne Epistles; which you indeavour to refell, by making ante-dates, or false dates unto all his letters, and unto most of all the rest, whom you there produce. As for example: The Letter to my Lord Protectour, you date Octo. 22. 1546. which was a yeere before K. Edward came unto the Crowne Ibid. as you say your selfe: what time hee neither was Protectour, nor was there any English Li­turgie [Page 111] to except against. Then that Archbishop Cran­mer pag. 144. did write for Bucer to come over, the 2. of Oct. An. 1549. when Bucer had beene here a long time be­fore, and being at Canterbury, writes Inter opu [...] ­cula Anglica­na, pa. 550. a letter to P. Martyr, dated the 20. day of Iune that yeer: and so you make him come before hee was sent for. So for the treatie with the French, whereof Calvin speakes Epist. ad Buce [...]um. you make that March 24. 1549. when Bucer had been here 10. moneths at least: and yet you date Pet. Ale­xanders letter pag. 143. in marg. on the same day also, writ by the ap­pointment of my Lord Archbishop to invite him hi­ther. And thus you toile and moile your self, ( ^h) pug­nantia secum, frontibus adversis componere; to joyn such things together as are not competible. But all is well enough so it please the people, and that you can set out the Doctor like a Iack of Lent, for every boy to fling his stick at. Therefore to set the matter right, and let you see the Doctor is not so extreamly igno­rant in See then how well, on lookt in­to t [...]e stori [...]s of the time, p 144. all the story of those times, as you please to make him: I will set down some bounds and landmarks as it were, for our direction in this search, such as by no meanes can deceive us. Know then, that Io. Stow, p. 593. on the last of Ian. 1547. according to the accompt of those forreine States, which doe begin the yeere at Christ­masse, K. Edward came unto the Crowne: that Imprinted at London the last day of fuly. An. 1547. in the lulie following hee set out his Injunctions, in the which many things there are, that tend unto a Refor­mation of Religion: and that in the V. the s [...]a­tutes of that King. November af­ter, in the selfe same yeere, hee held his first Parlia­ment, wherein the distribution of the Sacrament 1 Ed. 6. c. 1. sub­utraque specie, was by law established. An. 1548. Feb. 11. Acts and Mon. part. 2▪ p. 658. an Order was sent forth by the Lords of the Councell for the abolishing of Images; March the 13. [Page 112] next following, the Order of administring the Commu­nion, Ibid. p. 658. agreed upon at Windsor, by the Prelates and other learned men, Ibid. p. 659, 660. was by the King confirmed, and recommended to the Bishops for the publick use. And on the 2. of Oct. the same yeere, did the Archbishop write to Bucer to come over hither. Bucer in script. Anglic. p. 190. Veni igitur ad nos, & te operarium praesta in messe Domini, as the letter tells us. In the November of that yeere, began the second 2 & 3. Ed. 6. V. the statutes. Parliament of K. Edward, and held on till the 14. of March next after, falling in An. 1549. in the same accompt; in which the first Liturgie was con­firmed and ratified. The tenth day after that, March 24. Pet. Alexander, S [...]cretarie to the Archbishop, writes againe to Bucer In script. Anglic. p. 191. with a Veni igitur quàm ci­tissimè poteris▪ and the Iune after that wee finde him here at Canterbury, from whence he writ to Pet. Mar­tyr, as before was said. Io. Stow, p. 596. Apr. 6. Proclamation was made for putting downe the Masse throughout the Realme: Id. ibid. the Iuly following, those of Devonshire and Cornwall rose up in Armes, desiring to have their old religion restored againe; and Id. 597. on the 8. of Au­gust next, (the Kingdome being thus embroyled) the French Ambassadour made defiance to the King of England. Id. p. 600. The 14. of Oct. after, the Duke of So­merset was committed to the Tower, and Id. p. 603. thence released F [...]br. 6. 1550. and on the 8. of Aprill next, (being before discharged of the Protectourship) was sworne Id. p. 604. Privy Counsellour. Meane time, Id. p. 605. on Ian. 22. Commissioners were sent to treat of a peace with France, which was Id. p. 604. proclaimed the last of March next after following. An. 1551. Ianuar. 30. Mart. In a post-script ad censuram, ep. 503. Bucer died. The 16. Ioh. St [...]w, p. 605. of Oct. after, the Duke of Somerset was committed to the Tower, and on the [Page 113] first Id. p. 606. of December following condemned to death. An. 1552. Io. Stow, p. 607. and Brooke tit. Somerset. Ian. 22. the Duke of Somerset was be­headed; and on the morrow Vide Stat. 5. & 6. Edw. 6. next began the Parli­ament 5. & 6. of Edw. 6. in which the second Liturgie was confirmed. This said, we shall be sure to find how matters went; and how far you have lost your selfe, by your too much quarrelling.

The Doctor thus beginneth, Coal from the Altar, p. 39. ‘It seemes that Bucer had informed Calvin of the condition of this Church, and the publick Liturgie thereof, and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Somerset, who was then Protectour.’ For thus he signifieth to Bucer, Epist. ad Bu­cerum. p. 81. Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, conatus sum hor­tari, ut flagitabat praesens rerum status, &c, and then ad­viseth Bucer to be instant with him, ut ritus, qui super­stitionis aliquid redolent, tollantur è medio, that all such rites as savoured of superstition should be took away. And how farre that might reach, you can tell your selfe, knowing the humour of the man, as it seemes you doe,

Nay hee went somewhat further yet, bidding him, pag. 144. as you note your selfe, to take heed of his old fault, (for fault he thought it) which was to runne a moderate course in his Reformations, mediis consiliis vel authorem esse vel approbatorem. Now Pet. Ale­xanders letter for calling in of Bucer, beares date in March, 1549. and Bucer was at Canterbury the Iune next following: the first thing that hee did at his comming hither, as hee saith himselfe, being to make himself acquainted with the English Liturgie. In praefati­one ad censu­ram. Cum primum in hoc regnum venissem, &c. librum illum sa­crorum, per interpretem, quantum potui, cognovi dili­genter, [Page 114] as he relates it to the Archbishop. Of his he gave account to Calvin; and as it seemes (Do­minum Protectorem, ut volebas, &c.) desired some letter from him to my Lord Protector. Not as He desired Calv [...]n to write by him to the Protector, &c. p. 144. you dreame, before his comming over hither, and before the Liturgie was published; though pos­sibly before he had beene seene of the Duke of So­merset (the hurly-burlies of those times con­sidered.) For Calvin tels you in that letter, tumul­tu [...] jam intus sodatos esse confid [...], that hee now ho­ped, that all the tumults and commotions within the Realme were composed and pacified; and al­so that there was a rumour of a truce with France. So that this letter must needs be dated about the Autumne after Bucers comming hither: the Reb [...]lls not being fully crushed till the end of August; and nothing, but the newes of our peace within, drawing the French men to assent to a truce abroad.

Then for his letter to the Protector, which is herein mentioned, cleerely it is the letter printed, which beares not date two yeeres before. Not the let­ter printed, bear­ing date two yeeres before p. 144. as you with ignorance and confidence enough, have beene pleased to say. For you may finde the date hereof by a better character, being the [...]ame with that to Bucer. For Epist. ad Protect. Angl. pag. 66. he takes notice in that letter, of those Com­motions, ingentes illae turbae, which had hapned here, ab aliquo tempore, not long before: as also that the al [...]eration of religion was, in part, the cause thereof; quos ex parte mutati [...] i [...] religionis causa concitabat, as himselfe there tels you. So that this letter must be written [...]alfe a yeere at least, after the Liturgie esta­blished [Page 115] by Act [...]f Parliament, and not It must be full 3. yeeres be­fore, &c. p. 145. three yeares before, as you ridiculously compute it. As for the substance of that letter, he there excepteth against Commemoration of the dead (which he acknowledgeth however to be very ancient, as also against Chrisme, and extreme unction; which last (unctionis ceremonia) you have most childishly translated Chrisoms, oy [...]e in Bapti [...]me, and comme [...]ora [...]ion of the dead. pag. 1 [...]6. oyle in Bap­tisme. Which said, he wisheth illa omnia abscindi semel, that all these ceremonies should be abrogated; and that withall he should goe forwards to reforme the Church, Quia nempe ve [...]iti sunt, ut major re [...]ū muta [...]io fe [...]ri nō possit, praeser [...]m ubi vicino [...]ū ratio habenda est. pag. 70. without feare or wit, without regard of peace at home, or correspondency abroad! Such con­siderations being onely to be had in civill matters, but not in matters of the Church, in quo nihil non ad Deiverbum exigi fas est, wherein not any thing is to be exacted, which is not warranted by the Word; and in the managing whereof there is not any thing more distastefull in the eyes of God than Idem ibid. pag. 70. worldly wisdome, ut vel moderemur, vel rescindamus, &c. either in moderating, cutting off, or going backward, but meerely as we are directed by his will revealed. Nor were these three, and that about Impropriations, the onely things on which he toucheth, as you please to say. He toucheth also there on the booke of Quoniam ver [...]or ne pauce ex [...]ē [...] in regno vivae [...]: major pa [...]s au­tem [...] pag. 68. Ho­milies, which very faintly he permits for a season onely, but not allowes of; and thereby gave the hint to others, who ever since almost have declamed a­gainst them. And if you thinke that Calvin never after medled with the Duke, about this businesse, of the Orders of the Church of England; you are exceeding much mistaken. For whatsoever [...]. crush he had, he lost but little of his power, though he lo [...]t his Office: [Page 116] and Calvin still adressed himselfe unto him for the Advancement of the worke. Looke in his letter unto Interea sc [...]psi ad illu [...] ­trissimū Duce Some [...]seti. p. 98. Bullinger, dated Apr. 10. 1551. which was not quite a yeere before the Liturgie was altered, and he will tell you what he did: Interea sc [...]psi ad illu [...] ­trissimū Duce Some [...]seti. p. 98. I writ, saith he, to the most illustrious D. of Somerset to this effect, that there was no hope but that the Papists would grow inso­lenter every day than others, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de ceremoniis, unlesse the difference were composed about the ceremonies. Composed, and how? not by reducing the opponents to conformity, but by incouraging them rather in their opposition: especially by supporting Hooper then B ^p. of Gloucester, the principall leader of that faction, and very zealous (amongst other things) against the Altar's yet re­maining, as before I shewed. For so it followeth in that letter, hortatus ergo sum hominem, ut Hoppero manum porrigeret; which it seemes was done, as he propounded. For in another unto Bullinger dated the 29. of August following, he certifieth to him Certū est D. Hopperum episcopatui suo restitutum esse. pag. 103. that Hooper was restored to his Bishoprick. Now this being but the yeere before the alteration of the Liturgie, Calvin being so intent against the Orders of this Church, the Duke so forwards to complie with him; and Hooper who had no lesse interest in Dudly of N [...]r­thumberland, than Calvin with the Duke of Somerset, (whereof consult your author, the Acts and Mon. par. 3. p. 147.) being so eager on the chase: it is not to be doubted but the businesse went forwards, though the Duke went backwards. In the relating of which storie you flutter up and downe, and have no consistency. You tell us pag. 147. that in the [Page 117] first sitting of that Parliament wherein the second Li­turgie was confirmed, he was attainted, and condemned, and presently executed: whereas indeed hee was attainted almost two months, and executed just a day, before that sitting. You tell us, pag. 149. that hee was a condemned Prisoner, looking every day for the stroke of the Axe, when the booke was pas­sing the Committies (if at all any such Committie ever was about that Booke, which I somewhat question:) whereas the Axe had done, and the stroke was past, before the Session.

Finally, whereas, in many places of the Bishops letter, you call the second Liturgie, the Liturgie of the yeere 1552. as indeed it was: you tell us here, pag. 148. of a certaine Letter which was delive­red to the Duke from Calvin, An. 1551. (as most true it was so) the Liturgie being then newly alte­red. And so by that account, the Liturgie was al­tered, when as the Duke of Somerset was neither attainted, condemned, or executed, as before you said. Is this your looking unto the storie of the times, which you so much bragge of? But as before I told you, however the Duke went backward, the worke went forwards; the partie being growne so well compacted, that it could go alone, without any leader: especially Duke Dudley who then ru­led the rost, having a great opinion of Bishop Hooper; who being no friend unto the Altars of the Church himselfe, might easily induce his Patron to promote the cause.

Next for his tampering with the King and Archbishop Cranmer, wee have good warrant [Page 118] from his Letters. In that unto Farellus Anno 1551. hee tels you of a Letter sent by him to the King by M ^r. Nicolas, (one of his tel-tales pag. 148. as you call him;) and of the welcome it found both with the King, and with his Councell: as also that he was advised by my Lord of Canterbury to write more frequently unto the King, than hee had done for­merly: Not about restitution of Impropriations, thats but your device; the Archbishop sent him no such message, unlesse you finde it in your dreames. Calvin had other things to aime at, al­though hee tooke that also as it came in his way. Vide Epist. illam ad Farellū. p. 384. In statu Regni multa adhuc desiderantur; many things were amisse that needed reformation. That was more like to bee the Argument of his adresses to the King. If you will please to take his word, himselfe shall tell you in his aforesaid Letter unto Bullinger, that he had writ both to the King and to the Councell (and so had Bullinger it seemes.) What was the purpose of those letters? Epist ad Bulling. p. 98. ut [...]os incitare­mus ad pergendum, to set them forwards on the worke which was then in hand: writing withall unto the Duke of Somerset, to countenance Hooper in his op­position to the publick orders then established. Your selfe have told us of him, that he was pag. 144. a Polyprag­mon, making his letters flie to all the Princes of the world, that did but looke towards a Reformation: If to all Princes, then no question but to our King also amongst the rest; and what a kind of reformation Calvin aimed at, you know well enough. Then for his practising with the Archbishop; the Doctor tells you Coal [...] the Altar. p. 39. that ‘he had written to him An. 1551. being the yeere [Page 119] before the Liturgie was altered, complaining in the same, that in the service of this Church there was remaining a whole masse of Popery, quae non obscuret m [...]d [...], &c. which did not onely blemish, but even overwhelme Gods holy worship.’ This letter be­ing placed betweene two others dated the same yeere, induced the Doctor to beleeve, that it was dated that yeere also: and this you chalenge as And if we give it a date from the Printers placing of the letter, which is your childish and erroneous Cri­ticisme. p. 143. a childish and erroneous Criticisme; but bring no better of your own. Onely you would faine have it dated before this yeere, and if it might be, two yeeres sooner: because he tels the Archbishop there, of Chanting vespers here in England, in an unknowne tongue; which was, you say, inhibited by Parliament pag. 148. full two yeeres be­fore the altering of the Liturgie. But if you marke it well, this will little helpe you. Epist. ad Calvin. p. 97. Some Minister of Calvins (perhaps his Tel-tale Monsieur Nicolas) had from Cambridge certified him, how things went in England: ‘particularly how all the Church was pro­vided for, and what great spoyle was made of the meanes and maintenance thereto belonging. But more especially that those great men, who held Abby-lands, and consequently were to pay some pensions to the Monks surviving, did put them into benefices and cure of soules, who had nor minde nor meaning to discharge that dutie, ut pensione iis persolvenda se liberarent, onely to ease themselves of paying the Pensions.’ This being certified by Calvin, by a letter dated on Whitsunday, An. 1550. in his next missive to the Archbishop, Epist. ad Cranmer. p. 101 he complaines of both: First, that the Church was so exposed to open Port-sale (quod praedae sunt expositi Ecclesiae reditus.) [Page 120] and secondly, quod ex publico E [...]clesiae proventu aluntur otiosi ventres, &c. that the revenue of the Church should be bestowed upon those idle bellies (and so you know they called the Monkes) which in an un­knowne tongue chanted out the Vespers. If this suf­fice not for the date, then be pleased to know, that Calvin in that letter relates to somewhat that had beene done by the Archbishop in the Reforming of this Church for three yeeres before. Atque utinam te duce aliquanto longiùs jam ante triennium progressi forent; which (saith hee) had they done, there had not beene such superstitions left, as hee there com­plaines of. Now the first Reformation made by the Archbishops means, was the Communion book set out 1548. for the receiving of the Sacrament sub utraque specie. To which if you will adde those three yeeres which are there remembred; you must needs date this letter as the Doctor doth, An. 1551. But the Date seemes to bee much before An­no 1551. which is D. Coals conje­cture. p. 148. not one minute sooner.

The Doctor hereupon concludes, as before he did, that leaving the word Altar out of the Common-prayer booke last established, and other alterations which were therein made, grew not from any Coal, p. 40. scandall taken at the Altars by the Countrie people, but a dislike that Calvin had conceived against the Litur­gie, as before was said. Of any hand that Martin Bucer had therein, more than that hee had signified unto Calvin, the quality and condition of this Church, and of the Liturgie thereof, the said Do­ctor saith not; and this not absolutely neither, but with a sic videtur, Ibid. p. 39. that so it seemed. Yet you cry out, without a cause, pag. 145. that it was the King, the [Page 121] Lords, and the State, rather than any incitement of Martin Bucer, that made this alteration in the Litur­gie, in the point of Altars. An alteration there was made by the King and State, though not by the in­citement of Martin Bucer, but of Calvin rather, that Polypragmon, as you call him.

For, that the Alteration of K. Edwards Liturgie proceeded rather of some motions from without, than any great dislike at home; the Doctor was indu­ced to beleeve, the rather, because the King Co [...]l, p. 40. had formerly affirmed in his Answer to the Devonshire men, that the Lords Supper, as it was then admini­stred, was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, as the Apostles used it, and as the holy Fathers delive­red it. Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 667. And secondly, because hee had observed, that in the Act of Parliament, by which that Liturgie of 1549. was called in, the booke of Common prayer (so cal­led in) was affirmed to be agreeable to Gods Word, and the Primitive Church. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. ca. 1. Unto the first of these, you promise such an Answer, pag. 150. an An [...]wer set downe in such Capitall letters, that he that runnes may reade. And this, no doubt you meane to doe, onely in favour to the Doctor, who being but a blinker, as you please to call him, would hardly see your Answer in a lesser Character.

But first, because we know your tricks, we will set downe in terminis, as the storie tells us, what was de­manded by the Rebells, and what was answered by the King: and after looke upon the glosse which you make of both, that wee may see which of them you report most falsely, and what you gather from the same.

[Page 122] The Rebels they demanded thus:

Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 666. ‘Forasmuch as wee constantly beleeve, that after the Priest hath spoken the words of consecra­tion, being at Masse, there celebrating and conse­crating the same; there is very really the body and bloud of our Saviour Iesus Christ, God and man; and that no substance of bread and wine remaineth after, but the very selfe same body that was borne of the Virgin Mary, and was given upon the Crosse for our Redemption; therefore wee will have Masse celebrated as it was in times past, without any man communicating with the Priests, foras­much as many rudely presuming unworthily to re­ceive the same, put no difference between the Lords body, and other kind of meat; some saying that it is bread both before and after; some saying that it is profitable to no man except hee receive it, with many other abused termes.’

Now to this Article of theirs, the King thus replyed:

Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 667. ‘For the Masse, I assure you no small studie nor travell hath beene spent, by all the learned Clergie, therein, and to avoid all contention, it is brought even to the very use as Christ left it, as the Apostles used it, as the holy Fathers delivered it, indeed somewhat altered from that the Popes of Rome for their lucre brought it to. And although yee may heare the contrary from some Popish evill men, yet Our Majesty, which for Our Honour may not be blemished and stained, assureth you, that they deceive, abuse you, and blow these opinions into your heads, to finish their owne purposes.’

[Page 123] This is the plaine song, as it passed betweene the Rebells and the King. And now I will set down your descant on it, in your owne words verbatim, not a tit­tle altered, that all which runne may reade, and see how shamefully you abuse your owne dearest Au­thor.

pag. 150, 151 The Rebels, in their third Article, (set on by the Popish Priests) doe petition for their Masse (that is, that which wee call the Canon of the Masse) and words of consecration, as they had it before, and that the Priests might celebrate it alone, without the communica­ting of the people.

To this the King answers, That for the Canon of the Masse and words of Consecration, (which is nothing altered in the second Liturgie) they are such as were used by Christ, the Apostles, and the ancient Fathers: that is, They are the very words of the Institution. But for the second part of their demand, which was for the sacrifice of the Masse, or the Priests eating alone, they must excuse him: For this the Popes of Rome for their l [...]cre added to it. So there is a cleare Answer to both parts of the Article.

