Antidotum Lincolniense· or An answer to a book entituled, The holy table, name, & thing, &c. said to be written long agoe by a minister in Lincolnshire, and printed for the diocese of Lincolne, a⁰. 1637 VVritten and inscribed to the grave, learned, and religious clergie of the diocese of Lincoln. By Pet: Heylyn chapleine in ordinary to his Matie.

ANTIDOTVM LINCOLNIENSE.

SECTION I.

CHAP. I.

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

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

IT was an old, but not unwitty application of the Lo: Keeper Lincolns,a 1.1 when he was in place; that as once Tully said of Plato, In irridendis Oratoribus maximus Orator esse videbatur: so he might also say of N. appointed speaker of the Parliament for the

house of Commons,* 1.2 that with great eloquence he had desired to be excused from undertaking that imploy∣ment, for want of eloquence. The same may be affir∣med as truely, I am sure, more pertinently, of this Non-nemo, M^r Some body;b 1.3 some Minister of Lin∣colne Diocesse: Charging the Doctor whom hee un∣dertaketh, with libelling, hee hath shewed himselfe the greatest libeller; accusing him of railing, he hath shewed himselfe the veriest railer; and taxing him for falsifying his Texts and Authors, hath shewed himself the most notorious falsifier that ever yet put pen to pa∣per. And first, hee chargeth him with libelling, upon a newc 1.4 but witty Etymologie of the Lo: Chauncel∣lour S. Albans, that a libell was derived from two words, a lie, and a bell; of which, the Doctor made the lie, and sent it for a token to his private friend; the bell being put to by that friend, in commending it to the Presse, and ringing it abroad over all the Coun∣trey, p. 1. Nor is it placed there onely in the front to disport the Reader, but it is called a libell, p. 21. and p. 60. The whole booke nothing but a libell against a Bi∣shop. p. 58. and that you may perceive he is no change∣ling, but ad extremii similis sibi, the same man through∣out; a libell it is called againe towards the latter end. p. 220. Here is a libell with a witnesse, a libell publi∣shed by authority, a licenced libell, printed with li∣cence, as himselfe confesseth, p. 4. For whosoever made the lie, you make his Majesty, in effect, to be the author of the libell: because you cannot but conceive, that no man durst have printed his Declaration in the case of S. Gregories Church, without his Majesties ex∣presse consent, and gracious approbation. Or if you would be thought so dull, as not to apprehend a thing

so cleere,* 1.5 yet must the publishing of this libell rest in conclusion on my Lord high Treasurer, at whose house the book was licenced. Which is so highd 1.6 a language against authority, against the practice of this Realm for licencing of books, and finally against the honour of the Star-Chamber, on whose decree that practice and authority is founded; as was never uttered and printed with, or without licence, by any subject of England before this time. But this concernes not me so much, as the higher Powers: I onely touch upon it, and so leave it: and with it turne the libell back on this uncertain cer∣taine Minister, who daring not to shew himselfe in the Kings high way, was faine to seeke out blind paths, and crooked lanes, in them to scatter up and downe those guilty papers, which are indeed a libell both for name and nature. For if a libell bee derived from a lie and a bell, it serves this turn exceeding fitly. First M^r. Some-body, this some Minister, makes the lie, telling us of an answer writ long agoe by a Minister of Lincoln∣shire, against a booke that came into the world but the yeere before; and then hee sends it to the Lord B•• of Lincolne, Deane of Westminster, who forthwith puts a bell unto it, an unlicenced licence, and rings it over all the country;e 1.7 And it did give an Omen of what na∣ture the whole book would prove, by that which follow∣eth in the Title; Printed for the Diocese of Lincolne. Whereas indeed it was not printed either for that Di∣ocese, or for any other, but calculated like a common Almanack, for the particular Meridian of some one dis∣contented humour; with an intent that it should gene∣rally serve for all the Puritans of Great Brittain. Or if you are not willing it should be a libell, to gratifie you for this once, let it be a Low-belt▪ A thing that makes a

mighty noise to astonish and amaze poore birds, that comming after with your light, you may take them up, and send them for a token to Pere Cotton, or carry them along with you, when you goe your selfe with the next shipping for New-England. But being a low-bell and a libell too, take them both together, Vt si non prosint singula, juncta juvent.

Your second generall charge is Rayling, Oyster∣whore language as you call it, p. 98. And being some minister, some great man, such a one as Theudas in the Acts, who boasted of himselfe that he was some body: you think it a preferment to the Doctor, to weare your livery, which you bestow upon him with a badge, (that you may know him for your owne) and call him scurrilous railer, p. 140 Railing Philistin. p. 191. and Railing Doctor, p. ult. Where do you finde him pec∣cant in that peevish kinde, that you should lay such load upon him? What one uncivill, much lesse scur∣rilous passage, can you deservedly charge him with, in his whole answer to that letter, which you have tooke upon you to defend, maugre all the world? The worst word there, if you finde any one ill word in it, was I trow good enough for your friend I. C. a Se∣paratist from this Church, at that time; perhaps a Se∣baptist by this time: who by the Answerer is supposed to be the writer of that letter; and might have beene supposed so still, for ought you know, had not you told us to the contrary, and got your Ordinaries hand to the Certificate. But be hee what hee will, pray Sir who are you, that you should quarrell any man for rai∣ling, being your self so ready a master in that art, that howsoever your fingers might perhaps be burnt, your lips assuredly were never touched with a Coale from

the Altar. Quin sine rivali. I will not seeke to break you of so old a trick; which I am very well contented you should enjoy without any partner. Onely I will make bold to deale with you, as Alexander did with his horse Bucephalus,f 1.8 take you a little by the bri∣dle, and turne you towards the Sunne, that other men may see how you lay about you, though your self doe not. Hardly one leafe from the beginning to the end, wherein you have not some one Title of honour to be∣stow upon him; which without going to the Heralds, I shall thus marshall as I finde them. Poore fellow, p. 2. and 61. Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Bar∣retter, p. 3. Wrangler, p. 4. Haughty companion, p. 5. Doughty Doctor, p. 21. This animal, p. 24. Scribler, p. 26. Cumane creature, and fawning Sycophant, p. 35. Animal ratione risibile, a most ridiculous creature for his reasoning, p. 42. Pamphletter, p. 58. and poore pam∣phletter, 85. Firebrand, p. 62. most injudicious and tri∣fling Novice, p. 65. Iudicious Rabbi, p. 76. A divine of Whims and singularity, p. 77. Mountebank, and madman, p. 88. Impostor, p. 94. Calfe, p. 103. Squea∣mish gentleman, p. 120. Poore Doctor, p. 132. and 158. A thing that cannot blush, p. 141. Mushrom, and au∣dacious companion, p. 150. This man of rags, p. 154. Bishop Would••bee, p. 159. Impudent companion, p, 188. Blinking Doctor, p. 190. Base sycophant, p. 191. Whif∣ler, p. 203. Braggard, p. 227. and to conclude with Railing Doctor. p. ult. He manus Trojam erigent? Is this the meanes to save yourg 1.9 Troy from ruine, of which you tell us, p. 60? No other way to shew your Zeale unto the cause, but by forgetting all good man∣ners? Such stuffe as this, till you, and your confede∣rate M^r H. Burton came in print together, hath not

beene set to open sale, sinceh 1.10 Walgraves presse, in London, and that of T. C. which you wot of in the City of Coventry,i 1.11 have been out of work. Burton & you, the onely two that have revived that kinde of lan∣guage, which since old Martin Marre-Prelates daies hath not seen the Sun; but being now brought again into the world, and on a thorow perusall; confirmed and licenced, you may proceed for your part, Cum privi∣legio, none dares touch you for it. Fortunate man, whose very railings are allowed of, as beingk 1.12 most orthodoxe in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England; and therefore very fit to be printed, there is no question of it. Nobis non licet esse tam di∣sertis: For us poore fellowes as wee are, it is not our ambition to looke upon that height of eloquence, which you so prosperously have attained to. Or could we reach it, (being, I think, a matter feasible) we should be sure to have a check for it, not an approbation. But I will ••ase you of that feare. Nonl 1.13 tractabo ut Consu∣lem, ne ille quidem me ut consularem; however it was Tullies plea, shall bee none of mine; I must remem∣ber who I am, not what you merit: and therefore, in my answers to your sleights and cavills, I will re∣ply ad rem, and not ad hominem. You have some Coales upon your head already: In using you thus gent∣ly, Im 1.14 shall heape on more; which is an honester revenge than you ever studied, and better than you have deserved.

The first two faults you charge him with, were on∣ly criminall, in which the Star-Chamber, or the Guild Hall might afford you remedy: but that which fol∣lowes in the last, is Capitall; clipping the Kings owne coine, and such as is made currant within this king∣dome:

a generall falsifying of his Majesties Declara∣tions, Lawes, Injunctions; of all bookes, either prin∣ted here, or imported hither. The whole booke, as it is a libell against a Bishop, so every leafe thereof is a mali∣cious falsification of some Author or other. p. 58. Quae∣risne aliquid dici brevius? Could any man have spoke more home, and used fewer words? In case this bee not, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nothing ever was. What? not one leafe without some falsification, and a malicious one to boote, of some Author or other? Assuredly, if so, you may justly call him false-fingred gentleman, bold man, a nibler at quotations, & what else you please. There is not a friend hee hath, but will thanke you for it. But if your challenges bee but such as those you mention, p. 23. in calling Ploydon Judge, being but a Counsellour at Law, (no such malicious falsification, if you marke it well) and setting downe Sir Robert, for Sir Edward Coke, a mistake onely of the Printer: have you not made your triumph before the victory? The Author saw those errors, and saw them mended too, before you observed them: both of them being cor∣rected in the second edition, which followed close up∣on the first, within one fortnight; and which you can∣not but have seene, though you dissemble it, onely to make your brethren merry when you meet together. For in your 90. pag. encountring with a passage of Bi∣shop Latimers, you cite it from the author, as in p. 16. and so it is indeed in the second edition: whereas those words of Bishop Latimers are p. 15. in the first. This is no honest dealing to beginne with; yet this is that which wee must looke for, Par my & par tout, as you know who say. And for then 1.15 sacriledge you complaine of, had it been the Authors (as it was not)

of all men else, you have least reason to accuse him; having your selfe offended in the self-same kinde, by taking from him his name given in Baptisme. For in your 88. pag. you call him Iohn Coal, as if you knew him from his cradle: which, if the Church book may be trusted, and those which are yet living that affirme the same, was not the name given by his Godfathers, and Godmothers; though you may finde it in your o 1.16 Accidence, if you seeke it there. And yet it is no wonder neither, that it should be thus: it being in some places a received custome, that children when they come forp 1.17 Confirmation, do change the names which they had given them at the Font: Sufficient ground for you to deale thus with the Author; and by what name soever he was called in Baptisme, to have him entituled by your owne. You tell us of some other things, wherein hee doth bothq 1.18 faine and faile, as you hunt the letter: but what you say, you say with∣out booke. For upon examination it will soone ap∣peare, that he hath fained in nothing, whatsoever you say; nor failed in any thing, which you say he faines. And were it tolerable in another, to runne the wild-goose chase uponr 1.19 words and letters, which is a sport you much delight in; I have a friend in store should follow this train-scent with you, for your best prefer∣ment, and give you three for one in the bargaine too. But for your fainings and your failings, & whatsoever other falsifications you can charge upon him; we shall see more hereafter when you bring them forth. Mean time you may be pleased to know how ill this office doth become you. You know who said it well enough, s 1.20 Thou which teachest another, teachest thou not thy self? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

And being that you came so lately from your Acci∣dence, you cannot but remember the first example in Verba accusandi, damnandi, which you are most per∣fect in: if not, Ile tell you what it is, Qui alterum incu∣sat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. This is so easie to be Englished, that you need no construing booke; and tells you, who had need be told it, that it behoves you to take care that every thing bee well at home, before you come into the Court to accuse another. Otherwise you will prove such a Censor morum, as was Manutius Plancus in the Romane storie,t 1.21 Qui nil objicere posset adolescentibus, quod non agnosceret senex: most guilty in your doting daies of those very crimes, which you have charged on them of the younger sort. Which said in generall, wee meane to lay before you plainly, without welt or guard, your jugling in the cariage of this businesse, as it relates unto the state of the questi∣on, and other the Contents of your first Chapter: and after all those manifest and most notorious falsificati∣ons and impostures which you have put upon the world, in youru 1.22 holy table. The holy table never was so made an Altar, as you have made it in that booke; by offering on the same such spotted, maimed, and most illegall sacrifices, to your fairex 1.23 Laverna.

First, for your stating of the question, you have an excellent advantage, (could you hold it fast) in ma∣king, as you doe, your owne case, your own evidence, and your owne authorities. The principals in this bu∣sinesse, were the Vicar of Grantham, the Alderman thereof, and my Lord Bishop of the Diocesse; the on∣ly Accessary thereunto, the Bishops Secretary. Of all these there is none that either can, or will confute you in any thing you say, say you what you will. The Vicar

hee is dead, and you may use him as you please; for mortui non mordent, as the saying is: But yet take heed, (and say a friend advised you to it) what you lay upon him. For though he cannot answer to your slanders now, hee may bring you to answer for them another day. The Alderman being set forth unto us fora 1.24 a discreete and modest man, as the letter tells us;b 1.25 A prudent and discreet man, as your booke informes us; did never shew his wisdome and discretion more, than that he wasc 1.26 affraid to offend the Bishop. And being, if he be alive, as prudent and discreet as ever, must needs be now as much affraid to offend the Bishop, as before he was; and therefore you may say your pleasure, and call the Alderman, and the Aldermans letter to witnesse what you please to say; you are sure of that. As for the Bishop, from whose mouth you must have the sto∣rie, hee hath good reason to confirme and justifie his owne relation; that it may set him off the better, and give the world a full accompt of his most moderate proceedings in a point so agitated. Then for the Se∣cretary, being wee finde not in the storie, that he was any more imployed, thand 1.27 sitting up with his Lord that night, fetching the booke of Martyrs out of the hall, and borrowing Bishop Iewels workes from the Parish Church, and giving out the letters as his Lord directed, he was but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a living instrument; and if ex∣amined, can say nothing that will doe you hurt. So that in case, the Bishop can but keepe your counsell, as no doubt hee will; and M^r Alderman hath not lost his ancient prudence and discretion, which God for∣bid, you may stand forth, and tell your tale, and tell it with as high a confidence, as if wee were obliged to take all for Gospell. This you conceive at least,

& goe on accordingly: not thinking that in some main points, thosee 1.28 of the voisinage & the same Province can detect you; or that there is no way to bring truth to light, but by confession of the parties. Now in your storie of the businesse,* 1.29 you tell us that the Vicars head was full of ••rotchets. First,f 1.30 turning out of the towne the Lecturers there, being two grave and painfull preachers, as you set them forth. For being salaried by the Parish (to which the Bishop was so good a friend) you cannot but extoll them, whatsoever they were; or what just cause soever the poore Vicar had to rid the towne of them. Then for the second Crochet, that was, you say, the removing of the Communion table from the upper part of the quire, where it was comely placed be∣fore, (and had stood time out of minde) unto the Altar∣place, as he called it; and telling M^r. Alderman (who out of his discretion, must needs question the Vicar for it) that he had done it, and would justifie it. What proofe have wee for this, (for of the other you bring none) I meane, that the Communion table stood in the upper part of the Quire, in such a comely fashion, for so long continuance; and that it was removed by the Vicar onely, without consulting with the Chancellour, or perhaps the Ordinary? For proofe of this we are re∣ferred to M^r Aldermans letter. Then that the Vicar called the Communion table by the name of Tresle, saying that he would build an Altar of stone at his owne charge; and that the rude people made reply, that hee should set up no dressers of stone in their Church: What proofe have we of that? M^r Aldermans letter. Next f 1.31 that he used light gestures in bowing at the name of Jesus, so as sometimes his booke fell down, and once him∣selfe, to the derision of those that were not so well affected

to that religious Ceremony: What evidence to make that good? M^r Aldermans letter. These are the most materiall things in the whole relation, so farre as it concerned the ground of the whole proceeding; and for the proofe of all we must take your word, aswell as M^r Aldermans letter. For what if M^r Alderman writno such letter, or if he writ it on the Post-fact on∣ly, to make good your tale; or if you make more of it than he mentioned in it: as who can tell but you may deale with M^r Aldermans letters, as you have done throughout your booke with the Aldermans better? Or what if M^r Aldermans letter say as much as you would have him, why would you have us credit M^r. Aldermans letter, to the discredit of the Vicar; espe∣cially as things stood betweene them? the Alderman being most apparently not a party only, but dux parti∣um, the leader of a party against his Minister. For you your selfe have told us, thatg 1.32 M^r Alderman (being norg 1.33 Bishop, Chancellour, nor Surrogate, as I conceive him) commanded his owne officers, (Sergeants, and Beadles, and such fellowes) to remove the Table to the place where it stood before. Which being done ac∣cordingly, he cries out first; and makesh 1.34 complaint unto the Bishop when he had no cause: but that hee thought it an high point of wisdome, being so prudent and discreet a man as you say hee was, to make sure worke there; and then a fico for the Vicar. So that the Alderman being both a partie, and the Plaintife too, is not to be admitted for a witnesse also, except it be by some new order of your owne devising; and like to be a rule hereafter in thati 1.35 Can-none, and triviall law, the body of the which we daily looke for, of your setting out.

But ••e the letter his, or not, you think that you have gained three points. First, a good ground to change the tenour of your owne, charging the Vicar in your printed Copy, with an intent of setting up an Altar of stone, which was not▪ to be found in all the Manu∣script: Besides, that you have brought him into some disfavour with hisk 1.36 friend, the Bishop, for daring to remove the Communion table, without leave from him. Next, for that slovenly and disgracefull phrase of Dresser, given in the Bishops written letter to the Communion table placed Altar-wise, and from him borrowed by M^r Prynne, that is now found out to be a phrase of the rude peoples, as you call them; and on them fathered in the printed letter, to take off that scandall. Last of all, whereas bowing at the name of JESUS was in the written letter glanced at, as if it did procure derision from the lookers on: that is now turned wholly on the Vicar, and his light gestures in performance of that pious ceremony: the printed let∣ter being altered and explained in that particular ac∣cordingly. Having got thus much by the hand, you need say no more, but beare your head up bravely, and proclaime your victory. But as he in Macrobius said, Omne mcum, & nihil meum; so may you also say, did you deale uprightly, all this that you have got is nothing, and you may put it in your eye, without feare ofl 1.37 blinking. For how may wee be sure that Monsieur the half-Vicar, as you call him, p. 70. did of his own head remove the Communion table without authority from the Bishop, Chancellour, or any of his Surrogates,m 1.38 as out of M^r Aldermans letter you af∣firme he did. It ••eemes to me, that he acquainted the Diocesan with it, and found from him, if not an appro∣bation,

a toleration at the least, conditioned no umbra∣ges and offence were taken by the Towne against it. For thus the letter; When I spake with you last, I told you that the standing of the Communion table was unto me a thing so indifferent, that unlesse offence and umbrages were ta∣ken by the towne against it, I should never move it, or re∣move it. Was not this faire leave think you, to make a triall, how farre the people would be pleased with the alteration, (and whether they would think it tended to n 1.39 decency and comlinesse in the officiating of Gods Di∣vine service.) And on this leave the table was removed to the Altar place; and stood so, till the Alderman, o 1.40 a discreet and modest man, and far from any humour of Innovation, did by farre lesse authority bring it down againe, and was never checked for it. Nor can you say, that the word last there mentioned, (when I spake with you last) is to relate unto that time, when the Vi∣car and the Alderman encountred at his Lordships house: Because it follows in the next words, that which I did not then suspect, is come to passe; viz. the Alder∣man and better sort of the towne have complained against it. The conference then meant, wherein his Lord∣ship shewed himselfe so indifferent in the businesse proposed unto him, must needs precede the Vicars action; as did the Vicars action the Aldermans riot; the Aldermans riot, the complaint; and the complaint, that sudden and tumultuary journey to his Lordships house, which drew out the learned letter now be∣tweene us. And so your first report of the half-Vicars hasty running, before hee was sent, is, for the truth thereof disproved, or made very disputable. The o∣ther branch thereof, touching the stone Altar that you talke of, is farre more improbable, and you are faine

to chop & change the Bishops letter to make it good,* 1.41 and yet cannot doe it. For whereas it was charged upon the Vicar in the M. S. Copies, that he should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire: you have it in the printed letter, that he should say he would upon his omne cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of his Quire: which is too great a diffe∣rence to be an errour in the transcripts. Secondly, in∣stead of that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon their Altars, you now have made it that oblation which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars: and so by changing these to theirs, have turned a Pro∣testant Table to a P••pish Altar. Thirdly and lastly, whereas the first section in the written copies, conclu∣ded thus, therefore I know you will not change a table in∣to an Altar: you have converted it to this, therefore. I know you will not build any such Altar; As great an al∣teration in the businesse, as the words themselves. For had that beene the businesse then in agitation; and not the placing of the Table Altar-wise, his Lordship might have gone to bed that night, (as indeed he did) & ended all his letter with the first section; being bu•• 24. lines in your owne printed Copy, and that corrup∣ted too to serve your turne: whereas there is a large discourse against the placing of the Table Altar wise, amounting to above two leaves in your owne edition. I trow the writer of the letter was too good an Arti-Zan, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to spend himself upon the acces∣sary, and let the principall be the least part of his care and study: especially considering how he might there∣by gratifie the whole towne of Grantham, to which he had beene such a friend, when he was in place.

As little truth there is in your invention of the dresser,

which you have turned upon the rude people: rude ones indeed, to give so vile and scandalous a name to a thing so sacred, in whatsoever posture it was placed or situated. What is it, I beseech you, that you have made the people say? that he (the Vicar) should set up no dressers of stone in their Church. Dressers of stone? It seemes the people were as rude as you describe them; so little conversant in matters which concer∣ned the Church, that they were yet to ••ee•••• in things which did concerne the kitchin. Had the discreet Al∣derman no more discretion, than to informe his L^p. of so rude a speech; and tell him in his eare a storie of a stone-dresser, when as he might aswell have told him a tale of a Tubb? Had the rude people, as you call them, applyed the name of dresser unto the holy table placed along the wall, the speech had beene more proper, though not lesse prophane. But now to put the name of dresser of stone into the mouthes of Coun∣try people, who never heard of any such thing as a dresser of stone: shewes plainly, that neither any Altar of stone was ever purposed by the Vicar, which might occasion such an idle and absurd expression; nor that the writer of the letter tooke up the name of dresser from the Country people, but first invented it him∣selfe. Adeo mendaciorum natura est, ut cohaerere non possint, said Lactantius rightly. Your tresle, and your dresser then, may both goe together, ultra anni solis{que} vias, to your deare brethren in New Engl. and their great Patriarke there, your good friend I. C. who as they care not now in what place they dispose of the holy table; so will they care as little, in a little while, by what name they call it. Of the same peece is that last observation made out of M^r Aldermans letter,

touching the Vicars light behaviour,* 1.42 in bowing at the name of Jesus: his booke sometimes falling downe, and once himselfe. Which were it so, why doe you think that that should make your friends of Grantham deride the ceremonie, when not the ceremonie, but the Vicar was in fault, if such fault there was. Have you not seene some men behave themselves so apishly in the Pulpit, that others, and those good men too, have smi∣led to note it? And yet I hope you will not thinke, that therefore they derided that religious ordinance of preaching, when not the ordinance, but the Prea∣cher was the sole object of the merriment. Or if the men of Gr. or rather the rude people there, were so profane and impious, as upon that or any other such occasion to deride the ceremony, the writer of the let∣ter might have spent his pains to better purpose,r 1.43 in writing to them somewhat more at large, than he hath used to expresse himselfe in that kind, to bring them to a bet∣ter understanding of their Christian duties. And you, the Champion of the letter, had done a better office, as I conceive it, to have reserved your selfe for the de∣fence of that, and the tenor of it, if any Puritan in the pack should have writ against it, than thus to have dis∣turbed your selfe with so little profit. But what if wee joyne issue with ans 1.44 Absque hoc, and tell you there was no such falling, either of the booke, or man, as you please to say. For tell me of all loves, where was it, in the Reading pew, or at the Communion table, or in what place else? If in the reading pew, the deske and seat were able to have saved them both from falling; and so was the Communion table, if it had beene there: If not there, say man, where it was, and wee will have a melius inquirendum about it pre∣sently.

This is a trick of yours to disgrace the Vicar, on whom elsewhere you have left a staine, for taking his mornings draught before he went about it, p. 62. As if the man, not onely were not alwaies rightt 1.45 in the head peece, andu 1.46 squirrell-pated, which might be some infirmity of nature: but that hee came unto the Church, disordered with drinke, and inter pocula told the people, quid dia poemata narrant of the name of JESUS, and so fell downe and worshipped, in stead of bowing.

In the remainder of the storie, you put an excellent speech into the mouthes of those of Grantham, partly commendatory of themselves, that they were all a 1.47 p••aceable and quiet men, save that they foughtb 1.48 once in the Church, about removing of the table; confor∣mable in all things to the Kings lawes ••cclesiasticall, save that they could not but deride the ceremonie of bowing at the name of Iesus; and willing to submit themselves to any Order which his Lp should appoint, concerning the situation of the Lords table, so it might stand according as they would themselves. And it was also partly ac∣cusatorie of their Vicar, for putting down their week∣ly Lecture, and partly of their owne ill fortune, that they should live in the midst of Recusants, who did be∣gin already to deride and jeere this new alteration: not withou•• ••ome reflexion on his sacred Majestie, for e 1.49 placing over them a chiefe Governour of that religi∣on. His Majesty was much to blame, there is no doubt of that, for not consulting with the Alderman about the fittest man to be L ^d Lieutenant of the Coun∣ty: but more the Papists, to deride that decencie and situation of the Lords boorde, there, which they ap∣prove of elsewhere in all our Churches. And I could

tell you, did I thinke you would thanke me for it, that the conformity of our Church in this particular, ac∣cording to the practice of approved Antiquity, doth more amaze the Papists, than ever it did those of Grantham: as knowing better than they doe, that the more neere we come to the ancient practice, the lesse they can upbraid us, and our Church with no∣velty, which is now made the chiefest weapon that they fight withall. As for thed 1.50 putting downe of Ser∣mons, wherewith they were much scandalized, as your booke informs us, that was the very marrow-bone of the matter, the thing that most displeased the people, who must have Chaplaines of their owne, or else non vult fac. And had they had their tale of Sermons, it may bee probably conjectured, that M^r Alderman had never removed the table, but rather left it for a text, on which the stipendarie Lecturers, there, might shew their store of zeale, and want of wisdome. But to goe on. The people having ended, and the Bishop forward in his speech, about the indifferencie of the matter, it was the Vicars Q. to enter, who came in e 1.51 pale, and wanne, and staring, obstupuit, steterantque comae, as you know who saith, was by the Bishop used with all lenity and sweetnesse: and at last, having told his L^p (beingf 1.52 very earnest to get it out of him) who it was that set him on these alterations, his L^p spake aloud that all might heare him, that hee had supped on that which the Vicar told him. It is an old saying and a true, audacter calumniare, necesse est ut aliquid haereat; by none more practiced than your selfe. For though you leave us in a wood, and tell us, thatg 1.53 it is not knowne particularly, what they there discoursed of: yet by this blinde discovery you make men suspect, that

some great man, to whom the Vicar did retain, in∣couraged him, at the least, to ••rect an Altar, if not to say Masse on it, when it was erected. Well then, the Bishop, being gone, betakes himselfe unto his study, where (as you say) he sate up most of the night, and in the morning (as you tell us) came abroad thish 1.54 filia unius noctis, this letter to the Vicar, which is now in questi∣on, addressed unto the Vicar, being then in the house (if you tell us right) buti 1.55 sent to the Divines of the Lecture of Gr. and by them shewed unto the Vicar. A letter of so strange a making, that it would puzzle the best Lecturer there, to tell exactly what it was; k 1.56 digested in the former part into the fashion of a letter, but not so figuredly and distinctly in the latter: directed to no body, nor subscribed by any body. In all which sto∣ry, there is nothing true, but that the papers were not sent unto the Vicar, but to some one or other of your Privados about those parts, the better to disperse it up and downe the Country: and that not on the mor∣row morning, but some ten dayes after. For that it was directed to the Vicar, the whole proeme shewes, which could not be applyed unto any other; especi∣ally these words, Now for your owne satisfaction, and my poore advice for the future, I have written unto you some∣what more at large, &c.

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

To draw unto an end of this new-nothing, you tell us confidently (like all the rest) whatl 1.57 satisfaction the poore Vicar had by this decision; having gained all the points, you say, excepting the forme of placing the Table, which was the onely point hee stood on: and that the Vicar after this did reap much fruit and profit from his Lordships favour, from whom he never re∣ceived any favour, from that time forwards. So fine a storie have you told, and so little probable; that they that dwell farre off, and are not of the voisinage, can take you tripping.

Now for the letter it selfe, you tell us, that itm 1.58 va∣rieth in some places in matter from the printed Copie, but little in forme. Nothing at all in forme, that is cer∣taine, but much in matter: so much as you thought fit to alter in it, the better to set off the businesse, and give a faire face to so foule a cause. Those Copies which I met with, and compared, and had from very goods hands too, were word for word exemplified in the printed booke. And if you looke into Duck•• lane for the old written copies, which, till the Doctors book came out, were sold for halfe a crowne a peece, and doubtlesse may be had there still, if not imployed to otheruses; you will find no such variance in the matter, as you would perswade us. Which variance, what it is, and how it alters in a manner the whole state of the question, wee shall see the better, by pla∣cing columne-wise those particular passages, in which the variance doth consist, according to the old and the new edition, as hereunder followeth.

The M. S. Copie printed with the Coal from the Altar.	The Copie licensed and allowed by the Bp of L.
pag. 68. I have, &c. appointed the Church-wardens, whom ••t prin∣cipally doth concerne, under the Diocesan, to settle it for this time.	Pag. 12, 13. I have &c. appointed the Church-war∣dens, whom, in my opinion, it principally doth concerne, under the Diocesan, and by his directions, to settle it for the time.
Pag. 68, 69. That you doe the reverence ap∣pointed by the Canon to the blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly, and not affe∣ctedly, to procure devo∣tion, not derision of your Parishioners.	Pag. 13. That you doe the reverence appointed by the Canons to that blessed name of JESUS, so it be done humbly, and not affectedly, to procure the devotion, and not move the derision of the Parishioners, who are not, it seemes, all of a peece.
Pag. 69. But that you should be so violent and earnest for an Altar at the upper end of the Quire.	Pag. 13. But that you should say, you will upon your owne cost build an Altar of stone at the upper end of your Quire.
Pag. 69. That the fix∣ing thereof in the Q••ire is Canonicall, and that it ought not to bee remo∣ved to the body of the Church.	Pag. 13. That the fixing thereof in the Quire is so ca∣nonicall, that it ought not to be removed (upon any oc∣casion) to the body of the Church.
Pag. 69. That other oblation which the Pa∣pists were wont to offer upon their Altars, is a blasphemous figment, &c.	Pag. 14. That other obla∣tion which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Al∣tars, is a blasphemous fig∣ment, &c.
Pag. 69. It is not the Vicar, but the Church-wardens, that are to pro∣vide for the Communi∣on.	Pag. 14. It is not the Vicar, but the Church-war∣dens that are to provide Vtensils for the Commu∣nion.
Pag. 70. And there∣fore I know you will not change a table into an Altar, which Vicars ne∣ver were enabled to set up, &c.	Pag. 14. And therefore I know you will not build any such Altar, which Vi∣cars never were enabled to set up, &c.
Pag. 71. For besides that the Country people would suppose them dressers, rather than ta∣bles.	Pag. 15. For besides that the country people without some directiōs beforehand from their Superiours, would (as they told you to your face) suppose them dressers, rather than tables.
Pag. 71. Not where the Altar, but where the steps of the Altar for∣merly stood.	Pag. 15. Not where the Altar, but where the steps to the Altar formerly stood.
Pag. 72. Or to make use of their Covers and ornaments, tables may be placed in their room.	Pag. 16. Or to make use of their covers, fronts, and o∣ther Ornaments, tables may be placed in their roome.
Pag. 72. And it seems the Queens Commissio∣ners

were content they should stand.	Pag. 16. And it seemes the Queene and her Coun∣sell were content they should stand.
Pag. 73. The sacri∣fice of the Altar abolish∣ed, these (call them what you will) are no more Altars, but tables of stone and timber.	Pag. 16. The sacrifice of the Masse abolished (for which sacrifice onely Al∣tars were erected) these (call them what you please) are no more Altars, but ta∣bles of stone or timber.
Pag. 73. Where there are no people so void of understanding.	Pag. 16. Where there are no people so voide of instru∣ction.
Pag. 73. For upon the Orders of breaking downe Altars, all Dio∣ceses did agree upon re∣ceiving Tables, but not upon the fashion and forme of the tables.	Pag. 16. For upon the Orders of breaking downe Altars, 1550. all Dioceses, as well as that of London, did agree upon receiving Ta∣bles, but not so soone upon the form and fashion of their tables.
Pag. 73. A table in regard of what is there participated by men.	Pag. 16. A table in re∣gard of what is thence par∣ticipated by men.
Pag. 73. For it answers that very objection out of Heb. 13. 10.	Pag. 17. For it answers that merry objection out of Heb. 13. 10.
Pag. 74. We have no Altar in regard of an ob∣lation, but wee have an Altar in regard of parti∣cipation and communion granted unto us.	Pag. 17. Wee have no Altar in regard of an ob∣lation, but we have an Altar, that is a table in regard of a participation and communi∣on there granted unto us.
Pag. 74. The use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon, and the use of a table is to eate upon.	Pag. 17. The proper use of an Altar is to sacrifice upon, and the proper use of a table is to eate upon. Rea∣sons, &c. 1550. Vide Acts & Monum••nts, pag. 1211.
Pag. 74. The Church in her Liturgie and Ca∣nons calling the same a table onely, do not you call it an Altar.	Pag. 17. The Church in her Liturgy and Canons cal∣ling the same a Table onely, do not you now, under the Reformation, call it an Al∣tar.
Pag. 74. In King Ed∣wards Liturgie of 1549. it is every where called an Altar.	Pag. 17. In King Ed∣wards Liturgie of 1549. it is almost every where called an Altar.
Pag. 74. The people being scandalized here∣with in Countrey Chur∣ches, first beats them downe de facto, then the supreme Magistrates, by a kinde of law, puts them downe de jure.	Pag. 17. The people be∣ing scandalized herewith in Country Churches, first, it seemes, beat them downe de facto; then the supreme Ma∣gistrate (as here the King) by the advice of Archbi∣shop Cranmer, and the rest of his Counsell, did Anno 1550. by a kinde of law, put them downe de jure, 4. Ed. 6. Novemb. 24.
Pag. 74. And setting tables in their roomes, tooke from us, the chil∣dren the Church and Common-wealth, both

the name and the nature of former Alters.	Pag. 17. And setting these tables in their roomes, tooke away from us, the chil∣dren of this Church & Com∣mon-wealth, both the name and the nature of those for∣mer Altars.
Pag. 75. It is in the Christian Church 200. yeares more ancient than the name of an Altar, as you may see most lear∣nedly proved out of S. Paul, Origen, and Arno∣bius, if you but reade a booke that is in your Church.	Pag. 18. It is in the Chri∣stian Church at the least 200. yeeres more ancient than the name of an Altar in that sense, as you may see most learnedly proved (be∣side what we learne out of S. Paul) out of Origen and Arnobius, if you doe but reade a booke that is in the Church.
Pag. 76. That your table should stand in the higher part of the Chur▪ you have my assent al∣ready in opinion: but that it should be there fixed, is so far from being Ca∣nonicall, that it is direct∣ly against the Canon.	Pag. 18, 19. That your table should stand in the higher part of the Chancel, you have my assent in opini∣on already: And so it was appointed to stand out of the Communion orders by the Commissioners for causes Ecclesiastical. 1561 But that it should bee there fixed, is so far from being the onely Canonicall way, that it is directly against the Ca∣non.
Pag. 77. This table must not stand Altar-wise, & you at the North end thereof, but table-wise, and you must offi∣ciate at the North end of the same.	Pap. 20. This table(with∣out 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 Liturgy.* 1.59
Pag. 78. And there∣fore your Parishioners must bee judges of your audiblenesse in this case.	Pag. 20. And therefore your Parishioners must bee Iudges of your audiblenesse in this case, and upon com∣plaint to the Ordinary must be relieved.

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

CHAP. II.

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

The vaine ambition of the Minister of Linc: to be tho••gh•• a Royalist. His practise contrary to his speculations. The Do∣ctor cleared from the two Cavils of the Minister of Linc: touching the Stat. 1. Eliz. The Minister of Linc: ••alsifieth both the Doctors words, and the Lo: Chancellour Egertons. The Puritans more beholding to him than the King. The Mi∣nister

of Linc: misreporteth the Doctors words, onely to picke a quarrell with his Majesties Chappell. A second on-set on the Chappell, grounded upon another f••lsification of the Do∣ctors words. Of mother Chappells. The Royall Chappell how it may be said to interpret Rubricks. The Minister of Linc: quarrels with Queene Elizabeths Chappell; and for that pur∣pose falsifieth both his forraine authors, and domestick eviden∣ces Not keeping, but adoring images, enquired into in the first ye••re of Queene Elizabeth. That by the Queenes Injunctions, Orders and Advertisements, the Table was to stand where the Altar did. The idle answer of the Minister of Linc: to the Doctors argument. Altars and Pigeon-houses all alike, with this Linc: Minister. The Minister of Linc: false and faulty ar∣gument, drawn from the perusers of the Liturgy, the troubles at Franck ••ort, and Miles Huggards testimony. Of standing at the North-side of the Table. The Minister of Linc: produceth the Pontificall against himselfe. His idle cavils with the Do∣ctor touching the Latine translation of the Common prayer Book. The Parliament determined nothing concerning taking downe of Altars. The meaning and intention of that Rubrick. The Minister of Linc: palters with his Majesties Declaration about S. Gregories. A copy of the Declaration. The s••mme and substance of the Declaration. Regall decisions in particular cases, of what power and efficacy.

PLutarch relates ofa 1.60 Alexander, that he did use to say of his two chiefe favourits, Craterus and He∣phestion, that the one of them was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the o∣ther 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the one a lover of Alexander, the other of the King; Hephestion loved his person, as a private friend▪ Craterus his estate and Monarchy, as a pub∣lique Minister. Princes are then best served, when these affections meet together; when those that ei∣ther are about their persons, or under their domini∣ons,b 1.61 do Craterū cū Hephestione confundere, and love them not alone as men, but Princes, whom they doe

most truly love. Both of these parts this Some-body▪ whom I am to deale with, would faine seeme to act: and he doth act them rightly, as a player doth, in a dis∣guise or borrowed shape, which he can put off when he lists, & the play be ended. But yet for all his vizard it is no hard matter to discerne him, his left hand pul∣ling downe, what his right hand buildeth; all that au∣thority and regard which he bestowed upon the King in the speculation, being gone in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as they say, when it should be reduced to practise. Of the origi∣nall of the Regall power, you tell us very rightly that it is from God, that the Kingsc 1.62 of England have had the flowers of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction, stuck in their Imperiall garlands, by the finger of Almighty God from the very beginning of this Christian Monarchy within this Island; and that the Kings Majesty may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the holy Table should be placed where the Altar stood. An excellent Royalist verily in your speculations. But look upon you in your practicks, and then you tell us in your corre∣cted copy of the Bishops letter, that the Table (without some new Canon) is not to stand Altar-wise; which is di∣rectly contrary to that before. I trow you are not ig∣norant that the Church makes Canons, it is the work of Clergy men in their Convocations, having his Majesties leave for their conveening, and approbation of their doings. His Majesty in the Declaration before the Arti∣cles hath resolved it so; & the late practise in K. Iames his raigne, what time the booke of Canons was com∣posed in the Convocation, hath declared so too. If then the Table may not be removed & placed Altar-wise, without some new Canon; his Majesty may command it, for ought I see by you, and yet goe without. Or if

you mean that any order from his Majestie, or inti∣mation of his pleasure, shall be as forcible with you, as any Canon of them all; why doe you so much slight his Majesties Declaration about S. Gregories? For neither can the man indure it should be called an Act of Counsell, (which yet the Doctor never calls it, to his best remembrance;) or that it should have any influence beyond that one particular case, which first occasioned it: in no respect that it should have the operation of Canon, either to force obedience, or in∣duce conformity. So that in fine, you deale no other∣wise with his Majesty, than did Popilius Lenas with the great Kingd 1.63 Antiochus, qui regē circumscripsit virgula, as the storie hath it. You draw a ring about him with your willow scepter, as if you meant to conjure him into a circle, and so keepe him there. Thus deale you also with his person, (for you would very faine be taken for Hephestion, as well as Crat••rus.) You tell us ofe 1.64 his heavenly expressions used in that Declaration be∣fore remembred; and yet think scorn to follow what he there allowes of: talke of hisf 1.65 sacred Chappell, and the Saint of that Chappell; and in the same breath tell us, that Parish-Churches are as little bound to imi∣tate the forme and patterne of the one, as you conceive your selfe obliged to imitate the piety and true devo∣tion of the other. Saint of the Chappell! Lord how the man bestowes his holy water, when he hath a mind to it.g 1.66 Spargere rore levi & ramo felicis olivae, Lustra∣vitque vir••s, in the Poets language. Yet no such Saint, I trow, as Ferdinando the third, of whom you say both inh 1.67 the text, and in your margin, that in his long raigne of 35. ye••r••s, there was no touch of hunger or contagion. There was a Saint indeed, fit to be shewne

unto the world, as a publike blessing: in reference to whom, and his most fortunate Empire, these wret∣ched times have nothing whereof to glorie. Sir, that Parenthesis of yours, as it comes in impertinently, so it lookes suspiciously: and it had shewne more wisdome in you to have passed it by, than it can make for osten∣tation of your reading, so to take it up.

