IT was a new but wittie Etymologie, which the Lord Chancellour At Star-cha, in the Cause of the Nottingham Libell. S ^t. Albans gave of a Libel; that it was derived of a Lie forg'd at home, and a Bell to ring it up and down the Countrey. Both these parts are fully expressed in this Pamphlet. First, Title lease. Coal makes the Lie, and pre­sents it for a Token to his private friend; then his private friend makes the Bell, by commending it to the Presse, and ringing it abroad over all the Countrey. And it gave an Omen, of what colour the whole Book would prove, by the mistake in the first page, where his friend calls him a Divine of Judgement, which is the second part, whereas in­deed he is but a Divine of Invention, which is the first part of Logick. And this Invention he puts in [Page 2] practice, not onely in displaying his matters of Right, as all your [...]. Vlpi­an Enarr. in De­mosth. orat. de classibus. [...] and artificiall handlers of Controversies are permitted to do; but even in stating the matter of fact: which when it is in writing before our eyes, is no more by a disputant indeed to bee wriggled and wrested, but to be taken as it is set down, and (for the time at the least) [...]. Arist. Rhet. l. 5. c. 17. swallowed & beleeved. Whereas this poore fellow makes himself an Adversary, not out of the Letter, but out of his own phantasie; and dri­ving him before him (as he in Aristot. Me­teor. lib. 3. c. 4. Aristotle did his shadow) from one end of the Book to the other, shoots all his arrows at this man of clowts of his own rearing, and yet with all this advantage ne­ver stirs him. I will give you a short tast of his faining, and his failing. Title lea [...]e, & P. 26. He fains the Letter writ­ten not long since. He fails, because it was writ­ten, when all flesh in England had corrupted their wayes, and that there was a generall deviation in this weighty business. Title lea [...]e, and Letter, p. 69. He fains, that the Que­stion was of placing the Communion-table [...]. He fails, for it was about the erecting of a Stone-altar. P. 5. & Let. p. 68. 69. He fains, that the Writer conceiv'd the Bowing at the name of JESUS was a vain thing. He fails, for the Wri­ter doth commend, allow, and practise it. Pag. 8. and Lett. p. 69. He fains the Writer had no reason to suspect any other sacri­fice aymed at by the Vican, but spirituall onely. He fails, and never confer'd with the Writer about it, who chargeth the Vicar with meaning a Sacrifice contrary to his Subscription. P. 27. and Lett. p. 69. Hee fains, that the Writer would cunningly draw the Chappels and Cathedrals to a kind of [...]remurire about their Com­munion-tables. [Page 3] He fails, for the Writer confesseth he doth allow, and practise it. P. 25. and Let p. 71 p. 41. & 40. He fains the Writer doth slight; But fails, for he doth cite and ap­prove the appellation of Second service. He fains, that the Writer doth report the peoples pulling down of Altars, as a doctrine. He fails, for he mentions it onely as a matter of fact. Pag. 42. & Let p. 74. He fains the Writer should make the Counsell Act, for the taking down of Altars, A kind of Law which no man was obliged un­to. He fails, for the Writer saith it was obeyed over all England. Lastly, P. 51. and Let. p 69 76. 77 he fains, that the Vicar did not think of Fixing his Table to the Wall, because hee himself hath no cause to think so, nor reason to conceive, and may reasonably presume the contrary. He fails, for the Letter doth every where charge upon the Vi­car the contradictory assertion. So that this man hath not onely made himself the Iudge, to open the Law, but the Jury also, to find the fact in the whole controversie. But this is not to be endured. For beside that it is uncertaine, whether he be of the Voisinage, and but an inhabitant of a remote and another Province, and so ignorant of the Cir­cumstances of the fact, he sheweth himself (every where) such a pugnacissimum animal (as Petron. Ar­bit. Satyr. Coepique pug­nacissimum animal armatâ elidere manu. he said of the Gander) so partially addicted to brabbling and contention, that he may be well excepted against for a common Barreter. Pag. 11. He chargeth it home upon the Writer, for saying that the Curate and the Churchwardens were appointed to pull down, when they were appointed only to take down the Altars: For saying, that the name of an Altar pag. 34. Crepe, when he should have said, Came into the Church: [Page 4] For P. 12. saying that they were taken down in all or most; whereas he should have said, in sundry and many places of this Kingdome: Lastly, for P. 8. saying, The Communion, whereas he should have said, The Lords Supper. When the Rubricke The Order for the Admini­stration. hath it, The Lords Supper, or holy Communion, And would any man trust such a Aristot. Ethic. l. 4. c. 1. [...], and Tither of Cummin, as this wrangler is, to be of his Jury? Be­sides that (as Plautus describes him to a hair in a Comedy of his own Asinaria. denomination) ‘Siquidem hercle Aeacidinis minis expletus animisque incedit,’ he comes into the Session-house with such a haughty and prejudicare opinion of himself and his Cause, that no man can expect the least right at his hands. For besides that his friend Clove doth stick him in the doore of his Book (before his going forth into the open Aire) with this pretty perfume of a Judicious and Learned Divine, he doth so swell and improve by degrees, that he makes his work above all the Humane, and equall to the Laws Divine. For speaking of the Preface of the Communion-book, (a Canon con­firmed by Act of Parliament) that doth not (with­out all question) direct the Bishop to send his re­solutions to the Priest, he saith upon that Law, P. 11. It is as true, or at least wise more fit, that the Bishop should do as he would have him. Which is so high a Language against the Laws of the Land, and the practice of all Ordinaries (who execute their own Mandates by their own Officers) as was never utte­red, and printed with Licence by any Subject of [Page 5] England before this time. T. C. indeed from his Presse at Coventry, was wont to send abroad much of this stuff in Martin Marprelates dayes.

And for the other, what meaning should he have to bind up the Letter, not (as in reason he should) before, but after his whole Book; and to call it He turned to a Printer. Apocrypha; but that he would have us to take all his dreams for Canonicall Scripture? So that a man cannot imagin what evidence to provide, to give satisfaction to so haughty a Companion, who ‘Jura negat sibi nata, nihil non arrogat armis.’

Considering therefore the partiality of this Writer, who makes his own Case, makes his own Evidence, makes his own Law, makes his own Authorities, and all out of his own Conceipt; and endeavours what he can, a fear la Causa, (as the Spanish Advocates use to say) to give a fair Cause a foul face: I shall be bold (as a neighbouring Minister to the Scene of this businesse, and im­ployed amongst other of my profession, in some of the main passages) to set down seriously and faithfully the whole carriage of the Businesse, the true Copy of the Letter, the agitation this Cause hath had with us below, not able to penetrate into those Motions it receiv'd above in the Ordina­ries breast, and (for it hath been a kind of walk­ing Spirit) in the Lower house of Parliament.

The Vicar, a Chorister in the College, and bred up in Musick, brought along with him from his faculty, some odde Crochets into the Ministery. And having too much favour from his Diocesan [Page 6] (who had never seen a tolerable Incumbent of that Church before) began to fly upon his own Coat, and turn'd out of the Town two grave and painfull Preachers salaried by the Parish; where­of the one was his own Cozen, and brought in by himself a little before. His next quarrell was with the Alderman and his Brethren, about some matters of Malting and Tithing: which (by the continued favour of the Ordinary) was ended to his advantage. Then he fell upon this removing of the Communion-table from the upper part of the Quire (where it was Aldermans Letter. comely placed and had stood time out of mind) to the Altar-place, as he called it. M ^r. Wheately the Alderman questioning him thereupon, what Authority he had from the Bishop, Chancellour, or any of his Surrogates, to do this alteration, received this Answer, Aldermans Letter. that his Authority was this, He had done it, and he would justifie it. Upon the which return M ^r. Wheately comman­ded his Officers to remove the Table to the place again; which they did accordingly, but not without striking, much heat, and indiscreti­on, both of the one side and the other: The Vicar saying, he car'd not what they did with their old Tresle, for he would build him an Altar of stone at his own charge, and fix it in the old Altar-place, and would ne­ver Officiate upon any other: the rude people reply­ing, he should set up no dressers of stone in their Church, and they would find more hands to throw his stones out, then he should do to bring them in; and would all in a body make a journey to the Bishop, before they would en­dure it. Whereupon M ^r. Wheateley the Alderman [Page 7] presently wrote unto his Lordship of these passages; as also of his light gestures in bowing at the name of JESUS, so as sometimes his Book fell down, and once himself, to the derision of those that were not so well affected to that religious Ceremony. And this was about June or July 1627. To this the Bishop returned no answer in writing at that time, but sent a quick and sharp Message by word of mouth; both to the Alderman and the Vicar; that they should not presume, either the one or the other of them, to move or remove the holy Table any more, otherwise then by spe­ciall direction from him or his Chancellour; and that it should remain where it did (if it stood within the Quire) untill his next passage to Lin­coln by that Town; at what time he would him­self by view taken upon the place, accommo­date the same according to the Rubrick and Ca­nons. And that the Vicar should not presume to set up any thing in Church or Chancell, in the inte­rim. Which return did not altogether pacifie the People of the Town in their jelousies against their Vicar. But M ^r. Wheateley, a prudent and discreet man, afraid to offend the Bishop, (as one who had been a singular friend and patrone to that Town, when he was in place) resolved to ride unto his Lordship. Which was no [...]ooner known, but all they of the Town that were able, would needs hire horses and ride along with him. The Bi­shop when he saw such a company, enquired of them what the matter was? They opened unto him all this difference, assured his Lordship they were [Page 8] every one of them quiet and peaceable men, conform­able in all things to the Kings Laws Ecclesiasticall, and willing to submit themselves to any Order, concerning the situation of the holy Table, which his Lordship should appoint. Onely they re­presented unto his Lordship, that they were much scandalized with the putting down of their Ser­mons, and this new intended erection of a stone-Altar upon the neck thereof. And that, if his Lordship should appoint the Table to stand in the upper end of the Quire, it was impossible that the 24 ^th part of the Parish should see or heare the Vicar officiating thereupon. Desiring his Lordship to take it to his consideration, that the Vicar (whom his Lordship much favoured) was not alwayes right in the Head-piece; and that they lived in the midst of Recusants, their chiefe Governour being one of that profession himself; and that those kind of men began already to jeere and deride this new Alteration. The Bishop entring into a discourse of the indifferency of this circumstance in its own nature, the Vicar came suddenly into the Hall, pale and staring in his looks, and either with his journey, or some other affrights much disordered. Which the Bishop observing, used him with all sweetnesse and lenity, bade him not be troubled with any thing that had happened, for he would end this difference to his content­ment. The Vicar brake out into passion and teares, and said they threatned to set his house on fire. The Bishop answered, that if they did so, he would procure him another; and he hoped his Ma­jesty [Page 9] would provide for them such houses, as in that case they well deserved. The Alderman & his Assistants utterly denied the knowledge of any such base intents, or menaces: but submitted themselves wholly (as the Vicar likewise did) to the Bishops decision. Then the Lord Bishop taking the Vicar aside, talk't with him in private a pret­ty while. What they discours'd of is not par­ticularly known. His Lordship was over-heard somewhat earnest with the said Vicar, to tell him who they were that set him on upon these altera­tions. And it is conceiv'd generally, that the Vicar told his Lordship all the truth, from point to point. At the close, the Bishop said unto him, Well, M ^r. () you shall sup with your Neigh­bours in my Hall to night, upon such cold provi­sion as my people can make you: But I have sup't already upon that you tell me. And if all the Books I have of that nature be able to do it, I will find some satisfaction for my self and you in all these particulars, before I goe this night to bed. And I will provide a Letter, as written to you, M ^r. Alderman, to shew to your Brethren, and some Notes to be delivered to the Divines of the Lecture at Gr. And both these (if the fault be not in my servant) shall be ready by seven a clock in the morning.

The Bishop sate up most of the night, and his Secretary with him in his Study. What they there did is not distinctly known: But it was observ'd that the Secretary came down for the Book of Mar­tyrs which stood in the Hall, and borrowed from [Page 10] the Parish-church Bishop Jewells workes. In the Morning between 7. and 8. of the clock, was delivered to the Alderman this Letter sealed up.

M ^r. Alderman, I do conceive, that your Commu­nion-Table, when it is not used, should stand in the upper end of the Chancell, not Altar-wise, but Ta­ble-wise. But when it is used, either in the time of the Communion, or when your Vicar shall be plea­sed to read the later part of the Divine service there­upon, the Churchwardens are to cause the Clerk or Sexton to remove it, either to the place where it stood before, or any other place in Church or Chancel, where your Minister may be most audibly heard of the whole Congregation. If both your Churchwardens agree with the Vicar upon such a place, let it be disposed of accordingly; and your Ministers are not to of ficiate upon it in any other place. If your Churchwardens disagree with the Vicar, let them take the opinion of that Surrogate of my Chancellour, who dwels next unto your Town of Grantham, and he and any one of the Churchwardens shall upon view as­signe the place where the Table shall stand in most conveniency, when it is to be of ficiated on by either of your Ministers. And so I desire you [...]o intimate this unto the Churchwardens, and do recommend me very heartily to you and all your neighbours, and you and them in my prayers to Gods protection. And am

At the same time this Letter was delivered, there was delivered also by the Secretary, a sheet [Page 11] of paper closed up, to be conveyed to the Di­vines of the Lecture at Gr. upon their next mee­ting-day, with a Note of direction from the said Secretary, that if they conceived these pas­sages contained in that Paper to be well and tru­ly collected, and had not found in their readings and observations the contrary, they should im­part them to the Vicar of Gr. being one of their Company, and improve them what they could to give him satisfaction, not denying (if he so re­quired) to let him take out a Copie of the same for his own use, but not to divulge these pa­pers any farther. But if they found any mis­takings in these Quotations, or had met with any other Canons or Constitutions differing from these, or that they themselves varied in opini­on from the premisses, they should forbeare to impart them, but write freely back again their said variance from these directions, toge­ther with their reasons for the same, which should be very kindly and thankfully accepted. Or to this effect. We met accordingly, per­used these Papers, found them digested in the former part into the fashion of a Letter, (yet di­rected to no body) but not so figuredly and di­stinctly in the later. They were not written with the Bishops own hand, with which we were all acquainted, nor subscribed by any body, and they varied in some places in matter from this printed Copie, but little in form. After per­usall we did conferre with the said Vicar at two severall dayes, especially about the Contents [Page 12] of this Paper. Who undoubtedly, at that time, received full satisfaction thereby, and conceived that he had lost nothing by this decision, having gain'd all the points, excepting the Form of pla­cing the Table; against the which he conceived the Rubrick of the Liturgie to be apparant, but his Lordships opinion to be very indifferent, because he observed (as he said) the Table in his Lordships private Chappell to be so placed, & furnished with Plate and Ornaments above any he ever had seen in this Kingdom, the Chappel Royall onely excepted. And so this difference was at that time thus ended and composed, and the Vicar well satis­fied, and never out of his Lordships favour (where­of he reaped after this much fruit and profit) to his very dying day. Now the true Copy of this Let­ter or Notes (for without all question they were neither superscribed nor subscribed) here ensueth

Sir, with my very hearty commendations un­to you, &c. When I spake with you last, I told you that the standing of your Communion-table, was unto me a thing so indifferent, the unlesse of­fence and umbrages were taken by the Town a­gainst it, I should never move it, or remove it. That which I did not then suspect, is come to passe. Your Alderman, whom I have known these 17 or 18 yeares to be a discreet and modest man, and far from any humour of Innovation, together with the better sort of the Town, have complained a­gainst it. And I have without taking any notice of your act, or touching in one syllable upon your reputation, appointed the Churchwardens, [Page 13] whom in my opinion it principally doth con­cern, under the Diocesan and by his directions, to set­tle it for the time: as you may see by this Copie enclosed. Now for your own satisfaction, and my poore advice for the future, I have written unto you somewhat more at large then I use to ex­presse my selfe in this kinde. I do therefore (to deal plainly) like many things well, and disallow of some things in your cariage of this businesse. It is well done that you affect decency and comelines in the officiating of Gods divine service, that you president your selfe with the Forms in his Maje­sties Chappels and the Quires of Cathedrall Churches, (if your Quire, as those others, could contain your whole congregation) that you do the reverence appointed by the Canons to that blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly and not affectedly, to procure the devotion & not move the derision of your Parishioners, who are not it seems all of a piece) and that you do not maintain it Rationibus non cogentibus, & so spoil a good cause with bad arguments. These things I do my self al­low and practise. But that you should say you will upon your own cost build an Altar of Stone at the upper end of your Quire; That your Table ought to stand Altar-wise; That the fixing thereof in the Quire is so Canonical, that it ought not to be remo­ved (upon any occasion) to the body of the Church, I conceive to be in you so many mistakings.

For the first; If you should erect any such Al­tar, (which I know you will not) your discretion (I fear me) would prove the onely Holocaust [Page 14] to be sacrificed on the same. For you have sub­scribed when you came to your place, that that other Oblation, which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars, is a Blasphemous figment and pernicious Imposture. In the 31 ^th Artic. And also, that we in the Church of England must take heed lest our Communion of a Memory be made a Sacrifice. In the 1. Homily upon the Sacrament. And it is not the Vicar, but the Churchwardens that are to provide Vtensils for the Communion, and that not an Altar, but a faire joyned Table. Canons of the Convocation 1571. pag. 18. And that the Altars were removed by Law, and Tables placed in their stead in all, or the most Churches of England, appeares by the Queens Injunctions 1559 related unto and so confirmed in that point by our Canons still in force. Canon 82. And therefore I know you will not build any such Altar, which Vicars were never enabled to set up, but were once allowed (with others) to pull down. Injunct. 1 ^mo Elis. For Tables in the Church.

For the second point; That your Communion-table is to stand Altar-wise; if you mean, in that upper place of the Chancell, where the Altar stood, I think somewhat may be said for that, because the Injunctions 1559 did so place it. And I con­ceive it to be the most decent situation when it is not used, and for use too, where the Quire is mounted up by steps, and open, so as he that offici­ates, may be seen and heard of all the Congrega­tion. Such an one, I am informed, your Chancell is not. But if you meane by Altar-wise, that the [Page 15] Table should stand along close by the wall, so as you beforced to officiate at the one end thereof (as you may have observed in great mens Chappells) I do not beleeve that ever the Communion-tables were (otherwise then by casualty) so placed in countrey-churches. For besides that the Coun­trey-people, without some directions before­hand from their superiours, would (as they told you to your face) suppose them Dressers rather then Tables. And that Queen Elisabeths Commis­sioners for causes ecclesiasticall directed, that the Tables should stand, not where the Altar, but where the steps to the Altar formerly stood. Orders 1561. The Minister appointed to read the Communion, which you (out of the Books of Fast in 1 ^mo of the King) are pleas'd to call Second service, is directed to read the Commandments, not at the End, but at the North-side of the Table, which implies the End to be placed towards the East great window. Rubrick before the Communion. Nor was this a new direction in the Queens time onely; but practised in K. Edwards reign. For in the plot of our Liturgie sent by M ^r Knox & whittingham to M ^r Calvin, in the reign of Q. Mary, it is said, that the Minister must stand at the North-side of the Table. Troubles at Frankford, p. 30. And so in K. Edwards Liturgies, the Ministers standing in the Midst of the Altar, 1549. is turned to his standing at the North-side of the Table, 1552. And this last Liturgie was revived by Parliament 1 ^o Elis. c. 2. And I beleeve it is so used at this day in most places of England. What you saw in Chappells or Cathedrall Churches, [Page 16] is not the point now in Question, but how the Tables are appointed to be placed in Parish-churches. In some of these Chappels and Cathe­dralls, the Altars may be still standing, for ought I know; or, to make use of their Covers, Fronts and other Ornaments, Tables may be placed in their room, of the same length and fashion the Altars were of. We know the Altars stand still in the Lutherane Churches. And the Apologie for the Augustane Confession, Artic. 11. doth allow it. The Altars stood a yeare or two in the reigne of King Edward, as appeares by the Liturgie printed 1549. And it seems the Queen and her Counsell were content they should stand, as we may guesse by the Injunctions, 1559. But how is this to be understood? The Sacrifice of the Masse abolished (for which Sacrifice onely Altars were erected) these (call them what you please) are no more Altars, but Tables of Stone or Tymber. And so was it alledged 24. Novem. 4 ^o Edv. 6. 1550. Sublato enim relativo formall, manet absolutum et ma­teriale tantúm. And so may be well used in Kings and Bishops houses, where there are no people so void of Instruction as to be scandalized. For upon the Orders of breaking down Altars, 1550. all Dioceses, as well as that of London, did agree upon receiving Tables, but not so soon upon the form and fashion of their Tables. Act. and Monum. pag. 1212. Beside 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 thence parti­cipated [Page 17] by men, as for example, by the Priests. So have you Gods Altar the very same with Gods Ta­ble, in Mal. 1. 7. The place is worth the mark­ing: For it answers that merry Objection out of Heb. 13. 10. which you made to some of your fellow Ministers, and one D ^r. Morgan before you, to Peter Martyr, in a disputation at Oxford. We have no Altar in regard of an Oblation; but we have an Altar, that is, a Table, in regard of a participation and Communion there granted unto us. The proper use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon, the proper use of a Table is to eat upon, Reasons, &c. 1550. vide Act. & Monum. pag. 1211. And because a Communion is an Action most proper for a Table, as an Oblation is for an Altar; there­fore the Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Table onely, do not you now, under the Reformation, call it an Altar. In King 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. Why? Because the people being scandalized herewith (in Countrey-churches) first it seems beat them down de facto; then the supreme Magistrate (as here the King) by the advice of Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of his Counsell, did Anno 1550 by a kind of Law put them down de jure. 4 ^o Edv. 6. Novemb. 24. And setting these Tables in their rooms, took away from us, the Children of this Church and Common-wealth, both the Name and the Nature of those former Altars. As you may see Injunct. 1559. referring to that Order of King Edw. and [Page 18] his Counsell, mentioned Act. & Monum. pag. 1211. And I hope you have more learning, then to conceive The Lords Table to be a new Name, and so to be ashamed of the Word. For, besides that Christ himselfe instituted this Sacrament upon a Table, and not an Altar; (as Archbishop Cranmer and others observe, Act. & Monum. pag. 1211.) it is in the Christian Church, at the least 200 yeares more ancient, then the name of an Altar in that sense; as you may see most learned­ly proved (beside what we learn out of S. Paul) out of Origen, and Arnobius, if you do but reade a Book that is in your Church, Jewel against Har­ding, of private Masse, Artic. 3. pag. 145. And whether this name of Altar crept into the Church, in a kind of complying in phrase with the people of the Jews, as I have read in Chemnitius, Gerar­dus and other sound Protestants; (yet such as suf­fer Altars to stand;) or that it proceeded from those Oblations made upon the Communion-tables for the use of the Priest and the poore, whereof we reade in Justine Martyr, Ireneus, Tertullian and other ancient writers; or because of our Sacrifice of praise and Thanks-giving, as Archbishop Cranmer and others thought, Act. & Monum. pag. 1211. the name being now so many yeares aboli­shed in this Church, it is fitter in my judgement, that your Altar (if you will needs so call it) should according to the Canons stand Table-wise, then your Table, to trouble the poore Town of Gr. should be erected Altar-wise.

Lastly, that your Table should stand in the [Page 19] higher part of the Chancell, you have my assent in opinion already: And so was it appointed to stand, out of the Communion. Orders by the Com­miss. for causes ecclesiasticall, 1561. But that it should be there fixed, is so farre from being the onely Canonicall way, that it is directly against the Canon. For what is the Rubrick of the Church, but a Canon? And the Rubrick saith, It shall stand in the Body of the Church, or in the Chancell, where Morning prayer and Evening prayer be appointed to be said. If therefore Morning prayer and Evening prayer be appointed to be said in the Body of the Church, (as in most Countrey-churches we see it is) where shall the Table stand in that Church most Canonically? And so is the Table made remove­able, when the Communion is to be celebrated, to such a place, as the Minister may be most conve­niently heard by the Communicants; by Qu. Elis. In­junct. 1559. And so saith the Canon in force, that in the time of the Communion, the Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancell, as there­by the Minister may be most conveniently heard, &c. Canon 82. Now judge you, whether this Table (which like Daedalus his Engines moves and re­moves from place to place, and that by the in­ward wheeles of the Church Canons) be fitly re­sembled by you to an Altar that stirs not an ynch, and supposed to be so resembled most Canonically. And if you desire to know out of Eusebius, S ^t Augustine, Durandus, and the fifth Councell of Constantinople, how long Communion-tables have stood in the midst of Churches, read a [Page 20] Book which you are bound to reade, and you shalbe satisfied, Jewel against Harding: Of private Masse, Artic. 3. pag. 145. The summe of all is this.

1. You may not erect an Altar, where the Canons admit only a Communion-table.

2. This Table (without some new Canon) is not to stand Altar-wise, and you at the North-end thereof, but Table-wise, and you must officiate on the North-side of the same, by the Liturgie.

3. This Table ought to be laid up (decently covered) in the Chancell onely, as I suppose; but ought not to be officiated upon, either in your first or second service (as you distinguish it) but in that place of Church or Chancell, where you may be most conveniently seen and heard of all.

4. Though peradventure you be (with him in Tacitus) Master of your own, yet are you not of other mens Eares, and therefore your Pari­shioners must be Judges of your Audiblenes in this case, and upon complaint to the Ordinary, must be relieved.

5. Lastly, whether side soever ( you or your Parish) shall first yeeld unto the other in these needlesse controversies, shall remain in my poore judgement, the more discreet, grave, and learned of the two. And by that time you have gayned some more experience in the Cure of Soules, you shall finde no such Ceremony to Christian charity. Which I recommend unto you, and am ever, &c.

[Page 21] Now if you desire to know why I have been so tedious in stating thus the Cause, with all the Cir­cumstances thereof, I answer with the Poet, that it is to ease you, if you please, of further Tedi­ousnesse:

That if you be so disposed, you may end the Book with this first Chapter. For the true stating is the concluding of the Question we have in hand. I dare here appeale without any further defence to any indifferent Reader, what notorious want of Learning, what disaffection to the Church, what malice to Cathedrals, what inclination to Puritanisme, what approving of sedition, what popular affectation, this Ion. 4. 10. filia unius noctis, this paper huddled up (up­on this occasion) in one night, can argue either in the Writer (whosoever he be) or in us that were the approvers of the same. And particularly I appeale to you, that have read the Libell written against it, whether it hath any way answered your expectation, or whether

this Ecclesiastic 8. 10. Coal of a sinner doth not rather appeare to have been fetcht from a Smiths forge, then a sacred Altar.

IF Alexander was afraid to commit the pro­portion of his body to every ordinary statu­ary, requiring that none but a [...]. Plu­tarch. de fortuna Alexand▪ O­rat. 2. Lysippus should effigiate the same, and that Apelles himself could never set forth the outward beauty of his face, but [...]. Plutarch. in A­lexandro. slubbered and farre short of the native vivacity; how carefull ought Soveraigne Princes to be, not to permit their Regall power and prero­gative (the very visage of their persons, and ma­jestie of their visage) to be prophaned by every Bungler, and to be slubbered up (as here it is) with a base Coal, upon the walls of this ugly From page 58. to the end of the Book. Pam­phlet. Thus it is, when Coblars will be stretching up their Pia-maters above their own Shop-lasts, and Chaplains (to shew how ready they are, at the ve­ry first call, to be dealing in matters of State) will [Page 23] be puddling in studies they do not understand. D ^r Coal hath here by his exquisite knowledge in the Can-none and Common (or triviall) law, com­mitted a kinde of merry treason, in presuming to give a man a call to be a Pag. 61. Iudge Ployden. Judge, who died but an Reportes de Edmund Plowden un Ap­prentise de le Common Ley. Apprentice at the Law▪ (Which was more then the L. Keeper of the great Seal, without his Majesties licence, durst have done.) And mends it by and by with a kinde of sacrilege, by taking away from a noble Gentleman, his name given him at the Font in Pag. 62. Sir Robert Cooke. Baptisme. Whereas had this doughty Doctour left his Littleton, and kept him to his Accidence, he could not have forgotten that Edvardus was his proper name.

Yea, but though he fails in names, he hits in matter, and shews you deep Mysteries of State; how this question of Ceremonies doth relate unto the King; and that the Statute of 1 ^o Elis. cap. 2. (which by long search and study he found in the very first leaf of his Common prayer Book) was not a power personall to the Queen onely, but to be continued unto her Successours; and that the Kings most excellent Majesty may safely and without any danger at all, command the Table to stand (as the Doctour would have it) and to be rayl'd about. These are high mat­ters indeed, if they be well proved.

That they shall be to a hair. For this old Lawyer, and new-created Judge, doth tell us, that if a Fee-simple be vested in me, and I passe it unto the King, the Fee-simple doth passe without these words, SUC­CESSOURS, and HEYRES; as it doth to a Major, a Bishop, or any other meaner Corporation, as [Page 24] you have it Cook on Littleton. fol 9. pag. 2. at the end there at large. Well said Do­ctour; His Majesty is much beholding unto you, and those about him, to take speciall care of your speedy preferment. You have not in most of your scribble given a Bishop any more prero­gative then to the Vicar, nor the King in this Allegation, then to the Alderman of Grantham. Peradventure not so much. For by perusall of your Authour, I finde the Alderman ranged in the third place, but the King and the Bishop jumbled up together (as in a bagge after Chesse­play) and so thrown into the fourth place. But I pray you good Doctour, where upon earth was this power of ordering matters ecclesiasticall vested, before it pass'd away, as a piece of land held in Fee-simple, unto his Majestie by the Statute of I ^mo Elis. cap. 2?

Was it in the Pope? in the people? in the Cler­gie? in the Convocation? in the Parliament? or (peradventure) was it in Abeyance? Away Animal; I tell thee, The Power in matters ecclesiasticall is such a Fee-simple, as was vested in none but God himselfe, before it came (by his and his onely donation) to be vested in the King. And being vested in the King, it cannot by any power what­soever (no not by his Translat. of the Orat. de ver. Obed. 1555. shews this to have been the opinion of Steph. Gardiner. own) be devested from him. The donour in this Feoffment is God, and God onely; the Deed, a Prescription time out of mind in the Law of nature, declared more especially and at large by that Statute-law, which we call the Word of GOD. So that, Doctour, you deserve [Page 25] but a very simple Fee, for your impertinent ex­ample of this Fee-simple. But what do you merit for your next prank? where you say (most igno­rantly and most derogatorily to his Majesties right and just prerogative) that that Statute of 1 ^o E­lis. c. 2. was a Confirmative of the old Law? What? and was it not good, until it had pass'd the upper and lower house of Parliament? was not God able enough; the King, his bright Image upon earth, capable enough; the Deed of Nature and Scripture strong enough; but that (like a Bishops Concurrent Lease) it must receive a Confirmation in that great Chapter? Your De jure Re­gis ecclesiastico, pag. 8. Non novam intro­duxit, sed an­tiquam decla­ravit. Authour (a deep learned man in his faculty) hath it otherwise, and right­ly. It was resolved by the Judges, that the said Act of the first yeare of the late Queen, concerning Ecclesiasti­call jurisdiction, was not a statute introductory of a New Law, but declaratory of the Old. Parliaments are not called to confirm, but to affirm and declare the Laws of God. Weak and doubtfull Titles are to be confirmed: such cleare and indubitate Rights as his Majestie hath to the Ecclesiasticall ju­risdiction, are onely averred and declared by Acts of Parliament. And all declarations of this kind, are (as the stuffe whereof they are made) to last forever, and no Jonas Gourds to serve a turn or two and so expire, as those p. 61. 1. E­lis. c. 16. 14. El. c. 1. 14. El. c. 2. 23. El. c. 2. Probationers did, which (peradventure) some Justice his Clerk might tell you of. Yea, but your meaning is, that this Juris­diction was intruth, or of right ought to be by the anci­ent Laws of the Realme, parcell of the Kings Jurisdiction, and united to the Crowne Imperiall. Still you are [Page 26] short, and write nothing like a Divine. I tell you man, It is the Kings right by the ancient Law of God, and a main parcell of the Kings jurisdiction, although the Laws of the Realm had never touched upon it.

Translate. 1553. Latin, 1535. Qua in re nihil novi la­tum est; tantùm significantiore vocabulo apposi­to competentem [...] jure di­vino [...]otestatem exprimi clarius volu [...]runt. Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, in his Oration of true Obedience, saith, that by the Parli­aments calling of King Henry the Eighth, Head of the Church, there is no new invented matter wrought; onely their will was, to have the power pertayning to a Prince by Gods Law, to be the more clearely expressed with this sounding and Emphaticall Compellation. So likewise in that Book set forth by the King and Convoca­tion, called The Institution of a Christian man, in the Chapter of the Sacrament of Orders, it is thus written: The Institu­tion of a Christi­an man, printed 1537. Vnto Christian Kings and Princes of right and by Gods Commandment belongeth specially and principally to conserve and maintain the true doctrine of Christ, and all such as be true Preachers and setters forth thereof, and to abolish all abuses, heresies, and Idolatries, &c. And De absoluto Regis imperio. p. 19. Ad eas li­cèt Episcopi populum [...]or­tar [...]et possint et debeant, l [...] ­gis tan [...]n vim habere sine supremi rei­publicae Ma­gistratûs au­thoritate, pla­nè non dixe­rim. John Beckinsan, speaking of these particulars in hand, to wit, Ceremonies and Traditions not commanded by God, but recom­mended by Clergy-men to stirre up the people to pietie and devotion, saith, That however they mayor ought to be maintained by the Bishops, yet can they not be established as a Law, otherwise then by the Authority of the supreme Magistrate. And these are all Papists, not Protestants, who may be suspe­cted to collogue with their Princes.