A very cleare answer, if you marke it well. The Rebels make demand of the whole Masse, modo & for­ma, as before it had beene celebrated: you make them speake onely of the Canon of the Masse, and words of Consecration. The King, in his reply, makes answer to the whole Masse, as it was commonly then called, the whole forme and order of the Communion in the publick Liturgie, that it was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: you make him answer one­ly [Page 124] of the Canon, and words of Institution, as if that were all. This is not to report an answer, but to make an answer; and draw that commendation to a part of the common Liturgie, which was intended of the whole. And yet your Inference is farre worse than your Report: For you have made the King to say, that they should have a Table, and a Communion, and the words of Consecration, as they were used by Christ, the Apostles, and the ancient Fathers: but they should have no Altar, nor sacrifice; for these the Popes of Rome, for their lucre, had added to the Insti­tution.

This, were there nothing else, would set you forth for what you are; a man that care not what you say, or whom you [...]alsifie, so you may runne away from the present danger, though afterwards it overtakes you, and falls farre heavier on you than before it did.

Next, let us see what you reply to that which con­cernes the Parliament, and the opinion which it had of the former Liturgie, as both agreeable to Gods Word, and the Primitive Church. And first you charge the Doctor with borrowing pag. 151 that passage from father Parsons three Conversions. Whether it be in father Parsons, the Doctor knowes not. But whether it be or not, that comes all to one, as long as it is so delive­red in the Act of Parliament. Then for the Act it­selfe, pag. 152. you answer, that whereas some sensuall per­sons, and refractorie Papists, had forb [...]rne to repaire to the Parish-Churches upon the establishment of the En­glish Service, the Parliament doth in the Preamble tell the offenders against this new law, that praiers in the [Page 125] mother-tongue is no invention of theirs, as the Priests would make them beleeve, but the doctrine of the Word of God, and the practice of the Primitive Church: med­ling no farther with the Liturgie in this part of the Act, than as it was a service in the mother-tongue.

I have been told, it was a saying of my Lord Chan­cellour Egerton, that D ^r Day, once Dean of Windsor, had the most excellent arts of creeping out of the law, of any man whose name was ever brought in Chan­c [...]ry. That Doctor, and this Minister, are much of the same quality; our Minister being as expert in creeping out of an authority, as ever was that Doctor in creeping out of the law. But yet hee creepes not so a­way, but a man may catch him: and catch him sure we will for all his cunning. For if wee looke into the Act of Parliament, wee shall easily finde, that not the language onely, but the order, forme, and fabrick of the divine Service before established, is said to bee agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, which I desire you to observe, as it is here presented 5. & 6. Ed. 6. cap. 1. to you.

‘Whereas (saith the Act) there hath beene a very godly order set forth by authority of Parlia­ment, for Common prayer and administration of the Sacraments to be used in the mother tongue, within this Church of England, agreeable unto the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people, desiring to live in christian Conver­sation, and most profitable to the estate of this Realme, &c.’ What thinke you, on your second thoughts, is that so much commended by the Par­liament? either the very Order it selfe, of Common [Page 126] prayer and administration of the Sacraments, or the be­ing of it in the English tongue. It could not be the being of it in the English tongue. For then the Ro­mish Missall, had it beene translated word for word, without more alteration than the language onely, might have beene also said to be agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church; which I am sure you will not say. And therefore it must be the whole forme and order, that godly order, as they call it, of common prayer and administration of the Sacra­ments, to be used in the English tongue (take them both together) which they so commended. Com­pare this testimony of the Parliament, with that before given of it by the King; and see if they affirme it of the language, or of the order of the service. The King affirmed that it was brought unto that use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: the Parliament, that it was agreeable to the Word of God (including Christ and the Apostles) and to the Primitive Church, including the holy Fathers. Nor did the Parliament alone vouchsafe this testimonie of the first Liturgie pag. 53. Archbishop Bancroft speaking of it in his Sermon preached at S. Pauls Crosse, An. 1588. affirmes that it was publi­shed first with such approbation, as that it was accounted the worke of God.

Besides, Iohn Fox, Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 660. whose testimony I am sure you will not refuse, (though you corrupt him too if hee come in your way) hath told us of the Compilers of that Liturgie, ‘first that they were commanded by the King to have as well an eye and respect unto the most sincere and pure Christian religion, taught by [Page 127] the holy Scriptures, as also to the usages of the Primitive Church, and to draw up one convenient and meet order, rite and fashion of Common prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, to be had and used within the Realme of England, and the Domi­nions of the fame. And then hee addes de proprio, as his own opinion, that through the ayde of the holy Ghost, and with one uniforme agreement, they did conclude, set forth, and deliver to the King a booke in English, entituled, A booke of the Common prayer, &c.’ This, as it shewes his judgement of the aforesaid Liturgie, so doth it very fully explaine the meaning of the Act of Parliament; and that it did not, as you say, relate unto the language onely, but the whole order, rite, and fashion, of the Common prayer booke.

Thus have we seene the a [...]teration of the Liturgie; and by that alteration, a change of Altars into Tables, for the holy Sacrament. The next inquiry to be made, is how the Table stood, and how they called it; and that aswell upon the taking down of Altars, An. 1550 in some places by the Kings owne Order; as on the generall removall of them, by the second Liturgie. First for the placing of the Table your owne Author tels you, Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 700. that on occasion ‘of taking downe the Altars, here arose a great diversity about the forme of the Lords b [...]ard: some using it after the forme of a Table, and some of an Altar. But finally it was so ordered by the Bishop of London (Ridley) that he appointed the forme of a right Table, to be used in all his Diocesse: himselfe incouraging them unto it, by breaking downe the wall standing then by the high Altar side, in the Cathedrall of S. Paul.’ [Page 128] But that it was so ordered in all other Dioceses, the Doctor findes not any where, but in the new Edition of the Bishops letter, which you have falsified of pur­pose to make it say so, as before was noted. Nor did the old Edition say, that they the other Dioceses, agreed at all upon the forme and fashion of their Ta­bles; though they agreed, as you would have it, on the thing it self. And therefore you have now put in these words, so soone, which tells another tale, than before was told: as if all Dioceses having agreed as well as London, on receiving Tables, did agree too, but not so soone upon the fashion of their Tables. For that it was not thus in all other places, your owne Miles Huggard tells pag. 48. Of the holy Table. you; and to him I send you to observe it. But this diversity, Ibid. p. 48. say you, was set­led by the Rubrick, confirmed by law. What universally? There is no question but you meane it; or to what purpose doe you say so? Yet in another place you tell us, that notwithstanding the said Rubrick, the Tables stood like Altars in Cathedrall Churches; in some of them at least, which had no priviledge, I am sure, more than others had. For thus say you, pag. 183. In some of the Cathedralls, where the steps were not transposed in tertio of the Queene, and the wall on the back-side of the Altar untaken downe, the Table might stand all along, as the Altar did. If it did stand in some, it might stand in all; and if in the Cathe­dralls, then also in Parochiall Churches; unlesse you shew us by what meanes they procured that might, which could not be attained unto by any others. Wee finde it also in the letter Coal from the Altar, p. 72. that one­ly to make use of their covers, fronts, and other orna­ments, [Page 129] the Tables might be placed in some of the Chappels, Cap. 3. and Cathedrals, of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of: Why might not then the same be done in the Parish-Churches, which were provided at that time, of covers, fronts, and other ornaments of that nature. pag. 38. of the holy table. Your selfe concludes it for a foolish dreame, that the State should cast away those rich furnitures of the Chappell, provided for the former Altars; and sure it is as much a dreame that they should cast away their ornaments of the selfe same nature out of Country Churches.

And this I am the rather induced to thinke, be­cause that in the Statute 1 Elizab. 1 Eliz. c. 2. wherein the Common-prayer booke now in force, was confir­med and ratified, it was enacted, ‘That all such ornaments of the Church shall be retained, and be in use, as was in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the 2. of King Edw. 6. untill other order should therein be taken by the authority of the Queene, &c.’ Which makes it plaine in my opinion, that in the latter end of King Edw. the [...]ixt, there had beene nothing altered in the point of the Churches Or­naments, nor consequently in the placing of the holy Table.

Then for the name, it seemes they stood as lit­tle upon that, as upon the former. When the old Altars stood, they called them Tables; and when the Tables were set up, they called them Altars. Your Author Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 700. could have told you at the first, ‘that the book of Common prayer calleth the thing [Page 130] whereupon the Lords Supper is ministred, in­differently a Table, an Altar, or the Lords boord, without prescription of any forme thereof, ei­ther of a Table, or of an Altar. For as it calleth it an Altar, whereupon the Lords Supper is ministred, a Table, and the Lords boorde; so it calleth the Table where the holy Communion is distributed with laud and thankesgiving unto the Lord, an Altar; for that there is offered the same sacrifice of praise and thankesgiving.’ So when the Liturgie was altered, & the word Altar quite left out; they spared not, as occasion was, to call the holy table by the name of Altar. The bles­sed Sacrament it selfe, they thought no sacriledge to intitle by the name of Sacrament of the Altar: so did the Martyrs, some of them, in Qu. Maries time; and the whole body of the State, in Parlia­ment, 1 Eliz. as was shewed before. Old Father Latimer speakes positively, that it may be called an Altar; though you, in the repeating of his words, have slipped aside that passage, and made him cast the common calling of it so, Holy table, p. 97. upon the Doctors, who might be mistaken. Yea and Iohn Fox himself hath told you Acts and Mon. part 2. pag 700. in a marginall note, The Table, how it may be called an Altar, and in what respect. The Rubrick was no other then, than we finde it now: and yet we doe not find, that any thought themselves so tyed to the words thereof, as to use no other. Yet this is pressed upon the Vicar. The Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Table onely, doe not you call it an Altar, Coal▪ p. 74. so the old edition: doe not you now, under the Reformation, [Page 131] call it an Altar: Holy table, p. 17. so saith the new. Cap. 4. Vnder the Reformation? And why so? Onely to make poor men beleeve, that Altars, and the Reformation, cannot stand together. But you are out in that, as in all the rest. The writer of the letter cannot but acknowledge, Ibid. p. 16. that the Altars doe stand still in the Lutherane Churches; and that the Apologie for the Augustane Confession doth allow it: the Do­ctors and Divines whereof, he doth acknowledge also to be Ibid. p. 18. sound Protestants, although they suffer Altars to stand. And in those other Churches of the Reformation, some of the chiefe Divines are farre more moderate in this point, than you wish they were. Oecolampadius Admittimus &c. Epistola ad Barthol. Hadder. doth allow the Eucharist to be called the Sacrament of the Altar: affirming also, that for peace sake they would not abhor from the title of sacrifice, if there were no deceit closely carry­ed under it: and that there is no harme, in calling the Lords Table by the name of Altar. Zanchie De cultu Dei extern. l. 1. more fully, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibue­runt altaria, aut mandarunt quod mensis ligneis ut an­tur; That neither Christ nor his Apostles have pro­hibited Altars, or enjoyned wooden Tables; and therefore that it is to be accounted a matter of in­differenci [...], whether we use an Altar of stone, or a table of wood, modo absit superstitio, so that no su­perstition be conceived of either. So they deter­mine of the point; not doubting, as it seemes, but that it might be lawfull now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar: and which makes more against your meaning, to use an Altar also in the ministration. Which said, Ibid [Page 132] adieu to England, and the practice here; meaning to looke abroad into forrain parts in the rest that followeth; where we will labour to find out what was the ancient doctrine in the Church of God, concerning Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars; and what the usage in this point of placing the Communion table. Yet so that we will cast an eye, sometimes, and as occasion is, on our owne deare Mother, the Church of England, that wee may see how neare she comes both in her doctrine, and her practice, to the ancient Patternes. And wee will see withall, what you have to say; and what it is whereof you purpose to arraigne the poore man you wot of, in all those particulars.

CHAP. V.
What was the ancient Doctrine of the Church concerning Sacrifices, Priests and Altars: and what the Doctrine of this Church in those particulars.

That Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars, were from the beginning, by the light of nature; and that not onely amongst the Patri­archs, but amongst the Gentiles. That in the Christian Church there is a Sacrifice, Priests, and Altars, and those both instituted and expressed in the holy Gospell. The like de­livered by Dionysius, Ignatius, Iustin Martyr, and in the Canons of the Apostles. As also by Tertullian, Irenaeus, Origen, and S. Cyprian. How the Apologeticks of those times are to be interpreted, in their deniall of Altars in the Christian Church. Minutius Foelix falsified by the Minister of Linc. What were the Sacrifices which the said Apologe­ticks did deny to be in the Church of Christ. The difference betweene mysticall and spirituall sacrifices. S. Ambrose falsi­fied by the Minister of Linc. in the point of Sacrifice. The Doctrine of the Sacrifice delivered by Eusebius: The Do­ctrine of the following Fathers, of Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars: What is the Doctrine of this Church▪ touching the Priesthood and the Sacrifice. The judgement in these points, and in that of Altars, of B. Andrewes, K. Iames, B. Mon­tague, and B. Morton.

IT is the observation of Eusebius De praepa­rat. Evangel. l. y. c. 6., that the Fathers which preceded Moses, and were quite ignorant of his Law, disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of pi­ety; [...], framing [Page 2] their lives and actions according to the law of Nature, Sect. 2. which words relate not onely unto their morall con­versation, as good men, but to their carriage in respect of Gods publick worship, as r [...]ligious men. The light of nature could informe them that there was a God, had not their Parents, from the first man Ad [...]m, beene carefull to instruct them in that part of knowledge: and the same light of nature did informe them also, that God was to bee worshipped by them; that there were some particular services expected of him from his Creature. Of these, the first wee meet with, upon record, is that of Sacrifice almost to co-aevall with the world. For we are told of Cain and Abel the two sons of Adam Gen. 4. 2, 3, 4., that the one of them being a tiller of the ground, brought of the frui [...] of the ground an offering unto the Lord: the other, being a keeper of sheep, brought of the first lings of his flocke, and the fat thereof. This was, it seemes, the quit-rent which they paid to Almighty God, that supreme Lord, of and by whom they held their temporall fortunes; and from whose hands they were to looke for a more excellent estate. In Gen. 8. 20. Lex natu­ralis aequum esse doouit, ut de do [...]is suis honoretur im­primis ipse qui dedit: Naturall reason, saith Ruper [...]us, told them it was fit that God the Donour should bee honoured with some part of that, which hee himselfe had given unto them. Thus in those early dayes have wee found a Sacrifice, and Sacrifices, as you say your selfe, are not to be found without Priests and Altars. It is true, we doe not reade in Scriputre of any Altar, till that built by Noah, nor of any Priest, before Melchise­dec. Noah builded an Altar, saith the Text, Gen. 8. and of Melchisedec it is said, that hee was the Priest of the [...]ost high God, Gen. 14. Not that there were no Altars [Page 3] nor no Priests before. For howsoever Pererius In Ge. 8. 20. makes it doubtfull, Cap. 5. whether the use of Altars was before or not, An autem fu [...]rit usus Altarium, ne [...]ne, inc [...]rtum est: yet Pet. de Moulin, de Al­taribus & Sacr. a good friend of yours, whose Tractat de Altari­bus & Sacrificiis, you make good use of (though you scorne to tell by whom you profit) is more assured that they were in use from the first beginning. For speaking of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, he determi­neth thus Cap. [...]., Ad haec sacrificia aras extructas consent ane­um est, that it is very likely that Altars were ere­cted for them. Then for the Priest, wee need not take much paines to seeke him. The Office of the Priest­hood V. Bilson of perp [...]t. govern. of Ch. Ch. cap. 1. was then in Adam, and held by him entirely, till Seth came of age, to take part of the burden from him: that dignitie continuing alwayes after in the Pa­ter-familias, the eldest of the line or family, till the Le­viticall Priesthood was set up by Moses. An evidence whereof wee have in Noah, who though hee was in yeares, and that his sonnes were young and lustie Gen. 8. 20., did yet discharge the Pri [...]stly function; Building an Altar to the Lord, and offering burnt Offerings on the Altar. Which sacrifice of his was Eucharisticall, not typicall: a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for his preserva­tion from the Flood; not any way significative of Christs to come. And therfore Scaliger Scal. Emen. temp. lib. 5. doth very tru­ly tell us of him, that presently as soon as he came out of the Arke., [...] immolavit Deo: which (saith Rupertus) Non scripta, sed naturalis lex [...]quum esse docuit, was not commended to him by a written law, but meerly by the law of Nature. Such evidence we also have in the story of Melchisedec, who being the eldest of his line (and commonly received for [...], the sonne of Noah) is [...]tiled Gen. 14. 18. at the encounter [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] betweene him and Abraham, the Priest of the most high God, as before was said: being also there reported to be King of Salem. And thus it also was, either by imita­tion or tradition, amongst the Gentiles. Their Princes being Patres Patriae, and consequently in loco Pa­trum-familias, the Grandfathers of all families in their Dominions, did also exercise the Priests, Of­fice in their solemne sacrifices, Iethro the father in law of Moses, who Exod. 2. 16. in the Text is called the Priest of Madian, is in the Margine of our Bibles, called the Prince. And Anius Aen [...]id. l. 3. in the Poet, is set out for both; Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum Phoebique Sacerdos.

After when as the house of Iacob was growne great and numerous, and setled by the Lord himselfe into the body of a Church; it pleased the Lord to signifie by Moses how hee would be worshipped: to prescribe certaine Rites and formes of sacrifices, and for those sacrifices to appoint both Priests and Altars. These sacrifices were divided into [...], or gratulato­rie, such as was that of Noah, before remembred; and ex­piatorie, or [...], which did relate to Christ our Sa­viour, as types of that most perfect expiatory sacrifice, which in the fulnesse of time hee was to offer on the Crosse, for the sin of man. Which practice of the Iewes, abstracted from the end to which by God it was in­tended, was generally in use also with the Gentiles: whether delivered to them by tradition from their predecessours, or that it was dying sparke of the light of Nature, or that they tooke it from the Iewes, whose Apes they were, needs not now be questioned. Suffice it, that however they could not reach the height of the true religion, nor knew not the intent of those frequent sacrifices which were imposed upon the [Page 5] Iewes; yet they would come as neare it, as they could. And therefore as they had their sacrifices, so would they also have their Temples, their Priests, and Altars: places selected for divine worship, and Ministers ap­pointed for those places, and Altars upon which to minister, being of like antiquitie. The severall gods in Rome, the Temples unto them belonging, the Altars in those Temples, and Colledges of Priests attending on those Altars, are things so generally knowne; that it were losse of time to insist upon them. The like may also be observed in all other places, and of all I­dols whatsoever. For whatsoever the Idol represen­ted, and by whomsoever it was worshipped, if it were once set up and honoured as a Deitie, it drew along with it all those necessary attendants, which were by God himselfe thought fit to wait upon the true reli­gion. The Groves and high places, the Priests and Al­tars destinated to the service of that foule Idol Baal, mentioned in the holy Scriptures, were proofe enough of this, were there no proofe else. But these things be­ing notiora, Pat [...]rc. Hist. quam ut stylo egeant; I passe them over with this note: that there was never any Nation, but had some religion, nor any religion (of men civilized) but had Altars, Priests and Sacrifices as a part thereof, or as dependants thereupon. Which mutuall agree­ment betweene Iew and Gentile in those outward things, although not in the end proposed: made them both severally persecute and deride the Christians, as men of no religion, having (as they conceived) no Temples, Altars, Priests, nor Sacrifices, and so by conse­quence no God.