But let your practice goe, and come we to your spe∣culations, in which you have said much, and produced good proofe, to shew the true originall of the right of Kings.i 1.68 Vtinam sic semper errasset, said once the learned Cardinall, of Calvin. It had been well if you had never handled any other argument. But good Sir, let the poore man live, and grow up under you, if you please, whom you expose so much to the publick scorne, and tantum non endite of treason against his Majesty. Assuredly the poore soule meant well, when he attempted to free the Statute 1. of Eliz. from some, (perhaps some Ministers of Lincolnshire) who had restrained it to the person of the Queene that was, and that it could not any way advantage the King that is. If he hath failed in any thing, I pray you let him have your pitty, and not your anger. Alas good Sir, you know it is impossiblek 1.69 nos illico nasci senes, that wee should all of us be experienced Statesmen at the first dash. We must first serve our time, and weare out our Indentures, before we come to those high mysteries, which any schoole boy might have taught you from l 1.70 his Deus & Rex. Thinke you that no man ever knew till you found it out, that Kings had their autho∣rity from God alone? or finde you any thing in the Doctor, which affirmes the contrary? the Doctor, as before was said, thought fit to cleere the Statute 1. of

Eliz. from those that went about to restraine all au∣thority of ordaining rites and ceremonies unto the person of the Queen, because there is no mention in that clause of her heires and successors. To cleare which point he brought in sixe severall Arguments, borrow∣ed, as hee tells you there, both from the common Law, and the Act it selfe. The foure first, as it seemes, you are content should stand without further censure; save that you tell him that the fourth was taught him by somem 1.71 Iustice his Clerk, and make your selfe merry with the fift and ••ixt. How justly, let the Reader judge, when he heares the businesse. The question was, whe∣ther the King lost any thing of that power which was acknowledged by that Statute to be inherent in the Queene when she was alive, for want of these few for∣mall words, her heires and successors. And it isn 1.72 an∣swered fiftly from a resolution in the law, in a case much like:

it being determined by that great Law∣yer Ploydon, (for so the last edition calls him) that if a man give lands to the King by deed inrolled, a fee-simple doth passe, without these words successors and heyres, because in Judgement of Law the King never dyeth.

This is an argument à comparatis▪ And what see you therein with your Eagles eyes, (the Doctor being but a blinker,o 1.73 as you please to style him) that you should fall upon him with such scorne and laughter, and tell him that he doth deserve but p 1.74 a simple fee, for his impertinent ex••mple of this fee-simple. The Argument was good to the point in hand, which was not what the King could doe by his power Originall, that which he claimes onely from the King of Kings, which was never questioned: but how far hee might use that Statute, if occasion were, for the

ordaining of such rites and ceremonies, as he with the advice of his Metropolitan, should think fit to publish. You may call in your laugh again, for ought I see yet: but that you have a minde to shew your teeth, though you cannot bite.

But hisq 1.75 next pranke, you say, is worse, where hee affirmes, (most ignorantly, and most derogatorily to his Majesties right and just prerogative) that the Statute 1. of Eliz. 2. was a confirmative of the old law: whereas his Author hath it rightly, that it was not a Statute in∣troductorie of a new law, but declaratorie of the old. This is the hint you take to introduce your studied dis∣course of the power of Kings in ecclesiasticis, which neither is ad rem, nor Rhombum: but that you would doe somewhat faine to be thought a Royalist; how∣ever the poor people take it to be so deserted. For tell mee in good earnest, doth the Doctor say that the said Statute 1. of Eliz. was onely confirmative, and not de∣claratorie of the old? Doth he not say expressely as you would have him?

Last of all,r 1.76 (saith his book) it may be argued, that the said clause or any thing therein contained, is not indeed introductory of any new power, which was not in the Crown before, but rather decla∣ratorie of the old, which anciently did belong to all Christian Kings, (as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah) and amongst others to ours also.

If after∣wards he use the word confirmative, you might have found his meaning by his first, declaratorie: & not have falne upon him in so fierce a manner, as if he had beene onely for confirmative, and for declaratorie not one word. But your next prank is worse than this, where you affirm with confidence and scorn enough,s 1.77 that this right is not united to the Crown of England onely, as this

scribler seemes to conceive, but to all other Christian Crowns, and chalenged by all Christian Princes according∣ly. t 1.78 Proh deum atque hominum fidem! that ever man should write thus, and beleeve his Creed, in that which doth relate to the day of Judgement. For sure the Do∣ctor saith as much, as all your studied nothing comes to, that the said power didu 1.79 anciently belong (what, to this Crown alone, as you make him say? No but) to all Christian Kings, (good Sir note this well) as before any of them to the Kings of Iudah, and amongst others to ours also. Not unto ours alone, but among others to ours al∣so. Or if this yet be no foule dealing, we will try once more. You tell us, with great joy no question,x 1.80 That to maintain that Kings have any part of their authority by any positive law of nations, (as this scribler speaks of a ju∣risdiction, which either is or ought to be in the Crown by the ancient lawes of the Realm, and is confirmed by 1 El. c. 1.) is accounted by that great personage (the L^d Chancellour Egerton) an ass••rtion of a treasonable nature. But by your leave a little Sir, that passage of a jurisdiction, which ei∣ther is or ought to be in the Crowne by the ancient lawes of the Realm, is not the Doctors, but Sir Edward Cokes, and cited from him whō you have honoured with the title of a deep learned man in his faculty, p. 25. affirming there that he hath stated the whole question rightly: as here, immediately on the recitall of the words before re∣peated, you take great paines, more than you needed, to give his words a faire construction. If it was right∣ly said by Sir Edw. Coke, why not by the Doctor? If no such treasonable matter in the one, why doe you charge it on the other? This is the thing complained of in the Court-historian:y 1.81 Invidiam non ad causam, sed ad volunt atem personasque dirigere. But yet Gods

blessing on your heart for your affection to Sir Ed∣ward: you deale with him far better and more ho∣nestly, than with your Lords great Master, the L^d Chancellour Egerton: whose words you chop off with an hatchet, as if you wanted patience to heare him out. You cite him in your margine thus: It was ne∣uer taught but either by Traytors, (as in Spencers bill in Edw. 2. time,) or by treasonable Papists, (as Harding in the Confutation of the Apologie) that Kings have their au∣thority by the positive law. Why stop you there? why doe you not goe forwards like an honest man? Have you a squinancie in your throat, and cannot? I will do it for you. Reade on then,z 1.82

by the positive law of nations, and have no more power than the people hath, of whom they take their temporall jurisdicti∣on; and so Ficlerus, Simanca, and others of that crew: Or by seditious Puritanes and Sectaries, as Buchanande jure regni apud Scotos, Penry, Knox, and such like.

This is flat felony, beleeve mee, to rob your Readers of the best part of all the businesse. For here we have two things which are worth the finding: First what it is, which, as you say, is by that honoura∣ble personage made to be of treasonable nature: viz. not onely to maintaine that Kings have their authori∣ty by the positive law of nations, but that they have no more power than the people hath. Next, who they be that teach this doctrine, not onely Traitors, and treasonable Papists, as you make him say, but also seditious Sectaries and Puritanes, Buchanan, Knox, and Penry, and such like. Nor was it taught by them, the leaders onely, but as it followeth in that place, by these, and those that are their followers, and of their facti∣on, there is in their pamphlets too much such traiterous

seed sowne. The Puritans are, I see, beholding to you, for lending them so fine a cloake to hide their kna∣very. And hereupon I will conclude, how great a Royalist soever you pretend to be, you love 'the King well, but the Puritans better.

From the originall and fountaine of the soveraigne power, wee must next follow you unto the exercise thereof. And here you aske the question,a 1.83 How doth the Doctor make it appeare, that his most excellent Majesty hath commanded any such matter? or that there is (as he avows) any publick order for the same? viz: for placing the Communion Table Altar-wise. To this you answer, (for you play all parts) that he shall make it cock-sure by three Apodicticall demonstrations: which are, as afterwards you dispose them, the practice of his Majesties Chappell, the Queenes Injunctions, and his most excellent Majesties declaration about S. Gre∣gories. But first, before we proceed further, let mee aske one question: Where doe you finde the Do∣ctor say that his most excellent Majesty hath com∣manded any such matter? No where, most certaine, in the booke; nor any where that I can tell of, but in the mint of your imagination, where there is coynage all the yeere of these pooreb 1.84 double ones. The Doctor saith indeed,

His sacred Majesty hath already decla∣red his pleasure in the case of S. Gregories, and there∣by given incouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them.

c 1.85 Incouragements are no Command,, you had best say so howsoever. For if they were, I could soone tell you in your eare, who is a very disobedient subject. But let that passe, cum coe∣teris erroribus, and see if that be better which comes

after next. I would faine hope some good of you, but I finde no ground for it: you misreport him so excee∣ding shamelesly in every passage. The first (you say) of his three Apodicticall demonstrations, (as you please to slight them) is, that it is sod 1.86 in his Majesties Chap∣pell, where the ancient Orders of the Church of Eng∣land have beene best preserved, and without which (per∣haps) we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of divine service. The Chappell of the King being the best Interpreter of the law which himself enacted, wherein the Communion Ta∣ble hath so stood as now it doth, sithence the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth, what time that Rubrick in the Common-prayer-booke was confirmed and ratified. Thus you re∣port the Doctors words, and with shame enough. The Doctor saith not any where, (exclusively of the Cathedralls, as you vouch him here) that the ancient Orders of the Church of England have beene best preser∣ved in his Majesties Chappell, without the which (per∣haps) we had been at a losse, &c. These are your words, and not the Doctors. The Doctors words are these:

e 1.87 For certainly the ancient orders of the Church of England have beene best preserved in the Chap∣pels of the Kings Majesty, and the Cathedrals of this Kingdome (good Sir marke you that;) without the which, perhaps, we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves, for the whole forme and fashi∣on of divine service.

Here you leave out, most wil∣fully, to say no worse, and the Cathedrals of this King∣dome, not so much to belye the Doctor, as to devise some quarrell with his Majesties Chappell, which you cast many an evill eye at. And thereupon conclude most gravely,f 1.88 To what use serve our grave and wor∣thy

Metropolitans, our Bishops, our Convocation house, our Parliaments, our Liturgies, hedged in and compassed in with so many Lawes, Rubricks, Proclamations, and Confe∣rences, if we had been long before this at a losse in England for the whole form and fashion of divine service, but for one Deane, and so many Gentlemen of the Kings Chappell. Lord what a grosse of words is here drawne together, to fight with nothing but a poore fancy of your own; at most with one poore Deane, and a few simple gen∣tlemen of that contemptible place, the Kings Chap∣pell Royall. Lesse strength, and fewer weapons would have beene sufficient, to drive this silly troope before you; whom you might easily have scattered with your very breath, and made them waite upon your triumph at the first words speaking. Dicite Io Paean, & Io bis dicite Paean. Never did any story tell of such a conquering combatant, since King William the Conquerour.

As little truth you use in citing of the other passage from the Doctors text; and far lesse modesty in your second onset on his Majesties Chappell. You make the Doctor say, The Chappell of the King, being the best Interpreter of the law which himselfe enacted, wherein the Communion table hath so stood as now it doth, since the beginning of Queene Elizabeth, &c. and then flie out upon him without all pitty,g 1.89 Where did the man ever heare of any Chappell in the Christian world, that gave forme and fashion of divine service, to whole Provinces? Good Sir have patience but a little, I will pay you all. And tell me I beseech you first, where did the Doctor ever say they should? The former place you guelded in the very middle, and this you cut off in the end. Take the whole passage as it lieth together,h 1.90 you

will finde it thus.

For if wee looke into the former practise either of the Chappels of the King, the best Interpreter of the law which himselfe enacted, &c. as before we had it: or of Collegiate and Cathedrall Churches, the best observers of the forme and order of Gods publike service; the Vicar had good war∣rant for what he did.

Here you leave out again the Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches, to pick a second quarrell with his Majesties Chappell: the Doctor say∣ing no where, as you make him say, that the Parochi∣all Churches are to precedent themselves (expresly and exclusively) by the Chappell Royall (though had he said so, you would hardly make your part against him) but that they are to precedent themselves by the mother Churches. Finding such store of Spanish, French, Italian, Greeke, and Latin cited in your Margin, onely out of a poore ambition to shew your store: I need not doubt but you can understand a peece of English. Reade me this therefore which occurres in the 6. Pa∣ragraph of the second Section,i 1.91 immediately upon these words, Without the which perhaps we had before this beene at a losse amongst our selves for the whole forme and fashion of divine service. For there it followeth,

And therefore if it bee so in the Chappels and Ca∣thedrall Churches, as the Epistoler doth acknow∣ledge, it is a pregnant argument that so it ought to be in the Parochials, which herein ought to precedent and conform themselves, according to the patterne of the Mother Churches.

The Mother Churches, note you that; not the Mother Chappels. So that you might aswell have saved your needlesse disputation, about the inward and the outward motion of the Prin∣ces minde; as those most triviall, and indeed unduti∣full

inferences which you make upon it, I have heard often of a mother Church, but now behold a mother Chap∣pell, p. 42. and worse than that, Teach not the daugh∣ter therefore against all antiquity, to jet it out before the mother, p. 37. you might have also spared youk 1.92 se∣verall observations of publishing the new Missall by Pope Pius Quintus, not at the sacred Chappell, but S. Peters Church; the merry case, (or, as you should have called it, the ridiculous case) of S. Martins hood; the distinct service in the Chappels of Salamanca, from those that are in Parish Churches; the severall uses of singing service in this Church, the ancient courses in some others. All these are onely toyes to take up the time with, and conclude nothing to the purpose which we have in hand, as they confute not any thing that the Doctor saith. Yet since you speake so despicably of his Majesties Chappell, and the use thereof;l 1.93 as one that never heard till now the use of the Chappell: I trust you will not say that the Kings Chappell is set out in a contrary way, to that required in a law of the Kings owne making; or that the constant usage of the Chap∣pels in this particular, since the first making of that law, may not be thought to be a good Interpreter of the law it selfe. You know the old saying well enough, that praxis sanctorum, est interpres praeceptorum. And there∣fore being it hath beene still, as now it is, in K. Ed∣wards Chappell, whom them 1.94 judicious divine, M^r. Hooker calleth Edward the Saint, and Queene Eliza∣beths, and of K. Iames, and of his Majestie now living, (whom God long preserve) whom your self have ho∣noured with the style of Saint: We may conclude, that the Kings Chappell in this kinde, or the Kings practise in his Chappell, may be, and is the best Interpreter of

those Rubricks, Lawes, and Canons, which you else∣where speake of. Nor could you preach a worse, though perhaps no more welcome doctrine to your deere disciples, than that his Majesties Chappell is not ordered as it ought to be: who presently might make this use thereof, that they would be as little carefull to observe the law in their severall Parishes. Regis ad ex∣empl••m. You know right well what follows, though you will not follow it. If therefore the Communion table doe stand Altar-wise in his Majesties Chappell, as most sure it doth; and that it be a sinne against many precepts, to doubt or whisp••r, but that the King doth wise∣ly and religiously in it, as p. 34. you say it is: why should not that give law to the Parish-Churches; or why should you debarre them from a conformity with that, which seemes so wisely and religiously done, in the Chap∣pell Royall? Here is a riddle indeed, if you talke of riddles.

Having been bold, (as never any man was more) with his Majesties Chappell, you cannot leave off so, but you must have a fling at Qu: Elizabeth, and hers: andn 1.95 wish the Doctor had not named at all the beginning of Qu: Eli∣zabeth. For then say you, therewas an Altar in the Chap∣pell, and the very old masse officiated thereupon. The ve∣ry old Masse? What is your meaning? I hope you doe not thinke, though you speake suspiciously, that that which hath beene since officiated thereupon, is a Masse too, though somewhat newero 1.96; the Eng∣lish Masse, as your good friends the Puritans have been pleased to call it. Nor need you be so sorry for name∣ing the beginning of Q••een Elizabeth, as if you would have passed it over with a So it pour non dict, for feare the Doctor (of whose credit you are very carefull)

should be suspected for some hopes of having the old Masse set up againe: as p. 51. you tell him what great hope he hath, of having one day an Altar and a sacrifice for joy of his diagram. The Doctor speaks not of pla∣cing the Communion table, so as it stood in the begin∣ning of Queen Elizabeth; but saithp 1.97 that in the Chap∣pell Royall it hath so stood as now it doth, since the begin∣ning of Queene Elizabeth: i. e. for 80. yeares toge∣ther without interruption or alteration. In the begin∣ning of her raigne, and ever since the beginning of her raigne; are two different things: and this you could not but observe, but that you had a minde to quarrell with that excellent Lady; for which I trow, your bre∣thren, who now so much adore her memory, will conn you little thankes in private. For whereas that most excellent Lady followed therein the practise of her brotherq 1.98 King Edw. 6. and kept her Chappell up in that forme and order as was most fit both for the decencie of Gods publike service, and the magni∣ficence of her owne royall State: wee are now told that this was doner 1.99 Pour flatter les Catholiques, & les Princes estrangers, only to flatter with the Catholiques, (this flattering with the Catholiques, you very cunning∣ly left out in your translation) and with forraigne Prin∣ces. Nay, if Du Chesne may be beleeved (or rather if you may bee beleeved that belie Du Chesne) all this was done, not out of piety, but policy:s 1.100 Et par my cette innovation laissa plusieurs choses qu'elle jugea in∣differentes, come les Orgues, les Ornaments d'eglise, quoy que plus pour police que pour religion: as you cite the words. Andre du Chesne, an honester man than you, tells us no such matter. For having named the Organs and Ornaments of the Church,t 1.101 he brings in Musick,

the names and dignities in the Ecclesiasticall Hierar∣chie, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Canons of Churches, Curates, Priests and Deacons, as also Lent, and ab∣stinence from flesh on Fridayes and Saturdayes. Then addes, what you have made him say of Organs, & the Church Ornaments, (and not the Ornaments of her Chappell onely) that this was done plus pour police, que pour religion, more for policy than religion. Which words, if you observe him well, are not to be referred to all that went before (for then Arch-Bishops, Bi∣shops, Priests and Deacons had beene retained onely in point of policy) but to the keeping of Lent and other fasting dayes. Wherein du Chesne hath spoke no more than what is extant in the Statute of 5. Eliz. cap. 5. where it is said expressely, that the forbearing of flesh was meant onely politickly, for the increase of fi∣shermen and mariners, &c. Or if you thinke, as I do, that he did not consult the Statute for it; then out of doubt, he borrowed it fromu 1.102 Sanders de schismate Anglicano, where it is said terminis terminantibus, in this case of Lent, and fasting dayes, and in this onely, Non religionis, sed publici tantum commodi causa hoc ip∣sum mandari. Your other French-man, the freedome of whose language you so much commend, tooke his hint from the same hand also: and you are but a Do∣ctor Slanders, to joyn with him and them in any thing, which tends to the dishonour of so brave a Lady. This said, you wheele about to fetch another blow at the Queenes Altar, placing a crucifixe on the same, (which stood there but a little while) and then de∣mand whether the Parish Churches were to take pat∣terne by this, when as not any of the subjects might in their private houses possesse a crucifixe. For proofe of

which you cite the 45. Article of &c. for the Regall visitation, viz.x 1.103 Whether you know any that keepe in their houses, any undefaced Images, tables, pictures, and cut off all the rest with an &c. Reade on then, pictures, paintings, and other Monuments of fained and false mi∣racles, pilgrimages, Idolatry, and superstition, and doe adore them. Voyla Monsieur, not the possessing, but the adoring of the cruci••ixe, was enquired into. Wel∣fare the French-men yet, whoy 1.104 out of the freedome of their nation, will be sure, parler tout, and conceale nothing that ever they heard of. You have a more retentive fa∣culty, and you make your best of it. Your next quota∣tion, that Images of Christ be not onely defects, but also lies, for which you vouch the Homily against the perill of Idolatry, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 dictum, nothing unto the point in hand; but that you are a venturous gamester, and love to have at all, whatsoever it cost you. For if you take the reason of the Homily with you,z 1.105 which is, that of the God-head which is the most excellent part of Christ, no Image can be made: it will appeare that in the mea∣ning of the Homily, the images or picture of a mortall man, may not be only called a defect, but a lie also; be∣cause no picture can be made of the soule, which is the most excellent part of the whole man. But either speak more unto the purpose, or else hold your peace.

The Doctors 2. Argument, (according as you please to new mould his booke) is taken (you say) from the Queens Injunctions; more pertinently,a 1.106 you confesse, than was the former frō the Queens Chappell, but that it hath not any solidity to rest upon. Why so▪ Do not the Queens Injunctions say,b 1.107 that if the Al∣tar were tooke downe (which they commanded not) the holy Table should be decently made and set in the place

where the Altar stood, and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth. Yes, but you say,c 1.108 there followeth somewhat which this false fingred Gentleman left out, viz. and as shall be appointed by the Visitors: There∣upon you conclude that placing and adorning of the table was referred to the Commissioners, who in their Orders, tertio of the Q••eene, appointed That the table should stand where the steps within the Quires and Chan∣cels stood, and should be covered with silke or buckram: and having said so, winde your horne,d 1.109 and blow the fall of the Injunction. In all this there is no solidity, and as little truth. Those words, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors, relate not to the placing of the table, which was determined of in the Injunction, but to the covering of the same, wherein the said Injunctions had determined nothing. For marke the words;

The holy Table in every Church shall be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood; What more? and there commonly covered as thereto belongeth, and as shall be appointed by the Visitors; & so to stand, saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, &c.

What thinke you now? what is referred unto the Vi∣sitors, the placing of the table, or the covering only? Not the placing surely, as you finde in the last period of the said Injunction; viz. And after the Communion done, from time to time (not till the Visitours should determine otherwise) the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before. Then for the Orders of the yeare 1561. can you finde any thing in them that crosseth the Injunction? Take the whole Order as it lieth, and then winde your horn.e 1.110

It is ordered also, that the steps which be as yet at this day remaining in any Cathe∣drall, Collegiate, or Parish Church, be not stirred or

altered, but be suffered to continue. And if in any Chancell the steps be transposed, that they be not erected againe, but that the steps be decently paved, where the Communion Table shall stand out of the times of receiving the Communion, having thereon a faire linnen cloth, with some covering of silke, buckram, or other such like•• for the cleane ••••••ping of the said cloth.

No order here, for altering the Communion table from that place and posture in which it had beene situated by the Queenes Injuncti∣on: or that it should stand where the steps within the Quires or Chancels stood; much less, as you have made it in your falsified Copie of the Bishops letter; where the steps to the Altar formerly stood: as if they would not have it stand close along the wall, but neere unto the steps, and so from the wall, as you thence most shamefully collect. Now whereas it is appointed fur∣ther in the said Orders,f 1.111 that there be fixed upon the wal over the said Communion board, the tables of Gods pre∣cepts imprinted for the said purpose; or as in theg 1.112 adver∣tisements of An. 1564. upon the East-wall over the said table: the Doctor laying all together conclud••d thus, that being the table was (by the Injunction) to bee placed where the Altar stood, above the steps, (as by the Orders,) and under the Commandements (as by the Orders and Advertisements;) therefore it was to stand all along the wall. Against this you have no∣thing to replie, but bold conjectures.h 1.113 Why not as∣well in the place of the steps, and endwise to the wall? andi 1.114 why not the Commandements over the Com∣munion board, that is, in some higher place where they may be seene, although the table stand in the midst of the Quire? and why noti 1.115 over the Commu∣nion

table, that is, over the end of the table? I see you are excellent at Tick tack, as you have beene alwaies, and will not let a why not passe, if it come in your way. But this is, as Domitian said of S••neca's stile, Arena ••ine calce; and hangs together, as we say in the English proverb, like pebbles in a withe. But so, it seemes, you will not leave us. You have another answer to the Queenes Injunction, touching the setting of the table in the place where the Altar stood: which is, that it might stand above the steps with the end Eastward, and the side Northward, andl 1.116 yet obey the words of the Injunction, and be in the place where the Altar stood. How so? Be∣cause, say you, the Injunction was directed to her Majesties subjects, not to her Mathematicians, and therefore was more likely to use the terme of a common and ordinary, than a proper and Mathematicall place. And so the place of the Altar, in this Injunction, is not all and in all di∣mensions, but some part onely of the room which the Altar filled. I gather by your style, you are some great body, some Minister, as the Licence stiles you; & doubt not but you have many servants, although not many Mathematicians, attending on you. And let me put you a familiar case, this once. It is a thing I use not often. Suppose you have an old side-board, or Court-cupboard standing in your dining-room; & you command your servants (being no Mathematicians, suppose that too) to take the ••aid old side-board, or Court-cupboard away, & set another in the place: If he should set it end-wise, where the other stood side-wise, would not your bloud be up, and your black staffe about his eares? Your dif∣ference out of Aristotle between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, serves for nothing here, more than to make a shew, and to deceive poore people that understand it not. And yet in confidence of the cause, you tell the Do∣ctor,

thatm 1.117 for the great pains he hath taken, with his line and levell, in finding out the place where the Altar stood; he might have spared it all against the building of a new Pigeon-house.n 1.118 Naturam expellas furca licet; I see there's a prophanesse in your bones, which will ne∣ver out. Never did man speak of sacred things, with so little reverence. Dressers, and Pigeon houses, and whatsoever scandalous conceit comes next to hand, we are sure to heareof. It would do better, as I take it, if when you write next of a sacred argument, some boy or other might cry out to you, as heretofore the Priest did when he was to sacrifice,o 1.119 Procul hinc, pro∣cul esto prophane. And so much for your first and se∣cond answers, to the Queenes Injunction.

Now for the 3. in which you have disposed the flower of all your Armie, your very Ianizaries, you tell us with like confidence, thatp 1.120 if by these In∣junctions, the table was to stand where the Altar stood; then should the said Injunctions vary from the rites, which but few daies before had been prescribed by Parliament, to be used in the booke of Common-prayers. How prove you that? Marry say you, the Minister appointed to reade the Communion, is directed to reade the Commandements, not at the end, but the North side of the table, which implyes the end to be placed towards the East great window. 2. It was practiced so in K. Edwards time, as is (not proved, but) endeavoured to be proved out of the troubles at Francofurt. 3. Because it is very likely that Cox, Grindall, and Whitehead (being halfe the number of the per••sers of the Liturgi•• which was to be confirmed in the Parliament following) would observe that ceremonie in placing the Communion-table, which themselves abroad, and at home had formerly pra∣cticed. These are the Arguments we must trust to, to

confirme the point; but these will not do it: for they are onely say-soes, and no proofes at all; and might as justly be denied by us, as venturously affirmed by you. But we will scan them severally, beginning first with that comes last, and so proceeding ascendendo, untill all be answered. First then, Cox, Grindall and White∣head, made not up halfe the number of the Perusers of the Liturgie. The Author whom you cite, q 1.121 names us eight in all, Parker, Bill, May, Cox, Grin∣dall, Whitehead, Pilkington, and Sir Thomas Smith; all joynt-Commissioners in the business. So that unless it may be proved that three and three makes eight; (and if it may be proved you are more cunning at Arithmetick, than in all the Mathematicks beside:) Grindall, and Cox, and Whitehead made not halfe the number. But let that passe for once, how shall wee know that they did place the Communion-table end-long, both at home and abroad? For this we are di∣rected to the troubles at Francofurt, pag. 23. and 24. in which there is not any word that reflects that way. All we finde there, is the recitall of a letter sent from the conformable English-men at Strasburgh to the schismaticall congregation of the English-men in Francofurt, about reducing them unto the booke of Common-prayers established in the latter end of K. Edward 6. which letter was delivered to them, by M^r. Grindall and M^r. Chambers, and signed by 16. of their hands, Grindals being one; but not one word of Cox or Whitehead. Or grant this too, that Grindall, Cox and Whitehead placed their Communion table, end-long, when they were abroad, and might be fearefull of offending those amongst whom they lived: yet would it be no good conclusion, that therefore they

appointed it should be so here, where they were safe and out of danger; and had the countenance of the Q••eene, who liked old orders very well, for their in∣couragement. You saw this well enough, and there∣fore dare not say it for a certaine, butr 1.122 a likely mat∣ter: and likelihoods, I trow, (except it be for you) are no demonstrations. This said, your second argument about the practise in K. Edwards time, endeavoured to be proved from the troubles at Francofurt, is al∣ready answered: Your poores 1.123 indeavours, and your simple likely-ho••ds may well go together. Nor is there any thing in all that relation, which concernes this practise; more than a summary of the orders in K. Edwards booke drawne up by Knox and others of that crew, to be sent to Calvin; by his determinat•• sentence to stand or fall: where it is onely said, that the Minister is to stand at the North-side of the table. Which being a recitall onely of the Rubrick in the Common-prayer booke, makes but one Argument with the first; or helps, God wott, but very poorely for the proofe of that. But where you knock it on the head, with saying that the placing of the table end-long, with one end towards the East great window, was the last situation of that table in K. Edwards time; and callt 1.124 Miles Huggard for a witness: most sure Miles Huggard tels you no such matter.u 1.125 For thus saith Miles.

How long were they learning to set their table, to minister the said Communion upon? First they placed it aloft, where the high Altar stood. Then must it be set from the wall that one might go betweene: the Ministers being in conten∣tion on whether part to turne their faces, either to∣wards the West, the North, or South. Some would

stand west-ward, some north-ward, some south∣ward.

How say you now? Doth Miles say any thing of placing the table end-long? No point. He saith it was removed from the wall where at first it stood, that one might goe between the said wall and it; and so I hope it might standing North and South: but that it was placed endlong, not one word saith Miles.

Your out-works being taken in, come wee unto the fort it selfe, the Rubrick: where it is said, the Minister standing at the North-side of the Table, shal say the Lords Prayer. The Doctor answered this before in his Coal from the Altar, viz.x 1.126

That being in all quadrangular and quadrilaterall figures there were foure sides, though commonly the narrower sides be called by the name of ends: the Minister standing at the north-end of the table, doth performe the Rubrick, the table standing in the place where the Altar stood; as well as standing at the North-side, in case it stood with one end towards the East great window. And this he did conceive the rather▪ because that in the Common-prayer booke done into Latine, by the command, and authorized by the great Seale of Qu. Eliz. it is thus translated, Ad cujus mensae Sep∣tentrionalem partem, Minister stans, or abit orationem dominicam; that the Minister standing at the North-part of the table shall say the Lords Prayer.

This is the summe of his discourse: what reply make you? First, entring on a vaine discourse, touching the raptures of the soule, when it is throughly plunged in the study of the Mathematicks, and therein shewing your notorious ignorance, in mis-reporting the in∣ventions of Archimed••s and Pythagoras, which wee will tell you of hereafter; you fall on this at last for

the maine of your answer.y 1.127 Loquendum est cum vul∣go, when we speake to the people of a side, we must take a side as they take it; and that the Doctor was too blame to dispute out of Geometry against custome, and that with people which are no Geometricians:z 1.128 Poore subjects that are penally to obey Lawes and Canons, not being to be spoken to according to the Rules of Art.a 1.129 You tell us further, that every Art hath to it selfe its owne words of art, and thereupon produce an Epitaph on the Chanter of Langres, full of odde musicall notes, and pretty crotchets in that chanting faculty. And with another taleb 1.130 of Euclide, and certaine Diagrams drawne in the sand by the Egyptians; advise the Doctor to re∣member, that the Rubrick was written for the use of the English, and not of the Gyps••es. Of all this, there is little that requires an answer, consisting all of flourishes, and fencing-tricks; but not one handsome ward to keepe off a blow. For speake man, was that Rubrick written for the Laitie, or for the Clergie; for the poore subjects, as you call them, or a learned Ministery? I trust you are not come so far, as to beleeve that every Cobler, Tayler, or other Artizan, may take his turne, and minister at the holy Altar: though you have some∣thing here and there, which without very favourable Readers may be so interpreted. If so, as so it was, the Rubrick being onely made for the direction of the Clergie, and amongst those the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese, (whom I presume you neither will nor can condemne of so much ignorance:) why doe you talke so idly of poore subjects that are penally to obey lawes and Canons, and ignorant people that are not to be spoken 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Rules of Art?

But this, it seemes, hath beene your recreation

onely. Forc 1.131 not to dally with us longer, you tell the Doctor, that learned men in these very particular cere∣monies, which we have in hand, have appropriated the word sides to the long, and the word end, to the short length of an oblong square. This, if well done, is worth the seeing: and how prove you this? Gregory the 13. who had about him all the best Mathematicians in Europe, when he renewed (or changed) the Calendar, doth call them so in his Po••tificall. Non sequitur. This is the strangest sequele that I ever heard of. Nor can it possibly hold good, unlesse it had beene said withall, that in the setting out the said Pontificall, he had con∣sulted with those Mathematicians, in this very thing, by whose advise and counsell he renewed the Calendar. And be that granted too: what then? Why then say you, in his Pontificall he makes no more sides of an Al∣tar, ••han of a man, to wit, a right side, and a left side; calling the lesser squares, the anterior and posterior part thereof. For proofe of this, you cite him thus: Et thu∣ri••icat Altare undique ad dextrum & sinistrum latus, pag. 144. And then againe, in anteriori & posteriori parte Altaris, pag. 142. of your Edition, Venet. 1582. being in mine of Paris, 1615. pag. 232. & 247. But cleerely this makes good what the Doctor saith. For the anteriour part must needs be that at which the Priest stands when hee doth officiate; which by their order, is with his face to the East: and the posteriour, that which is next the wall, which pag. 183. you call the back-side of the Altar. And then it must needs be, that the two sides thereof, as they are called in the Pontificall, must be the North-end, and the South-end, which justifieth directly the Doctors words, when he affirmethd 1.132

that the Rubrick, (according to

the meaning and intent thereof) is aswell fulfilled by the Minister, standing at the North end of the Table, placed along the wall, as at the north side of the same standing towards the window.

I hope you have no cause to brag of this discovery. That which comes after, concerneth the translation of the booke of Common prayer,e 1.133 by Walter Haddon, as you con∣jecture: which you except against, as recommended to a few Colledges, and not unto the Church of Eng∣land: and yet acknowledging in your margin, that it was recommended unto all the Colledges, which are the Seminaries, no doubt, of the Church of England. 2. That it never was confirmed by Act of Parliament, or by K. Iames his Proclamation; but take notice of the authorizing thereof under the great Seale of Qu. Elizabeth, no lesse effectuall for that purpose than a Proclamation. 3. That in that translationf 1.134 the Ca∣lendar is full of Saints, and some of them got into red scarlet; which howsoever it may cast some scandall on the Queene, (whom you have a stitch at) is nothing to the prejudice of that translation of the Rubrick. 4. That D^r Whitaker, when he was a young man, was set by his Vncle, the Deane of Pauls, to translate it again into Latine, which makes you thinke that other version was either exhausted, or misliked. Misliked you cannot say, till you bring a reason; and if it was so soone ex∣hausted, it is a good argument that it was well done, and universally received. Lastly, you fly to your old shift, affirming, that those times considered, the Li∣turgie was translated rather to comply with the forraigne, than to reigle and direct the English Churches. Which were it so, yet it makes nothing to this purpose. For whether it be pars septentrionalis, the northerne part,

or latus septentrionale, the northerne side, it must be equally displeasing to the forraigne Churches, (for you meane onely those of the Church of Rome) in which the Priest officiating is injoyned to stand in medio Al∣taris, with his back towards the people; being a dif∣ferent way from that prescribed the Minister in the Liturgie of the Church of England. Certes you doe but dallie in all you say; and shew your selfe a serious trifler, but a sorry disputant.

Securi de salute, de gloria certemusg 1.135 I must have one pull more with you about this Rubrick; and since you give so faire an hint, about the Statute which con∣firmes it. The Parliament 1. of Qu. Elizabeth began at Westminster, Ian. 23. An. 1558. and there continued till the 8. of May next following: in which there passed the Act, for uniformity of Common prayer, and service of the Church, and administration of the Sacra∣ments, cap. 2. Together with this Act there passed another, inabling the Queene to delegate what part she pleased, of her supreame power in Ecclesiasticis, to such Commissioners as she should appoint, according to the forme in that Act laid down. Presently on the dissolving of the said Parliament, the Queene sets out a booke of Injunctions, aswell to the Clergie, as to the Laitie of this Realme: in one ofh 1.136 which Injunctions, it is cleere and evident, that howsoever in many and sundry parts of the Realme, the Altars of the Churches were removed, and Tables placed for the administration of the Sacrament: yet in some other places the Altars were not then removed, upon opinion of some other order to be taken by her Majesties Visitours. This put together, I would faine have leave to aske this question: The Rubrick ordering that the Minister should stand at the

north-side of the Table, (there where tables were;) and in so many places of this Kingdome, the Altars standing as before: where should the Minister stand to dis∣charge his duty? Not in the middle of the Altar, as was appointed in the Liturgie of K. Edw. An. 1549. That was disliked and altered in the Service-booke of the yeere 1542. confirmed this Parliament. Nor on the North-side, as you cal a side: for that supposeth such a situation, as was not proper to the Altar. Therefore it must be at the northern end, or narrower side there∣of, as before was said; or else no Service to be done, no Sacraments administred. The Parliament was so farre from determining any thing touching the taking downe of Altars, that a precedent Act 1 Mar. cap. 3. for punishment of such as should deface them, was by them continued. This was left solely to the Queene, the Metropolitan and Commissioners, to be done, o•• not done, as might seeme most convenient to them: and yet the Parliament confirmed that Rubrick for standing at the north side of the Table. And for the Queene, the B^p yeelds it in his letter, that shee and her Commissioners (or as your altered Copie hath it, she and her Counsell) were content the Altars should stand still as before they did: the Injunction leaving it as a thing indifferent, and of no great moment, so that the Sacrament be duely and reverently administred. Neither did the Commissioners in their Visitation, determine any thing for taking downe of Altars, where they found them standing, that wee can meet with in their Orders of the yeere 1561. Nor need you stick at the word Table, mentioned in the Rubrick, confirmed in that Parliament, as if that did imply, or intimate the necessary taking downe of Altars. For you your selfe

have told us, that sacrifice and Altars being relatives, no sooneri 1.137 was the sacrifice abolished, but these (call them what we will) are no more Altars, but tables of stone and timber; in the Epistle to the Vicar. So then, that which was once an Altar, when there was a sa∣crifice, (the sacrifice of the Masse you mean) is now be∣come a table only; whether of stone or timber, that's no way materiall: and therefore standing as they did when the Act was made, the Minister could not pos∣sibly officiate at the north-side, unlesse you call the nar∣rower end, a side, as the Doctor doth; and as your selfe doe, did you understand your selfe, out of the Pontificall. Besides, the meaning of the Act is to be considered, not the words alone: which was to fixe the Minister to some certaine posture. For in K. Ed∣wards first Liturgie, An. 1549. the Minister was ap∣pointed, as before is said, to stand in medi•• Altaris, with his back towards the people. After, when as the King had commanded to take downe the Altars, and to set up tables, then followed first a difference a∣bout the situation of those Tables; some being placed like Altars, and some like tables, according as we have it in the Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 700. Here∣upon followed that confusion which Miles Huggard speakes of amongst the Ministers themselves: some standing north-ward, some south-ward, and some west-ward. For remedy whereof, it was appointed in the second Liturgie, that hee, the Minister, should have some certaine point, whereupon to fixe: your selfe af∣firming,k 1.138 that this contention was determined by the Rubrick, still in force, for the North-side of the Table. So that the meaning of the Rubrick being onely this, to assigne the Minister some certaine point whereon to

fasten his aspect, in his officiating at the holy table▪ that meaning is aswell complyed withall, in standing at the north or narrower side thereof, placed along the wall; as standing at the longer side, with one e••d towards the East great window. Nay I will goe a lit∣tle farther, and put it to consideration, (and no more than so) whether the Rubrick ordering that the Mi∣nister shall stand at the North side of the Table, doth not imply the Tables standing Altarwise, close along the wall, if within the Chancell; and close to the partition, if within the Church. And I propose it on this ground: Because in case it had been meant in the composure of that Rubrick, that the holy Table should stand endlong, and farre off from the wall, or the partition, the fittest posture for the Minister had beene at the East-end thereof, with his face down∣wards, towards the people. Certaine I am, that in that posture he would be best both seene and heard of all the Congregation, (better by farre than standing at either side thereof either north or south) which seemes to be the thing most stood upon in the Bishops letter to the Vicar. But I propose this onely as a con∣sideration; I affirme it not.