Nor is this Right united to the Crown of Eng­land onely, as this Scribbler seems to conceive, but [Page 27] to all other Christian Crowns, and challenged by all Christian Princes accordingly. For the Romane Empire, one of the former Qui [...] un­quam im [...]roba­vir Iustiniani sactum, qui leges edidit de summa Trivtate, & de fide Catholica, & de Ep scopis? Steph. Win­ton, Orat. p. 19. [...]od, lust [...]ni [...] Tom. 2. lib. 1. i [...]rul. 1. Authours doth instance in Justinian, that with the approbation of all the world, he set forth those Laws of the most blessed Trinity, the Catholick Faith, of Bishops, Clergie-men, here [...]icks, and the like. For the most ancient Kingdomes of Castile, Leon, Toledo, and others of Spaine, famous is that great work of the seven Partidas or Sections of Laws, advanced by Ferdinando the third, otherwise called the Saint, (in whose long reign of 35 yeares, there was no touch of Regnavit annis 35; in quibus nec [...]a­m [...]s, nec p [...]stis fuit in regno suo. Lopez. Gloss. in Prolog. part. 1. hunger or contagion) but fi­nished and compleated by his Sonne Alfonso the tenth; [...]n la prima Partida del fa­blamos de to [...]as las cosas, que per­tenescen a la se Catholica, que fa­ce al ome cono­cer a Dios por cre [...]ncia. Prol. d [...]l Rey A­lonso, fol. 4. Col. 2. Partid. 1. In quibus Partitis sacratissimae leges, non solùm ad causas hominum decidendas, sed ad divi­num cultum dirigendum augendúmque continentur. H [...]sp [...]. Illustrat. Tom. 1. Roderici Santij Histor. Hipan. part. 4. cap. 2. Et fue acabado d [...]ste que fue commencado a siete annos complidos. Prolog. del Alonso. p. 4. in the first Partida or Section where­of, he speaks wholy of matters pertaining to the Catholick faith, which directs a man to know God, by way of credence or beliefe. Nor were those Volumes so composed and col­lected in those seven yeares imployed in that service, to be afterward disputed of in Schools and Vniversities onely, but for the Par [...] decision de las causas, y buena Go­vernacion de la Iusticia destos Reynos. K. Philips Proclam. [...] the Partidas, Sect. 7. 1555. decision of Causes, and the doing of justice, in all those Kingdomes and Dominions. And how many Kings before this had made Laws to the same effect in those Countreys, God knoweth. For these Partidas were for the most part, but a Leges Hispaniarum quas vocant Partitas in volumen redegit. Francise. Ta­raph. de Regib. Hisp. in Alf. 10. Hisp. illustr. Tom. [...]. Colligendarum cura injuncta earum quas Partitas vulgò vocant. Io. Marian. de Reb [...]s Hisp. lib. 13. cap. 8. Col­lection [Page 28] of the ancient Laws. And no otherwise have these matters been carried in the King­dome of France. For they ever held their Kings, if not for the Sinon pour [...] de leur [...] pour le [...] comme [...] l'une de meilleures et plus saines parties d'i­ce [...]. Qui est la cause, que l' ou­ [...]ertu [...]e, &c. Pasq. Rech. l. 3. c. 30. Head of their Church, yet surely for the principall and most sound member there­of. Which is the reason, that the opening or Overture of their most ancient Councels under the first and second (that is the Merovingian and Caroline) line, was ever by the power and authority, and sometimes the presidencie of their Kings and Princes. And my Authour quarrels ve­ry much the Gratian. Decre part. 2. Caus. 23. q 1. 5. D [...]st. [...]rincipes. Monk Gratian, for attributing to Isidore of Spain, rather then to a Nationall Concil. Pa [...]is. 6. l. 2. c 2 sub Lu [...]ovico Pip. Anno Dom. 829. Concil. Antiq. Sirmondi. Tom. 2. p. 526. Councell of France, held in the yeare 829, that brave and excellent saying, Principes secu­li nonnunquam intra Ecclesiam potestatis adeptae culmi­na tenent, ut per eandem potestatem disciplinam ec­clesiasticam muniant. God sometimes imparts secular power to Princes that live in the bosome of the Church, that they might imploy this power in preserving ecclesiasticall discipline. Saepe per regnum terrenum coeleste regnum proficit. The Kingdome of Heaven doth many times take growth and encrease from these Kingdomes upon Earth. Cognoscant principes seculi se Deo de­bere rationem propter Ecclesiam quam à Deo tuendam accipiunt. And therefore the Great ones of the world must know, that God will one day call them to an account for his Church, so tender­ly recommended unto them. It is true indeed, that these words are found in the sixth Councell of Paris, lib. 2. c. 2. But it is as true, that in my Book Isidore is set down in the Margent as rea­dy [Page 29] to own them. And both these will stand well enough; considering that Isidore lived Anno 610. Hel­vicus. 626. Pal­merius. Isidore, Scho­lar to Gregory the Great, did flourish very neare 200 yeares before the Aera of that Councell; and that that Councell, by incorporating of these words unto the substance of their Canons, doth put a greater lustre and authority upon them, as the French Et de plus grande autho­rité, en la re­cognoissant d' une Synode. Pasq. ibid. Antiquary well observes. And according to this doctrine, are all those Capitulars or mixt Laws, for matters of Church and Common-wealth, of Charles the Great, Lu­dovicus Pius, Lewis the Grosse, Pipine, and others, gathered by In Codice Leg. Anti­quar. p. 827. Lindenbrogius: And a world of other Capitula [...]s of the same nature, intermin­gled with the Canons of the French Edita à Sir­mondo 3 vo­lum. Councells, in the late edition of them by Sirmond the Je­suite. In a word, the very pure Acts and Con­stitutions of the Synods themselves, were in those former times no further Les Consti­tutions Consi­liaires n' avoi­ent lieu, si non de tant et en tant qu'elles estoient con­firmées par nos Roys et prises aux Ar­chifs de leur Palais. Pasq. Rech. l. 3. c. 30. p. 273. valid and binding, then as they were confirmed by the Kings of France, and entered duly upon the Records of their Palais or Westminster-Hall. And yet under favour, all Crowns Imperiall must give place in regard of this one flower of ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, to the Crown of Great Britannie. For as our Prince is recorded to be the This Is­land hath the glory to be graced with the first Chri­stian King that ever reigned in the wo [...]ld, which was Lucius. Speed in his 6. Book, cap. 9. This first Christian King of the world. Eccles. History of Great Britaine, Age 2. cap. 6. Sub Lucio Britannia omnium provinciarum prima publicitus Chri­sti nomen recepit. Anton. Sabel. lib. 5. Ennead. 7. first Christian King, so is he intimated to be the first that ever exercised ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, be­ing directed by Eleutherius the Pope to fetch [Page 30] his Laws by the advice of his Counsell, from the Habetis penes vos v­tramque pagi­nam: ex illis (Dei gratia) per consilium regni vestri sume legem▪ Divisos d [...]bes in unum ad concordiam et p [...]cem, et ad fi­dem et legem Christi, et ad sanctam eccle­siam congrega­re. Epist. Eleu­therijm. s. in Biblioth. Cot­ton. In Archi­vis Lond. apud Stow, Anno 189 In K. Edwards Laws. Archa [...]o­nom-Lambardi, sol. 131. Anti­quit Brita [...]. p. 5. Jewell a­gainst Harding, fol 119. Act. & Mon. 1. part. pag. 107, &c. Book of God, the old and new Testament, wherewith to reclaim his subjects to the Faith and Law of Christ, and to the holy Church. And if Father 3 Convers. part 1. c. 4. Parsons shall damne this Let­ter, as foisted, and another obscure Eccles. Hist. of great Brit. Age 2. c. 20. Papist suspect it to be corrupted, let the Reader con­tent himself with these proofs in the Margent of a farre more authenticall averment and au­thority. Sure I am, that (according to this advice of Ele [...]therius) the British, Saxon, Danish, and first Norman Kings have governed their Churches and Church-men by Capitulars and mixed Digests, composed (as it were) of Common and Ca­non Law, and promulged with the advice of the Counsell of the Kingdome; as we may see in those particulars set forth by In his excel­lent book called Archaionomia per totum. M ^r. Lambard, In his Ana­lect. Anglo-brit. l. 2. c. 3. & lib. 2. c. 6. 7. &c. M ^r Selden, History of Cambria, p. 59. in Howell Dha. D. Powell, and others. And I do not beleeve there can be shewed any Ecclesiasticall Canons for the Government of the Church of England, untill long after the Conquest, which were not either originally promulged, or afterwards approved and allowed by either the Monarch, or some King of the Heptarchy, sitting and directing in the Nationall or Provinciall Synod. For all the Collections that Lindwood comments upon, are (as Theo­phrast. [...]. Theophrastus speaks) [...] but rough and rugged money of a more fresh and later coinage. And yet in those usurping times, I have seen a Transcript of a In M. s. Chronic. Abbatiae de Bello. Record Anno 1157. 3 ^o Henr. 2. wherein, when the B. of Chiche­ster [Page 31] oppos'd some late Canons against the Kings Exemption of the Abbey of Battles from the E­piscopall Jurisdiction, it is said, that the King being angry and much moved therewith, should reply, Tu pro Papae authoritate ab hominibus concessa, contra dignitatum Regalium authoritates mihi à Deo concessas, calliditate argutâ niti praecogitas? Do you, S ^r, goe a­bout by subtilties of wit to oppose the Popes au­thority, which is but the favour or connivence of men, against the authority of my Regall digni­ties, being the Charters and donations of God himselfe? And thereupon requires reason and justice against the Bishop for this foul insolencie. And it hath been alwayes as the practice, so the doctrine of this Kingdome, that both in every part, and in the whole, Post-nati, pag. 106. Laws do not make Kings, but Kings, Laws; which they alter and change from time to time, as they see occasion, for the good of themselves and their Subjects. And to maintain that Kings have any part of their Authority by any posi­tive Law of Nations (as this Pag. 62. Scribbler speaks of a Jurisdiction, which either is or ought to be in the Crown by the ancient Laws of the Realm, and is con­firmed by 1 ^o Elis. c. 1.) is accounted by that It was ne­ver taught, but either by Traitors, (is in Spencers Bill in Edward the 2ds time) or by treason­able Papists, (as Harding in the Confutati­on of the Apo­logie) that Kings have their authori­ty by the posi­tive Law. Post. nati, pag. 99. great personage an assertion of a treasonable nature. But when S ^r Edward Coke, or any other of our reverend Sages of the Law, do speak of the an­cient Laws of the Realm, by which this Right in ecclesiasticall causes becomes a parcell of the Kings jurisdiction, and united to his Imperiall Crown, they do not mean any positive or Statute-law, which creates him such a Right, as if a man should [Page 32] bestow a new Fee-simple upon the Crown (as this Scribbler instanceth) or any Law which declares any such Right created by any former Law; but the continuall practice, Judgements, Sentences, or (as this very Iurisdictio intra hoc reg­num exercita, Cawdreys Case, p. 8. Report calls it) Exercise of the an­cient Laws of the Realm: which declareth and demonstrateth by the effect, that the Kings of Eng­land have had these severall flowers of ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction stuck in their Imperiall Garlands by the finger of Almighty God, from the very beginning of the Christian Monarchy within this Island. For so our Post-nati, pag. 54. Sententiae Iudicum, and Responsa pru­dentum, have been termed, time out of mind, a main and principall part of the Common Law of England. And therefore having cleared this point at large, I shall easily yeeld to D ^r Coal, that the Kings Majesty may command a greater mat­ter of this nature, then that the holy Table should be placed where the Altar stood, and be railed about for the greater decencie; and that, although the Statute of 1 ^o Elis. c. 1. had never been in rerum natura. But how doth the D ^r make it appeare, that his most excellent Majestie hath commanded any such matter? or that there is (as he avows) any pub­lick Order for the same? And this he must do by Proof, Reason, Authority, nay Demonstrations; as one that can endure no modesty of assertion, P. 28. & 18. A [...]. Thucyd. lib. 1. And Aristotle gives us many presidents of these modest ex­pressions. [...], &c. [...]. Eth. 1. c. 1. See there the diffe­rence in Eustra­tius between [...]. I think, I conceive, I have heard, I beleeve, but jeeres at them all. I warrant you, he shall make it cock-sure with three Apodicticall Demonstra­tions.

I Pag. 1. p. 27 & pag. 51. 52. It is so in his Majesties Chappell, where the ancient [Page 33] Orders of the Church of England have been best pre­served, and without the which (perhaps) we had before this been at a losse amongst our selves for the whole form 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 Queen Elisabeth, what time that Rubrick in the Common pray­er-book was confirmed and ratified. For thus he useth to double and treble his files throughout all his Pamphlet, that he may make himself a Body and Grosse (of words at least) to skarre crowes with­all.

I do confesse, that that most sacred Chappell, but especially the Saint of that Chappell, may for his pletie and true devotion be a moving prece­dent and breathing example, not onely for the Laity and meaner sort of the Clergie, but even for the gravest of all the Prelacie, to follow and imitate. And long may this Relation continue between that Type and Prototype of Majestie. Long may he serve God, and God preserve him, and this Church and State through and by him. But yet every Pag. 28. Parish-church is not bound to imi­tate, in all outward Circumstances, the pattern and form and outward embellishment and ad­orning of the Royall Chappell. And that for these Reasons.

1. Summa Sylvestri, verbo Obed. p. 208▪ La razon es, por que lo que tiene el superi­or praecisa­mente en la mente yen la voluntad, nose ordena al sub­dito y inferior, a manera de praecepto, ni es declaracion de sua volun­tad. Luego, en tal caso no ay obligacion de obedecer. Pedro de Lede­sma 2. parte de la Suma. tractad. 15. c. 1. An Inferiour is bound to yeeld obedience to the outward onely, and not to the inward Mo­tion of the mind in his Superior. For what the Prince keeps inwardly unto himself in his Will [Page 34] and Understanding, hath no reference to the Subject by way of Precept, untill it break forth ad motum exteriorem, as the Schoolmen call it, to some outward overture and declaration relating to the Subject. How the King shall adorn and set out his Chappell Royall, is a matter imminent and left to his own Princely wisdome and under­standing. It is a sinne against many precepts to whisper or doubt, but that he doth it wisely and religiously. But how his Laws and Canons require us to adorn our Churches, that is the out­ward and exteriour moving of his Princely mind, which the Schoolmen make the onely Cynosure of our Obedience. It is not therefore his Majesties Chappell, but his Laws, Rubricks, Canons and Procla­mations, that we are to follow in these Outward Ceremonies. And this I shall cleare by an in­stance, which we should have heard before from the Doctor, but that (peradventure) he knew it not. At. Q. Elisabeths first coming to the Crown, a Speed. p. 858. Stow, 634. Proclamation indeed was set forth, forbid­ding any man to alter any Ceremonies, but accor­ding to the Rites of her own Chappell, Then I confesse unto you, for that [...], and instant of time, the Chappell, and the Chappell onely was the Rubrick, and the Pole-starre we were to saile by in our obedience. But this direction was not in­tended to be long-liv'd; it was but a Bush that brave Lady got under to passe over a sudden showre, Cambd. Elis. pag. 23. donec de Religionis cultu ex authoritate Bar­liamentaria statueretur, until the Parliament might bring to the World that Statute of Primo, [Page 35] whereof we spake so much before. As therefore that wise Princesse made shift for a time with her Sisters Post-nati, p. 73. Seal, so did she with her For they were the entire Ceremonies of the Masse: but that the Lords prayer, Creed and Le­tany was in English, as was usuall in her Fathers time. Cambd. Elis. p. 23. Stow. p. 614. Letany with Suffrage printed 16. of Iune. 1544. Ceremonies; but forsook them both, as soon as she could be o­therwise provided. So as now we are no longer to president our selves in this kind by the Chap­pell, but by the Liturgie of Queen Elisabeth.

2. I hope I shall ever live and die in an awfull and reverent opinion of that sacred Oratory, the vivest resemblance I know upon the Earth of that Harmony of the Cherubims we look for in Hea­ven. Yet do I trust it will be no offence to any that beares equall devotion to that sacred place, if I pluck out this Cumane creature (who like a fawning Sy [...]ophant thinks to take Sanctuarie in that holy ground) from the shadow and shelter of the Royall Chappell. Where did the man ever hear of any Chappell in the Christian world that gave forme and fashion of Divine Service to whole Provinces? To what use serve our grave and worthy Metropolitanes, our Bishops, our Con­vocation-house, our Parliaments, our Liturgies hedged in and compassed with so many Laws, 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 Dean and so many Gentlemen of the Kings Chappell? Here is a riddle indeed!

Sphinx Philosoph. Mater me genuit, qu [...]e eadem mox gignitur ex me. I have heard often of a Mother-church, but now behold a Mother-chappell! Ad Basili­cae principis Apostolorum publicari & af­figi— Piu [...] Quintus, prooem. ante Missal. When Pius Quintus set forth his new Missall, he caus'd it to be pro­claim'd [Page 36] claim'd at S. Peters Church, and not at the sacred Chappell. Concil. Ge­run [...]. in Spanish en Girona, Anno 517. can. 1. Que enquanto a la celebrati­on de los offi­cios ecclesiasti­cos, &c. Fran­cisco de Padilla. Histor. Eccles. de Esp. [...]art. 2. Cen­tur. 6. c. 9. It is cited by Gratian 3. part. d. [...]. de Consecr. Burch. l. 3. c. 66. Ivo part. 3. c. 68. Beat. Rhenanus Praesat. in Miss. Chrysost. And is a currant dire­ction in all Au­thours. In the name of God let the same Offices be said in all the Provinces, as are said in the Metro­politicall Church: as well for the order of the Service, the Psalmodie, the Canon, as the use and custome of the Ministration, was the old rule of the ancient Fathers. I have read of great diversity hereto­fore in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm; of the Vses of Preface be­fore the Common prayer-book. Salisbury, of Hereford, of Bangor, of York, of Lincoln; but never untill now of the Vse of the Chappell. I have read also of far more ancient Offices then any of all these, the In a very old and ancient Mis. at Sr. R. Cottons. Gallicane Course, the Scottish Course, the Romane Course, the Eastern Course, the Course of S. Ambrose, and the Course of S. Benedict, all at once used in severall parts of this Island: but never read I of any ordering or directing Course from his Majesties Chappell untill now.

I pray you, good Sir, how were the divine Ser­vices held up in Christendom for the first 500 yeares, in all which time (if we may beleeve one of our best Sr H. Spilm. verbo Capella. Antiquaries,) we shall hardly meet with the name of a Chappell? Ile put you a merry Case. Most of our Strabo, de rebus Ecclesiast. c. 31. A Capa B. Martini, quam Reges Franco­rum, ob adju­toriū victoriae, in praeiijs sole­bant secum ha­bere. Gemma Anim de antiq. ritu Miss. l. 1 c. 128. Durand. Rational. divin. l. 2. c. 10. Beat. Rhe [...]. Praefat. in Miss. Chrysost. Ioseph. Vicecomes Observat, Ecclesiast. vol. 3. l. 2. c. 28. Ludovici pri [...] Amul [...]tum. Liturgicall Writers (the Favourites of the time) are of opinion, that this word Capella is derived from Capa, which signifies a Hood or a Mantle, and borrowed from the first Christian Kings in France of the Mero­vingian line, who carried about them in their Armies, the Hood of S. Martin as a Relick of much [Page 37] esteem: and using to say their Mattins and Ves­pers in that homely Booth where this Jewell was lodged, the place from this Capa was called Ca­pella, and the beginning of Chappells in these parts of the world. My Case then is this: That if all the Churches in France had been to take the pat­tern of their Ceremonies from King Clouys his Chappell, they must have had every one of them a Hood of S. Martins to officiate over: which would necessarily imply, that this one Saint had a fairer Wardrobe, then all the Saints in the Marty­rologie put together. And many yeares after King Clouys, Chappells in France, and the bordering Countreys, were allowed but Gratian▪ De­cret. part. 3. d. 1. De Consecr. Ex Concilio Triburt. Non extat hoc Conciliū citatur tamen a Bur­chardo etiam l. 3. c. 56. qui pro­culdubio vidit; eitat enim haec verba, ex Con. 4. Vide Ioseph. Vicecom. ubi su­praè & Bin. Con­cilior. vol. 3. p. 1094 ex Her­manno Canisii. Portative, when all the Churches had fixed Altars; so as the former could not in our particular give Law to the later.

I will now lead you from France into Spaine, to see if any Countrey can yeeld you satisfaction; and let you understand, that in the Kingdom of Toledo, and the famous Universitie of Salamanca, Services in happells are quite differing from those in Parish-churches, the Mozarabe por que usavn del lo [...] Christi­anos, que quc­daron mezel [...] ­dos entre los Moros Arabes y se usa del en particulares Capillas de Toledo y de Salamanca. Fr. de Padilla, Hist. Eccles. de Espan. part. 2. centur. 7. c. 20. Mozarabique pen'd by Isi­dore & Leander, being to this very day in use in the one, but the Romane Office commanded in the other. Teach not the Daughter therefore against all Antiquity to jet it our before the Mother: But rather give us leave to steere our selves by the Kings Laws, and we shall honour as much as you, the comelines and devotion of the Kings Chappell.

3. Lastly, I would you had not na­med at all the beginning of Queene Elisabeth. For when the Rubrick and Common prayer was con­firmed, [Page 38] and ratified, there was an Altar in that Chappel, and the very Romano autem ritu in caeteris omni­bus uterentur. Cambd, El. p. 2. 3. Vsque ad vi­cesimum quar­tum Iunit. Idem. p. 39. old Masse officiated there­upon. When the Act of Parliament was passed, assented unto, and printed or proclaimed, the Altar was removed, and the Table placed, and (as both parties conjecture, for they were neither of them, the Inigo's, or Masters of the work at that time) in the very room that was filled up with the former Altar. And this may be, for ought the one knoweth, to make use of the rich Covers and ornaments, which fitted that room. But the other, as resolute as Call'd Do­ctor resolutis­simus. Praefat in 1. Sentent. Bacon the Car­melite, enduring no Guessing or May-bees in this subject, holds it for a thriftie dream, and a poore conjecture. Better a great deal the Chappells and Churches were left to their own ability, to provide them­selves of convenient ornaments, without being any way beholding to their former Altars. And if so lear­ned a man had not delivered it, I should have held this opinion to be but [...], (as Pinder of another in that kinde) the very dream of a shadow, or the shadow of a dream, that the State should throw away more rich furniture for trying of conclusions, then the revenues of many Chur­ches in the Kingdome are worth. But there might be other reasons of this posture of that Ta­ble, then either party hath hitherto touched. Hist. of the Counc. of Tr. l. 5. f. 4 11. Not making any open decla­ration, what doctrine she would follow, designing as soon as she was settled, to esta­blish it. Et par my cet­te innovation laissa plusieurs choses qu'elle jugea indiffe­rentes, comme les Orgues, les Ornements d'Eglise, quoy que plus pour policeque pour religion. Du Chesne Histoire d'Anglet. l. 21. d. 10. Exceptâ Christi cruci affixi effigie, quam in domestico sacrario servavit Regina, publicéque ostentari passa est. Thuan. Hist. l. 23. pag. 670. La Royne, qui vouloit flatter les Catholiques & les Princes estrangers, laignant n'estre pas tant e [...]oginée, qu'on pensoit, de la Religion Catholique, ny al'egal de ses Predecesseurs, fit dresser en sa Chapelle une table en formed' Autel, sur laquelle elle fit m [...]ttre une croixd' argent, aux d'eux cotés de laquelle il y a­voit deux cierges, &c. Publiant, mais avec trop de faintise, que ce qu'elle faisoit, n'estoit que comme constra [...]nte a suivre l'inclination de ses subjects. Lesquels toutesfois aucontraire elle force & contrainct d'aller aux Eglises Protestantes. Flor. Du Remond. de la Naiss. l. 6. c. 11. 73. What if it was to hold besides fair Candle­sticks, [Page 39] embossed Plate and Books of Silver, which must have a back or wall to rest upon? What if there stood in the middest thereof a massie Cruci­fix? What if all her Chappell was thus set forth, to comply with forreigne Princes, and to make them beleeve she was not so farre esloigned from the Catholick Religion, as was bruited abroad? Were all the Churches in England to take pattern by this, who might not possesse a pi­cture in this kinde, no not any of the Subjects in their Articles of Imo. Elis. Artic. 45. Whether you know any that keep in their houses, any undefaced Images, Ta­bles, Pictures, &c. Sermon against perill. of Idol. part. 3. p. 42. Images of Christ be not onely defects, but also lyes. Not that this is Gospell, but that it is QElis. h [...]r Homily. private houses? Let D ^r Coal kindle as red as he pleaseth: I dare not be too peremptory in these Assertions, no more then Aristotle durst be in his morall Philosophie; But I leave him to peruse my Margin a little, where he shall finde two or three Frenchmen, who out of the Freedome of the Nation, will be sure Parler tout, and to conceal nothing that ever they heard of. And this is my Answer to the first Argument.

2. p. 18. 19. The Queens Injunctions were se [...] our for the rei­glement and direction of all the Churches in this King­dom, and it is said in them, that the holy Table in every Church shalbe decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered, as thereto belongeth, (there is added which he leaves out, and as shalbe appointed by the Visitours) and if so, then cer­tainly (without any ifs and ands,) it must stand along [Page 40] close by the wall; because the Altars alwayes stood so, that is, p. 56. generally and for the most part. p. 19. And him­self affirms, that placing of the Table where the Altar stood (which he no where affirms terminis termi­nantibus, but as before, p. 17. in the place of the Chancell where the Altar stood) is the most decent situation, when it is not used, and for use too, where the Quire is mounted up by steps, &c. which might have easily been done. Howbeit afterwards, like a curs'd Cow, p. 18. Quo teneam nodo?) he throws down all the milk he hath given: for when he had (desperately) writ­ten before, p. 17. that he thought somewhat might be said why the Table should stand in that place of the Chancell where the Altar stood, he saith now, that p. 18. if by Altar-wise is mean't, that it should stand along close by the wall; then he believeth not, that ever it was so placed (unlesse by Casualty) in Countrey-churches. So that confessing all this, p 13. and that ( as he guesseth) the Queenes Commissioners were content, that the Altars themselves should stand, in the Injuncti­ons 1559. we have that great p. 13. advantage which Tul­ly speaks of, Confitentem reum; were we but sure to tie a knot upon him: For he is a slippery youth.

Plautus in Pseud. Ps. Quid, cùm manifestò tenetur? Ch. Anguilla'st, elabitur.

So that, as the former Argument was taken from the Queens Chappell, so is this from the Queens Injunctions; and (I confesse) the more perti­nent of the twayn, if it had a Cube, or any solidity to rest upon.

I answer first: That though I may grant the [Page 41] Queens Injunctions to have been an Ecclesiasticall Law, yet shall I ever hold them to have been Laws of England, and not of the Medes and Persi­ans. And Post-nati, p. 106. the Kings of England have a power from God himselfe, not onely to make Laws, but to alter and change Laws from time to time, for the good of themselves and their Subjects, as I shewed before. Especially those parts of the Injunction, which (like trees) breed the Worms in the Body of them, which in a short time must needs destroy them, cannot but be subject to al­teration. And this Injunction for Tables in the Church, is clearely of that nature; That the holy Table should be set in the place where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, and as shalbe appointed by the Visitours. Which last words this false-fingerd gentlemen left out in his Quotation, as I noted before. So that this In­junction is but, as he said of 1 Sam. 13 1. Saul, the sonne of one yeare, and being set forth in the end of Primo, referres the placing and adorning of the Table to the Commissioners, which concluded both these particulars in their Orders of Tertio; Orders the 10 ^th of Octob. 1561. the first Item. That the Table should stand where the steps within the Quires and Chancells stood, and should be covered with Silk or Buckram. And there if you be a good huntsman, you may winde your Horn, and blow the full of that Injunction. O, but there is more life in the Game then so! P. 22. For then the Orders published 1561, must runne quite crosse to the Injunctions pub­lished 1559, but two yeares before; which were ridicu­lous to imagine. Well Coal, thou art an Antmal ra­tionale [Page 42] risibile, that is, a most ridiculous creature, for thy reasoning. How many Acts of Parliament hath England seen, that were made Probationers for a shorter time then two yeares, as you compute it? What was that last Proviso in the Statute of Primo P. 58, 59, 50. you so much stood upon even now, but to imply, that the Queen by her Commissioners (when she saw cause) would appoint alterations of Ceremonies, without making your Master­ship so merry disposed? However, this Injunction had her plenitudinem dierum, having lived to the last minute it was ever intended for, that is, the setling of some other Order in the premisses by the Queens Comm [...]ssioners in Causes Ecclesiasticall. They setled the Table from the Wall, and P. 26. so it continued for many yeares in most places of England, (perhaps when this Letter was written) though much deviated (as you think) from the ancient practice, of those few Moneths, scil. under the foresaid In­junction. But the Coal is not yet quenched; for he flames in the faces of the Commissioners, P. 22. for offering to place the Table where the Steps stood, and yet fixing upon the wall (which the Advertisements of 1565 do call the East-wall) the Tables of Gods Precepts imprinted for the said purpose; which could not be, if the Communion-table were not to stand abo [...] the Steps, and under the Commandments, and therefore all along the wall, (and why not aswell in the place of the steps, and end-wise to the wall?) on which the ten Commandments were appointed to be placed. Here is the longest conclusion, that ever I heard made of such short and pettie premisses. I hope he doth not think that the Tables of the Law did [Page 43] hang Geometrically, by a perpendicular line cut­ting right angles with the Communion-Table. For if they did, they would not serve his turn even in that pendancy. So that to be fixed on the Wall, or the East-wall, over the Communion-boord, can signifie nothing else, but that they should be fix­ed higher then the Communion-Table, upon some part of the East-wall, so as the people seeing the Communion-table, might over that see and read the ten Commandments. And this may be the better done, though the Table stand in the Midst of the Quire, which is more then the Letter required. And this is the true meaning of those Orders, as appeares by Interpretatio practice [...] is to be considered in all things. [...]ost-nat. P. 66. the generall practice, and the Canons in force. That the ten Commandments be set upon the East-end of e­very Church, where the people may best see and reade the same. Not just over the middle of the Tabl [...] Canon 82. running along the East-window Altar-wise; (for then they must, in most Churches, be fixt in the very Glasse it selfe) but in any part of the East-end, where Canon 82. they may be seen and read of the Peo­ple. And so in B. Sand's visitation 13 ^o of the Queen, the Article runs no more then thus, Whether have you in your Church or Chappell the Table of the ten Commandments? So that the very Church-Pain­ters cannot but have Tanto di naso, a nose as long as the Rhinoceros, in making themselves merry with the conceit of this Argument. The Commandments are over the Table; Ergo over the side of the Table. Nonsequitur. They may be over the End of the Ta­ble. And that shalbe the end of my first answer.

Secondly, how doth it follow, that P. 8, & 9. if the [Page 44] Injunction require that the Table should be set in the place where the Altar stood, it must stand along close by the wall? have you no better proof for it, P. 19. then that Altars alwaies stood so? Although this be a most bold and ignorant assertion (as shall be shewed in due time) yet be­ing admitted, it doth not prove your sequele. For it might stand above the steps, with the end Eastward, and the side Northward, P. 26. as it was in most places of England, when this Letter was writ­ten, and yet obey the words of the Injunction, and be in the place where the Altar stood. If the Injunction had said, It was to be in the very place of the Altar, it had not done your feat. For, as Aristotle tells us, there is a double place; there is Natur. Au­scult. lib. 4. c. 4. [...] there is a place of the Altar, which might hold more then the Al­tar did; and there is a place, that holds [...]. Ibid. just no more in any dimension, then the thing placed. And the Injunction directed to her Majesties Sub­jects, and not to her Mathematicians, is likelier to use the term of a common and ordinary, then of a proper and Mathematicall place. This very Injunction saith in the next words, that in the time of the Communion it shall be in the Chancell. Before the Communion. The Rubrick saith, in the body of the Church or Chancell. The Canon 82. Canon in force, in the Church or Chancell. All which are com­mon and Mechanicall, and not Mathematicall pla­ces. 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 that Altar filled, [Page 45] But here it is not so difficult neither. The words are, In the place, UBI, where the Altar stood; as in the Also that the Steps, &c. Orders of Tertio, where the Steps stood. So that the Injunction doth not describe the Mathematicall place, but the Vbi onely, and artificiall place of the Altar. And De subtilit. Exercit. 359. § 5. Scaliger will tell you, that many things else may be in an Vbi, without levelling their length, breadth and thicknesse to the equall dimensions of a cor­poreall-place. And therefore for the great paines you take with your line and levell, in finding that the Pag. 19. Altar takes up much room to the North and South, which the Table placed end­long doth not take up, and the Table much room to the East and West, which the Altar did not; you might have spared it all against the building of a new Pigeon-house. Your Chalk and Oker are quite washt away with these distinctions. For I that am but a poore Countrey-joyner, can set you up (if you please) a Table end-wise above the Steps, that shall be said as properly to be in the place where the Altar stood, as to be in the Church, in the Chancell, or that paved ground where the Steps were a little before demolished. And thus the Writer of the Letter doth not play Pag. 18. Fast and loose, but loose with you for altogether, dissolving this Vtopian contradiction that rumbled in your brain, without the help of Antonius Zimarra. If you mean by Altar-wise, the place; somewhat may be said for it; if the Form of an Altar, nothing at all in the Injunctions of 1559. Nor doth the writer of the Letter any where say, that Pag. 13. the Queens Com­missioners [Page 46] were content the Altars should stand; for my Copy hath it, The Queens most royall Majesty by the advice of her most honoura­ble Counsell. Preface to the Injunct. the Queen and her Counsell, her Com­missioners having no hand at al in these Injunctions. So that your self is the P. 13. Reus in this Confession: either wilfully corrupting the text, or swallow­ing a Gudgeon presented by the transcriber. I am not salaried to defend the Writer of the Letter in all words and syllables; who (had he any ground given him by his Majesties Laws to turne him about) seemes unto me fully as for­ward, and farre more able to defend old Cere­monies, then you are. But I must say this (though both of you should be offended) that the The words be these, In the other ( that is, either) where­of, saving for uniformity, there seemeth no matter of great moment, so that the Sa­crament be duely and re­verently admi­nistred. Queen and the Counsell do not, unto me, seeme to ap­prove, but rather to disprove the standing of Altars, in this Injunction. They say indeed, that absolutely, and abstractedly from circumstances and considerations, it seemeth no matter of great moment, unto them, whether the Sacrament be administred upon the Altars, or the holy Tables, so as it be duely and reverently performed. Duely, without turning it to a Sacrifice, as the Pontificians did: And reverently, without pulling it down to a bare signe and Figure, as the Zuinglians did. But ta­king the case not abstracted and naked, but cloa­thed and adorned with all its circumstances unto their consideration, they clearely resolve to put down the Altars, and set up the holy Tables, for two main reasons. In these words, Yet for observation of one uniformi­ty through the whole Realme, and for the better imitati­on of the Law in that behalf, it is ordered, &c. The first, for uniformitie of divine Service through the whole Realme. And secondly, for a conformitie with the Statute of 1 ^• Elis. c. 2. to the which the Queen had but newly [Page 47] pass'd her Royall assent, when by the advice of her Counsell she published these Injunctions.

My third therefore and last Answer is this, That it had been P. 22. ridiculous indeed to imagine, that the Queen and her Counsell (the very flower and glory of both the Vpper and Lower house of Parliament) should in these Injunctions vary from the Rites, which they had but few dayes before prescribed to be used in the Rubrick of the Book of Common prayers: Letter. p. 71 Where the Minister ap­pointed to reade the Communion, is directed to reade the Commandments, not at the end, but at the North-side of the Table, Rubrick be­fore the Commu­nion. which implies the end to be placed towards the East great Win­dow, as is was likewise practised in King P. 26. That onely was put in to shew that he had the Book entitu­led The Trobles of Francofurt. Ed­wards time; which the writer of the Letter (what shift soever the poore man made to get the Book) hath indeavoured to prove out of Pag. 30. The Troubles at Francofurt. It being very like, that Cox, Grin­dall, and Whitehead (who made halfe the Cambd. Elis. p. 23. number of the perusers of the Liturgie, which was to be confirmed in the Parliament of Primo) would ob­serve that Ceremony in placing the Communion­table, which themselves (at home and Troubles of Francof. p. 23. 24. abroad) had formerly practised. And that this was the last situation of that Table in King Edwards time, we may know from a servant in Ordinary of Queen Maries, from whom as I would be loath to re­ceive matters of doctrine, so shall I never refuse to be informed in matters of Fact, consonant and agreeing to the Rubrick of our Liturgie. Conside­ring, as the Poet saith, [Page 48] ‘—Fas est & ab hoste doceri.’