For when our blessed Lord and Saviour had by that one offering of himselfe once for all, H [...]b. 9. 12. & 10. 14. perfected for [Page 6] ever all them that are sanctified; and by his owne blood entred into the holyplace, and obtained eternall redemp­tion for us: there was forthwith an end of all those sa­crifices in the law, by which this one of his had beene prefigured. They had beene onely given Col. 2. 17. in umbra, as a shadow of the things to come: but when the body came it selfe, the shadow was unserviceable, and for [...]h­with vanished. Yet did not Christ deprive his Church for ever of all manner of Sacrifices, but onely abro­gated those which had beene before; which if conti­nued, might have beene a strong presumption of his not comming in the flesh: in which respect, those, and all other Perniciosas & mortiferas esse Christia­nis. Hie [...]. Ep. [...]d August. Ceremonies of the Iewes, are by the Fathers said to bee, not onely dangerous, but deadly, to us Christian men. The Passion of our Saviour, as by the Lords own Ordinance it was prefigured to the Iews in the legall Sacrifices, à Parte ante; so by Christs institu­tion, is it to bee commemorated by us Christians, in the holy Supper, à Parte post. A Sacrifice it was in fi­gure, a Sacrifice in fact; and so by consequence, a Sa­crifice in the commemorations, or upon the Post-fact. A Sacrifice there was among the Iewes, shewing forth Christs death unto them, before his comming in the flesh: a Sacrifice there must bee amongst the Christi­ans, to shew forth the Lords death till he come in judge­ment. And if a Sacrifice must bee, there must be also Priests to doe, and Altars whereupon to doe it: be­cause without a Priest, and Altar, there can bee no sa­crifice: Yet so that the precedent sacrifice was of a different nature from the subsequent: and so are also both the Priest and Altar from those before: a bloudy sacrifice then, an unbloudy, now; a Priest derived from Aaron then, from Melchisedech, now; an Altar [Page 7] for Mosaicall sacrifices then, for Evangelicall now. 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25. The Sacrifice prescribed by Christ, Qui novi Testamenti no­vam docuit oblationem, saith Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. who the same night in which he was betrayed, tooke bread, And when be had given thankes, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. Doe this in remem­brance of me. Likewise also he tooke the Cup when hee had supped, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, doe this as often as you drinke it, in remembrance of mee. Which words, if they expresse not plaine enough the nature of this Sacrifice, to bee commemorative, we may take those that follow by way of Commentary Ib. v. 26.: For as often as yee eate this bread, and drinke this Cup, ye doe shew the Lords death till he come. Then for the Priests, they were appointed by him also, even the holy Apo­stles who being onely present at the Institution, recei­ved a power from Christ to celebrate these holy my­steries in the Church of God. A power not personall unto them, but such as was from them to bee derived upon others, and by them communicated unto o­thers, for the instruction of Gods people, and the per­formance of his service. Though the Apostles at that time might represent the Church of Christ, and every part and member of it; yet this gives no authority un­to private men, to intermeddle in the sacrifice, but unto the Apostles onely, and their successours in the Evangelicall Priesthood. Our Saviour hath left certaine markes of characters, by which each member of the Church may soone finde his dutie. For the Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood, there is an edite & bibite, an eating an drinking, as private men; men of no Orders in the Church: but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them, onely, as they are Priests under, [Page 8] and of the Gospell. Hoc facite, is for the Priest, who hath power to consecrate; Hoc edite, is both for Priest and people, which are admitted to communicate: and so is the Hoc bibite too by the Papists leave. Were it not thus, but that the people might hoc facere, take bread, and breake, and [...]lesse it, and distribute it unto one another; wee should soone see a quicke come off of our whole religion. The people then, being prepared and fitted for it, may edere and bibere, but they must not facere; that belongs onely to the Priests, who claime that power from the Apostles, on them conferred by our Redeemer. Last of all for the Altar, wee need not goe farre. S. Paul, in whom wee finde both the Priest and Sacrifice, will helpe us to an Altar also. He calleth it once a Table, and once an Altar V. 21. a Table in the tenth of the same Epistle, non potestis mensae Do­mini participes esse, yee cannot bee partakers of the Lords Table, and the table of Devils; an Altar in the last of the Hebrewes, V. 10. Habe [...]us Altare, wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to [...]ate that serve the Taberna­cle: an Altar in relation to the Sacrifice, which is there commemorated; a Table in relation to the Sacrament which is thence participated. Nay, so indi [...]ferent were those words to that blessed spirit, that, as it seemes, he stood not on the choice of either: but used the V. B. Mon­t [...]gues App. p. 288. word Table to denote those Altars on which the Gentiles sa­crificed to their wretched Idols; which he cals mensa [...] Daemoniorum, the table of Devils, in the Text re­membred.

If wee consult the Fathers who lived next those times, wee finde not that they altered any thing in the present businesse, for which they had so good autho­rity from the Lords Apostles; but without any scruple, [Page 9] or opposition (that we can meet with) used, as they had occasion, the name of Sacrifice, and Priest, and Al­tar, in their severall writings. Not that they tied them­selves to those words alone, but that they balked them not when they came in their way, as if they were afraid to take notice of them. Cap. 3. Denys the Areopagite (if it were hee that wrote the books de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia) hath in one chapter, all those names of Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, [...], in his native language; Sacerdos, Altare, Sacrificium, in the translation: the Altar being honoured with the attri­bute of [...], or divine; the Sacrifice with that of [...], or most pure and holy. These workes of Dionysius, Monsieur du Moulin, doth acknow­ledge to be very profitable, Vtilia sane & plena bonae frugis, but withall thinkes Sed poste­rioris avis. Tract. de Al [...], cap. 7. they are of a later date. And therefore on unto Ignatius, of whom there is lesse question amongst learned men: who in his se­verall Epistles useth the aforesaid names or termes, as being generally received, and of common usage. First for the Altar, the Doctor shewed you p. 46. in his Coal, that it is found there, thrice at least, [...] ad Magnes. [...], ad Philadelph. one altar, and one Altar in every Church: and [...], Gods Altar▪ in his Epistle ad Tarsens. what is ob­jected against these, we shall see hereafter. So for the Minister, he cals him, [...], or Priest, which your good friend Vedelius translates Sacerdos, Epist. ad Philadelph. [...]. ‘Excellent (or estimable) are the Priests and Deacons, but more the Bishop.’ In the Epistle ad Smyr [...]enses the same word occurres, to signifie the Priest, or Minister of Christs holy Gospell: as also that of [...], rendred [Page 10] by your Vedelius, Sacerdotium, by us called the Priest­hood. Last of all for your sacrific [...], the same Ignatius ad Smyr­rens. gives it for a rule, as the times then were, that it is not lawfull for the Priest without the notice of his Bi­shop, ‘ [...],’ either to baptize, or offer, or celebrate the sa­crifice. Where by the way, wee may perceive how much the Cardinall was mistaken, in that he tels us for a certaine, abslinuisse non solum à vo­cabalo templi, sedetiam sacer­dotii. Bellarm. de Cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 4. that the Apostles and most ancient Fathers of the Church, as Iustin, and Ignatius, did purposely ab­staine from the names of Priest and Priesthood, as they did also from that of Temple: ne viderentur adhuc dura­re Iudaicae ceremoniae, lest otherwise the Iewish ceremo­nies might be conceived to be in force. It is true, that for the most part, Ignatius use [...] for the minister, the word [...], or Presbyter, from which the French derived their Prebstre, and wee thence our Priest; but doth not binde himselfe unto it. No more doth Iustin Martyr neither: for having laid this for a rule, that, God accepts no sacrifices but from his own Priests only; [...]. In dial. ad T [...]y­phomem. he addes that hee admits of all those sacrifices, [...], which Iesus Christ commanded to bee celebrated in his Name: and are accordingly performed of all Chri­stian people in the holy Eucharist of bread and wine. Performed in every place by all Christian people, as it is an Eucharist, [...] a sacrifice of praise and thanks to Al­mighty God, testified in and with a participation of the outward elements: but celebrated by the Priest, and especially as it is a sacrifice commemorative of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; who only have a power to consecrate those elements, which doe exhibite Christ unto us. As for the Canons of the Apo­stles, [Page 11] which if not writ by them, are certainly of good antiquitie, (and for the first 50 above all danger of dis­carding) the Doctor told you p. 47. in his Coal from the Al­tar, that the word [...] did occurre in the third, fourth, and fifth. And now hee tels you into the bar­gaine, that in the third Canon you shall find mention of the sacrifice, [...]. and in the fourth of the oblation [...]. All which assurance in this cause will fall, if you compute the time, within the first 200. yeeres, which you so much stand upon, and bate you 50. of your tale. So that you will not find, whatsoever you say, Lett. to the Vicar. p. 75. that in the Christian Church, the name of Table is 200. yeeres more ancient than the name of Altar: both being of an equall standing, for ought I can see, and both used indifferently.

Next these succeeded Irenaeus, of whom the Co [...]. p. 46. Do­ctor told you, that he did prove the Lords Apostles to be Priests, because they did Deo & Altari servire: at­tend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at his Altars. What you except against in this, we shall see anon. Meane time you may take notice here, that we have found in [...], both a Priest and Altar: and thinke you that hee will not finde us a Sacrifice also? Looke on him but a little further, and he will tell you this, that there were sacrificia in populo, sacrificia in [...]cclesia, sacrifices in the Iewish Church, and sacrifices in the Christi [...]n church: and Sed species immu [...]ata tan­tum. lib. 4. c. 34. that the kind or species was only altered. The kinde or nature of which Chri­stian sacrifice he tels us of in the same chapter, viz. that it is an Eucharist, a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God, for all his blessings; and a sanctifying of the crea­ture to spirituall uses. Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratius agentes donationi ejus, & sanctificantes crea­turam. [Page 12] In this we have the severall and distinct Offices which before we spake of: a sanctificatio creatur [...], a blessing of the bread (for Quemad­ [...]odum enim qui est à t [...]rra panis, percipi­ens vocatio­nem Dei, jam non communis panis est, &c. bread it is he speakes of) for holy uses, which is the Office of the Priest, no man ever doubted it: and then a gratiarum actio, a giving thankes unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits, which of the Office both of Priest and people. The sanctifying of the creature, and glori [...]ying of the Crea­tor, doe both relate unto Offerimus: and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father. So for Tertullian, the Doctor noted that hee tels us of the Altar twice, Si & ad Aram Deisteteris, in his Booke de Oratione, cap. 14. In that de poenitentia he remembreth us of those that did adgeniculari aris Dei, Standing before the Altar, at some times; kneeling before the Altar at other times: but both before and at the Altar. And for the name of Priest, however the Cardinall was of opinion, that the Apostles and first­fathers of the Church did purposely forbeare it, as before was said: yet he hath found at last, Iam satis perspecta dif­ferentia inter Iudaeos & Christian [...]s. [...]ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap.. 4 that Tem­pore Tertulliani, in Tertullians time, (the difference Iam satis perspecta dif­ferentia inter Iudaeos & Christian [...]s. [...]ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap. .4 betweene Iewes and Christians being well enough knowne) the name of Priest came to bee in use; and for the proofe thereof referres us to his Bookes, de ve­landis virginibus, de monogamia, & alibi: And there­fore thither I referre you. Origen next in course of time, hath an whole Homilie on the 18. Chapter of Numbers, intituled Hom. 11. Vol. primum, p. 209. de Primitiis offerendis. It is not to be thought that he composed that Homilie of purpose, to advance the reputation of the Iewish Priesthood: nor doth hee, if a man would thinke so, give any counte­nance thereunto. And why? Pleading expresly for the maintenance of the Ministers of Gods holy Word, [Page 13] hee cals them in plaine termes, Sacerdotes Evangelii, Priest of the Gospell, affirming first-fruits to be due unto them at the least de congruo. Would you his own words? take them thus; Decet enim, & utile est, eti­ [...]m Sacerdotibus Evangelii (N. B.) offerri primitias. Would you the reason of it also? ‘Because he saith, the Lord appointed, that they which preach the Go­spell, should live of the Gospell, and they that Mini­ster at the Altar, should live of the Altar.’ Where if you should suspect that hee doth meane the Iewish Al­tars, himselfe shall take you off from that fond suspi­tion. ‘ Et sicut hoc dignum & decens est, &c. and as (saith he) it is a fit and worthy thing that it should be so, so on the other side, [...] is unworthy and un­fit, if not utterly impious, that hee which honoureth God, and comes into his Church, Et scit Sacerdotes & Ministros adsistere A [...]tari, and knoweth that the Priests and Ministers doe wait upon the Altar Et aut in verb [...] Dei, aut ministerio Ec­clesiae deservi­re, &c. Ibid. and labour in the Word and Ministerie, should not de­vote unto him the first fruits of the land wherewith God hath blessed him.’ In the whole drift of that which followeth, hee drives so clearly at this point, that it is needlesse in a menner to looke for more; yet in his tenth Homilie on the ninth of Ioshua he is more particular and exact, than before he was: For speaking of some persons who were meere out-side-men and no more than so, he thus describes them; viz. Vt ad Eccle­sium veniant, & linent ca­put suum Sa­cerdotibus. In Ios. c. 9. ‘That they came diligently to the Church, and made due reverence to the Priests, attended all Divine offices, honoured the sevants of the Lord, Adornatum qu [...] ­que Altaris vel Ecclesiae aliquid conferant, and did contribute somewhat also to the ornament of the Altar or the Church.’ I hope there's proofe enough [Page 14] for Priests and Altars, and somewhat also for the maintenance of those Priests that waited at the Al­tars, in the time of Origen. Nor will I instance fur­ther in the Fathers of those Primitive times, than S. Cyprian only: and in him only in those places to which you were directed in the Coal from the Altar, p. 46. where you were told, that l. 1. c. 7. in the Epistle ad Epictetum, it was called Altare Dei, Gods Altar: and that there somewhat more occurred concerning Altars in the 8. and 9. Epistle of the same book also. Only I cannot chuse but tell you, that in the last of those remem­bred, we have not found an Altar only, but that there is a Sacrifice and a Priest to bee found there also. For there we have a maxime Divino sa­cerdotio [...]o­norati. lib. 1. [...]p. 9. concerning those which are promoted to the holy Priesthood, and in actuall Orders, that they ought only Altari & sacrificiis deser [...]ire, to attend the Altar and the sacrifices, and be devoted to their prayers and orizons to Almighty God. Thrice in the same Epistle we find punctuall mention of Sacri­fices, Priests, and Altars; enough of conscience to de­clare what was the usage of the Church in S. Cyprians time.

Which being so, a question may bee justly made, how it should come to passe, that the Apologeticks of those very times, should so unanimously concurre against the being of Altars in the Christian Church: especially that Origen, who is so much for it in his Ho­milies, should be so much against it in his Contra Celsum. Orig. l. 8. Celsus objected it against the Christians, [...], that they declined the building or setting up of Altars, Images, and Tem­ples. Caecilius in the dialogue made the same objecti­on: And having said not long before, Templu ut b [...]sta [Page 15] despiciunt, that they (the Christians) despised the Tem­ples of the Gods (conceive it so) as funerall piles; Minut. [...]e­lix cited p. 157. makes this Quaere after; Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? what was the reason why they had, nor Temples, Images, nor Altars: not why they had no Altars only, as you make him say. The like is commonly objected from Arnobius also; Contr. Gent. l. 2. cited by B. Iewell, to which the letter doth re [...]erre. Nos aceusatis, quod nec templa habeamus, nec imagines, nec aras: in which the words are changed a little, but not the matter of the accusation. Now as the objections seeme to oppose directly, what ever hath been said be­fore concerning Altars: so the Respondents answers seeme as much to crosse what ever hath beene said concerning Sacrifices. Origen answers for his part, [...] cited p. 110. that the Altar of a Christian was his understanding, from whence he offred to the Lord [...], the most sweet and pleasing sacrifices of prayers, and a pure conscience. Octavius cited p. 157. much to the same pur­pose, that the most acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God, was bonus animus, & puramens, & sin [...]era consci­entia; and briefly, Sic apud nos, religiosior ille est qui ju­stior. that he was counted the most re­ligious towards God, which was most just and upright towards man. So much Octavius saith indeed, yet not enough, it seemes, to serve your turn; and therefore you must needs corrupt his text with a false translati­on: making Octavius say, that with them the bottome of the heart supplies the Altar. Whereas you finde not such a word in all that period of Litabilis Hostia▪ before remembred: no Altar there, but that you have nor bonum animum, nor puram mentem; no nor sinceram conscientiam neither, in these wretched shifts. And last of all, Arnobius being asked the question, Whe­ther the Christians thought Lib. 7. in initio. cited p. 116. Sacrificia [...]ulla esse omni­no [Page 16] facienda, that there was no such thing as sacrifice to bee done at all; is made by you to answer nulla, no, none at all: a saying of ( ^d) Lactantius being patch'd un­to it, viz. not any coporeall sacrifice, but hymnes and prai [...]e. What ever you may finde in Lactantius else-where, certaine I am, that you finde nothing to this purpose in all that place which you have noted in your margin, being lib. 6 cap. 23. though peradven­ture you have studied it more throughly, that any o­ther Booke or Chapter, which concernes this point. Or if Lactantius say it else-where, which wee contra­dict not, being so like to that which is affirmed by o­thers, of, and about those times: yet might you have perceived in him, an answer to your owne objections drawne from him, and them. The Question was, whe­ther or no, the Christians had any Sacrifices; No, saith Lactantius, as you cite him, no corporeall sacrifices. La­ctantius saith not of the Christians; that they had no sacrifices; but no corporeall ones. You were, it seemes, so busie on some corporeall sacrifice, which you encoun­tred with in the foresaid Chapter, that you regarded not the answer to your owne objection. Nor did the Doctour otherwise replie to those allegations, which you produced from Origen, and Arnobius, out of Bishop Iewell, and from Arnobius here in the place, than what you make Lactantius say, if you cite him rightly Coal. p. 46.: viz. that they, (the Christians) had no Altars for bloudy and externall sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. Corporeall sacrifices, saith Lactantius; bloudy and exter­nall sacrifices, saith the Doctor: Not bloudy or exter­nall sacrifices, as you make him say p. 153.; and then flie out upon him, as your custome is, and put him to this wretched choice, either to come to that for which you [Page 17] have been wr [...]gling all this while, viz. that they (the Primitive Christians) had no Altars for externall sa­crifi [...]es; or else to shew that ever one father or schoole­m [...] did teach a nec [...]ssitie of an externall Altar for in­ternall Sacrifice. Let the poore Doctors ( And) stand still, and he will finde you Altars, in the Primitive Church, for vis [...]le and externall sacrifices, though none for bloudie and externall sacrifices. The like may be replied to that which you produce from Minutius Felix; Cur [...] [...]ullai habent, why they had no Altars. Altars they had, but no such Altars as Cecilius spake of, none for bloudie sacrifices of sheepe and oxen. Had you but looked a little forwards you would have found amongst them both Priests and Bishops; Alii [...]os fe­runtipsius An­tistitis & sacer­dotis colere, &c. and therefore by your owne rule Altars also: the Priest a [...]d Altar being relatives, as you often tell us. Your Argument, drawne from a cavill p. 56. 57. of Iulian the Apo­stata; that wittie prin [...]e (for sooth) as you please to call him; was not thought worth an answe [...], when pro­posed by him▪ S. Cyrill who made answer unto all the rest; to his objection of not erecting Altars (as Iustit. of the Sacr. lib. 6. c. 5. §. 15. my Lord of [...] rightly note [...]h) doth not say one word. Iuli [...]ns objection was about such sacrifices (as your selfe confesse) in which the Iewes had an agree­ment in some particular with the Pagans▪ and therefore his objection must relate to such Altars also. For that the Christians had their Alt [...]r [...], for the Mysticall sacri­fice, Iulian knew full well, being a Reader of the Church, when he was a Christian: and having, when he was a persecutor, defiled th [...] Altars of the Christi­ans, [...]. Orat. 2. in Iu­lianum. designed for their most pure and unbloudie sacri­fice, [...] with prohibited blood; as [...] complaineth. As for your observa­tion [Page 18] out of Plin [...]s Epistle, drawne from p. 158. 159. the r [...]cke indeed, as you truly say, there is nothing in it worth the marking. For if that, neither the Apostataes, nor the tortured Virgins, confessed any thing of the Chri­stian Materiall Altar; you can no more conclude against having Altars, than against having Reading Pewes and Pulpits, whereof they did confesse as little in their examinations. And I must tell you one thing more, that if you urge these tex [...]s in earnest, as if you though they would or could conclude against having Altars, you may as well produce them, on your se­cond thoughts, against having Churches: which is the next newes I expect to heare from you. But of this more hereafter in our 7. Chapt.