Next, wee must follow you to the third Argument of the Doctor, drawne from the exercise of that su∣preme power in Ecclesiasticis, which is invested in the King. For grantingl 1.139 that the King may command a greater matter of this nature, than that the Table should be placed where the Altar stood: you onely seeme to doubtm 1.140 whether his Majesty hath any way decla∣red his pl••asure▪ that hee would have it so or not. Before you asked the Doctor where the King com∣manded it, as if not any thing but an expresse com∣mand,

had the power to stir you: when other men, as wise as you, have thought the intimations of a Prince, in mattersn 1.141 of indifferent nature, (as you acknow∣ledge this to be) sufficient inducements for a subject to conforme thereto. Now you have changed your style, and onely stand on the denyall, that his most sacred Majesty hath not in this case declared his plea∣sure: you meane, perhaps, not so declared it, as that it pleaseth you to obey his pleasure. The Doctor saitho 1.142 in briefe, that his sacred Majesty hath hereupon already declared his pleasure in the case of S. Gregories, and thereby given encouragement to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, to require the like in all the Churches committed to them. Your answer is as short, but not halfe so sweet,p 1.143 that it is most untrue, that his Majesty hath declared in that Act, one word of his plea∣sure hereupon: i. e. (as you expound your selfe) a∣gainst the contents of the Bishops letter. Most gravely spoken. What had his Majesty to doe with the Bi∣shops letter, that he should signifie his pleasure there∣upon, when as the merit of the same was not called in question? Aquila non capit muscas, you know the proverbe. The businesse then in question, was the standing of the Table in S. Gregories Church, which by the Ordinary there, was placed Altar-wise: and his most sacred Majesty did thereupon declare his plea∣sure, approving and confirming the Act of the said Or∣dinary. You chalenge this as most untrue, and present∣ly fall foule on the poore man, for libelling against the Bishop, malicious falsifying of his Authors in every page: and finally (your owne turne served) for com∣ming to that height of impudency, as ponere os in coelum, to out-face heaven it selfe, and mis-report the justice of

so divine a Maiesty. Why so? Because, say you, If we abstract from this Declaration, (which the bold man hath printed for an Act of Counsell) the allegations, which he, the said bold fellow, calleth the relations of both parties; and his Maiesties iust pleasure for the dis∣solving of the appeale: the remainder will prove a full confirmation of the Bishops letter. If so, thenq 1.144 frange leves calamos, & scinde Thalia libellos, the Doctor tooke much paines to little purpose. And that it is so, you are peremptorie, as in all things else, because the Declaration tels us,

That the liberty given by the Communion booke, or Canon, for placing the Communion Table in any Church or Chappell with most conveniencie, is not to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Parish, much lesse to the particular fancie of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinarie, to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing it self, and for the time when and how long, as he may finde cause.

These are his Ma^ties words indeed, men∣tis aureae verba bractcata, as you rightly call them: but they oppose not any thing that the Doctor saith. You finde not in the Doctor, that the placing of the holy table, or the interpreting of those Canons and Rubricks which concerne it, was either left to the discretion of the Parish, or to the particular fancie of any humorous person in the same: which is the onely thing which that part of his Majesties Declaration doth re∣late unto. That which the Doctor saith is this, that by the declaration of his Majesties pleasure in that pre∣sent businesse, there was incouragement given to the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries to doe the

like: i. e. to place the holy table in the severall Chur∣ches committed to them, as it was placed in S. Grego∣ries by the Ordinary thereof. This I am sure, his Ma∣jesties words, which you applaud so, doe not contra∣dict. And on the oth••r side, that the whole Declara∣tion laid together, gives that incouragement to the Ordinaries, which the Doctor speakes of, you might plainly see; but that you had no mind that any Ordi∣narie should be incouraged to so good a work; which you deride and scorn throughout your booke, as shall be shewn more fully in the next Chapter. Mean time, that all the world may see, how wilfully you shut your eyes, and stop your eares, against whatever is contai∣ned therein, which you like not of; I will once more set down the said Declaration, and after, gather thence some few observations, either to cure you of your wil∣fulnesse, or to shame you for it.

At VVhite Hall the third day of November, 1633.

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

THis day was debated before his Majesty sitting in Counsell, the question and difference which grew about the removing of the Communion table in S. Gregories Church, neer the Cathedrall Church of S. Paul, from the middle of the Chancell to the upper end, and there placed Altar••wise, in such maner as it stan∣deth in the said Cathedrall & Mother Church, (as also in all other Cathedrals, and in his Ma∣jesties

owne Chappell) and as is consonant to the practise of approved Antiquity. Which re∣movall and placing of it in that sort, was done by order from the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls, who are Ordinaries thereof, as was a∣vowed before his Majesty by D^r. King, and D^r. Montfort, two of the Prebends there. Yet some few of the Parishioners, being but five in num∣ber, did complaine of this Act by Appeale to the Court of Arches, pretending that the booke of Common-prayer, and the 82. Canon, doe give permission to place the Communion ta∣ble, where it may stand with most fitnesse and convenience. Now his Majesty having heard a particular relation made by the Counsell of both parties of all the cariage and proceedings in this cause, was pleased to declare his dislike of all Innovation, and receding from ancient constitutions, grounded upon just and warran∣table reasons, especially in matters concerning Ecclesiasticall order and government, knowing how easily men are drawne to affect novelties, and how soone weake judgements in such ca∣ses may be over-taken and abused. And he was also pleased to observe, that if those few Pari∣shioners might have their wills, the difference

thereby from the foresaid Cathedrall mother Church, by which all other Churches depend∣ing thereon ought to be guided, would be the more notorious, and give more subject of dis∣course & disputes that might be spared, by rea∣son of S. Gregories standing close to the wall thereof. And likewise for so much as concerns the liberty given by the said Common booke or Canon, for placing the Communion table in a∣ny Church or Chappell with most conveni∣ency: that liberty is not so to be understood, as if it were ever left to the discretion of the Pa∣rish, much lesse to the particular fancy of any humorous person, but to the judgement of the Ordinary to whose place and function it doth properly belong to give direction in that point, both for the thing it self, and for the time, when and how long, as hee may finde cause. Vpon which consideration his Majesty declared him∣selfe, That he well approved and confirmed the Act of the said Ordinary, and also gave command, that if those few Parishioners before mentioned, doe proceed in their said appeale, then the Dean of the Arches (who was then attending at the hearing of the cause) shall confirme the said Or∣der of the aforesaid Deane and Chapter.

This is the Declaration of his sacred Majesty, faith∣fully copyed out of the Registers of his Counsell-Table. Out of the which I doe observe, first, that the Ordinary did de facto, remove the Communion-Table from the middle of the Chancell, and place it Altar wise at the upper end. Secondly, that in the doing of it, they did propose unto themselves, the patterne not alone of their owne Cathedrall mother Church, but of all other Cathedralls, and his Ma∣jesties Chappell; and therewithall the practice of approved Antiquity. Thirdly, that his most excel∣lent Majestie upon the hearing of the businesse, de∣claring his dislike of all Innovations, did yet ap∣prove the order of the Ordinary; which shewes, that hee conceived it not to be any variance from the an∣cient constitutions of this Church. Fourthly, that all Parochiall Churches ought to be guided by the pat∣terne of the Mother Church, upon the which they doe depend. Fifthly, that not the people, but the Ordinary, is to interpret as well the R••brick as the Canon, touching the most convenient placing of the holy table. Sixthly, that i•• pertaineth to the place and function of the Ordinary to give directions in that kinde, both for the thing it selfe (how it shall stand) and for the time, when and how long, (it shall so stand) as hee findes occasion. And last of all, that notwithstanding any thing that was objected from the said Canon and Communion booke, his Ma∣jesty did well approve the Act of the said Ordinary; and not approve it onely, but confirme it too: giving command to the Deane of the Arches, that he should finally and judicially confirme the same, if the appeale were followed by the said Parishioners. This is, I

trow, a Declaration of his Majesties pleasure; not onely in relation to the present case, that of S. Gregories then and there by him determined; but to all others also of the same nature. Hee that so well approved that Act of the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls; would questionlesse approve the like in another Ordinary. ••or being the case is one, the Chappells Royall still the same, the Mother Churches no lesse to be followed by the Parochials in one place than others: why should you thinke the sentence or decision should be diffe∣rent? Or if you thinke this Declaration of his Maje∣sties pleasure is no incouragement to other Ordinaries, to bring the Parish-Churches to conforme with the Cathedrals in this particular; because his Majesty doth not say, in termes expresse, that hee would also very well approve the like in all other Ordinaries: you doe notoriously bewray, either your ignorance or wilful∣nesse, or some worse condition. For know you not that Maxime in the Civill lawes,r 1.145 Sententia Princi∣pis jus dubium declarans, jus facit quoa•• omnes? or that the Civill Lawyers say, Rex solus judicat de causa à jure non definita? If not, consult that learned case of the Post-nati, stated by the Lord Chancellour Egert••n, pag. 107. whom you have elsewhere cited, and must neede have seene. The Declaration of the Kings plea∣sure, what ever you thinke of it, is no triviall mat∣ter: and that not onely in such things as hee shall command, but such as he alloweth of, confirmes, and sets his approbation on them. The booke ofs 1.146 Insti∣tutes, if you went no further, could tell you somewhat to this purpose: Where it is said, (construe it as you list your selfe) Quodcunque Imperator per epistolam con∣stituit, vel cognoscens decrevit, (N. B.) legem esse con∣stat:

and is to stand for good in whatsoever case & busi∣nesse of the same nature; unlesse it be in personall mat∣ters of praemium & poe••a, and such like. Regall decisi∣ons in this kind, are like the ruled cases (as they cal thē) in the Common law; or the Responsa prudentum, the judgements and determinations of the Reverend Sages in that profession, extant in their Reports, Terme-bookes, and Commentaries: First made in reference to the cause which was then before them, but of au∣thority (as the least directive) in all other businesse of the like condition, till over-ruled in open Court by e∣quall both authority and judgement. And it is a good rule in such bouts as this,t 1.147 De similibus ad similia iu∣dicium & argumentatio recipiuntur. Last of all, for the Canon lawes, (that you may see how much all lawes condemne you for your obstinate folly) what is the whole body of the Decretals (one of the greatest parts thereof) but a collection of particular Rescripts and decisions made by severall Popes, upon particu∣lar and emergent cases? which being so made, are still remaining on record as judgements, sentences, or de∣cisions for all and every cases of the like condition; Volentes igitur ut hac tantum compilatione omnes utan∣tur, in judiciis & in scholis, as in the Proeme to the worke. This is, I trust, enough to sheild the Doctor from your fury, for saying onely that by this Declara∣tion of his Majesties pleasure, in that one particular, the Metropolitans, Bishops, and other Ordinaries had no small incouragement, to reduce private Parish Chur∣ches to an uniformity with their Cathedrall. Against the which, as you have not one word to say, but your owne ipse dixit, that it is untrue; and your own mecum st••tui, that nothing shall perswade you to the contra∣ry,

as long as M^r. Alderman of Gr: and the good peo∣ple of the Diocesse are not pleased withall: so might we well have saved this labour, and left you to the sin∣gularity of your sullen humour. And so I leave you for this time; onely, I cannot choose but marvell why you should lay such impudency to the Doctors charge, foru 1.148 misreporting the Iustice of so divine a Maiestie; which he reports in the same words he found it copi∣ed forth unto him; or calling him bold fellow, for prin∣ting it for an Act of Counsell, being a Declaration of his Majesties pleasure at the Counsell board, and which you call an Act your selfe, in the self-same page: or finally correcting him, for saying the Relation of both parties, not the Allegation; when as the word Relation onely is in his copy of the Act. Had he dealt so with you, you would have called him halfe a dozen times, Animal pugnacissimum, Gander, Common Barretter; and I know not what: you being in this case like the Cock, that is well fed with Garlick before the fight, who seekes to over-match his Adversary, rather with ranknesse of breath, than strength of body.

CHAP. III.

Of the Episcopall authority in points of Cere∣monie; the piety of the times, and good worke in hand; and of the Evidence produ∣ced from the Acts and Monuments.

The Minister of Linc▪ arts and aims, in the present businesse. Dan∣gerous grounds laid by the Minister of Linc: for overt••rowing

the Episcopall and Regall power.* 1.149 He misreports the meaning of the Councell of Nice, to satisfie his private spleene. The Mi∣nister of Linc: overthrowes his owne former grounds by new superstructures; protesteth in a thing against his cōscience. Char∣geth the Doctor with such things as he findes not in him. De∣nieth that any one thing may have two knowne and proper names; therefore that the Communion table may not be called an Altar also; and for the proofe thereof doth falsifie his owne authorities. The Doctor falsified againe, about the Canons of the yeare 1571. The Minister beholding to some Arch-Dea∣cons for his observations. Their curtalling of the Bishops pow∣er, in moving or removing the Communion table, to advance their owne. The piety of the times, and the good worke in hand, declared, & defended against the impious and profane de∣rision of the Minister of Linc: The testimonies of Fryth, and Lambert, taken out of the Acts and Monuments, cleared from the ••avils of the Minister of Linc: The Minister of Linc: ••uts off the words of Lambert, Fox, Philpot, and Bishop Lati∣mer, and falsifieth most foulely the Acts and Monuments: Corrects the Statute and the Writ about the Sacrament of the Altar: Pl••••ds poorely for the Bishop of Lincolne and Deane of Westminster, in the matter of Oyster-boards and Dressers: and falls imp••rtinently foule on the Bishop of Norwich.

SVnt quos curriculo pulverem Olympicum Collegisse i••∣vat, &c.* 1.150 For still I follow him up and down in his owne fancies. The Poet tels us of some men that had a great delight in the Olympick exercises, in hope to winne the prizes which were there proposed. Our Some-body, some Minister, some I know not who, hath an itch that way; a great desire to get the prize; and I cannot blame him. Terrarum Dominos evehit ad deos? What? to be hoysted up by the common people, as a man more than mortall, one so like the gods, that it is hard to say whether he or Iupiter be the better man? Who would not venture a fall, to finde such applause?

especially considering with what ••ase it may be at∣tained. And certainely in two things he is very like them. For he doth onely raise a dust, colligere pul∣verem, as the Poet hath it, and labour what he can evitare metam, to shoot as wide as it is possible from the mark he aimes at: not caring (so he looke like some furious driver, and make his chariot wheeles run on, and rattle,) how it succeeds with him in the maine of the Argument. In the last Chapter, as he tells us, he hatha 1.151 reduced into a body all the Regall; and in this, all the Ecclesiasticall power, which the poore fellow, whosoever he was that wrote the Coal from the Altar, conceived to be any way opposite to his Lord∣ships letter. In doing which, and patching up a bro∣ken Cento, out of particular and (by him) dismembred passages, collected here and there tumultuously from the Doctors booke; he raiseth such a filthy dust, that one can hardly see what it is he aimes at; and yet he may come off the better, if he misse his mark. How∣ever having undertaken him, we must do our best, to blow away this dust, and cleere the passage, that every one may see his courses, and what poore shifts he useth to attaine the prize he so much longeth for. The Doctor saith in severall places of his booke,

that the Ordinary, of his owne authority, may, if he please, appoint the Communion-table to stand Altar-wise: that his most sacred Majesty hath given in∣couragement to the Bishops and other Ordinaries so to do, in his decision of the case about S. Gregories: and therefore as the case then stood with the Doctors friend, being it was exacted of his Ordinary, it did require more of his obedience, than his curiosity. Otherwise should all men be so affected as to demur

on the commands of their Superiours, in matters of exteriour order and publick government, till they are satisfied in the grounds and reasons of the said commands; or should they flie off from their duty, at sight of every new device that was offered to them; there would soone be a speedy dissolution both of Church and State. And to that purpose there was used a speech from Tacitus,b 1.152 viz. Si ubi ••ubeantur quaerere singulis liceat, pereunte obse∣quio imperium etiam intercidit.

So farre you cite him rightly, (which I wonder at, being a fault you are not guilty of too often) save that you left out that of every new device, there mentioned: as loath to be con∣ceived c 1.153 a Divine of invention; affecting as you do, to be accounted one of judgement. What you replie to this we shall forthwith see: that which concernes the incouragement given to the Bishops and other Ordinaries, by his sacred M^tie, first being wiped off in this short parenthesisd 1.154 the contrary whereof you have shewed in the precedent Chapter. Short work, beleeve me, you have as readie a way to confute an Adversarie, as he that undertooke to confute the Cardinall, with these two words, Mentiris Bellarmine. But since you do appeale to your performance in that Chapter, we must observe your method also, (being you are so good an Artist) and ••ell you with more truth, though not more words, that I have shewne the contrary in the former Chapter, to that which you affirme in this so bravely.

Your answer to the next is more, but not more ma∣teriall. The Doctor told you that the Ordinary of his owne authority, might (if he pleased) appoint the Com∣munion table to be set up in the place where the Altar

stood, and there placed Altar-wise as in the Mother Churches, and the Cappels Royall. And he had good authority, he thought, for what he said; His sacred Majesty having so declared it in the decision of the case about S. Gregories: affirming then and there,

that it properly belongeth to the place and function of the Ordinary, to give direction in that point, both for the thing it selfe, and for the time, when and how long, as he may finde cause.

O mentis aureae verba bracteata,e 1.155 His Majesties Rescript fit to be written in plates of gold, is this, and this onely, con∣cerning the point of controversie. However you ap∣plaud not His Majesties approbation and confirmation of what was done by the Deane and Chapter of S. Pauls, in the case there handled; as crossing ex diametro your owne resolutions: yet this particular clause you have selected for an Euge tuum, a passage not to be extold sufficiently. But not being constant to your selfe, we must expect•• you should confute it, and so eate your words. Nor do you meane our expecta∣tion should be frustrate. For entring on a vaine discourse of Episcopall government, which is to be, you say, byf 1.156 Canan Law, not by Canon shot: you fall to telling us, that they neither have, nor challenge any exorbitant power ••ver their Clergie, Lawes, Canons, and Acts of Parliament (with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, (especially over ••ct of Parliaments;) that they must governe with a power of moderation, not of domination; that sitting in their Chaires they are to judge according to the Ca∣nons, and not of the Canons:g 1.157 that whatsoever power the Pr••lates had in former times of making Canons, and inflicting penalties in the same, it was all taken from them by K. Henry 8. and therefore if the Ordinaries

now command where there is no Canon in force, it layes a burden and grievance upon the subjects, from which they may appeale as a thing unjust; and Appeales being in the Canon Law, as ancient in the Church of God as the Canons themselves; and purposely allowed of, because possibly a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling and wasp••sh humour of his owne, in stead of a Canon; Hereupon you conclude, (whatever hath beene said of his sacred Majesty in those his mentis ••u••eae verba bract••ata) that it is untru••,h 1.158 that the Or∣dinary hath any authority of his own, (as he is Ordinary) to place the holy table in one or other situation. And therefore for your part, (Let the King use his plea∣s••••e in approving and confirming what he hath a minde to;)i 1.159 the Liturgie continuing as it is, you had far leiver ••e ••e that should obey (without offence to any man in place be it spoken) than he that should peremptorily command i•• this kind of Alteration. And as for the obedience of the people, the Ordinary may indeed expect it,k 1.160 If hee command according to the Lawes and Canon•• con∣firmed, for otherwise he is in his excentricks, and moves not as he ought to doe: Nay, if the Ordinary should command where there isl 1.161 no law or former Canon in force, being it is a thing unjust that he should so doe, it is by consequence, of a nature, whereunto obedience is n•• way due.m 1.162 Not that you would advise any Clergie∣••an of what degree soever, to oppose his Ordinary, either in this or any other particular of so low a nature; no God forbid; you have more wit I trow then so; but that you have a minde to lay such grounds, as any factious spirit may flie out upon, without more advi∣sing. For tell me, to what purpose else is all this dis∣course? His Majesty being the best Int••rpreter of the

Canon, hath left the matter absolutely unto the Ordi∣narie, as properly belonging to his place and function: yet if the Ordinarie doe command it, hee is in his ec∣centricks, commands a thing for which there is no law or Canon, judgeth not by the Canons, but of the Canons, governes his Clergie as a Generall doth his Army in a drunken mutinie; rather affects a domina∣tion than a moderation, and finally proposeth some∣what out of a peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour, to which obedience is not due, non si me obsecres. What is thisn 1.163 up and downe thinke you, I. C. or T. C. as you phrase it pag. 70? This is an excellent kinde of Argumentation, to weaken not alone the Epis∣copall, but the Regall power: as if the one had no au∣thority to interpret Rubricks; nor the other to pro∣ceed according unto that interpretation. Hee that can gather any better conclusion from such factious pre∣mises, must have some Lincoln Logick, which never grew in either University. I will not tell you here, that I conjecture you doe aime at some particular, in this extravagant discourse; as if all matters of the Church were carried in a higher straine than they ought to be; because in a more orderly and canoni∣call way than your queasie stomack can admit of: but I must tell you needs, that you have falsified most a∣bominably the Councell of Nice. You tell us, it is possi∣ble, a Prelate may propose unto himself some peevish, wrangling, and waspish humour of his owne in stead of a Canon; from which there lyeth an Appeale by the Canon Law: And for that purpose cite those words of the Councell of Nice, cap. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But as you doe translate them falsely, for your private aime; so you have made the Councell

say what it never meant. The Councell speaks not there of any possibility, that Bishops should propose unto themselves their owne peevish, waspish, wrangling humours, in stead of Canons. All that it saith is this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c.o 1.164

It is required that no man should bee excommunicate by his Bishop, either out of weaknesse, stomack, or any other kind of harshnesse; and that there should be Synods twice in every yeer, for the particular examination of such matters.

Call you this a proposall of their owne waspish, wrangling and peevish humours, in stead of Canons? But that you have a Licence to say what you list, you durst ne∣ver have said it.

And yet, I thinke wee may forgive you both this and that extravagant discourse which before wee spake of. For you have made us very faire amends, Amends for Ladies saith the play, in that which fol∣loweth; and so confute your selfe to save me a labour. You tell us out of B^p Bilson,p 1.165 That whatsoever by the lawes of God, the Prince, or the Church, is once constitu∣ted, is no longer to be mooted upon, but absolutely obeyed by all inferiours. And what God, the King, and the Church have directed, is not to be put to deliberation, but to execution. Your Author, a most reverend and lear∣ned man, speaks plainer than you doe, who doe affect most miserably in all your style too much of the Bar∣rister. q 1.166

What is decreed (saith hee) by Superi∣ours, must not by inferiours be debated whether it shall take place or no; but be rather obeyed with readinesse. So that in all cases determined by the lawes of God, the Church, and the Prince, consul∣tation is both superfluous and pr••sumptuous; exe∣cution is onely needfull.

And now I would as∣sume,

did I not thinke it would offend you, but by the King it is determined, that it doth properly belong unto the Ordinarie to place the Communion Table where hee thinkes most fitting, in reference both to place and time. Ergo, what ever you have said in your last discourse, is either to a very factious and unduti∣full purpose, or to none at all. In the next place, you grant it to be true as the Doctor saith,r 1.167 That in all doubts that doe arise, how to understand, doe, and execute the things contained in the Liturgie, a deciding power is left to the Bishop of the Diocesse: But then you say, s 1.168 It is as true, that the Doctor dasheth out with an &c. the maine pr••viso of this power; so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this booke. What then? There∣fore it is untrue, that the Ordinarie hath an authority of his owne (as he is Ordinarie) to place the holy Table in one or other situation, more than what is given him (in case of doubt and diversity onely) by the foresaid Preface. This is just hide and seeke, or the blind-mans buf••e. The Preface gives the Ordinarie a deciding power, in case of doubting or diversitie, and in that case onely: yet when there is a doubt, and difference about the pla∣cing of the Table, either he hath no such deciding po∣wer, or else may not use it. The Ordinarie hath no authority, but what is given him by the Preface, and the Preface gives him an authority which he may not exercise. These are like sick mens dreames,t 1.169 Cujus, velut aegri somnia, vanae Finguntur species, things of ill coherence. And if you hope to save your selfe by the proviso, so that the same be not contrary to any thing in this book, you are wide as ever: that contrariety which you dreame of, being taken away, by that decision of his Majesty, which you have honoured with your Eu∣logie

of mentis aureae. Nay you goe further at the last, and cut your owne throat with your owne weapon: u 1.170 Affirming that in a case of doubt, diversitie, and am∣biguity, the Bishop, or Ordinary, is punctually to be obey∣ed by those of his jurisdiction: excepting onely when his said command doth expresly oppose an Article of the beliefe, one of the ten Commandements, or the generall state and subsistence of Gods Catholike Church. I think you are not of opinion, that placing the Communion Table Altar-wise, is expresly opposite to either of the three here mentioned: being, as you professe else∣where, ax 1.171 circumstance indifferent. Nor shall you chall••••ge mee for leaving out your preamble to this ••esolution, If hee command according to the lawes and Canons confirmed: unlesse you can make good, which I thinke you cannot, that any thing commanded ac∣cording to the lawes and Canons confirmed, may op∣pose expresly an Article of the faith, &c. Besides, that in your following words you speake more generally, without relation unto lawes and Canons confirmed, y 1.172 that in all other cases whatsoever (except before ex∣cepted) that are dubious, the inferiour is bound to beleeve his superiour. This point, you say, well poised, would cleer a world of errors both in the Church and Common∣wealth; but was here handled either very imperti∣nently, or against your selfe. For your Protest, that z 1.173 you have not heard of any L^d Bishop that hath exa∣cted of his Diocesse, the placing of the holy table, as this man would have it;a 1.174 credat Iudaeus appella, Non ego. I am too well acquainted with you, to take up any thing on credit. For harke you in your eare, what meane the bleating of those sheepe?b 1.175 this fellowes jumbling against the King and the Bishop, tanquam Re∣gem

cum Regulo, like a Wren mounted on the feathers of an Eagle? You are not such a Sphinx, I hope, but you may meet an Oedipus at one time or other. And pray you tell me ere we part, whether did you borrow that trim conceit out of the Newes fromc 1.176 Ipswich, or lent you it to H. B. before hand, to try how it relished? An excellent piece it was, beleeve me, and such a one as doth deserve the guerdon in Virgils Eclogue,d 1.177 Et vitula tu dignus, & ille.

Having thus battered downe the Episcopall power, for placing or displacing the Communion Table, which yet stands fast enough for all your assaults; you sallie next upon the Vicar, Monsieur the halfe Vi∣car, e 1.178 as you call him. Angry you are at somewhat, but you dare not say what. Where doth the Doctor say (as you charge upon him) that Monsieur the halfe Vicar should have power to remove (of his owne head) the Communion Table; or to call that an Altar, which his Rubrick calls a Table, and no otherwise; to be inabled to doe this by the Canons, and to be Iudge, yea a more compe∣tent Iudge of the conveniencie of the standing thereof, than the Ordinarie, and his Surrogates; not permitting the Church-Officers to doe what they are injoyned by their immediate Superiours? These Myrmidons, I as∣sure you, swarmed out of your strong fancy onely, and are not extant any where in the Doctors booke, nor by you hudled up in your broken Cento. You one∣ly charge the Doctor there,f 1.179 for saying that the Vi∣car might desire to have an Altar, i. e. to have the Com∣munion Table placed Altar-wise, at the upper end of his Quire. And why not so? Desire to have a thing done thus, and thus, implies not any grant of power to doe it. To have a power of ones owne head to remove the

Table, and to desire to have the Table placed Altar-wise; are as farre asunder, as you are from obtaining the office of an Arch B▪ although perhaps you may desire it. Nor doth the Doctor say in ter••inis, that it was lawfull for the Vicar to call that a•• Altar, which the Rubrick calls no otherwise than a Table; but thatg 1.180 the Epistoler (whosoever he was) had no reason to suspect, that any propitiatory sacrifice was aimed at by the Vi∣car of Gr. although he used the name of Altar for the ho∣ly table. Or had the Doctor said so in terms expresse; had it been either ^h novum crimen, or ante h••c tempus inauditum? May wee be sure, upon your word, that becausei 1.181 names were first invented to divide and sever one particular thing from another; or that a thing can∣not have two proper and distinct names; therefore the holy Table may not be called an Altar. Is it not told us in the letter,k 1.182 that in the Old Testament one and the same thing is termed an Altar, and a Table: an Al∣tar in respect of what is there offered unto God; and a Ta∣ble, in respect of what is there (or thence) participated by men. And have not you your selfe informed us ou•• of Cardinall ••eron, that it is ever called a Table when it points to the Communion, and an Altar when it points unto the sacrifice, pag. 102. I see your memorie is not altogether so good as your invention. Severall re∣spects may give the ••ame one thing, two names; as se∣verall capacities to the selfe-••ame person. There is a licence to your booke, subsigned Iohn Lincoln Dean•• of Westminster. Bishop of Lincoln, and Deane of West∣minster, are two distinct and proper names; and yet no doubt you would be sorry they should not both be∣long to the same one man. Your other reason, that it should not▪l 1.183 be called an Altar, because the Church

in her Liturgie and Canons doe call it a table onely, is no suchm 1.184 strong one, but that an ordinary head-piece may be fit to hold it. The Liturgie and Canons both, doe call the Easterne part of the Church by the name of Chancelln 1.185. The Table in Communion time shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancell. So the Liturg••e. The Table shall be placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancell. So the Canonn 1.186. What then? Therefore, according to your reason, the Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Chancell onely; why doth the Epistoler so often call it a Quire, and you not check him for it? That which you bring us from Barba••us,o 1.187 that where wee have a Law and Canon to direct us, how to call a thing, we ought not to hunt after reasons and conceits to give it ano∣ther appellation; besides, that it is nothing to the pur∣pose, is by you falsified of purpose, to helpe at need. Barbatus hath not in your margin any one sylla∣ble, that lookes that way:p 1.188 Vbicunque habemus le∣gem vel Canonem, non debemus allegare rationem, nisi lege vel Canone deficiente. What hath this rule to doe with names and appellations, that speaks of neither? You should first learne to construe a piece of Latine, before you take upon you to be a disputant. There is another pretty fetch concerning Altars, which I will put off to the sixt Chapter, where wee shall looke on that discourse, which you have given us, piece by piece of the name of Altar, though sorry you should force me to waste my time in such a needlesse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as this is.

What followes next in your said Cento? Because q 1.189 for any thing the Canon tells us, the Vicar was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, than the

Bishops immediate officers the Church-wardens were, or ought to have: and that he did not any thing against the Canon, in causing the table to be disposed of to a more con∣venient place than before it stood in. Where finde you this? Not in the Doctor certainly, if you marke him well. The Doctor speakes not any thing of the Canons generally, (as you make him speak) but of that one particular Canon, which was alleaged in the letter. The Vicar, as before you charged it, desired to have an Altar, i. e. the Communion table placed Altar-wise at the upper end of his Quire. The Bishop reasoneth a∣gainst this out of the Canons, Anno 1571. that not the Vicar, but the Church-wardens were to provide (uten∣sils, saith your new Edition) for the Communion, and that not an Altar, but a faire joyned Table. The Do∣ctor hereunto replyes,r 1.190

that for any thing those Canons (and not the Canon) tell us, the Minister (as in this case the Vicar) was to have a greater hand in ordering the said table, being so provided, than the Church-wardens were or ought to have. And that the Vicar did not any thing in this case against the Canon (i. e. the Canon then proposed) for he provi∣ded not the table, but onely caused the table which he found provided, to be disposed of to a more con∣venient place than before it stood in.

Have you found any thing in those Canons that affirmes the con∣trary? If yea, why▪ doe you not produce it? If not, why make you such a clamour upon no occasion? The Doctor neither there, nor elsewhere, doth justi∣fie the Vicars Act, peromnia; nor indeed in any thing, if he did any thing in this, against the Canon: but saith in ones 1.191 place what he did▪ and in another what hee thoughtt 1.192 to be most convenient. Nor could the Do∣ctor

but conjecture out of the Preamble of the letter, that the Vicar did acquaint the Bishop with his desires, and found from him a toleration at the least, if not an approbation, as before I said. Yet upon this weake ground, which will beare no foundation of a solid building, you runne into a long and vaine discourse, of the authority and office of Bishops, Archdeacons, and Church-wardens: for ostentation of your reading, and that you have a minde to traduce the Doctor, as if hee held ••omeu 1.193 Iesuiticall tenets which might in time prove prejudiciall to the estate of Bishops. All that I can collect from thence, is, that you are beholding for your observations to one or more Archdeacons of your neere acquaintance: who were not willing, as it seemes, to take all this paines for you, and doe no ho∣nour to themselves. Yet let me tell you as a friend, you trust them somewhat further than a wise man would; and suffer them to plume themselves with the Bishops feathers: taking that power unto themselves, which you full faine would fixe originally in the Dio∣cesan. For what say you, from them, to the point in hand? whether or not the Vicar ought to meddle with the holy table. It is, say you,x 1.194 not the Ordina∣ry, but the Apostles themselves, that have turned the Parsons and Vicars from being active in this kinde, to their diviner meditations. It is not reason that we should leave the word of God to serve table. Since when, from the first Deacons, then appointed, to oury 1.195 present Arch∣deacons (in whose office the ancient power of the Deacons is united and concentred) Incumbents have beene exclu∣ded from medling with the Vtensils of the Church, or Or∣naments of the Altar. But see you not withall, that by this reason the Bishops are excluded also. For were

they not the Apostles, of whom it is affirmed, that it was no reason that they should leave the word of God to serve tables? And who sustaine the place and office of the Apostles at this day, if not the Bishops? See what credulity, and too much confidence in your friends hath brought upon you. I question not the matter now, meaning to meete with that hereafter. Besides, you suffer your Archdeacons to use the name of Altar without offence; which you conceived to be so capitall a crime in Monsieur Vicar.z 1.196 Ornaments of the Altar,—The very Altar it selfe with the Raile a∣bout it,—To move and remove the Altar: Altar thrice used in halfe a page, and you check not at it. The rest of your dismembred Cento, and the good sport you make your self, touching the advancing of the Church-wardēs above their Minister, & whatsoever other shreds you have patched together for your more delight, are not considerable in this place, or to this purpose. It is the Doctors undertaking, to answer to your argu∣ments, and not your scornes: Nor loves he, howso∣ever you like of it, to have his portion with those men that sit in the seate of the scornfull.

But non bonum est ludere cum Sanctis. What sport soever you are pleased to make with him; take heed how you offend against God and piety. The piety of these times, though you are fully bent to make sport therewith, is no such waking dreame, that you should set your selfe to d••ride it, in so grosse a manner. The Doctor tells us of that letter, that ita 1.197 was spread a∣broad of purpose, the better to discountenance that unifor∣mity of publike Order, to which the piety of these times is so well inclined;—of purpose to distract the people, and hinder that good worke is now in hand. This is the

game you have in sent, and having taken up the cry, follow it up and downe over all the booke: not here alone, where ex professo you pursue it, but pag. 188. 192. 197. 214. 228. &c. This, be it what it will, you tell us, is asb 1.198 yet in abeyante, pendant in the ayre, you know not where; and like yer long to fall upon our heads, but you know not when:c 1.199 that you have open∣ed your eyes as wide as possibly you can, but cannot disco∣ver it: Ord 1.200 if there be such an especiall inclination of these times to piety, it is a peculiar piety (you assure us so) differing from the piety of former times. And there∣fore you doe 1.201 reasonably presume that this good work in hand is but the second part of sancta Clara, with whom you make the Doctor tamper in points off 1.202 doctrine, as in the points of discipline with sancta Petra. But tell me I beseech you, conceive you uniformity, and uni∣formity of publike Order in the officiating of Gods di∣vine service, to be no good worke? And finde you not the piety of these times, inclinable in an higher degree to that uniformity, than any of the times before? When did you ever finde a King, that did so seriously affect Church-worke; or that hath more endeavoured to advance that decency and comlinesse in the perfor∣mance of divine Offices, which God expecteth and re∣quires, than his sacred Majestie? His owne example in the constant keeping of the houres of prayer, and most devout behaviour in the acts thereof: thinke you they are not sweet incitements unto all his subjects, to follow those most pious steps in the which he walks? g 1.203 Recte facere cives suos Princeps optimus faciendo do∣cet. His Majesties religious carriage in the house of God, and due observance of those Orders which the law requires in common people, is a more excellent

Sermon upon that text, than ever you yet preached on any. They must be needs exceeding dull, or some∣what worse, which will not profit very much by such heavenly doctrine. If you have opened your eyes so wide, as you say you have, it is not that you cannot, but you will not see it; and are growne blinde, not out of want of sight, but want of piety. Adde to all these, the Princely zeale of his magnificent heart, for the repai∣ring of S. Pauls; by which example, questionlesse, the other Churches in this land will fare the better. And adde to that, his Majesties most sacred care, that in all places where he comes in Progresse, what scantnesse of roome soever was wont to be pretended, no conse∣crated place shall bee prophaned by those imploy∣ments, to which they have beene put in the times be∣fore. And see you nothing all this while, no good worke, no piety? Then looke into those Countrey Churches, to which his Majestie in his times of Pro∣gresse repaires most frequently for hearing and atten∣ding Gods publike service: leaving the privacy of his owne Court, and presence, to set a copy to his people, how to performe all true humility and religious ob∣servations in the house of God. If you see nothing yet, and that there must be something which hath spoiled your eye-sight; it is the too much light you live in: by which you are so dazeled that you cannot see this part of piety, or else so blinded that you will not. And we may say of you in the Poets language, Sunt tenebrae per tantum lumen obortae. Then to goe forwards, descendo, can you remember any Metropolitan of and in this Church (and gather all your wits about you) which hath more seriously endeavoured to promote that uni∣formity of publike Order, than his Grace now being?

His cares and consultations to advance this worke, to make Hierusalem (if such as you disturbed him not) at unity within it selfe, are very easie to be seene: so easie, that it were sensibile super sensorium ponere, to insist long on it. The very clamours raised upon him, by those who love nor unity nor uniformity, and have an art of fishing with most profit, in a troubled water; are better evidence of this, than you have any in your booke to maintaine the cause. Nor heare wee any of the other bels, which are not willing for their parts to make up the Harmony; but that great Tom rings out of tune. For when did you or any other know the Prelates, generally, more throughly intent upon the work committed to them; more earnest to reduce the service of this Church to the Ancient Orders, ap∣pointed in the Common-prayer booke? It is not long since, that we had but halfe prayers in most Chur∣ches; and almost none at all in some, your friend I. Cottons for example. See you no alteration in this kinde? Is not the Liturgie more punctually observed of late, in the whole forme and fashion of Gods service, than before it was? Churches more beauti∣fied and adorned than ever since the Reformation; the people more conformable to those reverend gestures in the house of God, which though prescribed be∣fore, were but little practised? Quisquis non videt, coecus; quisquis videt, nec laudat, ingratus; quisquis laudanti reluctatur, insanus est;h 1.204 as the Father hath it. This, if ingratitude to God, and obstinate malice to his Church, hath not made you blinde, you cannot choose but see, though you would dissemble it: And if you see it, do you not thinke it a good worke? and is there not a piety of and in these times, which more

inclines to the advancement of that worke, than of the former? would any man, that onely weares a forme of godlinesse, make this his May-game; and scornefully intitle it thei 1.205 imaginary piety of the times, and the Platonicall Idea of a good worke in hand? Take heed, for vultu l••ditur pietas. Laughed you but at it in your sleeve, you had much to answer for; but making it your publick pastime, you make your selfe obnoxious to the wrath of God and man, both for the sinne and for the scandall. And as for the good worke in hand, in case you will not help it forwards, (as I doubt you will not;) doe not disturb it with your factious and schismaticall Pamphlets.

Having made merry with your friends, about the inclination of these times to piety, and the advance∣ment of so good a worke as the uniformity of publick order: you pass, I know not how, to the Acts and Monuments, and the examination of such passages as were thence taken by the Doctor. Perhaps you are a better Artist than I take you for: And being it is Art is celare artem, you meane to tender to the world such an Art of writing, as hath no art in it. But the lesse cunning, the more truth, as we use to say. If we could find it so, it were some amends; and though I see but little hope, yet I meane to trie. The Doctor told you in hisk 1.206 Coale from the Altar, that

not a few of those which suffered death for opposing the grosse and carnall doctrine of transubstantiation, did not onely well enough indure the name of Altar, but without any doubt or scruple called the Lords Supper sometimes a sacrifice, and many times the Sacrament of the Altar.