Miles Hug­gard, in his book cal'd The displaying of I rotestants, Anno 1556. Pag. 81. So the Bishop of Lincoln to Bishop Ridley, And yet when your Table was constituted, you could ne­ver be content in p [...]acing the same, now East, now North, &c. Act. & Monum. vol. 3. p. 497. 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 between: The Mini­sters being in contention on whether part to turne their faces, either towards the West, the North, or South. Some would stand Southward, some Northward, and some Westward. And this contention was deter­mined (by the Rubrick still in force) for the North-side of the Table. Which in my opinion, confirmes very much the conceit of the Letter, seeme it to Doctor Coal never so shallow. That the Table should stand above the steps, if there were any; That it should not stand along close by the wall; That having (unlesse it were a Mon­ster) but two long sides, Letter pag. 71. 70. one of them should be placed towards the North, to obey the direction of the Liturgie. And for elbow-room, let him take his square & plummet again, wee'l finde him enough. Actor. Eccles. Medio. sub Car. Borrom. part. 4. Instructionum fabricae & supel­lectilis Ecclesia­stica, l. 1. c. 11. When you build an high Altar, there must be from the foot or lowest degree thereof, to the Rails that enclose the same, eight cubits, and more, if the Church will bear it, that there may be room for the Clergi to assist (as sometimes is required) at solemne Masses. When the Altars therefore, with their appurtenances, were taken down (for I will not offend those tender eares of his with the word Pag. 11. Pulling any more, though they deserve to be pull'd once again for this childish Criticisme) there was roomth enough to set a Communion-Ta­ble end-wise, in that very place where the Altar [Page 49] stood. Yet doth Doctor Coal hope (if his fire be of any activity at all) he hath burnt this doctrine to very dust, erudito pulvere, with the learned dust of his Geometry.

pag. 23. For there is no difference at all in this case, be­tween the North-end and the North-side, which come both to one. For in all quadrilaterall and quadrangular figures, whether they be a perfect square, which Geome­tricians Geometr. lib. 12. Can. 2. that is, Peter Ramus, and those that fol­low him; for the Greeks do call it [...], and the Latinists, aequilaterum; which would not hand­somely fit in this place, where the discourse is of a long-square) call Quadratum; or along-square (as commonly our Communion-Tables are) which they call Oblongum, it is plain, that if we speak according to the Rules of Art (as I hope we do not use to speak to poore Subjects, that are penally to obey Lawes and Canons) everypart of it is a side, howsoever Cu­stome Horat. in Arte Poëtica. ( Quem penes arbitrium est & jus & nor­ma loquendi) hath prevailed to call the narrower sides by the name of Ends. When therefore he that mini­streth at the Altar, stands at the North-end of the same, as we ( that are not Mathematicians) use to call it, he stands no question ( the right stile of a Geome­trae, qui se pro­fitentur non persuadere, sed cogere. Cic. A­cad. Quaest. l. 4. Geometri­cian) at the North-side thereof, as in property of speach we ought to call it. And this Interpretation of the Ru­brick I rather stand to, because it is translated in the La­tin Liturgie of 2 ^do Elisabethae; ad cujus mensae Sep­tentrionalem partem Minister stans. And I presume no man of reason can deny, that the Northerne end or side (call it which you will) is pars Septentrionalis. And thereupon he throws down his Gauntlet, and [Page 50] (contrary to the Proclamation) challengeth in plaine termes the trimme Epistoler, to let him (if he can) heare in some reasonable time the contrary from him.

It is a Chartell of defiance, I confesse, and being sufficiently divulged, I must leave it to the party called upon, to take up, if he please, or o­therwise to disgest, as his stomack and discreti­on shall best serve him. Let him meet the Do­ctour, if he dare; but yet happie he, if he do not meet him. For mine owne part, I am nothing so much troubled with this language, as I am with a speculation that suddenly comes into my head, of the elevation and raptures of the Soul, when it is throughly plung'd in the studies of the Mathematicks. For as these learned men converse in abstracted notions (as the [...]. Arist. de Anima, lib. 1. cap. 1. Philo­sopher tells us) without any mixture with the mud of this world; so is their pleasure and con­tentment so pure and liquid, that it is a kind of [...]. Plut. Non sua­viter posse vivere juxta Epicurum. pag. 1094. Hony-combe without any wax, and a bowl of Nectar powred down their throat without a crum of any diverting or distasting thought to interrupt them. Incomparable was the delight of Euclide, when he had found how to make but [...]. Plut. ibid. a Iacobs staffe, which notwithstanding, I can buy for twelve pence. Archimedes wash't in a brazen Lavatory, cryes out in an extasie, I have found it. His men thought he had found a Coronet of gold, and it was nothing but the [...], Idem. ibid. Coronet or Circumference of the Vessell. But that sad youth Pythagoras went beyond them all, who having [Page 51] ever been in all his Sacrifices, [...], far from any lavishing humour, when he had found in a Diagramme an equality of some lines, or (as the Doctour calls them) of some sides, in a right­angled Triangle, [...] (saith mine Porphyrius de vita Pythag. ab Holstenio editus. p. 24. Authour) down went a whole Ox to the Gods for the In­spiration. It is not therefore without a great deale of reason, that D ^r Coal doth thus triumph in this page, to have found, by his rare Invention and study in Geometry, foure sides in a long Table; nor without some hope of having one day an Altar and a Sacrifice, for joy of the Diagramme. And surely well may he deserve it, if at a Table that hath no end, he can Officiate at the end of the Table. Otherwise, to enform us that in every Square there are foure sides (that is, [...], Squares are figures com­passed with foure right lines. Euclid. Element. ex Theon comment. translated by Dosypodius. [...], Right figures are those that are compassed with right lines. Ibid. foure lines; as all Mathematicians define a side.) I assure you, is no more, then a Child in his long coats was able to demonstrate to the Divine Socrates. [...], &c. Plato in Menon. pag. 418. Pusio­nem quendam Socrates in­terrogat quae­dam Geome­trica de di­mensione Qua­drati. Cic. Tufc. qu. l. 1. Socr. From what line, my Child? Ch. From this line. Socr. What, from this of foure foot long running from angle to angle? Ch. Iust so, Sir. So as the Gods deserve nothing at all, no not that holocaust mentioned in the beginning of the Book, of the Doctours discretion (which is a grain or two lesse then nothing) for this poore and meagre invention.

And that I deale clearly in this point to the Greeks in the Margin, I will adde some definiti­ons of an M. Blundevils Exercit. 1 Book of the Sphear, p. 274. English Gentleman of good esteem amongst the Learned. Triangles are those which are bounded with three right lines. Foure-square figures [Page 52] are those which are bounded with foure right lines. Many square figures are those which are bounded with more right lines then foure, &c. If you speak therefore according to the Rules of Art, a side in Geometry, is a line or length; and foure sides are but foure lengths. But a side in the English-tongue, is a long length (as the side of a man, from whence the word is derived, is the longest length of a man) and the two sides of a long Square, the two long lengths of that Square; which to the worlds end will never be proved to be that Squares End. Your selfe confesse that Custom hath prevail'd to call the narrower sides (say you, I say, Lines or Lengths) by the name of Ends. And will you dispute out of Geometry against Custom? And that with people which are no Geometricians? [...]. Arist. Analyt. post. l. 1. c. 12. Then Aristotle shall tell you what you are. You must not dispute in termes of Geometry, with those that verse not in Geometry: O­therwise, you will shew your selfe but a foul and sophi­sticall disputant. Now Points and Lines are [...], Arist. Anal post 1. c. 10. pro­per to Geometry: Iul. Polluc. li. 4. c. 21. p. 212. and so are Triangles, Quadran­gles and Quadrates. And therefore these are not words for binding and penall Laws. Loquendum cum Vulgo. When you speak to the People of a Side, you must take a Side as they take it. Opera dan­da est ut verbis utamur quàm usitatissimis. Cio. 4. de Finib. Vsitata sunt ea, quae versantur in sermone & consuetudine quotidiana. Cic. ad Heren. lib. 4. We must take the words that are most usuall, that is, those of daily speach and communication. If Custom have prevailed, it is too late to stop the current. Custom will carry it quite away from your Geometry. And as you may see in the Margin out of Tully (one that understood prettily well the proper­tie [Page 53] of speach) there is no property of speach, but in the speach of use and Custome. For other wise every Art hath her words of Art; as Dialectico­rum quoque verba nulla sunt publica; suis utuntur, Et id quoque commune om­nium ferè ar­tium. Cic. Acad. quaest. l 1. Lo­gick, and what not? Nay the [...]. Analyt. post. l. 1. c. 11. great Philoso­pher tells us, that if a Musician propound his Probleme to a Geometrician in his own terms, hee'l go near to gravell him. If you please, wee'l try it a little. You are an excellent Geometrician, I perceive, and yet I shall present you with an Epitaph of a French Musician, Noelle sueur, written in terms of Musick, which, for all your Mathema­ticks, you will never understand without the help of that chanting Science. Now if you may per­chance have a Crochet in your pate more then I know of, be not descanting too fast upon this Epitaph. Upon my word it was not made of a Vicar, but of a Les Bigar­reures du Sei­gneur des Ac­cords. De Rebus par lettres ch. 3. p. 25 & 26. Chanter of Langres, and is here faithfully translated from the originall, who ever the Rhymer was.

Now all this is canting, not chanting, to an un­musicall man.

You are too much in your Mathematicall hu­mour; as Euclide was before you: who passing through many countreys, and coming at the last to the banks of Nile, and finding there some Diagrammes in the sand, drawne by the Egyptians Coelius Rho­digin. Antiq. lection. lib. 18. cap. 34 [...] Nun­quam non Collimitiis pereuntibus Nili exupe­rantia. Hieron. Card. Encom. Geo­metr. (whom the often overflowing of that River had forced to the study of Geometry) is said to kneele down, and give the Gods thanks, that he was entring into a countrey inhabited by men. As if they could be no men, that were not withall Cardan. ibid. Geometricians. I pray you therefore re­member, that the Rubrick was written for the use of the English, not of the Gypsies or Egyptians. And for your directions hereafter, I will give you two Rules from two Englishmen, prettily well versed in Lawes and Canons, because I per­ceive you suspect and jeere the The ablest Canonist no doubt in the Church of England. p. 50. writer of the Letter, as unskil'd in that kind. Post-nat. p. 62. Words should be taken sensu currenti. For use and custome is the best Expositour both of Laws and words. If of all Laws and Words, then most of all of the Words of the Lawes. That's the first. The second is to the same effect. Whitgift in his defence of the admonition, tit. 9. pag. 134. The other is the common name [Page 55] customably used of the common people, who will not be taught to speak by you or any man, but keepe their accustomed names and terms. Though you will go neare to tell him for his good advice, Pag. 47. that this was but his Helena to please the people. Well, if one should invite the good Gentlewoman your wife to dinner, and bid her sit down at the side, meaning in your property of speech, at the End of the Table, he might upon the very naming of this word side, find his Gossip (peradventure) in the Top of the house. But to dally with you no lon­ger; learned men in these very particular Cere­monies we have in hand, have appropriated the word sides, to the long, and the word End, to the short length of an Oblong square: So as they cannot now be otherwise (but improperly) used. What say you to Gregory the 13 ^th who renewed the Calendar? I hope he had about him all the best Bullarii Tom. 2. p. 456. Mathematicians of Europe, that could inform him what was properly to be called a side. And yet in his Pontific. Greg 13. Venet. 1582. p. 144. Et thurificat Altare undi (que) ad dextrum & sinistrū latus. Et p. 142. In parte posterio­ri, & parte an­teriori Altaris. And it is so like­wise in the Pon­tificall of Pius Quartus prin­ted at Venice, 1561. p. 133. Above all this, see Act. & Mo­num. vol. 2. pag. 700. Of B. Rid­ley. And in the Church of [...]oul brake down the wal, stand­ing then by the high Altars side. And when the Altare San­ctum in S. Denis in France was opened by the Abbat Suger, there was found S. James arme, en la partie anteritur, in the anteriour part; S. Stephens at the right, and S. Vincents at the left side of the Altar. Du Brenl. Theatre des Antiquitez de Paris lib. 4. pag. 1102. Pontificall, he makes no more sides of an Altar, then of a man, to wit, a right side and a left side; calling the lesser squares, the anteriour and posteriour part thereof. What think you of Archbishop Bancroft, and the Composers of our Canons now in being? Did they use in those Ca­nons a property of speach? Surely they were much too blame, if they did not. And they require (as we heard before) Canon 82. That the ten Commandments should be set upon the East-end (not the East-side [Page 56] of every Church and Chappell. And for the words of the Latin Liturgie of 2 [...] of the Queen, that trans­lates it, ad mensae Septentrionalem partem (which Politia Ec­cles. p. 221. Mocket likewise follows in his Book) it helps the Doctour nothing at all, but to shew his want of Logick and learning. For beside that that Book is recommended onely Quoniam intelligimus Collegia utri­usque Acade­miae, Collegi­um item no­vum prope Wintoniam, & Aetonense. Q. Letters pa­tents, 6. April. El. 2. to a few Colleges, and not unto the Church of England, and was never confirmed by Act of Parliament, or King Iames his Proclamation; Walter Haddon, or whosoever else was the translatour thereof, in his Rhetoricall vein, useth in his rendring of these words, the Genus for the Species, which in an Argument will by no means endure a [...]. Top. 4. c. 1. Reciprocation, as freshmen know in the Universities. I do presume, gentle Doctour, that no man of reason can deny but that every End is a Part: but I hope a man may stoutly deny that every Part is an End, and yet with the help of a warm Night-cap keep his Reason safe e­nough. Every side of a man is a part: but he that will say that every part of a man is a side, hath nei­ther head nor brains of his own, nor hath he ever studied Vesalius his Anatomy. So that your Argu­ment is troubled with a Pleurisie and some stitches in the side, which must be cur'd; otherwise you have reason, S ^r, to expect ye [...] long to heare some news from the trimme Gentleman. Your Eve, S ^r,

was taken from your side: (And thereupon, by the Martinius in Lexic. verbo Latus. Phrisians and Sicambrians, a Wife is to this day call'd a side.) But she was not taken from Si ex poste­riori parte e­duxisset, nimiò plùs mulier vilis extitisset; si ex anterio­ri, quasi viro adversariam effinxisset. Gennad. [...] a­ten. Lippo [...] in Gen. c. 7. fol. 74. Nè aut Domi­na, si de Capi­te; aut Ancilla, si de Pedibus. Hugo de S. Vi­ctore. everypart of a man. Tell her, that she was ta­ken [Page 57] from your Heels, & you shall quickly find her (if she be metall'd) about your Eares. So in this par­ticular; when you officiate at the end of the Table, you may officiate at a part (and well enough, for ought the writer of the Letter saith to the contra­ry) but you cannot officiate at that part of the Ta­ble, to the which by the Rubrick, confirmed by Act of Parliament, you are literally directed and ap­pointed. Besides that, there is in this Latin trans­lation more to be considered, then you are aware of. The Calendar there is full of Saints, and some of them got into red scarlet; there is an in­novation in the Obits and Exequies, which is fain to be warranted with the Queens Peculiari [...] quaedam in fu­nebribus & ex­equiis de [...]an­tinda, quae Statu [...]o non obstante, &c. Q. Letter patent. especiall Non ob­stante. And what needed this to yong Scholars, that mean't not to die so fast, but desired no more then leave to pray in Latin, to be better acquain­ted with books in that Language? Lastly, there were so few Copies of this Latin Liturgie printed at the first, that D ^r Whitaker, when he was but yet a very yong man, was imployed by his Vncle the Dean of Pauls, to translate it again into Latinita­te donàsse fer­tur ( The Book is extent in 8 [...]. omnem ratio­nem publica­rum precum & totius Litur­giae formam praescriptam. Ashtonus in vi­ta Whitak [...]ri. Oper. tom. 1. pag. 699. Latin. Which had never been, unlesse the other version was at that time either exhausted or misliked. Set all these together, and compare the yeare of 3 [...] and 4 [...] of the Queen (for so long it may be yer the Book was printed) with the doings at the Councell of Trent, with the Popes endeavours to excommuni­cate, and the Emperours to protect this yong Princesse, and you shall finde a probable reason that this Li­turgie should be translated, rather to complie with the See the Hi­story of the Counc. of Trent. lib. 8. pag. 727. Item Cambd. Elis. pag. 41. forreign, then to reigle and direct the English [Page 58] Churches. And so much by way of Answer to the second Argument.

3. The third and main Argument of D ^r Coal is this: p. 63. That his sacred Majestie (whom God long preserve) hath hereupon already declared his plea­sure, in the Case of S. Gregories, and thereby given en­couragement to the Metropolitanes, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches com­mitted to them.

If this were true, it might very well serve for a Wall of brasse to keep off the tongues and pens of all the Clergie and Laity of England, from intermed­ling in this Theme or Question any more. For who could have so steely a brow, as to outface such a sacred Sentence; especially in a matter of a nature indifferent, & acknowledged by all Laws divine and humane, to depend immediately upon the Royall decision? But it is most untrue, that his Majesty hath declared in that Act one word of his pleasure Hereupon, that is, against the Contents of this Letter; although it was (if I be rightly infor­med) either punctually read, or opened very ful­ly, unto his most excellent Majesty at that Hearing But this Pamphleter, whose whole book is but a Li­bel against a Bishop, and every page thereof a malici­ous falsification of some Authour or other, had this height of impudency onely left to ascend unto in the Conclusion of his work, ponere os in coelum, to outface heaven it self, and misreport the ju­stice of so divine a Majestie. For if you abstract from this Declaration, which this bold man hath printed for an Act of Counsell, the Allegations (which [Page 59] he calls the Relations) of both parties, and his Ma­jest [...]es just pleasure for the dissolving of the Ap­peal; the remainder will prove a full confirma­tion of this Letter he so much frets against, and a most condigne reprehension of that Squirrel­headed yong man, that without consent of his Fellow minister, and in contempt of his Diocesan, and all that populous Parish, would throw the Communion-table out of doores, and build him a close Altar, out of faction and singularity. His Majesties Rescript, Mentis aureae verba bracteata, fit to be written in plates of gold, is this, and this onely, concerning the point in controversie.

And likewise, for so much as concerns the liberty gi­ven p. 65. by the said Communion-book, or Canon, for placing the Communion-table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniency: That liberty is not 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 he may finde cause.

With this Sentence I will conclude the Chap­ter: And will not presume with any Nè quid, post illud divi­num & immor­tale factum, mortale face­ret. Plin. in Panegyr. mortall dis­course of mine, to profane such heavenly expressi­ons. Here is more then I could say; here is as much as I could think. Here is no Altar, no Altar­wise, no fixing in the East, no stepping, no mounting; but all left to the Law, to the Communion-book, to the Canon, and to the Dio [...]esan. And therefore if this do not defend the Writer of the Letter (if he [Page 60] prove a pag. 3. Diocesan writing to his own private Parish-Priest) par my & par tout, (as our Common Lawyers use to say) from the first word to the very last therein contained, let him get him another Champion, and remain undefended for me.

AS the A ceromate nos Aphe exce pit. Senec. Epist. 57. Haphe, pulvis quo in­spergebantur luctaturi. Mu­retus in locum. Sic Ovid. Ille cavis hausto spargat me pulvere palmis. ancient wrastler in the Olympick Games finding his adversaries members so slick and slippery with oile and sweat, as it was impossible to lay any fixed hold upon them, used to powder them over with a kind of dust, whereby to procure himself a surer gripe and fastning: So this Pamphleter having slipt and glided (as it were) those poore Reasons he hath into all the severall parts of this Libell, so as it is impossible to refute them without committing as many Tautologies as he useth himself; I have thrown this Method like a kind of Pin-dust upon those naked limbs, that I might get some hold of him, and trie whether he be as strong and manly, as he is fidging and slippery in his Refutation. As therefore I have in the last Chapter reduced in­to [Page 61] a body all the Regall, so I intend to do in this, all the Ecclesiasticall power, that the poore fellow conceives to be any way opposite to the Letter confuted. I must therefore fall a picking of them up, like so many Daisies in a bare Common, here and there one where I can finde them.

First, the setting of your Table Altar-wise being now exacted from you by your Ordinary: This Case (saith pag. 2. he) requires more of your Obedience then Cu­riosity. And should we all be so affected as to demurre on the Commands of our Superiours, in matters of exteriour order, and publick government, till we are satisfied in the grounds and reasons of their Commands, or fly off from our duty, we should soon find a speedy dissolution both of Church and State. You know who said it well enough; Si ubi jubeantur, quaerere singulis liceat, pereunte obsequio imperium etiam intercidit. pag. 59. Now the Ordinary of his own Authority can (if he please) so ap­point and direct it. Beside that, his pag. 63. Majestie hath given encouragement to the Bishops and other Ordi­naries (whereof I have shewed the contrary in the precedent Chapter) to require the like in all the Churches committed unto them.

Secondly, The Vicar of Gr. himself pag. 9. might de­sire to have an Altar, i. e. to have the Communion­table placed Altar-wise at the upper end of the Quire, or use the name of Altar for the holy Table. pag. 10. Be­cause, for any thing the Canon tells us, the Vicar (who is never nam'd or dream't of in the Canon, or ar­ticled unto concerning this particular in either the Diocesan or Metropolitan Visitation) was to have a greater hand in ordering of the said Table then the Bishops immediate Officers, the Churchwardens, were [Page 62] or ought to have; as one that better understood, what was convenient in and for Gods Service, then they did or could. Nor did the Vicar any thing against the Canon (as he did not by taking his Mornings draught before he went about it) in causing the Table to be disposed of to a more convenient place then before it stood in. Onely this Epistoler is pleas'd to countenance the Vestry-doctrine of these dayes, in which the Churchwar­dens and other Elders (that grow in the Doctours bar­ren wit, never dream't of in the Letter) would do all, leaving their Minister (God blesse good holy Church-men from such a misadventure) to his stu­dies and Meditations. A thing more fitting for S. Basil or S. Bernard, then for a Vicar, who was ne­ver intended for a looker on, or a dull spectatour of their active undertakings in removing (when they are commanded by the Ordinary) a joyned Table. pag. 11. For the Curate being once appointed as a prin­cipall man to take Altars down, who but he should set them up? It is true indeed that the Bishop of the Dio­cese is the man, to whom by right (and by the Liturgie) the ordering of these things doth belong; but then it is as true (or if it be not true, as it is most false and foo­lish) yet (saith the Title pag. Iudicious and learned Divine, D ^r Coal, aliàs Firebrand) it is more fit, that he should send his resolutions to the Priest, then to the (I know not what) people, a kind of Myrmidons swarm'd out of the Doctours fancie, and never mentioned in the Letter confuted. And to say that they are the Diocesans subordinate officers in this kind, is another smack of the Vestry-doctrine; And placed there on front; to delight the people, encouraged thereby to contemn their Parsons, who are left to meere [Page 63] contemplative Meditations, and not employed (as they should be) in removing and providing of Frames and Tables. And therefore, O bloudy Pre­late, to gore thy Clergy in this kind, as not to suffer them to execute all these Mandates of Commissaries and Officialls, concerning Bells, Frames, Bell-ropes, Beeres, Shove ls, and square Tables; but leave those active spirits to moulder away (against all conscience) in divine Meditations! Parce precor stimulis. Oh be not so hard-hearted and mercilesse pag. 48. to advance on this sort the Au­thoritie of the Churchwardens so high above their Mini­sters. Especially pag. 51. seeing the Vicar in correspondence unto former practice (some 80 yeares before) thought the place where formerly the Altar stood, to be fittest for it. Which he knew better then this extravagant Episto­ler, pag. 3. though the Epistoler seem to be a Diocesan, and the other a private Parish-priest in his Iurisdiction.

Thirdly and lastly, If both the Ordinary and Vicar (which is not to be conceived) should want a power to set the holy Table Altar-wise, pag. 4. & 28. what can be said to that uniformity of publick order, to which the piety of the times is so well enclined? What say you to the good work which is now in hand? Shall such pag. 3. a poore trifling piece of work as this, discountenance these sublime intentions? Non sinam, non patiar, non feram. And thus our Coal sparkles and layes about him.

But surely these demonstrations were born in Thebes, and not in Athens, and being of the true Cadmean brood, do kill and destroy one another;

[Page 64] For if the Vicar had power to transpose Tables and set up Altars without and contrary to the will of his Ordinary, why should he not (in the name of God) demurre upon the Commands of his Superiour in matters of exteriour order, and bid a Fico to your first Argument. But if upon his first de­murre in this kinde, imperium intercidit, the Em­pire Ecclesiasticall is at an end, what shall be­come of the lusty blade that understood him­self better then this extravagant Ordinary, and of your second kinde of Argument? Mary then, if the Piety of the times, the devotion of some judicious particulars, and a good work, as yet in Abeyance and pendant in the aire, but ready yer long to fall upon our heads, shall become the Square and Canon of our exteriour order in the Church; Bar­bara celarent, talke no more of Mood and Figure, for I would not give a button for all your Syllo­gismes. So that these Thebane Arguments, that drew their first breath

are but a kinde of Sheeps head sodden in the wooll, and will do the Writer of the Letter no harm at all; being made of the Pallas adest motae que jubet supponere ter­rae Vipereos dentes. Ovid. Metam. l. 3. tusks, though of a Serpent indeed, yet of a dead toothlesse Ser­pent. First, as touching the Reverend Ordina­ries of this Land, if there be any that dislike of their Callings, or conceive of the same as not grounded upon Apostolicall, and (for all the essentiall parts thereof) upon divine Right; I would he were with Master Cotton in the New, as unworthy of that most happy [Page 65] government, which (by the favour of God and the King) all the Laitie and Clergie doe here enjoy in the old England. But yet they never had, or challenged unto themselves any such exorbi­tant power over their Clergie, and over the Laws and Canons established (especially over Acts of Parliaments) as this Iudicious and learned Divine (as he writes) but indeed most injudicious and trifling Novice (as he proves himselfe) doth at­tribute unto them. Did ever any Bishop covet to command his Clergie, as a Generall doth his Armie in a drunken mutinie, by Martiall Law? And yet this is the very Vino graves They would know whither Varius Crispi­nus did drive those Cartloads of Armour. Ta­cit. Histor. l. 1. c. 83. according to Gruterus. President he cites out of Tacitus. No, no, Bishops have ever governed their Clergie by Canon Law, and not by Cannon shot. God hath appointed them to governe both the Priests and the People subjected unto them according to certaine divine and humane Lawes, and that with a power of Moderation, and not Domination, saith a great Bils. de perpe­tua Guber [...]. 1 [...] p. 352. Prelate of this Church. Sitting in Sy­nods they might heretofore judge of Canons, but in their Chaires they are not to judge of Ca­nons, but according to Canons, saith the Gratian. par [...]. 1. dist. 4. Father of all the Canonists. Otherwise why are the Concil. Nice [...]. c. 5. [...] And therefore they may con­queri de judi­ciis suorum E­piscoporum. Concil. Afric. sub Aug. Can. 28. Ap­peals by Canon Law as ancient in the Church of God, as the Canons themselves? But because it is possible a Prelate may propose unto himselfe, some peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour of his owne, in stead of a Canon? No ecclesiasticall Judge whatsoever is to guide himself by his Exir. de Con­stitut. c. 1. own sense, but by the authoritie of the Canons. It is true indeed, that our reverend Archbishops and Bi­shops [Page 66] shops here in England had a power (in Synod) to make Declaratories and Revocatories of their Com­mon Law (as they terme it) to set penalties where they were wanting, and aggravate them where they were deficient, and to make Additaments to the constitutions of the Pope himselfe; but still with this Lindwood in c. Presbyt. verbo Iuramento, de Majotit. & Obe­dient. proviso, that they do not overthrow the jus commune, and crosse the generall Lawes of Gods Church. But this power they had hereto­fore, it being now quite taken away by 25. H. 8. c. 19. King Henry the Eighth. And that not for the reason some have given thereof, Considerations of the Govern­ment of Bishops. because the state of the Clergie was then thought a suspected part to the Kingdome, in their late homage to the Bishop of Rome: (for there were as great Cùm esset Ra [...]isponae, nec adhuc Episco­pus aut Can­cellarius, dice­bat fuisse in arbitrio Regis statuta abro­gare & ritus novos institu­ere Calvin. in Amos. c. 7. v. 13. Roy­alists in those dayes as in any age sithence what­soever) but for the reasons I gave in the Chapter before; that these Ecclesiastical Jurisdictiōs were the native Roses, and Lilies of the Crown, not first prickt in by Gardiner the Bishop, but grafted and deeply rooted in the same by the first Genes. 2. Gardener we read of from the very beginning. So that the power of making and executing such Canons being ceased, if the Ordinaries now command, where there is no Law or former Canon in force, it layes a bur­den and grievance upon the subject, from which he may appeale, as being a thing unjust, and Lindwood in c. Quia incon­veniens. consequently of a nature whereunto obedience is no way due. Nor do our reverend Bishops otherwise conceive it. Bils. de perpet. Eccles Gubern. [...]. 14. p. 341. Whatsoever by the Laws of God, the Prince, or the Church, is once constituted, is no longer to be mooted upon, but [Page 67] absolutely obeyed by all inferiours. And what God, the King, and Church have directed, is not to be put to deliberation, but to execution. And D. Field of thè Church. l. 5. c. 27. ano­ther learned man saith truly, that we make not the power of the Bishops to be Princely, but Fa­therly, and dirigible by the Lawes. And Master Preface to his VVorkes. Hooker gives the reason hereof: When publike consent of the whole hath established any thing, every mans judgement being thereunto compared is private, howsoever his calling be to some kind of publike charge. Now it is true as P. 15. D ^r. Coal noteth, that in all doubts that may arise how to understand, do and execute the things contained in our Liturgie, a deciding power is left to the Bishop of the Diocese, to take order by his discretion for the quieting of the same. But it is as true, that Coal dasheth out with an &c. the main Proviso of this power; Preface before the Book of Com. Prayer. So that the same Order be not contrary to any thing contained in this Booke. And therefore it is untrue what he saith in the end of his Pamphlet, That the Ordinary hath an Authoritie of his own (as he is Ordinary) to place the holy Table in one or other situ­ation, more than what is given him (is case of doubt and diversity only) by the foresaid Preface. All which I have opened the more at large, to shew the raw and indigested Crudities, that this judi­cious Divine imposeth upon us; not that I would advise any Clergy-man, of what degree soever, to oppose his Ordinary, either in this or any o­ther particular of so low a nature. Far be it from me to do so. That is a Doctrine ‘—nigro carbone notanda,’ [Page 68] to be defended onely by D ^r Coal. I say, that all Commands of the King (for this Fellow jumbles again P. 2. Should we [...]ly off from our duty at sight of e­very new device, we should soon find a speedy dissoluti­on both of Church and State. the King and the Bishop, tanquam Regem cum regulo, like a Wren mounted upon the feathers of an Eagle) that are not upon the first inference and illation (without any Prosyllogismes) contrary to a cleare passage in the Word of God, or to an evident Sun-beam of the Law of Nature; are precisely to be obeyed. Nor is it enough, to finde a remote and possible inconvenience, that may ensue therefrom; (which is the ordinary ob­jection against the book of Recreations) For every good subject is bound in We would not hive our Subiects so much to mistake our Iudgement, so much to mistrust our Zeale, as though We either could not discern what were to be done, or would not do all things in due time. K. Edw. Proclam. before the Cō ­mun. 1548. Conscience to beleeve and rest assured, that his Prince (enviro­ned with such a Counsell) wilbe more able to dis­cover, and as ready to prevent any ill sequele that may come of it, as himself possibly can be. And therefore I must not by disobeying my Prince, commit a certain Sinne, in preventing a probable but contingent inconveniency. And then in the next place, for the Bishop or Ordinary: If he com­mand according to the Laws and Canons confir­med, (for otherwise he is in his Eccentricks, and moves not as he should do) why then, insuch a case as we had even now, that is, a Case Quid si dubi­te [...] subditus, u­trùm quod prae­cipitur sit contra Deum vel non? Respondeo; Debet obedire. Summ. Rosell. Summ. Angel. Summ. Sylvest. in verbo Obedientia. Quoties subditus convenienti inquisitione cer­tificari non potest, obedire debet, & obediend [...] excusatur, etiamsi dubites an agat contra prae­ceptum Dei vel non. Sylv. ex Raimundo. Vide Pedro de Ledesma. [...]um. part. 2. trat. 15. c. 1. So in the Partidas. Part. 1. tit. 23. Ley 11. En esto es tenud [...] el menor de fazer la voluntad de su mayor ( that is) The lesser in this case is to follow the will of the Greater. See then for the Canon Law. Hostiens. Sum. lib. 1. de majorit. & obed. Gl. in c. ad Au­res. De tempore Ordin. in Gl. 2. et Gl. 1. in c. Qui contra morem. 1. dist. et text. cum Gl. in c. Admonendi. Dist. 2. q. 7. of diver­sitie, [Page 69] Doubt and Ambiguity, he is punctually to be obeyed by those of his Jurisdiction, be they of the Clergie, or of the Laity. I say in matters of doubting and ambiguitie, where the inferiour shall be approved of God for his duty and obedience, and never charged as guiltie of Errour, for any future inconvenience. The exceptions from this Rule are very few; in cases onely, when the Com­mand of the Ordinary doth expressly oppose Sūma Rosell verbo Obed. an Article of Belief, one of the ten Commandments, or the generall state and subsistence of Gods Catholick Church. In all other Cases whatsoever that are dubious, the inferiour is bound to believe his su­periour, saith the most wise and learned of all the Tolet. Instruct. Sac. de 7 pecc. c. 15. See Gloss. in 1 Decret. tit. 11. c. 5. Si du­bium sit praecep­tum, propter bo­num obedientia excusatur à pec­cato, licèt in ve­ritate sit malum. Iesuits. This point well poised and conside­red, would clear a world of Errours both in Church and Common-wealth. And therefore I will set down in the Margent some of my best Authours that confirm it. I have not heard (I protest sincerely) of any Lord Bishop, that hath exacted of his Diocese the placing of the Holy Table, as this man would have it, and do believe this passage of his to be rather a Prophesie, what he means to do when he comes to his Rochet, then a true History of any Diocesan that hath acted it already. But howsoever, as long as the Litur­gie continueth as it is (without offence to any man in place be it spoken) I had farre leiver be he should obey, then he that should peremptorily command, in this kinde of Alteration. And my reason for this, shalbe the reason and expression of a wise and learned man. Hookers Eccles. Pol. book 4. d. 14. p. 16 [...]. If it be a Law which [Page 70] the custome and continuall practice of many yeares hath continued in the minds of men, to alter it must needs be troublesome and scandalous. It amazeth them, it causeth them to stand in doubt, whether any thing be in it selfe by nature good or evill, and not all things rather such as men at this or that time agree to accompt of them; when they behold those things disproved, dis­annulled, and rejected, which use had made in a manner naturall. And so in all respect and humilitie to their high places and callings, I leave those reve­rend persons herein to their owne wisdome and discretion.