As for the sacrifices mentioned in Minutius Felix, and before him by Origen, in that [...], it is not, nor was ever questioned, but that the sacrifices of each [...]hristian privately, were of a meere spirituall nature. The Doctor named you some of them in his Coal from the Altar, p. 8. viz. the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13. 15. as also ‘the oblation of our whole selves, oursoules & bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to Almighty God, ’ [...]. 12. 1. These and all other sacrifices of that nature, be­ing spirituall meerely, need no materiall or corporeall Altar. The readiest way by which to offer them to the Lord our God, is first to sacrifice them on the Al­tar of our heart by faith, and afterwards to lay them on that Altar, by which they may bee rendred accep­table in the sight of God, even on Christ our Saviour. But then the Doctor said withall, that ‘the Church allowed of a Commemorative sacrifice also, for a per­petuall memorie of Christs precious death, of that [Page 19] his full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world, to be continued till his comming againe.’ The former sacri­fices, being meerly of spiritual nature, the Lord expects from all his people severally. Every man is, himselfe, a Priest, one of the Royall Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter, in this sense, and in relation unto these spirituall and internall sacrifices; which he is also bound to offer to the Lord his God continually, at all times, in all pla­ces, and on all occasions. No wood so wide, nor denne so darke, nor sea so spacious, which may not bee a Temple, for these devotions; and in the which we may not finde an Altar, for these sacrifices. And these are they, done in In quo ac­cedamus fide & spiritual [...] cultura, in ve­raci corde, sine simulati [...]ne, in satisfactione fidei, quia nihil est visibile ho­rum, neque Sa­cerdos, &c. Ambr. in Hebr. 10. the singlenesse of heart, without hy­pocrisie and guile, whereof there is not any thing vi­sible, neque Sacer d [...]s, neque Sacrificium, neque Altare, no more than is the Altar, on the Priest▪ or Sacrifice, as S. Ambrose tels us. But so I trow it is not in the mysti­call sacrifice, that of the Commemoration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; which purpo [...]ely is represented unto the eye, that it may sinke the deeper into the heart. The breaking of the bread, and the effusion of the wine, are they not sensible represen­tations of his death for us▪ the offring up of his body on the crosse, and shedding his most precious bloud for our redemption? Which being visible in it selfe, and purposely so celebrated, that it may be visible to all the congregation; comes not within the compasse of those sacrifices which S. Ambrose speaks of: though, like a false gamester you have cogged a die, and made S. Ambrose say what he never meant. For tell me of your honest word, doth the good father speake there of this mystic [...]ll sacrifice, that which the Priest did of­fer [Page 20] on the Alt [...]rs in the [...] God? or those which every priva [...]e man did [...]nd might offer on the Alt [...]r of his [...], by [...]aith? Doth V. p. 118. Where he is made to say, ni­hil hic visibile. he say, Nihil hic visibile, that here ( i. e. in this Co [...] ­memorative sacrifice) there is nothing visible, neither the Priest, the Altar, nor the [...]? Or saith hee, Nihil horum est visibile, that of the things before re­membred, there is nothing visible, [...] of the spirituall worship, done in the singlenesse of the heart, without hypocrisie, and in full confidence of faith? For shame deale better with the Father [...], how ill soever you deale with that poore fellow, whom you have in hand. S. Ambrose could not say, (the times, in which he lived, considered) that in the Representative sacrifice by the Church then celebrated, there was nothing visible: for in those times, the Priests and Altars both were at their full, moun [...]ed unto their height for reputation and esteeme; as you know right well. When there­fore it is said in the Apo [...]o [...]eticks of those times, that they (the Primitive [...]) had [...] [...], images, nor temples, it must bee answered with [...] to those times in the which they lived. And so the Doctor answers to them in his Coal from the [...], p. 45. 46. First, out of Bishop Iewell, that then ‘ [...] feare of Tyrants, were faine to meet together in pri­vate houses, in vacant places, in woods and forrest [...], and caves under the ground.’ Your selfe have told us of your selfe, (though you have christned your dis­course by the name of the holy Table) that p. 140. you are not so unreasonably tied to one Table; but if the woman were driven into the desert, you could bee content with the greene grasse. And then, why may you not conceive, that on the like distresse, the grasse should be to them [Page 21] in stead of an Altar, as well as unto you in stead of a Table. ‘The Doctor answered secondly, that when they durst adventure to build them Churches, they neither were so gorgeously nor so richly furnished, as were the Temples of the Gentiles. And therefore Origen, and Arnobius (and whosoever of them speake in the selfe same key) are not to bee interpreted, as if the Christians had no Churches, or at the least no Al­tars in them: but that their Churches were so mean, that they deserved not the name of Temples; and that they had no Altars for bloudie and externall sa­crifices, as the Gentiles had.’ Hospinian, on whose judgement you doe much relie in other matters, could easily have told you (and questionlesse you saw it in him, though you conceale it wilfully for your poore advantages) that in the Non nego tamen habuis­se primitivam ecclesiam ante Constanti­n [...]m, Altaria seu aras. de orig. Altarium. p. 99. Primitive Church, before the time of Constantine, the Christians had their Altars, both name and thing: and for the proofe thereof doth cite Tertullian, lib. de poenitentia. Cyprians Epistles, lib. 1. Epist. 7. & 9. and also, lib. 3. Epist. 13. All that hee stands upon is this, Eae autem [...]rae non fuerunt lapideae, nec fixae, that the said Altars were not made of stone, and fast­ned to some certaine place, as was appointed not long after by Pope Silvester; and as Durandus and the rest of the Roman Ritualists would have them now. Al­tars he grants, but wooden Altars; which being once devoted to that holy use, might easily bee removed from place to place, as the necessities of those times did indeed require. No sooner was the Church setled and confirmed in peace, but presently the Altars also were fixed and setled.

Now for the nature and condition of this Comme­morative or representative sacrifice, which we have tra­ced [Page 22] from the first Institution of it by our Lord and Sa­viour, to the times of Constantine, and found both Priests which were to offer, and Altars upon which they were to offer it to Almighty God: wee cannot take a better and more perfect view thereof, than from Eusebius, who hath beene more exact herein, than any other of the Ancients. In his first book de Domonstratione Eva [...]gelica, he brings in this prediction from the Prophet Esay, that ‘ in that day shall there bee an Altar to the Lord in the middest of the land of Egypt, Es. 19. 19. Then addes, that if they had an Altar, and that they were to sacrifice [...], &c. cap. 6. to Almighty God, [...], they must bee thought worthy of a Priesthood also. But the Leviti­call Priesthood could not bee of any use unto them, and therefore they must have another. Nor was this spoke, saith he, of the Egyptians only, [...]. but of all other nations, and idolatrous people; who now poure forth their prayers, not unto many Gods, but to the one and only Lord: and unto him erect an Altar for reasonable and unbloudie sacrifices [...], &c. [...] in every place of the whole habitable world, ac­cording to the mysteries of the New Testament.’ Now what those mysteries were, hee declares more fully in the tenth Chapt. of the said first book. ‘ Christ, saith he, is the propitiatorie Sacrifice for all our sins, since when even those amongst the Jewes are freed from the curse of Moses law, [...], celebrating daily (as they ought) the com­memoration of his body and bloud, which is a farre more excellent sacrifice and ministerie, than any in [Page 23] the former times: Then addes', that Christ our Sa­viour, offering such a wonderfull and excellent Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for the salvation of us all, appointed us to offer daily unto God the commemoration of the same, [...], for and as a Sacrifice. And anon after, that whensoever wee doe celebrate [...], the memory of that Sacrifice on the Table, par­ticipating of the Elements of his body and blood; we should say with David, Thou preparest a Table for me in the presence of mine enemies, thou an­nointest my head wih oyle, my cup runneth over. Wher­in, saith he, he signifieth most manifestly the mysti­call unction, [...] & the reverend Sacrifices of Christs Table, where we are taught to offer up unto the Lord, by his owne most eminent and glorious Priest, [...]. the unbloody, reasonable, and most acceptable sacrifice all our life long.’ This hee intituleth [...]. afterwards the sacrifice of praise, the Divine, reverend, and most holy sacrifice, the pure sacrifice of the new Testament. So that we see, that in this Sacrifice prescribed the Christian Church, by our Lord and Saviour, there were two proper and di­stinct actions: The first, to celebrate the memoriall of our Saviours sacrificie, which he intituleth, [...], the commemoration of his bo­dy and blood once offered; [...], the memorie of that his Sacrifice; that is, as hee doth cleerly expound himse [...]fe, that we should offer [...], this our commemoration for a Sa­crifice: The second, that withall wee should offer to him the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving, which is the reasonable Sacrifice of a Christian man, and to him [Page 24] most acceptable. Finally, he joynes both these toge­ther in the Conclusion of that Book, and therein doth at full describe the nature of this Sacrifice; which is thus as followeth. [...], &c. ‘Therefore, saith he, we sacrifice, & offer as it were with Incense, the memory of that great Sacrifice, celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us, and [...]. giving thankes to him for our salvation; with godly hymnes and prayers to the Lord our God; as also offering to him our whole selves, both soule and body, and to his high Priest, which is the Word.’ See here, Eusebius doth not call it onely the memorie or commemoration of Christs Sacrifice; but makes the very memory or commemoration, in, and of it selfe, to bee a Sacrifice which instar omnium, for, and in the place of all other Sacrifices, wee are to offer to our God, and offer it with a [...], the In­cense of our prayers and prayses.

This was the doctrine of the Church in Eusebius time, touching the Sacrament of the body and blood of our blessed Saviour. Of any expiatorie Sacrifice, of any offering up of Christ for the quick and dead, more than what had beene done by him once, and once for all, those blessed Ages never dream't. And howsoever some of the ancient Fathers did amplifie with the choi­cest of their Rhetorick the dignity and nature of this holy Sacrament, the better to inflame the people with a lively zeale, at their partaking of the same: yet they meant nothing lesse, than to give any opportunity to the future Ages of making that an expiatorie Sacrifice, which they did onely teach to bee Commemorative, or representative of our Saviours passion. A Sacrifice they [Page 25] did confesse it, Altars and Priests they did allow of, as necessary thereunto; not thinking fit to change those terms, which had bin recommended to them from pure antiquitie. Those blessed spirits were not [...], contentious about words and formes of speech, in which there was not manifest impiety. The Supper of the Lord, they called sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a memoriall of the Sacrifice, [...]. and so S. Chrysostome on the ninth Chapter to the Hebrewes: Sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a Sacrament, and so Lib. 17. c. 20 S. Austin for example; for in his Bookes de Civitate Dei, hee calleth it a Sacri­fice; Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrifi­ciis veteris Testamenti, &c. and saith that it succeeded in the place of those legall sacrifices, mentioned in the old Testament. The same S. Austin, as you tell us p. 109. in the Margin., doth in the same Bookes call it a Sacrament of memo­ry, and wee will take your word this once, that hee cals it so, (because we know from whence you had it) though in the place by you cited (being l. 17. c. 20.) there is no such matter: and I am sure, that in the very same Bookes it is called Lib. 10. c. 6. Sacramentum Altaris, the Sacrament of the Altar: which was a very com­mon appellation amongst the Fathers, as was acknow­ledged by the Martyrs in Queene Maries time. So for the Minister thereof, they called him Soli Epi­scopi & Pres­byteri, propri [...] jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sa­cerdotes. Aug­de Civit. D [...]i, l. 20. cap. 10. sometimes Presbyter, and sometimes Sacerdos, Elder, or Priest, indifferently without doubt or scruple: for which see the Margin. The Table, or the Altar, were to them such indifferent words, that they used both equally: [...], saith Eusebius in the tenth, and [...], saith Eusebius in the sixt Chapter of his fi [...]s [...] de Demon­stratione Evangelica: Altars saith S. Austin in the tenth, [Page 26] and mensa, saith the same S. Austin in his 17 de Civita­te: Orat. de [...] Gregory Nyssen in one breath doth make use of both, and cals the same one thing, [...], the holy Table, the undefiled Altar: Altars of stone, [...], in this Gregory Nyssen; Altars of wood, ligna Altaris, Epist. 50. in S. Austin; both used with such indifferency, that Nys­sen calleth his stone Altar by the name of [...], or Table; and Austin calleth his wooden Table, Altare, Altar: So that in all this search into antiquitie, wee find a generall consent in the Church of God touching the businesse now in hand: the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being confessed to be a Sacrifice; the Minister therein, inti [...]uled by the name of Priest; that on the w ^ch the Priest did consecrate, being as usually called by the name of Altar, as by that of Table: and you may [...]ake this testimony also from the mouth of a Gentile, that the Christians called their Table by the name of Altar; [...], as it is in Zozimus, lib. 5. Not an improper Altar, and an im­proper Sacrifice, as you idly dreame of: For Sacrifi­ces, Priests, and Altars being Relatives, p. 109. as your selfe confesseth, the Sacri [...]ice and the Altar being im­proper, must needs inferre that even our Priesthood is improper also: And wee may speake in proper and significant termes, as the Fathers did, without appro­ving either the Popish Masse, or the Iewish Sacrifices; from which the Doctor is as farre, as either you that made the booke, or hee that licensed it, though you have both agreed together to breed some base suspiti­on of him p. 76., as if he meant somewhat else than for feare of our gracious King he dares speake out. The Doctor, I assure you, dares speake what hee thinkes, (though [Page 27] you, as I perswade my selfe, thinke not what you speake:) and will now tell you what hee thinkes to bee the Doctrine of this Church in this present busi­nesse, of Sacrifices, Priests and Altars, that wee may see shee is no flincher from the words and notions, no more than from the Doctrines of most orthodox An­tiquity.

And first beginning with the Priesthood, in case you are not growne ashamed of that holy calling, you may remēber that you were admitted into holy Orders by no other name: Being presented to the B [...]sh. at your Ordination, Booke of Or­dination. you did require to bee admitted to the Order of Priesthood: and being demanded by the Bi­shop, if you did thinke in your heart that you were truly called according to the will of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England unto the Mini­sterie of the Priesthood; you answered positively, that you did: if you thought otherwise than you said, as you doe sometimes, you Acts 5. 4. lyed not unto men, but unto God. Looke in the Booke of Ordination, and you shall finde it oftner than once or twice, entituled the Office of Priesthood, and the holy Office of Priesthood: the parties thereunto admitted, called by no other name than that of Priests: Or if you thinke the Booke of Ordina­tion is no good authority, (to which you have subscri­bed however in your subscription to the Articles;) look then upon the Liturgie, and the Rubricks of it, by w ^ch you would perswade the world that you are very much directed in all this businesse: Finde you not there the name of Priest, exceeding frequent, especi­ally in that part therof which concerns the Sacrament; The Priest standing at the North side of the Table,— Then shall the Priest rehearse distinctly all the tenne Com­mandements, [Page 28] —Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive the holy Communion,—Then shall the Priest turning himselfe to the people, give the absoluti­on, —Then shall the Priest kneeling downe at Gods Boord, &c. Infinitum est ire per singula; It were an infi­nite labour to summe up all places of, and in the Ru­bricks, wherein the Minister is called by the name of Priest; which being so, as so it is, and that your own sweet selfe hath told p. 109. us that Altar, Priest, and Sacri­fice are Relatives: the Church of England keeping. still as well the Office of Priesthood, as the name of Priest, must needs admit of Altars, and of Sacrifices, as things peculiar to the Priesthood: But not to trust so great a matter to your rules of Logicke, wee will next see, what is the judgement of the Church in the point of Sacrifice. Two wayes there are by which the Church declares her selfe in the present businesse: First, posi­tively in the Booke of Articles, and that of Homilies; and practically in the Booke of Common prayers. First, in the Articles; ‘ Art. 31. The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world, both originall and actuall, and there is no other sa­tisfaction for sinne, but that alone.’ This Sacrifice or oblation once for ever made, and never more to bee repeated, was by our Saviours owne appointment to bee commemorated and represented to us, for the better quickning of our faith: whereof if there be no­thing said in the Booke of Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly unto points in Controversie: but in the Booke of Homilies, which doe relate unto the Articles, as confirmed in them, and are (though not dogmaticall, but rather popular discourses) a Com­ment, [Page 29] as it were, on those points of doctrine, which are determined of elsewhere: Hom. of the Sacrament, part. 2. p. 197. wee finde it thus: ‘That the great love of our Saviour Christ to man­kinde doth not only appeare, in that deare-bought benefit of our redemption, and satisfaction by his death and passion, but also in that he hath so kindly provided that the same most mercifull work might bee had in continuall remembrance. Amongst the which meanes is the publick celebration of the me­morie of his pre [...]ious death at the Lords Table:— our Saviour having ordained and established the re­membrance of his great mercie expressed in his pas­sion, in the Institution of his heavenly Supper.’ Here is a commemoration of that blessed Sacrifice which Christ once offered, a publick celebration of the memorie thereof, and a continuall remembrance of it by himselfe ordained. Which if it seeme not full enough for the Commemorative sacrifice, in the Church observed, the Homilie Ibid. p. 198▪ will tell us further: ‘that this Lords supper is in such wise to be done and mini­stred, as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded it to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the good Fa­thers in the Primitive Church frequented it.’ So that what ever hath beene proved to bee the purpose of the Institution, the practise of the holy Apostles, and usage of the ancient Fathers: will fall within the mea­ning and intention of the Church of England.

For better manifesting of the which Intention, we will next looke into the Agenda, the publick Liturgie of this Church. Where first we finde it granted, that ‘ Preface on Easter day. Christ our Saviour is the verie Paschall Lamb that was offred for us, and hath taken away the sinne of the world: Praier of the consecration. that suffering death upon the crosse for [Page 30] our Redemption, he made there by his owne oblati­on of himselfe once offred, a full, perfect, and suffi­cient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the [...] of the whole world. And to the E [...]hortat [...]on before the Com­munion. end that we should alwaies remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour Iesus Christ thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his preci­ous bloodshedding he hath obtained to us: he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love and continuall remembrance of his death, to our great and endlesse comfort; [...]raier of the consecration. instituting and in his holy Gospell commanding us to continue a perpetuall memorie of that his precious death till his comming againe.’ Then followeth the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine, for Prai [...]r of the consecration. a remembrance of his death and passion, in the same words and Phra­ses which Christ our Saviour recommended unto his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Fathers of the Primi­tive times: which now, as then, is to bee done only by the Priest [Then the Priest standing up shall say, [...] fol­loweth] to whom it properly belongeth, and upon whom his Ordination doth conferre a power of mini­string the Sacraments, not given to any other Order in the holy Ministerie. The memorie or com [...]emora­tion of Christs death thus celebrated, is called [...]rai [...]r after the communion. a sa­crifice, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a sacrifice representative of that one and only expiatorie sacri­fice which Christ once offred for us all: the whole Communicants be seeching God to grant, that by the me­rits and death of his Sonne Iesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, they and the whole Church may obtain [...] the remission of their sinnes, and all other the benefits of his Passion: Nor stay they there, but forthwith offer [Page 31] and present unto the Lord their selves, their soules and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto him: And howsoever, as they most humbly doe ac­knowledge, they are unworthy through their mani­fold sinnes▪ to offer to him any sacrifice, yet they beseech him to accept that their bounden duty and service. In which last words, that present service which they doe to Almighty God, according to their bound [...] duties, in celebrating the perpetuall memory of Christs precious death, and the oblation of their selves, and with themselves the sacrifice of praise and thanksgi­ving, in due acknowledgement of the benefits and com­forts by his death received, is himbly offered unto God, for, and as a Sacrifice, and publickly avowed for such, as from the tenour and coherence of the words doth appeare most plainly. Put all together which hath been here delivered from the Booke of Articles, the Homilies, and publick Liturgie, and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord, than this be­tweene Eusebius and the Church of England, in the present businesse: Our Saviours sacrifice upon the Crosse, called there, [...], and here acknowledge to bee the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world▪ There wee have [...], mysteries delivered to us by our Lord and Saviour, for a remembrance of that great sacrifice; and here E [...]hortation to the [...]ommu­nion. an Institution of holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and continuall remembrance of his death. The memory or commemoration of this his death, called there [...] a [...]d Hom. p. 19 [...] here the publick celebration of the memorie of his precious death, at the Lords Table; there [...] [Page 32] here Hom. ibid. the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion; there for the offering of this sacrifice to Almighty God, [...], &c. there was a Priesthood thought to bee very necessary, and here the Priest alone Rubrick be­fore the Conse­cration. hath power to consecrate the Creatures of bread and wine, for a remembrance of his death and passion: There the whole action, as it relates to Priest and people, is called [...]; & here Prayer after the Communion. the sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving: there [...], & [...] here in the selfe same words, a reasonable and holy Sacrifice: There the Communicants doe offer to the Lord [...], &c. and here they doe present unto him their selves, soules, and bodies. Finally, there it is said, [...], that they doe sacrifice unto the Lord the memory of that great oblation: i. e. as he expounds himselfe, they offer to him the commemoration of the same [...], for, and as a Sacrifice. And here Ibid. we doe besee [...]h the Lord to accept this our bounden dutie and servic [...], for, and as a sacrifice, which notwithstanding wee con­fesse our selves unworthy to offer to him. Never did Church agree more perfectly with the ancient pat­ternes.