So that if they indured it well enough, in others, or used it themselves without

doubt or scruple; it is as much as was intended by the Doctor. And for the proofe of this, he first brings in Iohn Fryth, relating in a letter to his private friends, that they his adversaries examined him touching the Sacrament of the Altar; whether it was the very body of Christ, or no. These arel 1.207 you say their words, not his. Why man, whose words soever they were in the first proposall, doth not he use the same without doubt or scruple? finde you that he did stumble at them, or dislike the phrase? Had he beene halfe so quarrelsome at the phrase, as you are, he might have testified his dislike in a word or two; the Sacrament of the Altar, as they call it. Your selfe informe us from him, that in some cases, at sometimes, he used that qualification, as viz. p. 308. I added moreover that their Church (as they call it) hath no such power and authority, &c. An Argument there of his dissent, none here: their Church as they call it, there; the Sacrament of the Altar here; no dislike at all. You might have suffered the poore man to rest in peace, and not have called himm 1.208 to the barre to so little purpose. The second witnesse was Iohn Lambert, who also used the word or phrase with as little scruple.n 1.209 As concerning the other six Articles I make you the same answer, that I have done un∣to the Sacrament of the Altar, and no other. You quar∣rell this, as that before, being you sayo 1.210 their words, not his; and hereunto we make that answer as unto the former: They were their words in proposition, his in rep••tition; especially the repetition being such as s••ewed no dislike. But where you tell us of his An∣swer, p 1.211 viz. I neither can nor will answer one word; and thereupon inferre, Iohn Lambert answers there not one word for you: thats but a touch of your old trick, in cut∣ting

short quotations when they will not help you. Iohn Lambert being demanded, not whether he ap∣proved the name of Sacrament of the Altar, but whe∣ther he thought that in the Sacrament of the Altar, there was the very body and blood of Christ in likeness of bread and wine; replyed, I neither can ne will answer one word: what, ends he there, as you have made him? no, by no meanes: I neither can ne will answer one wordq 1.212 other∣wise than I have told you since I was delivered into your hands: which was, that he would make no answer of what hee thought, till they brought some body to accuse him. Iohn Lamberts other testimony used by the Doctor is, as followeth.

Christ being offered up once for all in his owne person, is yet said to be offered up, not onely every yeare at Easter, but also every day in the celebration of the Sacrament, because his oblation, once for ever made, is thereby represented.

Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 435. These words you challenge as not his. How so? Because it followeth in the place.r 1.213 Even so saith S. Augustin. Even so saith S. Augustin? what, and stops he there, as if he onely said those words from that Reverend Father? Had it beene so, we had lost nothing by the hand, the words being his in the Originall, and Lam∣berts in the Application: but it is not so. For thus it followeth in the place;

Even so, saith Augustine, is the Sacrament of Christs body, the body of Christ; and the Sacrament of Christs blood; the blood of Christ in a certaine wise or fashion.

You may call home the Montebank, (for ought I can see) which yous 1.214 bestow upon the Doctor; and keepe him to your selfe till the Doctor needs him. Touching Archbishop Cranmer, can you shew us any where,

that at the terme or phrase of Sacrament of the Altar, he did take offence? if not, you give the Doctor what het 1.215 there affirmes. And since on your discovery, which I thanke you for, I finde it was Iohn Fox, and not the Arch Bishop, which drew up those allega∣tions against the six Articles (which following so im∣mediatly on the Arch Bishops oppositionu 1.216 to those Articles, might very easily be mistooke for his, by one that is not so much studied in the booke as you seeme to be) wee have lost nothing by the change. I trow if M^r. Fox tooke no offence thereat, you will have little thankes for your great precisenesse. Oh but, say you, there followethx 1.217 such a peale after it, as none but a mad-man would cite him for this purpose: viz. This monstrous Article of theirs in this forme of word•• as it standeth, &c. What? doth Iohn Fox call it a monstrous Article, onely because the Sacrament is there called, the Sacrament of the Altar? If not, you might have kept your mad-man to your selfe, as you doe your Montebank. This monstrous Article of theirs in the forme of words as it standeth, is, that the Sacrament of the Altar is the very naturall body of Christ, the selfe same which was borne of the Virgin Mary. This you dash out with an &c. to make your partizans bele••ve, that no entitle the Lords Supper, by the name of the Sacrament of the Altar, was in Iohn Fox his judgement, a monstro•••• ••••ticle. Vt magno it populo.

In citi•••••••• ••ohn Philpot, you proceed accordingly. a 1.218 The D••••••••r told you out of him,

in what re∣spects the old Writers doe sometimes call the Sa∣crament of the body and blood of Christ, amongst other names which they ascribe thereunto, the Sacrament of the Altar.

To this you make reply,

b 1.219 that he hath dealt with Philp••t, exceeding hardly, cutting off the head and feet of his discourse, and thereby making the quotation, almost as true a Martyr, as the man himselfe. First for the head of his discourse, it is no more than this;

c 1.220 I must needs ask a question of my Respondent D^r. Chadsey, concerning a word or twaine of your supposition i. e. of the Sacrament of the Altar, what he meaneth thereby, and whether he take it, as some of the ancient Writers do, terming the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar.

This is the head. Whered 1.221 is the shrewd tale it hath to tell? Doth not the head confesse that it was called so by some ancient Writers? And what more finde you in e 1.222 the belly? Then for the feete. Demanding (as you make him say)

whether he tooke it as the Ancients did, or for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacra∣ment hangeth: and finding that they meant it this later way, he declares himselfe, Then I will speake plaine English, that the Sacrament of the Altar, is no Sacrament at all.

Had you reported Philpot rightly, we should have no great cause tof 1.223 like him: but it is you that martyr the quotation, and not the Doctor.

His question was,g 1.224 whether they tooke it other∣wise than the Doctors did, as for the Sacrament of the Altar which is made of lime and stone, over which the Sacrament hangeth, and to be all one with the Sacrament of the Masse, as it is at this pre∣sent in many places. And finding that they tooke the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Masse to be all one; then, quoth Philpot, I will speake plaine English, the Sacrament of the Altar which yee reckon to be all one with the Masse, once

justly abolished, and now put in full use againe, is no Sacrament at all, neither is Christ present in it.

See you Sir, how you cheat and abuse your Reader, lea∣ving out, in the question, and to be all one with the Sa∣crament of the Masse; and in the answer, that they tooke the Sacrament of the Altar, and the Sacrament of the Masse to be all one; and in the resolution, which yee reckon to be all one with the Masse once justly abolished? You should have dealt more faithfully in your quota∣tions of those bookes, in which each petty Chapman will finde your falshood.

The other passage which you cite from the said Ioh•• Philpot, out of the Acts and Monuments, part 3. pag. 553. viz. as touching their Sacrament, which they terme of the Altar; and so make it their terme, not his; that is answered in, and with the former. Hee doth not say, The Sacrament which they terme of the Altar; but their Sacrament which they so terme, that is, the Masse. The Sacrament of the Altar was the Fathers language; to call their Masse so, was their owne. Your other instance touching Philpot, out of the same part, pag. 571. we shall see hereafter. Concerning Bp Latimer, the Doctor told you,h 1.225 that hee plainly granteth, that it (i. e. the holy Table) may be called an Altar, and so the Doctors call it in many places; but there is no propitiatory sacrifice but onely Christs. You, in your repetition, leave out this, It may be called an Altar, and make the Doctor say no more, than that old Latimer plainly granteth, that the Doctors call it so in many places: and thereupon inferre, he doth not i 1.226 call it so himselfe. Then for the Doctors, (having first called upon him to speake truth, and shame the de∣vill, for he is the old clipper of speeches) you tell us that

it followeth in old Latimers words, that they may be deceived in some points, though not in all things: I be∣leeve them when they say well, or as it is in the margin, k 1.227 Doctores legendi••s••nt cum venia; which you con∣strue thus, the Doctors must be pardoned if they some∣times slip in their expressions. No matter for the mar∣gin, that comes out of season. I trust you will not ju∣stifie all the marginall notes in the Acts and Mon. But as for Latimers speech, that they might erre in some points, though not in all things; it seemes hee did not thinke that they erred in this; himselfe affirming positively, that it may be called an Altar, as the Doctors call it; though you leave that out. You may take with you home the old clipper of speeches, to wait upon the Mountebank, and the Madman, that are there alrea∣dy. To the first placel 1.228 alledged from B. Ridley, viz. that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the very body and bloud of Christ; you answer onely as before, that they are their words, and not his;m 1.229 the words articulated upon him, and not his own. But whose soever they were in the proposition, he useth them without doubt or scruple in the repetition; which was the onely point that they were produced for. Against the other passage of that Reverend Prelates, that the word Altare in the Scrip∣ture doth signifie as well the Altar whereupon the Iewes were wont to offer their••burnt sacrifices, as the Table of the Lords Supper; and that S. Cyril meaneth by this word Altare, not the Jewish Altar, but the Table of the Lord, &c. you have nought to answer: confessing plainly thatn 1.230 he saith as the Doctor doth. Which is the onely faire dealing he hath found yet from you; though after you would faine retract,o 1.231 affirming that the B^p of Lincoln would smile very heartily, to see

that such a passage, as this is, should be brought by the Doctor, to defend his Altars. Let them laugh that winne.

That which comes next after, is the Act of Parlia∣ment, 1 Edw. 6. cap. 1. of which the Doctor tells us, p 1.232 that

it was resolved in the same, that the whole Communion should be restored, which in effect was a plaine abolition of the former Masse; yet the Act was entituled, An Act against such persons as shall speak irreverently against the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, commonly called the Sacra∣ment of the Altar. Hee tells us also, that in the body of the Act, that there was a Writ determined of, up∣on such delinquencies, wherein it is expresly called Sacrosanctum Sacramentum Altaris: and that the said Act being repealed 1 Mar. cap. 1. was after∣wards revived by Qu. Eliz. and every branch and member of it, 1 Eliz. cap. 1.

So that the Act being still in force, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is to this day entituled in the Statute law, the Sacram••nt of the Altar. This Statute you affirme to be produced by the Doctors with the same felicity as the Martyrs were,q 1.233 that is, to witnes point blank against himself: the D^r, on∣ly peeping over the wicket, but, as you say, not daring for his eares to open the doore, and looke into the body of it. Why doe you thinke the Doctor should be such a flincher? First, as you say,r 1.234 because the Sacrament of the Altar was not the name, but the addition onely to the name of the blessed Sacrament; the very name it self being the Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ: the one the name, the other thes 1.235 nick-name, as you call it. This said;t 1.236 you fall upon the Doctor, and bid him come with shame enough into the body of the Act, and

see what impostures he printeth for the people: because for••ooth it is there called the comfortable Sacrament of the body and bloud of Christ, commonly called the Sacra∣ment of the Altar, and in Scripture the Supper and Table of the Lord. Good angry Sir, doe you find any imposture here on the Doctors-part? Affirmes hee otherwise, than that the Sacrament of the Lords Sup∣per was, and is by that Statute (still in force) entituled also by the name of Sacrament of the Altar? It is, you say, a penall law, and being it was a penall law, it was to speak ad captum vulgi. Doe you not call to mind, that you told us lately of the Queenes Injunctions,u 1.237 that they were directed to her Subjects, not unto her Mathe∣maticians; and of the Rubrick in the Liturgie, that it was made for peoplex 1.238 that were no Geometricians: and then conclude the point out of Chancellour Egerton, thaty 1.239 words must be taken sensu currenti, custome and use being the best expositor both of Lawes and words? Take the Impostor home with you to make up the messe; and then you have a Mountebank, a mad man, the de∣vill an old clipper of speeches, and the said Impostor to keepe you company.

You challenge upon all, and on no occasions, a spe∣ciall interest in antiquity; and cite, as you have cause sometimes, some of the Ancients that call it the Sa∣crament of the Altar: yet tell us, upon better thoughts, that it is called so indeed, but not by the law of God,z 1.240 nor by the law of man; but commonly, that is, by the common error and Popery of these times. The Papists are behol∣ding to you, for giving them such interest in the An∣cient Fathers. The Fathers call it so, and it was cal∣led so only by the common error and Poperic of these later daies. Doe not you make the Fathers exceeding

young, or Popery exceeding old, in that you make the Fathers and Popery of an equall standing. Your slender observation, that in those times this very Sacrament was called the Masse, and allowed to be called so by Act of Parliament, (you meane it is so called in the Liturgie, confirmed that Parliament, 2. & 3. Edw. 6. c. 1.) is not worth the noting. Yet thereupon you make this inference, that if the Doctor shall report of you, that you have said Masse, when you have onely admi∣nistred the Communion, you will have your remedy against him, as in case of slander. And well you may. You know that Statute is repealed, there being another Liturgie confirmed by Parliament, which makes void the old. But so it is not with the Statute touching the Sacrament of the Altar, which is as much in force as the second Liturgie. Nor need you feare that any man will report of you, that you have said Masse, when you have only administred the Communion: though some perhaps may say (and bid you take the remedy that the law allowes you) that you, or some good friend of yours, have offered to say Masse, there where you ought to have administred the Com∣munion onely. Be not too busie on your chalenges, as you love your selfe; lest some adventurous Sword∣man bid you doe your worst, and take up the wa∣sters.

As for the Writ, directed in the body of the Act to my LL. the Bishops, you say it doth nota 1.241 call it (as the Doctor falsifyeth the Act) Sacramentum Altaris, but onely that it was grounded on the Statute made con∣cerning the Sacrament of the Altar. Why Sir, the Doctor doth not say, that the Writ calls it so expresse∣ly; b 1.242 but that it is expresly called so in the Writ.

And if you have no better answer to the Writ, than unto the Statute, both Writ and Statute will hold good against all your Cavills: and the poore Doctor may bec 1.243 Lawyer good enough to defend the Writ, al∣though there were no Precedents thereof in the booke of Entries. You saw the weaknesse of this plea, and thereupon you adventure on a further hazard. You tell the Doctor, elsewhere, of his great presumption in offering tod 1.244 correct Magnificat: and that being never in such grace, as to be made Lord Keeper of the great seale of England, hee 1.245 should presume to give a man a call to be a Iudge, who died but an Apprentise in the lawes. Yet now you fall on both those errours, of which you have already pronounced him guilty. For you must needs correct the Statute, which the whole Parliament (wiser I take it than your selfe) hath thought fit to stand: and tell us of the Writ, (which yet my Lord B^p of Lincoln, when he was Lord Keeper, had no power to alter) that itf 1.246 ought to be issued con∣tra formam Statuti concernentis sacrosanctum Sacra∣mentum corporis & sanguinis Dominici; whereas the Statute gives no warrant for any such Writ to be issu∣ed from the Court of Chancery. Had you authority of making either Writs or Statutes, I doubt not but your first Statute should be this, that it should be lawfull for any man wheresoever, or whensoever he saw the ho∣ly Table placed Altar-wise, to call it a dresser; and then a Writ to be awarded against all those that should speak unreverently of your said service of the dresser. At least it should and might be lawfull for the rude people so to call it, and none so bold as to controule them. On them indeed you have trans-ferred it, in your new edition of the letter, to excuse the Bishop:

but then you never tell us, as you might have done as well in the same Edition, how sorely they were repre∣hended by the Bishop for it. Here very unseasonably, and by someg 1.247 Susenbrotus figure, you have brought it in; and seeme exceeding angry (as I think you are) that it should be so Prynned and pinned on the Bishops sleeve. But be not so extreamly angry though mass: Prynne may furnish you with as good a note as that when occasion serves; and recompence you for the use of your Dresser by some trick of law. But where you say, thath 1.248 if one Bishop of Lincoln, and one Deane of Westminster, shall speake irreverently of the Protestants table, (I thought assuredly, it had been the Lords Ta∣ble) calling it oyster-table, and oyster-boorde; by this new figure of the Doctors, all Bishops and Deanes of those two places must till the end of the world be supposed to doe so: you make a strange non sequitur which the Doctor meant not. Hee knowes there have beene many Bi∣shops and Deanes of either, of such a noted piety, as no man can suppose it of them. All you can thence conclude is this: that as there was a Bishop of Lincoln, and a Deane of Westminster that called the Lords table standing Table-wise, or in the middle of the Chaun∣cell, by the name of oyster-boorde: so to cry quitts with them, there is (as you have now discovered him) one Bishop of Lincoln and Deane of Westminster, that calls it standing Altar-wise, by the name of Dresser. As for Iohn Fox his marginall notes of the blasphemous mouth of D^r Weston, (the Deane of Westminster) calling the Lords table an oyster-boorde, pag. 85. and Bishop White, (then Bishop of Lincoln) blasphemously calleth the boorde of the Lords Supper an oyster-table: those you may either take or leave, as your stomack serves you.

And sure it serves you very well, you had not falne else on the B^p of Norwich with so good an appetite, and furnished some of your good friends out of the Index of your Author, with an excellent note, against the next Edition of the Newes from Ipswich. But this is not the onely thing wherein H. B. and you have im∣parted notes to one another; as may most manifest∣ly be discerned in that generall Parallel, which I have elsewhere drawne betweene you. At this time I shall onely note how much you are beholding unto your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the back-doors of your books, your Indexes. Herei 1.249 we are furnished with a note out of the Index of Iohn Fox, touching a Bishop of Norwich his send∣ing forth letters of persecution. Pag. 129. you certifie us from the authority of the same learned Index, that Bi∣shop Ridley ordered the Communion Table to be pla∣ced, not Altar-wise, but as a Table. Nor could you en∣ter into the Fathers but by this back-doore, and there you found by chance (such good luck you have) that, Sacrificium Altarisk 1.250 was foysted into the Index of S. Austin, by the Divines of Lovaine, as into others of the Fathers by the Priests and Iesuites. We now perceive what helps you had, to clog your margin with such a numerous and impertinent body of quotations, as serve for very little purpose, but to make a shew; a ge∣nerall muster, as it were, of your mighty reading.

CHAP. IV.

Of taking down Altar•• in K. Edw. time; altering the Liturgie first made; and of the 82. Canon.

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

HItherto we have followed you up and downe ac∣cording as you pleased to leade the way; and

seene what Arguments you had against the placing of the holy Table Altar-wise,* 1.251 borrowed from the Regall and Episcopall power: or rather how you answer the Doctors Arguments from thence derived. We have gone also overall your Cavils, devised a∣gainst his evidence from the Acts and Monuments; wherein he shewed you how indifferently, those holy men, Fryth, Lambert, Philpot, Latymer, and Ridley, used the name of Altar, calling the blessed Sacrament, the Sacrament of the Altar, without doubt or scruple. And howsoever you endeavoured to stop their mouths, that so they should not speake at all; or bribe them, that they might be drawn to serve your turne: yet they have shewne themselves right honest men, and stood to all things which they said at the first re∣port. You may do well to deale more faithfully here∣after, a 1.252 in your quotations of those bookes, wherein all sorts of men are so throughly versed. We also have made good the Statute, touching the Sacrament of the Altar, and the condition of the writ in the same awarded, from your vaine assaults; by which you cannot but perceive, that if a man should call the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, by the old knowne and common name, (as your selfe confesseth it to be) of Sacrament of the Altar; the Law will be his warrant in it against all your fury. So farre we have gone after you in your owne Method. But now we will crave leave, to col∣lect out of you into one body, what ever more occurres betweene the Doctor and your selfe, of the point in hand, as it relates unto this Church, the Li∣turgies, and Canons of the same; before wee looke abroad into forreine parts. And this we shall the ra∣ther do, because you brought us in your last Chapter,

through the Acts and Monuments, into the times of K. Edward the sixt, and Qu. Elizabeth: whom we are loath to part withall, before we have examined every passage which concernes those times and them that followed. First then, besides the statute before remem∣bred, enacted by K. Edw. 6. and revived afterward by Q••. Elizabeth, wherein the name of Sacrament of the Altar is contained expresly: the King did set out certaineb 1.253 Injuctions, in the said first yeere of his raigne, where it is called the blessed Sacrament of the Altar. And in the Liturgie of the yeere 1549. being the third yeere of that Kings raigne, it is agreed upon both sides, that the holy Table is generally called an Altar: every where called an Altar, as in the first, and almost every where, as in your second Edition of the Bishops Letter. Nor was it to be doubted, but that the old Altars being standing, the old name continued. The difference is, both for the time, how long they stood; and for the manner, how they were taken downe; and for the Liturgie it selfe, on what occasion it was changed.

First for the time, the Bishop tels us in his letter, that they stood a yeare or two in King Edwards time: Now you enlarge the time, to foure yeeres, as the D^r. doth: sayingc 1.254 they stood three or foure yeeres before the Kings declaration; but in the same you tell us also, that they stood not one compleat yeere, before the godly consideration of the people (that is, as you expound your selfe, the irregular forwardnesse of the people) had taken them to taske. That they stood foure yeeres at the least, the Doctor proves by an historicall deducti∣on out of the stories of those times.d 1.255 In which it doth appeare that An. 1547. the Act of Parliament

was passe, wherein it was intituled the Sacrament of the Altar: that An. 1548. the Common-prayer booke was confirmed, although not published till the next, then neere at hand, which was 1549. where the word Altar is oft used, everywhere, or almost everywhere, you know not which. That in the said yeere 1549. an Order came to B^p. Bonner from the Lords of the Councell, for abrogating private Masses, wherein it was appointed that the holy blessed Communion be ministred at the high Altar of the Church, and in no other place of the same, Act. and Mon. part. 2. p. 662. And finally, that in the fourth yeere of his raigne (Novemb. 24. 1550) there came an Order from the Councell to B^p. Ridley, (who succeeded Bonner) for taking downe the Altars in his Dioces. p. 699. which order comming to the B^p.e 1.256 with certaine reasons also sent from the Lords of the Councell, the fore∣named B^p. of London, as the storie tels us, did hold his Visitation,

wherein he did exhort those Churches in his diocess, wherein the Altars did re∣maine, to conforme themselves unto those other Churches which had taken them downe, and had set up in stead of the multitude of their Altars one decent Table in every Church.

Which exhortation, as it seemeth, did prevaile so farre, that not long after the Altars were taken downe, and Tables set up in the Churches. That it was done thus in all other dioceses, the Doctor finds not any where, but in the letter to the Vicar: where it is said indeed, and no more but said, that on the Orders of breaking downe Altars, all dioceses did agree upon receiving Tables; all dioceses aswell as that of London, as your corrupted Copie hath it. For proofe of which, as you have

falsified the Bishops letters to bring it in; so you have falsified the Acts and Monuments to make it good. For where the words run on in a continued stile or sense; you stop them where you list, to make them speake that, which they never meant. The words run thus in the Editionf 1.257 which you choose to make up the matter.

Furthermore in the yeere next follow∣ing, 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking downe of Altars in Churches, and setting up the Table instead of the same, unto Nicholas Ridley, who being Bishop of Rochester before, was then made B^p. of London in Bonners place: the Copie and contents of the Kings letters are these as followeth.

Here, say you,g 1.258 the full point should be, at setting up the Table instead of the same. And then a new period to begin with the following words, unto Nicholas Ridley, &c. By this device you thinke to have wonne the day, not seeing that by this fine fancy, you have made non-sence of the first period, and very strange English in the last. For let the first be thus;

Furthermore in the yeere 1550. other Letters likewise were sent for the taking down of Altars, and setting up the Table in stead of the same:

and then we shall have letters sent, to we know not whom; which would be answered and o∣beyed, we know not when. Then take the second by it selfe; unto Nicholas Ridley (who being B^p. of Ro∣chester before, was then made B^p. of London in Bonners place) the Copie and contents of the Kings Letters are these as followeth: and then you set the Cart be∣fore the Horse, and give us such a kind of English, as is not justifiable by the grammar of the English tongue. Besides which handling of your Author, you venture on an affirmation that you have no ground

for; nay I am sure you know the contrary to what there you say. You cite ush 1.259 elsewhere in your booke, the third Sermon of B^p. Hooper upon Ionah, preached before K. Edw. An. 1550. say you, An. 1551. saith M^r. Prynne, whose account I follow. And in that Sermon,

It were well then (saith he) that it might please the Magistrates to turne the Altars into Tables, according to the first institution of Christ, to take away the false perswasion of the people, they have of sacrifices to be done upon the Altars. For as long as the Altars remaine, both the igno∣rant people, and the ignorant and evill perswaded Priest, will dreame alwaies of sacrifice.

By which it is apparent, that whatsoever had beene done by ••^p. Ridley, all other dioceses, aswell as that of London, did not agree on putting downe of Altars, and setting up of Tables, as you rashly say. Nor is it likely that the Altars generally were taken downe throughout the Kingdome, untill the second Liturgie was confir∣med by Parliament, which was not till the yeere 1552 as you say your selfe.

Next for the manner how they were taken downe, you tell us in the Bishops letter,h 1.260 that the people being scandalized herewith (i. e. with Altars) in Country Churches, first beats them downe de facto, then the Supreme Magistrate, by a kind of Law, puts them downe de jure. Your Copiei 1.261 stilo novo relates it thus, as viz. that the people being scandalized herewith in Country Churches, first, it seemes, beat them downe de facto; then the Supreme Magistrate, (as here the King) by the advice of Archb. Cranmer and the rest of his Counsell did, An. 1550. by a kind of Law put them downe de jure, 4. Ed. 6. Nov. 24. This alteration you

have made to shift the scene a little, and carry this tumultuous breaking downe of Altars, which you here describe, from hence to Germany. For you per∣ceive by this, that he relates in the first place,k 1.262 to the reformation of Altars beyond the seas (because he speakes of Supreme Magistrates,) which the people began by way of fact, before the Magistrates established the same by way of Law. And this, you say, Luther complaines of against Carolostadius, that he chose rather to hew down, than dispute downe Altars. No question but the Angels which removed our Ladies chamber, from her house in Bethlem ^l unto her Chappell at Loretto, assisted you in the performance of this miracle. It could not possibly be the worke of a mortall man, to shift so suddenly a businesse of this weight, from England, to the parts beyond sea.m 1.263 Nec vox homi∣nem sonat. Happy man be your dole, that are so high∣ly in the favour of your friends and followers, that whatsoever you say unto them is received as Gospell. You had not else adventured on so fine a Legend, but that you can command beleefe, even from very Infidels.n 1.264 Tam facilis in mendaciis fides, ut etiam crediderint alia monstrosa miracula. But tell me be∣tweene you and me, I will keepe your counsell; how can this businesse relate unto those of Germany? be∣cause, say you, he speakes of Supreme Magistrates. Why man. Your owneo 1.265 edition hath it Magistrate, not Magistrates; and will you flie off from your owne? Besides you tell us in the words immediatly before, that in K. Edwards Liturgie of 1549. it is al∣most every where; but in that of 1552. it is no where called an Altar, but the Lords boord. Then you go on, and aske, why so? and presently returne this answer,

because the people being scandalized herewith in Country Churches, first it seemes beat them downe de facto; and then the supreme Magistrate, &c. Kind-hearted Ger∣manes, that liking not of Altars in K. Edwards Litur∣gie, would beat them downe at home, in their owne Countries, because the people (which they never heard of) were scandalized herewith in England. Faith tell mee, doe you not thinke them very honest fellowes, and that a dozen of Grantham Ale were well bestowed upon them, by the Alderman there, for do∣ing such an excellent piece of service, to promote the cause? I need not tell you more of this trim inven∣tion, which made you falsifie the letter, with a long Parenthesis, as here the King, &c. to bring in this Pa∣geant. Onely I shall advise you as a speciall friend, to take a care you see it entred in the next edition of the Acts and Monuments, which every time it comes into the world, growes bigger, by such hands as yours; and will, no doubt, in time grow great, and bep 1.266 Li∣vius ingens.

Well then, the Altars in the Church of England being thus beaten downe by the high-Germanes, what did the English doe themselves? No doubt but they did beat them downe too; and so they did: the one, in your imagination onely, that dainty forge of new devices; the other in very deed, de facto. And then the King came after with his bottle and bag, to learne of such good teachers what he was to doe in the case de jure. First beaten downe de facto, then put downe de jure: first by the people, after by the King; who as the Doctor told you in his Coale from the Altar, could not but come too late to carry any stroake at all in so great businesse, which they had done before he came.

I warrant you, the King, being young, could not con∣taine himselfe within doores, but must needs runne to see the sport, when hee heard them at it: and being come, thanked his good people for their paines, and so sent them home. But that your thoughts were ta∣ken up amongst the Germans, you should have told your storie thus: viz. That first the people beat down some de facto, and then the King much taken with the example, put downe the rest de jure, and by publick order. Yet had you told it thus, the Doctor possibly might have questioned you for the relation: desiring you, as formerly, to tell where you find it: either that they were beaten downe, or beaten downe de facto by the common people. That theyq 1.267 were taken downe in the most part of the Churches of this Realme, the Kings let∣ters tell us: but taking downe implies an orderly pro∣ceeding; beating downe, hath none. And the Kings letters say withall, that they were taken downe on good and godly considerations: which as the Doctor thinks,r 1.268 implyes some order and authority from them that had a power to doe it; some secret Order possibly, from the Lord Protectour, or those that after signed the letter, who meant to try this way how the thing would relish, before they would appeare in it, or be seene to act it. Or put the case, some Bishops now, should on some grounds to them best knowne, give way unto the Clergie of their severall Diocesses, to place the Table Altar-wise; and then the King should signifie to the Bishop of Lincoln, that it was come un∣to his knowledge, that in many places of the King∣dome the holy table was removed to the Altar place on certain good and godly considerations: would this be an Argument unto future ages, that this was done

de facto by the Countrie people? Besides, why should you think the people in most places of the Realme, were scandalized with Altars in the Countrie Churches; when in so many places of the Realme, they tooke up Armes, because the Masse was taken from them. Those enterprises which you speake of, of some cer∣taine (^s) Zelots in the beginning of K. Edwards, Qu. Maries, and Qu. Elizabeths raigne, which sometimes you call good and godly considerations, and sometimes the irregular forwardnesse of the people, were before any law established: and therefore of no kin to these. Things were now setled by a law, and by that law the Altars were to stand as before they did. Nor durst the people in the most part of the Churches of the Realme have taken downe the Altars then by law established, on any private consideration how good so∣ever: therefore I should rather think that it was done in some places, and by authority from some Ordina∣ries, such whom the Lords found fittest for the altera∣tion. You cavill with the Doctor, and reckon itt 1.269 a∣mongst his fainings, for telling you what fine doctrine this was for the common people; viz. this your report of beating downe the Altars in the Country Churches: wherein he failes, you say, because the writer onely mentioneth it as a matter of Fact. But being it was such a Fact, as drew on the law, the kind of law you tell us of, which after put them downe de jure: think you to meet with no apt schollers, that can tell how to raise a doctrine out of the relation?

Our Ancestours in K. Edwards daies were zealous of the reformation, and beat downe those dressers; and why should we betray Gods cause, and suffer them to be advanced?

Are you assured, that none amongst your partizans

will applie it so, and after vouch you for their Author? As for the Order of K. Edward, which you have sligh∣ted off with a kind of law, (as you did that in Q••. Eli∣zabeths Injunctions with a kind of somewhat) you still stand to that, as being neither Act of Parliament, nor Act of Councell, but an Act of the King sitting in Coun∣cell. A most pretty quilletu 1.270 Here is a subtilty in∣deed, a subtilty in print, as they use to say. But take heed, nihil odiosius est nimio acumine. You should not spend too many of your nice distinctions upon Kings and Princes.

Now for the alteration of the Liturgie, which did indeed draw with it a full and finall alteration in the thing now talked of: you take great paines to make it visible unto the world, that Calvin had no finger in it. It had beene happy for this Church, if hee and Beza could have kept themselves to their meditations, and not beene curiosi in aliena republica, as they were too much. You say of Calvin that he was a Polypragmona 1.271 and made his letters flie to all Princes in the world that did but looke towards a Reformation: and that no man b 1.272 conceives him to be more pragmatically zealous than you doe, even in those Countries which cared least for him. If so, why take you up the Bucklers for him, or thinke hee might not stickle here, as in other places? The Doctor drew a storie of it from his owne Epistles; which you indeavour to refell, by making ante-dates, or false dates unto all his letters, and unto most of all the rest, whom you there produce. As for example: The Letter to my Lord Protectour, you date Octo. 22. 1546. which was a yeere before K. Edward came unto the Crownec 1.273 as you say your selfe: what time hee neither was Protectour, nor was there any English Li∣turgie

to except against. Then that Archbishop Cran∣mer d 1.274 did write for Bucer to come over, the 2. of Oct. An. 1549. when Bucer had beene here a long time be∣fore, and being at Canterbury, writese 1.275 a letter to P. Martyr, dated the 20. day of Iune that yeer: and so you make him come before hee was sent for. So for the treatie with the French, whereof Calvin speakesf 1.276 you make that March 24. 1549. when Bucer had been here 10. moneths at least: and yet you date Pet. Ale∣xanders letterg 1.277 on the same day also, writ by the ap∣pointment of my Lord Archbishop to invite him hi∣ther. And thus you toile and moile your self, (^h) pug∣nantia secum, frontibus adversis componere; to joyn such things together as are not competible. But all is well enough so it please the people, and that you can set out the Doctor like a Iack of Lent, for every boy to fling his stick at. Therefore to set the matter right, and let you see the Doctor is not so extreamly igno∣rant ini 1.278 all the story of those times, as you please to make him: I will set down some bounds and landmarks as it were, for our direction in this search, such as by no meanes can deceive us. Know then, thatk 1.279 on the last of Ian. 1547. according to the accompt of those forreine States, which doe begin the yeere at Christ∣masse, K. Edward came unto the Crowne: thatl 1.280 in the lulie following hee set out his Injunctions, in the which many things there are, that tend unto a Refor∣mation of Religion: and that in them 1.281 November af∣ter, in the selfe same yeere, hee held his first Parlia∣ment, wherein the distribution of the Sacramentn 1.282 sub∣utraque specie, was by law established. An. 1548. Feb. 11.o 1.283 an Order was sent forth by the Lords of the Councell for the abolishing of Images; March the 13.

next following, the Order of administring the Commu∣nion, p 1.284 agreed upon at Windsor, by the Prelates and other learned men,q 1.285 was by the King confirmed, and recommended to the Bishops for the publick use. And on the 2. of Oct. the same yeere, did the Archbishop write to Bucer to come over hither.r 1.286 Veni igitur ad nos, & te operarium praesta in messe Domini, as the letter tells us. In the November of that yeere, began the seconds 1.287 Parliament of K. Edward, and held on till the 14. of March next after, falling in An. 1549. in the same accompt; in which the first Liturgie was con∣firmed and ratified. The tenth day after that, March 24. Pet. Alexander, S••cretarie to the Archbishop, writes againe to Bucert 1.288 with a Veni igitur quàm ci∣tissimè poteris▪ and the Iune after that wee finde him here at Canterbury, from whence he writ to Pet. Mar∣tyr, as before was said.u 1.289 Apr. 6. Proclamation was made for putting downe the Masse throughout the Realme:x 1.290 the Iuly following, those of Devonshire and Cornwall rose up in Armes, desiring to have their old religion restored againe; andy 1.291 on the 8. of Au∣gust next, (the Kingdome being thus embroyled) the French Ambassadour made defiance to the King of England.z 1.292 The 14. of Oct. after, the Duke of So∣merset was committed to the Tower, anda 1.293 thence released F••br. 6. 1550. and on the 8. of Aprill next, (being before discharged of the Protectourship) was sworneb 1.294 Privy Counsellour. Meane time,c 1.295 on Ian. 22. Commissioners were sent to treat of a peace with France, which wasd 1.296 proclaimed the last of March next after following. An. 1551. Ianuar. 30. Mart.e 1.297 Bucer died. The 16.f 1.298 of Oct. after, the Duke of Somerset was committed to the Tower, and on the

firstg 1.299 of December following condemned to death. An. 1552.h 1.300 Ian. 22. the Duke of Somerset was be∣headed; and on the morrowi 1.301 next began the Parli∣ament 5. & 6. of Edw. 6. in which the second Liturgie was confirmed. This said, we shall be sure to find how matters went; and how far you have lost your selfe, by your too much quarrelling.

The Doctor thus beginneth,k 1.302

It seemes that Bucer had informed Calvin of the condition of this Church, and the publick Liturgie thereof, and thereupon he wrote to the Duke of Somerset, who was then Protectour.

For thus he signifieth to Bucer, l 1.303 Dominum Protectorem, ut volebas, conatus sum hor∣tari, ut flagitabat praesens rerum status, &c, and then ad∣viseth Bucer to be instant with him, ut ritus, qui super∣stitionis aliquid redolent, tollantur è medio, that all such rites as savoured of superstition should be took away. And how farre that might reach, you can tell your selfe, knowing the humour of the man, as it seemes you doe,

Nay hee went somewhat further yet, bidding him, m 1.304 as you note your selfe, to take heed of his old fault, (for fault he thought it) which was to runne a moderate course in his Reformations, mediis consiliis vel authorem esse vel approbatorem. Now Pet. Ale∣xanders letter for calling in of Bucer, beares date in March, 1549. and Bucer was at Canterbury the Iune next following: the first thing that hee did at his comming hither, as hee saith himselfe, being to make himself acquainted with the English Liturgie.n 1.305 Cum primum in hoc regnum venissem, &c. librum illum sa∣crorum, per interpretem, quantum potui, cognovi dili∣genter,

as he relates it to the Archbishop. Of his he gave account to Calvin; and as it seemes (Do∣minum Protectorem, ut volebas, &c.) desired some letter from him to my Lord Protector. Not as o 1.306 you dreame, before his comming over hither, and before the Liturgie was published; though pos∣sibly before he had beene seene of the Duke of So∣merset (the hurly-burlies of those times con∣sidered.) For Calvin tels you in that letter, tumul∣tu•• jam intus sodatos esse confid••, that hee now ho∣ped, that all the tumults and commotions within the Realme were composed and pacified; and al∣so that there was a rumour of a truce with France. So that this letter must needs be dated about the Autumne after Bucers comming hither: the Reb••lls not being fully crushed till the end of August; and nothing, but the newes of our peace within, drawing the French men to assent to a truce abroad.

Then for his letter to the Protector, which is herein mentioned, cleerely it is the letter printed, which beares not date two yeeres before.p 1.307 as you with ignorance and confidence enough, have beene pleased to say. For you may finde the date hereof by a better character, being the ••ame with that to Bucer. Forq 1.308 he takes notice in that letter, of those Com∣motions, ingentes illae turbae, which had hapned here, ab aliquo tempore, not long before: as also that the al••eration of religion was, in part, the cause thereof; quos ex parte mutati•• i•• religionis causa concitabat, as himselfe there tels you. So that this letter must be written ••alfe a yeere at least, after the Liturgie esta∣blished

by Act ••f Parliament, and notr 1.309 three yeares before, as you ridiculously compute it. As for the substance of that letter, he there excepteth against Commemoration of the dead (which he acknowledgeth however to be very ancient, as also against Chrisme, and extreme unction; which last (unctionis ceremonia) you have most childishly translateds 1.310 oyle in Bap∣tisme. Which said, he wisheth illa omnia abscindi semel, that all these ceremonies should be abrogated; and that withall he should goe forwards to reforme the Church,t 1.311 without feare or wit, without regard of peace at home, or correspondency abroad! Such con∣siderations being onely to be had in civill matters, but not in matters of the Church, in quo nihil non ad Deiverbum exigi fas est, wherein not any thing is to be exacted, which is not warranted by the Word; and in the managing whereof there is not any thing more distastefull in the eyes of God thanu 1.312 worldly wisdome, ut vel moderemur, vel rescindamus, &c. either in moderating, cutting off, or going backward, but meerely as we are directed by his will revealed. Nor were these three, and that about Impropriations, the onely things on which he toucheth, as you please to say. He toucheth also there on the booke ofx 1.313 Ho∣milies, which very faintly he permits for a season onely, but not allowes of; and thereby gave the hint to others, who ever since almost have declamed a∣gainst them. And if you thinke that Calvin never after medled with the Duke, about this businesse, of the Orders of the Church of England; you are exceeding much mistaken. For whatsoevery 1.314 crush he had, he lost but little of his power, though he lo••t his Office:

and Calvin still adressed himselfe unto him for the Advancement of the worke. Looke in his letter unto z 1.315 Bullinger, dated Apr. 10. 1551. which was not quite a yeere before the Liturgie was altered, and he will tell you what he did:z 1.316 I writ, saith he, to the most illustrious D. of Somerset to this effect, that there was no hope but that the Papists would grow inso∣lenter every day than others, nisi mature compositum esset dissidium de ceremoniis, unlesse the difference were composed about the ceremonies. Composed, and how? not by reducing the opponents to conformity, but by incouraging them rather in their opposition: especially by supporting Hooper then B^p. of Gloucester, the principall leader of that faction, and very zealous (amongst other things) against the Altar's yet re∣maining, as before I shewed. For so it followeth in that letter, hortatus ergo sum hominem, ut Hoppero manum porrigeret; which it seemes was done, as he propounded. For in another unto Bullinger dated the 29. of August following, he certifieth to hima 1.317 that Hooper was restored to his Bishoprick. Now this being but the yeere before the alteration of the Liturgie, Calvin being so intent against the Orders of this Church, the Duke so forwards to complie with him; and Hooper who had no lesse interest in Dudly of N••r∣thumberland, than Calvin with the Duke of Somerset, (whereof consult your author, the Acts and Mon. par. 3. p. 147.) being so eager on the chase: it is not to be doubted but the businesse went forwards, though the Duke went backwards. In the relating of which storie you flutter up and downe, and have no consistency. You tell us pag. 147. that in the

first sitting of that Parliament wherein the second Li∣turgie was confirmed, he was attainted, and condemned, and presently executed: whereas indeed hee was attainted almost two months, and executed just a day, before that sitting. You tell us, pag. 149. that hee was a condemned Prisoner, looking every day for the stroke of the Axe, when the booke was pas∣sing the Committies (if at all any such Committie ever was about that Booke, which I somewhat question:) whereas the Axe had done, and the stroke was past, before the Session.