But that Mounsieur the halfe-Vicar should have a power to remove (of his own head) the Commu­nion-Table from that place of the Quire it had hitherto stood in from the very first Reformation, and to call that an Altar, which his Rubrick never calls otherwise then a Table, and to be enabled to this by the Canons, and to be a Iudge of the con­veniencie of the standing thereof, yea a more com­petent Iudge, then the Ordinary and his Surrogates, and no way to permit the Church-Officers to do what they are enjoyed by their immediate Su­periours, is such a piece of Ecclesiasticall politie, as (were it but countenanced by many of these judicious Divines) would quickly make an end of all Discipline in the Church of England. Here is not only Pag. 3. I. C. but T. C. up and down, and New England planted in the midst of the Old. O foolish Vicar of Pag. 3. Boston, that would needs take Sanctuary as far as America, to shelter himself from Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction! Whereas had [Page 71] he but made a permutation with his next Neigh­bour, the Vicar of Gr. and gotten but the ac­quaintance of these judicious Divines (as they pass'd by that Road) he might have done what he would in his own Church,

in despite of the Ordinary & all his Officers. I am afraid that these judicious Divines that tamper so much in Doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in Dis­cipline with Notis in Epist. Molin. ad Bals. Sancta Petra, His Book a­gainst D ^r. Kel­lison. Flood and Le Maistre In­staurat. Episcop. antiqui statûs. c. 1. ad Epist. Lomclii. Lomeley, will prove in the end but prejudicious Divines to the estates of Bishops. I am sure this Tenet is in the highest degree Iesuiticall, and that the solid Divines, both of ancient and later times, were of another opinion. [...] Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth. p. 57. To impaire the power of Bishops is no little sinne. [...] Ignat. Ep ad Smyrn. [...]. Idem in Ep. ad Trall [...]s. [...]. Idem Ep. ad Ephes. Let no man presume, to dispose of any thing belonging to the Church, without the Bishop, saith Ignatius. For he that doth otherwise, doth tear ( [...] Ignat. Ep ad Smy [...]. as you would doe a bough from a tree) the unitie, sodder, and comely order that should be amongst Gods people. Suffer nothing to be done in that kind without thine own approbation, saith the same Father writing to a Epist. ad Polycarp. [...]. Bishop. And this ad­vice was so well approved of in the Primitive Church, that word for word it was inserted into the body of that famous Counsell of Concil. Laod. Can. 57. [...]. Codex Canon. Eccles. Univers. Can. 161. Laodicea, Anno 364. The word used both by Ignatius and the generall Councell is [...], to be active [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] and stirring in these businesses. And therefore the Priest must needs (in despite of our Doctor and Pag. 10. his Doctrine) keep him still to his meditations, and be a looker on, untill his Ordinary shall otherwise direct and appoint him. Especially in the matter controverted, which is Erecting of Altars. For the Case must be taken as it is in the For the first; If you should erect any such Altar, (which I know you will not.) Letter (and was in truth and verity) not as this poore Mooter doth pag. 52. reasonably (that is, against all the Laws of reasoning) presume it. For to presume a thing a­gainst the words of his adversarie, is not to take a case, but to make a case; which wilbe laught at in the Inns of Court. There were some Priests in France and Germany, that encouraged thereunto by the Chorepiscopi or Countrey-Suffragans, did pre­sume, in the absence of their Bishops, Leo Epist. 88. erigere altaria, to erect Altars. And this about the time of Theodosius the yonger. But Leo the great tells them plainly, they had no more power to erect, then they had to consecrate an Altar; and that the Novells and Canons Ecclesiasticall did utterly Siquidemnec erigere ils alta­ria, nec Eccle. sias vel altaria consecrare li­cet. Vide Bin. Concil. general. Tom. 1. P. 990. in hibite single Priests to do either the one or the other. Whereupon not many yeares after, about the time of Iustinian the Emperour, Hormisda [...] made an absolute decree to inhibite Priests to e­rect any Altars in this kinde, under pain of depri­vation, as we read in 3 part. dist. 1. Abs (que) Episcopi permissu in Ec­clesia conse­crata non eri­gatur altare. Vide Bin. Conc. gen. Tom. 2. p. 368. Gratian, and elsewhere Which places I do not (for al that) presse dogma­tically, as conceiving the Vicar would be so ab­surd to dogmatize any such matter, as you perceiv [...] the writer of the Letter seems to excuse him; no [...] was that the Errour of the Germane Priests: bu [...] [Page 73] I presse it only historically, to let you see, that if such a Rumour had been raised in the Church (as we all know the Vicars behaviour did raise in the Neighbourhood) 1100 yeares ago, what severitie they would have used to chastise the insolencie. And no marvell, if you consider well what I shall now represent unto you: That the very Video enim esse legem ve­terem Tribu­nitiam, quae vet uit in jussu plebis aedes, terram, aram consecrate. Cic. Orat. pro domo sua ad Pontifices, quae est. Or. 29. Romans themselves, in the time of their Republick, would never assent that a private man should presume to erect an Altar. But that which I presse for do­ctrine is this. Illa potestas quae est ligan­di & solvendi in soro judici­ali, datur in consecratione Episcopi; alia, in consecrati­one Sacerdo. tum, quando dicitur, Quae­cun (que), remiscritis, &c. Húgo de Sancto Victore apud Halens. That a single Priest, quà talis, in that formality and capacitie onely as he is a Priest, hath no Key given him by God or man, to open the doores of any Sacerdotes non habent potestatem li­gandi vel sol­vendi in foro Causae, & ta­men absolvunt in foro Poeni­tentiae. Hol. part. 4. q. 21. membro 4. externall jurisdiction. He hath a Consistory within, in foro Poenitentiae, in the Conscience of his Parishioners, and a key given him upon his Institution, to enter into it. But he hath no Consistory without, in foro Causae, in med­ling with ecclesiasticall Causes, unlesse he borrow a key from his Ordinary. For although they be Licet sit una potestas ligan­di & solvendi hinc & indè, non tamen qui habet potestatem ejusmodi ad hunc actum, habet cam ad illum actum. Alex. Hal. ibid. Non est alia in essentia, sed in alium usum se extendit. ibid. the same keys, yet one of them will not open all these wards: the Consistory of outward jurisdiction being not to be opened by a Quando consecratus Episcópus, non confertur alia clavis, sed extenditur usus illius primae clavis: unde dicitur accipere baculum, i. e. amplio [...]em potestatem. ibid. Sic Estius in 4. Sentent. d. 18. §. 2. Key alone, but (as you may observe in some great mens Gates) by a Key and a staffe, which they usually call a Crosier. This I have ever conceived to be the an­cient Doctrine in this kind, opposed by none but professed Puritanes. They tell us indeed, that [Page 74] the Bishops power Altare Damast. c. 4. p. 114. was the poysonous Egge out of which Antichrist was hatched, that it is meere tyrannie, because it takes all Ibid. p. 113. to the Bishop and his Officers, and turnes the Vicars to Soliloquies and Meditations; whereas the M ^r. Hooker in his Preface. Minister holdeth all his authoritie unto the spirituall charge of the house of God, even immediately from God himselfe, without dependance from King or Bishop. But all learned men of the Church of England, that are truly ju­dicious Divines, do adhere to that former doctrin. They D ^r. Field of the Church, l. 5. c. 27. p. 498. allow the Schoolmens double power, that of order, and that of jurisdiction; and the subdi­vision of this jurisdiction, to the internall and ex­ternall, appropriating this last to the Bishops only. They say clearly, that all M ^r. Hooker in his Preface. consecrated persons have not the power of jurisdiction; They aske you roundly, Answer to the Admonition, Tract. 2. p. 87. Who shall judge what is most comely? Shall every pri­vate man? Or rather such as have chiefe care and Go­vernment in the Church? And for the Minister, whom you would have wholly imployed, they conceive, that generally he is a man, M ^r. Hooker in his Preface. though better able to speak, yet little, or no whit apter to judge then the rest; and that to give him a domineering power in matters of this nature, were to bring in as many petty Popes, as there are Parishes and Congre­gations. But the written Law and speaking Law of this Kingdome, are above all testimonies that can be produced, the one appointing the Pag. 11. Bishop of the Diocese onely in the Affirmative, and the other excluding the particular Pag. 66. fancy of any hu­mourous persons in the Negative, from assigning out these matters of Conveniencie in Gods service. And [Page 75] the reason why this private Vicar should not (without farther directions) call the holy Table an Altar, is set downe in the Letter, but not touched by you, and is a stronger one then your Head­piece is capable of. Pag. 74. Because the Church in her Liturgie and Canons, doth call it a Table onely. It seemes by you, we are bound onely to pray, but not to speak the words of the Canons. I have been otherwise taught by learned men. Vbicu [...]que habemus le­gem vel cano [...] nem, non de­bemus allega [...]e rationem, nisi lege vel cano­ne desiciente. Barbatus in Cle­ment. de Elect. c. 1. n. 11. That where we 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. Verba aliquid operaridebent. c. Si Papa de Privileg. in 6. Et nota in margi­ne, quòd argu­mentum à verbis valet. And that every word hath that operation in construction of Law, that wee may draw our Argument from the words, as from so many Topick places. Which the Writer of the Let­ter seems to do in this passage. The Rubrick and the Canons call it nothing but a Table; and there­fore do not you, a poore Vicar in the Countrey, call it an Altar. The writer doth not deny but that the name hath been Letter P. 75. long in the Church, in a Metaphoricall usurpation, nor would he have blam'd the Vicar, if he had in a Quotation from the Fathers, or a discourse in the Pulpit, nam'd it an Altar in this borrowed sense: but to give the usuall call of an Altar, unto that Church-utensill, which the Law ( Regula com­munis est, Quòd statuto­rum verba pro­priè intelligun­tur. Decius in lege, Non vult haeres, de regulis juris. (that alwayes speaks properly) never calls otherwise then by the name of a Table, is justly by him disliked, and by this Gallant lamentably defended. For I 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, be not as properly an [Page 76] Altar for prayer, praise, thanksgiving, Pag. 8. memory of the Passion, dedicating of 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. Or if it be the Priest onely that can offer a Sacrifice (which in these spirituall Sacrifices we When the old Fathers called the Masse or Sup­per of the Lord a Sacri­fice, they meant that it was a Sacrifice of Iaud & thanks­giving. And to as well the people as the Priest do Sa­crifice. Archb. Cramner, De­fence of the Sa­cram. 1550. c. 16. sol. 115. And again, Christ made no such diffe­rence between the Priest and the Lay-man, that the Priest should make oblation and sacrific [...] of Christ for the Lay-man, Ide [...] ibid. c. 11. f. 111. utterly deny) what one sacrifice doth he in­ferre out of the Collects read by the Priest at the Communion-Table, which are not as easily deduced out of the Te Deum, or Benedictus, said in the Quire or Reading-pew [...] Is there no praying, praising, ac­knowledging or thanksgiving, commemorating of the Passion, and consecrating of our selves to Gods service in these two hymnes? And therefore if that be enough to make an Altar, and that these judicious Rabbies mean not somewhat else then for fear of our gracious King they dare speak out, this man must change the Motto of his book, and say, Ha­benius Altaria, we have 10000 Altars. Whereas no place in all the Church, doth offer unto us the body and blood of Christ, in the outward forms of bread and wine, beside the holy Table onely. And consequently if a Name be invented to [...] Etymolog. [...]ag. p. 626. di­vide and sever one particular thing from another, or to [...] rei, à juvando, quasi [...], cujus usu rem ag­nosceres. Jul. Scaliger de Caus. Ling. La [...]. c. 76. Est enim instrumentum quasi quoddam cognitionis, Imago quaedam quâ quid [...]oscitur. Ibid. help us to the knowledge of a particular thing, or that a name be tha [...] which the [...]. Law gives the thing, or that a thing cannot have two distinct and proper (however it may have twentie Metaphoricall) names; then surely a Table ought to be the distinct and proper (and so the usuall) an [Page 77] Altar but the translatitious and borrowed (and so the more unusuall) appellation of that holy uten­sill. So that the Writer of the Letter saith no more then this: If you have occasion (as the Fathers had) to amplisie and enlarge the excellencie of those Christian duties, prayer, praise, thanksgiving, (at the time of the Eucharist especially) abnegation of our selves, almes-deeds, and Charitie, and to shew unto your people, that these are the onely incense, now under the Gospel, which God accepts in stead of those thousands of Rams and Odours of Arabia, vanished with the Law: then in Gods name, ‘—Fas usum tibi nominis hujus;’ you may use the name of Altar as the ancient Fa­thers do. But when there is no such occasion offe­red, and that you speak only with your Neighbours and Church-wardens about preparing or adorning the Church-Vtensils, what need you then tumble in your tropes, and roll in your Rhetorick, when the words of the Canon do far better expresse the duties enjoyn'd them by the Canon? As there­fore you do not in common discourse call the Church (as the Puritanes in France do) the Tem­ple; the Bells, the holy Trumpets; the Quire, the San­ctuary; the Font, Iordan; your Surplice, the holy gar­ment; and your Hood, the Ephod: (although the ancient writers ordinarily do so) So when the Rubrick and Canons do call this sacred Vtensill a Table, and but a Table, do not you, to be noted on­ly as a Divine of great Iudgement, that is, of whyms and singularity, correcting Magnificat, in the Ar­ticles of your Visit. of the Bishop of Lin­c [...]ln, Anno 1622. touching the Church Art. 5. Bishops and most Reverend Visit. of the Archbishops grace, Ann. 1 ( [...]. Artic. 1. verb [...] Imprimi [...]. Arch­bishops Pag. 65. [Page 78] Visitation, and in the very expression of the King himself, call it an Altar. And surely that Vicar that will not be taught to word it, neither by the Law, nor the Rubrick, nor the Canon, nor his Bishop, nor his Archbishop, nor the King him­self, Phavorinus apud Gellium. qui tot imperat Legionibus, is (as they were wont to call a stout Priest) a very Thomas a Becket, and fitter a great deal to officiate at Bethlem neere Bishopsgate, then at Jerusalem.

Nor had the Ordinary been the wisest man in the world, if having proper Officers of his own to execute all his Mandates concerning the outward Vtensills of the Church, he should have directed his Commandments to the Vicar, or permitted him to command without him. It is not the Or­dinary, but the Apostles themselves, that have turnd the Parsons and Vicars from being Active in this kind, to their diviner Meditations. Act. 6. 2. It is not rea­son we should leave the word of God, to serve Tables. The Greek word is a term of Law, [...], which Erasmus translates a Plea, the French keep to this day an Arrest or Iudgement in Law, as Annot. in Pan­dect. ex lege ulti­ma de Senatori­bus, fol. 73. p. [...]. Budaeus was taught to enterpret the word by Paulus Aemilius the French Historiographer. The meaning there­fore of the Text is this, Let D ^r Coal find as much fault as he wil, that Priests are made dull Spectatours in these affairs; yet shall he never find any Order, Arrest, or Iudgement in the Church of God, that Priests should meddle with Tables: Because from the time of this Arrest and sentence pronounc't by the Apostles, the Deacons have ever dealt ther­in; as Annot. in Act 6. v. 2. Sic ta­men, ut Pres­byterio sub­ [...]ssent. Beza himself confesseth; though he hopes [Page 79] (for otherwise it would burst his heart) that they were guided therein by the Minister & the Elders. But these Elders are no elder then Calvin and Beza. And who guided the Deacons we must learn of the Elders indeed. They were the Eye, saith Clemens Rom. in 1. Epist. ad Ja­cob. fratrem Do­mini Est enim Diaconus ipsi­us [...]ipiscopi oculus. one; The Eare, saith E [...]. Clen. in Constit. Apostol. l. 1. c. 44. another; The Ministeriall servants of the Bishop, saith the Concil Nicen. Can. 18. [...]. third Authority. Clear it is, that from this time that the Apostles here

from these first Deacons, to our present They have in charge om­nia ornamen­ta & utensilia Ecclesiarum. Canon Steph. de Langt. Lindw. lib. 1. de Off. Archidia [...]. Arch­deacons (in whose office the ancient power of the Deacons is united and concentred) Incumbents have been excluded from medling with the utensills of the Church, or ornaments of the Al­tar. So that the very Altar it self (with the Rail about it) hath been termed in the ancient Councells, [...]. Concil. Laod. Can. 21. Concil. Agath. Can. 66. The Diaconie, as a place belonging (next after the Bishop) to the care and custodie of the Deacon only. Nay, so far were the Ancients frō making a parish-Priest a stickler in Vestry-affairs, that a Sinc Diaco­nis Sacerdos nomen habet, officium non habet. Conc. Aqu [...]sgr. sub Ludov. Pio, c. 7. Councell saith clearly, That the Priest can boast of nothing he hath in generall, but his bare name; not able to execute his very Office, with­out the Authority and Ministery of the Deacon. And to conclude this point with a president in this very particular: Lib. Quaes [...] ▪ ex▪ utroque mix­tion. qu. 101. Nam utique & Altare por­tarent & vasa ejus. It was the Deacons Office Portare (mark well the word against anon) to move and remove the Altar and all the imple­ments belonging thereunto, saith S. Augustine. And if you object, that some question hath been made, whether that Book be S. Augustines; [Page 80] I answer, That he that made that question, con­cludes withall, That if it was not written by S. Augustine, it was by an Ex qu▪ 44. colligitur cum vixisse ante Augustinum, & I [...]s [...]e. on. Cens. in Append [...]om. 4. Oper. Augustin. p. 416. ancienter Author then S. Augustine, and is evidence good enough for matter of fact, though peradventure not every where for points of doctrine. And as the Archdeacon is the Eye, so the Churchwarden (as slight an Opi­nion as you conceive of him) is the Hand of the Bishop and the Archdeacon too, to put all Occononius, cui res Ecclesi­astica guber­nanda manda­tur ab [...]pi [...]co­po. Lindw. Const. l. 3. de Cleric. non resid. And ther­foro Church­wardens were call'd [...], men employed by him, Concil. Gangr. c. 7. and [...], men ordered by the Bishop. ibid. c. 8. Man­dates in execution, that may concern the Vtensills of the Church. I observe our Latine Canors in force, by calling him Oecon [...]mus, do put him be­side the scorn this companion would throw upon him, by making him relate to that ancient Eccle­siasticall Office, famous in the Greek and Latine Councells. It is true, he moves now in a lesser Orb, yet with the same influence he did before. At the first they were, as they are now, Lay-men, some [...]. Zo­nar. in Concil. Chalced. Can. 26. Domesticks or kinsmen of the Bishops, who [...]. Zo­nar. ibid. [...]. Pho­tius, tit. 9. c. 1. & [...], 10. c. 1. managed all things belonging to the Church (being then matters of good moment and conse­quence) according to the direction of the Bishop. But because all the state of the Church, consisting in those times most-what in goods and chattels arising from the devotion of the people, was thus transacted in [...]. Zonar. in Concil. Chalced. hugger mugger, inter partes propin­quas, by parties so neare allied in references one to another, that it grew very suspicious there might be foule play in the businesse, that famous Councell of Chalcedon Canon. 26. [...]. ordered peremptorily, [Page 81] That these Church-wardens from that time forward should be Clergie-men, and more esloigned from the Bishops family. Yet did Balsam, in Sy­nod. 7. Can. 11. some continue of opinion, (this Canon notwithstanding) that Lay-men were capable of the Office: so that in a Zonar. in Con­cil. Chalced. Canon. 26. very short revolution of time it reverted to the Laity for altogether. Now here in England it hath been ever held an ancient Office, and much coun­tenanced as well by the Common as the Canon Law: The Church-wardens being admitted in all ages, to bring their 11. Henr. 4. fol. 12. & 19. Henr. 6. fol. 66. &c. Actions at Common Law, for trespasses committed upon the Church-goods, wherewith they were entrusted. Now that Bishop were a wise piece indeed, who being complained unto against a Vicar, for removing the holy Table to a place every way inconvenient, would referre the exa­mination of the Complaint to the Vicar himself, rather then to his own most ancient Officers; to the Archdeacon, his Officiall, or next Surrogate, for the designing; and to the Church-wardens, for the actuall placing of the Table in the most con­venient situation. And the Elders of the Vestry will be little edified with this doctrine, to be made but Arist. Poli [...]. lib. 1. c. 1. [...], (as Aristotle speaks) dead and passive Instruments, to execute the Com­mands of the Ordinary and his Surrogates. But all this while the Vicar is but a dull spectator, and hath no Sphere of Activity to move in, but is wholly left to his private Meditations. And Nos autem otiosos nos pu­tamus, si verbo tantummodo studere videa­mur. Amb. in Psal. 118. Oct. 11. S. Ambrose indeed doth complain of the like complainers in his time, who held, that the study of the holy Scriptures was but a dull and [Page 82] idle kinde of employment. But then Balt [...]s. Castil. Cor [...]isano, l. 3. Matto Sancto Petro (as the Charletan said when he saw the Pope in his Pontificalibus) O simple S. Peter in the sixth of the Acts, that thought it a far more laborious work, then all this moving and re­moving of Tables. Regul. fusior. Reg. 20. [...], pag. 454. O foolish S. Basil, that bids his Clergie take especiall heed, that their Martha be not troubled with many things. O dull Synesius, that held it fitter for an Syves. ep. 57. Aegyp­tian then a Christian Priest to be over-troubled with matters of wrangling. Well Doctour, God help the poore people committed to thy Cure; they are like to finde but a sorry Shepheard: one that will be in the Vestry when he should be in the Pulpit; and by his much nimblenesse in the one, is likely to shew a proportionable heavinesse in the other.

But now ventum est ad Triarios, we are draw­ing on to the maine of his Battell, and the very pith of his Arguments: That the Writer of the Letter Pag. 3. doth not shew one footstep of Learning or sincere affections to the Orders of the Church, because he did not (in a private Monition written nine yeares before) fore-see and make way Pag. 4. for a great good work, and the Piety of the times, that were to follow nine yeares after. Alas! Nè saevi, magne Sacerdos: Do not lay all this load upon him, most judicious Divine. For, as you finde by your self, that can further see into things to come, that all Prophets are not Ordinaries; so consider, I beseech you, in cool bloud, that all Ordinaries are not Prophets. L. Henry How. [...]d in his defen­s [...]ive, about the [...]6. leafe. We may discern of things that [Page 83] are, by Sight; that were, by Memory: [...]. Sophocl. in An­tig. but before the proof make shew, no man is such a Prophet of the future, that he knoweth which way to direct his in­structions, saith a learned and noble Writer, out of Sophocles. I am one, I thank God, that have buenas entranas (as the Spaniards speak) some good and tender bowels within me, and do much pity the poore mans case, even by mine own. How could he possibly fore-see this great Good work or Piety of these Times, so many yeares before, which I, opening my eyes as wide as I can, cannot discover at this very instant? What is this great Work now in hand? What new Pro­clamations, Rubricks, Canons, Injunctions, Articles are come (at the least into these parts) as any speciall invitations to the piety of these Times, more then were exhibited to the piety of all other Times, from the first beginning of the Reformation? Pag. 66. His Majestie heard the Cause in the yeare 1633; and in his Royall decision, he calls it not Altar, but Communion-Table, and leaves the moving and removing thereof to the discretion of the Ordinary. His Grace, the Me­tropolitane, visited these parts in the yeare 1634; and in all his Articles, doth not so much as men­tion the word Altar, but calls it (as the Rubrick doth) a Communion-Table; and puts his Article upon the Church-warden, and not upon the Vi­car, concerning the decent site and convenient standing of the h [...]ly Boord. Articles to be enqui [...]ed of in the Metropoliti­call Visitation, for the Diocese of Lincoln, 1634. Art. 1. Whether have you in your Church, a convenient and decent Communion-Table? &c. And whether is the same Table placed in [Page 84] such convenient sort within the Chancell or Church, at that the Minister may be best heard in his Mi­nistery and the Administration, and that the grea­test number may communicate? And whether is it so used (out of time of Divine Service) as is not a­greeable to the holy use of it? &c. And his Lord­ship or Diocesan visiting the very next yeare, 1635. (as a burnt child, and dreading the fire) puts the Articles to be enquired of in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1635. Artic. 1. same Article in haec verba, in the very front of his own Book. Sithence that time we have heard no Ring but of the lesser Bells, in this Tune. And Articles for the Visitation of the Archdeac. of Redford, 1636. one of these I heare chy­ming at this very instant: Whether have you in your Church a decent Table for the Communion, con­veniently placed? And all these concurring with the conceit of the Letter, in every particular; in the name of a Communion-Table, and not an Altar; in the place of the Church or Chancell, not of the East-end onely; in the distinct (not confused time) of receiving and not-receiving▪ in the Accompt of the conveniency of the situation to be rendred by the Church-warden, not the Vi­car; how shall I that live at this day (much lesse the Writer of the Letter, dead, peradven­ture, nine yeares ago) reasonably discover (to use your own phrase) that Good work now in hand, and the speciall inclination of these times to a pe­culiar kinde of pietie, differing from the pietie of former times, which under the peaceable Reignes of Queene Elisabeth, King Iames, and King Charles, the Church of God, in these parts, hath most h [...]ppily enjoyed? Surely, I [Page 85] do reasonably presume, that (these dreams of D ^r. Coal notwithstanding) Eccles. 4. 9. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done, is that which shall be done; and that (in matters of this nature) there is no new thing under the Sun. Because wise men tell us, that M ^r. Hooker Ecel. pol. l. 4. dist. 14. p. 67. change of Laws, especially in matters of Religion, must be warily pro­ceeded in: And because Archb. Whit­gift, Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, Tract. 2. fel. 86. there is no manner of Reason, that the orders of the Church should so depend upon one or two mens liking or disliking, that she should be compelled to alter the same so oft as any should be therewith offended. For what Church is void of some contentious persons and quarrellers, whom no order, no reason, no reformation can please? I should there­fore reasonably presume, that this Good work in hand, is but the second part of Sancta Clara, and a froathy speculation of some fe [...], who by tossing the ball of Commendations, the one to the other, do stile themselves (by a kind of Canting) judicious Di­vines: Whereas they be (generally) as you may observe by this poore Pamphleter, doctiss [...]orum ho­minum indoctissimum genus (as In Colloqu. E [...]asmus spake of another the like) men learned onely in unlearned Liturgies; beyond that, of no judgement and lesse Divinitie. For who but one whose Ruffe (as Sir Edward Coke was wont to say) is yellow, and his head shallow, would propound these wild con­ceits of an imaginary Pietie of the times, and a Platonicall Idea of a good work in hand, for a Mo­dell to reforme such a well-composed Church as the Church of England? And if any Reformation of the name, the situation, or use of the Commu­nion-Table, [Page 86] were seriously in hand, what man of the least discretion, but would take the Magi­strate along with him? Proclamation before the Com­munion, 1548. The bounden dutie of Sub­jects is to be content to follow Authoritie, and not en­terprising to run before it. Archbishop Whitgift, Answer to the Adm. p. 86, & 87. For if you let every Mini­ster do what he list, speak what he list, alter what he list, & as oft as him list, upon a general pretense of a Good work in hand, or the Pietie of the times, you shall have as many kinds of Religion, as there be Parishes, as many Sects, as Ministers, and a Church miserably torn in pieces with mutability and diversity of opinions.

But there is Pag. 13, & 14. much (you say) to be said in de­fence thereof, out of the Acts & Monuments, & some Acts of Parliamēts. Much good do it you, with that Much, so as you eat cleanly, and do not slubber & slabber your Quotations of those Books, in w ^ch all sorts of men are thorowly versed. First, Jo. Frith calls it The Sacrament of the Altar. Doth he so? Then surely it was long before the Reformation, and when every man call'd it so. For he was Act. & Mon. pag. 2. fol. 309, & 310. bur­ned 4 ^o Julii, 1533. But where doth he so call it? Yes, he saith in his Letter, They examined me tou­ching the Sacrament of the Altar. Why man, they cal'd it so, not he. Those words are the words of the Article objected against him. They are their words, not his. He doth not once call it so in all his long discourse. Turn but the Ibid. fol. 308. leaf, and you shall heare him interpret himselfe. I added moreover, that their Church (as they call it) Their Church, as they call it; Their Sacrament of the Altar, as they call it. If you will know how he cals it, in that dawning of the Reformation, look upon the Books pen'd by himself, not the Interrogato­ries [Page 87] ministed by S ^r Tho. More, or some others. He calls it every where, Answer to M. Mores third book, fol. 102. The Sacrament of Christs body. Nay he is not there content; but desires, that all the Church had call'd it otherwise. Answer to M. Mores fourth book, fol. 111. I would it had been call'd (as it is indeed, and as it was commanded to be) Christs Memoriall. And to call it a Sacrifice, is (saith he) just as if I should set a Ibid. Copon before you to break-fast, when you are new come home, and say, This is your Welcome-home: whereas it is indeed a Capon, and not a Welcome-home. And if you will beleeve his Adversary, Answer to Frith's Letter, Oper. fol. 835. S ^r Thomas More, None spoke so homely of this Sacrament, as Jo. Frith, no not Friar Barnes himself. Making this Bridegrooms ring of gold but even a proper ring of a rush. So that vouz avez Jo. Frith. Let him, in Gods name, come up to the Barre. The next man is Jo. Lambert. And he saith, Pag. 15. I make you the same Answer to the other six Sacraments, as I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar. But tell me (in my eare) I pray you, How doth he begin that Answer to the Sacrament of the Altar? It is but 14 lines before in your Act. & M [...] pa [...]t 2. p [...] own Book. Whereas in your sixth Demand you do enquire, Whether the Sacrament of the Altar, &c. All these words of enqui [...]y are theirs, man, not his. What is his Answer? I neither can, nor will answer one word. And so Jo. Lambe [...]t answers there not one word for you. Yea, but he doth in ano­ther place. That [...] Christ is said to be offered up, no [...] every year at Easter, but also everyday, in the celebra [...] on of the Sacrament, because his oblation once [...] made is therby represented. This likewise is [...] to be spoken long before any Reformat [...] [...] hand: For Lambert was also martyred [...] [Page 88] But are you sure these words are his? I am sure you know the contrary, if you have read the next words following. Even so saith S. Augustine. The words are the words of an honest man, but your dealing in this kind is scarce honest. John Lambert doth qualifie them afterward; that S. Augustines meaning was, That Christ was all this, in a certain manner or wise. He was an Oblation, as he was a Lion, a Lambe and a doore: that is, (as we said before) a Metaphoricall and improper Oblation, which never relates unto an Altar. Vouz avez an honest man, John Lambert: But stand you by for a Mountebank, John Coal. The next, is the most Reverend and learned Archbishop, who not­withstanding his opposition to the Statute of the 6 Articles, yet useth the phrase or Pag. 15. term of Sacrament of the Altar, as formerly, without taking thereat any offence. Pag. 443. And are you sure he doth so in that page? Are you sure of any thing? I am now sure he names not that Sacrament at all, either in that page, or in any other near unto it. The Treatise there set down, is of J [...]hn Fox his composition, and set forth in his own name. It mentioneth indeed, in the Confutation of the first Article, the Sacrament of the Altar, but with such a peal after it, as none but a mad man would cite him for this purpose. Act. & Mon. 2. part. p. 443. This monstrous Article of theirs, in that form of words as it standeth, &c. And so the Lord Archbishop saith as much as John Lambert, that is, not one word for him. The next in order is John Philpot: whose speach this cruell man hath sore pinch't upon the rack, to [Page 89] get him to give some evidence on his side. He wriggles and wrests all his words and syllables, that the Quotation is (very near) as true a Martyr as the man himselfe. I am sure he hath lop't off the Head, that had a shrewd tale to tell, and the feet of his Discourse, which walk a quite con­trary way to D ^r Coals purpose, leaving the Rela­tion, like Plutarch. in Philopoem. Philopoemenes his Army, all Belly, The Head is this: I must needs ask a Question of D ^r Chedsey concerning a word or twain of your supposition (yours, not his owne) that is, of the Sacrament of the Altar; What he meaneth thereby; and, Whether he taketh it, as some of the Ancient Writers do, ter­ming the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar (for the Reasons there set down and mentioned by D ^r Coal) or Whether you take it otherwise, for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of Lime and Stone, over the which the Sacrament [...]hangeth. And hearing they meant it this later way, he declares himself, Then I will speak plain English, That the Sacrament of the Altar is no Sacrament at all. How like you John Philpot? You shall have more of him. Act. & Mon. part. 3. p. 571. S ^t Austinwith other ancient Writers do call the holy Communion, or the Supper of the Lord, The Sacrament of the Altar, in respect it is the Sa­crament of the Sacrifice, which Christ offered upon the Altar of the Crosse: The which Sacrifice all the Altars and Sacrifices upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow. The which pertaineth no­thing to your Sacrament, hanging upon your Altars of Lime and stone. Christoph. No doth? I pray you, what signifieth Altar? Philip. Not, as you falsely [Page 90] take it, materially, but for the Sacrifice of the Al­tar of the Crosse. Christoph. Where finde you it ever so taken? Philip. Yes: Habemus Altare. Christoph. Well, God blesse me out of your compa­nie. And I beleeve, so saith D ^r Coal (if his hue would permit him to blush) by this time. For this man hath done all your businesse. He tels, how he came to use the term of Sacrament of the Altar, to wit, out of S. Austin, and some other of the Fathers; he tels us, it was not by way of Approba­tion, but by way of supposition; and lastly, what he conceives of the conveniencie of the particular in Question, a Materiall Altar. And in another place he expresseth himself yet further; Act. & Mon. par [...]. 3. p. 553. And as touching their Sacrament which they term of the Altar— They term it so, not he. Jury Philpot. The next is Reverend Latimer; who granteth (saith P. 16. he) very plainly, that the Doctours call it so in many places, though there be no propiti­atory Sacrifice, but onely Christ. Still this is not to prove (no not by one Witnesse) what you undertake; That the Martyrs did call this Sacra­ment of themselves and their own expressions, The Sacrament of the Altar. This Reverend man saith, that the Doctours call it so, and especially S. Austin, as he speaks a little before: he doth not call it so himselfe. And what doth he adde, concerning those Doctours that call it so, in the very next words to these which are quoted by you? speak truth, man, and shame the Divell; for he is the old Clipper of speaches. Well, I must do it for you. The Doctours might be decei­ved [Page 91] in some points: I beleeve them, when they say well: or, as it is in the Margent, Doctores legendi sunt cum venia, The Doctours must be pardon'd, if they sometimes slip in their expressions. And this is all that you have gain'd by Reverend Latimer. The last you produce in this kinde, is Bishop Ridley. And he is for you not onely, but also. First he saith, that in the Sacrament of the Altar is the naturall body and bloud of Christ. But why do you leave out still those few words that go be­fore? You know they are these; Act. & Mon. part 3. fol. 492. To the Question thus I answer. What is the Question then? Turn the leaf, and look. Article 1. We do object to thee, Nicolas Ridley, &c. That thou hast openly defended, that the true and naturall body of Christ is not really present in the Sacrament of the Altar. What saith he? To the Question I answer, That in the Sacrament of the Altar, &c. So that the word is the word articulated upon him, not his. And he could not possibly avoid the repeating of it, unlesse he should mutare terminos, and so confound all me­thod of Disputation. But in all his own voluntary expressions in all that Conference, he never calls it, The Sacrament of the Altar, but the Sacrament of the Communion onely. The which Communion he there affirms to be onely a memory of Christs Pas­sion. Which is the Doctrine I have all this while endeavoured to prove, to have no relation at all to a materiall Altar. In answering that place in Cyrill, objected by the Bishop of Lincoln, (where­by that Bishop would fain prove, that as erecting of Altars in Britanny did imply that Christ was [Page 92] come and beleev'd on in those parts; so the plucking of them down, as B. Ridley had done, was suffici­ent to imply, that Christ as yet was not come in the flesh) he saith, as you say, That the word Altar in Scripture, signifieth as well the Altar of the Jews, as the Table of the Lords Supper: al­luding, without all question, to Hebr. the 13. as Philpot but even now expounded that place. But that the Bishop of Lincoln should apply that Altar whereof S. Cyrill spake, to those materiall Altars pull'd down in the Reformation under Edw. the sixth, B. Ridley (in the midst of his great Afflictions) could not heare without a little smi­ling. D. Ridley smiling answered. And then ta­king up his countenance againe, he tells him freely; That the removing of Altars was done upon just considerations; and, That the Supper of the Lord was not at any time better, ministred, nor more duly received, then when these Altars were taken down. And would you know how he placed his Table, when these Altars were gone? Act & Mon. part. 2. p. 700. When some used the Table Altar-wise, he determined, that to use it as a Table, was most agreeable to Scripture. And as B. Ridley smil'd dat the B. of Lincoln, so would the B. of Lincoln (were he alive) smile heartily at you, that would bring such a passage as this to defend your Altars.