Yet lest you should endeavour, as you use to doe, to cast a mist before the eyes of poore ignorant people, as if the Church meant nothing lesse than what here is said; will you bee pleased to looke upon those Wor­thies of the Church, which are best able to expound, and unfold her meaning: wee will beg [...]n with Bishop Andrewes, and tell you what hee saith Answ. to Peron. c. 6. as [...]on [...]erning sacrifices. ‘The Eucharist, saith he, ever was and is by us considered, both as a Sacrament, [...] as a Sac [...]i­fice. [Page 33] A sacrifice is proper and appliable onely to Di­vine worship. The sacrifice of Christs death did suc­ceed to the sacrifices of the old Testament; which being prefigured in those sacrifices before his com­ming, hath since his comming beene celebrated per Sacrament um memoriae, by a Sacrament of memo­ry, as S. Austin cals it.’ Thus also in his answer unto Cardinall Bellarmine, Tollite de Missa Transubstantiatio­nem vestram, nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio, &c. ‘Take from the Masse your Transubstantiation, and wee will have no difference with you about the sa­cri [...]ice. Memoriam ib [...] sacrific [...] da [...]us non in­viti. Resp. ad Card Be [...]. c. 8. The memorie of a Sacrifice we acknowledge willingly, and the King grant▪ the name of Sacri­ [...]ice to have beene frequent with the Fathers.’ For Altars next. ‘If wee agree ( [...]nsw. to Card. Peron. c. [...]. saith hee) about the matter of sacrifice, there will be no difference about the Altar. The holy Eucha [...]ist being considered as a sacrifice (in the representation of breaking the Bread, and pouring forth the Cup,) the same is fitly called an Altar; which againe is as fitly called a Tabee▪ the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the Sacri [...]ice to the severall receivers. So that the matter of Altars makes no difference in the face of our Church.’ As Bishop Andrewes wrote at King Iames his motion, against Cardinall Bellarmine; so Isaac Casau­bon writ King Iames his minde to Cardinall Peron; and in expressing of his minde, affirmeth, Veteres Ec­clesiae, Patres, &c. ‘That the ancient Fathers did ac­knowledge one onely Sacrifice in the Christian Church, which did succeed in place of all those sa­crifices in the law of Moses that hee conceived the said sacrifice to bee nothing else, nis [...] commemorati­onem [Page 34] [...]jus quod semel in Cruce Christus Patri suo ob­tulit, than a Commemoration of that sacrifice which CHRIST once offered on the Crosse to his heavenly Father: De verbo nullam se litem moturam. Ep. ad Card. Peron. that oftentimes the Church of England hath professed, she will not strive about the Word, which shee expresly useth in her publick Liturgie.’ All this you seeme to grant, but then make a difference betweene p. 105. the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, and a commemorative sacrifice: And though you grant that in the Eucharist there is com­memoratio sacrificii, yet you flie out upon the p. 106. Do­ctor, for saying that the Church admits of a commemo­rative sacrifice; which is as much, you say, as P. Lombard and all his ragged regiment admit of▪ If this be all you stand upon, you shall soone be satisfied. Arch [...]Bishop Cranmer (whom you your selfe acknowledge to be the most learned on this Theame of our late Divines) di­stinguisheth most cleerly Defence of his 5 Booke against Gardi­ner, p. 439. betweene ‘the sacrifice pro­pitiatory made by Christ himself only, and the sacri­fice commemorative and gratulatory made by the Priests and people.’ My Lord of Durham also doth call the Eucharist Of the Re­mish Sacrif. l. 6. [...]. 5. a representative and commemorative sacrifice, in as plaine language verily, as the Doctor did; although hee doth deny it to bee a proper sacri­fice: As for your Criticisme, or quarrell rather, be­tweene a commemorative sacrifice, and a commemo­ration of a Sacrifice, which you insist on, it was very needlesse, both termes being used by Bishop An­drewes (as great a Clerke as any Minister of Lincolne Diocesse) as aequipollent and aequivalent, both of one expression; De Com­memoratione ib. sacrificii seu sacrificio com­memorativo. Respons. ad Car. Bell. of which see the Margin. But to goe forwards with the Sacrifice, my Lord of Chichester thus speakes unto his Informers: ‘ Appello Caesar [...]m. p. 287. I have (saith hee) [Page 35] so good an opinion of your understanding, though weak, that you will conceive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, or the Communion Table, which you please, to be a sacrifice.’ What doe I heare the Bi­shop say, the blessed Sacrament of the Altar? And doe you not perswade us, or at least endeavour it, out of his answer to the Gagger, that p. 95. Gaggers of Protestants call it so, but Protestants themselves doe not? It is true, that in his answer to the Gagger, he hath those very words which you thence produce; the Sacrament (as you call it) of the Altar: but then it is as true, that hee doth call it so himselfe; and is resolved to call it so, howsoever you like it. ‘Walk you Appe [...]. p. 288. (saith he) at ran­dome, and at rovers in your by-pathes, if you please. I have used the name of Altar for the Communion- Table, according to the manner of Antiquity, and am like enough sometimes to use it still. Nor will I abstaine, notwithstanding your oggannition, to fol­low the steps and practice of Antiquity, in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also.’ Finally, Ibid. p. 286. hee brings in Bishop Morton professing thus, That he belee­v [...]d no such sacrifice of the Altar, as the Church of Rome doth, and that he fancieth no such Altars as they imploy, though hee professed a Sacrifice and an Altar. Thus ha­ving plainly layed before you, the Doctrine, Vse, and Practice of Antiquitie in the present businesse, to­gether with the tendries of the Church of England conforme thereto; we will next see what you can say unto the contrary, and what faire dealing wee are like to finde in your proceedings.

CHAP. VI.
An Answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc▪ against the points delivered in the for­mer Chapter.

Nothing delivered in the 31 Article, against the being of a Sa­crisice in the Church of Christ, nor in the Homilies. A pious Bull obtruded on the Doctor by the Minister of Linc▪ The Reading-Pew, the Pulpit, and the poore-mans Box made Altars by the Minster of Linc. An huddle of impertinen­cies brought in concerning sacrifice Commemorative, com­memoration a sacrifice, and materiall Altars. The Sacri­fice of the Altar knowne by that name unto the Fathers. Ar­nobius falsified. The Minister of Linc. questions S. Pauls discretion, in his Habemus Altare Heb. 13. 10. and falsifi­eth S. Ambrose. The meaning of that Text according unto B. Andrewes, B. Montague, the Bishop and the Minister of Linc. The same expounded by the old Writers, both Greeke and Latine. The Altars in the Apostles Canons made Pan­teries and Larders; and ludas his bag an Altar by this man of Linc. The Doctor and Ignatius vindicated in the three places touching Altars. The prophane Passage in the Ministers Booke of a Widow-Altar. An Answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc. against the evidence produced from Ireuae­us and S. Cyprian. The Ministers ignorant mistakes about the meaning of Tertullian in the word Ara. Pamellus new reading about Charis Dei, not universally received. A briefexecitall of the substance in the so two last Chaepters.

WEE ended our last Chapter with the Church of England, and with the Church of England wee must now begin; your method leads me to it, which I meane to follow, as well as such a broken clew▪ can leade mee, in so confused a [Page 37] Laberinth as of your compositions: Cap. 6. And here you change the very state of the question at your first en­trance on the same. The Bishop charged it home, as hee conjectured, Letter p. that if the Vicar should erect any such Altar, his discretion would prove the onely Holocaust to be sacrificed thereon: Now you have changed it p. 102. to a close Altar at the upper end of the Quire, where the old Altar in Queene Maries time stood. This is no honest dealing to begin with. The mention of close Al­tars, and Queene Maries time, comes in here very un­seasonably, if not suspi [...]iously, onely to make poore men afraid, (whom you have throughtly possessed al­ready with such Panick feares) that Altars and Queen Maries dayes are comming in againe amongst us. Nor have you dealt better with the 31 Article in your own Edition p. 14. of the Bishops letter, where you have made it say, that that other oblation, which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars is a blasphemous [...]igment, and pernicious imposture. These, was not in the Text before, and is now onely thrust into it, to make the Vicar come up close to Queene Maries Altars. I pray you good Sir, whar spectacles did you use, when you found Altars, and these Altars, Papists, and that other oblation in the 31 Article, wherein my dull and heavy eyes can see no such word? This is another of your tricks, to make your credulous followers beleeve, that by the doctrine of the Church in her publick Ar­ticles, Papists and Altars are meere Relatives; that so whosoever shall but use the name of Altar, or speake of placing the Communion-Table Altar-wise, may be suspected presently to bee a Papist, or at least Popishly affected. Nor doe I speake this without good authori­ty: For doe not you tell us, that the Phantasticall Vi­car [Page 38] called his Communion-Table an Altar, as the Papists doe, p. 199? and have you not corrupted the Bishops Letter, to make it say, that Altars onely were erected for the sacrifice of the Masse, p. 16? which was not in the Text before. But Sir, the primitive Christians had their Altars, when there was no such thing in being, The 31 Ar­ticle having ta­ken a [...] Popish Lamb. p. 102. as the Popish Lambe; no such blasphemous figments, and pernicious impostures, as by the Article are char­ged on the Church of Rome, in those, by us, rejected sacrifices of the Masse: So that both I and you, may without danger of revoking our subscriptions to the Booke of Articles, set the Communion Table at the upper end of the Chancell, there where the old Altar stood in Queene Maries time, if you needs will have it so; and yet no more dreame of the Popish Lambe, and those bl [...]sphemous figments which the Article speaks of, than did the holy Fathers in the Primitive times; when neither your said Popish Lambe, nor any of those figments were in repum natura. Now, as you palter with the Article, so doe you onely play and dally with the Homilie; as one that loves so dearly well, (what­soever you say unto the contrary) [...], to make your selfe merry with sacred things. You tell us [...]rom the Homily, that wee must take heed Of the Sa­crament. par [...]. 2. p 198. lest the Lords Supper of a memory be made a sacrifice: and then proceed p. 103, 104., What saith the Doctor to this? Hee saith that by these words the Church admits of a Comme­morative sacri [...]ice. Which said, you make your Rea­ders even burst with laughter, by telling them, that the poore man hath found a true and reall sac [...]ifice, (in the Booke of Homilies) but it is a Bull; a very strange and hideous Bull which this Calfe makes the Church speake un­to [...] people in her publick Homilies. And what is that? [Page 39] ‘As wee must take heed, good people, wee apply not the Sacrament of the Supper to the dead, but to the living, &c. so must we take especiall heed, lest of a Commemorative Sacrifice it bee made a Sacrifice.’ A very [...] it be not [...] Pius Quintus [...]is, yet is a kinde [...]f pious Bull. p. 104 pious Bull indeed, you speak wondrous rightly; but a Bull onely of your owne herd, and onely fit for such a Milo as your selfe, to carry. For tell me, doth the Doctor say, that by these words the Church admits of a Commemorative sacrifice? On with your false eyes once againe, and you will finde the Doctor makes no other answer to your objection from the Homily Coal. p. 8., but that the sacri [...]ice rejected in the Homily, is that which is cried down in the Booke of Articles, which the Episto­ler had no reason to suspect was ever aimed at by the Vi­car. Of a Commemorative sacrifice in those words of the Homilie, [...]e gry quidem, there. Indeed the Do­ctor said before, in answer to your argument from the 31 Article, that though the Church condemned that other oblation of the Papists, as the Letter cals it: ‘yet she allows of a Commemorative sacrifice for a perpetu­all memory of Christs precious death, of that his full, perfeft, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfa­ction for the sins of the whole world.’ And for the proofe thereof referred himselfe unto the Prayer of the Consecration; which are not, sure, the words of the Homily, or by him cited thence, if you marke it well. Or had hee said it of those words in the Booke of Homilies, had it beene such a strange and hi­deous Bull, with foure Hornes, and I know not how many tailes, for you to lead by it up and do [...]ne the Countrey, for [...]he delight and solace of your sportfull Readers? Could you not paraphase upon it thus? We must take heed good people, lest the Lords Sup­per, [Page 40] of a memory be made a Sacrifice: i. e. le [...]t of a C [...]m­memorative sacrifice, it be made propitiatorie? No: Hee that lookes for ingen [...]ity from such hands as yours, must have lesse knowledge of you, and more faith in you, than I dare pretend to. And for your Bull, that was but a device to make sport for Boyes. Shewing us so much Spanish in the Margin, you had a minde to let us see, that you did understand as well their customes, as their language: and therefore would set out a Fuego de Toros, a kind of Bull baiting for the Boyes, who must be pleased too in this businesse. You have not studied all this while, populo ut placerent only, but now and then ut pueris placeas, & declam [...] ­tio fias, as you know, who said.

But would we see a Bull indeed, a Bull set out with flowers and Garlands, readie for the Sacrifice? Out of your store you can afford us such a one, though not so pious altogether, as that you sent unto the Doctor. We saw before how well you pleaded against Altars, out of the Articles and booke of Homilies: and now behold an argument from the Common Prayer Booke, which, if the businesse be not done already, will be [...]ure to doe it. For you p. 75. 76. appeale to all indifferent men, that ‘pretend to any knowledge in Divinitie, if the Rea­ding Pew, the Pulpit, and any other place in the Church bee not as properly an Altar, for prayer, praise, thanksgiving, memorie of the passion, dedi­cating our selves to Gods very service; and the Churches Box or Bason, for that oblation for the poore which was used in the Primitive times; as is our holy Table, howsoever situated or disposed.’ Nay, you goe further, and demand, ‘ what one sacrifice can be inferred out of the Collects read by the Priest [Page 41] at the [...] which are not as easily de­duced [...] of the Te [...] and [...] said in the Quire, or Reading Pew: whether there be no pray­ing, praising, commemorating of the Passion, and [...] of our selves no Gods service in those two [...] ▪’ The Fathe [...]s were but [...] soures in drea­ming of one Altar only in each sev [...]rall Church▪ wher­as indeed there are as many as wee please to make. Here is the Poore-mans Box, the Communion Table, the Pulpit, and the Reading Pew, [...] quatuor A [...]ns: foure in a knot, land yet not halfe enough for so many sacri­fices. And therefore every place, the Bell-free, the Church-por [...]h, the [...] house, the seat of every pri­vate person, the Vestrie chiefe of all, and whatsoever other place a man may [...]ancy to himselfe, are now turned to Altars. This if we doe not yeeld to at the first proposall, we are pronounced alreadie to have no knowledge in Divinitie; and not to be indifferent men, but parties. Not so indifferent men as I thinke you are: nor so well skilled in this new Lincolnshire divinitie, which onely you and one or two more of your deare acquaintance, have beene pleased to broach. What need we take this paines to looke after Altars, when by this Boston doctrine the Communion Table may as wel be spared? [...] meae! It alwayes was my hope, that howsoever wee lost the Altar, I might be confident wee should have a Table left us for the holy Sacrament, at least the Sacram [...] it selfe. But see how strangely things are carried: Rather than heare of Altars, we will down with Tables; yea with the Sacrament it selfe: and let the memorie of Christs passion bee celebrated how it will, or where it will, in the Pew, or Pulpit, the Porch [Page 42] or Bell-free. Is't not enough to heare it [...] of, but we must come and see it acted? what are these Sacra­ments they speake of, but signes, and figures; and by what figure can they make us bee in love with signes? Or say that there bee some spirituall sacrifices expe­cted of us by our God; may wee [...] them with­out materiall Tables? yea and without materiall Chur­ches▪ on therefore Westwa [...]d ho, for Salem, and the free Gospell of New England. This is the knowledge in Divinitie you so much pretend to: which, wheresoe­ver you first learnt it, was never taught you, I am sure, in any of the bookes that you s [...]bscribed to, when you came to your place. We grant that those two Hymnes you speake of, are of excellent use: and purposely se­lected for the setting forth of Gods praise and glory, with an acknowledgement of our bounden duties to him, for his grace and goodnesse. But then the Litur­gie hath taught you, that the Lords Table is the proper place at which to celebrate the [...]emorie of our Savi­ours passion: [...]. which▪ the Priest standing at the same, and consecrating there the creatures of bread and wine, according to Christs holy institution, doth represent unto the people. And when, in testimonie of our common and publick gratitude for so great a mercie, we offer our whole selves unto him▪ both soule and body, we are enjoyned to doe it at or neere the same place also▪ [...]. And here O Lord wee offer and present unto thee, our selves, soules and bodies; here where thou hast been pleased to make us partakers of Christs bodie and bloud, and sealed unto our soules the benefits of his death and passion. Will you have more? The [...]f the Sa­c [...]ament part. 2. p. 203. Homi­lie hath told us, that ‘we are bound to render thanks to Almightie God for all his benefits briefely com­prised [Page 43] in the dea [...]h, passion, and resurrection of his dearely beloved Sonne, the which thing because we ought chiefly at this Table to solemnize,’ (marke you that, this Table?) the godly Fathers named it Eucha­ristia, that is, thanksgiving. Had I but such a Bandog, as your friend H. B. this Puritan Bull of yours might be better hai [...]ed, than his Popes Bull was. Your Popish lamb and Puritan Bull being both discarded by the Church, may goe both together But I must tell you ere we part, that that which I suspected is now come to passe, viz. that by your principles, every Cobler, Tinker, and other Artizan, may take his turne and minister at and on the holy Altar.

That which you shew us next, is but another [...], a quarrell about words and Phrases; touching the difference betweene p. 104. 105. commemoratio sacrificii, and a commemorative sacrifice: the first be­ing used, you say, by Chrysostome, K. Iames, and Pet. Lombard, S. Austin, Eusebius, and the book of Homilies; the later only by this wretched Doctor, and such un­lucky birds as he, the ragged regiment of P. Lombard. Which said, you presently confute your selfe, as your custome is, confessing that some p. 105. few learned men of the reformed Church, doe use the name of a Commemora­tive Sacrifice; and yet (God blesse them) are not brought within the compasse of that ragged regiment. But hereof wee have spoke already in the former Chapter. For Sacrifices next, you cannot possible ap­prove (which p. 10 [...]. Protestants and Papists doe joyntly denie) that ever materiall A [...]tar was erected in the Church, for the use of spirituall and improper sacrifices. Assuredly the Papists have good reason for what they doe; and if you grant them this position, simply, and [Page 44] without restriction; you give them all that they de­sire. For by this meanes they gaine unto them all the Fathers, who speake of Altars, passi [...], in their workes and writings; materiall Altars, questionlesse, made of wood or stone. And if materiall Altars were not made for improper sacrifices, you must needes gran [...] they had some proper sacrifices to be performed up­on those Altars: Besides, in case the note be true, that never materi [...]ll Altar was erected for a spirituall and im­proper sacrifice, and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be but a metaphoricall and improper sacrific [...], as p. 141. you elsewhere say; it may be done as well with­out a materiall Table, and any where as properly as in a materiall Church. Did you distinguish, as you ought, between the mysticall sacrifice in the holy Eucharist, commemorative and representative of our Saviours death; and those spirituall sacrifices, which every Christian man is bound to offer to the Lord, at all times and places: you would finde the vanitie and weaknesse of these poore Conclusions. Yet you goe forwards still on a full careere, and having filled your margin with an huddle of impertinent quotations, you fall at last on this fine fancie: p. 110. how that God suffered not the first Ages of the world for 1650. yeeres to passe away without prayers, and thanksgivings; and yet hee suffred it to passe without any Altars. May a man take it on your word, and not be called for it to an after rec­koning? Did you not say, the Page before, that Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice were relatives? and find wee not in holy writ that Cain and Abel brought their offrings to the Lord their God? their sacrifices as they are in­tituled, Hebr. 11. 4. if so, then by your owne rule doubt­lesse, there wore Altars also. Or if God suffered all [Page 45] that time to passe without any Altars; did it not passe away without any Tables, or any Churches that wee reade of? But see the charitie of the man, and his lear­ning too. For if the Doctor will p. 110. but promise not to disturbe the peace of the Church any more, this lusty Lad of Lincolnshire will finde him all the severall Altars, which have been spoke of by the Fathers for spirituall sacrifices. These wee shall meet withall hereafter, amongst your impertinencies. Meane time I passe my word to keepe covenant with you, and promise you sincerely before God and man, that as I never did, so I never will put my hand to any thing by which the Church may be disturbed. 1. King. 18. 18. You know Elijahs answere unto proud K. Ahab; It is not I, but thou and thy Fa­thers house that have troubled Israel.