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

Next for his tampering with the King and Archbishop Cranmer, wee have good warrant

from his Letters. In that unto Farellus Anno 1551. hee tels you of a Letter sent by him to the King by M^r. Nicolas, (one of his tel-talesb 1.318 as you call him;) and of the welcome it found both with the King, and with his Councell: as also that he was advised by my Lord of Canterbury to write more frequently unto the King, than hee had done for∣merly: Not about restitution of Impropriations, thats but your device; the Archbishop sent him no such message, unlesse you finde it in your dreames. Calvin had other things to aime at, al∣though hee tooke that also as it came in his way. c 1.319 In statu Regni multa adhuc desiderantur; many things were amisse that needed reformation. That was more like to bee the Argument of his adresses to the King. If you will please to take his word, himselfe shall tell you in his aforesaid Letter unto Bullinger, that he had writ both to the King and to the Councell (and so had Bullinger it seemes.) What was the purpose of those letters?d 1.320 ut ••os incitare∣mus ad pergendum, to set them forwards on the worke which was then in hand: writing withall unto the Duke of Somerset, to countenance Hooper in his op∣position to the publick orders then established. Your selfe have told us of him, that he wase 1.321 a Polyprag∣mon, making his letters flie to all the Princes of the world, that did but looke towards a Reformation: If to all Princes, then no question but to our King also amongst the rest; and what a kind of reformation Calvin aimed at, you know well enough. Then for his practising with the Archbishop; the Doctor tells youf 1.322 that

he had written to him An. 1551. being the yeere

before the Liturgie was altered, complaining in the same, that in the service of this Church there was remaining a whole masse of Popery, quae non obscuret m••d••, &c. which did not onely blemish, but even overwhelme Gods holy worship.

This letter be∣ing placed betweene two others dated the same yeere, induced the Doctor to beleeve, that it was dated that yeere also: and this you chalenge asg 1.323 a childish and erroneous Criticisme; but bring no better of your own. Onely you would faine have it dated before this yeere, and if it might be, two yeeres sooner: because he tels the Archbishop there, of Chanting vespers here in England, in an unknowne tongue; which was, you say, inhibited by Parliamenth 1.324 full two yeeres be∣fore the altering of the Liturgie. But if you marke it well, this will little helpe you.i 1.325 Some Minister of Calvins (perhaps his Tel-tale Monsieur Nicolas) had from Cambridge certified him, how things went in England:

particularly how all the Church was pro∣vided for, and what great spoyle was made of the meanes and maintenance thereto belonging. But more especially that those great men, who held Abby-lands, and consequently were to pay some pensions to the Monks surviving, did put them into benefices and cure of soules, who had nor minde nor meaning to discharge that dutie, ut pensione iis persolvenda se liberarent, onely to ease themselves of paying the Pensions.

This being certified by Calvin, by a letter dated on Whitsunday, An. 1550. in his next missive to the Archbishop,k 1.326 he complaines of both: First, that the Church was so exposed to open Port-sale (quod praedae sunt expositi Ecclesiae reditus.)

and secondly, quod ex publico E••clesiae proventu aluntur otiosi ventres, &c. that the revenue of the Church should be bestowed upon those idle bellies (and so you know they called the Monkes) which in an un∣knowne tongue chanted out the Vespers. If this suf∣fice not for the date, then be pleased to know, that Calvin in that letter relates to somewhat that had beene done by the Archbishop in the Reforming of this Church for three yeeres before. Atque utinam te duce aliquanto longiùs jam ante triennium progressi forent; which (saith hee) had they done, there had not beene such superstitions left, as hee there com∣plaines of. Now the first Reformation made by the Archbishops means, was the Communion book set out 1548. for the receiving of the Sacrament sub utraque specie. To which if you will adde those three yeeres which are there remembred; you must needs date this letter as the Doctor doth, An. 1551.l 1.327 not one minute sooner.

The Doctor hereupon concludes, as before he did, that leaving the word Altar out of the Common-prayer booke last established, and other alterations which were therein made, grew not from anym 1.328 scandall taken at the Altars by the Countrie people, but a dislike that Calvin had conceived against the Litur∣gie, as before was said. Of any hand that Martin Bucer had therein, more than that hee had signified unto Calvin, the quality and condition of this Church, and of the Liturgie thereof, the said Do∣ctor saith not; and this not absolutely neither, but with a sic videtur,n 1.329 that so it seemed. Yet you cry out, without a cause,o 1.330 that it was the King, the

Lords, and the State, rather than any incitement of Martin Bucer, that made this alteration in the Litur∣gie, in the point of Altars. An alteration there was made by the King and State, though not by the in∣citement of Martin Bucer, but of Calvin rather, that Polypragmon, as you call him.

For, that the Alteration of K. Edwards Liturgie proceeded rather of some motions from without, than any great dislike at home; the Doctor was indu∣ced to beleeve, the rather, because the Kingo 1.331 had formerly affirmed in his Answer to the Devonshire men, that the Lords Supper, as it was then admini∣stred, was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, as the Apostles used it, and as the holy Fathers delive∣red it. Acts and Monuments, part 2. pag. 667. And secondly, because hee had observed, that in the Act of Parliament, by which that Liturgie of 1549. was called in, the booke of Common prayer (so cal∣led in) was affirmed to be agreeable to Gods Word, and the Primitive Church. 5. & 6. Ed. 6. ca. 1. Unto the first of these, you promise such an Answer,p 1.332 an An••wer set downe in such Capitall letters, that he that runnes may reade. And this, no doubt you meane to doe, onely in favour to the Doctor, who being but a blinker, as you please to call him, would hardly see your Answer in a lesser Character.

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

The Rebels they demanded thus:

q 1.333

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

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

r 1.334

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

This is the plaine song, as it passed betweene the Rebells and the King. And now I will set down your descant on it, in your owne words verbatim, not a tit∣tle altered, that all which runne may reade, and see how shamefully you abuse your owne dearest Au∣thor.

s 1.335 The Rebels, in their third Article, (set on by the Popish Priests) doe petition for their Masse (that is, that which wee call the Canon of the Masse) and words of consecration, as they had it before, and that the Priests might celebrate it alone, without the communica∣ting of the people.

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

A very cleare answer, if you marke it well. The Rebels make demand of the whole Masse, modo & for∣ma, as before it had beene celebrated: you make them speake onely of the Canon of the Masse, and words of Consecration. The King, in his reply, makes answer to the whole Masse, as it was commonly then called, the whole forme and order of the Communion in the publick Liturgie, that it was brought even to the very use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: you make him answer one∣ly

of the Canon, and words of Institution, as if that were all. This is not to report an answer, but to make an answer; and draw that commendation to a part of the common Liturgie, which was intended of the whole. And yet your Inference is farre worse than your Report: For you have made the King to say, that they should have a Table, and a Communion, and the words of Consecration, as they were used by Christ, the Apostles, and the ancient Fathers: but they should have no Altar, nor sacrifice; for these the Popes of Rome, for their lucre, had added to the Insti∣tution.

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

Next, let us see what you reply to that which con∣cernes the Parliament, and the opinion which it had of the former Liturgie, as both agreeable to Gods Word, and the Primitive Church. And first you charge the Doctor with borrowingt 1.336 that passage from father Parsons three Conversions. Whether it be in father Parsons, the Doctor knowes not. But whether it be or not, that comes all to one, as long as it is so delive∣red in the Act of Parliament. Then for the Act it∣selfe, u 1.337 you answer, that whereas some sensuall per∣sons, and refractorie Papists, had forb••rne to repaire to the Parish-Churches upon the establishment of the En∣glish Service, the Parliament doth in the Preamble tell the offenders against this new law, that praiers in the

mother-tongue is no invention of theirs, as the Priests would make them beleeve, but the doctrine of the Word of God, and the practice of the Primitive Church: med∣ling no farther with the Liturgie in this part of the Act, than as it was a service in the mother-tongue.

I have been told, it was a saying of my Lord Chan∣cellour Egerton, that D^r Day, once Dean of Windsor, had the most excellent arts of creeping out of the law, of any man whose name was ever brought in Chan∣c••ry. That Doctor, and this Minister, are much of the same quality; our Minister being as expert in creeping out of an authority, as ever was that Doctor in creeping out of the law. But yet hee creepes not so a∣way, but a man may catch him: and catch him sure we will for all his cunning. For if wee looke into the Act of Parliament, wee shall easily finde, that not the language onely, but the order, forme, and fabrick of the divine Service before established, is said to bee agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, which I desire you to observe, as it is here presented x 1.338 to you.

Whereas (saith the Act) there hath beene a very godly order set forth by authority of Parlia∣ment, for Common prayer and administration of the Sacraments to be used in the mother tongue, within this Church of England, agreeable unto the Word of God, and the Primitive Church, very comfortable to all good people, desiring to live in christian Conver∣sation, and most profitable to the estate of this Realme, &c.

What thinke you, on your second thoughts, is that so much commended by the Par∣liament? either the very Order it selfe, of Common

prayer and administration of the Sacraments, or the be∣ing of it in the English tongue. It could not be the being of it in the English tongue. For then the Ro∣mish Missall, had it beene translated word for word, without more alteration than the language onely, might have beene also said to be agreeable to the Word of God, and the Primitive Church; which I am sure you will not say. And therefore it must be the whole forme and order, that godly order, as they call it, of common prayer and administration of the Sacra∣ments, to be used in the English tongue (take them both together) which they so commended. Com∣pare this testimony of the Parliament, with that before given of it by the King; and see if they affirme it of the language, or of the order of the service. The King affirmed that it was brought unto that use as Christ left it, the Apostles used it, and the holy Fathers delivered it: the Parliament, that it was agreeable to the Word of God (including Christ and the Apostles) and to the Primitive Church, including the holy Fathers. Nor did the Parliament alone vouchsafe this testimonie of the first Liturgiey 1.339 Archbishop Bancroft speaking of it in his Sermon preached at S. Pauls Crosse, An. 1588. affirmes that it was publi∣shed first with such approbation, as that it was accounted the worke of God.

Besides, Iohn Fox,z 1.340 whose testimony I am sure you will not refuse, (though you corrupt him too if hee come in your way) hath told us of the Compilers of that Liturgie,

first that they were commanded by the King to have as well an eye and respect unto the most sincere and pure Christian religion, taught by

the holy Scriptures, as also to the usages of the Primitive Church, and to draw up one convenient and meet order, rite and fashion of Common prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, to be had and used within the Realme of England, and the Domi∣nions of the fame. And then hee addes de proprio, as his own opinion, that through the ayde of the holy Ghost, and with one uniforme agreement, they did conclude, set forth, and deliver to the King a booke in English, entituled, A booke of the Common prayer, &c.

This, as it shewes his judgement of the aforesaid Liturgie, so doth it very fully explaine the meaning of the Act of Parliament; and that it did not, as you say, relate unto the language onely, but the whole order, rite, and fashion, of the Common prayer booke.

Thus have we seene the a••teration of the Liturgie; and by that alteration, a change of Altars into Tables, for the holy Sacrament. The next inquiry to be made, is how the Table stood, and how they called it; and that aswell upon the taking down of Altars, An. 1550 in some places by the Kings owne Order; as on the generall removall of them, by the second Liturgie. First for the placing of the Table your owne Author tels you,a 1.341 that on occasion

of taking downe the Altars, here arose a great diversity about the forme of the Lords b••ard: some using it after the forme of a Table, and some of an Altar. But finally it was so ordered by the Bishop of London (Ridley) that he appointed the forme of a right Table, to be used in all his Diocesse: himselfe incouraging them unto it, by breaking downe the wall standing then by the high Altar side, in the Cathedrall of S. Paul.

But that it was so ordered in all other Dioceses, the Doctor findes not any where, but in the new Edition of the Bishops letter, which you have falsified of pur∣pose to make it say so, as before was noted. Nor did the old Edition say, that they the other Dioceses, agreed at all upon the forme and fashion of their Ta∣bles; though they agreed, as you would have it, on the thing it self. And therefore you have now put in these words, so soone, which tells another tale, than before was told: as if all Dioceses having agreed as well as London, on receiving Tables, did agree too, but not so soone upon the fashion of their Tables. For that it was not thus in all other places, your owne Miles Huggard tellsb 1.342 you; and to him I send you to observe it. But this diversity,c 1.343 say you, was set∣led by the Rubrick, confirmed by law. What universally? There is no question but you meane it; or to what purpose doe you say so? Yet in another place you tell us, that notwithstanding the said Rubrick, the Tables stood like Altars in Cathedrall Churches; in some of them at least, which had no priviledge, I am sure, more than others had. For thus say you,d 1.344 In some of the Cathedralls, where the steps were not transposed in tertio of the Queene, and the wall on the back-side of the Altar untaken downe, the Table might stand all along, as the Altar did. If it did stand in some, it might stand in all; and if in the Cathe∣dralls, then also in Parochiall Churches; unlesse you shew us by what meanes they procured that might, which could not be attained unto by any others. Wee finde it also in the lettere 1.345 that one∣ly to make use of their covers, fronts, and other orna∣ments,

the Tables might be placed in some of the Chappels,* 1.346 and Cathedrals, of the same length and fashion that the Altars were of: Why might not then the same be done in the Parish-Churches, which were provided at that time, of covers, fronts, and other ornaments of that nature.f 1.347 Your selfe concludes it for a foolish dreame, that the State should cast away those rich furnitures of the Chappell, provided for the former Altars; and sure it is as much a dreame that they should cast away their ornaments of the selfe same nature out of Country Churches.

And this I am the rather induced to thinke, be∣cause that in the Statute 1 Elizab.g 1.348 wherein the Common-prayer booke now in force, was confir∣med and ratified, it was enacted,

That all such ornaments of the Church shall be retained, and be in use, as was in the Church of England by the authority of Parliament, in the 2. of King Edw. 6. untill other order should therein be taken by the authority of the Queene, &c.

Which makes it plaine in my opinion, that in the latter end of King Edw. the ••ixt, there had beene nothing altered in the point of the Churches Or∣naments, nor consequently in the placing of the holy Table.

Then for the name, it seemes they stood as lit∣tle upon that, as upon the former. When the old Altars stood, they called them Tables; and when the Tables were set up, they called them Altars. Your Authorh 1.349 could have told you at the first,

that the book of Common prayer calleth the thing

whereupon the Lords Supper is ministred, in∣differently a Table, an Altar, or the Lords boord, without prescription of any forme thereof, ei∣ther of a Table, or of an Altar. For as it calleth it an Altar, whereupon the Lords Supper is ministred, a Table, and the Lords boorde; so it calleth the Table where the holy Communion is distributed with laud and thankesgiving unto the Lord, an Altar; for that there is offered the same sacrifice of praise and thankesgiving.

So when the Liturgie was altered, & the word Altar quite left out; they spared not, as occasion was, to call the holy table by the name of Altar. The bles∣sed Sacrament it selfe, they thought no sacriledge to intitle by the name of Sacrament of the Altar: so did the Martyrs, some of them, in Qu. Maries time; and the whole body of the State, in Parlia∣ment, 1 Eliz. as was shewed before. Old Father Latimer speakes positively, that it may be called an Altar; though you, in the repeating of his words, have slipped aside that passage, and made him cast the common calling of it so,i 1.350 upon the Doctors, who might be mistaken. Yea and Iohn Fox himself hath told youk 1.351 in a marginall note, The Table, how it may be called an Altar, and in what respect. The Rubrick was no other then, than we finde it now: and yet we doe not find, that any thought themselves so tyed to the words thereof, as to use no other. Yet this is pressed upon the Vicar. The Church in her Liturgie and Canons calling the same a Table onely, doe not you call it an Altar,l 1.352 so the old edition: doe not you now, under the Reformation,

call it an Altar:m 1.353 so saith the new.* 1.354 Vnder the Reformation? And why so? Onely to make poor men beleeve, that Altars, and the Reformation, cannot stand together. But you are out in that, as in all the rest. The writer of the letter cannot but acknowledge,n 1.355 that the Altars doe stand still in the Lutherane Churches; and that the Apologie for the Augustane Confession doth allow it: the Do∣ctors and Divines whereof, he doth acknowledge also to beo 1.356 sound Protestants, although they suffer Altars to stand. And in those other Churches of the Reformation, some of the chiefe Divines are farre more moderate in this point, than you wish they were. Oecolampadiusp 1.357 doth allow the Eucharist to be called the Sacrament of the Altar: affirming also, that for peace sake they would not abhor from the title of sacrifice, if there were no deceit closely carry∣ed under it: and that there is no harme, in calling the Lords Table by the name of Altar. Zanchieq 1.358 more fully, Quod neque Christus, neque Apostoli prohibue∣runt altaria, aut mandarunt quod mensis ligneis ut an∣tur; That neither Christ nor his Apostles have pro∣hibited Altars, or enjoyned wooden Tables; and therefore that it is to be accounted a matter of in∣differenci••, whether we use an Altar of stone, or a table of wood, modo absit superstitio, so that no su∣perstition be conceived of either. So they deter∣mine of the point; not doubting, as it seemes, but that it might be lawfull now, under the Reformation, to call the holy Table by the name of Altar: and which makes more against your meaning, to use an Altar also in the ministration. Which said, Ibid

adieu to England, and the practice here; meaning to looke abroad into forrain parts in the rest that followeth; where we will labour to find out what was the ancient doctrine in the Church of God, concerning Sacrifices, Priests, and Altars; and what the usage in this point of placing the Communion table. Yet so that we will cast an eye, sometimes, and as occasion is, on our owne deare Mother, the Church of England, that wee may see how neare she comes both in her doctrine, and her practice, to the ancient Patternes. And wee will see withall, what you have to say; and what it is whereof you purpose to arraigne the poore man you wot of, in all those particulars.

SECTION II.

CHAP. V.

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

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

IT is the observation of Eusebiusa 1.359, that the Fathers which preceded Moses, and were quite ignorant of his Law, disposed their wayes according to a voluntary kinde of pi∣ety; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, framing

their lives and actions according to the law of Nature,* 1.360 which words relate not onely unto their morall con∣versation, as good men, but to their carriage in respect of Gods publick worship, as r••ligious men. The light of nature could informe them that there was a God, had not their Parents, from the first man Ad••m, beene carefull to instruct them in that part of knowledge: and the same light of nature did informe them also, that God was to bee worshipped by them; that there were some particular services expected of him from his Creature. Of these, the first wee meet with, upon record, is that of Sacrifice almost to co-aevall with the world. For we are told of Cain and Abel the two sons of Adamb 1.361, that the one of them being a tiller of the ground, brought of the frui•• of the ground an offering unto the Lord: the other, being a keeper of sheep, brought of the first lings of his flocke, and the fat thereof. This was, it seemes, the quit-rent which they paid to Almighty God, that supreme Lord, of and by whom they held their temporall fortunes; and from whose hands they were to looke for a more excellent estate.c 1.362 Lex natu∣ralis aequum esse doouit, ut de do••is suis honoretur im∣primis ipse qui dedit: Naturall reason, saith Ruper••us, told them it was fit that God the Donour should bee honoured with some part of that, which hee himselfe had given unto them. Thus in those early dayes have wee found a Sacrifice, and Sacrifices, as you say your selfe, are not to be found without Priests and Altars. It is true, we doe not reade in Scriputre of any Altar, till that built by Noah, nor of any Priest, before Melchise∣dec. Noah builded an Altar, saith the Text, Gen. 8. and of Melchisedec it is said, that hee was the Priest of the ••ost high God, Gen. 14. Not that there were no Altars

nor no Priests before. For howsoever Pereriusd 1.363 makes it doubtfull,* 1.364 whether the use of Altars was before or not, An autem fu••rit usus Altarium, ne••ne, inc••rtum est: yete 1.365 a good friend of yours, whose Tractat de Altari∣bus & Sacrificiis, you make good use of (though you scorne to tell by whom you profit) is more assured that they were in use from the first beginning. For speaking of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel, he determi∣neth thusf 1.366, Ad haec sacrificia aras extructas consent ane∣um est, that it is very likely that Altars were ere∣cted for them. Then for the Priest, wee need not take much paines to seeke him. The Office of the Priest∣hood g 1.367 was then in Adam, and held by him entirely, till Seth came of age, to take part of the burden from him: that dignitie continuing alwayes after in the Pa∣ter-familias, the eldest of the line or family, till the Le∣viticall Priesthood was set up by Moses. An evidence whereof wee have in Noah, who though hee was in yeares, and that his sonnes were young and lustieh 1.368, did yet discharge the Pri••stly function; Building an Altar to the Lord, and offering burnt Offerings on the Altar. Which sacrifice of his was Eucharisticall, not typicall: a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for his preserva∣tion from the Flood; not any way significative of Christs to come. And therfore Scaligeri 1.369 doth very tru∣ly tell us of him, that presently as soon as he came out of the Arke., 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 immolavit Deo: which (saith Rupertus) Non scripta, sed naturalis lex ••quum esse docuit, was not commended to him by a written law, but meerly by the law of Nature. Such evidence we also have in the story of Melchisedec, who being the eldest of his line (and commonly received for 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the sonne of Noah) is ••tiledk 1.370 at the encounter

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

betweene him and Abraham, the Priest of the most high God, as before was said: being also there reported to be King of Salem. And thus it also was, either by imita∣tion or tradition, amongst the Gentiles. Their Princes being Patres Patriae, and consequently in loco Pa∣trum-familias, the Grandfathers of all families in their Dominions, did also exercise the Priests, Of∣fice in their solemne sacrifices, Iethro the father in law of Moses, whol 1.371 in the Text is called the Priest of Madian, is in the Margine of our Bibles, called the Prince. And Aniusm 1.372 in the Poet, is set out for both; Rex Anius, Rex idem hominum Phoebique Sacerdos.

After when as the house of Iacob was growne great and numerous, and setled by the Lord himselfe into the body of a Church; it pleased the Lord to signifie by Moses how hee would be worshipped: to prescribe certaine Rites and formes of sacrifices, and for those sacrifices to appoint both Priests and Altars. These sacrifices were divided into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or gratulato∣rie, such as was that of Noah, before remembred; and ex∣piatorie, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which did relate to Christ our Sa∣viour, as types of that most perfect expiatory sacrifice, which in the fulnesse of time hee was to offer on the Crosse, for the sin of man. Which practice of the Iewes, abstracted from the end to which by God it was in∣tended, was generally in use also with the Gentiles: whether delivered to them by tradition from their predecessours, or that it was dying sparke of the light of Nature, or that they tooke it from the Iewes, whose Apes they were, needs not now be questioned. Suffice it, that however they could not reach the height of the true religion, nor knew not the intent of those frequent sacrifices which were imposed upon the

Iewes; yet they would come as neare it, as they could. And therefore as they had their sacrifices, so would they also have their Temples, their Priests, and Altars: places selected for divine worship, and Ministers ap∣pointed for those places, and Altars upon which to minister, being of like antiquitie. The severall gods in Rome, the Temples unto them belonging, the Altars in those Temples, and Colledges of Priests attending on those Altars, are things so generally knowne; that it were losse of time to insist upon them. The like may also be observed in all other places, and of all I∣dols whatsoever. For whatsoever the Idol represen∣ted, and by whomsoever it was worshipped, if it were once set up and honoured as a Deitie, it drew along with it all those necessary attendants, which were by God himselfe thought fit to wait upon the true reli∣gion. The Groves and high places, the Priests and Al∣tars destinated to the service of that foule Idol Baal, mentioned in the holy Scriptures, were proofe enough of this, were there no proofe else. But these things be∣ing notiora,n 1.373 quam ut stylo egeant; I passe them over with this note: that there was never any Nation, but had some religion, nor any religion (of men civilized) but had Altars, Priests and Sacrifices as a part thereof, or as dependants thereupon. Which mutuall agree∣ment betweene Iew and Gentile in those outward things, although not in the end proposed: made them both severally persecute and deride the Christians, as men of no religion, having (as they conceived) no Temples, Altars, Priests, nor Sacrifices, and so by conse∣quence no God.

For when our blessed Lord and Saviour had by that one offering of himselfe once for all,o 1.374 perfected for

ever all them that are sanctified; and by his owne blood entred into the holyplace, and obtained eternall redemp∣tion for us: there was forthwith an end of all those sa∣crifices in the law, by which this one of his had beene prefigured. They had beene onely givenp 1.375 in umbra, as a shadow of the things to come: but when the body came it selfe, the shadow was unserviceable, and for••h∣with vanished. Yet did not Christ deprive his Church for ever of all manner of Sacrifices, but onely abro∣gated those which had beene before; which if conti∣nued, might have beene a strong presumption of his not comming in the flesh: in which respect, those, and all otherq 1.376 Ceremonies of the Iewes, are by the Fathers said to bee, not onely dangerous, but deadly, to us Christian men. The Passion of our Saviour, as by the Lords own Ordinance it was prefigured to the Iews in the legall Sacrifices, à Parte ante; so by Christs institu∣tion, is it to bee commemorated by us Christians, in the holy Supper, à Parte post. A Sacrifice it was in fi∣gure, a Sacrifice in fact; and so by consequence, a Sa∣crifice in the commemorations, or upon the Post-fact. A Sacrifice there was among the Iewes, shewing forth Christs death unto them, before his comming in the flesh: a Sacrifice there must bee amongst the Christi∣ans, to shew forth the Lords death till he come in judge∣ment. And if a Sacrifice must bee, there must be also Priests to doe, and Altars whereupon to doe it: be∣cause without a Priest, and Altar, there can bee no sa∣crifice: Yet so that the precedent sacrifice was of a different nature from the subsequent: and so are also both the Priest and Altar from those before: a bloudy sacrifice then, an unbloudy, now; a Priest derived from Aaron then, from Melchisedech, now; an Altar

for Mosaicall sacrifices then, for Evangelicall now.r 1.377 The Sacrifice prescribed by Christ, Qui novi Testamenti no∣vam docuit oblationem, saith Irenaeus l. 4. c. 32. who the same night in which he was betrayed, tooke bread, And when be had given thankes, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you. Doe this in remem∣brance of me. Likewise also he tooke the Cup when hee had supped, saying, This Cup is the New Testament in my blood, doe this as often as you drinke it, in remembrance of mee. Which words, if they expresse not plaine enough the nature of this Sacrifice, to bee commemorative, we may take those that follow by way of Commentarys 1.378: For as often as yee eate this bread, and drinke this Cup, ye doe shew the Lords death till he come. Then for the Priests, they were appointed by him also, even the holy Apo∣stles who being onely present at the Institution, recei∣ved a power from Christ to celebrate these holy my∣steries in the Church of God. A power not personall unto them, but such as was from them to bee derived upon others, and by them communicated unto o∣thers, for the instruction of Gods people, and the per∣formance of his service. Though the Apostles at that time might represent the Church of Christ, and every part and member of it; yet this gives no authority un∣to private men, to intermeddle in the sacrifice, but unto the Apostles onely, and their successours in the Evangelicall Priesthood. Our Saviour hath left certaine markes of characters, by which each member of the Church may soone finde his dutie. For the Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood, there is an edite & bibite, an eating an drinking, as private men; men of no Orders in the Church: but there is an Hoc facite belonging to them, onely, as they are Priests under,

and of the Gospell. Hoc facite, is for the Priest, who hath power to consecrate; Hoc edite, is both for Priest and people, which are admitted to communicate: and so is the Hoc bibite too by the Papists leave. Were it not thus, but that the people might hoc facere, take bread, and breake, and ••lesse it, and distribute it unto one another; wee should soone see a quicke come off of our whole religion. The people then, being prepared and fitted for it, may edere and bibere, but they must not facere; that belongs onely to the Priests, who claime that power from the Apostles, on them conferred by our Redeemer. Last of all for the Altar, wee need not goe farre. S. Paul, in whom wee finde both the Priest and Sacrifice, will helpe us to an Altar also. He calleth it once a Table, and once an Altart 1.379 a Table in the tenth of the same Epistle, non potestis mensae Do∣mini participes esse, yee cannot bee partakers of the Lords Table, and the table of Devils; an Altar in the last of the Hebrewes,u 1.380 Habe••••us Altare, wee have an Altar whereof they have no right to ••ate that serve the Taberna∣cle: an Altar in relation to the Sacrifice, which is there commemorated; a Table in relation to the Sacrament which is thence participated. Nay, so indi••ferent were those words to that blessed spirit, that, as it seemes, he stood not on the choice of either: but used thex 1.381 word Table to denote those Altars on which the Gentiles sa∣crificed to their wretched Idols; which he cals mensa•• Daemoniorum, the table of Devils, in the Text re∣membred.

If wee consult the Fathers who lived next those times, wee finde not that they altered any thing in the present businesse, for which they had so good autho∣rity from the Lords Apostles; but without any scruple,

or opposition (that we can meet with) used, as they had occasion, the name of Sacrifice, and Priest, and Al∣tar, in their severall writings. Not that they tied them∣selves to those words alone, but that they balked them not when they came in their way, as if they were afraid to take notice of them.a 1.382 Denys the Areopagite (if it were hee that wrote the books de Ecclesiastica Hierarchia) hath in one chapter, all those names of Priest, Altar, Sacrifice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in his native language; Sacerdos, Altare, Sacrificium, in the translation: the Altar being honoured with the attri∣bute of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or divine; the Sacrifice with that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or most pure and holy. These workes of Dionysius, Monsieur du Moulin, doth acknow∣ledge to be very profitable, Vtilia sane & plena bonae frugis, but withall thinkesb 1.383 they are of a later date. And therefore on unto Ignatius, of whom there is lesse question amongst learned men: who in his se∣verall Epistles useth the aforesaid names or termes, as being generally received, and of common usage. First for the Altar, the Doctor shewed youc 1.384 in his Coal, that it is found there, thrice at least, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ad Magnes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ad Philadelph. one altar, and one Altar in every Church: and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods Altar▪ in his Epistle ad Tarsens. what is ob∣jected against these, we shall see hereafter. So for the Minister, he cals him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Priest, which your good friend Vedelius translates Sacerdos,d 1.385 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Excellent (or estimable) are the Priests and Deacons, but more the Bishop.

In the Epistle ad Smyr••enses the same word occurres, to signifie the Priest, or Minister of Christs holy Gospell: as also that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, rendred

by your Vedelius, Sacerdotium, by us called the Priest∣hood. Last of all for your sacrific••, the same Ignatius e 1.386 gives it for a rule, as the times then were, that it is not lawfull for the Priest without the notice of his Bi∣shop,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

either to baptize, or offer, or celebrate the sa∣crifice. Where by the way, wee may perceive how much the Cardinall was mistaken, in that he tels us for a certaine,f 1.387 that the Apostles and most ancient Fathers of the Church, as Iustin, and Ignatius, did purposely ab∣staine from the names of Priest and Priesthood, as they did also from that of Temple: ne viderentur adhuc dura∣re Iudaicae ceremoniae, lest otherwise the Iewish ceremo∣nies might be conceived to be in force. It is true, that for the most part, Ignatius use•••• for the minister, the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Presbyter, from which the French derived their Prebstre, and wee thence our Priest; but doth not binde himselfe unto it. No more doth Iustin Martyr neither: for having laid this for a rule, that, God accepts no sacrifices but from his own Priests only;g 1.388 he addes that hee admits of all those sacrifices, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Iesus Christ commanded to bee celebrated in his Name: and are accordingly performed of all Chri∣stian people in the holy Eucharist of bread and wine. Performed in every place by all Christian people, as it is an Eucharist,h 1.389 a sacrifice of praise and thanks to Al∣mighty God, testified in and with a participation of the outward elements: but celebrated by the Priest, and especially as it is a sacrifice commemorative of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; who only have a power to consecrate those elements, which doe exhibite Christ unto us. As for the Canons of the Apo∣stles,

which if not writ by them, are certainly of good antiquitie, (and for the first 50 above all danger of dis∣carding) the Doctor told youi 1.390 in his Coal from the Al∣tar, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did occurre in the third, fourth, and fifth. And now hee tels you into the bar∣gaine, that in the third Canon you shall find mention of the sacrifice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and in the fourth of the oblation 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. All which assurance in this cause will fall, if you compute the time, within the first 200. yeeres, which you so much stand upon, and bate you 50. of your tale. So that you will not find, whatsoever you say,k 1.391 that in the Christian Church, the name of Table is 200. yeeres more ancient than the name of Altar: both being of an equall standing, for ought I can see, and both used indifferently.

Next these succeeded Irenaeus, of whom thel 1.392 Do∣ctor told you, that he did prove the Lords Apostles to be Priests, because they did Deo & Altari servire: at∣tend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at his Altars. What you except against in this, we shall see anon. Meane time you may take notice here, that we have found in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, both a Priest and Altar: and thinke you that hee will not finde us a Sacrifice also? Looke on him but a little further, and he will tell you this, that there were sacrificia in populo, sacrificia in ••cclesia, sacrifices in the Iewish Church, and sacrifices in the Christi••n church: andm 1.393 that the kind or species was only altered. The kinde or nature of which Chri∣stian sacrifice he tels us of in the same chapter, viz. that it is an Eucharist, a tender of our gratitude to Almighty God, for all his blessings; and a sanctifying of the crea∣ture to spirituall uses. Offerimus ei non quasi indigenti, sed gratius agentes donationi ejus, & sanctificantes crea∣turam.

In this we have the severall and distinct Offices which before we spake of: a sanctificatio creatur••, a blessing of the bread (forn 1.394 bread it is he speakes of) for holy uses, which is the Office of the Priest, no man ever doubted it: and then a gratiarum actio, a giving thankes unto the Lord for his marvellous benefits, which of the Office both of Priest and people. The sanctifying of the creature, and glori••ying of the Crea∣tor, doe both relate unto Offerimus: and that unto the Sacrifices which are therein treated of by that holy Father. So for Tertullian, the Doctor noted that hee tels us of the Altar twice, Si & ad Aram Deisteteris, in his Booke de Oratione, cap. 14. In that de poenitentia he remembreth us of those that did adgeniculari aris Dei, Standing before the Altar, at some times; kneeling before the Altar at other times: but both before and at the Altar. And for the name of Priest, however the Cardinall was of opinion, that the Apostles and first∣fathers of the Church did purposely forbeare it, as before was said: yet he hath found at last,o 1.395 that Tem∣pore Tertulliani, in Tertullians time, (the difference o 1.396 betweene Iewes and Christians being well enough knowne) the name of Priest came to bee in use; and for the proofe thereof referres us to his Bookes, de ve∣landis virginibus, de monogamia, & alibi: And there∣fore thither I referre you. Origen next in course of time, hath an whole Homilie on the 18. Chapter of Numbers, intituledp 1.397 de Primitiis offerendis. It is not to be thought that he composed that Homilie of purpose, to advance the reputation of the Iewish Priesthood: nor doth hee, if a man would thinke so, give any counte∣nance thereunto. And why? Pleading expresly for the maintenance of the Ministers of Gods holy Word,

hee cals them in plaine termes, Sacerdotes Evangelii, Priest of the Gospell, affirming first-fruits to be due unto them at the least de congruo. Would you his own words? take them thus; Decet enim, & utile est, eti∣••m Sacerdotibus Evangelii (N. B.) offerri primitias. Would you the reason of it also?

Because he saith, the Lord appointed, that they which preach the Go∣spell, should live of the Gospell, and they that Mini∣ster at the Altar, should live of the Altar.

Where if you should suspect that hee doth meane the Iewish Al∣tars, himselfe shall take you off from that fond suspi∣tion.

Et sicut hoc dignum & decens est, &c. and as (saith he) it is a fit and worthy thing that it should be so, so on the other side, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is unworthy and un∣fit, if not utterly impious, that hee which honoureth God, and comes into his Church, Et scit Sacerdotes & Ministros adsistere A••tari, and knoweth that the Priests and Ministers doe wait upon the Altarq 1.398 and labour in the Word and Ministerie, should not de∣vote unto him the first fruits of the land wherewith God hath blessed him.

In the whole drift of that which followeth, hee drives so clearly at this point, that it is needlesse in a menner to looke for more; yet in his tenth Homilie on the ninth of Ioshua he is more particular and exact, than before he was: For speaking of some persons who were meere out-side-men and no more than so, he thus describes them; viz.r 1.399

That they came diligently to the Church, and made due reverence to the Priests, attended all Divine offices, honoured the sevants of the Lord, Adornatum qu••∣que Altaris vel Ecclesiae aliquid conferant, and did contribute somewhat also to the ornament of the Altar or the Church.

I hope there's proofe enough

for Priests and Altars, and somewhat also for the maintenance of those Priests that waited at the Al∣tars, in the time of Origen. Nor will I instance fur∣ther in the Fathers of those Primitive times, than S. Cyprian only: and in him only in those places to which you were directed in the Coal from the Altar,s 1.400 where you were told, that l. 1. c. 7. in the Epistle ad Epictetum, it was called Altare Dei, Gods Altar: and that there somewhat more occurred concerning Altars in the 8. and 9. Epistle of the same book also. Only I cannot chuse but tell you, that in the last of those remem∣bred, we have not found an Altar only, but that there is a Sacrifice and a Priest to bee found there also. For there we have a maximet 1.401 concerning those which are promoted to the holy Priesthood, and in actuall Orders, that they ought only Altari & sacrificiis deser••ire, to attend the Altar and the sacrifices, and be devoted to their prayers and orizons to Almighty God. Thrice in the same Epistle we find punctuall mention of Sacri∣fices, Priests, and Altars; enough of conscience to de∣clare what was the usage of the Church in S. Cyprians time.

Which being so, a question may bee justly made, how it should come to passe, that the Apologeticks of those very times, should so unanimously concurre against the being of Altars in the Christian Church: especially that Origen, who is so much for it in his Ho∣milies, should be so much against it in his Contra Celsum. u 1.402 Celsus objected it against the Christians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they declined the building or setting up of Altars, Images, and Tem∣ples. Caecilius in the dialogue made the same objecti∣on: And having said not long before, Templu ut b••sta

despiciunt, that they (the Christians) despised the Tem∣ples of the Gods (conceive it so) as funerall piles; x 1.403 makes this Quaere after; Cur nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra? what was the reason why they had, nor Temples, Images, nor Altars: not why they had no Altars only, as you make him say. The like is commonly objected from Arnobius also;y 1.404 Nos aceusatis, quod nec templa habeamus, nec imagines, nec aras: in which the words are changed a little, but not the matter of the accusation. Now as the objections seeme to oppose directly, what ever hath been said be∣fore concerning Altars: so the Respondents answers seeme as much to crosse what ever hath beene said concerning Sacrifices. Origen answers for his part, z 1.405 that the Altar of a Christian was his understanding, from whence he offred to the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the most sweet and pleasing sacrifices of prayers, and a pure conscience. Octaviusa 1.406 much to the same pur∣pose, that the most acceptable sacrifice to Almighty God, was bonus animus, & puramens, & sin••era consci∣entia; and briefly,b 1.407 that he was counted the most re∣ligious towards God, which was most just and upright towards man. So much Octavius saith indeed, yet not enough, it seemes, to serve your turn; and therefore you must needs corrupt his text with a false translati∣on: making Octavius say, that with them the bottome of the heart supplies the Altar. Whereas you finde not such a word in all that period of Litabilis Hostia▪ before remembred: no Altar there, but that you have nor bonum animum, nor puram mentem; no nor sinceram conscientiam neither, in these wretched shifts. And last of all, Arnobius being asked the question, Whe∣ther the Christians thoughtc 1.408 Sacrificia ••ulla esse omni∣no

facienda, that there was no such thing as sacrifice to bee done at all; is made by you to answer nulla, no, none at all: a saying of (^d) Lactantius being patch'd un∣to it, viz. not any coporeall sacrifice, but hymnes and prai••e. What ever you may finde in Lactantius else-where, certaine I am, that you finde nothing to this purpose in all that place which you have noted in your margin, being lib. 6 cap. 23. though peradven∣ture you have studied it more throughly, that any o∣ther Booke or Chapter, which concernes this point. Or if Lactantius say it else-where, which wee contra∣dict not, being so like to that which is affirmed by o∣thers, of, and about those times: yet might you have perceived in him, an answer to your owne objections drawne from him, and them. The Question was, whe∣ther or no, the Christians had any Sacrifices; No, saith Lactantius, as you cite him, no corporeall sacrifices. La∣ctantius saith not of the Christians; that they had no sacrifices; but no corporeall ones. You were, it seemes, so busie on some corporeall sacrifice, which you encoun∣tred with in the foresaid Chapter, that you regarded not the answer to your owne objection. Nor did the Doctour otherwise replie to those allegations, which you produced from Origen, and Arnobius, out of Bishop Iewell, and from Arnobius here in the place, than what you make Lactantius say, if you cite him rightlye 1.409: viz. that they, (the Christians) had no Altars for bloudy and externall sacrifices, as the Gentiles had. Corporeall sacrifices, saith Lactantius; bloudy and exter∣nall sacrifices, saith the Doctor: Not bloudy or exter∣nall sacrifices, as you make him sayf 1.410; and then flie out upon him, as your custome is, and put him to this wretched choice, either to come to that for which you

have been wr••••gling all this while, viz. that they (the Primitive Christians) had no Altars for externall sa∣crifi••es; or else to shew that ever one father or schoole∣m•••• did teach a nec••ssitie of an externall Altar for in∣ternall Sacrifice. Let the poore Doctors (And) stand still, and he will finde you Altars, in the Primitive Church, for vis••••le and externall sacrifices, though none for bloudie and externall sacrifices. The like may be replied to that which you produce from Minutius Felix; Cur 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••ullai habent, why they had no Altars. Altars they had, but no such Altars as Cecilius spake of, none for bloudie sacrifices of sheepe and oxen. Had you but looked a little forwards you would have found amongst them both Priests and Bishops;g 1.411 and therefore by your owne rule Altars also: the Priest a••d Altar being relatives, as you often tell us. Your Argument, drawne from a cavillh 1.412 of Iulian the Apo∣stata; that wittie prin••e (for sooth) as you please to call him; was not thought worth an answe••, when pro∣posed by him▪ S. Cyrill who made answer unto all the rest; to his objection of not erecting Altars (asi 1.413 my Lord of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rightly note••h) doth not say one word. Iuli••ns objection was about such sacrifices (as your selfe confesse) in which the Iewes had an agree∣ment in some particular with the Pagans▪ and therefore his objection must relate to such Altars also. For that the Christians had their Alt••r••, for the Mysticall sacri∣fice, Iulian knew full well, being a Reader of the Church, when he was a Christian: and having, when he was a persecutor, defiled th•• Altars of the Christi∣ans,k 1.414 designed for their most pure and unbloudie sacri∣fice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with prohibited blood; as 〈…〉〈…〉 complaineth. As for your observa∣tion

out of Plin••••s Epistle, drawne froml 1.415 the r••cke indeed, as you truly say, there is nothing in it worth the marking. For if that, neither the Apostataes, nor the tortured Virgins, confessed any thing of the Chri∣stian Materiall Altar; you can no more conclude against having Altars, than against having Reading Pewes and Pulpits, whereof they did confesse as little in their examinations. And I must tell you one thing more, that if you urge these tex••s in earnest, as if you though they would or could conclude against having Altars, you may as well produce them, on your se∣cond thoughts, against having Churches: which is the next newes I expect to heare from you. But of this more hereafter in our 7. Chapt.