Having thus impannell'd his Jury, he begins to open his Evidence, for the Sacrament of the Al­tar, out of the Laws of the Land, 1 ^o Edv. 6. c. 1. revived 1 ^o Elis. c. 1. but with the same felicitie he produced those worthy Martyrs, that is, to [Page 93] witnesse point-blank against himself. For in this Quotation, he doth but peep over the Wicket, and touch upon the Title of the Statute: he dares not for his eares open the doore, and enter in to the Body thereof. It is enough for him, that in the Title, The Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ is (at that time before the Statute of the six Articles was actually repealed) said to be commonly called, The Sacrament of the Altar. There­fore saith he, That Name of the Sacrament of the Altar doth occurre in that Statute still in force. First, I deny it to be the Name in that place, but the Addition onely of the blessed Sacrament, of the body and bloud of Christ. The Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ is the Name, and true Name; the other is onely an Addition Exposition of the Terms of the Law, p. 12. given unto this Sacrament, over and beside the proper name there­of, whereby it might be certainly known in this dawning of the Reformation: the darknesse of Poperie, and the terrour of the six Articles being not as yet dispelled from the beliefe or language of the fearfull multitude. So one Hume is said to be at this time▪ convicted before Archbishop Cranmer, for denying somewhat Act. & Mon. part 2. p. 655. in the Sacrament (as it was then called) of the Altar. Then; Then was a time, which the Frenchmen call Pour deno­ter les rets de la nuict nous disons entre chien & loup. Pasq. des Recher. che [...] de la Fr. l. 8. c. 15. Entre Chien & Loup, so early in the Morning of our Religion, as a man could not (without some speciall Cha­racter) discern a Dog from a Wolf; a name given by God himself, from a name given by the inven­tion of man, unto that blessed Sacrament. Second­ly, I utterly deny, that the Act of Parliament takes [Page 94] it for the Name: It takes it clearly for the Nick­name of that Sacrament. Come in with shame enough into the Body of the Act, and see what imposture you print for the people. 1 ^o Edv. 6. 1. The most comfortable Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Saviour Iesus Christ, commonly called, The Sacrament of the Altar, and in Scripture, The Supper and Table of the Lord, The Communion and partaking of the body and bloud of Christ. Here is (I confesse) some strife and contention about the naming of the Child. The Commonaltie and Corruptions of the time (and, as I shall shew anon, the Course of the Common Law) name it one way, the holy Scripture another way. And Cic. de Oratore, lib. 1. if it were a matter de stillicidiis (as Tully speaks) a matter of Cu­stome or Prescription, that two or three Good­fellows might eeke it out with an Oath before a Iury of the same feather, I think it would go hard with both Church and Scripture. But in a matter of the most venerable Sacrament of the Christian Religion, and before a Learned and Iudicious Di­vine, (as his best friend, his Alter ego, stiles him) me thinks there should be no question, but that the holy Scripture should carry it quite away; and that The Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, The Supper, or The Communion, should be the right name, and The Sacrament of the Altar the Nick­name or vulgar Appellation onely of this blessed Sacrament. But a penall Law, as this is, was to take notice, not onely of the proper name, but of every Appellation, whatsoever this blessed Sacrament en­joyned to be had in reverence by that Law, was [Page 95] at that time known by and discerned. Brook [...] A­bridgement, ver­bo Misnon [...]e [...], ex 1 ^o Edv. 4. fol. 82. A man may be known by twenty Names, and yet have but one Name, say the learned in our Laws: The Sacra­ment of the body and bloud of Christ, as by the right name; of the Altar, as a thing known by, saith the Statute. It is so called indeed, but not by the Law of God, nor by the Law of Man, but commonly, that is, by the common Errour, and Popery of those times. Learn Doctour, learn to language this Sa­crament from a Prelate of this Church, from whom you may well learn as long as you live. Answer to the Gagger, p. 251. The Sacrament (as you call it) of the Altar. Gaggers of Protestants call it so, Protestants themselves do not. For there hath been much alteration in this Church and State, (God be praised for it) and all in melius, and all confirm'd by Acts of Par­liament sithence that Time. Rubrick before the Comm. in K. Edw. Liturgie of 1549. f. 121. This very Sacrament was then commonly called the Masse, and allowed to be so called by 2 ^o & 3 ^o Ed. 6. c. 1. & In­junct. of K. Edw. Injunct. 21. Act of Parliament, and in that Appellation appointed to be so sung or said, all England over. I hope it is not so Now. 23▪ Elis. c 1. For every person that shall now say or sing Masse, shall forfeit the summe of 200 Marks, &c. And if D ^r Coal shall report of me, that I have said Masse, when I have onely administred the Communion, I shall have against him my remedy in Law, as in a cause of foul Slander. And presently after this Act was reviv'd by Q. Elisabeth, there was at the same Session an The later part of the Catechisme added in Q. Elis. her Liturgie. Addition made to the Cate­chisme, (and that likewise confirm'd by 1 ^o Elis. c. 2. Act of Parliament) whereby all the Children of this Church are punctually taught to Name our two [Page 96] Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper. So that this Iudicious Divine was very ill catechised, that dares write it now, The Sacrament of the Altar.

For the Writ directed in that Act of Parliament, it doth not call it (as D. Coal doth expressely falsifie the passage) Sacramentum Altaris, but it saith onely, that it is grounded upon that Statute, which was made Contra sormam Statuti concer­nent. Sacros. Sa­cram. Altaris. concerning the Sacrament of the Altar. Having therefore clear'd the Statute it self from naming it so, the Writ will never be found guilty of such a Misnomee. But how many presidents of that Writ can this great Lawyer shew in the Book of Entries? However, it was high time for the wisdome of the Parliament to take some quick Order in this kinde, when they were resolv'd to revoke all 2 ^o H. 5. c. 7. & 25 ^o H. 8. c. 14. former Laws that com­manded honour to the Sacrament, and yet found the unsufferable indiscretion of the Zelotes moun­ted to that height, as to dare to term the Insti­tution of Christ (however disguis'd in this super­stitious habit) with those base compellations of Altare Da­masc. p. 316. Iack of the Box, and Sacrament of the Halter, on the one side, and then Defence of three Ceremo­nies, p. 270. Iewel, Art. 4. p. 282. Bakers bread, Ale-cakes, and Tavern-tokens, on the other side. Purposing therefore to keep in force one Branch of those two Laws which were by and by to be repeal'd, (I mean, 2 ^o H. 5. c. 7. and 25 ^o H. 8. c. 14.) which required due reverence to be performed to this Sacrament, they reserved the ancient words and Additions, not of the people onely, but of the Common Law it self, in the Indictments for Lolardy, [Page 97] as we may see in the Book of Et docuerunt opiniones hae­reticas contra fidem Catholi­cam Sanctae Romanae Ec­clesiae: viz. Quòd in Sa­cramento Al­taris non est nisi panis San­ctus, & non ca­ro & sanguis Christi, &c. Rastall, Coll. of Entries, Endict­ment, c 11. Entries. And be­cause this Sacrament was so commonly called, not onely in the Mouth of the Church, but in the Mouth of the Law it self, the Statute in the head of the Act, and foot of the Writ, gives it this Ad­dition of Sacramentum Altaris. But this Lollard Writ, these threescore yeares, hath had (God be thanked for it) no more operation in Law, then the Clause against Lollards in the Nostro aevo accipiunt alii Lollardos, pro institutae reli­gioni adver­santibus, eó (que) vetus jutamen­tum Vicecomi­tum ad prose­quendos Lol­lardos jura­torum hodie attrahunt. H. Spilm. in verbo Lollard. Sheriffs Com­mission. And if there were any occasion to put it in force, me thinks (the subsequent Laws conside­red) it ought to be issued contra formam Statuti concernentis sacrosanctum Sacrament [...]m Corporis & Sanguinis Dominici; admitting the Brooks A­bridgement, ex 2 ^o H. 6. 9. And Cowell, in verbo Variance. variance by this matter ex post facto, as men and Corporations may do in some Cases. But being led by this fellow quite out of my way, I wholly submit my Opinion herein to the Reverend of that Pro­fession.

I make haste therefore to return to the Doctour again, before he finish his Triumph over this Section, attended with Princes, Prelates, Priests, and Parliaments, to confirm his Altar and his Sacrifice. Whereas in very truth all his Witnesses are under Age, and are not able to speak of themselves one word to his purpose. Iohn Frith (as you have heard) speaks by S ^r Thomas More; Iohn Lambert, by S. Austin; Archbishop Cranmer, by Iohn Fox; Iohn Philpot, by the ancient Writers; B. Latimer, by the Doctours, who might be deceived; B. Ridley, by the publick Notary that drew the Articles; the Writ, by the Act of Parliament; and the Act of Par­liament, [Page 98] by Vox populi, and common Report. Not one of all these, that speaks of his own knowledge, as a witnesse ought to do. But this is some Su­senbrotus Figure, by which this judicious Divine useth to write in a different manner from all ho­nest Authours; to make one man still to speak what was uttered by another. Thus he handleth the Writer of the Letter, in that similitude Pag. 21. of Dressers, unmannerly applyed to the Altar-wise-situation of the holy Table. For although the Writer saith clearly, Letter 68, 69. he likes that fashion, he allows it, and so useth it himself; yet if one Prinne hath printed it I know not where, or some Countrey-people said I know not what, he must (in most Oyster-whore language) pinne it and Prinne it upon the Writer of the Letter. And if one Bishop of Lincoln, the Act. & Mon. part. 3. p. 486. Popes Delegate, and one Dean of Westminister, Queen Maries Act. & Mon. part. 3. p. 44. Commissioner, shall speak irreve­rently of the Protestants Table; by this new Fi­gure, all Bishops and Deans of those two places, must, untill the end of the world, be suppos'd to do it. And so must the Bishops of Norwich be ever sending forth Letters of Persecution, because In his Index reser [...]ing to Act. & Mon. part. 1. pag. 870. Iohn Fox observeth that one of them did so. It remai­neth onely, he should with the Italian Hen. [...] Apol. d' Her [...]d. Friar, fasten upon David, (whom he hath reasonably abused already) that he should also say, There was no God; because in one of the Psal. 14. 1. Psalmes, the Doctours own Cofin, the foolish body, hath hereto­fore said it.

HE cannot ascend not so much as to this Discourse of the Altar, without Bowing; which makes him fall upon this P. 4. Pre­amble so impertinently. But let him bow as often as he pleaseth, so he do it to this blessed Name; or to P. 42. honour him (and him onely) in his holy Sa­crament. This later, although the Canon doth not enjoyn, yet reason, pietie, and constant practice of Antiquitie doth. The Church-men do it in S. Vet. Pa [...]r­tom. 2. p. 61. [...]. Chrysost [...]ms Liturgie, and the Lay-men are commanded to do it in S. Chrysostoms. Homil. 24. ad Corinth. Hom. 61. ad pop. Antioch. vide Claud. de Sainctes de Riti­bus Missae. Homi­lies. And if there be any proud Dames, quae deferre nesciant mentium Religioni, quod deferunt vo­luptati, as S. De Virginib. l. 3. Ambrose speaks, that practise all manner of Courtesies for Masks and Dances, but none (by any means) for Christ, at their approach to the holy Table; take them Donatus for me: I [Page 100] shall never write them in my Calendar for the Children of this Church. But what is this to Dionysius? Yes, it comes in as pat as can be. He was serving his first Pag. 5. That herb (accor­ding as the saying is) hath spoil'd all the Pottage. Messe of Pottage, and the Bi­shop (as the saying is) got into it, and hath quite spoiled it, by warning a yong man (that was com­plain'd upon for being a little fantasticall in that kinde) to make his reverence humbly and devoutly, that he might winne his people also to sympa­thize with himself in that pious Ceremonie. But this is to censure the heart. No, the Writer goeth no further then the outward action: ut au­dio, sic judico. In that he had heard somewhat to be amisse, and desir'd (in a friendly manner) it might be reformed: But still according to the Canon: Which requires it Can. 18. should be done, as it hath been accustomed, saith our Canon, referring to a former: As it hath been accustomed heretofore, saith the Q. Elis. In­junct Injunct. 52. Injunction, referring to a time out of minde. It is not therefore enough to obey a Canon in the matter, if we obey it not likewise in the manner. Not to make a Courtesie, if it be not a Injunct. 52. lowly Courtesie. Nor so neither, un­lesse it be as heretofore hath been accustomed. If we would preserve old Ceremonies, we must not taint them with new Fashions; especially with apish ones. That reverence which the Priests and Deacons were wont to perform in this kinde, is call'd in the Greek Liturgies, Chrysost. Liturg. [...]. Vet. Pat. Tom. 2. p. 84. Reverentia, ut vulgò loquun­tur. Meurs. in [...]loss. [...], a modest and hum­ble Bowing of the body: such as in the primi­tive Church, the Christians us'd in performing their Publick penance. And if we may believe [Page 101] their modern Divines, it was two-fold, a greater, and a lesser Reverence. The greater, when they bowed all their Martin. Crust­us in Histor. Eccl. Turcograec. ex Ge [...]lach. p. 205. [...]. Herol [...]g. Body, yet without bending of the knee, very lowly and almost to the earth. The lesser, with the inclination and bending of the Head and shoulders onely. Which or whe­ther any of these were used in the Western Chur­ches, and delivered over unto us, is not so cer­tain. An accustomed lowly reverence to this bles­sed Name, we receiv'd from all Antiquitie, as appears by the Canons and Injunctions. And good reason we should entail it on our Posteritie. If this yong man faulted therein, he was much the better; If he faulted not, but was unjustly in­formed against, he was not much the worse, for being gently admonished. But behold this judicious Pag. 5. Censurer of the Censurer of the heart, is now become himself a Censurer of the spirit. Comparing (an angry man would say, Blasphe­mously) the young man Bowing, with Davids dancing before the Ark. Do you know with the Si corripia­tur eodem spi­ritu, quo Da­vid. Martyr in 2. Sam. 6. 14. rapture of what spirit David did this? Surely S. Comment. in Matth lib. 2. in c. 11. Hierome seems to imply, that it was done with no other spirit, then the very same, wherewith Christ and his Apostles piped unto the Jewes, when they had not danced. Besides that, Etiam quia populus non scandalizaba­tur in illo, sed putabant eum magis dignum honore. Test. in 2. Reg. c. 6. q. 19. the people were not scandalized in him (which is supposed to be our case) but Michel onely. And so much of your Preamble, that is, your Pottage. Now to your more solid Meat, if your Book have any of that kinde.

The Writer of the Letter had said, that if [Page 102] the Vicar should erect any such Altar, that is, a close Altar at the upper end of the Quire, where the old Altar in Q. Maries time stood, that then, his discretion would prove the sole Holocaust should be sacrificed thereupon. Not onely because his dis­cretion, being of a very airy and thin substance, would quickly (as a Holocaust should do) vanish into nothing; but by reason that thereby by he should put himself into the very Case, that Isaac con­ceiv'd his father to be in: Gen. 21. 7. Behold the Fire and wood, but where is the Lamb for the burnt-offering? Because the 31 Article having taken away the Po­pish Lamb (for the which that old Altar had been erected) as a B. of Articles, Artic. 31. Blasphemous figment and pernicious imposture; the Homily had commanded us to take heed, we should look to finde it in the blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper: For there it was not: There was indeed in the Sacrament a Memory of a Sacrifice, but Sacrifice there was none. And we must take heed of quillets and distinctions, that may bring us back againe to the old Errour reformed in the Church. Where­of this was a principall part: That we should not consecrate upon profane Tables (as the In 1. Cor. 11. Rhe­mists most profanely term'd them) which relate to a Supper, but upon sacred Altars onely, which referre to a Sacrifice. For so Du. S. Sacram. l. 2. Aut [...]r. 10. c. 1. Cardinall Peron observeth, that it is ever call'd a Table, when it points to the Communion or Supper; and an Altar, when it points to the Sacrifice. Now the Homily stating in one sentence most of the Controver­sies in this matter between us and the Church of [Page 103] Rome, by an enumeration of opposit and distinct species (the one whereof, as in [...]. Arist. de Partib. animal. l. 1. c. 3. Logick the nature of such is describ'd to be, if we make the Do­ctrine of our Church, we cannot without implica­tion make the other) observes these foure contra­distinguished Tenets or Positions: 1. We must make the Lords Supper fruitfull to us that be alive, not to the dead: both we of this Church cannot do. 2. We must receive it in two parts, not in one only: both we of this Church cannot do. 3. We must make it a Communion, or Publick, not a private eating: both we of this Church cannot do. 4. Lastly, we must make it a Memory, and not a Sacrifice: both we of this Church cannot do. And this is the passage cited by the Writer. We must take heed, lest of a Memory it be made a Sacrifice. What saith the Doctour to this? He saith, that by these words the Church admits of a Commemorative Sacrifice. Which is as much as Lib. 4. S [...]n [...]. d. 11. c. [...]. Peter Lombard and all his ragged regiment admit of. I am (as K. James of famous memory was wont to say) a Slave to reason, and must yeeld when ever I am thus summoned by it. I do confesse the man hath found a true and reall Sacrifice; but it is a Bull:

Virgil. Aeneid. 1. Taurum Nept [...]no, Taurum tibi, pulcher Apollo. A very strange and hideous Bull, which this Calf makes the Church to speak unto her people in her publick Homilies. As we must take heed, good People, we apply not the Sacrament of the Supper to the dead, but to the living; receive it not under one, but under both kindes; Let not the [Page 104] Priest swallow up all, but take our part with him: So must we take especiall heed, lest of a Comme­morative Sacrifice, it be made a Sacrifice. Which though it be not so fierce as Pius Quintus his, yet is a kinde of Pious Bull. But the Church in her Book of Hom. p. 197. Homily, or any other publick writing, never speaks a word of any Commemorative Sacrifice, but of the Memory onely of a Sacrifice, that is (as she clearly interprets her self in the page before) of the Memory of Christs death, which she there af­firms to be sufficiently celebrated upon a Table. And I shall be able to shew unto you, that it is call'd by S. De Civit. Dei, l. 17. c. 20. Austin, a Sacrament of Memory; by [...]. Euseb. de Dom. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. ad finem. Eusebius, a Sacrifice of Memory: which is the word in the Homily. You will not be able to shew unto me out of S. Austin, or any of the Fathers (although Replique a la Resp. p. 793. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Missa. c. 2. Cardinall Peron affirms it to be sometimes used by them; which Bellar­mine utterly denies) no, nor out of Peter Lom­bard himself (upon whose old rubbish they have built the distinction) and least of all (saith Chemuit. Ex Conc. Trident. part. [...]. Bellarm. l. 1, de Missa. c. 2. Chemnitius, which Bellarmine also approves) out of Scripture; that it is call'd punctually a Commemorative Sacrifice. All that Sent. l. 4. dist. 12. Peter Lom­bard saith in a manner is this, that it is call'd in the Fathers an Oblation and a Sacrifice, Quia me­moria est & repraesentatio veri Sacrificii; Archb. Cran­mer Def. l. 5. contra Gardi­ner. doth thus interpret it. not be­cause it is a true Sacrifice (for you see those two terms are contradistinguish'd) but because it is a Memory and representation of a true Sacrifice. A true Sacrifice it is not (The Christian Church hath but one in that kinde:) but a Memory onely [Page 105] of a true Sacrifice. So likewise S. Chrysost Hem. 17. in 9. ad He­braeos. Chrysostom, when he had call'd it [...], a Sacrifice, eats up his word by and by, and addes (by way of explica­tion, yea, and correction too, as Sive expli­cationis, sive etiam corre­ctionis loco. Cas [...]ub. ad Per. Ep. p. 52. one observes; Rom. Sacris. l. 6. c. 5. p. 443. correction of that excesse of speach, saith a Re­verend Prelate of this Church; That no man might take offence at the speach, saith Archbishop Defence against Gardiner, lib. 5. Cranmer) [...], I should ra­ther have said, a Memory of a Sacrifice. You know best, saith Casaubon to Cardinall Peron, what weight and efficacie those little particles, [...], do carry with them. I am sure, saith Moun­sieur Ces mots sont fort ex­prez & gren­vent advers [...]i­res. Resp au Car­din. du Per. Con­trovers. 10. c. 2. Moulin, they vex the Pontifician not a lit­tle. Surely, if you put them in an even and un­partiall balance, the name of Sacrifice will prove too light, and the Memory of a Sacrifice onely will passe for the currant and lawfull money. I know some few learned men of the reformed Church do use the name of Commemorative Sa­crifices: but it is not with an intent to disturb the Doctrine of Gods Church, as it is taught now; but to give a candid and faire interpre­tation to those words of Art, by which this self­same Doctrine hath been heretofore illustrated by the ancient Fathers. Besides that, our tru­ly learned men do set down precisely, that a Archb. Cran­m [...]r Def. against Gard. 5. Book. Episc. Dunelm. Rom. Sacrifice, l. 6. c. 5. p. 440. Because the Eucharist be­ing onely a Commemorati [...]e, cannot be a proper Sacrifice. Commemorative Sacrifice, is not properly a Sacri­fice, but (as K. Rex—hoc Sacrificium ni­hil esse aliud contendit, nisi Commemora­tionem ejus quod semel in cruce, &c. Ca­saub. Ep. ad [...]e­ron. p. 52. James took it rightly) Comme­moratio Sacrificii, a Commemoration onely of a Sa­crifice, which differs in predicament (then the which nothing can be more) from a true Sacri­fice. And yet the most learned in this Theme [Page 106] of our late Divines, Def. of the 5. Book against Gardiner. Archbishop Cranmer, doth refuse to tie himself to Peter Lombard in the Consequences, however he doth sometimes use the terms of this Distinction. And therefore if a Memory of a true Sacrifice be all that he hath gain'd, which can be celebrated upon a Table, as well or better then upon an Altar, the Vicars dis­cretion, and his Campions to boot, are not quite out of danger, to become the Holocaust of this new Altar. And herein because you appeale un­to the Homily, to it you shall go; little to your comfort, I hope. The immmediate words before these we spake of, are those of S. Ambrose. Indignus est Domino, qui al [...]ter mysteri­um celebrat, quà [...] ab eo traditum est. Non enim po­test devotus esse, qui aliter p [...]aesumit, quàm datum est ab Autore. Ambr. in 1. Cor. 11. That he is unworthy of the Lord, that otherwise doth celebrate that Mystery, then it was delivered by him. Neither can he be devout, that doth otherwise pre­sume then it was given by the Authour. We must there­fore take heed, lest of a Memory, &c. Now there is no one word in Christs Institution, that can pro­bably inferre a proper Sacrifice: As our reverend Instit. Sacram. l. 6. c. 1. p. 398. Bishop proves at large. Nor was there extant any one word of all these Collects of our own (or of any other Liturgie whatsoever) from whence you muster up your unproper Sacrifices, in the Apo­stles times. In which Age, they consecrated the Sacrament of the Supper with the short Canon of the Mos Aposto­lorum fuit, ut ad ipsam solū modo oratio­nem Domini­cam Oblatio­nis hostiam consecrarent. Greg. l. 8. Ep. 7. Sit Durand. Ra­tion. l. 4. Pl [...]in. in vita Sixti. Idem cita [...] ex Gregor. Joan. 9. Papa. In vita Gregor. l. 2. & [...]ea [...]. Rh [...]an. Praef. in Liturg. Chrysost. & Am­bros. Pelargus in Pro [...]. in Liturg. Chrysost. Lords Prayer onely; out of the which, you must bestirre you well with your Logick, before you can inferre all your unproper and spirituall Sa­crifices. And if you should wring them all out of these six Petitions, yet will it not serve your turn, unlesse you prove that the Lords Prayer can­not [Page 107] be said in Pew or Pulpit, but at an Altar onely. But to deal clearly with you, and to come to the point. I do grant freely, that in the Scripture and the ancient Fathers, we do meet with, not onely those few which you reckon up, but a great ma­ny more duties and vertues of Christian men, that are usually term'd by the Names of Sacrifices; howbeit (for the most part) they have (as In divinis literis opera virtutum non vocantur abso­lutè Sacrificia, sed cum addito, ut, Sacrificium laudis, &c. Bellar. de Miss. l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmine observes) their Sirnames also and Additions put unto them. The learned Prelate of our own Nation reckons up some six out of Scripture, and a great many more out of the an­cient Fathers. And it is no marvell; For I could fill a page or two, if I list, with the like Sacri­fices, out of the very heathen Writers. [...]. Isocr. ad Nico [...]l. Hold this the most glorious of all thy Oblations, if thou canst ex­hibit thy self unto the Gods a most just and excellent man, saith Isocrates. It were a pitifull case indeed (saith [...], &c. Plato de voti [...]. Socrates in Plato) if the Gods should regard the Perfumes onely, and not the Souls and Vertues of mortall men. Lastly, I will adde that most admi­rable passage of the Poet, applauded and com­mented upon by Lactant. divin. instit. l. 6. c. 11. Sentiebat non carne opus esse ad placan­dam coelestem majestatem, sed mente san­ctâ. Lactantius himself. Let us sa­crifice unto the gods

I will likewise allow you, (which your indigested Meditations forgot to call for) that all these spirituall Odours, improperly called Sacrifices, are not onely stirred up and made more fragrant with the Meditation, but many times sown of seeds, and engendred at first by the secret operation of [Page 108] this blessed Sacrament. Nay yet further; In con­templation of all these rare and speciall Graces of the Spirit, wrought in our soules by means of the Eucharist, you shall not reasonably expect any outward expression of reverence and submission to the Founder of the Feast, any trimming and ador­ning of the Room and Vtensils prepared for this great solemnitie, which I will not approve of, and bring the ancient Fathers along with me to do as much. I will allow Erat solicitus Nepotianus, si niteret Altare, Hieron. ad Helio­dor. ep. 3. c. 10. Nepotian to take e­speciall care that things be neat and handsome in that blessed Sanctuary. I will encourage [...]. Pallad. Lausiac. hist. c. 119. Mela­nia to beautifie that place, with the forbearance (if need be) of her chiefest Ornaments. I could say in a manner with that Iddio scrive in quella pol­vere [...] vostri peccati, O cu­ratori d' anime, quando per lungo spatio rimano, Freder. Borrom. Cardin. Ragionam. Syno dal. 31. p. 305. Italian Prelate, that God in that holy Table, which he finds full of dust, doth write down the sinnes of the carelesse Church-man. But this I can by no means approve, which Prote­stants and Papists do joyntly deny, that ever ma­teriall Altar was erected in the Church for the use of spirituall and improper Sacrifices. Defence of his fifth book against Gardiner. The Sa­crifice which Malachy speaks of, being the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, all people offer unto God, as well as the Priest; be they at the blessed Sacrament, at Prayers, or at some charitable work, at any time, and in any place whatsoever; saith Archbishop Cran­mer. If question be asked, It there then no Sacri­fices now left to be done of Christian people? yea truly, but none other then such as ought to be done with­out Altars. And these bee of three sorts, &c. For hee instanceth in three of those which the Doctour doth instance upon in this Book; [Page 109] Praise and Thanksgiving, our Soules and Bodies, and Oblations for the poore: And then con­cludes; Seeing Christian men have no other Sacrifi­ces then these, which may and ought to be done without Altars, there should amongst Christians be no Altars; saith Bishop In his third Sermon upon lonas, preached before the King, 1550. Hooper. Priest, Altar, and Sacrifice are Relatives, and have mutuall and unseparable de­pendance one of each other. So he, and truly. But you ought to take with you a necessary Caution, obser­ved by the same Cardinall, That an unproper Sacrifice cannot inferre a proper Altar, saith the Lo. Institut. lib. 6. c. 5. §. 15. p. [...]61. Bishop of Duresme; when he had said a little before (most truly and learnedly) that a Because the Eucharist be­ing only com­memorative, cannot be a proper Sacri­fice, p. 440. Commemorative Sacrifice cannot be a proper Sacrifice: and there­fore cannot inferre a proper Altar. Then for the Pontificians, they are all of this opinion; I will single out a few of the Prime. An Altar of Stone is never erected to praise God or say our prayers at, saith In Epist. ad Hebr. c. 13. ad octav. Salmeron. If not of Stone, neither of Timber; for that makes not the difference. There is none so blinde, but he may see that these Christian duties and Ceremonies may be performed to God without an Altar, saith Quis enim non videt &c. de Missa, l. 1. c. 2. Bellarmine. And he quotes to confirm this point, the testimonie of Institut. lib. 4. c. 18. §. 13. Calvin; They that extend the name of Sacrifice to all Ceremonies and religious Actions, I do not see what reason they can produce for it. To Sacrifices taken improperly and metaphorically, the circumstances of Altars (which relate still to true Sa­crifices) are no way requisite, saith Les circ [...]n­stances des au­tels, qui ont relation aux vrais sacrifices, n'estoit point requise. Re­plique, p. 790. Cardinall Peron. would the Iews (who no doubt had Prayers and Obla­tions) take them for Sacrifices, or build an Altar for them? saith D ^r Survey, lib 4. c. 2. Kellison. Which puts me in minde [Page 110] of one Argument, wherewith I will conclude this Passage. God would not suffer the first Age of the world, for 1650 yeares, to passe away without Prayers, Praises, and Thanksgivings unto him; but he suffer'd it to passe without any Altars: That of Noahs being the Gen. 8. pri­mum Altare erectum, Bellar. l 1. de Missa, c. 2. Le premler au­tel dressé. P. Cot­ton. Genev. Pla­giar. p. 282. Pri­mus omnium Noah Gen. 8. fecit Altare, Hospin. l. de Orig. Altar. c. 6. first that ever was built, as learned men are of opinion. Therefore these du­ties may be still performed without Altars. And consequently, if after all this search in the Collects of the Liturgie, you can finde the Vicar nothing, but Prayers, Praises, Thanksgivings, and Commemo­rations; the holy Table, in the place where it stood, will serve for all these, without erecting or di­recting this new Altar. But what if I finde you severall Altars for all these spirituall Sacrifices, in the ancient Fathers, will you promise not to di­sturb the peace of the Church any more? Or if this be too much for you to perform, will you have a better opinion of the Writer of the Letter, and suf­fer the poore man to procure, if he can, so poore a Vicaridge as your friends was, to be quiet in? Is it not a very little one? It is but a piece of a piece of a piece of a Benefice: And therefore I will presume upon your kindnesse therein, and set you up all the Altars that God ever required for these kinde of Sacrifices. The first, is the [...]. Ignatiu [...] Epist. ad Eph. vide Nic. Vedel. Exercit. 6. c. 1. p. 237. Councell of the Saints and the Church of the first begotten; a most fitting place for the pouring forth of these Christian du­ties: And this is Ignatius his. Altar. The second, is [...], &c. Orig. contra Cels. lib. 8. p. 404. [...], not the minde (as it is usually translated) but the commanding and directing part of the reasonable soule, from whence is sent forth [Page 111] those Odours of sweet Incense, to wit, Vowes and Prayers out of a good Conscience: And this is Origens Altar. The third, is the [...]. Clem. Alex. Strom. l. 7. Righteous Soul; the Incense whereof, is holy invocation: And this is Clemens Alexandrinus his Altar. The fourth, is every place wherein we offer unto God the sweet-smelling fruits of our studies in Divinitie: And this is [...]. Euseb. de Dem. Evang. l. 1. c. 10. Eusebius his Altar. The fifth, is E [...]seb. hist. Eccl. l. 10. c. 4. it is said to be [...], by Nic [...]ph. l. 7. c. 40. Domi cō ­posita, as Lon­gus translates it, at the dedication of a Church. [...], the clearnesse and sinceritie of the minde, smo [...] ­king up the unbloudy and immateriall Sacrifices of Prayers: And this is the Panegyrists Altar, quoted in your Pamphlet under another name, p. 53. The sixth, is the heart of a man, Cor nostr [...]m Altare Dei, the true, proper, and literall Altar of all spi­rituall Sacrifices: And this is S. Nos templum Dei sumus om­nes, cor nostrū Altare Dei, Au [...]. l 10. de Civ. Dei, c. 5. Augustines Altar. The seventh, is our Memory, and remem­brance of Gods blessings; a very fit and perti­nent expression: And this is Philo Iud. lib. Quis rerum di­vinarū haeres, & l. 3 de vita Mosis. Philo Iudaeus his Altar. The eighth, is the Sonne of God, become the sonne of man; Altare sanctificans donum, The Altar which sanctifieth all these spirituall Sacrifices, that but touch that Altar: And this is S. Altare Re­demptoris, hu­milis Incarna­tio, Berr. in Sent. Bernards Altar. The ninth, is the Sonne of God now in Hea­ven; that Habemus Altare, Hebr. 13. that Golden Altar, Apoc. 8. upon which we offer to God the Father all spirituall Sacrifices: And this is Aquin in. 13. c. ep. ad Heb & An­tididagma Colon. de Miss. Sac [...]if. A­quinas his Altar. The tenth and last, (for we must make an end, and remember we are not now at Paphos or Cyprus, ‘— Virg. Aeneid 1. ubi templum illi centúmque Sabeo’

Thure calent arae) is our Faith, the Pro­thesis or preparing-Altar to that Altar going before. [Page 112] Altare id est Fides, the immediat Altar of all these spirituall Sacrifices, is the Faith of a Christian, which elevates all these vertues up to Heaven, (that otherwise would lie flagging about the Earth.) And this is S. Vnusquisque sanctus Altare Domini in se habet, quod est Fides, Hieron. in Psal. 25. Hieromes Altar. Now consider with your self, whether it were fitter for you to make use of these Altars for your unproper and metaphoricall Sacrifices, and have all these Greek and Latin Fathers to applaud you for the same, rather then to rely upon some Miracle of a good Work in hand, or some poore Dreame of the pietie of the Times; especially when we are clear­ly inhibited by the Canons of Conc. Carthag. 5. An. 438. c. 14. Num quae per somnia consti­ [...]uuntur altaria omnimodò reprobantur. Sen [...]nens. Synod. An. 1528. Can. 38. Nè pr [...]tex [...] no [...]i miraculi erigatur altare novum. two Nationall Councells, to erect any Altars upon Dreames or Miracles.