From Altars we must follow you, as you lead the way, unto the Sacrifices of the Altar. Whereof though we have spoken before enough to meet with all your cavils: yet since you put me to the question, p. 115. where you may reade this terme of mine, Sacrifices of the Altar, if you reade not of them in the Sacri [...]ices of the Law; I will tell you where. Looke through the booke of Ge­nesis, and tell me if you meet not with many sacrifices, and sacrifices done on Altars, by Abel, Noah, Abraham, Iacob: sacrifices of the Altar, doubtlesse, and yet not sacrifices of the Law. The law you know was a Post­natus, not borne a long time after those good Patri­archs died; you cite the Cardinall rightly, that all the sacrifices which we reade of in the scripture, were necessarily to be destroied. But presently you change his termes, and for his sacrifices in the Scripture, put downe your sacrifices of the law; as if the Scrip­ture went no further than the Law of Moses. If in [Page 46] the ancient Fathers wee doe finde not in terminis, the sacrifice of the Altar, it helpes but little to your pur­pose: the Doctour no where saying that hee had it from them. And if they call it not interminis, the sa­crifice of the Altar, they call it so at least ex consequen­te, when they entitle the Lords Supper by the name of Sacrifice, and such a sacrifice as is to bee offred on a sacred or an hallowed Altar. And yet to satisfie your longing, it shall be hard but wee will finde it for you amongst the Ancients, and not consult the Index nei­ther. For what conceive you of S. Austin, was not hee an Ancient? and yet he cals it so interminis, without doubt or scruple. Cum ergo sacrificii sive Altaris [N. B.] [...]ive quarumcunque eleemosynarum, &c. in the Enchiri­dion ad Laurentium, cap. 110. of the Edition of Danaeus. Nor shall S. Austin goe alone: it being called so by Eccle [...]iae mos obtinuit ut Sacrificium Altaris, &c. in Ma [...]c. c. 44. Bede, no such verie puisnè, and that in terminis termi­nantibus, which is that you stand upon. But where you adde, that possibly the Ancient Fathers could not have any notice of this sacrifice of the Altar; p. 116. and for a proofe therof produce a passage from Arnobius: besides, what hath before been answered to the place it selfe, the Doctor cannot chuse but tell you, that you have used Arnobius worse, than any Gentile would have done. Arnobius was not asked, as you put the question, What are you Christians to performe no manner of sacri­fices at all? but whether the Christians thought that no such thing as sacrifice was at all proper to the Gods? Quid ergo? Sacrificia censetis nulla facienda? as your margin rightly. Nor doth Arnobius answere to the question, as you make him answer, no, not any at all: as if the Christiaus onely had had no sacrifices, or thought no kinde of sacrifice to be a fitting service for [Page 47] the heavenly powers: but ex Varronis vestri sententia, nulla; none, if wee may beleeve your owne Authour Varro, a learned man amongst your selves. Vt vobis non nostra, sed Va [...]ronis vestri sententia re­spon [...]eamus. l. 7 And this he makes non nostra, none of our opinion; though you most falsly make it both his and ours, that is, the Chri­stians of th [...]se times. You must bring better proofes than this, or else it will be possible enough that the an­cient Fathers might take notice of this Sacrifice of the Altar: which is the matter you denie, and to make good your negative, have thus used Arnobius.

But, as you say, the Doctor hath found it in the Bi­ble for all this, Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar: And so have you. Doe not you finde it in the Bible, as well as hee? Yes; but you know the meaning of it better than any Doctor of them all; better than Doctor Gentium, than S. Paul himselfe; ‘ For in good faith, say you, p. 117. if S. Paul should meane a materiall Altar for the Sacra­ment in that place (with reverence to such a chosen Vessell of the Holy Ghost, bee it spoken) it would prove the weakest argument that was ever made by so strong an Artist.’ Which said, you descant on it thus: ‘Wee have an Altar and a Sacrifice of the Altar, that you of the Circumcision may not par­take of. And have you so? That is no great won­der saith the Iew, when abundance of you Christians (the discipline of your Church being so severe) may not partake thereof your selves.’ And therefore you conclude, ‘That for S. Paul to fright the Iewes with the losse of that, which so many millions of Christi­ans were themselves bereaved of, had beene a very weake and feeble dehortation.’ Is not this V. p. 58. of the holy Table. ponere os in coelum, to out-face heaven it selfe, in calling thus in question the judgement and discretion of that great [Page 48] Apostle: Tu quis es, O homo; what art thou O man, that thou shouldest dare to dispute with Paul, and that upon such weake and feeble grounds? For good Sir, tell me where you finde that those degrees you speake of, and that [...] p. 117., that creeping on with time and le [...]sure unto the bosome of the Church; were knowne or practised in the time of this Apostle? Think you the discipline of the Church was grown to that se­veritie in so short a time, as that the Iewes might turn it back upon S. Paul, to elude his Argument? That ri­gour, those degrees, were never heard of in the Church, till a long time after, though by you made as old as the faith it selfe: there being mention in the Acts of many families baptized, not a few thousands of particular persons, which did not runne through all those wearisome wayes, before they were admitted to the blessed Sacrament. Or were it that those wea­risome wayes were travailed by the Christians in the Apostles time, before they were admitted to the Sacra­ment, yet were this but a sorry answere to his Argu­ment, how It would prove the wea­kest argument, &c. p. 117. weake soever you conceive it. The A­postles argument is de jure, of a right to eat; your an­swere is de facto, of the act of eating. Th [...]se of the Circumcision had no right to eate of the Christians Altar; simply and absolutely no right at all. The Ini­tiati had a kinde of right, nay a good jus ad rem, though in re they had not, and to this jus in re they tended by those steps and degrees you talke of. Because a stran­ger hath no right to my lands, have my children none? and yet my children must [...], tarry a while, ex­pect their time, before they enter into actuall possessi­on of them. What a Goliah have we here to encoun­ter David, what a Tertullus have we found, to dispute [Page 49] with Paul; what a Epiphan. lib. 1. haer [...]s. 28. n. 2. Cerinthus, to make head against S. Peter: yet lest S. Paul should goe alone, you let us have S. Ambrose to beare him companie: and hard it is to say which of the two you use most coursly. You tax S. Paul with weaknesse, but yet you do it with a salva reverentia, and with a reverence be it spoken. S. Ambrose findes not in you so much good manners, whom you have falsified of purpose to make the Apo­stles argument as weake, as you say it is. For thus you shut up your Censura, (or if you please your [...]) of the blessed Apostle. p. [...]. I will conclude with S. Ambrose, That we have nothing visible in all this dispu­tation of S. Paul, neither Priest, nor sacrifice, nor Altar: And then produce him in your margin, saying, Nihil hic visibile, neque Sacerdos, neque sacrificium, neque Al­tare, in 10. ep. ad Hebr. How you have falsified S. Am­brose, by turning Horum, into Hic, See the for­me [...] Chapter. wee have shewn before. The Father speakes there onely of spirituall sacrifices; and you will turne his horum into hic, as if he spoke there onely of the mysticall sacrifice. And were it hic in the originall of S. Ambrose, yet you are guiltie of another falshood against that Father by ren­dring it, in all this disputation. The Fathers hìc, if hee had said so, must have related to those points which were debated of, in the 10. Chapt. to the Hebr. whence the words were cited; and those spirituall sacrifices, which are there described, you, by an excellent Art of juggling, have with a Hocas Pocas brought it hither, and make us thinke it was intended for this hìc, this place, Heb. 13. 10. of which now we speake, and which hath been the ground of that disputation, which you conclude with, from S. Ambrose.

Vsing the Apostle, and the Fathers in so foule a fa­shion, [Page 50] it is not to bee thought you should deale more ingeniously with their Disciples. The servant is not above the Master; nor lookes for better usage from you, than hee hath done hitherto. Having concluded with S. Ambrose, your next assault is on the Doctor: whom you p. 12. report to be the first sonne of the reformed Church of England, that hath presumed openly to ex­pound this place of a materiall Altar; and y [...]t not constantly nei­ [...]her. [...]b. Not constantly, you say, but yet so expounded it. I beseech you, where? Not in the Coal from the Altar, there is no such matter. Take the words plainly as they lie, you shall finde them thus. ‘ And above all indeed, S. Paul in his Habemus altare, Hebr. p. 47. 13. 10. In which place whether he meane the Lords Table, or the Lords Supper, or rather the sacrifice it selfe, which the Lord once of­fred, certaine it is, that hee conceived the name of Altar, neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church.’ Finde you that hee expounds the place of a materiall Altar? or that hee only doth re­peat three severall expositions of it? Now of those expositions, one was this, that by those words, we have an Altar, S. Paul might mean we have a Table, where­of it was not lawfull for them to eate, that serve the Tabernacle. If this bee the materiall Altar, that you complaine of in the Doctors exposition; assuredly he is not the first sonne, by many of the Church of Eng­land, that hath so expounded it. The learned Bishop Answ. to Card. [...]eron. cap. 6. Andrewes doth expound it so. The Altar in the old Testament is by Malachi called Mensa Domini. And of the Table in the new Testament, by the Apostle it is said, Habemus Altare: which whether it be of stone as Nys­sen; or of wood, as Optatus, it skils not. So doth my Lord of Lincoln also, one of the sonnes, I trow, of [Page 51] the Church of England. Citing those words of Bishop Andrewes, p. 120. you adde immediatly, that this is the ex­position of P. Martyr mentioned in the letter ( i. e. my Lord of Lincolns letter to the Vicar of Grantham) that as sometimes a Table is put for an Altar, as in the first of Malachi: so sometimes an Al [...]ar may be put for a Table, as in this Epistle to the Hebrewes. Next looke into the Bishop of Chichester, Appello Cae [...] ­sarem. p. 286. who plainly tels you, ‘that the Lords Table hath beene called [...] from the beginning; not, as some falsly teach, by succeeding Fathers: and that S. Paul himselfe may seeme to have given authoritie and warrant to the Phrase,’ Hebr. 13. 10. The Doctor is not then the first sonne of the Church of England, that hath so expoun­ded it. Or if he were, hee hath a second, but such a second as is indeed Nulli secundus, for some things that I could tell you of, even your good friend the minister of Lincolnshire, one of the children of the Church, that writ the booke entituled the Holy Table. For presently upon the Bishop of Lincolns glosse, he addes p. 120. this de proprio, than the which solution there may be peradventure a more full; but there cannot bee [...] more plaine and conceiveable answere. I see you can make use sometimes of a leaden dagger, I am sure this fellow is a mighty weake pe [...]ce to take up this leaden dag­ger, &c. p. 118. though, as you tell us, throwne away by the very Papists; yet not so utterly throwne away, (as within two leaves af­ter you are pleased to tell us) but that it is still worne p. 121. by the Jesuites, Salmeron, the Remists, à Lapide, Harae­us, Tirinus, Gordon, Menochius, (and Cajetan) of which some are yet living, for ought I can heare. Nor doth your Authour say, it is throwne away, as if not service­able to this purpose: Pella [...]n. de Missa, l. 1. c. 14. but onely that non desunt ex Catholicis, some of the Catholick writers doe expound [Page 52] it otherwise. I hope you would not have all Texts of Scripture to bee cast away like leaden Daggers, be­cause, Non desunt ex Catholicis, some one or other learned man give such expositions of them, as are not every way agreeable unto yours and mine.

Now as the Doctor was the first Sonne of the Church of England, so was Se [...]ulius p. 121. the first Writer before the Reformation, that literally, and in the first place did bend this Text to the materiall Altar. Iust so I promise you, and no otherwise. Or had Sedulius beene the first, the exposition had not beene so moderne, but that it might lay claime to a faire antiquity. Sedulius lived so neare S. Austin, that hee might seeme to tread on his very heeles; the one being placed by Bellar­mine, an. 420. the other an. 430. but ten yeares after. And if the Cardinals note S [...]ripsit ex­planation [...]s in omnes Ep [...] ­stolas S▪ Pa [...]li, ex Origine, Am­brosio, Hi [...]ron [...] ­ [...], & Augu­st [...]no [...]. Ins [...]ript. Ecc [...]es. be true, that hee excerpted all his notes on S. Pauls Epistles, from Origen▪ Ambrose, Hierom, and Austin: for ought I know, his expositi­on of the place may bee as old, as any other whatsoe­ver. But for Sedulius, (wheresoever he had it) thus he cleares the place: Inlocum. Habemus nos fideles Altare, prae [...]er Altare Iudaeorum, unde corpus & sanguinem Christi participamus: i. e. The faithfull have an Altar, yet not the Iewish Altar neither, from whence they doe parti­cipate of Christs body & blood: That is plain enough, and yet no plainer than S. Chr [...]sost. though you have darkened him as much as possibly you can, to abuse the Father. p. 122. Chrysostome expounds it (as you say) of [...], of the things professed here amongst us: for proofe whereof you bring in Oecumenius with his [...], the Tenets, as it were, of Christian men. So that if you may bee beleeved, the Father, and his se­cond, doe expound the place, of the Doctrine, Te­nets, [Page 53] or profession of the Church of Christ. I [...] Hebr. 13. 1 [...]. First, to begin with Chrysostome, [...] The words you see, put neutrally, and so translated in the Latine, Non enim qualia sunt apud Iudaeos, talia etiam nostra sunt: That is, as I conce [...]ve his meaning, our Sacrifices, or our Sacraments are not such as the Iewish were, our Alt [...]r not as theirs, nor any of our Rites thereunto belonging. My reason is, because it followeth in the Father, [...]; so that it is not lawfull, no not to the High-Priest himselfe, to partake thereof. Of what I pray you? Not of the things professed in the Christian Church? I hope you will not say, but it was lawfull to the Priests to be partakers of the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour. Why did the Apostles preach unto the Iewes, in case it were not lawfull for them to make profession of the Faith? Therefore the Father must needs meane the Christians Sacrifices, (perfor­med upon the Altar which the Apostle speakes of) of which it was not lawfull for the High-Priest (conti­nuing as he was, High-Priest) to bee partaker. And this I take the rather to have beene his meaning, because Theophylact who followed Chrysostome so exactly Ita Chryso­stomum secutus est, ut ejus ab­breviator dici possit. Bell. de scrip. Eccl., that hee doth seeme to have abridged him; doth thus des­cant on it. ‘ [...], &c. Having before said ( v. 9.) that no regard was to be had of meats, lest our owne Ordinances [ [...]] might bee thought contemptible, as things unobserved; hee addes, that we have Ordinances of our own, [ [...]] not about meats, (as were the Iewes) [...], but such as doe concerne the Altar, [...]. In locum. or the unbloody sacri­fice [Page 54] of Christs quickning body. Of which, which sa­crifice [ [...]] it is not lawfull for the Priests to bee partakers, as long as they doe service to the Tabernacle; i. e. the legall signes and shadows.’ The like saith also Oecumenius with his [...], which you have Englished Tenets, with the like felicitie, as you did the [...] in Chrysost. For Oecumenius saying as Theophylact had done before, because the A­postle had affirmed, ‘That no regard was to bee had of meates, &c. hee addes, [...]; and have not we also our owne Or­dinances or observations? To which hee answers with Theophylact, but a great deale plainer, Yes, [...] ^. not of meats, but of our Altar.’ If you goe downe ward to the Latines, they are cleare as day. Haymo who lived about the yeare [...]0. affirmes expresly on the place, Altare Ecclesiae est, ubi quotidie corpus consecratur Chri­sti; that is the Altar of the Church, whereon the bo­dy of Christ is daily consecrated. And so Remigius, who lived, and writ about those times; Ha [...]emus ergo Altare Ecclesiae, ubi consecratur corpus Dominicum; the same in sense, though not in words, with that of Haymo. This, Doctor Fulk, almost as great a Clerke as you, conceives to bee so really intended by Oecumenius and Haymo Defence of the transl. c. 17. [...]. 17., that he reports, that they did doate upon the place; even as you say p. 119., the Doctor melts upon the place. But say you what you will. As long as hee can back it with so good authority, the Doctor will make more of Habemus Altare, than before hee did; though you should raise Iohn Philpot from the dead to expound it otherwise; as neare told he did in the Acts and Mon. p. 90. of your holy Table.

[Page 55] From the Apostles Text, both re & nomine, pro­ceed wee to the Apostles Canons, nomine at the least, if not re also; which, if not writ by them, are by the Doctor said to be of good antiquity; nor doe you de­ny it: Onely you [...]ling them off with a Schoole-boyes jest, p. 170. affirming confidently, that all good Schollers reckon those Canons but as so many Pot-gunnes. Not all good Scholers certainly; you are out in that. What thinke you of my Lord of Chichester, of whom the Doctor and the Minister of Linc. too p. 95. may well learne as long as they live? He, a geod Scholler in your own confession, doth not alone call them the Apostles Ca­nons, Preface to M. Io. Selden, p. 53. but cites the 40 of them, as a full and strong authority to prove, that by the ancient Canons Church­men had leave to give, and bequeath their Goods and Chattels by their last Will and Testament. And this, in his reply unto Io. Selden, whom he knew too well, to thinke hee would give back at the report or blow of a School-boyes Pot-gunne. Next where those three Canons that the Doctor cited, doe speake so clearly of the Altar, and that by the same name, [...], used by the Apostle to the Hebrewes, that there is no deniall of it, you flie unto your wonted refuge, a scornfull and prophane derision: p▪ 170. Hee that shall read, say you, what is presented on these Altars for the maintenance of the Bishop and his Clergie, will con­ceive them rather to bee so many Pantries, Larders, or Store-houses, than consecrated Altars. Persius Sat. [...]. O Curvae in terris animae, & coelestium inanes! So dead a soule, so void of all coelestiall impressions, did I never meet with. I am confirmed now more than ever, for the first Author of the Dresser; otherwise you had never beene allowed and licensed to call it as you doe, a Pan­trie, [Page 56] or a Larder, and a Store-house. I see there is good provision towards, and as much devotion. Your Pig [...] ­on-house wee have seene already Cap. 2., and Pottage you will serve in presently, if we can bee patient. Larders we have, and Store-houses, and Pantries, which portend good cheare. Thinke you a man that heares you talke thus, would not conceive your Kitchin were your Chappell; the Dresser in the same, your High-Altar; and that your Requiem Altars were your Larder, Pan­trie, and Store-house? Get but a Cooke to bee your Chaplaine, and on my life, Comus the old belly god amongst the Gentiles, was never sacrificed unto with such propriety of V [...]ensils, and rich magnificence, as you will sacrifice every day to your Quo [...]um Deus [...]st ven­ter. god, your Belly. Nor need you feare that your estate will not hold out: I hope you are a provident Gentleman, and make your Altars bring you in▪ what your Altars spend you. For say you not in that which followeth, p. 1. 0. that Iu­das his bagge may with as good reason, as these Tables, bee called [...]n Altar? I wonder what fine adjunct you will finde out next. You cannot probably goe on, and not set downe ad mens [...]m daemonio­rum, that Table of Devils which Saint Paul speakes of. Iudas his bagge? Just so, yet you would shift this off unto Baronius, as you have done the Dres­ser on the rude people of Grantham. Baronius, as you say, implieth it. Doth he so indeed? All that Baroni [...] saith, is this, Ann. A. 57 that those who ministred in the Church, did from the first beginnings of the Church receive their maintenance from the oblations of the faithfull. Immo cum adhuc dominus supe [...]stes,&c. And that the Lord himselfe when he preached the Gospell, used from these offerings to provide for himselfe and his. For [Page 57] Iudas (saith S. Iohn) bearing the bagge, Ea qu [...] mitte­bantur, portabat, did carrie up and downe that store which was sent in to him. What say you? doth the Cardinall imply in this, that Iud [...]s his bagge, may with good reason (any how) be called an Altar? Take heed of Iudas and his [...]agge, of Iudas and his qualities; for feare you come unto that end that Iudas did.