As for the sacrifices mentioned in Minutius Felix, and before him by Origen, in that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is not, nor was ever questioned, but that the sacrifices of each ••hristian privately, were of a meere spirituall nature. The Doctor named you some of them in his Coal from the Altar,f 1.416 viz. the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. 13. 15. as also

the oblation of our whole selves, oursoules & bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice to Almighty God,

〈◊〉〈◊〉. 12. 1. These and all other sacrifices of that nature, be∣ing spirituall meerely, need no materiall or corporeall Altar. The readiest way by which to offer them to the Lord our God, is first to sacrifice them on the Al∣tar of our heart by faith, and afterwards to lay them on that Altar, by which they may bee rendred accep∣table in the sight of God, even on Christ our Saviour. But then the Doctor said withall, that

the Church allowed of a Commemorative sacrifice also, for a per∣petuall memorie of Christs precious death, of that

his full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world, to be continued till his comming againe.

The former sacri∣fices, being meerly of spiritual nature, the Lord expects from all his people severally. Every man is, himselfe, a Priest, one of the Royall Priesthood mentioned by S. Peter, in this sense, and in relation unto these spirituall and internall sacrifices; which he is also bound to offer to the Lord his God continually, at all times, in all pla∣ces, and on all occasions. No wood so wide, nor denne so darke, nor sea so spacious, which may not bee a Temple, for these devotions; and in the which we may not finde an Altar, for these sacrifices. And these are they, done ing 1.417 the singlenesse of heart, without hy∣pocrisie and guile, whereof there is not any thing vi∣sible, neque Sacer d••s, neque Sacrificium, neque Altare, no more than is the Altar, on the Priest▪ or Sacrifice, as S. Ambrose tels us. But so I trow it is not in the mysti∣call sacrifice, that of the Commemoration of the death and passion of our Lord and Saviour; which purpo••ely is represented unto the eye, that it may sinke the deeper into the heart. The breaking of the bread, and the effusion of the wine, are they not sensible represen∣tations of his death for us▪ the offring up of his body on the crosse, and shedding his most precious bloud for our redemption? Which being visible in it selfe, and purposely so celebrated, that it may be visible to all the congregation; comes not within the compasse of those sacrifices which S. Ambrose speaks of: though, like a false gamester you have cogged a die, and made S. Ambrose say what he never meant. For tell me of your honest word, doth the good father speake there of this mystic••ll sacrifice, that which the Priest did of∣fer

on the Alt••rs in the 〈…〉〈…〉 God? or those which every priva••e man did ••nd might offer on the Alt••r of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by ••aith? Doth h 1.418 he say, Nihil hic visibile, that here (i. e. in this Co••∣memorative sacrifice) there is nothing visible, neither the Priest, the Altar, nor the 〈◊〉〈◊〉? Or saith hee, Nihil horum est visibile, that of the things before re∣membred, there is nothing visible, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the spirituall worship, done in the singlenesse of the heart, without hypocrisie, and in full confidence of faith? For shame deale better with the Father••, how ill soever you deale with that poore fellow, whom you have in hand. S. Ambrose could not say, (the times, in which he lived, considered) that in the Representative sacrifice by the Church then celebrated, there was nothing visible: for in those times, the Priests and Altars both were at their full, moun••ed unto their height for reputation and esteeme; as you know right well. When there∣fore it is said in the Apo••o••eticks of those times, that they (the Primitive 〈◊〉〈◊〉) had 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, images, nor temples, it must bee answered with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to those times in the which they lived. And so the Doctor answers to them in his Coal from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, i 1.419 First, out of Bishop Iewell, that then

〈…〉〈…〉 feare of Tyrants, were faine to meet together in pri∣vate houses, in vacant places, in woods and forrest••, and caves under the ground.

Your selfe have told us of your selfe, (though you have christned your dis∣course by the name of the holy Table) thatk 1.420 you are not so unreasonably tied to one Table; but if the woman were driven into the desert, you could bee content with the greene grasse. And then, why may you not conceive, that on the like distresse, the grasse should be to them

in stead of an Altar, as well as unto you in stead of a Table.

The Doctor answered secondly, that when they durst adventure to build them Churches, they neither were so gorgeously nor so richly furnished, as were the Temples of the Gentiles. And therefore Origen, and Arnobius (and whosoever of them speake in the selfe same key) are not to bee interpreted, as if the Christians had no Churches, or at the least no Al∣tars in them: but that their Churches were so mean, that they deserved not the name of Temples; and that they had no Altars for bloudie and externall sa∣crifices, as the Gentiles had.

Hospinian, on whose judgement you doe much relie in other matters, could easily have told you (and questionlesse you saw it in him, though you conceale it wilfully for your poore advantages) that in thel 1.421 Primitive Church, before the time of Constantine, the Christians had their Altars, both name and thing: and for the proofe thereof doth cite Tertullian, lib. de poenitentia. Cyprians Epistles, lib. 1. Epist. 7. & 9. and also, lib. 3. Epist. 13. All that hee stands upon is this, Eae autem ••rae non fuerunt lapideae, nec fixae, that the said Altars were not made of stone, and fast∣ned to some certaine place, as was appointed not long after by Pope Silvester; and as Durandus and the rest of the Roman Ritualists would have them now. Al∣tars he grants, but wooden Altars; which being once devoted to that holy use, might easily bee removed from place to place, as the necessities of those times did indeed require. No sooner was the Church setled and confirmed in peace, but presently the Altars also were fixed and setled.

Now for the nature and condition of this Comme∣morative or representative sacrifice, which we have tra∣ced

from the first Institution of it by our Lord and Sa∣viour, to the times of Constantine, and found both Priests which were to offer, and Altars upon which they were to offer it to Almighty God: wee cannot take a better and more perfect view thereof, than from Eusebius, who hath beene more exact herein, than any other of the Ancients. In his first book de Domonstratione Eva••gelica, he brings in this prediction from the Prophet Esay, that

in that day shall there bee an Altar to the Lord in the middest of the land of Egypt, Es. 19. 19. Then addes, that if they had an Altar, and that they were to sacrificem 1.422 to Almighty God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they must bee thought worthy of a Priesthood also. But the Leviti∣call Priesthood could not bee of any use unto them, and therefore they must have another. Nor was this spoke, saith he, of the Egyptians only,n 1.423 but of all other nations, and idolatrous people; who now poure forth their prayers, not unto many Gods, but to the one and only Lord: and unto him erect an Altar for reasonable and unbloudie sacrifices 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in every place of the whole habitable world, ac∣cording to the mysteries of the New Testament.

Now what those mysteries were, hee declares more fully in the tenth Chapt. of the said first book.

Christ, saith he, is the propitiatorie Sacrifice for all our sins, since when even those amongst the Jewes are freed from the curse of Moses law, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, celebrating daily (as they ought) the com∣memoration of his body and bloud, which is a farre more excellent sacrifice and ministerie, than any in

the former times: Then addes', that Christ our Sa∣viour, offering such a wonderfull and excellent Sacrifice to his heavenly Father for the salvation of us all, appointed us to offer daily unto God the commemoration of the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for and as a Sacrifice. And anon after, that whensoever wee doe celebrate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the memory of that Sacrifice on the Table, par∣ticipating of the Elements of his body and blood; we should say with David, Thou preparest a Table for me in the presence of mine enemies, thou an∣nointest my head wih oyle, my cup runneth over. Wher∣in, saith he, he signifieth most manifestly the mysti∣call unction, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & the reverend Sacrifices of Christs Table, where we are taught to offer up unto the Lord, by his owne most eminent and glorious Priest,o 1.424 the unbloody, reasonable, and most acceptable sacrifice all our life long.

This hee intitulethp 1.425 afterwards the sacrifice of praise, the Divine, reverend, and most holy sacrifice, the pure sacrifice of the new Testament. So that we see, that in this Sacrifice prescribed the Christian Church, by our Lord and Saviour, there were two proper and di∣stinct actions: The first, to celebrate the memoriall of our Saviours sacrificie, which he intituleth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the commemoration of his bo∣dy and blood once offered; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the memorie of that his Sacrifice; that is, as hee doth cleerly expound himse••fe, that we should offer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this our commemoration for a Sa∣crifice: The second, that withall wee should offer to him the sacrifice of praise & thanksgiving, which is the reasonable Sacrifice of a Christian man, and to him

most acceptable. Finally, he joynes both these toge∣ther in the Conclusion of that Book, and therein doth at full describe the nature of this Sacrifice; which is thus as followeth. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

Therefore, saith he, we sacrifice, & offer as it were with Incense, the memory of that great Sacrifice, celebrating the same according to the mysteries by him given unto us, andq 1.426 giving thankes to him for our salvation; with godly hymnes and prayers to the Lord our God; as also offering to him our whole selves, both soule and body, and to his high Priest, which is the Word.

See here, Eusebius doth not call it onely the memorie or commemoration of Christs Sacrifice; but makes the very memory or commemoration, in, and of it selfe, to bee a Sacrifice which instar omnium, for, and in the place of all other Sacrifices, wee are to offer to our God, and offer it with a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the In∣cense of our prayers and prayses.

This was the doctrine of the Church in Eusebius time, touching the Sacrament of the body and blood of our blessed Saviour. Of any expiatorie Sacrifice, of any offering up of Christ for the quick and dead, more than what had beene done by him once, and once for all, those blessed Ages never dream't. And howsoever some of the ancient Fathers did amplifie with the choi∣cest of their Rhetorick the dignity and nature of this holy Sacrament, the better to inflame the people with a lively zeale, at their partaking of the same: yet they meant nothing lesse, than to give any opportunity to the future Ages of making that an expiatorie Sacrifice, which they did onely teach to bee Commemorative, or representative of our Saviours passion. A Sacrifice they

did confesse it, Altars and Priests they did allow of, as necessary thereunto; not thinking fit to change those terms, which had bin recommended to them from pure antiquitie. Those blessed spirits were not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contentious about words and formes of speech, in which there was not manifest impiety. The Supper of the Lord, they called sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a memoriall of the Sacrifice, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and so S. Chrysostome on the ninth Chapter to the Hebrewes: Sometimes a Sacrifice, and sometimes a Sacrament, and sor 1.427 S. Austin for example; for in his Bookes de Civitate Dei, hee calleth it a Sacri∣fice; Id enim Sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacrifi∣ciis veteris Testamenti, &c. and saith that it succeeded in the place of those legall sacrifices, mentioned in the old Testament. The same S. Austin, as you tell uss 1.428, doth in the same Bookes call it a Sacrament of memo∣ry, and wee will take your word this once, that hee cals it so, (because we know from whence you had it) though in the place by you cited (being l. 17. c. 20.) there is no such matter: and I am sure, that in the very same Bookes it is calledt 1.429 Sacramentum Altaris, the Sacrament of the Altar: which was a very com∣mon appellation amongst the Fathers, as was acknow∣ledged by the Martyrs in Queene Maries time. So for the Minister thereof, they called himu 1.430 sometimes Presbyter, and sometimes Sacerdos, Elder, or Priest, indifferently without doubt or scruple: for which see the Margin. The Table, or the Altar, were to them such indifferent words, that they used both equally: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Eusebius in the tenth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Eusebius in the sixt Chapter of his fi••s•• de Demon∣stratione Evangelica: Altars saith S. Austin in the tenth,

and mensa, saith the same S. Austin in his 17 de Civita∣te: x 1.431 Gregory Nyssen in one breath doth make use of both, and cals the same one thing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy Table, the undefiled Altar: Altars of stone, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this Gregory Nyssen; Altars of wood, ligna Altaris,y 1.432 in S. Austin; both used with such indifferency, that Nys∣sen calleth his stone Altar by the name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Table; and Austin calleth his wooden Table, Altare, Altar: So that in all this search into antiquitie, wee find a generall consent in the Church of God touching the businesse now in hand: the Sacrament of the Lords Supper being confessed to be a Sacrifice; the Minister therein, inti••uled by the name of Priest; that on the w^ch the Priest did consecrate, being as usually called by the name of Altar, as by that of Table: and you may ••ake this testimony also from the mouth of a Gentile, that the Christians called their Table by the name of Altar; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is in Zozimus, lib. 5. Not an improper Altar, and an im∣proper Sacrifice, as you idly dreame of: For Sacrifi∣ces, Priests, and Altars being Relatives,z 1.433 as your selfe confesseth, the Sacri••ice and the Altar being im∣proper, must needs inferre that even our Priesthood is improper also: And wee may speake in proper and significant termes, as the Fathers did, without appro∣ving either the Popish Masse, or the Iewish Sacrifices; from which the Doctor is as farre, as either you that made the booke, or hee that licensed it, though you have both agreed together to breed some base suspiti∣on of hima 1.434, as if he meant somewhat else than for feare of our gracious King he dares speake out. The Doctor, I assure you, dares speake what hee thinkes, (though

you, as I perswade my selfe, thinke not what you speake:) and will now tell you what hee thinkes to bee the Doctrine of this Church in this present busi∣nesse, of Sacrifices, Priests and Altars, that wee may see shee is no flincher from the words and notions, no more than from the Doctrines of most orthodox An∣tiquity.

And first beginning with the Priesthood, in case you are not growne ashamed of that holy calling, you may remēber that you were admitted into holy Orders by no other name: Being presented to the B••sh. at your Ordination,b 1.435 you did require to bee admitted to the Order of Priesthood: and being demanded by the Bi∣shop, if you did thinke in your heart that you were truly called according to the will of our Lord Iesus Christ, and the order of this Church of England unto the Mini∣sterie of the Priesthood; you answered positively, that you did: if you thought otherwise than you said, as you doe sometimes, youc 1.436 lyed not unto men, but unto God. Looke in the Booke of Ordination, and you shall finde it oftner than once or twice, entituled the Office of Priesthood, and the holy Office of Priesthood: the parties thereunto admitted, called by no other name than that of Priests: Or if you thinke the Booke of Ordina∣tion is no good authority, (to which you have subscri∣bed however in your subscription to the Articles;) look then upon the Liturgie, and the Rubricks of it, by w^ch you would perswade the world that you are very much directed in all this businesse: Finde you not there the name of Priest, exceeding frequent, especi∣ally in that part therof which concerns the Sacrament; The Priest standing at the North side of the Table,— Then shall the Priest rehearse distinctly all the tenne Com∣mandements,

—Then shall the Priest say to them that come to receive the holy Communion,—Then shall the Priest turning himselfe to the people, give the absoluti∣on, —Then shall the Priest kneeling downe at Gods Boord, &c. Infinitum est ire per singula; It were an infi∣nite labour to summe up all places of, and in the Ru∣bricks, wherein the Minister is called by the name of Priest; which being so, as so it is, and that your own sweet selfe hath toldd 1.437 us that Altar, Priest, and Sacri∣fice are Relatives: the Church of England keeping. still as well the Office of Priesthood, as the name of Priest, must needs admit of Altars, and of Sacrifices, as things peculiar to the Priesthood: But not to trust so great a matter to your rules of Logicke, wee will next see, what is the judgement of the Church in the point of Sacrifice. Two wayes there are by which the Church declares her selfe in the present businesse: First, posi∣tively in the Booke of Articles, and that of Homilies; and practically in the Booke of Common prayers. First, in the Articles;

e 1.438 The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world, both originall and actuall, and there is no other sa∣tisfaction for sinne, but that alone.

This Sacrifice or oblation once for ever made, and never more to bee repeated, was by our Saviours owne appointment to bee commemorated and represented to us, for the better quickning of our faith: whereof if there be no∣thing said in the Booke of Articles, it is because the Articles related chiefly unto points in Controversie: but in the Booke of Homilies, which doe relate unto the Articles, as confirmed in them, and are (though not dogmaticall, but rather popular discourses) a Com∣ment,

as it were, on those points of doctrine, which are determined of elsewhere:f 1.439 wee finde it thus:

That the great love of our Saviour Christ to man∣kinde doth not only appeare, in that deare-bought benefit of our redemption, and satisfaction by his death and passion, but also in that he hath so kindly provided that the same most mercifull work might bee had in continuall remembrance. Amongst the which meanes is the publick celebration of the me∣morie of his pre••ious death at the Lords Table:— our Saviour having ordained and established the re∣membrance of his great mercie expressed in his pas∣sion, in the Institution of his heavenly Supper.

Here is a commemoration of that blessed Sacrifice which Christ once offered, a publick celebration of the memorie thereof, and a continuall remembrance of it by himselfe ordained. Which if it seeme not full enough for the Commemorative sacrifice, in the Church observed, the Homilieg 1.440 will tell us further:

that this Lords supper is in such wise to be done and mini∣stred, as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded it to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the good Fa∣thers in the Primitive Church frequented it.

So that what ever hath beene proved to bee the purpose of the Institution, the practise of the holy Apostles, and usage of the ancient Fathers: will fall within the mea∣ning and intention of the Church of England.

For better manifesting of the which Intention, we will next looke into the Agenda, the publick Liturgie of this Church. Where first we finde it granted, that

h 1.441 Christ our Saviour is the verie Paschall Lamb that was offred for us, and hath taken away the sinne of the world:i 1.442 that suffering death upon the crosse for

our Redemption, he made there by his owne oblati∣on of himselfe once offred, a full, perfect, and suffi∣cient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the whole world. And to thek 1.443 end that we should alwaies remember the exceeding great love of our Master, and only Saviour Iesus Christ thus dying for us, and the innumerable benefits which by his preci∣ous bloodshedding he hath obtained to us: he hath instituted and ordained holy mysteries, as pledges of his love and continuall remembrance of his death, to our great and endlesse comfort;l 1.444 instituting and in his holy Gospell commanding us to continue a perpetuall memorie of that his precious death till his comming againe.

Then followeth the consecration of the creatures of bread and wine, form 1.445 a remembrance of his death and passion, in the same words and Phra∣ses which Christ our Saviour recommended unto his Apostles, and the Apostles to the Fathers of the Primi∣tive times: which now, as then, is to bee done only by the Priest [Then the Priest standing up shall say, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fol∣loweth] to whom it properly belongeth, and upon whom his Ordination doth conferre a power of mini∣string the Sacraments, not given to any other Order in the holy Ministerie. The memorie or com••emora∣tion of Christs death thus celebrated, is calledn 1.446 a sa∣crifice, a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; a sacrifice representative of that one and only expiatorie sacri∣fice which Christ once offred for us all: the whole Communicants be seeching God to grant, that by the me∣rits and death of his Sonne Iesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, they and the whole Church may obtain•• the remission of their sinnes, and all other the benefits of his Passion: Nor stay they there, but forthwith offer

and present unto the Lord their selves, their soules and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto him: And howsoever, as they most humbly doe ac∣knowledge, they are unworthy through their mani∣fold sinnes▪ to offer to him any sacrifice, yet they beseech him to accept that their bounden duty and service. In which last words, that present service which they doe to Almighty God, according to their bound•••• duties, in celebrating the perpetuall memory of Christs precious death, and the oblation of their selves, and with themselves the sacrifice of praise and thanksgi∣ving, in due acknowledgement of the benefits and com∣forts by his death received, is himbly offered unto God, for, and as a Sacrifice, and publickly avowed for such, as from the tenour and coherence of the words doth appeare most plainly. Put all together which hath been here delivered from the Booke of Articles, the Homilies, and publick Liturgie, and tell me if you ever found a more excellent concord, than this be∣tweene Eusebius and the Church of England, in the present businesse: Our Saviours sacrifice upon the Crosse, called there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and here acknowledge to bee the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sinnes of the whole world▪ There wee have 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mysteries delivered to us by our Lord and Saviour, for a remembrance of that great sacrifice; and hereo 1.447 an Institution of holy mysteries, as pledges of his love, and continuall remembrance of his death. The memory or commemoration of this his death, called there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a••dp 1.448 here the publick celebration of the memorie of his precious death, at the Lords Table; there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

hereq 1.449 the remembrance of his great mercy expressed in his Passion; there for the offering of this sacrifice to Almighty God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. there was a Priesthood thought to bee very necessary, and here the Priest aloner 1.450 hath power to consecrate the Creatures of bread and wine, for a remembrance of his death and passion: There the whole action, as it relates to Priest and people, is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; & heres 1.451 the sacrifice of praise and thanks-giving: there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 here in the selfe same words, a reasonable and holy Sacrifice: There the Communicants doe offer to the Lord 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. and here they doe present unto him their selves, soules, and bodies. Finally, there it is said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that they doe sacrifice unto the Lord the memory of that great oblation: i. e. as he expounds himselfe, they offer to him the commemoration of the same 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, and as a Sacrifice. And heret 1.452 we doe besee••h the Lord to accept this our bounden dutie and servic••, for, and as a sacrifice, which notwithstanding wee con∣fesse our selves unworthy to offer to him. Never did Church agree more perfectly with the ancient pat∣ternes.

Yet lest you should endeavour, as you use to doe, to cast a mist before the eyes of poore ignorant people, as if the Church meant nothing lesse than what here is said; will you bee pleased to looke upon those Wor∣thies of the Church, which are best able to expound, and unfold her meaning: wee will beg••n with Bishop Andrewes, and tell you what hee saithu 1.453 as ••on••erning sacrifices.

The Eucharist, saith he, ever was and is by us considered, both as a Sacrament, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as a Sac••i∣fice.

A sacrifice is proper and appliable onely to Di∣vine worship. The sacrifice of Christs death did suc∣ceed to the sacrifices of the old Testament; which being prefigured in those sacrifices before his com∣ming, hath since his comming beene celebrated per Sacrament um memoriae, by a Sacrament of memo∣ry, as S. Austin cals it.

Thus also in his answer unto Cardinall Bellarmine, Tollite de Missa Transubstantiatio∣nem vestram, nec diu nobiscum lis erit de sacrificio, &c.

Take from the Masse your Transubstantiation, and wee will have no difference with you about the sa∣cri••ice. x 1.454 The memorie of a Sacrifice we acknowledge willingly, and the King grant▪ the name of Sacri∣••ice to have beene frequent with the Fathers.

For Altars next.

If wee agree (y 1.455 saith hee) about the matter of sacrifice, there will be no difference about the Altar. The holy Eucha••ist being considered as a sacrifice (in the representation of breaking the Bread, and pouring forth the Cup,) the same is fitly called an Altar; which againe is as fitly called a Tabee▪ the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and application of the Sacri••ice to the severall receivers. So that the matter of Altars makes no difference in the face of our Church.

As Bishop Andrewes wrote at King Iames his motion, against Cardinall Bellarmine; so Isaac Casau∣bon writ King Iames his minde to Cardinall Peron; and in expressing of his minde, affirmeth, Veteres Ec∣clesiae, Patres, &c.

That the ancient Fathers did ac∣knowledge one onely Sacrifice in the Christian Church, which did succeed in place of all those sa∣crifices in the law of Moses that hee conceived the said sacrifice to bee nothing else, nis•• commemorati∣onem

••jus quod semel in Cruce Christus Patri suo ob∣tulit, than a Commemoration of that sacrifice which CHRIST once offered on the Crosse to his heavenly Father:z 1.456 that oftentimes the Church of England hath professed, she will not strive about the Word, which shee expresly useth in her publick Liturgie.

All this you seeme to grant, but then make a difference betweenea 1.457 the Commemoration of a Sacrifice, and a commemorative sacrifice: And though you grant that in the Eucharist there is com∣memoratio sacrificii, yet you flie out upon theb 1.458 Do∣ctor, for saying that the Church admits of a commemo∣rative sacrifice; which is as much, you say, as P. Lombard and all his ragged regiment admit of▪ If this be all you stand upon, you shall soone be satisfied. Arch••Bishop Cranmer (whom you your selfe acknowledge to be the most learned on this Theame of our late Divines) di∣stinguisheth most cleerlyc 1.459 betweene

the sacrifice pro∣pitiatory made by Christ himself only, and the sacri∣fice commemorative and gratulatory made by the Priests and people.

My Lord of Durham also doth call the Eucharistd 1.460 a representative and commemorative sacrifice, in as plaine language verily, as the Doctor did; although hee doth deny it to bee a proper sacri∣fice: As for your Criticisme, or quarrell rather, be∣tweene a commemorative sacrifice, and a commemo∣ration of a Sacrifice, which you insist on, it was very needlesse, both termes being used by Bishop An∣drewes (as great a Clerke as any Minister of Lincolne Diocesse) as aequipollent and aequivalent, both of one expression;e 1.461 of which see the Margin. But to goe forwards with the Sacrifice, my Lord of Chichester thus speakes unto his Informers:

f 1.462 I have (saith hee)

so good an opinion of your understanding, though weak, that you will conceive the blessed Sacrament of the Altar, or the Communion Table, which you please, to be a sacrifice.

What doe I heare the Bi∣shop say, the blessed Sacrament of the Altar? And doe you not perswade us, or at least endeavour it, out of his answer to the Gagger, thatg 1.463 Gaggers of Protestants call it so, but Protestants themselves doe not? It is true, that in his answer to the Gagger, he hath those very words which you thence produce; the Sacrament (as you call it) of the Altar: but then it is as true, that hee doth call it so himselfe; and is resolved to call it so, howsoever you like it.

Walk youg 1.464 (saith he) at ran∣dome, and at rovers in your by-pathes, if you please. I have used the name of Altar for the Communion- Table, according to the manner of Antiquity, and am like enough sometimes to use it still. Nor will I abstaine, notwithstanding your oggannition, to fol∣low the steps and practice of Antiquity, in using the words Sacrifice and Priesthood also.

Finally,h 1.465 hee brings in Bishop Morton professing thus, That he belee∣v••d no such sacrifice of the Altar, as the Church of Rome doth, and that he fancieth no such Altars as they imploy, though hee professed a Sacrifice and an Altar. Thus ha∣ving plainly layed before you, the Doctrine, Vse, and Practice of Antiquitie in the present businesse, to∣gether with the tendries of the Church of England conforme thereto; we will next see what you can say unto the contrary, and what faire dealing wee are like to finde in your proceedings.

CHAP. VI.

An Answer to the Cavils of the Minister of Linc▪ against the points delivered in the for∣mer Chapter.

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

WEE ended our last Chapter with the Church of England, and with the Church of England wee must now begin; your method leads me to it, which I meane to follow, as well as such a broken clew▪ can leade mee, in so confused a

Laberinth as of your compositions:* 1.466 And here you change the very state of the question at your first en∣trance on the same. The Bishop charged it home, as hee conjectured,a 1.467 that if the Vicar should erect any such Altar, his discretion would prove the onely Holocaust to be sacrificed thereon: Now you have changed itb 1.468 to a close Altar at the upper end of the Quire, where the old Altar in Queene Maries time stood. This is no honest dealing to begin with. The mention of close Al∣tars, and Queene Maries time, comes in here very un∣seasonably, if not suspi••iously, onely to make poore men afraid, (whom you have throughtly possessed al∣ready with such Panick feares) that Altars and Queen Maries dayes are comming in againe amongst us. Nor have you dealt better with the 31 Article in your own Editionc 1.469 of the Bishops letter, where you have made it say, that that other oblation, which the Papists were wont to offer upon these Altars is a blasphemous ••igment, and pernicious imposture. These, was not in the Text before, and is now onely thrust into it, to make the Vicar come up close to Queene Maries Altars. I pray you good Sir, whar spectacles did you use, when you found Altars, and these Altars, Papists, and that other oblation in the 31 Article, wherein my dull and heavy eyes can see no such word? This is another of your tricks, to make your credulous followers beleeve, that by the doctrine of the Church in her publick Ar∣ticles, Papists and Altars are meere Relatives; that so whosoever shall but use the name of Altar, or speake of placing the Communion-Table Altar-wise, may be suspected presently to bee a Papist, or at least Popishly affected. Nor doe I speake this without good authori∣ty: For doe not you tell us, that the Phantasticall Vi∣car

called his Communion-Table an Altar, as the Papists doe, p. 199? and have you not corrupted the Bishops Letter, to make it say, that Altars onely were erected for the sacrifice of the Masse, p. 16? which was not in the Text before. But Sir, the primitive Christians had their Altars, when there was no such thing in being, d 1.470 as the Popish Lambe; no such blasphemous figments, and pernicious impostures, as by the Article are char∣ged on the Church of Rome, in those, by us, rejected sacrifices of the Masse: So that both I and you, may without danger of revoking our subscriptions to the Booke of Articles, set the Communion Table at the upper end of the Chancell, there where the old Altar stood in Queene Maries time, if you needs will have it so; and yet no more dreame of the Popish Lambe, and those bl••sphemous figments which the Article speaks of, than did the holy Fathers in the Primitive times; when neither your said Popish Lambe, nor any of those figments were in repum natura. Now, as you palter with the Article, so doe you onely play and dally with the Homilie; as one that loves so dearly well, (what∣soever you say unto the contrary) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to make your selfe merry with sacred things. You tell us ••rom the Homily, that wee must take heede 1.471 lest the Lords Supper of a memory be made a sacrifice: and then proceedf 1.472, What saith the Doctor to this? Hee saith that by these words the Church admits of a Comme∣morative sacri••ice. Which said, you make your Rea∣ders even burst with laughter, by telling them, that the poore man hath found a true and reall sac••ifice, (in the Booke of Homilies) but it is a Bull; a very strange and hideous Bull which this Calfe makes the Church speake un∣to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 people in her publick Homilies. And what is that?

As wee must take heed, good people, wee apply not the Sacrament of the Supper to the dead, but to the living, &c. so must we take especiall heed, lest of a Commemorative Sacrifice it bee made a Sacrifice.

A veryg 1.473 pious Bull indeed, you speak wondrous rightly; but a Bull onely of your owne herd, and onely fit for such a Milo as your selfe, to carry. For tell me, doth the Doctor say, that by these words the Church admits of a Commemorative sacrifice? On with your false eyes once againe, and you will finde the Doctor makes no other answer to your objection from the Homilyh 1.474, but that the sacri••ice rejected in the Homily, is that which is cried down in the Booke of Articles, which the Episto∣ler had no reason to suspect was ever aimed at by the Vi∣car. Of a Commemorative sacrifice in those words of the Homilie, ••e gry quidem, there. Indeed the Do∣ctor said before, in answer to your argument from the 31 Article, that though the Church condemned that other oblation of the Papists, as the Letter cals it:

yet she allows of a Commemorative sacrifice for a perpetu∣all memory of Christs precious death, of that his full, perfeft, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfa∣ction for the sins of the whole world.

And for the proofe thereof referred himselfe unto the Prayer of the Consecration; which are not, sure, the words of the Homily, or by him cited thence, if you marke it well. Or had hee said it of those words in the Booke of Homilies, had it beene such a strange and hi∣deous Bull, with foure Hornes, and I know not how many tailes, for you to lead by it up and do ••ne the Countrey, for ••he delight and solace of your sportfull Readers? Could you not paraphase upon it thus? We must take heed good people, lest the Lords Sup∣per,

of a memory be made a Sacrifice: i. e. le••t of a C••m∣memorative sacrifice, it be made propitiatorie? No: Hee that lookes for ingen••ity from such hands as yours, must have lesse knowledge of you, and more faith in you, than I dare pretend to. And for your Bull, that was but a device to make sport for Boyes. Shewing us so much Spanish in the Margin, you had a minde to let us see, that you did understand as well their customes, as their language: and therefore would set out a Fuego de Toros, a kind of Bull baiting for the Boyes, who must be pleased too in this businesse. You have not studied all this while, populo ut placerent only, but now and then ut pueris placeas, & declam••∣tio fias, as you know, who said.

But would we see a Bull indeed, a Bull set out with flowers and Garlands, readie for the Sacrifice? Out of your store you can afford us such a one, though not so pious altogether, as that you sent unto the Doctor. We saw before how well you pleaded against Altars, out of the Articles and booke of Homilies: and now behold an argument from the Common Prayer Booke, which, if the businesse be not done already, will be ••ure to doe it. For youi 1.475 appeale to all indifferent men, that

pretend to any knowledge in Divinitie, if the Rea∣ding Pew, the Pulpit, and any other place in the Church bee not as properly an Altar, for prayer, praise, thanksgiving, memorie of the passion, dedi∣cating our selves to Gods very service; and the Churches Box or Bason, for that oblation for the poore which was used in the Primitive times; as is our holy Table, howsoever situated or disposed.

Nay, you goe further, and demand,

what one sacrifice can be inferred out of the Collects read by the Priest

at the 〈…〉〈…〉 which are not as easily de∣duced 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Te 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 said in the Quire, or Reading Pew: whether there be no pray∣ing, praising, commemorating of the Passion, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of our selves no Gods service in those two 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

The Fathe••s were but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 soures in drea∣ming of one Altar only in each sev••rall Church▪ wher∣as indeed there are as many as wee please to make. Here is the Poore-mans Box, the Communion Table, the Pulpit, and the Reading Pew, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 quatuor A••ns: foure in a knot, land yet not halfe enough for so many sacri∣fices. And therefore every place, the Bell-free, the Church-por••h, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 house, the seat of every pri∣vate person, the Vestrie chiefe of all, and whatsoever other place a man may ••ancy to himselfe, are now turned to Altars. This if we doe not yeeld to at the first proposall, we are pronounced alreadie to have no knowledge in Divinitie; and not to be indifferent men, but parties. Not so indifferent men as I thinke you are: nor so well skilled in this new Lincolnshire divinitie, which onely you and one or two more of your deare acquaintance, have beene pleased to broach. What need we take this paines to looke after Altars, when by this Boston doctrine the Communion Table may as wel be spared? 〈…〉〈…〉 meae! It alwayes was my hope, that howsoever wee lost the Altar, I might be confident wee should have a Table left us for the holy Sacrament, at least the Sacram 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it selfe. But see how strangely things are carried: Rather than heare of Altars, we will down with Tables; yea with the Sacrament it selfe: and let the memorie of Christs passion bee celebrated how it will, or where it will, in the Pew, or Pulpit, the Porch

or Bell-free. Is't not enough to heare it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of, but we must come and see it acted? what are these Sacra∣ments they speake of, but signes, and figures; and by what figure can they make us bee in love with signes? Or say that there bee some spirituall sacrifices expe∣cted of us by our God; may wee 〈…〉〈…〉 them with∣out materiall Tables? yea and without materiall Chur∣ches▪ on therefore Westwa••d ho, for Salem, and the free Gospell of New England. This is the knowledge in Divinitie you so much pretend to: which, wheresoe∣ver you first learnt it, was never taught you, I am sure, in any of the bookes that you s••bscribed to, when you came to your place. We grant that those two Hymnes you speake of, are of excellent use: and purposely se∣lected for the setting forth of Gods praise and glory, with an acknowledgement of our bounden duties to him, for his grace and goodnesse. But then the Litur∣gie hath taught you, that the Lords Table is the proper place at which to celebrate the ••emorie of our Savi∣ours passion:k 1.476 which▪ the Priest standing at the same, and consecrating there the creatures of bread and wine, according to Christs holy institution, doth represent unto the people. And when, in testimonie of our common and publick gratitude for so great a mercie, we offer our whole selves unto him▪ both soule and body, we are enjoyned to doe it at or neere the same place also▪l 1.477 And here O Lord wee offer and present unto thee, our selves, soules and bodies; here where thou hast been pleased to make us partakers of Christs bodie and bloud, and sealed unto our soules the benefits of his death and passion. Will you have more? Them 1.478 Homi∣lie hath told us, that

we are bound to render thanks to Almightie God for all his benefits briefely com∣prised

in the dea••h, passion, and resurrection of his dearely beloved Sonne, the which thing because we ought chiefly at this Table to solemnize,

(marke you that, this Table?) the godly Fathers named it Eucha∣ristia, that is, thanksgiving. Had I but such a Bandog, as your friend H. B. this Puritan Bull of yours might be better hai••ed, than his Popes Bull was. Your Popish lamb and Puritan Bull being both discarded by the Church, may goe both together But I must tell you ere we part, that that which I suspected is now come to passe, viz. that by your principles, every Cobler, Tinker, and other Artizan, may take his turne and minister at and on the holy Altar.

That which you shew us next, is but another 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a quarrell about words and Phrases; touching the difference betweenen 1.479 commemoratio sacrificii, and a commemorative sacrifice: the first be∣ing used, you say, by Chrysostome, K. Iames, and Pet. Lombard, S. Austin, Eusebius, and the book of Homilies; the later only by this wretched Doctor, and such un∣lucky birds as he, the ragged regiment of P. Lombard. Which said, you presently confute your selfe, as your custome is, confessing that someo 1.480 few learned men of the reformed Church, doe use the name of a Commemora∣tive Sacrifice; and yet (God blesse them) are not brought within the compasse of that ragged regiment. But hereof wee have spoke already in the former Chapter. For Sacrifices next, you cannot possible ap∣prove (whichp 1.481 Protestants and Papists doe joyntly denie) that ever materiall A••tar was erected in the Church, for the use of spirituall and improper sacrifices. Assuredly the Papists have good reason for what they doe; and if you grant them this position, simply, and

without restriction; you give them all that they de∣sire. For by this meanes they gaine unto them all the Fathers, who speake of Altars, passi••••, in their workes and writings; materiall Altars, questionlesse, made of wood or stone. And if materiall Altars were not made for improper sacrifices, you must needes gran•• they had some proper sacrifices to be performed up∣on those Altars: Besides, in case the note be true, that never materi••ll Altar was erected for a spirituall and im∣proper sacrifice, and that the Sacrament of the Lords Supper be but a metaphoricall and improper sacrific••, asq 1.482 you elsewhere say; it may be done as well with∣out a materiall Table, and any where as properly as in a materiall Church. Did you distinguish, as you ought, between the mysticall sacrifice in the holy Eucharist, commemorative and representative of our Saviours death; and those spirituall sacrifices, which every Christian man is bound to offer to the Lord, at all times and places: you would finde the vanitie and weaknesse of these poore Conclusions. Yet you goe forwards still on a full careere, and having filled your margin with an huddle of impertinent quotations, you fall at last on this fine fancie:q 1.483 how that God suffered not the first Ages of the world for 1650. yeeres to passe away without prayers, and thanksgivings; and yet hee suffred it to passe without any Altars. May a man take it on your word, and not be called for it to an after rec∣koning? Did you not say, the Page before, that Altar, Priest, and Sacrifice were relatives? and find wee not in holy writ that Cain and Abel brought their offrings to the Lord their God? their sacrifices as they are in∣tituled, Hebr. 11. 4. if so, then by your owne rule doubt∣lesse, there wore Altars also. Or if God suffered all

that time to passe without any Altars; did it not passe away without any Tables, or any Churches that wee reade of? But see the charitie of the man, and his lear∣ning too. For if the Doctor willr 1.484 but promise not to disturbe the peace of the Church any more, this lusty Lad of Lincolnshire will finde him all the severall Altars, which have been spoke of by the Fathers for spirituall sacrifices. These wee shall meet withall hereafter, amongst your impertinencies. Meane time I passe my word to keepe covenant with you, and promise you sincerely before God and man, that as I never did, so I never will put my hand to any thing by which the Church may be disturbed.s 1.485 You know Elijahs answere unto proud K. Ahab; It is not I, but thou and thy Fa∣thers house that have troubled Israel.