THis Section is a true Section indeed, divi­sibilis in semper divisibilia, chop't into a very Hotchpotch, or minc'd pie, and so crum­bled into smal snaps and pieces, that an Adversary doth not know, ‘ Martial Epigr. lib. 1. ep 61. Quod ruat in tergum, vol quos procumbat in armos.’ [Page 114] All the first part therof that relates unto any Laws, Canons, or Constitutions, made or confirmed by the Kings & Queens of this Realm, concerning this yong Controversie, I have already examined in the first Chapter: It being a ridiculous thing for us to have waded thus far into the book, if we had received but the least check frō any Law of God or the King. In the remainder of this Section, there are some things that concern the Question in hand, which we may call his Sixth (as it were;) and some other that are but [...], certain skips and spurts, or Boutades of the man (when hee thought what Dignities he might expect for this piece of ser­vice) which wee will call his Extravagancies, and see that they shalbe forth-coming (as Waives in a Pinfold) to be surveyed at our better leisure in the next Chapter. And in the former part now to be perused, you shall finde little that con­cerns the Writer of the Letter, or any of us that approved of the same. For this New-castle-Coal is mounted up from the Kitchin to the Great Chamber, and confutes no longer a private Mo­nition sent to a Vicar, but Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Iewel, Iohn Calvin (a greater stickler, then ever I heard before, in our Upper and Lower house of Parliament) the Acts of Counsell made for the Reformation, the Lords spirituall and tempo­rall, with the Commonaltie, that confirmed our pre­sent Liturgie: not forbearing to P. 40. jeere and de­ride both them and King Edward( The sonne of whom, was Edward the Saint; of whom we may say, as of Enoch, Though hee departed the world soone, yet fulfilled he much time, Hooker Eccles. [...]ol. l. 4. p. 168. whom the Iudicious Divine indeed doth call Saint Edward) in a most prophane and abominable fashion.

[Page 115] First therefore he falls upon a solemne Act & Men. part 2 f 700. Act of the King and Counsell, mentioned by Iohn Fox, upon this occasion: Letter, p. 73. The writer of the Letter ob­serves that in Saxony and other parts of Germany, the Popish Altars upon the Reformation, being per­mitted to stand, were never esteemed (call them by what name you will) any otherwise then as so man Tables of Stone or Timber; the Sacrifice of those Popish Altars being now abolished. Which words, I perceive, the Writer had translated in a manner from a learned Quia cessan­te sacrificio, al­taria illa nihil aliud sunt quàm mensae lapid [...]ae: Sublato enim relativo forma­li, manet abso­lutum & mate­riale tantùm, Gerard. lib. 2. tom. 5. p. 5 [...]6. Lutheran. And that these sacrifices were abolished, D. Pag. 7. Coal hath al­ready confessed, pronouncing him for no sonne of the Church of England, that presumes to offer them. Yet the Writer alleging the fourth Reason given by the King and Counsell, for their taking away in England; That the form of an Altar being ordained for the Sacrifices of the Law, and both the Law and the Sacrifices thereof new ceasing (in Christ) the Form of the Altar ought to cease also; D. Coal makes nothing of this Reason; but pities the simplicity of the Times, as not being able to distinguish be­tween the Sacrifices of the Law, and the Sacrifices of the Altar. I pray you good Doctour, where may we read of this Term of yours, Sacrifices of the Altar, if we do not reade of it in the Sacrifices of the Law? Omnia om­nino quae in Scriptura di­cuntur Sacrifi­cia, necessariò destruenda e­rant, Bellarm, de Missa, l. [...] c. 2. For surely all Sacrifices that wee reade of in Scrip­ture, none excepted, were necessarily to be destroyed. And beside the Sacrifices of the Law, woe reade of no Sacrifice that was destroyed, but that one you wot of, offered up upon the Crosse, and not upon an Altar. Beside that, the Apostles and Writers of the [Page 116] New Testament, Lib. 1. de Missa, c. 17. by the speciall instinct of the holy Ghost, did purposely forbear to insert into their Writings the name of an Altar, if we may beleeve Bellarmine. And in the ancient Fathers you shall not reade your Sacrifice of the Altar, terminis terminantibus, how ever you may have found it foisted into their As the Divines of Lovain to the Index of S. Au­gustine. Indexes by some Priests and Iesuits. And De Missa, l. 3. c. 4. Mor­nay doth shew with a great deal of probability, that the ancient Fathers could not possibly take any notice of this Sacrifice of the Altar. What then? are you Christians to perform no manner of Sacri­fices at all? No, not any at all, saith Quid ergó? Sacrificia cen­setis nulla faci­enda? Nulla. Arnobius adver­sus Gen [...]es, l. 7. Arnobius. Not any corporeall Sacrifice; but onely praise and hymnes, saith Lib. 6. c. 23. Lactantius. And if some of the Fa­thers bad used those terms (as they have done others of as high expressions) yet are there divers reasons given by our gravest Divines, why wee should forbear in this kinde the term of Sacri­fice. Bilson of Christ subject. part 4. p. 524. 1 Christ and his Apostles did forbear it, and therefore our Faith may stand without it. 2 The spea­ches of the Fathers in this kinde are dark and obscure, and consequently unusefull for the edifying of the people. 3 Lastly, we finde by experience, that this very expres­sion hath been a great fomenter of Superstition and Po­pery. And all these inconveniences have sprung from the words, not from the meaning, of any of the Fathers.

But the Doctour hath found it in the Bible for all this, Hebr. 13. 10. We have an Altar. And although this be but one, and that (God he knoweth) a very lame souldier; yet like an Irish Captain, he brings him in in three severall disguises, to fill up his Com­panie; in Title-page. front, in the Pag. 30. middle, and in the Pag. 87. end of [Page 117] his Book. But in good faith, if S. Paul should mean a materiall Altar for the Sacrament in that place, (with all reverence to such a chosen Vessell of the Holy Ghost be it spoken) it would prove the wea­kest Argument that ever was made by so strong an Artist. We have an Altar, and a Sacrifice of the Altar, that you of the Circumcision may not partake of. Have you so? And that's no great wonder (may the Jew reply) when abundance of you Christians, may not your selves partake there­of. For in the old time, as Albaspin. Ob­serv. l. 2. obs. 2. Antiquitus fie­ri, non nasci Christianos. one observes, they were not born, but made Christians. Made by long and wearisome steps and degrees, and for­ced. Concil. Constan­tinop. 1. Can. 7. [...], to creep on with time and leisure to the bosome of the Church, saith the Generall Councell. Ex Albasp. l. 2. Observ. 2. Quid est quod datum est completi­vum? Corpus quod nôstis, quod non om­nes nôstis, Aug. in Ps. 39. Tom. 8. p. 143. Ainsi pa [...]le t [...]il a cause de non initiez devant les quelz iln'c­stoit pas per­mis de parler ouvertement du mystere de l'Eucharistie, Cardin. du Peron. Repliq. p. 806. 1. They were taught in some private house, the vanity of their Paganisme, without so much as daring to peep in­to the Church-porch. 2. They were admitted to be Hearers only, and that at a very far and remote di­stance. 3. They were licenced to bend the Knee, and to join in some Prayers with the Congregation. 4. They had leave granted them to become Com­petentes, suiters and petitioners for the Sacra­ment of Baptisme. 5. And then, after many moneths, nay yeares expectation, being baptized, they were enrolled in the number of the Faithfull, and never before admitted to the least interest in the Sa­crament of the Supper. And therefore for S. Paul to frighten the Jewes with the losse of that, which so many millions of Christians were themselves bereaved of, had been a very weak and feeble de­hortation. [Page 118] I am sure this fellow is a mighty weak piece, to take up this leaden Dagger, which the Non urgeo hunc locum, quia non de­sunt ex Ca­tholicis, qui in­terpretantur de Cruce, vel de Christo ip­so, Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 14. Papists themselves have thrown away, as of no use in the day of Battell. And that you should not build upon mine opinion alone, you shall heare what others have printed in that kinde. This place is brutishly abused, to prove that the Chri­stians have a materiall Altar, saith D. Rhemish Test. p. 779. Fulk. Who is of so shallow a brain, as not to discern the notari­ous unconscionablenesse of your Diputers, who allege the word Altar in the Tent to the Hebrews, for proof of a proper Altar? saith a Reverend Institut. of the Sacrament, l. 6. c. 3. p. 416. Bishop. And (for vanieties sake) take you one of another Sect: M. Cartwr. in [...], f. 648. Let the Reader observe, how not childishly onely, but absurdly also the Jesuite [...] apply this place to prove a reall Altar. But to put your mouth into r [...]lish again, I will conclude with S. Nihil hîc visibile, ne (que) Sacardos, ne (que) Sacrificium, ne (que) Altare, in 10. [...]p. [...]p. ad Hebr. Ambrose: That we have nothing visible in all this disputation of S. Paul, neither Priest, nor Sacrifice, nor yet Altar. And if these people be [...]rutes, br [...]inlesse, childish and absurd, who (grant them but their suppositions; that here is an He [...]ules in a Lions skin, seen of all, but discerned of none, as Par l' example d'un homme, gui [...]ntieremēt cou [...]ert d'une p [...]a [...]dolion, ne pour [...]a est [...]e discerné d'au­cun, mais bien touché de tout le monde, Le [...] princip [...]ux pointes de la Fey, c. 6. Sect. 2. p. 131. Cardinall Richelieu; that here is a David representing his former combat with Goliah, as Institut. of the Sacra [...]. l. 6. c. 5. p. 446. Cardinall Peron; that here is a King [...]cting a battell he atchieved before, as Si rex aliquis gravissimo bello confecto, idem ipsum bellu [...]r ad oblectand [...]m populo in s [...]ena re­praesentare vellet, & ipse idem quirerè pu [...]naverat, i [...] s [...]ena seipsum repraesentaret: Esset enim ipse verè Antitypon suiipsins, De Sacra. Eucharist. l. 2. c. 15. Cardinall Bellarmine; or representing [...] 's hirmish [...]hat was [...]o come after, as Induit, Christus in Coena modum & conditionem quam habult, ut sangul [...]em fu [...]dens in sacrificio Crucis, De Euchar [...]st [...] Sacrif. l. 2. c. 13. Cardinall [...]lan doth conceive it) have [...]ll the reason that [Page 119] can be to erect a stage for such representations: If these (I say) be to be so termed, what a Brute is this wrangler then, who would have an Altar he knows not for what! For he would have an Pag. 9. Altar, i. e. a C [...]mmunion-Table; and a Sacrifice, i. e. a Pag. 8. Memory; and a Pag. 11. Send his resolutions to the Priest. Priest, i. e. not derived from The name of Priest need not be so odious unto you, as you would seem to make it. I suppose it cometh of the word Pres­byter, and not Sacerdos; and then the mat­ter is not great. Whitg. Answer to the Adm. part. 2. pag. 183. Sacerdos for all that. So that I do not know how to resemble this Doctrine fitter, then to that which a Countrey. Becan. Summ. Theolog. part. 1. c. 16. M [...]untebank in France was wont to give in writing to his Patients for the curing of all diseases what soever:

Id est,

And yet for all that, if we talk of a Pag. 47. Helena in­deed, this one place of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is the Helena of all this sort of people. This they hug and clip and kisse: And above all indeed, S. Paul in his HABEMVS ALTARE. Lord, how the man melts upon it! And presently after follow those patheticall words, Haec est illa He­lena. And yet, God knoweth, they have of theirs, but as Paris had of his Helena (or rather of her [...], saith the Scholiast of Lycophron out of Stesichorus. Statue onely, her person being seis'd upon by Pr [...]teus in Egypt) Lycophron in Cassandra. [...], a most cold and uncomfortable embracement, and as Cited by Ga­rassus Doctrine Curieus. l. 4. §. 4. in fi [...]t. Gu­lielmus Parisiensit speaks of a like fancy, Chimaram [Page 120] Chimaerissimam, the very Chimera of all Chime­ras. For I will be bold (not without some pre­meditation) to make all these severall observa­tions upon this passage.

First, that this is the first sonne of the refor­med Church of England, that hath presum'd o­penly to expound this place, of a materiall Altar: Yet not constantly neither: For he confesseth, for all his love to this Text, that the Apostle Pag. 47. may mean there the Lords Table, or the Sacrifice it self, which the Lord once offered. And so a great Scho­lar indeed of this Church hath expounded it. For the Altar in the old Testament is by Malachy called MENSA DOMINI. Bish. Andrew's notes upon Peron, p. 7. And of the Ta­ble in the new Testament, by the Apostle it is said, HABEMVS ALTARE. The Altar in the old, the Table in the new Testament (if we will speak with that great personage, properly and Theologically.) And this is the exposition of Peter Martyr, mentioned in the Letter, which this squeamish gentleman could by no meanes un­derstand: That as sometimes a Table is put for an Altar, as in the first of Malachy; so sometimes an Altar may be put for a Table, as in this Epistle to the Hebrews. Then the which solution there may be peradventure a more full, (for the Crosse of Christ is more appositely aim'd at in that Text, then the holy Table) but there cannot be a more plain and conceivable Answer. And whereas it is infer'd, that then at the least S. Paul conceiv'd the name of an Altar neither to be improper, nor imper­tinent in the Christian Church; there is no man [Page 121] ever made doubt thereof; so as it be taken, as S. Paul takes it, Metaphorically, and by way of Al­lusion, but not materially, for this Church-Vtensill; which is the thing that lies before us upon the Carpet at this time.

Secondly, I do observe, that ( Expos [...]t. in l [...]. Sedulius onely excepted) no writer before the beginning of the Reformation, did literally, and in the first place, but Allegorically onely, and in the second place of their exposition, by way of use (as it were) and accommodation, bend this Text to the Materiall Altar. So [...]. Theophyl. in locum. Theophylact expounds it, first, of the Tenets and Observations of the Christians; Remi­gius, Hay­mo, Anselmus, Contarenus, in 13. cap. ad Hebr. Remi­gius and Haymo (who seem to be but two Friars under one hood) of the bloud of the Passion; Anselme, of Christ himself; Cardinall Contaren, of the Passion: and in the second place onely, of the Eu­charist: making the debauchery of a Christian man, to be the Service of the Tabernacle, which hinders him from the worthy participation of this spirituall Sacrifice. Which clearly implies a continued Allegory.

Thirdly, setting by the Jesuites on the one side, as Salmeron, Rhe­mens. A Lapide, Haraeus, Tirimus, Gordonius, Me­nochius, & Cajet. in 13. cap. ad He­braeos. Salmeron, the Rhemists, A Lapide, Haraeus, Ti­rinus, Gordon, and Menochius (and Cajetan, a kinde of Controversie-man) who expound it point­blank for a materiall Altar; and all the Reformed Expositours, on the other side, aswell Illyricus, He­mingius, S [...]rige­lius, Nulla est grata Deo, nisi Christus Fili­us, ara, Qui luit officio cri­mina nostra suo, in locum. Lutherans (who minister the Communion upon Stone-Al­tars) as Calvinists, who utterly disallow of that exposition; I do observe, that the most learned of all the Romane Writers, even sithence the stirring [Page 122] of these Controversies, do expound it either of Christ himself, his crosse, or his profession; as Bel­larmine, the Antididagma of Coleine, Catharinus, and Estius: As you may see more at large in the learned Inst [...]ut. of the Sacram. l. 6. c. 3. p. 406. Bishop.

Fourthly and lastly, I do observe, that all An­tiquity, besides these, do not in the exposition of this Text, reflect in any kind upon the mate­riall Altar. Chrysostomus, Oecumenius, A­quinas, Gorra­ [...]s, Lyra, in 13. [...]. ad Hebreos. Chrysostom expounds it of [...], of the things professed here amongst us; Oecume­nitus, [...]. the Tenets, as it were, of Chri­stian men; Peter Lombard, of Christs body; A­quinas, of the Crosse; Gorran, of the Incarnation; and Lyra, of the Passion of our Saviour. Not any one ancient Writer (beside Sedulius) that next his heart, as it were, and in his first exposi­tion, did ever touch upon this materiall Altar. Fulks Def. of the Translas. against Gregorie M [...]rtin, c. 17. I do not except Oecumenius or Haymo, mista­ken herein by a learned Doctour. And therefore, good Doctour (unlesse you mean to turn Jesuite) leave off your cracking to your Novices of this place, untill you be able to back it with bet­ter Authoritie then your poore conceptions. For above all indeed S. Paul in his HABEMVS ALTARE is least of all for your materiall Altars.

And behold, he hath not done yet with the Act of State, but will needs have another bout with it. For Pag. 30. although the Law and the Sacrifices thereof be both abolished, and consequently the form of these Altars should be abolished; yet that doth not reach at their Altar, which lyeth along the wall, [Page 123] but at our Communion-Tables, that are in the Body of the Church or Chancell, as the Jewish Al­tars stood in the old time. Vah! quantum est sa­pere! It is an excellent thing to be a judicious Divine! But the King and the Lords do not say that the Jewish Altars are abolished, for us to put other Altars in the body of the Church or Chancell, or for you to fasten them all along the wall; but that the form of such Altars should cease to be erected in any place whatsoever in the English Church.

And having a reasonable guesse how those old Altars under the Law came to be placed in the midst of the Priests Court and outward Tem­ple, to wit, that it was so done by Gods appoint­ment; I pray you, forget not to tell me in your next Book, Your need­lesse and su­perstitious walls, which you have ere­cted without commission, Jewel, Des. of the Apol. part. 3. pag. 315. where God, or his blessed Sonne, or the Apostles, or the Fathers after them or any Coun­cell, or any Canon-law, or so much as a Popes Bull, hath commanded any Christian Church to set their Altars all along the wall? But I shall have occasion to tell you many things more then you know, about that particular, in the last Section.

For a full Answer to this Quillet, I do reade in Antiquitie, that the form and situation of the holy Table in the Christian Church, was not exem­plified from the Exod. 27. 1. And thou shalt make an Altar of Shittim wood, five cu­bits long, and sive cubits broad. Square Altars, but from the Exod. 25. 23. Thou shalt make a Table of Shirtim wood; two cubits shalbe the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth there­of. long Table of the Shew-bread, which stood in the Temple. And if we can make good our fa­shion and situation according to this pattern we saw in the Mount, we care not how Altars stood [Page 124] either in the Jewish or Popish Church; our holy Ta­bles being quite of another race, and no descen­dants from any of them. One Benjamin a Jew fell upon Isidorus Pelusiota, (a reverend Prelate, as an­cient very neare as S. Chrysost [...]m) and charged him with the boldnesse of this new Oblation and Sacrifice of Bread (as he term'd it) invented by the Christian Church, without any pattern or precedent from her Mother the Synagogue. To whom the ancient Father returns this Answer; That there were two Oblations in the Synagogue: The one upon an Altar, [...], in the outward Court, per­form'd in bloud and steaming vapours, and visible to all: The other was upon a [...]. Isidor. Pelusiota, lib. 1. Epist. 401. Table, perform'd in Bread, [...], within the Temple, hid from the Vn­derstanding of the old, and reserved for the Faith of the new people. And of those former (saith he) thou art one thy self, that couldst not see the truth of this Mystery, hid so long in the Law, and revealed so clearly to us in the Gospel. It will be long yer you will bring us so clear and anci­ent an extraction for the form and fashion of the Altars in Christianitie. P. 35. Yea but (say you) this Ta­ble was not made to eat upon. The Figure indeed was not, but the [...]. Isidor. Pelus. l. 1. ep. 401. verity was, that is, the verity then hid, but now revealed. And yet David, t [...]ough no Priest, did eat of that which was upon it▪ to let us know, that omnes justi Sacerdotalem habent ordinem. All we that are justified in Christ, have a Priestly interest in this holy Bread, saith Irenans [...] l. 4. c. 20. Irenaeus. Davids eating was a figure that the meat of the Priest should one day be im­proved to be the meat of the people: Because all the chil­dren [Page 125] of the Church are perfect Priests; By reason that we are anointed unto a holy Priesthood, offering up our selves as spirituall Sacrifices to. Almighty God. This Type teaching us thus much, that one day in the Body of Christ, food should be provided for true Believers, saith S. Ambros. in 6. c. Luc. Sacer­dotalem cibum ad usum trans­iturum popu­lorum de­monstrante ty­po, quòd Chri­sti corpore ci­bus [...]idelium pararetur. Ambrose most excellently. So that there is just that difference between the Shew-bread and the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, as there is between the shadow and the body, the representation and the ve­rity, the patterns of future things, and the things themselves prefigured by these patterns, saith S. Hieron in Ep. ad Tit. c. 1. & in Ezek. c. 44. Hie­rome. And so said Origen. super Levit. Hom. 43. fol. 82. Origen long before; The Commemoration and Remembrance of the 12 Tribes by those 12 Loaves, doth relate to those words of our Saviour, Do this in remembrance of me. And therefore if you mark well these mysteries of the Church, you shalbe enabled to observe the truth of the Gospell in the dark mysts and Riddles of the Law. I will adde to these and other Testimonies of the most anci­ent Fathers (which you shall by and by finde in the Margin) the conceits of two Iewish Rabbins, somewhat tending to our purpose. Ezek. 4. 22. it is thus written, And he said unto me, This is the Table before the LORD: Meaning (without doubt) the Altar of Incense. The Question then grows, why the Altar is here call'd a Table, I have heard this given as a Reason of it, saith Vitalpand. in Ezek l. 4. c. 51. R. Shelomo, That at this day the Table performs what the Altar was wont to do. R. Iohanan and R. Eliezer give the like reason, That while the Temple stood, the Altar of God; but sithence the destruction thereof, the Table of a man, is become the place of Sacrifice and propi­tiation. [Page 126] But I leave these Rabbies to Rabbi Coal's consideration, whether he shall reject them, for their conceipt of the Table, or let them passe on, for maintaining the Sacrifice. However, to con­clude this point, I finde the Cornel. A Lapide in 9. ad Hebr. Vilalpand. ubi suprá. Ribera in Ezek. 41. 22. Barrad. Harman. Tom. 2. l. 3. c. 20. So likewise Dam. de Fid. Orth [...]d. l. 4. c. 14. Hieron. in 1. Malach. Rupertu [...] in Mal. 1. Cyrill. Catech. Myst. Cat. 4. a­greeing with the other Fathers. Iesuits them­selves of Opinion, that the Table of the Temple, was the true Type and prefiguration of the Com­munion-Table. And no great wonder they are of that conceipt, considering that Hymne inserted in the Body of the Masse:

That is,

And therefore we have borrowed nothing at all from the square Altars of the Law; but leave that form to the Papists, requir'd of them in their Suarez in ter­tiam part. Canons: but the onely Vtensill we relate unto, is the Long-square Table of the Incense.

Yet will not this man be got off by any means from the King and the Counsell. Pag. 31. He saith, that a small measure of understanding is sufficient to avoid offence at an Altar (howbeit he prayeth heartily to God, there may be but such a measure found in Kings and Bishops houses; of which he either is over-carefull, or hath a very base conceit) and that they have had now 80 yeares to become better edi­fied towards Altars. Lastly, if that they still con­tinue scandalized thereat, they are rather Head­strong, then strong enough, as was said of the Puri­tanes in the Conference at Hampton-Court. The [Page 127] Puritanes mov'd then for an Abrogation; those that are scandalized with your new Altars, move onely for a Confirmation of the ecclesiasticall Laws, and the practice of them, as they have beene these last fourescore yeares generally executed. So that your quotation of that Conference, is a fine new Nothing. The Act of Counsell made for this Refor­mation, doth say peremptorily In the first and third Reason, Act. & Mon. part. 2. p. 700. in two severall places, That the form of a Table shall more move the simple from the Superstitious Opinions of the Popish Masse, and that this superstitious Opinion is more holden in the mindes of the simple and ignorant, by the form of an Altar, then of a Table. And therefore they did not intend to make a provision to pre­vent this inconvenience in the Church of England for foure-score yeares onely, but for ever. And accordingly they went to work, caus'd their Li­turgie to be mended in this particular, the word Altar to be left out, the word Table to be put in, in their Rubricks for that purpose. Nor rested they there, but confirmed this 50 & 60▪ Ed. 6. c. 1. corrected Litur­gie by Act of Parliament, 10 Elis. c. 2. revived againe by an­other Act of Parliament, confirmed by the Before our or­dinary books of Common Prayer. Procla­mation of the late King of famous Memorie, which was revived (with his other Proclamations) by his most excellent Majesty, in the very beginning of his happie Reign. And what is the sonne of your father, to dare to offer limitation of time to a Law so absolute and Authenticall?

But Pag. 32. this Counsell-order doth not appeare to have beene transmitted to any other Diocese beside [Page 128] Bishop Ridley's. This Quiblet is grounded upon a mere Errour of the Printer, by not putting a Period where he should, and putting it where he should not. The words, rightly pointed, run thus, Anno 1550. other Letters (not a Let­ter) likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars in Churches, and setting up the Tables in stead of the same. And here the full point should be. Vnto Nicolas Ridley made Bishop of London in Boners place, (Here is a Period in the new, but a Comma onely in the old Book) the Copie and contents of the Kings Letters, are these, as followeth. So that Let­ters were written to all; but Iohn Fox (having accesse to the Bishop of Londons Registry) prints onely the Copie of those which were sent to Bi­shop Ridley. So that this is a subtilitie indeed, a subtilitie in Print, as they use to say. But the next is more grosse and down-right: That he saith, that both parties that strove about the placing of their Tables, in Bishop Ridley's Visitation, were left to follow their own affections, and the thing left at large, and not determined.

There fell out about the yeare 1605, a great Controversie between M. Broughton and M. Ayns­worth, that troubled all the Diers in Amsterdam, Whether the lining of Aarons Ephod was blue, or sea-water-green. And A Book call'd Certaine Que­stions, printed 1605. M. Aynsworth, poore man, was put to print a large Apologie in that busi­nesse. But had the Question been of the colour of this Tale told here by D. Coal, it might have been resolved in one word; It is a blue and per­fect [Page 129] blue Tale. For Bishop Ridley there resolves these Questionists, That the Situation most con­formable to Scripture, to the usage of the Apostles, to the Primitive Church, to the Kings proceedings, was, not to lay the holy Table all along the wall, (and therefore in Pauls Church he brake down the wall standing then by the high Altars side) nor to lay it onely in the right form of a Table (as this Quis tàm comesor mu [...] Ponticus, qu [...] qui Evangelia corrosit? Ter­tullian, adversus Marcionem, l. 1. c. 1. mus Ponticus, as he said of Marcion, this nibbler at all Quotations, doth mis-recite the Text) but to lay it in the form of a right Table, that is a long Table; or, as your own See the Index in the word Ridley. Index doth interpret the word, not Altar-wise, but as a Table. So that by this impudency of yours, which put us to this narrow search, we have met with two particulars very pertinent to the present dispute. First, that upon the taking down of the Altar, the Table is not directed to be set up in the place where the Altar stood, In the Letter of the K. and Counsell to Bishop Ridley, Act. & Mon. part. 2. p. 699. but in some convenient part of the Chancell: That's the first. And secondly, that the meaning of the Kings proceedings (better known to this Bishop, then to you) was, that the Ibid. p. 700. col. 2. Table should not be placed and disposed Altar-wise, which is the Question now before us.

Soone after, D. Coal begins to relent, and could finde in his heart to bestow half a Vicaridge upon the Writer of the Letter, for saying, That in the old Testament one and the same thing may be call'd an Altar in respect of Pag. 33. what is there offered unto God, and a Table in respect of what is there (as he hath it) participated by men. See what it is to put a man into a peevish humour! [Page 130] ‘ Martial. Epig. l. 5. ep. 84. Velle tuum nolo, Dindyme, nolle volo.’

Now I would not give the Writer a Peas-cod for that distinction, nor do I beleeve he ever dream't of it. He said, that an Altar might be call'd a Table, in what was Thence (not there) participated by men. For it is a thing notoriously known (saith In Theophrast. [...]. Cas [...]bon) that Feasts heretofore were wont to accom­pany all solomn Sacrifices. And that they did eat their good Cheer, not upon, but from the Altars. And so saith Theophrast. [...]. Theophra [...]s, that they did first [...], of­fer up their Sacrifices, and then [...], lay it on in entertainments. But if they did the one, then necessarily the other. For if I did Sacrifice, then surely I did eat, saith [...], Philo­strat. de vita Apoll l. 8. p 402. Apollonius Tyaneus in his Apologie to Domitian. The first they did at the Altar, the second at their houses. Plautus in Militie, Act. 3. Sc. 1. Sacrificant? Me ad se ad prandium [...]o [...]ant. They never offer a Sa­crifice, saith the Parasite, but they invite me to dinner to their houses. And this custome was no stranger to the people of God. For so we 1 Sam 9. v. 15. 22, 23. reade, that Samuel did blesse the peoples Sacrifice in the high place, but Feasted his strangers with his portion of that Sacrifice in his own Parlour. 1. Cor. 9. 13. So they that wait upon the Altar, are partakers with the Altar.

And because their provision came from the Lords Altar, as from a rich and plenteous Table, this Altar was somtimes figuratively and improperly called a Table. For otherwise (if we speak properly) Institut. of the Sacram. l. 6. c. 5. p. 465. tell us where it was ever know, that any Altar was ordained for eating and drinking, saith a reverend Prelate. And for this Altar you aime at, This is [Page 131] the way to correct the Sonne of God, who said not, Take this and offer it, as upon an Altar, but, Take this and eat it, as from a Table, saith another of our Bilson's true differ. part. 4. p. 490. Pre­lates. Bish. Andrews of his Sermons, p. 453. Christ was given for us in the Sacrifice, to us in the Sacrament. There, per modum Victimae, by way of Offering; Here, per modum Epuli, by way of Banqueting: saith a third. And to Banqueting, a Table relates more literally and properly then an Al­tar. The Fathers Altar of Oblations which you finde in the Pag. 34. Letter, is but an Altar of Allusion, as the Levits likewise are, which in the ancient Fathers, are made to attend the foresaid Altar. That Altar of Praise and Thanks-giving, which the Act of Councell approves of, is a Metaphoricall Altar, all made of Notions, as the Sacrifices also are, that fume on that Altar. All these are but airy Altars, built up of the Metaphors and Figura­tive speaches of the ancient Fathers; resemb­ling in composition that Altar of Claud. Sa [...]nas. ad aras Dosiadae. Lutet. Paris. 1619, p. 127. Dosiades, all made of words or poeticall feet, or that of Liceti Ency­clopaed. ad aram Nonar. Terrige­n [...], Patav. 1630. Aeneas Terrigena,

made neither of Gold nor Silver, nor any other solid matter, but of the sublime Conceptions of those [...], those Grand-children of the heaven, the nine Muses. Lastly, such another Altar, for the Materialities thereof, as that of Liceti Encyclop, ad aram Pythi­am, 1630. Publicius Optatianus, which thus describes it self,

That is,

And therefore, gentle Doctour, you have (for all your boasting) found no Altar of Stone, no Altar of Timber, no Altar that can lie along the Wall, and consequently, no proof in the Letter for the situation of your Altar.

I but another and a worse Pag. 55. Conclusion would soon follow upon this doctrine, [That Communion is an Action most proper for a Table] which is, That men would think it necessary to sit at the Communi­on. It is (I perceive) the Act of Counsell, that still you are offended at. For so it speaks in­deed; If we come to feed upon him spiritually and to eat his body, and spiritually to drink his bloud, which is the use of the Lords Supper; then no man can deny, but the form of a Table is more meet for the Lords Boord, then the form of an Altar. If you were a Scholar, you would have been asham'd to write this Divinitie. There can be no question made, but that for a certaine time, the [...], and the Lords Supper were eaten at the same Table, and (for ought appeares in any Antiquitie) in the same Vtra (que) coena jungebatur, Baron. Annal. tom. 1. pag. 536. Which he clearly proves out of Chrysost. in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. in the beginning thereof. posture: And yet was it a pious and religious Celebration. Our Church and State are more cautious in their ex­pressions, then this poore Doctour: Pref. of Cerem. in the Book of Comm. Prayers. And in our [Page 133] doings we condemn no other Nation, nor prescribe any thing but to our own people onely. For we think it convenient, that every Countrey should use such Ceremonies, as they shall think best. For Suarez, in tertiam part. to sit, stand, kneel, or walk, be not of the substance of the Sacrament.

Nor doth the Church of Rome absolutely con­demn this Ceremony of Sitting: Or else it would recall that Call'd Man­datum, of the Antheme ap­pointed to be sung at this Ceremony of washing one anothers feel; Mandatum no­vum do vobis. Andreas Quer­cetames, Notis ad vitam S. Odonis. Vide Lib. Statu­torum Ordinis Casal. Benedicti; Titulo, De Man­dato, sive Ab­lutione pedum. And so Synod. Aquisgran. Can. 20. In coena Domini pedes fratrum post lavacrum Ab­bas lavet & os­culetur. And so the word is used in Chronico Casin. l. 2. c. 85. And how it is used▪ now, you may learn from a late Cardinall, Par une Collation, que l'on fait, dans le Chapi­tre des Moynes à l'imitation des anciennes Agapes de l'E­glise Chrestienne pour la celebration de l'Eucharistie, Card. du Peron. du S. Sacram. l. 3. c. 11. p. 871. Mandate or Maundie of the Bene­dictines, which testifies, that they (at the least one day in the yeere) do receive the Sacrament sit­ting. And this custome mounts higher then S. Benedict; even to Ep. 118. ad Januar. S. Austins time: Who af­firms, nonnullos probabilem quandam rationem de­lect [...]ssse, that not Monks onely, but some other kinde of men, were pleas'd with a specious reason, upon that peculiar day of the yeare, wherein our Sa­viour administred the Supper, to receive the body and bloud of Christ presently upon their ordinarie repast, as a more notable commemoration of that first Supper. Which must be in their private hou­ses, & mensa communi, upon their ordinary Table, as De Sacram. l. 4. c. 7. Mornay observes: Although it be true what the Vbi suprà, p. 8 [...]2. Cardinall Peron coldly replies, that S. Au­stin, in those words, doth not deny but this might be done in the Church, and upon an Altar, and in­clines, as to the better opinion, to have this Sa­crament received by all men Fasting. But the Car­dinall there doth clearly affirm, that the Apostles omitted no due reverence, or (as he calls it) ado­ration [Page 134] of Christ, although they sate with him at the Table: and brings a passage out of De Oratione, c. 12. Tertul­lian, to prove that some of the ancient Christians did adore Sitting; and maintained their Ceremony, with a place out of the book of Hermes, call'd the Pastor. Which position of theirs although (as the Cardinall notes) Tertullian doth not blame, for being an imitation of the Pagans; yet surely he doth not there commend those Ancients, no more then I do this Ceremony in our modern and Neighbour Christians; but spare to censure them, as I hope they will do us, in matters of this nature. And sure it is, that (as the Cardinall there observes) all the old Romans, by an expresse Law of Plutarch. in Numa, & in Rom. Quaestion. Numa Pompilius, were required to wor­ship their gods sitting. He proves the same to be the custome of the Greeks also, by an old Qua­train of the Sieur de Quatrain. 4. Adore assis, comme le G [...]ec ordonne, &c. Tertullian makes it a common po­sture for all Pa­gans. Porrò cùm perinde faciant Natio­nes adoratis sigillaribus suis residendo, L. de Oratione, c. 12. Pibrac. Which I will not set down in French, as the Cardinall hath it; but as I finde it translated into Greek by Florence Chri­stian, 1584.

That is,

Now although (as In his Replique, c. 19. Mounsieur Moulin returns it well upon the Cardinall) the Apostles of Christ [Page 135] were not to learn Ceremonies out of the Laws of Numa, or the Quatrains of Pibrac; yet may we herein learn some modesty out of Papists them­selves, Not to conclude the Ceremonies of so many Neighbouring Protestants, as altogether unchristian; which this Doctour for want of lear­ning, or charity, or both, endeavours to do in this place.