Your answers to the Doctors allegations from Ig­natius, must be looked on next. And first the Doctor findes, [...] one Altar, in his Epistle ad Mag­nesios. p. 168. You answer first, that by Vedelius this is thought to bee a supposititious fragment taken out of the Constitutions of Clemens: and yet proclaime it in your margin, that this doth not appeare so clearely to you, as to rest upon it. You answer secondly, that this was brought in by the Doctor only to make sport. How so? Because, say you, the Altar there, is Iesus Christ. In that before, you left Vedelius, your good friend and helper in all this businesse; and here he leaves you, to cry quit [...]. Searching as curiously as hee could, what to except against in all these Epistles, hee lets this go by. A pregnant evidence that hee knew not what to say against it. Runne, saith the Father, all of you as one man to the Temple of God, [...], as to one Altar, to one Iesus Christ: i. e. say you, who better understood the Fa­ther, than he did himselfe; runne all of you to one Ie­sus Christ, as to one Altar. This is your old trick to abuse your Readers, and mak [...] your Authors speak what they never meant. The Father spake before of prayer, of common prayers to bee poured forth by all the people, [...] in the selfe same place, in faith and love. And then exhorts them to runne [Page 58] together to the Church to pray, as to one Altar, to participate, as to one Iesus Christ, the High Priest of all. Had it been [...], the matter had been cleere on your side. But the distinction and repeating of the preposition, the [...] and [...], make a different businesse. The se­cond place produced by the Doctor from Ignatius, was that Ad Ph [...]lad. of [...] where he makes mention of the unity that ought to be retained in the Church of God; and then brings in amongst the rest, one Bread broke for all, one Cup distributed to all, one Altar also in every Church, together with one Bishop, &c. To this you answer, that in the place to the Philadelphians, hee doth ex­presse himselfe to meane by Altar, [...], the Councell of the Saints, and Church in generall, and not any materiall Altar, as Vedelius proves at large. And do they so indeed? That passage which you speak of, is in the Epistle ad Ephesios. And do you think he tels the Ephesians what hee did meane by Altar in his Epistle to the Philadelphians? This is just like the Germans beating down of Altars, because the people here in England were scandalized with them in our countrey Churches. Then for Vedelius, proves he, as you affirme, that by Altar here, Ignatius meanes not any materiall Altar, but the Councell of the Saints, the Church in generall? In the Epistle to the Ephesians he doth indeed correct magnificat (as your own phrase is) and play the Critick with the Author; making him say, [...], for [...] whereof we shall say more hereafter in our perusall and ex­amination of your Extravagancies. But in this place hee deales more fairely, and understands him as the [Page 59] Doctor doth: for reckoning up foure kindes of Altars in the Primitive Church, he makes the fourth and last to be mensa Domini, qua utebantur in sacra coena per­agenda, the table of the Lord, used in the [...]elebrating of the holy supper. Then addes, that Hanc men­sam Patres in­terdum etiam Altare vocant▪ Exercit. 6. [...]. 1. sometimes by the Fathers, this table is also called an Altar, and for the proofe thereof brings in this, [...], which the Doctor mentioned. So that you have belied the Father and your friend to boot. Lastly, for that of [...], Gods Altar, in his Epistle ad Tarsenses, the whole place is this. [...], &c. Those that continue in the state of Virginitie, honour yee as the Priests of Christ; [...], those which are widowes indeed, (in the Apostles language) or which p. 168. uphold their chastitie (as your selfe translates it) ho­nour ye as the Altars of God. These are his words di­stinctly, and what [...]ind you here? Marry you say, some knavish scholler exscribed the passage for him to make sport withall: and that the Altar there intended becomes much better the upper end of his Table, than the upper end of his Church; a plaine widow-Altar; Which said, you bring in one of your young Schollers with a bawdy Epigramme, unfit to bee inserted into any booke of a serious Argument; but more unfit to bee approved, allowed, and licenced, by any Ordinarie: But Sir, however you are pleased to make your selfe prophanely merry in these sacred matters, the place is plaine enough to prove an Altar; and more than so, a reverence due unto the Altar, in Ignatius time: the men of Tarsus be­ing here advised to honor chast and vertuous widowes, as they did Gods Altar. And for the widow that you wot of, if you have any speciall aime therein (as some [Page 60] think you have) shee may returne that answer to you, which once Octavia's Chamber- [...]aid Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. prope finem. gave to Tigelli­nus; which I had rather you should look for in the Au­thor, than expect from me.

The place from lib. 4. c. 20. Iren [...]eus, by which he proved the Apostles to bee Priests, because they did Deo & Al­tariservire, attend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at the Altar; you make p. 165. to be an Allegory, and no more than so: But Bishop Montague of Chiche­ster, of whom the Doctor (as you bid him) will thinke no shame to learne as long as hee lives, Appello Ca [...]em, p. [...]6. findes more matter in it, and saith that Irenaeus, lib. 4. c. 20. spe [...]keth of the ministers of the new Testament, not of the old, that they doe Deo & Altari deservi [...]e: which is the very same that the Doctor said. Are not you scitus scrip­tor, a very proper squire, to quarrell with the exposi­tion of a man, whose bookes you are not fit to carry? what may be further said out of Irenaeus for sacrifices, Priests, and Altars, wee have shewn you in the former Chapter. Next for Tertullian, the Doctor gave [...]. p. 46. you thence two places, one from his booke de oratione, Si & adaram Dei steteris: the other out of that de poeni­tentia, Adgenic [...]lari aris Dei. Not to say any thing in this place of the St [...]tions mentioned in the first of those two passages [ nonne solemnior erit statiotua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris?] you answer first unto the first, p. 160. that by this Ara Dei, Tertullian in his African and [...]f­fected stile meanes plainely the Lords Table. Why man, who ever doubted it? What saith the Doctour more than this? Tertullian (are not these his words?) hath the name of Altar, as a thing used and knowne in the Christian Church: as, nonne solemnior erit statio tua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris? what finde you there, but [Page 61] that the Lords Table in Tertullians [...]ime, was called Ara Dei, Gods Altar; you might have saved your labour, of running into France for my As the Lord du Ples [...]is doth acknowledge. p. 1 [...]0. Lord du Pl [...]ssis, unlesse hee could have told you that Tertullian meant some other thing in his Ara Dei; or that the name of Altar was not a thing then knowne and used in the Christian Church. Tertullian did indeed affect a litle of the Afri­can, in all his stile. But his said affectation doth appeare in nothing here, save that hee useth the word Ara, when as, in that proprietie of speech which generally was observed in Christian Writers, hee should have used the word Altare. Nor need you take such paines to adde some reason for your opinion, that there by Ara Dei, Tertullian plainely meaneth the Lords Table; being a matter never questioned. And yet to shew your mighty reading, and that you have a great deale of the Critick in you: you fall into a tale of I know not what, that Ara in Tertullian doth not signifie an Altar, but any hillock or advantage of gro [...]nd. Once in Tertullian so it signifieth, as in that de Pallio. And ther­fore must it here be ara Dei, at Gods hillock, or (as your selfe translate it after) the rising of Almighty God? But herein you mistake the point extremely, as in all things else: The proper signification of the word, is Altar, as you may see in Varro de lingua latina, lib. 5. and Isidore de Origin. lib. 15. c. 4. used for a banke or hillock by a Metaphor onely, as in that de Pallio. So that to call the Table ara, onely because it was a kinde of ri­sing above the pavement; and to call banks or risings aras, because of that similitude they had to Altars: were to runne round in circulo, and borrow Meta­phors from metaphors, ad infinitum. And yet you take away this Metaphor also, by telling us immediately, [Page 62] that Tertullian by alluding to the reservations from the Heathen Altars, doth call the Communion-Table Ara Dei, Gods Altar. Doth he so? That's well. You give as much in this, as one needs desire, that were not too insatiably covetous. How you mistake Tertullian in his reservare & accipere, we shall see hereafter.

For the next place, Adgeniculari aris Dei, you tell us that it is runne out of the text; p. 1 [...]2. and adgeniculari c [...]aris Dei put in stead thereof: the alteration being made by Pamelius, approved by all men else, besides this poore Doctor. Approved by all men else? most con­fidently said indeed, but most weakely proved. What thinke you of Hospinian, whose judgement you relie upon in other matters of this nature? Meminit enim & Tertullianus adgeniculationis poenitentium ad aras, in l. de poenitentia. So he, in his discourse de origine Altari­um, published in the yeere 1603. What thinke you of Laurentius Renatus de la Barre, who reades it, as the Doctor doth; Adgeniculari aris Dei; And thereupon inferres, Hic vides antiquitus, Altaria venerationi fuis­se, quibus adgenicularentur: By which (saith hee) you may perceive that anciently the Altars were had in reverence, and that the people kneeled before them? What think you of Beatus Rhenanus, who doth not only reade it aris Dei, and makes that inference there­upon, which out of him was taken by de la Barre: but brings a testimony from S. Ambrose, that in those anci­ent times they did os [...]ulis quoque honorare, honour the Altars with their kisses? What thinke you, finally, of Stephanus Durantis, which also reades it, Aris Dei, lib. de Ritib. Eccl. 1. cap. 15? You see Sir, here are some besides the poore Doctor that approve of the ancient reading: and for your new readings, as many times [Page 63] they have their uses, so other whiles they make an Author speake what hee never meant: the liberty of correcting and criticizing being growne so high, and that of falsifying (you know it by your selfe) so univer­sall▪ th [...]t the old Copies may bee thought to be the tru­est: And I am partly in these matters of old Timons minde, who being asked by Aratus ^g how hee might get a perfect Copie of Homers Workes, returned this answer, that hee should looke abroad for one of the old Editions, and not looke after those of the new cor­rections: [...]. You see the Doctors are divided, and that both Readings have their Patrons, and some that lived since the old reading was cast out of the Text [...]pp [...]sed by all learned men t [...]at have lived, since Pamelius time. p. 165. by Pamelius, have not for all that taken up his Charis Dei; much lesse opposed the old, as you idly dreame. As for your sally on the Author of the Latine determination, which you speake of, p. 163. the Pocket-Author, as you call him, sicut tuus est mos, according to your wonted fashion of casting dirt on all you meet wi [...]h; I leave him to himselfe; it concernes not mee: Aetatem habet, hee is of age to doe you rea­son, as well in this, as in that other quarre [...]l which you have against him, and which you fall upon unseasona­bly, but that you love to be in action, p. 192. All that I meane to doe, is to divide the winde and Sunne be­tweene you, and see faire play on both sides, if you should chance to enter the lists about it.

And so wee will proceed unto S. Cyprian, of▪ whom the Doctor told you in his p. 4 [...]. Coal from the Altar, that in his Ep. ad Epictetum, he plainly cals it Altare D [...]i▪ Gods Altar. But there, say you, p. 166▪ he meanes by Altar, Sti­pes, oblationes, lucra, the contributions, offerings, and [Page 64] all advantages belonging to the mans Bishoprick whom they had suspended. This you affirme indeed, but with as little proofe, as truth. The words are plainly other­wise, but that you have an itch that will never leave you, to make your Authors speake what they never meant. Now thus stood the case: One Cypr. Ep. li. 1. ep. 7. Fortunatia­nus having Apostated in the time of persecution, and thereupon being deprived of his Bishoprick, would enter on his charge againe without more adoe, not be­ing reconciled unto the Church. This the good Fa­ther there complains of, that he should dare to enter on the Priesthood, which he had betrayed, Qu [...]si post aras Diaboli, accedere ad aras Dei fas sit, as if it were a thing of nothing to come immediately from the Devils Altars to the Altar of God. Is this to talke of offerings, contributions, and matters of profit? After indeed, hee mentioneth Stipes & Oblationes, but nei­ther in this very case, nor any thing unto this pur­pose; which you know well enough, though contra­ry unto your knowledge, you bring in those words to stop a gappe withall, and for no use else. That in the eighth Epistle, unum Altare, & unum Sacerdo­tium, doth signifie, you say, the summe and substance of the Gospell; why doe you not make use of the same construction for the [...] in Ignatius, before remembred, rather than runne as farre as Ephesus for a bald device, to blinde the lustre of the place? Both places intimate this onely, that in one Church, there was not, in those early dayes, above one Altar; and may bee serviceable as others of this nature are, against the Pluralitie of Masses in the Church of Rome; many of which you have in Bishop Iewell, Art. 13. § 6. But that it should be thence con­cluded, [Page 65] that there S. Cyprian onely means p. 166. the summe and substance of the Gospell; is to make aliquid ex nihi­lo, so it serve your purpose: Or if it could bee thence collected, it could not but be much unto the honour of the Altar, and the Priesthood, both, that those two words should comprehend the whole bodies of religi­on, and yet the Priesthood and the Alter might stand well enough for all that collection. Nor need wee feare, that following this Interpretation, The Pope­dome Ibid. would be set up and erected in every Parish Church in England, because forsooth the Father speaks of una Cathedra in the words before. Saith not Igna [...]ius, [...], one onely Bishop in a Church, as before was said. Neither of them I trow endeavoured to advance the Popedome, but, that for the avoiding of schismes and divisions there ought to bee one Bishop onely with­in one Diocese; whereof see Bishop Iewel Article. passim, in that of the Supremacy: And as one Bishop, so one Priest­hood, and one Altar onely in each Church, on the self­same reason. The like may bee replied to your evasion from S. Cyprians meaning in his Cited in the Co [...]l. p. 46. ninth Epistle, of which you tell us, as before, that hee meanes there by Altar the Ministeriall functions and offices. If so, it were but pars pro toto, the chiefest and most excellent part of the whole Ministerie put for all the rest. But are you sure of what you say? are you sure of any thing? Saint Cyprian speakes five times of Altars in that one Epistle, foure times of Sacrifices and Altars: Thinke you hee meanes in every place the Ministeriall functions and offices? What say you then to this? Nequ [...] enim meretur nominari ad Altare Dei in Sacerdotum prec [...], qui ab Altare sacer [...]otes avocare voluit: What signifieth Altare in the first place thinke you? What? [Page 66] the materiall Altar, or the [...] function: However you may wrest this meaning in the later clause, to the Priestly function, yet in the first you cannot possibly give him any other meaning, than that the Priests officia­ted at the reall and materiall Altar. For shame d [...]ale better with the Fathers, and let them speake their mindes, according to the liberty of th [...]se most pure and pious times; without those base disg [...]ises which you put upon them, onely to blinde your readers eyes, and abuse Antiqui [...]ie.

Thus have I given you a briefe view in these two last Chapters, of the chiefe point in controversie, be­tweene the Doctor and your selfe; and hunted you as well as my poore wits would serve me, out of all your starting holes. Altars, and Priests, and Sacri [...]ces be­ing Relatives, as you say your selfe, I have layed down in the first place the Orthodox and ancient doctrine of the Church, concerning Sacrifice; followed it in the way of an historicall narration, from Abel downe to Noah, from him to Moses, from Moses to Christ, who instituted, as S. Irenaeus hath it, the new sacrifice of the new Testament; novam oblationem novi Testamen­ti, in this Fathers language. This sacrifice thus insti­tuted by our Lord and Saviour, the Church received from the Apostles, Quam ab Apostolis Ec­clesiae accipi­ens, in univer­so mundo of­fe [...]t Deo. Lib. 4. cap. 32. and offers it accordingly to the Lord our God, throughout the habitable world: the passage and descent whereof from the Apostles times, untill S. Austins, wee have traced and followed. And wee have also found, that from the first times to the last, there was no sacrifice performed without Priests, and Altars; excepting those spirituall S [...]crifices, which every man is bound to offer, in what place soever. All which, both Altars, Priests, and sacrifice, we have di [...] ­covered [Page 67] to you in the Church of England, Cap. 7. out of the publick monuments and Records thereof; and that so answerably unto the Patternes of Antiquitie, as if it had beene [...] the ancient Fathers, than the [...] have cleared up those mists, which you endeavoured to cast upon the ancient Writers, that so your Readers might not see the true intent and meaning of those passages, w ^ch concern this Argument; those most especially whereby you would perswade weake men, such as are bound to take your word without further search, that in the Primitive Church, there was neither Altar, Priest, not Sacrifice, truly and properly so called: which what a ruine and confusion it would bring in the Church of God, ta­king away all outward worship, enabling every man to the Priestly function, robbing the Church of all the re­verence due unto it; no man knowes better than your selfe, who have endevoured to promote that doctrine for this purpose onely, that you may be cryed up, and honoured as the Grand Patron and defender of mens Christian libertie. Finally▪ I have answered unto all those Cavils and exceptions w ^ch you had made against the Allegations and Authorities pressed and produced by the Doctor against the Writer of the Letter to the Vicar of Granthan; and left him statu quo, in the same case wherein you found him, all your assaults and stratagems of fraud and falshood notwithanding. But this in reference onely to the thing it selfe, that the Church had Altars in those early and dawning dayes of Christianity; we will next looke upon the place and situation of them, what you say to that.

CHAP. VII.
Of Churches, and the fashion of them, and of the usuall place allotted in the Church for the holy Altar.

Places appointed for Divine worship amongst the Patriarchs, Iewes, and Gentiles. The various conditions and esta [...]te of the Christian Church, and that the Churches were accor­ding unto those estates. What was the meaning of the Apo­log [...]ticks, when they denyed the having of Temples in the Church of Christ. The Minister of Linc. stops the mouth of Minutius Felix, and falsifieth Arnobius. Altars how situated in the troublesome and persec [...]ted times of Christianity. The usuall forme of Churches, and distinct part [...] and places of them in the Primitive times. That in those times the Altars stood not in the body of the Church, as is supposed by the Mi­nister of Linc. Six reasons for the standing of the Altars at the upper end of the Quire or Chancell in the dayes of old. Of Ec­clesiasticall traditions, and the authority thereof. The Church of England constant to the practice of the former times. The Minister of Linc. tels a Winter tale about the standing of an Altar in the Cathedrall Church of Dover. The meaning of the Rubrick in the Common-prayer-booke, about the placing of the Table in Communion tim [...]; as also of the 82 Canon of the Church of England.

IT is well noted by our incomparable Hoo [...]ker, ‘That solemne duties of publick ser­vice to bee done unto God, must have their places set and prepared in such sort, as beseemeth actions of that regard.’ Which layed for his foundation, he thus builds upon it, ‘that Adam, even during the space of his small continuance, in [Page 69] Paradise, had where to present himselfe before the Lord, Gen. 3. 8. that Adams sonnes had out of Para­dise in like sort, whither to bring their Sacrifices, Gen. 4. 3. that the Patriarchs used Altars, and Moun­taines, and Groves to the self-same purpose, Gen. 13. 4. & 22. 1. & 21. 33. that in the wildernesse, when as the people of God had themselves no setled habita­tion, yet were they then commanded by God to make a moveable Tabernacle; and finally, that the like charge was given them against the time that they should come to settle themselves in the Land, which had beene promised to their Fathers.’ Nature infor­med them in the maine, that proper and peculiar pla­ces were to bee set apart to Gods publick worship, and God himselfe informed them in the circumstance thereof, for the forme and fashion, both when the Church was moveable▪ and when after setled. The Tabernacle fashioned by his direction, was a moveable Temple; the Temple fashioned by that patterne, was a settled Tabernacle. Each of them had their Courts, their Sanctum, and their Sanctum Sanctorum, accor­ding to the severall Ministeries by the Law required: which distribution stood in force, as long as there was any Temple so to be distributed, and any Ministeries in the same to be performed. A Temple, whilest it stood, of most rich magnificence; immensae opulentiae Templum, as Hist. lib. 5. Tacitus most truly called it; and such as Titus labo­red to preserve with all might and cunning, at the de­struction of the Citie; knowing right well, [...], Joseph. Hist. de bellis Ind [...] ­orum. that the subversion of it would redound unto the losse and prejudice of the Romane Empire. A Temple on the which the people of the Ie [...]es had severally bestowed their costly offerings, as [Page 70] occasion was: and to the which the Kings of Asia, Ant [...]q. I [...]d. lib. 13. cap. 6. [...], as Iosephus tels us, had sent both many and those royall and magnificent pre­sents, in testimonie of their service to the God of Is­rael. Nor was it otherwise with the Gentiles, than with Gods owne people. At first they worshipped their Gods sub dio, in the open aire: the Grecians sa­crificing unto Aesculapius [...] on the mountaine tops, as the Bithynians did unto all their deities.