From Altars we must follow you, as you lead the way, unto the Sacrifices of the Altar. Whereof though we have spoken before enough to meet with all your cavils: yet since you put me to the question,t 1.486 where you may reade this terme of mine, Sacrifices of the Altar, if you reade not of them in the Sacri••ices of the Law; I will tell you where. Looke through the booke of Ge∣nesis, and tell me if you meet not with many sacrifices, and sacrifices done on Altars, by Abel, Noah, Abraham, Iacob: sacrifices of the Altar, doubtlesse, and yet not sacrifices of the Law. The law you know was a Post∣natus, not borne a long time after those good Patri∣archs died; you cite the Cardinall rightly, that all the sacrifices which we reade of in the scripture, were necessarily to be destroied. But presently you change his termes, and for his sacrifices in the Scripture, put downe your sacrifices of the law; as if the Scrip∣ture went no further than the Law of Moses. If in

the ancient Fathers wee doe finde not in terminis, the sacrifice of the Altar, it helpes but little to your pur∣pose: the Doctour no where saying that hee had it from them. And if they call it not interminis, the sa∣crifice of the Altar, they call it so at least ex consequen∣te, when they entitle the Lords Supper by the name of Sacrifice, and such a sacrifice as is to bee offred on a sacred or an hallowed Altar. And yet to satisfie your longing, it shall be hard but wee will finde it for you amongst the Ancients, and not consult the Index nei∣ther. For what conceive you of S. Austin, was not hee an Ancient? and yet he cals it so interminis, without doubt or scruple. Cum ergo sacrificii sive Altaris [N. B.] ••ive quarumcunque eleemosynarum, &c. in the Enchiri∣dion ad Laurentium, cap. 110. of the Edition of Danaeus. Nor shall S. Austin goe alone: it being called so by u 1.487 Bede, no such verie puisnè, and that in terminis termi∣nantibus, which is that you stand upon. But where you adde, that possibly the Ancient Fathers could not have any notice of this sacrifice of the Altar;x 1.488 and for a proofe therof produce a passage from Arnobius: besides, what hath before been answered to the place it selfe, the Doctor cannot chuse but tell you, that you have used Arnobius worse, than any Gentile would have done. Arnobius was not asked, as you put the question, What are you Christians to performe no manner of sacri∣fices at all? but whether the Christians thought that no such thing as sacrifice was at all proper to the Gods? Quid ergo? Sacrificia censetis nulla facienda? as your margin rightly. Nor doth Arnobius answere to the question, as you make him answer, no, not any at all: as if the Christiaus onely had had no sacrifices, or thought no kinde of sacrifice to be a fitting service for

the heavenly powers: but ex Varronis vestri sententia, nulla; none, if wee may beleeve your owne Authour Varro, a learned man amongst your selves.y 1.489 And this he makes non nostra, none of our opinion; though you most falsly make it both his and ours, that is, the Chri∣stians of th••se times. You must bring better proofes than this, or else it will be possible enough that the an∣cient Fathers might take notice of this Sacrifice of the Altar: which is the matter you denie, and to make good your negative, have thus used Arnobius.

But, as you say, the Doctor hath found it in the Bi∣ble for all this, Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar: And so have you. Doe not you finde it in the Bible, as well as hee? Yes; but you know the meaning of it better than any Doctor of them all; better than Doctor Gentium, than S. Paul himselfe;

For in good faith, say you,a 1.490 if S. Paul should meane a materiall Altar for the Sacra∣ment in that place (with reverence to such a chosen Vessell of the Holy Ghost, bee it spoken) it would prove the weakest argument that was ever made by so strong an Artist.

Which said, you descant on it thus:

Wee have an Altar and a Sacrifice of the Altar, that you of the Circumcision may not par∣take of. And have you so? That is no great won∣der saith the Iew, when abundance of you Christians (the discipline of your Church being so severe) may not partake thereof your selves.

And therefore you conclude,

That for S. Paul to fright the Iewes with the losse of that, which so many millions of Christi∣ans were themselves bereaved of, had beene a very weake and feeble dehortation.

Is not thisb 1.491 ponere os in coelum, to out-face heaven it selfe, in calling thus in question the judgement and discretion of that great

Apostle: Tu quis es, O homo; what art thou O man, that thou shouldest dare to dispute with Paul, and that upon such weake and feeble grounds? For good Sir, tell me where you finde that those degrees you speake of, and that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉c 1.492, that creeping on with time and le••sure unto the bosome of the Church; were knowne or practised in the time of this Apostle? Think you the discipline of the Church was grown to that se∣veritie in so short a time, as that the Iewes might turn it back upon S. Paul, to elude his Argument? That ri∣gour, those degrees, were never heard of in the Church, till a long time after, though by you made as old as the faith it selfe: there being mention in the Acts of many families baptized, not a few thousands of particular persons, which did not runne through all those wearisome wayes, before they were admitted to the blessed Sacrament. Or were it that those wea∣risome wayes were travailed by the Christians in the Apostles time, before they were admitted to the Sacra∣ment, yet were this but a sorry answere to his Argu∣ment, howd 1.493 weake soever you conceive it. The A∣postles argument is de jure, of a right to eat; your an∣swere is de facto, of the act of eating. Th••se of the Circumcision had no right to eate of the Christians Altar; simply and absolutely no right at all. The Ini∣tiati had a kinde of right, nay a good jus ad rem, though in re they had not, and to this jus in re they tended by those steps and degrees you talke of. Because a stran∣ger hath no right to my lands, have my children none? and yet my children must 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, tarry a while, ex∣pect their time, before they enter into actuall possessi∣on of them. What a Goliah have we here to encoun∣ter David, what a Tertullus have we found, to dispute

with Paul; what ae 1.494 Cerinthus, to make head against S. Peter: yet lest S. Paul should goe alone, you let us have S. Ambrose to beare him companie: and hard it is to say which of the two you use most coursly. You tax S. Paul with weaknesse, but yet you do it with a salva reverentia, and with a reverence be it spoken. S. Ambrose findes not in you so much good manners, whom you have falsified of purpose to make the Apo∣stles argument as weake, as you say it is. For thus you shut up your Censura, (or if you please your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) of the blessed Apostle.f 1.495 I will conclude with S. Ambrose, That we have nothing visible in all this dispu∣tation of S. Paul, neither Priest, nor sacrifice, nor Altar: And then produce him in your margin, saying, Nihil hic visibile, neque Sacerdos, neque sacrificium, neque Al∣tare, in 10. ep. ad Hebr. How you have falsified S. Am∣brose, by turning Horum, into Hic,g 1.496 wee have shewn before. The Father speakes there onely of spirituall sacrifices; and you will turne his horum into hic, as if he spoke there onely of the mysticall sacrifice. And were it hic in the originall of S. Ambrose, yet you are guiltie of another falshood against that Father by ren∣dring it, in all this disputation. The Fathers hìc, if hee had said so, must have related to those points which were debated of, in the 10. Chapt. to the Hebr. whence the words were cited; and those spirituall sacrifices, which are there described, you, by an excellent Art of juggling, have with a Hocas Pocas brought it hither, and make us thinke it was intended for this hìc, this place, Heb. 13. 10. of which now we speake, and which hath been the ground of that disputation, which you conclude with, from S. Ambrose.

Vsing the Apostle, and the Fathers in so foule a fa∣shion,

it is not to bee thought you should deale more ingeniously with their Disciples. The servant is not above the Master; nor lookes for better usage from you, than hee hath done hitherto. Having concluded with S. Ambrose, your next assault is on the Doctor: whom youh 1.497 report to be the first sonne of the reformed Church of England, that hath presumed openly to ex∣pound this place of a materiall Altar;i 1.498 Not constantly, you say, but yet so expounded it. I beseech you, where? Not in the Coal from the Altar, there is no such matter. Take the words plainly as they lie, you shall finde them thus.

And above all indeed, S. Paul in his Habemus altare, Hebr.* 1.499 13. 10. In which place whether he meane the Lords Table, or the Lords Supper, or rather the sacrifice it selfe, which the Lord once of∣fred, certaine it is, that hee conceived the name of Altar, neither to be impertinent nor improper in the Christian Church.

Finde you that hee expounds the place of a materiall Altar? or that hee only doth re∣peat three severall expositions of it? Now of those expositions, one was this, that by those words, we have an Altar, S. Paul might mean we have a Table, where∣of it was not lawfull for them to eate, that serve the Tabernacle. If this bee the materiall Altar, that you complaine of in the Doctors exposition; assuredly he is not the first sonne, by many of the Church of Eng∣land, that hath so expounded it. The learned Bishop i 1.500 Andrewes doth expound it so. The Altar in the old Testament is by Malachi called Mensa Domini. And of the Table in the new Testament, by the Apostle it is said, Habemus Altare: which whether it be of stone as Nys∣sen; or of wood, as Optatus, it skils not. So doth my Lord of Lincoln also, one of the sonnes, I trow, of

the Church of England. Citing those words of Bishop Andrewes,k 1.501 you adde immediatly, that this is the ex∣position of P. Martyr mentioned in the letter (i. e. my Lord of Lincolns letter to the Vicar of Grantham) that as sometimes a Table is put for an Altar, as in the first of Malachi: so sometimes an Al••ar may be put for a Table, as in this Epistle to the Hebrewes. Next looke into the Bishop of Chichester,l 1.502 who plainly tels you,

that the Lords Table hath beene called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 from the beginning; not, as some falsly teach, by succeeding Fathers: and that S. Paul himselfe may seeme to have given authoritie and warrant to the Phrase,

Hebr. 13. 10. The Doctor is not then the first sonne of the Church of England, that hath so expoun∣ded it. Or if he were, hee hath a second, but such a second as is indeed Nulli secundus, for some things that I could tell you of, even your good friend the minister of Lincolnshire, one of the children of the Church, that writ the booke entituled the Holy Table. For presently upon the Bishop of Lincolns glosse, he addesm 1.503 this de proprio, than the which solution there may be peradventure a more full; but there cannot bee •• more plaine and conceiveable answere. I see you can make use sometimes of a leaden dagger,n 1.504 though, as you tell us, throwne away by the very Papists; yet not so utterly throwne away, (as within two leaves af∣ter you are pleased to tell us) but that it is still worne o 1.505 by the Jesuites, Salmeron, the Remists, à Lapide, Harae∣us, Tirinus, Gordon, Menochius, (and Cajetan) of which some are yet living, for ought I can heare. Nor doth your Authour say, it is throwne away, as if not service∣able to this purpose:p 1.506 but onely that non desunt ex Catholicis, some of the Catholick writers doe expound

it otherwise. I hope you would not have all Texts of Scripture to bee cast away like leaden Daggers, be∣cause, Non desunt ex Catholicis, some one or other learned man give such expositions of them, as are not every way agreeable unto yours and mine.

Now as the Doctor was the first Sonne of the Church of England, so was Se••uliusq 1.507 the first Writer before the Reformation, that literally, and in the first place did bend this Text to the materiall Altar. Iust so I promise you, and no otherwise. Or had Sedulius beene the first, the exposition had not beene so moderne, but that it might lay claime to a faire antiquity. Sedulius lived so neare S. Austin, that hee might seeme to tread on his very heeles; the one being placed by Bellar∣mine, an. 420. the other an. 430. but ten yeares after. And if the Cardinals noter 1.508 be true, that hee excerpted all his notes on S. Pauls Epistles, from Origen▪ Ambrose, Hierom, and Austin: for ought I know, his expositi∣on of the place may bee as old, as any other whatsoe∣ver. But for Sedulius, (wheresoever he had it) thus he cleares the place:s 1.509 Habemus nos fideles Altare, prae••er Altare Iudaeorum, unde corpus & sanguinem Christi participamus: i. e. The faithfull have an Altar, yet not the Iewish Altar neither, from whence they doe parti∣cipate of Christs body & blood: That is plain enough, and yet no plainer than S. Chr••sost. though you have darkened him as much as possibly you can, to abuse the Father.t 1.510 Chrysostome expounds it (as you say) of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of the things professed here amongst us: for proofe whereof you bring in Oecumenius with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Tenets, as it were, of Christian men. So that if you may bee beleeved, the Father, and his se∣cond, doe expound the place, of the Doctrine, Te∣nets,

or profession of the Church of Christ.u 1.511 First, to begin with Chrysostome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 The words you see, put neutrally, and so translated in the Latine, Non enim qualia sunt apud Iudaeos, talia etiam nostra sunt: That is, as I conce••ve his meaning, our Sacrifices, or our Sacraments are not such as the Iewish were, our Alt••r not as theirs, nor any of our Rites thereunto belonging. My reason is, because it followeth in the Father, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; so that it is not lawfull, no not to the High-Priest himselfe, to partake thereof. Of what I pray you? Not of the things professed in the Christian Church? I hope you will not say, but it was lawfull to the Priests to be partakers of the doctrine of our Lord and Saviour. Why did the Apostles preach unto the Iewes, in case it were not lawfull for them to make profession of the Faith? Therefore the Father must needs meane the Christians Sacrifices, (perfor∣med upon the Altar which the Apostle speakes of) of which it was not lawfull for the High-Priest (conti∣nuing as he was, High-Priest) to bee partaker. And this I take the rather to have beene his meaning, because Theophylact who followed Chrysostome so exactlyy 1.512, that hee doth seeme to have abridged him; doth thus des∣cant on it.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Having before said (v. 9.) that no regard was to be had of meats, lest our owne Ordinances [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] might bee thought contemptible, as things unobserved; hee addes, that we have Ordinances of our own, [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not about meats, (as were the Iewes) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but such as doe concerne the Altar,z 1.513 or the unbloody sacri∣fice

of Christs quickning body. Of which, which sa∣crifice [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] it is not lawfull for the Priests to bee partakers, as long as they doe service to the Tabernacle; i. e. the legall signes and shadows.

The like saith also Oecumenius with his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you have Englished Tenets, with the like felicitie, as you did the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Chrysost. For Oecumenius saying as Theophylact had done before, because the A∣postle had affirmed,

That no regard was to bee had of meates, &c. hee addes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and have not we also our owne Or∣dinances or observations? To which hee answers with Theophylact, but a great deale plainer, Yes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉^. not of meats, but of our Altar.

If you goe downe ward to the Latines, they are cleare as day. Haymo who lived about the yeare ••••0. affirmes expresly on the place, Altare Ecclesiae est, ubi quotidie corpus consecratur Chri∣sti; that is the Altar of the Church, whereon the bo∣dy of Christ is daily consecrated. And so Remigius, who lived, and writ about those times; Ha••emus ergo Altare Ecclesiae, ubi consecratur corpus Dominicum; the same in sense, though not in words, with that of Haymo. This, Doctor Fulk, almost as great a Clerke as you, conceives to bee so really intended by Oecumenius and Haymoa 1.514, that he reports, that they did doate upon the place; even as you sayb 1.515, the Doctor melts upon the place. But say you what you will. As long as hee can back it with so good authority, the Doctor will make more of Habemus Altare, than before hee did; though you should raise Iohn Philpot from the dead to expound it otherwise; as neare told he did in the Acts and Mon. p. 90. of your holy Table.

From the Apostles Text, both re & nomine, pro∣ceed wee to the Apostles Canons, nomine at the least, if not re also; which, if not writ by them, are by the Doctor said to be of good antiquity; nor doe you de∣ny it: Onely you ••ling them off with a Schoole-boyes jest,c 1.516 affirming confidently, that all good Schollers reckon those Canons but as so many Pot-gunnes. Not all good Scholers certainly; you are out in that. What thinke you of my Lord of Chichester, of whom the Doctor and the Minister of Linc. tood 1.517 may well learne as long as they live? He, a geod Scholler in your own confession, doth not alone call them the Apostles Ca∣nons, e 1.518 but cites the 40 of them, as a full and strong authority to prove, that by the ancient Canons Church∣men had leave to give, and bequeath their Goods and Chattels by their last Will and Testament. And this, in his reply unto Io. Selden, whom he knew too well, to thinke hee would give back at the report or blow of a School-boyes Pot-gunne. Next where those three Canons that the Doctor cited, doe speake so clearly of the Altar, and that by the same name, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, used by the Apostle to the Hebrewes, that there is no deniall of it, you flie unto your wonted refuge, a scornfull and prophane derision:f 1.519 Hee that shall read, say you, what is presented on these Altars for the maintenance of the Bishop and his Clergie, will con∣ceive them rather to bee so many Pantries, Larders, or Store-houses, than consecrated Altars.g 1.520 O Curvae in terris animae, & coelestium inanes! So dead a soule, so void of all coelestiall impressions, did I never meet with. I am confirmed now more than ever, for the first Author of the Dresser; otherwise you had never beene allowed and licensed to call it as you doe, a Pan∣trie,

or a Larder, and a Store-house. I see there is good provision towards, and as much devotion. Your Pig••∣on-house wee have seene alreadyo 1.521, and Pottage you will serve in presently, if we can bee patient. Larders we have, and Store-houses, and Pantries, which portend good cheare. Thinke you a man that heares you talke thus, would not conceive your Kitchin were your Chappell; the Dresser in the same, your High-Altar; and that your Requiem Altars were your Larder, Pan∣trie, and Store-house? Get but a Cooke to bee your Chaplaine, and on my life, Comus the old belly god amongst the Gentiles, was never sacrificed unto with such propriety of V••ensils, and rich magnificence, as you will sacrifice every day to yourh 1.522 god, your Belly. Nor need you feare that your estate will not hold out: I hope you are a provident Gentleman, and make your Altars bring you in▪ what your Altars spend you. For say you not in that which followeth,i 1.523 that Iu∣das his bagge may with as good reason, as these Tables, bee called ••n Altar? I wonder what fine adjunct you will finde out next. You cannot probably goe on, and not set downe ad mens••m daemonio∣rum, that Table of Devils which Saint Paul speakes of. Iudas his bagge? Just so, yet you would shift this off unto Baronius, as you have done the Dres∣ser on the rude people of Grantham. Baronius, as you say, implieth it. Doth he so indeed? All that Baroni•••• saith, is this,k 1.524 that those who ministred in the Church, did from the first beginnings of the Church receive their maintenance from the oblations of the faithfull. Immo cum adhuc dominus supe••stes,&c. And that the Lord himselfe when he preached the Gospell, used from these offerings to provide for himselfe and his. For

Iudas (saith S. Iohn) bearing the bagge, Ea qu•••• mitte∣bantur, portabat, did carrie up and downe that store which was sent in to him. What say you? doth the Cardinall imply in this, that Iud••s his bagge, may with good reason (any how) be called an Altar? Take heed of Iudas and his ••agge, of Iudas and his qualities; for feare you come unto that end that Iudas did.

Your answers to the Doctors allegations from Ig∣natius, must be looked on next. And first the Doctor findes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one Altar, in his Epistle ad Mag∣nesios.l 1.525 You answer first, that by Vedelius this is thought to bee a supposititious fragment taken out of the Constitutions of Clemens: and yet proclaime it in your margin, that this doth not appeare so clearely to you, as to rest upon it. You answer secondly, that this was brought in by the Doctor only to make sport. How so? Because, say you, the Altar there, is Iesus Christ. In that before, you left Vedelius, your good friend and helper in all this businesse; and here he leaves you, to cry quit••. Searching as curiously as hee could, what to except against in all these Epistles, hee lets this go by. A pregnant evidence that hee knew not what to say against it. Runne, saith the Father, all of you as one man to the Temple of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to one Altar, to one Iesus Christ: i. e. say you, who better understood the Fa∣ther, than he did himselfe; runne all of you to one Ie∣sus Christ, as to one Altar. This is your old trick to abuse your Readers, and mak•• your Authors speak what they never meant. The Father spake before of prayer, of common prayers to bee poured forth by all the people, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the selfe same place, in faith and love. And then exhorts them to runne

together to the Church to pray, as to one Altar, to participate, as to one Iesus Christ, the High Priest of all. Had it been 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the matter had been cleere on your side. But the distinction and repeating of the preposition, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, make a different businesse. The se∣cond place produced by the Doctor from Ignatius, was thatm 1.526 of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 where he makes mention of the unity that ought to be retained in the Church of God; and then brings in amongst the rest, one Bread broke for all, one Cup distributed to all, one Altar also in every Church, together with one Bishop, &c. To this you answer, that in the place to the Philadelphians, hee doth ex∣presse himselfe to meane by Altar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Councell of the Saints, and Church in generall, and not any materiall Altar, as Vedelius proves at large. And do they so indeed? That passage which you speak of, is in the Epistle ad Ephesios. And do you think he tels the Ephesians what hee did meane by Altar in his Epistle to the Philadelphians? This is just like the Germans beating down of Altars, because the people here in England were scandalized with them in our countrey Churches. Then for Vedelius, proves he, as you affirme, that by Altar here, Ignatius meanes not any materiall Altar, but the Councell of the Saints, the Church in generall? In the Epistle to the Ephesians he doth indeed correct magnificat (as your own phrase is) and play the Critick with the Author; making him say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 whereof we shall say more hereafter in our perusall and ex∣amination of your Extravagancies. But in this place hee deales more fairely, and understands him as the

Doctor doth: for reckoning up foure kindes of Altars in the Primitive Church, he makes the fourth and last to be mensa Domini, qua utebantur in sacra coena per∣agenda, the table of the Lord, used in the ••elebrating of the holy supper. Then addes, thatn 1.527 sometimes by the Fathers, this table is also called an Altar, and for the proofe thereof brings in this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Doctor mentioned. So that you have belied the Father and your friend to boot. Lastly, for that of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gods Altar, in his Epistle ad Tarsenses, the whole place is this. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Those that continue in the state of Virginitie, honour yee as the Priests of Christ; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those which are widowes indeed, (in the Apostles language) or which o 1.528 uphold their chastitie (as your selfe translates it) ho∣nour ye as the Altars of God. These are his words di∣stinctly, and what ••ind you here? Marry you say, some knavish scholler exscribed the passage for him to make sport withall: and that the Altar there intended becomes much better the upper end of his Table, than the upper end of his Church; a plaine widow-Altar; Which said, you bring in one of your young Schollers with a bawdy Epigramme, unfit to bee inserted into any booke of a serious Argument; but more unfit to bee approved, allowed, and licenced, by any Ordinarie: But Sir, however you are pleased to make your selfe prophanely merry in these sacred matters, the place is plaine enough to prove an Altar; and more than so, a reverence due unto the Altar, in Ignatius time: the men of Tarsus be∣ing here advised to honor chast and vertuous widowes, as they did Gods Altar. And for the widow that you wot of, if you have any speciall aime therein (as some

think you have) shee may returne that answer to you, which once Octavia's Chamber-••••aidp 1.529 gave to Tigelli∣nus; which I had rather you should look for in the Au∣thor, than expect from me.

The place fromq 1.530 Iren••eus, by which he proved the Apostles to bee Priests, because they did Deo & Al∣tariservire, attend the service of the Lord, and wait upon him at the Altar; you maker 1.531 to be an Allegory, and no more than so: But Bishop Montague of Chiche∣ster, of whom the Doctor (as you bid him) will thinke no shame to learne as long as hee lives,s 1.532 findes more matter in it, and saith that Irenaeus, lib. 4. c. 20. spe••keth of the ministers of the new Testament, not of the old, that they doe Deo & Altari deservi••e: which is the very same that the Doctor said. Are not you scitus scrip∣tor, a very proper squire, to quarrell with the exposi∣tion of a man, whose bookes you are not fit to carry? what may be further said out of Irenaeus for sacrifices, Priests, and Altars, wee have shewn you in the former Chapter. Next for Tertullian, the Doctor gavec 1.533 you thence two places, one from his booke de oratione, Si & adaram Dei steteris: the other out of that de poeni∣tentia, Adgenic••lari aris Dei. Not to say any thing in this place of the St••tions mentioned in the first of those two passages [nonne solemnior erit statiotua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris?] you answer first unto the first, d 1.534 that by this Ara Dei, Tertullian in his African and ••f∣fected stile meanes plainely the Lords Table. Why man, who ever doubted it? What saith the Doctour more than this? Tertullian (are not these his words?) hath the name of Altar, as a thing used and knowne in the Christian Church: as, nonne solemnior erit statio tua, Si & ad aram Dei steteris? what finde you there, but

that the Lords Table in Tertullians ••ime, was called Ara Dei, Gods Altar; you might have saved your labour, of running into France for mye 1.535 Lord du Pl••ssis, unlesse hee could have told you that Tertullian meant some other thing in his Ara Dei; or that the name of Altar was not a thing then knowne and used in the Christian Church. Tertullian did indeed affect a litle of the Afri∣can, in all his stile. But his said affectation doth appeare in nothing here, save that hee useth the word Ara, when as, in that proprietie of speech which generally was observed in Christian Writers, hee should have used the word Altare. Nor need you take such paines to adde some reason for your opinion, that there by Ara Dei, Tertullian plainely meaneth the Lords Table; being a matter never questioned. And yet to shew your mighty reading, and that you have a great deale of the Critick in you: you fall into a tale of I know not what, that Ara in Tertullian doth not signifie an Altar, but any hillock or advantage of gro••nd. Once in Tertullian so it signifieth, as in that de Pallio. And ther∣fore must it here be ara Dei, at Gods hillock, or (as your selfe translate it after) the rising of Almighty God? But herein you mistake the point extremely, as in all things else: The proper signification of the word, is Altar, as you may see in Varro de lingua latina, lib. 5. and Isidore de Origin. lib. 15. c. 4. used for a banke or hillock by a Metaphor onely, as in that de Pallio. So that to call the Table ara, onely because it was a kinde of ri∣sing above the pavement; and to call banks or risings aras, because of that similitude they had to Altars: were to runne round in circulo, and borrow Meta∣phors from metaphors, ad infinitum. And yet you take away this Metaphor also, by telling us immediately,

that Tertullian by alluding to the reservations from the Heathen Altars, doth call the Communion-Table Ara Dei, Gods Altar. Doth he so? That's well. You give as much in this, as one needs desire, that were not too insatiably covetous. How you mistake Tertullian in his reservare & accipere, we shall see hereafter.

For the next place, Adgeniculari aris Dei, you tell us that it is runne out of the text;f 1.536 and adgeniculari c••aris Dei put in stead thereof: the alteration being made by Pamelius, approved by all men else, besides this poore Doctor. Approved by all men else? most con∣fidently said indeed, but most weakely proved. What thinke you of Hospinian, whose judgement you relie upon in other matters of this nature? Meminit enim & Tertullianus adgeniculationis poenitentium ad aras, in l. de poenitentia. So he, in his discourse de origine Altari∣um, published in the yeere 1603. What thinke you of Laurentius Renatus de la Barre, who reades it, as the Doctor doth; Adgeniculari aris Dei; And thereupon inferres, Hic vides antiquitus, Altaria venerationi fuis∣se, quibus adgenicularentur: By which (saith hee) you may perceive that anciently the Altars were had in reverence, and that the people kneeled before them? What think you of Beatus Rhenanus, who doth not only reade it aris Dei, and makes that inference there∣upon, which out of him was taken by de la Barre: but brings a testimony from S. Ambrose, that in those anci∣ent times they did os••ulis quoque honorare, honour the Altars with their kisses? What thinke you, finally, of Stephanus Durantis, which also reades it, Aris Dei, lib. de Ritib. Eccl. 1. cap. 15? You see Sir, here are some besides the poore Doctor that approve of the ancient reading: and for your new readings, as many times

they have their uses, so other whiles they make an Author speake what hee never meant: the liberty of correcting and criticizing being growne so high, and that of falsifying (you know it by your selfe) so univer∣sall▪ th••t the old Copies may bee thought to be the tru∣est: And I am partly in these matters of old Timons minde, who being asked by Aratus ^g how hee might get a perfect Copie of Homers Workes, returned this answer, that hee should looke abroad for one of the old Editions, and not looke after those of the new cor∣rections: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. You see the Doctors are divided, and that both Readings have their Patrons, and some that lived since the old reading was cast out of the Texth 1.537 by Pamelius, have not for all that taken up his Charis Dei; much lesse opposed the old, as you idly dreame. As for your sally on the Author of the Latine determination, which you speake of, p. 163. the Pocket-Author, as you call him, sicut tuus est mos, according to your wonted fashion of casting dirt on all you meet wi••h; I leave him to himselfe; it concernes not mee: Aetatem habet, hee is of age to doe you rea∣son, as well in this, as in that other quarre••l which you have against him, and which you fall upon unseasona∣bly, but that you love to be in action, p. 192. All that I meane to doe, is to divide the winde and Sunne be∣tweene you, and see faire play on both sides, if you should chance to enter the lists about it.

And so wee will proceed unto S. Cyprian, of▪ whom the Doctor told you in hist 1.538 Coal from the Altar, that in his Ep. ad Epictetum, he plainly cals it Altare D••i▪ Gods Altar. But there, say you,u 1.539 he meanes by Altar, Sti∣pes, oblationes, lucra, the contributions, offerings, and

all advantages belonging to the mans Bishoprick whom they had suspended. This you affirme indeed, but with as little proofe, as truth. The words are plainly other∣wise, but that you have an itch that will never leave you, to make your Authors speake what they never meant. Now thus stood the case: Onex 1.540 Fortunatia∣nus having Apostated in the time of persecution, and thereupon being deprived of his Bishoprick, would enter on his charge againe without more adoe, not be∣ing reconciled unto the Church. This the good Fa∣ther there complains of, that he should dare to enter on the Priesthood, which he had betrayed, Qu••si post aras Diaboli, accedere ad aras Dei fas sit, as if it were a thing of nothing to come immediately from the Devils Altars to the Altar of God. Is this to talke of offerings, contributions, and matters of profit? After indeed, hee mentioneth Stipes & Oblationes, but nei∣ther in this very case, nor any thing unto this pur∣pose; which you know well enough, though contra∣ry unto your knowledge, you bring in those words to stop a gappe withall, and for no use else. That in the eighth Epistle, unum Altare, & unum Sacerdo∣tium, doth signifie, you say, the summe and substance of the Gospell; why doe you not make use of the same construction for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ignatius, before remembred, rather than runne as farre as Ephesus for a bald device, to blinde the lustre of the place? Both places intimate this onely, that in one Church, there was not, in those early dayes, above one Altar; and may bee serviceable as others of this nature are, against the Pluralitie of Masses in the Church of Rome; many of which you have in Bishop Iewell, Art. 13. § 6. But that it should be thence con∣cluded,

that there S. Cyprian onely meansy 1.541 the summe and substance of the Gospell; is to make aliquid ex nihi∣lo, so it serve your purpose: Or if it could bee thence collected, it could not but be much unto the honour of the Altar, and the Priesthood, both, that those two words should comprehend the whole bodies of religi∣on, and yet the Priesthood and the Alter might stand well enough for all that collection. Nor need wee feare, that following this Interpretation, The Pope∣dome z 1.542 would be set up and erected in every Parish Church in England, because forsooth the Father speaks of una Cathedra in the words before. Saith not Igna••ius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, one onely Bishop in a Church, as before was said. Neither of them I trow endeavoured to advance the Popedome, but, that for the avoiding of schismes and divisions there ought to bee one Bishop onely with∣in one Diocese; whereof see Bishop Iewela 1.543 passim, in that of the Supremacy: And as one Bishop, so one Priest∣hood, and one Altar onely in each Church, on the self∣same reason. The like may bee replied to your evasion from S. Cyprians meaning in hisb 1.544 ninth Epistle, of which you tell us, as before, that hee meanes there by Altar the Ministeriall functions and offices. If so, it were but pars pro toto, the chiefest and most excellent part of the whole Ministerie put for all the rest. But are you sure of what you say? are you sure of any thing? Saint Cyprian speakes five times of Altars in that one Epistle, foure times of Sacrifices and Altars: Thinke you hee meanes in every place the Ministeriall functions and offices? What say you then to this? Nequ•• enim meretur nominari ad Altare Dei in Sacerdotum prec••, qui ab Altare sacer ••otes avocare voluit: What signifieth Altare in the first place thinke you? What?

the materiall Altar, or the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 function: However you may wrest this meaning in the later clause, to the Priestly function, yet in the first you cannot possibly give him any other meaning, than that the Priests officia∣ted at the reall and materiall Altar. For shame d••ale better with the Fathers, and let them speake their mindes, according to the liberty of th••se most pure and pious times; without those base disg••ises which you put upon them, onely to blinde your readers eyes, and abuse Antiqui••ie.

Thus have I given you a briefe view in these two last Chapters, of the chiefe point in controversie, be∣tweene the Doctor and your selfe; and hunted you as well as my poore wits would serve me, out of all your starting holes. Altars, and Priests, and Sacri••••ces be∣ing Relatives, as you say your selfe, I have layed down in the first place the Orthodox and ancient doctrine of the Church, concerning Sacrifice; followed it in the way of an historicall narration, from Abel downe to Noah, from him to Moses, from Moses to Christ, who instituted, as S. Irenaeus hath it, the new sacrifice of the new Testament; novam oblationem novi Testamen∣ti, in this Fathers language. This sacrifice thus insti∣tuted by our Lord and Saviour, the Church received from the Apostles,c 1.545 and offers it accordingly to the Lord our God, throughout the habitable world: the passage and descent whereof from the Apostles times, untill S. Austins, wee have traced and followed. And wee have also found, that from the first times to the last, there was no sacrifice performed without Priests, and Altars; excepting those spirituall S••crifices, which every man is bound to offer, in what place soever. All which, both Altars, Priests, and sacrifice, we have di••∣covered

to you in the Church of England,* 1.546 out of the publick monuments and Records thereof; and that so answerably unto the Patternes of Antiquitie, as if it had beene 〈…〉〈…〉 the ancient Fathers, than the 〈…〉〈…〉 have cleared up those mists, which you endeavoured to cast upon the ancient Writers, that so your Readers might not see the true intent and meaning of those passages, w^ch concern this Argument; those most especially whereby you would perswade weake men, such as are bound to take your word without further search, that in the Primitive Church, there was neither Altar, Priest, not Sacrifice, truly and properly so called: which what a ruine and confusion it would bring in the Church of God, ta∣king away all outward worship, enabling every man to the Priestly function, robbing the Church of all the re∣verence due unto it; no man knowes better than your selfe, who have endevoured to promote that doctrine for this purpose onely, that you may be cryed up, and honoured as the Grand Patron and defender of mens Christian libertie. Finally▪ I have answered unto all those Cavils and exceptions w^ch you had made against the Allegations and Authorities pressed and produced by the Doctor against the Writer of the Letter to the Vicar of Granthan; and left him statu quo, in the same case wherein you found him, all your assaults and stratagems of fraud and falshood notwithanding. But this in reference onely to the thing it selfe, that the Church had Altars in those early and dawning dayes of Christianity; we will next looke upon the place and situation of them, what you say to that.

CHAP. VII.

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

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

IT is well noted by our incomparable Hoo••ker,

That solemne duties of publick ser∣vice to bee done unto God, must have their places set and prepared in such sort, as beseemeth actions of that regard.

Which layed for his foundation, he thus builds upon it,

that Adam, even during the space of his small continuance, in

Paradise, had where to present himselfe before the Lord, Gen. 3. 8. that Adams sonnes had out of Para∣dise in like sort, whither to bring their Sacrifices, Gen. 4. 3. that the Patriarchs used Altars, and Moun∣taines, and Groves to the self-same purpose, Gen. 13. 4. & 22. 1. & 21. 33. that in the wildernesse, when as the people of God had themselves no setled habita∣tion, yet were they then commanded by God to make a moveable Tabernacle; and finally, that the like charge was given them against the time that they should come to settle themselves in the Land, which had beene promised to their Fathers.

Nature infor∣med them in the maine, that proper and peculiar pla∣ces were to bee set apart to Gods publick worship, and God himselfe informed them in the circumstance thereof, for the forme and fashion, both when the Church was moveable▪ and when after setled. The Tabernacle fashioned by his direction, was a moveable Temple; the Temple fashioned by that patterne, was a settled Tabernacle. Each of them had their Courts, their Sanctum, and their Sanctum Sanctorum, accor∣ding to the severall Ministeries by the Law required: which distribution stood in force, as long as there was any Temple so to be distributed, and any Ministeries in the same to be performed. A Temple, whilest it stood, of most rich magnificence; immensae opulentiae Templum, asb 1.547 Tacitus most truly called it; and such as Titus labo∣red to preserve with all might and cunning, at the de∣struction of the Citie; knowing right well, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, c 1.548 that the subversion of it would redound unto the losse and prejudice of the Romane Empire. A Temple on the which the people of the Ie••es had severally bestowed their costly offerings, as

occasion was: and to the which the Kings of Asia, d 1.549 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Iosephus tels us, had sent both many and those royall and magnificent pre∣sents, in testimonie of their service to the God of Is∣rael. Nor was it otherwise with the Gentiles, than with Gods owne people. At first they worshipped their Gods sub dio, in the open aire: the Grecians sa∣crificing unto Aesculapiuse 1.550 on the mountaine tops, as the Bithynians did unto all their deities.

Now as they had their high places, their montium ca∣cumina, as mine Authour cals them; so had they groves also as the Patriarks had; and sacrificed unto their Gods under woods and trees.f 1.551 The grove of Hercules neere Athens, and that of Vesta neere mount Palatine, were very famous in old time••. Some such there was in Carthage whereof Virgilg 1.552 speaks, Lucus in urbe fuit mediâ, laetissimus umbra. And Ser∣vius notesh 1.553 upon the place, that Virgil never speakes of groves, but you must take them to bee consecrated; and nunquam sine religione▪ in his Scholia on the third of the Aen••ids. So Lucan tels us of the Druydes,i 1.554 Ne∣mora alta remotis incolitis Lucis, that they delighted most in high woods, and private groves: the Oake being principally affected by them, whencek 1.555 they had their name. But when the Lord had fixed his people in the Land of Canaan, and given them leave to build a Tem∣ple to his name: that grant was forthwith apprehen∣ded by the Gentiles also, in their magnificent structures of the selfe same kinde. The forme and distribution generally the same with that of Salomons: the Tem∣ples of the Gentiles being divided into three parts al∣so; viz. the Courts or Areas, the body of the same which they called Basilicas, and last of all their Adyta,

or Penetralia. The Areas of their Temples,l 1.556 the Porti∣cos, and the Nave or bodie of them, were suffered to be used sometimes for walking, conference, and such civill businesses: but for their Adyta,m 1.557 they were con∣ceived to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to be looked into or touched, but by the Priests. These 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Latines generally called Penetralia, as before was said: Caesar,n 1.558 occulta & remota Templi, the hidden and remote parts of the Temple; and addes withall quo praeter sacerdotes adire fas non est, that it was lawfull unto none besides the Priests to goe into them. Final∣ly, for the costly offerings bestowed upon them, and those rich presents which occasionally had been sent unto them: take once for all, that Temple of Apollo in Delphos, whereof the Historiano 1.559 thus informes us. Multa ibi & opulenta Regum populorum{que} visuntur mu∣nera, quaeque magnificentia sui, reddentium vota gratam voluntatem, & deorum responsa manifestant.

Thus also was it with the Christians in the Primi∣tive times, compelled too often, to hold their mee∣tings and assemblies, as Bishop Iewell rightly notes it, in vacant places, in woods and forrests, and caves under the ground. And after as by sufferance or by speciall favour, they were permitted to build them Oratories, for the publick use: they neither built them in such sumptuous manner, as might have drawne upon them the Common envie of the Gentiles; or furnished them in such rich sort as might have been a burden to them∣selves in their poore estate. But when the Church was setled, and had got the better hand of her cruell enemies; Temples in all parts were erected: the whole world seeming to exult that opportunity was given to poure out its treasures to so good a purpose. To these

three periods, we may reduce what ever is to be ob∣served in the present businesse. Touching the first, it is that we are told by Platina,p 1.560 Occulta esse omnia, & sacella potius at que etiam abdita, & plerumque subter∣ranea. Churches they had, places designed and set apart for their holy exercises; but poore and meane, and almost hidden from mens eyes, agreeable unto the present state in the which they were. However being destinate to those holy uses, they were not suffe∣red to bee defiled and abused by prophane imploy∣ments. That of S. Paul,q 1.561 Have yee not Houses to eate and drinke in, discovers manifestly that there was a difference to be made between house and house, be∣tween Gods house and mans, the places of religious and civill meetings. Now as there was a difference between house and house; so in the selfe same house, there was a difference between place and place: that which was separated for the Priest and the holy Sacra∣ment, not being to bee pressed into by the Common people. And of the people there were some that might approch more neere to the holy places, than the others could: which is a thing so knowne, that no man which pretends to learning did ever doubt it. The second period was when the Church had rest, what times the Christians set themselves to build them Churches: Churches, I meane, avowed for such, and publickly frequented for religious meetings, visible as well unto the Gentiles as unto the faithfull, and well knowne to be so. The first observed by Polydor Virgil, r 1.562 to have been publickly avowed in Rome, being that of therm•• Novuti invico Patritio, consecrated by Pope Pius the first, An. 150. or thereabouts, by the name of S. Prudentianae. Another Church (but somewhat af∣ter

this) doth Platina remembers 1.563 to have been built by Pope Calixtus, in regione Transtyberina, and dedica∣ted by the name of the Blessed Virgin. But for a gene∣rall view of their works of this kind, we may best take it from Eusebius,t 1.564 who speaking of the calme that was between the ninth and tenth persecutions, informes us of the Christians, that not content with those small Churches which before they had, they built them fairer, and more large, in every citie. But take his owne words with you for your more assurance. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where you may also see, that they had Churches 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as before hee cals them) in the former times, but meane and small, agreeable unto those mise∣rable and calamitous dayes. Nor was it long before those Churches built so lately,u 1.565 were all againe demo∣lished by Dioclesian; and so continued till the time of the Emperour Constantine: what time being raised more beautifully, than before they had beene; they were set out and furnished with all costly furnitures. So that when Iulian was in state, who next but one succeeded Constantine in the Roman empire, and that the treasures of the Church were made a pray unto the spoiler: Felix the Proconsulx 1.566 could not chuse but breake out into this expression, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, behold in what rich utensiles they doe administer to the Sonne of Marie. Nor was it ever thought till now, in these later dayes, that God created such and so many glorious things, to be served only with the basest.