But for own Archb. Whit­gifts Answer to the Admonition, p. 100. Kneeling in the Church of England, at our receiving of this blessed Sacrament; it is ap­pointed, either for a signification of the humble and gratefull acknowledgement of the Benefits of Christ, given to the worthy receiver; or rather because it is administred in our Church with a most effectuall Pray­er and Thanksgiving. The body of our Lord Je­sus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul, &c. The bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life. Drink this in re­membrance that Christs bloud was shed for thee, and be thankfull. Now he must have a knee of a Camel, and heart of Oake, that will not bow himself, and after the manner of adoration and worship, say, Amen, (as S. [...]. Cyrill▪ Hierosol. Catech. Mystag. Cat. 5. Cyrill speaks) to so pa­theticall a Prayer and Thanksgiving, made by the Minister unto God in his behalf. And this is a powerfull Argument indeed for conformity in this point; with the which I have seen some Lei­cester-shire- people of good sort, that had been refractory for a long time, satisfied in an instant [Page 136] by the Bishop of the Diocese, being very sory they had not observed so much before, That in the Church of England, our whole act of Receiving is accompanied in every part with the act of Praying and Thanksgiving. Archb. Whit­gifts Answer to the Admonition, p. 99. However it behooveth humble and meek spirits in such indifferent matters to sub­mit themselves to the Order of the Church, appointed by lawfull Authority. And as long as our Liturgie hath the honour and repute given thereunto, which it so well deferves, there is little feare, that the people will clap them down upon their Breech about our holy Table: It being no posture used in this Church to say, Amen, to such divine raptures and ejaculations. Beside that, throughout all the Diocese I live in (being no small part of the Kingdome) there is (whether the Epistoler likes it or no) Rails and Barricadoes to keep the peo­ple from all irreverences in that kinde. But the generall Rule in this case, is that which is set down in the Articles of the Dutch Church in Lon­don (allowed by Beza himself and divers others) Archb. Whit­gifts Desence of the Answer to the Admonition, p. 87. That every private mans judgement in these cir­cumstances is not to be respected. But what is pro­fitable to edifie, what is not, is not to be determined by the judgement of the common people, nor of some one man, but (as I have said at large heretofore) of those that have the chief care and government in the Church. And so was it well done by the Reformed Church in Poland, first by Monitions, in the year 1573. and then by Sanctions, in the year 1583. Nè in usu sit, that the usuall receiving of the Commu­nion in those parts, should not be by sitting round [Page 137] about the Table. (A Ceremonie which some of the Brethren, as they call them, had brought into those parts, either from John Alasco, their coun­trey-man, or from other Reformed Churches, as might be (the commerce of these three Nations considered) from the Low-countreys, or the Church of Lib. Disciplina Eccl. Scot. edit. 1560. Scotland, where this posture of sitting was Synodically established from the very beginning of the Reformation.) It was well done of them, I say, to reform it; but very ill done of you to steal this Coal from the Altar of Damasco, and ne­ver say so much as, I thank you, good Gaffer, or deli­ver it us cleanly as you found it. And yet it is not▪ considering you confesse the Thefts in the Title of your Book, calling it ingeniously, A COAL FROM THE ALTAR.

Yet I would you had spar'd to abuse that grave Synod, to make them say peremptorily, Haec cere­monia Ecclesiis Christianis non est usitata, especially as you turn it to English, that Pag. 36. this Ceremony is a thing not used in the Christian Church: And so put the reformed Churches to fall together by the eares one with another, and many of them to become odious in the Christian Church. Which (God he knoweth) is far from either the words or meaning of that Synod. For their words are these, Haec ceremonia, licèt cum caeteris libera, &c. This Ceremony, however in its own nature free and indifferent, as the rest of the Ceremonies, &c. Which sweetens the Case very much. And then for their meaning; They do not say, it is a thing not used in the Christian Church. This is your fingering [Page 138] and corruption. But they say; it is me [...]sed in those Christian and Evangelicall Churches, nostri consen [...]us, which agreed with them in Articles of confession. They condemn no other Nations, no more then the Church of England doth. And is this the part of a judicious Divine, to corrupt a passage in a Sectary or Puritan, who will be sure (without any mercy) to send Hue and Cry after you over all the Countrey? Surely the man hath been instru­cted by Chrysalus in In Bacchide. Plautus. ‘Improbis-cum improbus sit, harpaget, furibus fure­tur quod queat.’ He is resolv'd to put some knavery upon the knave himself, and to steal from the Stealer what he can. For indeed (to come to the second point) both the Coal and the Altar are quite mistaken, to think that the Synod did ever say, that this Ceremony was brought in, or used by the mo­dern Arians. It is very well known, that John A­lasco, who maintained this Ceremony of sitting, in a Call'd, Forma S [...]ratio totius Eccles. Mini­sterii, &c. little Book published here in England in K. Edwards dayes, was setled in Poland, and (by the means of his Noble bloud and kindred) in great favour with his Prince, in Nolui com­mittere, quin te nunc certi­orem facerem do successu re­rum magnifici Domini Io­annis à Lasco in Polonia, Cracoviae, 19. Feb. 1557. V [...]en­h [...]vious Calvino, Calv. Ep. p. 194. the year 1557. which is long before either of these two Synods. And all that either of the Synods say in dislike of the Ce­remonie, is this; That it is Arianis cum Domino pari solio se collocantibus propria: A thing fitter for the Arians, who by their Doctrine and T [...] ­ne [...]s, plac'd themselves cheek by joul with the Son of God, then for devout and humble Christians, compassed about with Neighbours so fundamen­tally [Page 139] hereticall. I could say that here in England, this worse conclusion of the Doctours, To desire to sit at the Communion, is more to be feared from the Opposers of our Liturgie, who brag of their It suiteth not with a Co-heir with Christ, to kneel at the Table, Abridge­ment of Lincoln­shire, p. 61. Cosin-ship and Coheir-ship with Christ, then from us who are ready to live and die in defence of the same. And the Altar Damasc. p. 752. Altar at the last espied this to be the meaning of the Synod, that this Sitting was pro­per to the Arians, not by usage, but secundum prin­cipia doctrinae suae, as an Inference easily drawn from the Principles of their Doctrine. Howbeit the Coal was resolv'd to wink at it in his Authour, and to speak big words, (though beside the Cu­shion, and against all truth of History) that it was brought in at the first by the Modern Arians: His Author telling him in the same Page, that it was published in the Book of Scottish discipline, Anno 1560. and my self having shewed by a Testi­mony beyond all exception, that it was prea­ched in Poland three year before that, by John Alasco.

And then your Principles were they true (as the Altare & Sa­crificium Rela­tiva sunt, Bell. de Missa, l. 1. c. 2. So he, and tru­ly, [...]ish. of Dur. l. 6. c. 5. one of them is false; For there was never any Altar erected in the Temple, but to sacrifice upon, nor ever any man read in divine or humane lear­ning, that denied It is called Mincha in the Hebr. and trans­lated Sacrifici­um by Hierom. Numb. 16. 15. Nadab and A­bihu are said to offer [...], by Ioseph. An­tiq. l. 3. c. 10. and Ruffinus trans­lates is Victi­mas. And some were of opinion, that all Sacrifices were perfeated upon the Altar of Incense, according to Heb. 9. 6. Vi­lalp. in. 41. Ezek. Incense to be a Mincha, and kinde of Sacrifice) the conclusion could not come within a league of us. For we, who extract our selves (as I told you before) from that Table in the Tem­ple, do desire to eat in no other manner, then as the Priests, and as David, our Types, did eat before us. We do not desire to eat upon, which is but [Page 140] your foolish Inference, but to eat from the holy Table. And that all the faithfull may do in ve­rity, what David and the Priests did before in a representation, I have shewed already out of the ancient Fathers. Nor are we so unreasonably tyed to one Table, but if the Defence of 3 Cerem. p. 256. woman were driven to the desert, we could be content with the green Grasse. But in that case, the Grasse should be unto us in stead of a Table; it should not be in stead of an Altar▪ I do not love [...], (as Orat. contra Julian. Gregory Nazianzen calls it) to break jests in these high Mysteries. Otherwise, I could tell you that unhappy Inferences may be made out of your Tenets, as well as out of those of the Arians. That no place will serve your turn to eat upon, but Altars, appropriated by all Learning humane and divine to Altare soli Deo vero ritè potest erigi, Bell. de Missa, [...]l. c. 2. ex Au­gust. l. 20. contra Faust. c. 21. God alone. Well, if you will needs be snapping at the Meats of the Gods, [...], Lu­cian. in Ic [...]ro. Menippo. Menippus will tell you that you must be content to fare as they do, upon Bloud, Vapours and Frankincense. This Menippus saith. For mine own part, I shall onely desire to know of you, a judicious Divine, what may be the meaning of an odde word used by Aristotle in his Ethicks, to wit, Ethic. l. 4. c. 14. [...]. Because I was told it signifieth two things, a scurrilous Railer at men in place, and a Snatcher of Meats from the holy Al­tars.

Yea, but he doth set down at large out of the Act of Pag. 38. Counsell, with what indifferency these names of Table, Boord, and Altar have been used before, and may be used for the present. He doth indeed and [Page 141] with a great deal of ingenuitie, if you mark it. For the Question being made by some of his humour that would have the Altars stand, because the Book of Common Prayer (meaning the Book be­fore it was reformed) did mention an Altar; the Lords (amongst whom Archbishop Cranmer was a chief) were put to this Apologie; That the Book intended no Table, or Altar, formally, but a certain Thing (as they there call it) where­upon the Lords Supper was administred. This Thing had no figuration at all prescribed unto it in that Book: But so far forth, as the Lords Sup­per is there ministred, though it be upon an Al­tar, it calleth the said Altar, a Table, and The Lords Boord; but so far as the holy Communion is distributed with the Sacrifice of Lands and Thanks­giving, though it be a Table, it calleth the said Table, an Altar. And therefore in so much as the distribution of the Lords Supper in both kindes, is a reall and sensible Action, it is a reall and sensi­ble Table: But because the Laudes and Thanks­givings are by all Divines acknowledged to be a Metaphoricall and improper Sacrifice, it is but a Metaphoricall and improper Altar. And to call it an Altar in that sense, you know the Letter doth every where allow. But heark you, Sir; it makes no matter for the Letter. I pray you, tell me in my eare, What Book is it that calls it an Altar? and for what Book do the Lords apologize in this place? If it be for the Book of 1549, Ratio qui­dem her [...]e apparet: Ar­gentum [...], Plant. in Trin. Act. 2. Se [...]. 4. [...], that's vanisht, and we have nothing to do with it. And you are a very Coal, that is, a thing that [Page 142] cannot blush, to say that that Book, or any thing spoken of that Book, alloweth you to call the holy Table an Altar for the present. Your tongue for the present ought to speak, as the present Book and Law speaks it unto you; and that is, as you your self con­fesse, Pag. 37. The Lords boord onely. And when men in their nominations of things do vary from the Law, which is the Quintessence of Reason, they do it in a hu­mour, which is the Quintessence of Fansy. Nor is there any way possible of peace and quietnesse, unlesse the probable voice of every entire Societie or Body politick, over-rule all private of like nature in that Body, saith M. In his Preface. Hooker.

But we have been all this while mistaken in the Cause of this Change of Liturgies, which the Let­ter so much stands upon. For the Letter suppo­seth, as the Act of Counsell and K. Ed [...]ards Mandate do, that the Altars themselves were put out of our Churches, and their names out of our Litur­gie, to comply with the godly considerations of some that had taken them down already, and to root out superstitious Opinions, more holden in the mindes of the simple and ignorant by the form of an Altar. And men did the rather believe it so, because a Divine, very neare as judicious as D. Coal, seemes to be of that Opinion, when he saith, that Hooker, Eccles. Polit, l. 4. dist. 14. p. 165. our Churches were purged of things, which indeed [...]ere burdensome to the people, or to the simple offensive and scandalous. But the matter is Kim Kam to all that we have conceipted. For it was indeed an offence against our Liturgie Pag. 39. conceived by Iohn Calvin (a poore Minister at the foot of the Alpes, who died in [Page 143] Books and all worth very neare See his last Will, in his Life, set forth by Beza, p 12. 40 [...]' sterling) that caused the King of England, the Convocation, the Lords spirituall and temporall, and all the Com­monaltie, to make that Change in the Book of Com­mon Prayer. And is it even so? Why then, gen­tle Readers, Assem para & accipe aure­am fabulam: fabulas imò, Plin. Calvisi [...], Ep. lib. 2. ep. 20. Assem parate, et accipietis auream fabulam; make ready your Bread and Cheese, for my life on it, you shall heare a Winter-Tale. Pag. 39. It seems 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, Epistola ad Buce­rum. And is this to look unto the Story of those Times? It seems unto me that this Epistle to Bucer hath no Date at all, and if we give it a Date from the Printers placing of the Letter, (which is your childish and erroneous Criticisme) you shall finde it between November 19, 1548, and Ianuary 16, 1549, and consequently before the publishing of the first Liturgie, which was March 7, 1549. And so it must needs be. For Calvin Rumor est vobis esse à Gallis induci­as: utinam & firmae pacis ra­tio iniri posse [...]! Calv. ep. p. 81. saith in that Letter, that there was Cessation of Armes between France and England, and wish't that some course might be taken for a solid Peace. Tillet le Greff. Recueil de Trai­tez, pag. 410. & Tillet l' Evesq. Chroniq. p. 197. Now the Commissioners were met to conclude that Peace, 24 of March, 1549. And therefore the Letter was written before that. And to strike this seeming of yours dead in the nest; Veni igitur quàm cit [...]ssimè poteris vir om­nium desidera­tissime, Petr. Alex. Dat. Lamb. 24. Martis, 1549. int [...]r▪ M. Buceri opera Anglic. p. 191. Peter A­lexander writes his Letter to Bucer (as yet at Stras­burgh) to invite him to England, of the very same Date with the Commission of the French Treaty, 24 of March 1549, and tells him for news, that in [Page 144] the Parliament then sitting, Missae Papisticae missae sunt ad novos Monachos Germaniae, the Popish Missal was dismiss'd to the new Monks in Ger­manie, by the first approbation of our first Litur­gie in that Parliament. See then how well you look't into the stories of the time. You make Bucer, before ever he came hither, to enform Calvin of the condi­tion of this Church, and the publick Liturgie thereof, before the Liturgie was penn'd and approv'd in Parliament. But I will endeavour to give this undated Letter a truer Date. Inter M Buceri script. Anglic. p. 190. Archbishop Cran­mer writes for Bucer to come over, 2 ^o Octob. 1549. He desir'd Calvin (who was no doubt a Polypragmon, and made his Letters to fly to all the Princes in the world, that did but look to­wards a Reformation) to write by him to the Pro­tectour, and to perswade him to a serious Reforma­tion in generall. Calvin in this Letter, tell's him he had written to the Protectour a Letter (not the Letter Printed, bearing Octob. 22. 1546. Epist. Calvini, p. 72. Date two yeares before.) and bids him if he could procure Audience (a signe he had not been here as yet) deal with him roundly himself, and take heed of his old fault (as he terms that most admired prudence and wisdome of that learned man) to be ever incli­ning, mediis Consiliis, to peaceable and mode­rate Advices. And this Letter must be written unto him about the Spring, 1549, when he was ready to come for England. Where we finde he was safely arrived, and repos'd himself at From his E­pistle to Pet. Martyr, inter Opera Anglic. p. 550. Can­terbury in Iune following. Now although he had considered of the Book of Common Prayers before, [Page 145] as well as he could, Censura, p. 456 per interpretem, by the help of an Interpreter, and approv'd it, as in no­thing (candidly construed) repugnant to the word of God; yet did he never make Notes and Censures thereupon, untill he was required thereunto by Archibishop Cranmer, two yeares after this; to wit, Anno 1551: Nor could he tell Tales to Cal­vin thereof, being then bedrid, and dying with­in Censura, p. 503. Nonis Ianuar. Anno Domini 1551. Canta­brigiae, die 25 ^o pòst defunctus. 25 dayes after (some two moneths before the Alteration of the Liturgie) especially not any Tale against the Altar, having suffer'd Auricular Confession, Oblations and Altars (though termed Boords or Tables) to stand in the Reformation at For that Book call'd, A Religi­ous consultati­on, by Herman Archb. of Cul­len, and printed here in English, 1548. was pen'd in Latine by Bu­cer. See fol. 114. Of the Lords Supper. Cullen, and not taking the least exception a­gainst the word in his Censure of our Liturgie. I am therefore strengthened in my former Opinion, That it was the King, the Lords, and the State rather then any incitement of Martin Bucer, that made this Alteration in our Liturgie, in the point of Altars.

Then for Calvin; no man can conceive him to be more pragmatically zealous in point of Re­formation (even in those Countreys which cared least for him) then I do. Yet do I hold him a most innocent man, and our famous Liturgie sore­ly wounded through his side, by this audacious Com­panion, in this particular concerning Altars. The Letter to the Protectour, that D. Coal relies upon, bears Date, Octob. 22, 1546. which according to forreign Accompts, is a yeare before K. K. Edward began his Reign the last of Ianuary, 1546. Stilo Angl. 1547. Stilo com. muni. Stow. Ed­ward came to the Crown. But compute it as you please; it must be three full yeares before the [Page 146] moneth of March, 1549. At what time I finde that this former Liturgie was first printed. And if you relie upon his Character, the Letters placed before and behinde this to the Protectour, are of the same Date, 1546. And yet would this Com­panion have his courteous Readers to swallow this Gudgeon, without so much as champing or chew­ing on it. And in this Letter, Calvin toucheth onely upon 4 particulars (which Censura, p. 468. Optarem ego commendatio­nem defuncto­rum & precem pro aeterna eo­rum pace prae­termitti. Bucer himself doth likewise censure) Chrisoms, oyl in Baptisme, Commemoration of the dead, and the abuse of Im­propriations, but not one word of the Altars. And good reason for it. For Sed non re­pugno quin Coena Domini in Altari cele­brari possit. Nam & à Lau­sanna Altare marmoreum, &c. Beza in Colleq. Mempelg. p. 350. Beza confesseth, that at Lausanna, where Calvin taught before he came to Geneva, there was a Marble-Altar used for a Communion-Table, which from thence was remo­ved to Bearn (where Calvin also sometimes taught) and is so there used as a Communion-Table (abstracted from all former relations to a Sacri­fice) unto this day. Which I therefore note, to let you see that Calvin was not so strait-lac't in this particular. Yea, but he findes great fault with the Commemoration of the dead. And doth he so? And I pray you, what doth K. Iames declare the generall Opinion of our Church to be, for these Commemorations in the time of the Communion, in that most exact Answer of his to Cardinal Peron? Ad Epist. Card. Peron. Resp. p. 55. This is a rite (saith he) which the Church of England, though it doth not condemne in the first ages of the Church, yet holds unfit to be retained at this day, for many and weightie causes and reasons, which you may read most excellently pressed in [Page 147] that Book. Besides that, Calvin acknowledgeth (as he wanted to wit to understand how the world went with him abroad) that he had no such credit with the Conformable partie here in England, as within two or three yeares after this, he con­fesseth openly in one of his Sed ego fru­stra ad eos ser­monem con­verto, qui fortè non tantum mihi tribuunt, ut consilium à tali autore pro­fectum admit­tere dignen­tur, Calvinus Anglis Franco­furt. Epist. p. 158. Letters. Lastly, (which is the main Answer of all) the Protectour was of no power in the State, when this Liturgie was reformed; which was not altogether un­known to Calvin, having an hint from Archbishop Cantuarich­sis nihil me utilius factu­rum admonuit, quàm si ad Re­gem saepius scriberem, Calv. ad Farell. 15. lun. 1551. Epist. p. 384. Cranmer to addresse his Letters to the King him­self. But for the Lord Protectour, he had his crush a yeare and a half before (never restor'd a­gain to his Power or Office, admitted onely by a John Stow. New oath, to serve but as a Counseller at large) and in the first Abstract of the Acts of that Parliament, at S ^t R. C. sitting of this Parliament which altered the Liturgie, he was attainted, and con­demned, and presently executed, having been in no case or place of a long time, to make Al­terations to gratifie Calvin. And for Archbishop Cranmer; it is true, the foresaid Active man writes unto him from Geneva a couple of Letters, and offers his service in person, to make up our Arti­cles of Religion, and to state the Controversies in Di­vinity (another project, it seems, the learned Arch­bishop had then in hand) when he gives him a generall touch of the residui surculi, the remai­ning stumps and roots of Popery, together with the cause thereof (as he conceived) the Lay-mens swallowing of the Impropriations: But hath not in all the two Letters, so much as one syllable of Al­tars or amendment of Liturgies. And what Date [Page 148] these Letters were of, God knoweth; for they have none a all in the Book. But the Date seems to be much before Ann. 1551. which is D. Coal's con­jecture. For in the first Letter he presents his Grace with the news of Osianders troubles, which he Melchion A­damus in vita Osiandri. stir­red up in the yeare 1549. And in the second he tells him of a Non multò levius mihi vi­detur aliud vi­tium, quòd ex publico Eccle­siae proventu aluntur otiosi ventres, qui linguâ incog­nitâ Vesperas cantillent, Cal­vinus Cranmero, Epist. p. 101. chanting of Vespers in an unknown tongue here in England; which was inhibited in this Kingdom by Act of Parliament, full two years be­fore the Altering of the Liturgie. Nor doth it seem that Calvin had any great acquaintance with the Archbishop (who neither accepted of his Offer in the Agreeing of the Articles, nor, for ought ap­peares, ever wrote unto him back againe; but sent him a Message by one Nicolas, wishing him to write to the King himself about the Restoring of the Impropriations) I say, it doth not seem they were much acquainted, by that first Letter that Calvin writes unto him. For in that he rails most bitterly upon yong Osiander, a Divine very near Vxorejue Neptis fuit ux­oris Osiandri, Godwin. in Catal. p. 198. Moram Norimbergae fecit, hospitió que Andreae Osiandri usus est. Cum quo, secundâ con­juge ductâ, contraxit affi­nitatem, Antiq. Britann. p. 331. allied unto the Archbishop.

But if Calvins Letter to the Protectour himself be misdated (as like enough it is, being but a Co­pie from the French, wherein the Date was not re­garded) then came it to the Dukes hands (as some Letter from Calvin was then delivered to the Duke by one Nicolas, a Tel-tale of M. Calvins, that stu­died in Cambridge in those dayes) but in the year 1551, Bucer being dead before, (which Calvin Calvin Farello; P. 384. there takes notice of) and the Liturgie newly altered.

Let us not therefore, as we tender the credit of the Church of England, suffer such a famous piece, [Page 149] as our Common Prayer-book is, to be disparaged in this kinde, upon such weak Flams and ridicu­lous suppositions. But if any desire to know the reason of the Alteration, let him repaire to the Act it self, where he may be fully satisfied. He shall finde, it was partly the 5 ^o & 6 ^o Ed. 6. c. 1. Curiositie of the Ministers, and mistakes in the use and exercise of the former Book met withall in the second Book by a clear explanation. Of the which curiosity and mistaking, whether this removing and placing of the Altar, which they found usually so termed in the former Liturgie, might not be a speciall branch, I leave to the Readers collection, out of what hath been already delivered in the examina­tion of the Counsell-Act in that behalf. And partly also he shall find the Book was altered, for the more In the same Act. perfection thereof, or (as it followeth in the body of the Act) to be made fully perfect: Not to gratifie Calvin, who was Lecturing in his Chaire at Geneva, nor to comply with the Duke of Somerset, who was a condemned priso­ner, looking every day for the stroke of the Ax, when this Book was passing the severall Commit­tees in the Upper and Lower house of Parliament. And that it seems by any one syllable of the Letter to Farell, that Calvin wrote unto the King about the change of the Liturgie, is another blue one. Reade the Letter, and you will be of my opinion.

Yea, but the Pag. 40. King in his Answer to the Devonshire­men had formerly affirmed, 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, [Page 150] and as the holy Fathers deliver'd it. I answer, that these Devonshire-men (whom the Doctour cloaths in this fair Livery) were a sort of notorious Re­bells. And if a King (to avoid shedding of bloud) should answer such people clad in steel, edictis melioribus, in a more passable language, then will endure Logicall examination; is it fit he should be so many yeares after jeered thus, by such a Mushrom here on earth, reigning himself (with­out all doubt) a most glorious Saint above in Heaven? Besides that, the Form that Christ left, the Apostles used, and the Fathers deliver'd the Lords Supper in, is never taken by judicious Di­vines in a meere Mathematicall and indivisible point of exactnesse: but in a Morall conformitie, which will admit of a Latitude, and receive from time to time degrees of And so the King clearly con­ceived it. That we may be en­couraged from time to time further to tra­vell for the Re­formation, Pro­clam. before the Book of Commu­nion, 1548. perfection. But I will not lead you to any woods, to borrow shadows for this place: the Answer is set down in such capitall Letters, that he that runnes by may read it. The Rebells in their third Article (set on by the Popish Priests) do petition for their Masse (that is, that which we call the Canon of the We will have Masse celebra­ted, as it hath been in times past, without any man com­municating with the Priest, Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 666. 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 in 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 [Page 151] for the Sacrifice of the Masse, or the Priests eating alone, they must excuse him: For this the Popes of Rome for their lucre added unto it. So there is a clear Answer to both parts of the Article. They should have a Table, and a Communion, and the words of Consecration, as they were used body 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; being, as Def. part. 3. p. 315. B. Jewell truly calls them, the Shops and gainfull Booths of the Papists.

And this Answer did nothing like our noble Doctour. And therefore from making himself merry with the King, by a kinde of Conversion (borrowed from father 3 Convers. part. 2. c. 12. p. 615. But yet for the present, this was the pure Word of God, and the worke of the H. Ghost, and no man might mislike or re­prove it. Parsons three Conversions) he wheels about, and breaks a Lance upon the Parliament: That would take upon them to mend a Book, which they could not but acknowledge to be both agreeable to Gods Word and the Primitive Church. And then he quotes 5 ^o and 6 ^o Edv. 6. cap. 1. as if he should say, There's my Cloak, and here's my Sword, and I stand in Cuerpo rea­dy to maintain it. I say still, that this Agree­ablenesse to Gods Word and the Primitive Church, is not to be taken in a mathematicall, but in a morall point. The first Book was in some, the second is in more degrees, agreeable to those excellent Paterns. But what need I say this, when the Act of Parliament saith no such matter as is pre­tended? In that part of the Act, where these words are mentioned, some coertion and penal­ties were provided for sensuall persons, and re­fractory [Page 152] Papists, who forbore to repair to the Parish-Churches upon the establishment of the English Service, desiring still to feed upon husks, when God had rain'd down his Manna upon them. The Parliament (according to their deep wisdome in that kinde) desirous to include some reason in the Preamble, of the smart that comes after in the body of the Act, tells the Offenders against this new Law, that Prayers in the Mother-tongue, is no Invention of theirs, as the Priests would make them believe, but the direction of the Word of God, and the practice of the primitive Church. Medling no further with the Liturgie in this part of the Act, then as it was a Service in the Mother-tongue. And so begins the Act, That 5 ^o & 6 ^o Ed. 6. c. 1. whereas or­der had been set forth for Common Prayer and Admi­nistration of the Sacraments to be used in the Mother-tongue, agreeable to the Word of God and the Pri­mitive Church, &c. The thing excepted against, was Prayer in the Mother-tongue, and this the Par­liament avows to be agreeable to Gods Word and the Primitive Church. And I hope, you are not moun­ted as yet to that height, as to dare to deny it. If any Reader can doubt of so clear an explication, let him look once more upon the Kings Answer to the Devonshire-Rebells, immediately before this Parliament, and he shall finde Sun-beams to display all darknesse that can possibly fall upon this point. Act. & Mon. part 2. p. 666. To the 3. Ask, for the Service in the English tongue, it hath manifest reasons for it. Act. & Mon. part 2. p. 667. If the Service in the Church was good in Latin, it re­maineth good in English. An alteration to the bet­ter, [Page 153] except Knowledge be worse then Ignorance. So that whosoever hath moved you to dislike this Order, can give you no reason for it. Order, saith the King; a godly Order, saith the 5 ^o & 6 ^o Ed. 6. c. 1. Parliament: both mean the same thing, as they use the same words: An Order for Common prayers in the Mother-tongue. So that Father Parsons and you must unlaugh again this foolish Laughter, which you made without cause upon this Act of Parliament.

Well, let the King, the Counsell, and the Par­liament order what they please; two things he will make good: first, that if Origen, or Arnobius do Pag. 45. say they had no Altars in the Primitive Church, they meant, not any for bloudy or externall Sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. Where you see, he is almost come to that we have been wrangling for all this while, That they had no Altars for externall Sacri­fices. And shew me, that ever one Father or School­man did teach a necessity of an externall Altar to an internall Sacrifice, and I will yeeld him the better of the Controversie. But I see his Loop-hole already; he will help himself with those words, As the Gentiles had: Although it be, God wot, but a poore shift. And secondly, he will make it good, that the Church had Altars, both the Name (which the Letter denies not, but onely the name applied to the materiall Instrument call'd the Lords Table) and Thing too, a long time together, be­fore the birth of Origen and Arnobius. This later part would prove too heavie a Buckler for any man to take up, that were to fight it out with a Scholar in­deed. For the Writer of the Letter doth utterly decline the Combat, retiring himself to his 200 [Page 154] years, (which will not serve his Turn, for all his Caution, if Rohwhick Fas­cicul. tempor. p. 48. Item que le Messe ne sut celebrée, si non sur l' Autel, Les sleures & ma­nieres de temps, translated by Surget, 1483. and augmented by Peter D'csrey, 1513. Sixtus Primus did first appoint that Masse should be said no where, but upon an Al­tar) as to an advantage of ground, and turning B. Jewell against this Goliah, without averring any thing of his own, beside the testimony of S. Paul: at which this Doctour, like that drunken Gossip, saith, Amen; when he should have said, All this I sted­fastly believe. But having to do but with this man of rags, I dare undertake him in both the points; and if I could fully satisfie that place of Tertullian in his Book De Oratione, will adventure my credit, to wipe his nose of the rest of those Testimonies produced by him. And all this while I am no Champion for the Writer of the Letter (who hath withdrawn his Neck out of the Collar) but of the great Champion of our Church, B. Jewell.

For the first therefore, because B. Jewell saith, Pag. 45. that then the faithfull, for fear of Tyrants, were fain to meet together in private houses, &c. therefore it was, they were not so richly furnished, or at least wise they had not such Altars, as the Gentiles had, saith D. Coal. But B. Jewell, when he spake those words of their wanting of Churches in the Primitive Church, addes presently a word or two (which this Doctour did not unwillingly forget) Art. 3. p. 145. And may we think that Altars were built before Churches? Which though it be not altogether an unan­swerable Question (for Because Abra­ham, Isaac, and other Patriarchs built Altars unto the Lord, before the Tabernacle or Temple were erected, Suar. in 3. tom. 3, 4. 83. disp. 81. Sect. 5. So saith Walasr. Strabo de rebus Ecclesiast. c. 1. men are of opinion that Altars were built before the Churches;) yet is it sufficient to declare the impudencie of this man, that would undertake to answer Origen, and Arno­bius, out of B. Jewell. B. Jewells conclusion there [Page 155] is, that M. Harding was ill advised to say confidently, that Altars have ever been sithence the Apostles times. And he answers fully out of S. August. in Q. V. & N. Testam. qu. 101. Austin, the Do­ctours Objection, that Altars being then portativo, and carried by the Deacons from place to place (which the learned Papists do not deny) they might have had Altars, although they had no standing Tem­ples. That is, portative Altars, not of Stone, fixed to the walls of the Church (as our late Popish Al­tars be) of the which B. Jewell might very well make his former Question.

Now for that other Flam, That Origen and Arnobius should deny their having onely of Hea­thenish, but not of Christian Altars; although it were enough to stop the mouth of this Ignoto, to set down the Testimonies of those great Wor­thies of the reformed Church, who (with B. Jew­ell) expound these two Fathers, of the having no Altars at all; as the Institut. lib. 6. c. 1. B. of Duresme, lib. 2. de Miss. c. 1. p. 171. Mornay, Digress. lib. 2. digr. 4. Desiderius Heraldus, Monsieur In his Answer to the Replique, Controvers. 10. Moulin, De Orig. Altar. p. 6. c. 34. Hospi­nian, and others; yet because he thinks he hath gotten the Cowards advantage, to put us to the proofe of the Negative, presuming onely upon the justice of the cause, I will undertake him upon these hard conditions.

For Origen; it is clear'd in a word, that he was not interrogated, and consequently that he never answered, concerning the Heathen or Pagan Altars. For [...], &c. Orig. contra Cels. l. 1. Celsius his adversary (what Countrey­man soever he was) disguiseth himself as a Iew dis­puting against the Christians in all that discourse. And it were an Argument fitting as wise a Rab­bin as our D. Coal, to prove the Christians to be [Page 156] Atheists, because they had not (which they them­selves abhorred to the death) Pagan Altars. But Celsus his objection is to the purpose and generall, that the Christians had amongst thēselves a [...], or secret Token, [...], of some invisible com­bination, that they erected no kinde of Altars, as all other Sects and Professions (not being [...], Orig. contra Cels. l. 7. p. 384. A­theists) amongst the Jews and Gentiles did. And to this generall Objection the Answer was like­wise generall (or very impertinent) that they had no Altars at all, but those immateriall Altars we spake of before, in the Souls and Consciences of holy men.