Now as they had their high places, their montium ca­cumina, as mine Authour cals them; so had they groves also as the Patriarks had; and sacrificed unto their Gods under woods and trees. [...] The grove of Hercules neere Athens, and that of Vesta neere mount Palatine, were very famous in old time [...]. Some such there was in Carthage whereof Virgil [...] speaks, Lucus in urbe fuit mediâ, laetissimus umbra. And Ser­vius notes [...] upon the place, that Virgil never speakes of groves, but you must take them to bee consecrated; and nunquam sine religione▪ in his Scholia on the third of the Aen [...]ids. So Lucan tels us of the Druydes, Pha [...] sal. l. 1. Ne­mora alta remotis incolitis Lucis, that they delighted most in high woods, and private groves: the Oake being principally affected by them, whence [...] they had their name. But when the Lord had fixed his people in the Land of Canaan, and given them leave to build a Tem­ple to his name: that grant was forthwith apprehen­ded by the Gentiles also, in their magnificent structures of the selfe same kinde. The forme and distribution generally the same with that of Salomons: the Tem­ples of the Gentiles being divided into three parts al­so; viz. the Courts or Areas, the body of the same which they called Basilicas, and last of all their Adyta, [Page 71] or Penetralia. The Areas of their Temples, Rosinus Aut. Rom. l. 2. c. 2. the Porti­cos, and the Nave or bodie of them, were suffered to be used sometimes for walking, conference, and such civill businesses: but for their Adyta, Iul. Pollux li [...]. 2. c. 1. n. 8. they were con­ceived to be [...], not to be looked into or touched, but by the Priests. These [...], the Latines generally called Penetralia, as before was said: Caesar, Bellicivilis lib. 3. occulta & remota Templi, the hidden and remote parts of the Temple; and addes withall quo praeter sacerdotes adire fas non est, that it was lawfull unto none besides the Priests to goe into them. Final­ly, for the costly offerings bestowed upon them, and those rich presents which occasionally had been sent unto them: take once for all, that Temple of Apollo in Delphos, whereof the Historian Iustin. hist. [...]ib. 24. thus informes us. Multa ibi & opulenta Regum populorum (que) visuntur mu­nera, quaeque magnificentia sui, reddentium vota gratam voluntatem, & deorum responsa manifestant.

Thus also was it with the Christians in the Primi­tive times, compelled too often, to hold their mee­tings and assemblies, as Bishop Iewell rightly notes it, in vacant places, in woods and forrests, and caves under the ground. And after as by sufferance or by speciall favour, they were permitted to build them Oratories, for the publick use: they neither built them in such sumptuous manner, as might have drawne upon them the Common envie of the Gentiles; or furnished them in such rich sort as might have been a burden to them­selves in their poore estate. But when the Church was setled, and had got the better hand of her cruell enemies; Temples in all parts were erected: the whole world seeming to exult that opportunity was given to poure out its treasures to so good a purpose. To these [Page 72] three periods, we may reduce what ever is to be ob­served in the present businesse. Touching the first, it is that we are told by Platina, in vit. Ca­listi. Occulta esse omnia, & sacella potius at que etiam abdita, & plerumque subter­ranea. Churches they had, places designed and set apart for their holy exercises; but poore and meane, and almost hidden from mens eyes, agreeable unto the present state in the which they were. However being destinate to those holy uses, they were not suffe­red to bee defiled and abused by prophane imploy­ments. That of S. Paul, 1. Cor. 11▪ 22 Have yee not Houses to eate and drinke in, discovers manifestly that there was a difference to be made between house and house, be­tween Gods house and mans, the places of religious and civill meetings. Now as there was a difference between house and house; so in the selfe same house, there was a difference between place and place: that which was separated for the Priest and the holy Sacra­ment, not being to bee pressed into by the Common people. And of the people there were some that might approch more neere to the holy places, than the others could: which is a thing so knowne, that no man which pretends to learning did ever doubt it. The second period was when the Church had rest, what times the Christians set themselves to build them Churches: Churches, I meane, avowed for such, and publickly frequented for religious meetings, visible as well unto the Gentiles as unto the faithfull, and well knowne to be so. The first observed by Polydor Virgil, de Invent. [...]rum. l. 5. c. 6. to have been publickly avowed in Rome, being that of therm [...] Novuti invico Patritio, consecrated by Pope Pius the first, An. 150. or thereabouts, by the name of S. Prudentianae. Another Church (but somewhat af­ter [Page 73] this) doth Platina remember in vita Ca­lixti. to have been built by Pope Calixtus, in regione Transtyberina, and dedica­ted by the name of the Blessed Virgin. But for a gene­rall view of their works of this kind, we may best take it from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 8. cap. [...]. who speaking of the calme that was between the ninth and tenth persecutions, informes us of the Christians, that not content with those small Churches which before they had, they built them fairer, and more large, in every citie. But take his owne words with you for your more assurance. [...]. Where you may also see, that they had Churches [...], as before hee cals them) in the former times, but meane and small, agreeable unto those mise­rable and calamitous dayes. Nor was it long before those Churches built so lately, Ibid. cap. 2 were all againe demo­lished by Dioclesian; and so continued till the time of the Emperour Constantine: what time being raised more beautifully, than before they had beene; they were set out and furnished with all costly furnitures. So that when Iulian was in state, who next but one succeeded Constantine in the Roman empire, and that the treasures of the Church were made a pray unto the spoiler: Felix the Proconsul Theodor. hist. eccl. l. 3. c. 11. could not chuse but breake out into this expression, [...], behold in what rich utensiles they doe administer to the Sonne of Marie. Nor was it ever thought till now, in these later dayes, that God created such and so many glorious things, to be served only with the basest.

This ground-work laied, we may the better see what wee have to say to those objections, which are [Page 74] and have beene made out of the Apol [...]geticks of thos [...] times, to prove that in those early daies of Christi­anity there were no Churches. And this I will the rather do, because the Authors which you have pro­duced against the being of Altars in the Christians Churches, conclude aswell, that then they had no Churches for religious uses: which being examined in this place, will more cleerely manifest what kinde of Altars, and what kinde of Churches, were then enqui­red of by the Gentiles, and in what sence the having of them was denied by the Christian writers. Now they that gave the hint unto this surmise, lived either in the heat of persecution, when as the faithfull were dispersed, and neither durst or could be suffered to meet in publick: or else considering that their Chur­ches were but mean and poore, they did not use to call them Temples; as did the Gentiles those magnifi­cent and stately structures, which had been consecra­ted to their Idols. When therefore they were cha­lenged by the Gentiles to render an accompt of their religion; and were demanded why they had no Al­tars: they were interrogated also why they had no Churches. Not any of those Authors which you have produced, but speak of one as well as the other: the objection being made of both, and the answere unto both set down accordingly. Origen mentions [...], as well as [...]. Minutius Felix, hath his Templa nulla, with his Aras nullas: and of Arnobius it Con [...]. Gent. lib. 6. in initio. was asked, cur neque sacras aedes venerationis ad officia constru­amus; as well as non Altaria fabricemus. In the re­porting of which Authors you leave out whatsoever doth relate to not having Churches; as if the Quaere only were of not having Altars in those Churches, and [Page 75] therefore cut Minutius off at cur nullas aras, not suf­fering him to come forth with his Templa nulla. As for Arnobius, you deale worse with him, than with Minutius, and make the Gentiles put the question, p. 156. why they (the Christians) built no Altars, venerati­onis ad officia, to officiate upon in any kind of divine wor­ship: when as the question was not why they had no Altars to officiate on; but why they had no Churches to officiate in. Is this faire dealing think you, in a great Professour?

Then for the Answers to these Cavils, in case they must be understood simply and absolutely, ibid. as you please to say in the case of Altars: then will it follow thereupon, not only that they had no Churches, but that they ought to have none neither. You grant your selfe, that there were Altars in the Church in Tertulli­ans time; and Churches you must also grant, because you finde it in Tertullian, who makes mention of them, lib. ibid. de Idol. c. 7. ad uxorem l. 2. cap. 9. de veland. virg. cap. 3. & 13. and also in his book de Corona militis, which makes it plain, that whereas Origen and Minutius Felix lived both after him, and yet reply unto the Quaere of the Gentiles, that they had neither Temples, nor Altars: it must be understood, not absolutely and simply, as you simply say, as if they had no Churches, or no Altars in them; but with relation to those Temples, and those Altars, which were so honoured by the Gentiles. The like is also to bee said unto Arnobius, who living in those very times which Eusebius speaks of, wherein the Christians did inlarge their Churches, and publick Oratories; cannot bee understood so absolutely and simply, as you and Potest in­telligi simpli­cit [...]r, quod nul­la haberent simpliciter. Ha­rald. in ma [...]g. 156. your Haraldus conceive he may; but only in that qualified sence before remembred. [Page 67] Churches they had for sacred and religious meetings, but no such stately and magnificent structures as were erected by the Gentiles, to be the locall habitation of their severall Idols. And they had Altars too for that mysticall Sacrifice, which had beene constantly continued in the Church of God; but no such Altars as the Gentiles had, and enquired after, which were for bloody sacrifices of Sheep and Oxen. And this you might have seen in Arnobius also, but that you use to wink when you meet with any thing you would not willingly observe. For presently on this, quod non Altaria fabricemus, non ar as, he addes these words, non caesorum sanguinem animantium demus: which cleere­ly shewes what Altars they were said to want by the Inquisitors.

Thus having found that in the primitive times the Christians had their Churches, and in them their Al­tars, our next iuquirie must be this, how, and in what particular place those Altars were disposed of in the Churches. For that they had some proper and pe­culiar place, is not a matter to be doubted. Not that I think the Altars were so fixed at first, that there was no removing of them if occasion was; but that there was some certain place allotted to them, which was reserved for the Priest, and the Administration of the Eucharist: out of which place they were not to bee moved, unlesse they were quite moved out of the Church, as sometimes it hapned. For that they were not fixed at first may be well collected from the con­dition of the Church, which was then still in moti­on, and unsetled, the winds of persecution beating as they did, so fierce upon it. Nor were the Altars only moveable in those first daies, but also portable: and [Page 77] purposely made moveable, that they might be porta­ble, according to the qualitie of the times. And if we may relie upon Gabriel Biel, as in this case I think wee may, he tels us of a Table, or Altar, ( Altare ligneum in his language) v. Hospi. de orig. Altar cap. 6. whereat the Popes of Rome did use to celebrate the Sacrament: which was removed by the Priests from place to place, ubicunque episcopus Ro­manus latuerit, where ever the then Roman Bishops did retire themselves in times of danger. Then for the situation of them, whether towards the East, or West, or any other part of the heavenly bodies, if Walafridus Strabo may be credited; there was no cer­taintie thereof in the said times neither: the Altars or Communion Tables being sometimes disposed of de rebus Eccles. cap. 4. in diversas plagas, East, West, North, or South; and that as there he tels us, propter aliquam locorum opportuni­tatem, according to the qualitie and conveniencie of the place it selfe. Indeed it was not possible, as the times then were, that it should be otherwise. For holding their assemblies, as before we told you, in private houses, in dennes, and cavernes under ground, they were to make a vertue of necessity, and suit them­selves according to the qualitie of the place, consi­dering that they could not suit the place to their own desires. But this held only for a time: no longer than the faithfull were in those extremities, and put unto their shifts, as wee use to say. For after when they were permitted, either on sufferance, or by speciall fa­vour, to fit their Churches to their minds, they con­trived them so, that in their prayers and addresse to Almightie God, they turned themselves unto the East. The Author of the Questions and Answeres ad Orthodoxos ascribed to Iustine, affirmes that in his [Page 67] [...] [Page 77] [...] [Page 78] time qu. 118. the Christians offered up their hymnes and ori­zons to God, fixing their eyes [...], towards or on the eastern parts: and [...]aith withall, that they received this usage [...], from the holy Apostles. Apologet. Cap. 16. And sure I am, that in Tertul­lians time the Christians were accused of worshipping the Sunne: for which there was no other ground, but that they turned unto the East in the times of prayer. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari, as he there informs us. Which being so, it is not to be thought but that the Churches were contrived and built accordingly, fit to the posture of the people in the times of prayer. Not that they were not built in any place, at any time, in any other form or fashion, but that it was thus generally, and for the most part, [...], in all parts of Christendome, from those times downwards. And so it is resolved by de rebus Eccl. Cap. 4. Walfridus Strabo, usus frequentior est in Orientem or antes converti, & plu­ralitatem ecclesiarum maximam eo tenore constitui.

For further proofe of which, let us but look upon the formes of our antient Churches, and wee shall finde that generally they are built in one uniforme fashion: which fashion questionlesse was borrowed from the pattern of the first Churches erected in the primitive times. Baronius tels us of some Churches Baron. Ann. Anno. 57. in his time standing, quae temporibus Constantini fuerunt à fundamentis extructae, which had beene built from the foundation, in the time of Constantine: and dif­fered nothing in the forme, either for situation or di­stinction, from those which have beene since erected. And we may probably conclude with him, that those then built were built according to the [...]orme of those which were demolished not long before, in the time [Page 79] of Diocletians furie: cum eadem in iis officia essent ob­eunda, exerce [...]dae functiones, a [...] mysteria consummanda; the selfe same Offices, functions, and mysteries, being to be performed in them both alike. Now for perfor­mance of these functions, offices, and mysteries, the Churches were divided into severall parts: two of the which are most considerable in our present busi­nesse. Of these the greater was called [...], the nave or body of the Church; the other [...], which we call the Quire, or Chancell: the body for the most part, standing towards the West: the Quire or Chan­cell towards the East. And howsoever it was and might bee otherwise in some few particulars; yet it was usitatior mos, the generall usage of the Church, Epist. [...]2. as Paulinus hath it, to place the Quire or Chancell in the Eastern part. Within the body of the Church, they had their Auditorium, their place for reading of the Scripture, and so much of the publick Offices, as might be heard by those whom they called Catechumeni, that were instructed in the faith, and not as yet admitted unto the Sacrament of Baptisme. The Quire or Chan­cell set apart for the performance of those rites, i [...] which they placed the greatest mysterie of their pro­fession, which was the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Lord and Saviour: A difference or di­stinction not took up in the latter times, but such as may plead strongly for as much antiquitie as any other custome in the Church besides; and in the which they were directed as well by Gods command, as by naturall reason. For in the Taberna [...]le built by Gods owne appointment, and fashioned by his owne directi­on, there was a Sanctum sanctorum, a place more holy than the rest; selected by the Lord for the most excel­lent [Page 80] part of the Iewish ceremonie, which was the ex­piating of his people. For which, if God thought fit that there should be a proper and selected▪ place, and that the same should be secluded from all other use: the Christians by the selfe same warrant might in their Churches have a Sanc [...]m Sanctorum also, for the commemorating of that expiation, which was in fact made for us by our Lord and Saviour. Besides, the Gentiles, had in their severall temples, their Adyta, or Penetralia, as before was said: wherein their greatest mysteries were performed and celebrated. Tota in Ad [...]tis divinitas, adv. Va­lent. cap. 2. saith Tertullian of them. In those they placed their deities, and in those their Altars. Excessere omnes, Adytis arisque relictis, Dii quibus im­perium hoc steterat, Virgil. Aeneid. as the Poet hath it: which cleer­ly shewes their Altars were disposed of in their in most Adyta. And should you say that by this reason, the di­stribution of our Churches into a body and a Chancell, would savour too much either of the Iew or Gentile, you might betray your folly, but not hurt the cause. For there's no question to be made but many Temples of the Gentiles were, without any alteration of the Fabrick, converted into Christian Churches. Nor can you shew a reason for it, why it should be more stood upon, as the times then were, to build new Churches of that fashion which the Gentiles used; than to use those very Churches which the Gentiles built. And for conformitie with the Jewes, you finde that answered to your hand by a Hooker. [...]. 5. judicious Divine indeed, who counts it no lesse grievous fault, for any King to build his house according to the modell of Salomons palace; than for the Christians in contriving of their Churches, to have an eye upon the fabrick of K. Salomons Temple.

[Page 81] Now where it is affirmed in the Bishops letter, that anciently the Communion-Tables stood in the middest of the Church; and for the proofe thereof, the Vicar was referred to Bishop Iewell: before we come to an exa­mination of the proofes there offered, Art. 3. §. 26. we wil propose some reasons why it could not bee so. And first wee find it granted by that Reverend Prelat, Bishop Iewell, that wheresoever the Altar stood, ‘it was divided with railes from the rest, whereof it was called Can­celli, a Chancell, and commonly of the Greeks Presby­terium, for that it was a place specially appointed unto the Priests and Ministers, and shut up from all others, for disturbing the holy Ministerie:’ Which given for granted we proceed, and will shew some reasons and authorities that the said Chancell or Presbyterie was not, as hee conceiveth, in the middle of the Church, but a distinct part and member of it, at one end thereof; and yet I would not have you t [...]inke, but that I hold as reverend an opinion of Bishop Iewel, as you, or any other, be hee who hee will. My first au­thority shall be taken f [...]om the instance of, and in the Emperour Theodo [...]ius, which himselfe there makes. The Emperour Theodosi [...]s having beene long prohibi­ted the Church, upon that great and rash Massacre of the Thessalonians, and afterwards admitted to Theodor. hist. Eccles. [...]. 5. c 17. com­municate: at his first entrance in the Church, casts himselfe downe upon the Pavement. After, the Offer­tory comming on, [...], hee went into the Sanctuarie; and having made his offering, [...], continued still with­in the same, neare the partition or Cancelli: Which being noted by Saint Ambrose, hee signified unto him by his Deacon, [...], that [Page 82] those Inferiour parts were only proper to the Priests, and to no man else. Now that which in Theodoret is called [...], in lib. 7. c. 25. Sozomen is called [...], the Quire or Chancell, who addes withall, that in Constan­tinople the Emperour had his seat in the said [...], during the celebrating of the holy Sacrament; that so some difference might bee made betwixt himselfe and common persons. But this being not the use in Millaine, Saint Ambrose alloted him a place [...], within the body of the Church, [...], immediately before the barres that seve­red the Church and Chancell. And this hee did, that so the Emperour might have place before the people, as had the Priests before the Emperour. This cleerly shewes, that the Pres [...]yterium, or Chancell, was not in the middle of the Church, but was distinct and severed from it at one end or other; for otherwise how could the Emperour have [...] place betweene the people and the Priests, before the Chancell or Cancelli; in case the Chancell stood in the very middest of the Church, and all the people round about it. My second reason shall be taken from a like storie of Nicephorus lib. 6. c 33. Numerianus, one of the sons of the Emperour Carus, who comming into the Church at Antioch, wherof Saint Babylas was Bishop, and having a desire to behold their mysteries, quasi per transennam, privily, as if peeping through a Lat­tice, was presently rebuked by the Bishop for the said attempt. Now had the Quire or Chancell stood in the middle of the Church, and onely railed about, so that every man might see what was done within; Nume­merianus needed not to have peeped as through a Lat­tice to behold their doings: for being once within, it was no difficultie to discerne what they were about. [Page 83] Thirdly, it may bee proved from that which was be­fore related from Baronius, who tels us of some Chur­ches standing in his dayes, which had beene founded in the time of the Emperour Constantine, and differed no­thing in their form, either for situation, or distinction, from those since erected. And fourthly, from the de­scription of the [...]tately Temple of S. Sophia, built by Iustinian the Emperour: of which Procopius doth in­forme us de Aedificii Iustin. lib. 1., that the Quire or Chancell, wherein the holy mysteries were celebrated, did stand directly to the East: For having before described the Nave or body of the Temple, both for length and bredth, he addes, Ea autem quae ad solem Orientem vergunt, ubi Deo sacr [...] peraguntur, hoc modo aedificata sunt; which hee goes forwards to describe: but what need more be said, than you say your selfe, who have so fairly, for this point, slipped your owne neck out of the Collar, and left your L. the Bishop in the lurch? For wheras he re­fers the Vicar unto Bishop Iewell, to see how long Com­munion [...]tables have stood in the middle of the Church: you put it to the question p. 218., whether it bee such a new thing in Israel, that the Tables heretofore, and the high Altars afterwards did stand in the middest of the Church or Chancell. The middle of the Church or Chan­cell, is not the middle of the Church; and so you bid good night at once to both the Bishops. The Altar then stood not in the body of the Church, but in the Chancell, which was the first thing to bee cleared.