And Arnobius well weighed, comes to the same effect. For howbeit he had not to do with Jewes, but with Gentiles, yet the Objection is in generall termes, not, that they erected no Altar for their Gods and Sacrifices, but that they built them no Altar, venerationis ad officia, to officiate upon in any kinde of divine worship. And so Desiderius Heraldus, the best Critick extant upon that Book, delivers himself, That this may be understood Potest hoc intelligi sim­pliciter, quòd nulla haberent simpliciter, Desid. Herald. ad Ain. l. 6. p. 342. simply and absolutely, without any relation to the Pagan Al­tars. Holding an opinion elsewhere, that simply and absolutely there were no Altars erected in the Church of God, before Tertullians time. But this will appeare yet more clearly by a place of S. Cyrill, which the L. Institut. l. 6. c. 5. p. 464. B. of Duresme doth tho­rowly examine to this purpose. For Julian the Apostata had been a Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 3. advers. Julianum. Reader of our Church, and knew the generall practice thereof, and that it had been in him a ridiculous thing to imagine, that the Christians should have any Pagan Altars. [Page 157] Nay the wittie Prince takes notice of it, that the very Jewes do sacrifice, and have an agreement in that particular with the Pagans, and yet concludes bitterly against us (as he conceives) Offerre Sacra in Altari & sacrificare cavetis, You Christians are most scrupulous in offering of any Sacrifice upon your Altar. And to this (as the Learned Bishop well observes) S. Cyrill answers not one word: which had been prevarication before God and man, if the Christians had acknowledged in those dayes, any Christian-Sacrifice upon a materiall Altar. And in Minutius Felix, (if it be well observ'd, and rightly read) there is as pregnant a testimony as this of S. Cyrill. Some one had Et qui homi­nem summo supplicio pro facinore puni­tum, & Crucis ligna feralia, eorum Cere­monias fabu­lantur, ( a [...] Wowerius; fabulatur, as Des Heraldus reades it) con­gruentia per­ditis sceleratis­que tribuunt Altaria, ut id colant quod merentur, Mi­nutius Fel. p. 20. juxta Wowerii edit. written of the Christians (for you must read it fabulatur, not fabulantur) that a Felon punished for his offence, and that wofull wood of the Crosse, was all the Ceremonies of the Christians. Whereupon Caecilius the Pa­gan, running descant, saith that the Authour had suited them to a hair, and built them Altars fit for such wretches, ut id colant quod merentur, ma­king them to adore that Infelici ar­bore suspendi­to, In 12 Tabul. unluckie tree, which they had so well deserved. So far he goeth with his Authour. But coming in the next Page, to charge the Christians himself, he moves this Question; Why do they keep such adoe to conceal, quicquid illud c [...]lunt (not, colimus) that, what ever it be, they (the Christians, not we the Pa­gans) do really worship? Cur nullas Aras habent? What is the matter they have no Altars? Then [...]urther in the Book, when Octavius comes to make his Repartee to all this, he saith, Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si delubra & aras non habe­mus? Vt rejici­am ei suum mu­nus, ingratu [...] est. Cùm sit litabilis hostia bonus animus & pura mens & sincera consci­entia, p. 73. It is not [Page 158] with any desire to conceal the object of their worship, that they have no Altars: But that with them, the bot­tom of their heart supplies the Altar, and a good intention the hallowed Sacrifice. Where I ob­serve two remarkable circumstances; First, Gods truth acknowledged by the Father of Lyes, the Divell himself, by the mouth of a Pagan, That the Tree of the Crosse was the Altar of the Christians: And then a joint agreement of Caecilius & Octavius, the Pagan, and the Christian, That for the setting forth of that (what ever it be) that they, the Christians, then worshipped, they had no visible erected Altar. And I hope I have set before you more solid stuffe then the Quelque-choses of the poore Doctour, to nourish your consent to B. Jewell in this point, That in Origen and Arnobiu [...] his time, there were in the Church of God no ma­teriall Altars. I will conclude with an observati­on, that hath much inclined me towards this Opinion; howbeit I do not finde it stood up­on by any other, because peradventure it is but an Argument drawn from the Rack, and more passable in the Civill Law, then in Schools of Divi­nitie. Plinius Secund. l. 10 ep. 97. Com­pare with this Epistle, that of Tertullian; Pli­nius Secundus cùm provinci­am regeret, damnatis qui­busdam Chri­stianis, quibus­dam gradu pul­sis, &c. Allegans praeter obstina­tionem non sacrificandi ni­hil aliud se de sacris eorum comperisse, Apologet. advers. Gentes. And Baronius is of opinion, that Pli­nie himself doth take notice in that Epistle, of the Christians re­ceiving the Sa­crament of the Eucharist, Tom. 2. ad annum 104. dist. 4. Plinius Secundus, a very witty and lear­ned man, making strict enquirie against the Christians, and desirous to know exactly, what they did in his Province of Bithynia at their private meetings and congregations, learn't what he could from Apostata's revolted from the Faith twentie yeares before, who before his face, sacrificed to the gods, and adored the image of the Emperour. And having collected from them [Page 159] the substance of all the Christian Profession in those dayes, put two yong Christian Maids upon the Rack, who in their Confessions agreed word for word with the former Apostata's. I finde in those Extracts, continuall meeting at their Love-feasts, (together with the which the Communion was usually administred in those dayes) untill all These were Sodalitates, Companies, or Colledges of Ar­tisans, such as they have in Lon­don. Amongst whom there was a Fellowship, (as the Greek word signifies) and now and then Good-fellow­ship. Vpon a motion made by Plinie for a Companie of Iron­mongers or Ar­mo [...]ers in Ni­comedia, Tra­jan, a warie Em­perour, put down all these meetings; because he call'd to minde, istas civitates ab e­jusmodi factio­nibus esse vexa­tas. See his Epi­stle, Plin. l. 10. ep. 43. Wakes were put down by the Emperour Trajan; but I do not finde one syllable to fall either from the poore Maids, or the Apostata's themselves (who knew but too well that those things were) of the Christian materiall Altar.

And so much for Bishop Iewells Negation; now for Bishop Wouldbee's Affirmation of Altars in the Primitive Church.

It is (saith Pag. 46. he) most certain (as you found every thing to be which he said before) that the Church had Altars, both the name and the thing; and used both name and thing a long time together, be­fore the birth of Arnobius. This is the ground he means to fight it out on. And in the leading up of his men, to make it good, he placeth, as Captain of the squadron, a stout Mauritanian, to wit, Tertullian. And he hath reason for it. For if Tertullian make not the Charge upon B. Iewell, I am sure of it, none of the rest (of this Band) will hurt him. And if this Leader should chance to be overcome,

we shall make wash work with the rest of his fol­lowers. The more probable authority that can [Page 160] be produced (as the Lord Tertullia­num probabi­liùs citare vi­deantur, De Miss. l. 2. c. 1. p. 175. Plessie doth acknow­ledge) is this of Tertullian in his Book of Prayer. Will not thy Stationes, i. e. Iejunia, l. 4 Cerda. Publici Ecclesiae gene­ralésque con­ventus, quibus pii omnes ju­bebantur stare in Ecclesia di [...] ­tills, & com­parere coram Domino ad actiones sacras, [...]r. Ju [...]n. in hunc locum. A militia Romana tractū & usurpatum vocabulum. Nunc ad Basi­licas, nunc ad Martyria stan­tes & attenti precabantur, praeclpuè die Dominico, Beat. Rhenan. in Tertullian. l. 2. ad uxor. Fast or Publick meeting prove the more solemn, if withall thou celebrate the same at the Altar of God? That noble Annon a­pertè de sacra Mensa loqui­tur? Mornaeus, ubi suprà. Lord (because of the menti­on made of the Eucharist in the words before) conceives it a clear case, that, by this Ara Dei, in his African and affected stile, he means plain­ly, the Lords Table. I will adde some reason for this opinion. Quilibet editior locus. Qui in publico aliquid dicere volebant, semper ex edito loco, quasi suggessu vel tribunali, pronunciabant. Vt cespititia tribunalia in ca­stris. So [...] in Lucian, in Alexan. Abunotichite, for any high place: For such a companion would not have been suffered to clamber up an Altar. So that high stone, that Apollonius stood upon when he cried, [...], of him that slab'd Domitian, Philostratus in vita Ap [...]ell [...]n. Salmasius in lib. de Pallip, p. 396. Locus planus editúsque. Varre de re Rustica, l. 1, c. 54. As Rocks that seem higher then the Sea; Saxa vocant Itali mediis quae in fluctibus Aras, Aexeid. 1. Fr. Iun. Ara in Tertullian doth not signi­fie an Altar, but any hillock or advantage of ground, or Stall or Table to stand upon; as appeares plain­ly by that in his Book De Pallio; Soleo de qualibet margine vel ara medicinas moribus dicere; I am wont (saith the Mantle, alluding to the fashion of the Stoicks) to prescribe Medicine to the maners of men, upon every brink, hillock, or stall that is presented unto me. Because therefore the Lords Table, upon which the Sacrament was ad­ministred, was in a kinde of height, rising and elevation from the Pavement of the Church, he calls it, Ara Dei; not that Altar, but that Ri­sing, or Table of Almightie God. And when these two places are well understood and compa­red together, and notice also taken that the word is not otherwise used by Tertullian in any place but this one, I shall not be afraid to submit the [Page 161] interpretation to any learned Readers. Secondly, Tertullian, of all the Fathers, doth most allude in expressions to the fashion of the Gentiles. Their fashion (as we touch't heretofore) was of every Sacrifice they made, to give a portion or share to their especiall favourites. Plautus in Amphitr. Act. 3. Sc [...]n. 3. Vt re divinâ factâ, mecum prandeat, saith Plautus, That Sacrifice be­ing done, he might come and dine with me. And so saith the Theocr. in Bucol. Poet,

When you next sacrifice to the Nymphs, forget not to send a good piece of flesh to your friend Morson. Because therefore in Tertullians time, they did not (as we now do) eat the consecrated bread upon the place, but (as it here followeth in the nextword) accipere & reservare, reserve it and carry it home with them, as the Heathens did their [...], or portion (as [...]. Theophrastus calls it) from the Altars into their houses; Tertullian alluding to these Reservations from the heathen Altars, doth call the Communion-Table, ARA DEI, Gods Altar. Lastly, Tertullian, by naming his Sa­crifice immediately before, Sacrificium Orationis, to be but the Sacrifice of Prayer, doth clearly in­terpret what he means by his Altar, to wit, a Metaphoricall and improper Altar; as we shewed abundantly heretofore. I will adde hereunto for a parting-blow, that Defiderius Heraldus, as strict an examiner of Tertullian, as any we have this day in Print, was so little moved with this Authority, that howbeit he grants Altars to [Page 162] have been in the Church in Naziazen's time, yet doth he clearely affirme they were brought in after Digress. l. 2. Digr. 4. For when he had shewed the other place, Aris Dei was to be read, Charis Dei; yet he saith, Afterward, that is, af [...]er Tertul­lians time, Al­tars came to the Church. Where he is to be read, Po­stea autem (not as it is falsely printed, Postea ante) cùm Al­taria in Eccle­siis constitui coeperunt, Aris etiam at (que) Al­taribus suppli­ces accidebant, p. 277. Tertullians time. I could adde a fourth ex­position of these words, made by a most Learned and Iudicious Divine, one D. Coal, That P. 47. And [...], Gods Altar, as Tertullian and S Cyprian did after call it, ad Tarsens. Tertul­lian by an Altar in this place means as Ignatius doth in his Epistle ad Trallenses, that is, an old woman; But that I am afraid you would take it to be, not a Tale of an old Wife, but an old Wife's Tale.

Being therefore rid of this Captain-authority, the rest will quickly vanish of themselves. And that Geniculatio ad Aras, which the Doctour quotes out of Tertullian, De Poenitentia, is a Testimony that never was in the Book at all. Adgeniculari Aris Dei, to kneel to the Altars of God, was there once, I confesse, and much made of by Bailius item ex Bellarmino. Ri­vet. Cath. Orthod. tom. 1. p. 516. Bellarmine and Depravations, p. 282. Pere Cotton: But is now like a Coward got out of the Book, and runne away: The true rea­ding being Adgeniculari CHARIS Dei, To kneel to Gods Favourites, the Saints and Priests, to intercede for them. A likelier matter, a great deal, in men that did penance, then to be knee­ling at the Altars of God, which in those dayes they durst not approach by a great distance, untill they had undergone all that was enjoyn'd them. And this Criticisme is none of ours originally, but Pamelius his, corresponding with the M. S. in the Vaticane Library; but approved by In locum. La Cerda, In locum. Iunius, L. 2 de Miss. c. 1. Du Plessy, Digress. l. 2 digr. 4. Heraldus, Ad aram Do­siadae. Salmasius, Observ. l. 2. observ. 22. Albaspinaeus, and all men else, beside this poore Doctour.

[Page 163] As I was writing of this, I was shewed a La­tine Determination, that goeth from hand to hand, well-languaged, but of poore stuffe and substance (God he knoweth) ayming to prove, that look what Ceremonies were used about the Altar before the Reformation, vi & virtute Catholicae consuetudinis, by power and force of any generall Custom, though passed over in deep silence by our Liturgie, are notwithstanding commanded, as by a kinde of implicite precept, even unto us that live under the discipline of the English Liturgie. Which is a doctrine so contrarie, not onely to that Chapter in our Liturgie, Book of Com. Prayer, of Cere­monies. Of Ceremonies, why some be abolished and some retained, but even to the 1 Elis. c. 2. Act of Parliament, that appropriates the addition of any more Cere­monies of that nature, then be prescribed in our Book, unto the person of the King himself, that I cannot believe, that any Divine should publish the same, otherwise then in a Merriment. The same Writing doth except against this new reading of this place in Tertullian, Charis Dei adgeniculari, (embrac't, as I said before, by all learned men of both Religions) because it is not said, Charis Deo, as he thinks all the Africans, Cyprian, S. Austin, and the like, would say; and because doers of penance, though they might not at the first (as Pamelius objects) yet might well at the last, when they came for their Absolutions, approach the Al­tars. Wherein this pocket-Authour is very wide in both his Criticismes. For why should not Ter­tullian say as well Charis Dei, as Aris Dei adgeni­culari, which he himself would make him speak? [Page 164] But that he knoweth not what Chari signifieth in this place. The word is here a substantive, and signifieth As Chara cognatio, Ter­tullian. de Idol. c. 10. Chari di­cuntur liberi▪ Turneb. Adver­sar. l. 18. c. 14. Chari [...] liberi, lun. in Tertull. de Idol. p. 105. Children: as Peniculus in Menoechm. Act. 1. Sc. 1. Cha­ris meis, i. e. liberis meis, qui sunt nobis charissimi, Lambin. p. 419. Chari dicuntur liberi, Taubm. p. 598. Plautus,

I have been hampered all this while at home with my poore Children. And so Divin. Institut. l. 6. c. 12. Biblioth. Patr. 10. 9. p. 226. Lactantius calls the Widow and the Orphans, Charos Dei, Gods pe­culiar Children. And this in imitation of the Appellatione Charorum inter­dum Liberi in­telliguntur, more Graeco­rum, qui Libe­ros [...] appellant, Lambin. in Me­noechm. Act. 1. [...]c. 1. Greeks, who call their Children [...]. Yea, we have both these expressions in the Africane writers, speaking of Jobs Nec amissi­onibus Charis­simorum, Ter­tull. lib. de Pati­entia, c. 14. Which S. Cyprian, his Scholar, calls, Amissionem Charorum, lib de Patientia, c. 9. losse of his children. And that the Africane Fathers also use it in the second, not in the third Case (as the Determinatour would have it) appears by Volo ut Impatientia sit in secundo Casu, vividiore & acriore sententiâ, La Cerda in lo [...]um. Sic Affines cupiditatis deprehendemur, Tertull. lib. de Patient. c. 7. La Cerda upon that of Tertullian, Lib. de Patient. c. 9. Quis Omnino impatientiae natus, &c. And so the doers of Pe­nance in this place are said, Adgeniculari charis Dei, t [...] kneel before Gods peculiar Children. And as much more is the man deceiv'd in his o­ther conjecture, That this Adgeniculation was be­fore the Altar, when they came for Absolution. God knoweth, few liv'd in Tertullians time to come for absolution, the Penances for slender faults were of so long Continuance. But whereas there were foure severall degrees of publick Penance in those severer times, call'd in Latine Fletus, Au­ditio, Substratio, Consistentia, Weeping before the Porch, Hearing in the Porch, Lying all along on the Church-Pavement, not far from the Porch, in ex­pectation of the Bishops prayers and blessing, and [Page 165] Standing with the people within the Church to partake of their Orisons, but not of the holy Sacra­ment: this Adgeniculation was in the first and not in the last degree; and to procure the Priests to en­joyne, and not to dissolve their penance, as See it ha [...]d­led of purpose by Albaspin. Obs. l. 2. Observat 22. & in sequentib. by Pamelius on this place: by Desid. Heraldus at large, Digress. l. 2. Digr. 4. learned men observe. And the words that follow in Ter­tullian, do prove clearly that this was not the last act, and done to the Priest alone, ad absolutionem obtinendam, to obtain absolution: Omnibus fratri­bus legationes deprecationis injungere, to enjoin all the Brethren, an embassie of prayers and interces­sion in their behalfs: That is, to God, not to the Priests; and that in the [...], or first degree of penance, as S. [...]. And so Eustatb. ad 9. Iliad. de­fines a prayer to be [...]. Basil teacheth us clearly in his Commentary upon the 32. Psalm. And this is enough, if not too much, to wash away this weak conjecture, oppos'd by all learned men, that have lived sithence Pamelius his time. And so much for Tertullian.

Irenaeus, l. 4. c. 20. is a peaceable man, and fights against none of our side: Making (by a continued Allegory taken from Deuter. 33. 9.) all to be Priests serving at the Altar, who are wil­ling to forsake all and follow Christ. So doth Ni­colaus Galasius epitomize this Chapter, Omnes justos Sacerdo­talem habere ordinem, Iren. ab illo editus, p. 245. Omnis justus, Every sanctified man (as we quoted before) that makes himself a lively, [...], and well-pleasing Sacrifice, offe­ring Almes and the Calves of his lips to Almighty God, is a Priest serving at Irenaeus his Altar. Sacerdos scitus fuit David, (saith he) David in this kinde was a proper Priest. And so is this man, scitus scriptor, a very proper Writer, to bring in this place of Irenaeus for a proper Altar. S. Cyprian, l. 1. c. 7. [Page 166] ad Epictetum, expounds himself clearly what he means by an Altar, to wit, Stipes, Oblationes, Lu­cra; the Contributions, Offerings, and all Advanta­ges belonging to the mans Bishoprick, whom they had suspended. Interlarding all this passage with allusions to Texts in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Le­viticus (quoting one which Reperire au­tem non potui quem Scriptu­ [...]ae locum citet, Pamelius & Goulart. Pamelius knoweth not where to finde) de Sacerdotum altari Jehovae inservientium officio, touching the duties of Priests attending the Lords Altar, saith Pag. 191. Goulartius. For that famous place out of the eighth Epistle, [ There is one God, and one Church, and one Chair, founded upon Peter by the words of Christ. Other Altar, or other Priesthood, beside that one Altar, and that one Priesthood, cannot be erected.] you know how all the As Pamelius himself, in his Notes, in librum De unitate Eccle­siae, referres it. Pontificians interpret. And I hope you would not have the Popedome it self setled and erected in every Parish-Church of England. But if you will expound it with the learned Protestants, then you must know, that by the Altar and Priest­hood in this place, he means Summam Evangelii, the substance of the Gospell delivered by Christ and his Apostles, inviting all Christians to the participa­tion of Christs death and the efficacie thereof, that they may be collected together and united in him, saith learned Annot. in librum Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae, p. 305. Goulartius. Lastly, for that place in his ninth Epistle; it is a clear case, that by Altar he means there, ministeriall functions and offices, and that with a plain and literall allusion to the Tribe of Levi under the Nec sacrae institutionis & functionis, in Levitica praefi­guratae, debi­tam habuisse rationem, Gou­lort. Law. S. Cyprian was angry with one Geminius Victor, for making (against the An old Canon renewed, Concil. Chalced. Can. 3. Exceptis tutelis miserabilium personarum, & legitimis, ad quas per leges compelli pos­sent, Goulart. Habetur in Codi­ce Ecclesiae uni­versae, Can. 180. [...], Leo Imp. Novell. Constitut. 68. Canon) one Faustinus a Priest, Overseer of his [Page 167] Will, and by that means withdrawing of him from his Calling and Ministery. And enlarging of himself in that Discourse, how carefull God had been in providing Tithes and Oblations for the Priest under the Law, giving him no Lands and Husbandries amongst the other Tribes, ut in nulla re avocaretur, that he might have no occasion to be withdrawn from the Altar: he aggravates the offence of those Testatours, that by making Church-men, Executours and Overseers of their last Wills, ab altari Sacerdotes & Ministros volunt avocare, will needs withdraw Ministers from their Ecclesiasticall functions, with no lesse offence, then if, under the Law, they had withdrawn the Priests from the holy Altar. So that this place takes my Doctour a little by the Nose, that Pag. 10. cannot endure to be a looker on, and a dull Spectatour, confi­ned onely to his Ministeriall meditations: but hath not one syllable that crosseth the assertion of B. [...]ewell, That as yet there was not erected in the Church any materiall Altars. S. Cyprian doth al­lude in every one of these three passages, and the Doctour illude and abuse his Readers, figure-casting them in this sort, as if he had been to deal with some ill Spirits, and not daring to cite his Au­thours at large, Nè deberet risum, lest children should hoot at him with Jeeres and Laughters.

Pag. 46. But to go higher yet (ut lapsu graviore ruat) he tells us, that Ignatius useth it in no lesse then three of his Epistles. What it man? If you mean the name, Ignatius useth it in five or six of his Epistles at the least; if the thing, that is, a proper and mate­riall [Page 168] Altar; he useth it not in any of these three insisted on by you. The place in the Epistle to the Magnesians (besides that Locum hunc supposititium esse, luce clarius meridianâ est, Exercit. in Epist. ad Magn. Then in the Margent, he notes them to be excerpted out of the Constituti­ons of Clemens, l. 2. c. 59, 60, 62. Although this la­ter part doth not so clearly appeare unto me. Vedelius conceives it to be a supposititious fragment, taken out of the Constitutions of Clemens) the man brings in un­doubtedly to make sport. Runne all of you like one man, to the Temple of God, as to one Altar, [...], to one Jesus Christ; Or, to translate it in plain English, to one Jesus Christ, as to one Altar. And this one Altar we all acknowledge to be in the Church. In his next place to the Philadelphians, he doth expresse himself to mean by Altar, [...], the Councell of the Saints and Church in generall (as we said before) and not any materiall Altar; as Exercit. in Epist. ad Eph. p. 237. Vedelius proves at large. For should Ignatius mean by the like speaches, a materiall Altar, when he saith, that if any man be not Ep. ad Trallens. [...], within the Altar, he is deprived of the Bread of God, what should be­come of women and the Laity, that by an expresse Canon of a generall [...], Conc. Laod. Can. 44. [...], Concil. 6. in Trall. Can. 69. Councell, are prohibited from coming within the materiall Altar? By Altar therefore in these passages, he must understand the bosome of the Church. For that place in the Epistle to them of Tarsus; I pity the poore man, if he be indeed (as they say he is) married to a Widow. Sure I am, he never read the passage, but some knavish Scholar exscrib'd it for him, to make sport withall. The words are these, Ho­nour Et de conti­nentia vidua­rum, locum in­telligit Baro­nius, Annal. Tom. 2. ad annum 109. dist. 30. Widows, [...], that uphold their Cha­stity (as Vedelius translates it) and Reputation, as the Altars of God. But Clement. Con­stit. l. 3. c. 6. Genebrardus in eundem. Genebrard himself con­fesseth, [Page 169] that this is a patch taken out of Clemens his Constitutions. And were these any vendible commodities amongst good Scholars, that Pas­sage would make more for the Doctour a thousand times, then all he hath produced. Let her know (saith he) [...], that she is Gods Al­tar, and set her down in her house, [...], for the Altar of God never useth to run or gad about. and well said, most Metaphori­call Clemens! Here's an Altar indeed! An Altar becomes much better the upper end of his Table, then the upper end of his Church: though not out of love with the upper end in that place also. And yet men sometimes make use of these Altars, if they be richly set out.

A yong Scholar that was reading Callimachus his Hymn of Apollo, concerning the famous horn-Altar built at Delos, hearing me and a neighbour-Mi­nister of mine somewhat pleasant about this Wi­dow-Altar, and other fond passages in those foisted Constitutions of Clemens, brought me the next morning this allusion between the passage in his Authour, and that in mine;

That is,

For the 3 Canons of the Apostles (to say nothing how all good Scholars esteem these Canons but as so many See the Mag­deburgenses, that make many exceptions against them, Centur. 1. p. 544. Pot-guns) he that shall reade what was and what is presented on these Altars for the maintenance of the Bishop and all his Clergie (the Tenths being then due, but not then established) as Hony, Milk, strong Drink, [...], Consecta quae­dam, Dionysius E [...]ig. & Herve­tus. Sweet-meats, Fo [...]l, Flesh, Roots, Grapes, Eares of Corn, Oil, Frankincense, and Fruits of the Season, will conceive them to be rather so many Panteries, Larders, or Store-houses, then consecrated Altars. And indeed they were such, as are call'd in the Greek Liturgies, [...], or Oblation-Tables: which no learned man but knoweth to be Vtensils quite differing from the holy Altar; however called Altars by these Canons, by a manifest allusion to the Altars of Oblation among the Jews. And as Imò cum ad­huc superstes Dominus mu­nus praedicati­onis obiret, ex his quae daban­tur, unà cum suis victum ca­pere consueve r [...]. Iudas enim habens loculos, &c. Ad Aposto­lorum poste [...] pedes Creden­tes oblationem faciebant, Ba­ron. A [...]n. tom. 1. p. 513. Et hunc [...]cum citat Bi­nius, ad hos C [...] ­n [...]nes. Baronius himself implieth, Judas his Bagge, and the Apo­stles feet (from whence these Oblations had their raise and beginning) may with as good reason, as these Tables, be termed Altars. Of his place, above all indeed, of Hebr. 13. 10. wee have spoken indeed but too much already. Lastly, I have perused reverend B. Jewell, Artic. 13. Divis. 6. [Page 171] and do finde, that there he cites many Fathers that mention but one Altar in one Church, and that placed in the midst of the Congregation; (which this Doctour doth not observe) and that (he thinks) this unitie of Altar was kept in the Church of God, untill the Councell of Anti [...]i [...]d [...] ­rum: But I cannot finde, with all my perusall, one word in him, why it should not be properly call'd a Table, and not an Altar. But perusing withall the third Article, and 26. Division, I finde he de­clares himself in those words, with which I will conclude this Chapter, and withall (if it please the Doctour) the whole Controversi [...]. And notwith­standing it were a Table, yet was it also called an Al­tar: not for that it was so indeed, but onely by allusion to the Altars of the old Law. And so Irenaeus calleth Christ, and Origen our Heart, our Altar: Not that either Christ or our Hearts be Altars indeed, but onely by a metaphor or a manner of speach. Such were the Altars which were used by the old Fathers imme­diately after the Apostles time. And this is all that the Letter desires the Vicar to know and obserue.

THe last Chapter contained the Sixth (as the Canonists term it) this, the Extrava­gants, or Wild-goos-chase of this second Section. Wherein the Doctour diverts his fury, from the King, the Counsell, the Parliament, and B. Iewell, upon the Writer of the Letter again; but all upon Querelles d'Allement. high-Germane or pickt Quarells, not worth two rushes apiece.

First, he chargeth the Writer with lending lame Giles a pair of Crutches to walk upon, and some Pag. 21. Arrows to shoot at the Altars, and the Bowing to the blessed Name of JESUS. Who this Clau­dius Gellius, or Lame Giles should be, I cannot [Page 173] guesse; nor is this Cripple known by any in our Neighbourhood. He may be much older them the Pag. 4. Letter but now sought after. And this Doctour may halt before his Cripple, when he talks of Canons 1471; and again▪ outrunne a Constable, when he denies the Canons of 1571, pag. 18. to require joyned. Tables for the Communion. Pag. 15. you say; because you saw it in Latine: Pag. 18. they say; because they saw it in English. And you may see it, when you please, the easier, because printed by Iohn Day. In the mean time, the world may see your wisdome, to trouble the Presse with such impertinent Follies.

Secondly, Pag. 24. he taxeth the Writer with seeming to cast a scorn on them, by [...]hose direction the Book of the Fast in 1 ^o of the King was drawn up and publi­shed; as if it were a Novelty or singular device of theirs, to call the Later part of divine Service by the name of Second Service: Which the Discourser slighteth. Surely this is a fierce hunting-Dog!

He hath dream't of some Hare, and now barks after her [...] Unlesse (peradventure) all this noise be but to get a bit from his Masters, Seneca, lib. 2. de [...]ra. ex consuetu­dine magìs quàm ex ferocitate; of a Custome he hath got to be rewarded in this kinde, not that he is any way provoked by the Writer of the Letter. For the Writer speaks not one word against this Partition of the Service in the Book of Fast. But the Vicar applying the same in his discourse (as it seems) to the Book of Common Prayer, and some of his Neighbours boggling thereat, the Writer ex­cuseth [Page 174] it, as done in imitation of that grave and pious Book, (which never intended to give Rubricks to the publick Liturgie) and not (as might be conceived) of the two Masses used of old, that of the Catechumeni, and that of the Faithfull, a Parti­tion Mutatis re­bus, necesse fuit mutare Ceremonias. Quia jam Ca­techumeni de­esse incipie­bant, & hodie nulli sunt. Quòd si sint (ut existere possint) Iudaeis ad nos trans­euntibus & Turcis, quid attinet prop­ter paucos ve­terem repetere morem? B. Rhe­nan [...]t of S. Gre­gories changing of Gelasius his Liturgi [...], [...]raf. ad Liturg. Chrysost. deserted long ago by the Church of Rome it self, as of no further use in these parts of the world, wholly converted to Christianity. But D. Coal being conjured into the Circle of this Paren­thesis, knowes not how to get out againe; but a­bout he goes, and about he goes, from one absurditie to another.

For first, the Order of Morning Prayer is not (as this man supposeth) nor ever was, the whole Mor­ning Prayer, but a little fragment thereof, call'd the order of Mattins, in the Primar of A Primar of Salisbury Vse, printed 1544. Sarum, as also in K. A Primar set forth by the King, 1545. Henry the Eighths Primar, (which was in use under K. K Edwards Injunct. Injunst. 34. Edward for a long time) as also in the first Liturgie set forth by K. Fol. 121. And so in his Injunst. Injunct. 23. Edward him­self. Besides these Mattius or Order of Morning Prayer, there were of old, See the two Primars. Lauds, Primes, Houres, Collects, Letanies, Suffrages, and sometimes Dirges and Commendations. Some whereof are still re­tained in our Morning Service. So that if we should make one Service of the Mattins, we must make another of the Collects, a third of the Letary, and our Communion shalbe, at the soonest, our fourth, and by no means our Second Service.

Besides that, according to this new Recko­ning, we shall have (that which I will be hold to say no Liturgie, Greek or Latine, can shew this day) an entire Service without a Prayer for the [Page 175] King or Bishop, which in our own Liturgie come in af­ter, Thus endeth the Order of Morning Prayer.

Thirdly, The 1 ^o Elis. c. 2. Act of Parliament calls it Ser­vice, not Services; and the Contents of the Book of Common Prayer. Contents of our Litur­gie (which is our Rubrick confirmed) followeth the old distinction in K. Henry's Prime. 9 Order for Morning Prayer; 10 the Letanie; 11 the Collects, Epistles and Gospells; and 12 the holy Communion. And therefore it was a bold part in a Countrey- Vicar, to make thereof any other Partition. And the Writer of the Letter shewed (in my Opinion) more good will, then good skill, in excusing his Ne [...] ­fanglednesse.

Lastly, the true and legall division of our Ser­vice into the Common Prayer, and the Communion, or Administration of the Sacrament; the one to be officiated in the Reading-pew, and the other at the holy Table conveniently disposed for that purpose; as it is the more justifiable, so is it indeed the an­cient Appellation. I will not undertake to make good the Antiquitie of S. Peters Liturgie: but I do finde that this part of Divine Service is there called [...], i. e. Deinde legit Communionē, Orationem quae ad sacram Eucharistiae participatio­nem populum praeparat. A Sancto Andrea. Bibl. V. Patrum, Tom. 2. p. 123. [...], and translated by S. Andreas, Communion. And in S. Ambrose his Liturgie, which all the world knows to be very ancient, it is call'd, Sic & in Am­brosiano, ubi additur, & Cō ­municatio. A Sancto Andrea. ibid. [...]ommunicatio, the Administring of the Commu­nion; and by other names in other As, [...], The thanksgiving-part, S. Marc. Liturg. Et [...]lioth. V. Patrum, tem. 2 p. 32. [...], The Of­fice done upon the Table, by Dionysius. Liturgies; but nowhere by that of Second Service. And for our own Divines; Archbishop Whitgift, being put unto it by a fierce and a learned adversary, reckons [...]p all the parts and parcells of our Liturgie, and call's this Answer to the Admonition, pag. 151. last of all, the Administration of the Sacra­ment. [Page 176] And M. Hooker speaking of that Case, which this man triflingly toucheth by and by after, to wit, when there is no Communion, and yet some Pray­ers to be said at the holy [...]Table, doth not say (as this poore soul would imply) that these Prayers make a Second Service, but that they were M. Hookers Eccles. Polit. l 5. dist. 30. p. 248. devised at first for the Communion, and that that is the true cause, why they are at the Table of the Lord (not alwayes neither, but) commonly read. So that those Directours of the Book of Fast, had (no doubt) their particular reason for the particular. Division of those pious Devotions (which none but a slight man would offer to slight;) but never dream't (I dare swear for them) to impose upon the pub­lick Liturgie of the Church, any other then the ancient and Legall Partitions and Appellations.

And again, before he comes out of his Circle, he is resolv'd to conjure up such a Doctrine, as might (if any were so simple as to believe him) turn not a few Parsons and Vicars out of their Benefices in a short time: By encouraging of them (in a Book printed with Licence) to set up a Consistory in the mid'st of Divine Service, to examine the wor­thinesse of all Communicants. And upon what ground think you? Because the Communicants (that due provision may be made of Bread and Wine, and other Necessaries for that holy my­sterie) are requir'd to signifie Pag. 25. their names unto the Curate over night, or before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or at the least immediately af­ter. After what? Clearly; saith he, after all the Morning Prayer, and before the Communion, [Page 177] that the Curate may hold a privie Session in the midst of divine Service, and impannell a Iury of the Congregation, to know whether they be offended a­gainst the partie. Clearely say all Vel imme­diatè post prin­cipium matuti­narum precum, Latine Liturgie. So to a word, Doctrima & Politia Ecclesiae Anglic. p. 221. other men (and his own Latin translation to boot) post prin­cipium matutmarum precum, immediately after the beginning of morning prayer, that there may be allotted some space of time to make provision ac­cording to the number of the Communicants. And this is the true meaning of that first Rubrick, that hath no reference at all to the three subsequent. The second requires the Curate to admonish all They must be notorious and known. Answer to the Adm. p. 102. open and notorious evil livers of those, that is, those intenders to receive the Sacrament, so to amend their lives, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied. Which were a thing ridiculously prescribed, to be done in such a place, or in so short a time; but is intended to be performed by the Curate (pri­vate Confession being not in use) upon Let him communicate with him pri­vily at conve­nient leisure. The Order of the Communion 1548. p. 6. private conference with the parties. The third directs the Curate how to deal with those that he perceiveth (by intimation given and direction return'd from his Ordinary, as the Canon 27. compared▪ with Can. 26. Canon interprets it) to conti­nue in unrepented hatred and malice. These (having the direction of his Ordinary) he may abstain or keep back from receiving the Sacrament, and that (as we know by experience) in an Instant, without chopping or dividing the divine Service. Otherwise, it is a thing unreasonable, and altogether ille­gall, that a Christian man, laying open claim to his right in the Sacrament, should by the meere dis­cretion of a Curate be debarred from it. I would [Page 178] be loath to put my Lands, nay my goods and Chat­tels, and shall I put my interest in the body and blood of Christ to a private discretion? So might it be in the power of a malitious Priest (as our learned Cùm enim quilibet Chri­stianus ex hoc ipso quòd est baptizatus, sit admis [...]us ad Dominicam mensam, non potest jus suum ei tolli, nisi pro aliqua causa manifesta. A­quin. Summ. p. 3. q. 60. art. 6. Imò quilibet Christianus habet jus in per­ceptione Eu­charistae, nisi illud per pecca­tum mortale a­mittat. Vnde cùm in facie Ecclesiae non constet talem amisisse jus su­um, non debet ei in facie Ec­clesiae denega­ii—aliàs da­retur facultas malis sace do­tibus, pro suo libito, punire hâc poenâ quos vellent. Iand­wood l. 3. de Ce­lebrat. Missar. fol. 128. Glosser doth prudently observe) to mulct whom he pleas'd with this most horrible and execrable punishment. And therefore may not the Steward by any means keep back these Nimrods or fat ones of the Earth, from his Masters Table, but warn them fairly of the danger ensuing, as Gratianus part. 3. de Con­secrat. d. 2. fol. 437. Gratian tells us out of S. Augustine. And indeed it is against the practice of all Antiquity, that the Priest should offer of his own head, to keep off any Christned and believing man from the sacred Mysteries.