This ground-work laied, we may the better see what wee have to say to those objections, which are

and have beene made out of the Apol••geticks of thos•• times, to prove that in those early daies of Christi∣anity there were no Churches. And this I will the rather do, because the Authors which you have pro∣duced against the being of Altars in the Christians Churches, conclude aswell, that then they had no Churches for religious uses: which being examined in this place, will more cleerely manifest what kinde of Altars, and what kinde of Churches, were then enqui∣red of by the Gentiles, and in what sence the having of them was denied by the Christian writers. Now they that gave the hint unto this surmise, lived either in the heat of persecution, when as the faithfull were dispersed, and neither durst or could be suffered to meet in publick: or else considering that their Chur∣ches were but mean and poore, they did not use to call them Temples; as did the Gentiles those magnifi∣cent and stately structures, which had been consecra∣ted to their Idols. When therefore they were cha∣lenged by the Gentiles to render an accompt of their religion; and were demanded why they had no Al∣tars: they were interrogated also why they had no Churches. Not any of those Authors which you have produced, but speak of one as well as the other: the objection being made of both, and the answere unto both set down accordingly. Origen mentions 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as well as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Minutius Felix, hath his Templa nulla, with his Aras nullas: and of Arnobius ita 1.567 was asked, cur neque sacras aedes venerationis ad officia constru∣amus; as well as non Altaria fabricemus. In the re∣porting of which Authors you leave out whatsoever doth relate to not having Churches; as if the Quaere only were of not having Altars in those Churches, and

therefore cut Minutius off at cur nullas aras, not suf∣fering him to come forth with his Templa nulla. As for Arnobius, you deale worse with him, than with Minutius, and make the Gentiles put the question, b 1.568 why they (the Christians) built no Altars, venerati∣onis ad officia, to officiate upon in any kind of divine wor∣ship: when as the question was not why they had no Altars to officiate on; but why they had no Churches to officiate in. Is this faire dealing think you, in a great Professour?

Then for the Answers to these Cavils, in case they must be understood simply and absolutely,c 1.569 as you please to say in the case of Altars: then will it follow thereupon, not only that they had no Churches, but that they ought to have none neither. You grant your selfe, that there were Altars in the Church in Tertulli∣ans time; and Churches you must also grant, because you finde it in Tertullian, who makes mention of them, lib.d 1.570 de Idol. c. 7. ad uxorem l. 2. cap. 9. de veland. virg. cap. 3. & 13. and also in his book de Corona militis, which makes it plain, that whereas Origen and Minutius Felix lived both after him, and yet reply unto the Quaere of the Gentiles, that they had neither Temples, nor Altars: it must be understood, not absolutely and simply, as you simply say, as if they had no Churches, or no Altars in them; but with relation to those Temples, and those Altars, which were so honoured by the Gentiles. The like is also to bee said unto Arnobius, who living in those very times which Eusebius speaks of, wherein the Christians did inlarge their Churches, and publick Oratories; cannot bee understood so absolutely and simply, as you ande 1.571 your Haraldus conceive he may; but only in that qualified sence before remembred.

Churches they had for sacred and religious meetings, but no such stately and magnificent structures as were erected by the Gentiles, to be the locall habitation of their severall Idols. And they had Altars too for that mysticall Sacrifice, which had beene constantly continued in the Church of God; but no such Altars as the Gentiles had, and enquired after, which were for bloody sacrifices of Sheep and Oxen. And this you might have seen in Arnobius also, but that you use to wink when you meet with any thing you would not willingly observe. For presently on this, quod non Altaria fabricemus, non ar as, he addes these words, non caesorum sanguinem animantium demus: which cleere∣ly shewes what Altars they were said to want by the Inquisitors.

Thus having found that in the primitive times the Christians had their Churches, and in them their Al∣tars, our next iuquirie must be this, how, and in what particular place those Altars were disposed of in the Churches. For that they had some proper and pe∣culiar place, is not a matter to be doubted. Not that I think the Altars were so fixed at first, that there was no removing of them if occasion was; but that there was some certain place allotted to them, which was reserved for the Priest, and the Administration of the Eucharist: out of which place they were not to bee moved, unlesse they were quite moved out of the Church, as sometimes it hapned. For that they were not fixed at first may be well collected from the con∣dition of the Church, which was then still in moti∣on, and unsetled, the winds of persecution beating as they did, so fierce upon it. Nor were the Altars only moveable in those first daies, but also portable: and

purposely made moveable, that they might be porta∣ble, according to the qualitie of the times. And if we may relie upon Gabriel Biel, as in this case I think wee may, he tels us of a Table, or Altar, (Altare ligneum in his language)f 1.572 whereat the Popes of Rome did use to celebrate the Sacrament: which was removed by the Priests from place to place, ubicunque episcopus Ro∣manus latuerit, where ever the then Roman Bishops did retire themselves in times of danger. Then for the situation of them, whether towards the East, or West, or any other part of the heavenly bodies, if Walafridus Strabo may be credited; there was no cer∣taintie thereof in the said times neither: the Altars or Communion Tables being sometimes disposed ofg 1.573 in diversas plagas, East, West, North, or South; and that as there he tels us, propter aliquam locorum opportuni∣tatem, according to the qualitie and conveniencie of the place it selfe. Indeed it was not possible, as the times then were, that it should be otherwise. For holding their assemblies, as before we told you, in private houses, in dennes, and cavernes under ground, they were to make a vertue of necessity, and suit them∣selves according to the qualitie of the place, consi∣dering that they could not suit the place to their own desires. But this held only for a time: no longer than the faithfull were in those extremities, and put unto their shifts, as wee use to say. For after when they were permitted, either on sufferance, or by speciall fa∣vour, to fit their Churches to their minds, they con∣trived them so, that in their prayers and addresse to Almightie God, they turned themselves unto the East. The Author of the Questions and Answeres ad Orthodoxos ascribed to Iustine, affirmes that in his

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

timeh 1.574 the Christians offered up their hymnes and ori∣zons to God, fixing their eyes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, towards or on the eastern parts: and ••aith withall, that they received this usage 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from the holy Apostles.i 1.575 And sure I am, that in Tertul∣lians time the Christians were accused of worshipping the Sunne: for which there was no other ground, but that they turned unto the East in the times of prayer. Inde suspicio quod innotuerit nos ad Orientis regionem precari, as he there informs us. Which being so, it is not to be thought but that the Churches were contrived and built accordingly, fit to the posture of the people in the times of prayer. Not that they were not built in any place, at any time, in any other form or fashion, but that it was thus generally, and for the most part, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all parts of Christendome, from those times downwards. And so it is resolved byi 1.576 Walfridus Strabo, usus frequentior est in Orientem or antes converti, & plu∣ralitatem ecclesiarum maximam eo tenore constitui.

For further proofe of which, let us but look upon the formes of our antient Churches, and wee shall finde that generally they are built in one uniforme fashion: which fashion questionlesse was borrowed from the pattern of the first Churches erected in the primitive times. Baronius tels us of some Churchesk 1.577 in his time standing, quae temporibus Constantini fuerunt à fundamentis extructae, which had beene built from the foundation, in the time of Constantine: and dif∣fered nothing in the forme, either for situation or di∣stinction, from those which have beene since erected. And we may probably conclude with him, that those then built were built according to the ••orme of those which were demolished not long before, in the time

of Diocletians furie: cum eadem in iis officia essent ob∣eunda, exerce••dae functiones, a•• mysteria consummanda; the selfe same Offices, functions, and mysteries, being to be performed in them both alike. Now for perfor∣mance of these functions, offices, and mysteries, the Churches were divided into severall parts: two of the which are most considerable in our present busi∣nesse. Of these the greater was called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the nave or body of the Church; the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we call the Quire, or Chancell: the body for the most part, standing towards the West: the Quire or Chan∣cell towards the East. And howsoever it was and might bee otherwise in some few particulars; yet it was usitatior mos, the generall usage of the Church,l 1.578 as Paulinus hath it, to place the Quire or Chancell in the Eastern part. Within the body of the Church, they had their Auditorium, their place for reading of the Scripture, and so much of the publick Offices, as might be heard by those whom they called Catechumeni, that were instructed in the faith, and not as yet admitted unto the Sacrament of Baptisme. The Quire or Chan∣cell set apart for the performance of those rites, i•• which they placed the greatest mysterie of their pro∣fession, which was the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Lord and Saviour: A difference or di∣stinction not took up in the latter times, but such as may plead strongly for as much antiquitie as any other custome in the Church besides; and in the which they were directed as well by Gods command, as by naturall reason. For in the Taberna••le built by Gods owne appointment, and fashioned by his owne directi∣on, there was a Sanctum sanctorum, a place more holy than the rest; selected by the Lord for the most excel∣lent

part of the Iewish ceremonie, which was the ex∣piating of his people. For which, if God thought fit that there should be a proper and selected▪ place, and that the same should be secluded from all other use: the Christians by the selfe same warrant might in their Churches have a Sanc••••m Sanctorum also, for the commemorating of that expiation, which was in fact made for us by our Lord and Saviour. Besides, the Gentiles, had in their severall temples, their Adyta, or Penetralia, as before was said: wherein their greatest mysteries were performed and celebrated. Tota in Ad••tis divinitas,m 1.579 saith Tertullian of them. In those they placed their deities, and in those their Altars. Excessere omnes, Adytis arisque relictis, Dii quibus im∣perium hoc steterat,n 1.580 as the Poet hath it: which cleer∣ly shewes their Altars were disposed of in their in most Adyta. And should you say that by this reason, the di∣stribution of our Churches into a body and a Chancell, would savour too much either of the Iew or Gentile, you might betray your folly, but not hurt the cause. For there's no question to be made but many Temples of the Gentiles were, without any alteration of the Fabrick, converted into Christian Churches. Nor can you shew a reason for it, why it should be more stood upon, as the times then were, to build new Churches of that fashion which the Gentiles used; than to use those very Churches which the Gentiles built. And for conformitie with the Jewes, you finde that answered to your hand by ao 1.581 judicious Divine indeed, who counts it no lesse grievous fault, for any King to build his house according to the modell of Salomons palace; than for the Christians in contriving of their Churches, to have an eye upon the fabrick of K. Salomons Temple.

Now where it is affirmed in the Bishops letter, that anciently the Communion-Tables stood in the middest of the Church; and for the proofe thereof, the Vicar was referred to Bishop Iewell: before we come to an exa∣mination of the proofes there offered,* 1.582 we wil propose some reasons why it could not bee so. And first wee find it granted by that Reverend Prelat, Bishop Iewell, that wheresoever the Altar stood,

it was divided with railes from the rest, whereof it was called Can∣celli, a Chancell, and commonly of the Greeks Presby∣terium, for that it was a place specially appointed unto the Priests and Ministers, and shut up from all others, for disturbing the holy Ministerie:

Which given for granted we proceed, and will shew some reasons and authorities that the said Chancell or Presbyterie was not, as hee conceiveth, in the middle of the Church, but a distinct part and member of it, at one end thereof; and yet I would not have you t••inke, but that I hold as reverend an opinion of Bishop Iewel, as you, or any other, be hee who hee will. My first au∣thority shall be taken f••om the instance of, and in the Emperour Theodo••ius, which himselfe there makes. The Emperour Theodosi••s having beene long prohibi∣ted the Church, upon that great and rash Massacre of the Thessalonians, and afterwards admitted top 1.583 com∣municate: at his first entrance in the Church, casts himselfe downe upon the Pavement. After, the Offer∣tory comming on, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hee went into the Sanctuarie; and having made his offering, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, continued still with∣in the same, neare the partition or Cancelli: Which being noted by Saint Ambrose, hee signified unto him by his Deacon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that

those Inferiour parts were only proper to the Priests, and to no man else. Now that which in Theodoret is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inq 1.584 Sozomen is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Quire or Chancell, who addes withall, that in Constan∣tinople the Emperour had his seat in the said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, during the celebrating of the holy Sacrament; that so some difference might bee made betwixt himselfe and common persons. But this being not the use in Millaine, Saint Ambrose alloted him a place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, within the body of the Church, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, immediately before the barres that seve∣red the Church and Chancell. And this hee did, that so the Emperour might have place before the people, as had the Priests before the Emperour. This cleerly shewes, that the Pres••yterium, or Chancell, was not in the middle of the Church, but was distinct and severed from it at one end or other; for otherwise how could the Emperour have •• place betweene the people and the Priests, before the Chancell or Cancelli; in case the Chancell stood in the very middest of the Church, and all the people round about it. My second reason shall be taken from a like storie ofr 1.585 Numerianus, one of the sons of the Emperour Carus, who comming into the Church at Antioch, wherof Saint Babylas was Bishop, and having a desire to behold their mysteries, quasi per transennam, privily, as if peeping through a Lat∣tice, was presently rebuked by the Bishop for the said attempt. Now had the Quire or Chancell stood in the middle of the Church, and onely railed about, so that every man might see what was done within; Nume∣merianus needed not to have peeped as through a Lat∣tice to behold their doings: for being once within, it was no difficultie to discerne what they were about.

Thirdly, it may bee proved from that which was be∣fore related from Baronius, who tels us of some Chur∣ches standing in his dayes, which had beene founded in the time of the Emperour Constantine, and differed no∣thing in their form, either for situation, or distinction, from those since erected. And fourthly, from the de∣scription of the ••tately Temple of S. Sophia, built by Iustinian the Emperour: of which Procopius doth in∣forme uss 1.586, that the Quire or Chancell, wherein the holy mysteries were celebrated, did stand directly to the East: For having before described the Nave or body of the Temple, both for length and bredth, he addes, Ea autem quae ad solem Orientem vergunt, ubi Deo sacr•• peraguntur, hoc modo aedificata sunt; which hee goes forwards to describe: but what need more be said, than you say your selfe, who have so fairly, for this point, slipped your owne neck out of the Collar, and left your L. the Bishop in the lurch? For wheras he re∣fers the Vicar unto Bishop Iewell, to see how long Com∣munion••tables have stood in the middle of the Church: you put it to the questiont 1.587, whether it bee such a new thing in Israel, that the Tables heretofore, and the high Altars afterwards did stand in the middest of the Church or Chancell. The middle of the Church or Chan∣cell, is not the middle of the Church; and so you bid good night at once to both the Bishops. The Altar then stood not in the body of the Church, but in the Chancell, which was the first thing to bee cleared.

Next, that the Altar or Lords Table was placed in the upper end of the Quire or Chancell, may be made evident by many plaine and pregnant reasons, which we will marshall ascendendo, from this time upwards. And first, it may be proved from the generall usage at

this time in the Church of Rome; which in those out∣ward formes, no doubt, relates unto the use and pra∣ctice of the Ancients: For why should wee conceive, that keeping still the ancient fashion in the contriving of their Churches▪ they would desert the a••cient fa∣shion in the disposing of their Altars. Conceive mee, that it was thus generally, and for the most p••rt, as you report mee very rightly, p. 40. & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as be∣fore I said. Secondly, fr••m the words of Walafridus Strabo, where heeu 1.588 informes us, that in Saint Peters Church in Rome, Altaria non tantum in Orientem, sed etiam in ali••s partes esse distributa; The Altars stood not onely towards the East, but in other places: and this he makes to be a particular case, differing from the generall usage. The like to which may bee observed in his instances of the Pantheon in Rome, and that built by Helena in Hierusalem, being both round; as al∣so that he seeme••h to apologize for them, who propter aliquam locorum opportunitatem, were fa••ne to set their Al••ars otherwise than the custome of the Church per∣mit••ed. Now Walafridus Strabo dyed, as your selfe accompts itx 1.589, Anno 846. or thereabouts. Thirdly, from the division of the Quires themselves, in which did fi••st accurre the Stalls or seats appointed general∣ly for the Clergie; next above that, the Bishops Chaire, and then the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Altar-place, or that whole space which was allotted purposely, and solely for the Lords Boord, or Altar, call it which you will, which was distinguished from the rest of the Chancell, by Railes or Curtaines. For it appears most manifestly in the ancient writers,y 1.590 that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did not one∣ly signifie the Altar or Lords ••oord it selfe, but the whole space and place thereof; which by the Latines

was sometimes distinguished by a proper name, and called Altarium. Fourthly, from that which doth oc∣curre in Socrates, concerning the disposall of the Al∣tars in the Church of Antioch,z 1.591 which therein general∣ly differed from all other Churches. How so? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Would you his meaning in these words? take it ac∣cording as you finde it in Nicephorus of Langius transla∣tion; a 1.592 Sacra enim Ara non ad Orientem, sed ad Occi∣dentem versus coll••cata ••ue••at; because the Altar was not placed towards the East, but towards the West. Cassiodore in hisb 1.593 Tripartite History, rendreth this place with more advantage. In Antiochia verò Syriae, Alta •• non ad Orientem Ecclesiae, sed magis a•• Occiden∣tem habent; in Antioch they have their Altar, not at the East end of the Church, (ad Orientem Ecclesiae) but rather bending toward the West: which makes it plaine, in my conceit, that generally in other places the Altar stood ad Orientem Ecclesiae, at the Easterne end. Fi••tly, from that which is affirmed by Bish. Iewell, c 1.594 Who tels us that the Quire or Chancell, (and conse∣quently the Altar, and the Altar-place) as it may bee gathered from Saint Chrysostome, at certaine times of the service, was drawne with Curtaines. Now if the Holy Table stood in the middle of the Chancell, and was thus hanged about with Curtaines; there being space enough within for all the Priests and Deacons, which attended at the holy Ministery; you cannot but con∣ceive in your imagination, that it must needs bee very unsightly, and take up much more roome, than in a Chancell could bee spared. But let the Table be dispo∣sed of at the upper end, and then a Traverse Curtaine drawne betweene the Table and the people; and both

those inconveniences will be avoided, which before I spake of. And last of all, it may bee pleaded from a constant custome of the Christians, in praying towards the East,d 1.595 Ad Orientis regionem, as Tertullian hath it; ad solame 1.596 Orientis partem, as it is in Origen: which, though many reasons are assigned by Bellarmine, Baro∣nius, and others of the Church of Rome; yet, I conceive, there cannot a more probable reason be given there∣of, than from the placing of the holy Table at the East end of the Church: For that being thought to bee more sacred than any materiall thing besides to the Church belonging, had a farre greater measure of reverence and devotion conferred upon it. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a reverent salutation of the Ta∣blef 1.597 in Dionysius; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an honour pro∣per to the Altar, ing 1.598 Ignatius; and geniculatio ad Ar••s, a bowing of the knee before it, inh 1.599 Tertullian. And therefore in what place soever it was placed or situa∣ted, there were the peoples eyes most like to be fixed and setled, and their aspects turned▪ that way in the time of prayer; as being that which they most longed for, and looked after, and of the which they most de∣sired to bee partakers. Adde here that Damascen ob∣serves, i 1.600 that when our Saviour Christ was upon the Crosse, his face was Westward,, so that all they that looked upon him, or desired to see him, did looke to∣wards the East; which were it so, the Altar being so lively a representation of the Crosse of Christ, might bee disposed of so in the Church or Chancell, as that the people should looke Eastward, that desired to see it: and if placed Eastward for that reason, then doubt∣lesse in the uppermost and most eminent place of the Quire or Chancell, so that no man who ever should

have place beyond it. For if that any man had had place beyond it, either he must not pray towards the East, as the others did; or praying towards the East, could not see the Altar, which was most looked after by all the rest.

Now whereas you desirek 1.601 the Doctor

not to for∣get to tell you in his next booke, 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:

I an∣swer you by asking another question, where you can find it was commanded, that Christians should pray with their faces Eastward. Things that have gene∣rally beene received in the Church of Christ, are ge∣nerally conceived to have been derived from Apostoli∣call tradition, without any speciall mandat, left in Scrip∣tis, for the doing of them. Praying directly towards the East, is by some Fathers, asl 1.602 Iustin Martyr, &m 1.603 S. Basil, conceived to be of that condition; and Damas∣cen conceives so too, de Orthod. Fid. lib. 4. cap. 13. Why may we not conceive the like, of setting up the Altar all along the wall, that it hath beene commended to us, if not by Apostolicall, yet questionlesse, by Ecclesi∣asticall tradition. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the saidn 1.604 Damascen hath truly noted. Many things come unto our hands by a successionall tradition, for which we cannot finde an expresse command in any of those wayes you speake of: which yet wee ought to entertaine, ex vi catholicae consuetudinis, by reason of the said tradition, and continuall custome. Of which traditions there are many which still retaine their force amongst us in England: particularly those which

are most pertinent to the present businesse, viz. the turning of our selves unto the East, in our publicke prayers; and the disposing of our Churches accor∣dingly. And why not then in placing of the holy Table, or Altar also? This Church, the Lord be thanked for it, hath stood more firme for Apostolicall and Ecclesiasti∣call traditions since the Reformation, than any other whatsoever of the Reformation. Nor in the times be∣fore can you finde out any, that stood more strongly for and in the Churches customes. If you have found, after much studie and long search, ao 1.605 round Church in Cambridge, and a round Temple in London; can you conclude from thence, that generally our Churches here▪ have not beene built according to the Antient patternes? if not, how excellent a discourse doe you shew your selfe in the application. You might as well have gathered, that all the Churches in Cambridge, doe stand North and South, because you finde it so in Ema∣nuel College: or that all the Ministers in Lincolnshire are perfect in the arts of rayling, falsifying, and decei∣ving, because you know of one, that is. But that fine storie which you tell usp 1.606 of S. Austins Altar, is indeed your master-peece: and therefore I will tell it in your very words, because its your desire wee should marke it well. You say, that

Austin the Apostle of the Saxons placed his first Altar in the Cathedrall Church at Dover, dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul: and that he placed this Altar, in medio sui pene, almost in the very midst thereof, and dedicated it to the honour of S. Gregorie the Pope: and that the Priest of the place doth on that Altar every Sabbath day perform the agends of this Austin and S. Gregorie. Hereupon you inferre, as by way of Triumph, And shall we be∣leeve

that, no Church of all the English nation, did imitate herein her first Metropolis? It is impossible it should be so.

Impossible indeed, if it bee true, as you have told us: but for our comfort, there's not one word true, in all this storie. Nor doe I think that you intended it for any thing, but a winters tale; to drive away the cold within a chimney corner, when th••re is no fire. For so ridiculous a confidence have you told it with, as they have the hap to heare it (auditum admissirisum, and you know what followes) will catch themselves an heat with laughing. To take a view thereof, per partes, Where, I beseech you, did the man ever heare of a Cathedrall Church at Dover? the Author whom you follow, doth call it Doroverni, Can∣terburie, in that very Chapter; and Regia civitas, the Regall citie, lib. 1. cap. 33. Secondly, the Cathedrall Church at Canterbury was not dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul, but, as your Authour tels,q 1.607 in nomine sancti Salvatoris, Dei & Domini nostri Iesu Christi, unto the honour of Iesus Christ our Lord and Saviour: and is called Christs Church to this day. As for the Church you meane, dedicated to S. Peter and S. Paul, that was a Monasterie Church, and no Cathedrall; which, from the founder afterwards, was called S. Austins. Thirdly, it is not said in Beda, that Austin the Apostle of the Saxons did place this Altar, in that Church: but only, Habet haec in medio sui pene Altare, that in that Church there is an Altar, placed almost in the middle of it; but by whom God knowes; the Church not beingr 1.608 fini∣shed when this Austin died. Fourthly, your Authour doth not say that the said Altar was S. Austins first Al∣tar; no such matter neither; the placing of that Al∣tar was no leading case: but only habet haec Altare, that

Edition, and no otherwise, In the body of the Church, or of the Chancell. p. 206. I see your fingers are so nim∣ble, here can nothing scape you. Then for the body of the Church, however it was put unto the Question,y 1.609 in the Bishops letter, that being the Rubrick saith, the Table shall stand in the body of the Church, or of the Chancell, wh••re morning and evening prayer he appointed to be said; and being that morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said in the body of the Church (as in most country Churches we see it is) where should the Table stand most Canonically? yet you recant it in your book. You tell us that the Writer of the letter didz 1.610 never ima∣gine, that the Table should stand most Canonically in the bodie of the Church: but onely that the Canons al∣low it not to be fixed to the end of the Quire; but to bee made of moveable nature, to m••et with those cases in the law, in which without this transposing thereof upon oc∣casions, the Minister cannot be heard of his Congregati∣on. This is but small amends, save that you let us ther∣in see, you are irresolute in your selfe, and know not unto what to trust. It's true, the Rubrick sounding one way, and the continuall practice of the Church an∣other way; it might perplex as wise a man, as I know who is, to find out the intention of the Rubrick, and the reason of it. Yet would you give me leave to use a briefe conjecture, and not upbraid me for it in your next assault, I should make bold to tell you my opini∣on in it. Bucer, a moderate and ingenious man, in his survey or censure of the first Liturgie,a 1.611 observed that all divine Offices were celebrated in the Quire, or Chancell; In chorotantum, sacra representari, which he conceived to be a Popish custome,b 1.612 (perhaps because it might ascribe unto the place and Priest some inhe∣rent

sanctitie) and wisheth that a sharp and sudden re∣medie should be provided for the same. Hereupon in the second Liturgie, the appointing of the place for morning and evening praier was left unto the Ordina∣ry: and as it seemeth by this Rubrick, the holy Sa∣crament was to be there administred, where he so ap∣pointed. Whether it hath been practised accordingly, I cannot positively say; but if at all, it was aut raro aut nunquam, a thing seldome seen: and possibly the very Order might as much take off the opinion of inherent sanctitie (if that were then the matter questioned,) as the execution. Which were it so, the reason of the law being ceased, the law ceaseth also. But this I onely offer as a Consideration, and no more than so.

Then for the 82. Canon, there it is said,

that in the time of the Communion, the Table shall bee placed in so good sort within the Church or Chancell, as ther∣by the Minister may more conveniently be heard of the Communicants, in his prayer and ministration, and the Communicants also more conveniently, and in more number may communicate with the said Minister.

Now hereunto the Doctor answered,c 1.613 that this was a permission rather, that so it might be, than a command, that so it should be: and a permission onely in such times and places, where otherwise the Minister cannot conveniently be heard of the Communicants. The writer of the letter seemes to grant as much, where hee affirmeth, thed 1.614 placing of the Table Altar-wise is the most decent situation when it is not used, and for use too where the Quire is mounted up by steppes, and open, so that hee which officiates may bee seene and heard of all the congregation. If so, then certainly the Canon is not binding for all times and places, for then

there was an Altar. Fiftly, you finde it not in Bed••, that the Agenda of Pope Gregorie, and the said S. Au∣stin, were celebrated by the Priest of the place every Sabbath day (as you meane Sabbath day, and would have ignorant people understand your meaning) but onely every Saturday, per omne Sabbatum. It had been very fairely done, had you expressed your Authors proper Latine, in as proper English; and called it Sa∣turday, as you ought to doe, speaking in English to the people, who as they are notr 1.615 all Geometricians, so are they neither all such Latinists as to descrie your false∣hood in it. But we must take this for another of your Helenas to please the Puritans: who now are furni∣shed with an Argument, to prove that the Lords day was called the Sabbath, and so reckoned in the time of Bede; and therefore not so late an Vpstart, as some men have made it. Last of all for your strong conclusion, that it is utterly impossible, that no Church of the English nation should imitate herein her first Metropolis: when you have proved that the said Church there mentio∣ned, was the first Metropolis, wee will tell you more. Meane time the most that you have got, (besides the sport that you have made) is▪ that the Altar in a private Monasterie, did stand in medio pene sui, almost in the middest thereof: which possible might be, because the Church not being finished when S. Austin died, was not compleatly finished, neither, when Bede wrot the story. However it is there related, as a particular and extraordinarie case: and extraordinarie cases make no generall usage, unlesse it bee with such a disputant as you, who like a drowning man, are fain•• to lay hold on every thing.

Now from the evidence that▪ you brought us,

touching the Antient standing of the Altars, in the Church of England, in point of practise: wee must proceed to see what is determined of and for it, now in point of Law. For if the present Law be contrary to the antient practise; the antient practise must give way, and the Law shall carry it. Now for our better understanding how the Law hath ordered it, the Bi∣shopsa 1.616 letter to the Vicar of Gr. referr's us to the Ru∣brick, and the Canon; we will look on both. And first beginning with the Rubrick, it is ordered thus, thatb 1.617 the Table at Communion time, having a faire white linnen cloath upon it, shall stand in the body of the Church, or in the Chancell, where morning and evening prayer be appointed to be said. So saith the Rubrick; and for the former part thereof, there is not any thing that can serve for your present purpose. The Table, in Communion time, doth stand in the Chancell: though it stand Altar-wise, close along the wall: and in the Chancell too, i. e. in the most eminent part of it. The writer of the letter saw this well enough: and to avoyd the consequence could finde no better shift up∣on the sudden, than to corrupt the Rubrick, which was done accordingly. For in thec 1.618 letter to the Vicar instead of in the body of the Church, or in the Chancell, we had it, in the body of the Church, or of the Chancell: as if the Rubrick did appoint, that in those places where the Communion was administred in the Chan∣cell, the Table should bee placed at that time in the body of the Chancell. It's true, your new Edition reads it,x 1.619 in the Chancell: but then it is as true, that in your book you fall upon the former fault, and read it, in the body of the Church or Chancell, p. 44. and so you do againe, fitting the Canon to the Letter, of the old

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

the writer of the letter would bee no good Canonist, but rath••r a directive Canon, to guide us as occasion is, and as may bee convenient for the Communicants. Now where you fall upon the Doctor, for saying it is a matter of permission rather than command: because,e 1.620 say you, the Reverend house of Convocation is not con∣vened to make permissions, that men may doe what they list▪ but to make strong and binding Canons, to be obey∣ed by all the subjects, and pursued by all the Ordinaries of the Kingdome: In saying this, you doe not onely thwart your Bishop, but confute your King. For if it be to be pursued by all the Ordinaries in the Kingdome, ill did the Bishop state the Question, in saying the Table might stand Altar wise at the upper end of the Quire or Chancell, in ca••e the Minister may be seen and heard of all the Congregation. And on the other side, you both confute the King, and your selfe to boote. The King, in that he hath determined, that placing of the Table in Church or Chancell, as both the Rubricke and the Canon have resolved therein, is to be constru∣ed only a thing of libertie. And being a thing of libertie, is left unto the Judgement of the Ordinarie, both for the thing it selfe, and for the time when, and how long, as he may finde cause. Your selfe, in that you have sele∣cted that particular passagef 1.621 for your Euge tuum, and honoured that alone with your mentis aureae verba bracteata; as before was noted. Besides, you may ob∣serve in the Declaration, that those who pleaded for the Appellants in S. Gregories case, urged not the Ca∣non or the Rubrick, for strong and binding lawes, as you please to call them: but onely urged them to this purpose, thatg 1.622 they did give permission to place the Ta∣ble where it might stand with most fitnesse and conveni∣ence.

So that you see, the Canon and the Rubrick are permissions onely, and not commands; which is but what the Doctor said: and which you see confirmed by your Lord the Ordinarie, the Advocates in the plea aforesaid, the King, qui tot imperat legionibus; and which is most of all, Your selfe.

h 1.623 Quod si nec ••ratris, nec te mea gratia tangit, At Coeli miserere tui.

Besides, the Canon being generall, was so to be drawn up, as it might meet with all particular cases of what sort soever. Now you know well enough, that in some Churches there are no Chancels, and most espe∣cially in those of a latter building: and some such you m••y finde in London, if you please to look. So that in case the Canon had named onely Chancels, it might have left some Churches without Communions, be∣cause they had no Chancels in the which to celebrate; and so by consequence there had been no remedie, in and by the Canon; if the Communion should not bee duely ministred by the Priest, or not so frequently received by the people, as it ought to be.

CHAP. VIII.

An answer to the Minister of Lincolns Argu∣ments against the standing of the Lords Ta∣ble at the upper end of the Quire.

The Minis••er of Lincoln forsakes his Bishop, about the placing of the Altar in the body of the Church. The Altar in Eus••bius Panegyrick, not in the middle of the Church. The Ministers confidence and ignorance, in placing the Alt••r of incense close unto the va••le. Tostatu•• falsified by the Minister of L••ncoln. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the fift Coun∣cell of Constantinople, and the meaning of it. The Minister of Lincoln at a losse in his Criticall learning, both Greek and Latin. Varro corrupted by the Minister of Lincoln. Saint Austin what he meant by mensa illa in medio con∣stituta. Albaspinus falsified. Durandus sets the Altar at the upder end of the Quire. The testimony of S••crates and Nicephorus, asserted to the Doctor from the Ministers Cavils. The Altars how now placed in the Gre••k Chur∣ches. The weak authorities produced by the Minister of Lincoln, for placing of the Table distant from the wall, and some of them corrupted also. The generall Prec••dents of the Minister, for placing of the holy Table; forged: as also a••e the Acts of the Councell of Millaine under Borro∣meo. The Minister confesseth guilty, and confutes him∣selfe of falsification. Many particular Precedents brought in; most of them counterfeit and forged; and altogether conclude nothing to the point in hand. The Minister of Lincoln against himselfe.

HAving made search at home, and not found any thing unto the contrary, either in the Ru∣brick or the Canon, but that the Table may be placed where the Altar stood; and that as well in

the Communion time,* 1.624 as at other times: wee must next take a view of what you have to say for the an∣cient practice. Not in the Church of England, that you have done withall already, and done it bravely too, no man ever better: for you have found a Mo∣nasterie, and that hardly finished, wherein the Altar, upon some speciall and extraordinary reasons, did stand in medio pene sui, not in the middle of the Church, as the letter goeth, but almost in the middle of it. In that which followes wee must travell after you, over all the world: First taking a review of those authorities which were related to in the Bishops let∣ter, and answered by the Doctor in his Coal from the Altar. The writer of the letter, to let the Vicar see, i 1.625 how long Communion Tables had stood in the midst of the Church, (not in the midst of Chancels or Churches, as you make it now, p. 207.) referred him unto Bishop Iewell. The testimonies there producedk 1.626 are from Eusebius, Augustin, Durandus, and the fift Councell of Constanrinople. Beginning with Eusebius,l 1.627 hee tels us of the Church of Tyre, that being finished and all the seats thereof set up. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the

founder after all, pla∣ced the most holy Altar in the midst thereof, and compassed it about with rayles, to hinder the rude multitude from pressing neere it. Now hereunto the Doctor answered, first that the Altar though it stood along the Eastern wall, it may be well interpreted to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the middle of the Chancell, in reference to the North and South, as it since hath stood. And secondly that were it otherwise, yet it were only a particular case of the Church in Syria, wherein the people being more mingled with the Iewes than

in other places, might possibly place the Altar in the middle of the Church, as was the Altar of Incens•• in the midst of the Temple, the better to conforme unto them.

And this hee was the rather inclined to think, because that Church in the whole structure of it, came very neere unto the modell of that Tem∣ple: the Gate or entrance of the same being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 directly open to the East, as was that of Solomons. Now you replie unto the first, (after a scoffe or two bestowed on the simple Doctor) that you had thoughtm 1.628 the Panegyrist in Eusebius had beene describing in that place a brave Chancell, set all about with seats and other Ornaments, and that hee had placed the Altar in the midst of that Chancell. The Bishop of Lincoln had small reason to approve of this, had he so throughly perused your book, as the Licence tels us. He sends the Vicar unto Bishop Iewell, to learn how long Communion Tables have stood in the mid∣dle of the Church: & you confute both him & Bp. Iewell, by placing of the Altar in the midst of the Chancell. Do not you talk of Butter think you, when he spoke of Cheese. For contrary to what he purposed, and n 1.629 you were Salaried to defend, we have here found an Altar in the midst of the Chancell, instead of a Com∣munion Table in the middle of the Church. But howso∣ever being placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the midst of the Chancell, you cannot think, that he doth meane by middle, there, the middle between North and South. How so? Because, say you, in case that Altar had stood along the Eastern wall, and in the middle of the wall, o 1.630 a Grecian would not say that

it stood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over-aneanst the middle of the wall: even as the Septuagint describe the situation of the Altar of Incense, to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

over-aneanst the vaile of the Temple.

Why man? I trow you cannot say of any thing that standeth close unto the middle of a wall, and is built up to it, as commonly the Altars were; that it is built 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over-aneant the middle of the wall. That forme of speech would fit farre bet∣ter with the Communion Table, placed exactly in the middest of the Chancell. For then it would be placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 over against the middle of the Eastern wall. You might have found this in your own instance of the Altar of Incense, said to be placed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over against the vaile of the Temple, standing a pretty distance from it, and not p 1.631 close to the vaile, as you unlearnedly relate. But this debate about the placing of the Altar of Incense will fall more properly within the compasse of your reply unto the Doctors second Answer; to which now we hasten. Only I tell you by the way, that if the Pa••e∣gyrist could not set the Table close along the wall,q 1.632 in the middle between North and South, without a pain∣ted Sea-card of the winds, and the foure points in hea∣ven; as you are pleased to laugh it out: he must make use no doubt of the same invention, to place it in the very midst of the Chancell. Where, you say, he placed it. Your other flamme, is more impertinent, and ab∣surd. For though all substantiall bodies here on earth, are equally measurable by those foure points in heaven, as you truly say: yet your illation thereupon, that it is not conceivable how this Altar should stand in the mid∣dle betweene North and South, rather than in the middle betweene East and West, is so ridiculous; that no man but your selfe would have ventured at it. For when we talke of setting up a Table in the midst of a Roome,

betweene East and West: I trow you do not think, but in that roome, it may stand rather in the middle be∣tween East and West, than in the middle of the same between North and South: though it stands equally distant from all foure points, in the heavenly bodies.

Then to the Doctors second answer, you reply and say, that liker 1.633 unto a child in a sandy banck, hee puls down with one hand, what he had built up with the other. Why so? Because in case you did not like his former answer, you might see something else for your satisfaction. Call you this pulling down with one hand, what he had built up with the other? I see the Doctor cannot please you, say he what he will. But be∣ing said, what answer do you make unto it? Marry you tell us outf 1.634 of Adricomius, that

though Tyre was in Syrià, yet were the people thereof never mingled with the Iewes, nor the Iewes with them, untill their imbracing of the Christian faith, after the utter ruin and subversion of that Nation.

Why man? And doth the Doctor tell you, that the said Church or Temple in Eusebius, was built before the ruin of that Nation, or be∣fore any of the Iewes had received the faith? You could not be so ignorant as not to know by course of story, that the said Church was built above 200. yeeres after the ruine and subversion of the Iewish Nation: and therfore it would best becom you, either to speak more to the purpose, or to hold your peace. Yes that you will you say. And rather than the Altar in Euse∣bius shal l stand in the middle of the Chancell, to car∣ry some resemblance to the Altar of Incense, you will remove the Altar of Incense from the midst of the Temple, where it stood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, over against the vaile, as before you said; and place

it close unto the vaile, where never any man did place it, but your selfe alone. For tell mee,t 1.635 doe Tostatus and Ribera fasten this Altar to the vaile, as you please to tell us. Not fasten it to the vaile, thats flat: for it wasu 1.636 made with rings and staves, to bee removed (as you are pleased to have the Communion Tables) as oc∣casion was. Then for your placing of it close along the vaile, you finde no warrant in the Scripture. The Latine reads it, Contra velum; our English bookes be∣fore the vaile; close unto it, you, that better under∣stand the text, than all translatours whatsoever. Then forx 1.637 Tostatus whom you cite for fastning it unto the vaile, all he saith is this: Dicitur Altare istud esse con∣tra velum, i. e. ante velum. That Altar is here said to be against the vaile; that is, before it. What else? Hic ponitur situs hujus altaris, scilicet in qua parte Sanctua∣rii poneretur. Here is described the situation of this Altar, namely in what part of the Sanctuary it was placed. Is this to set it close unto the vaile, and there to fasten it? we may conjecture how you use Ribera by your faire dealing with Tostatus, whom you thus abuse. Besides, your selfe hath told us, that the Altar of Incense didy 1.638 stand between the Table on the North (you mean the Table of Shewbread, do you not?) and the Can∣dlestick upon the South: and I presume you will not say, the Table of the Shewbread, and the Candlesticke did stand close unto the vaile, or were fastned to it. But for these things, the Altar, and the Table, and the Can∣dlesticke, how they were disposed of in the Tabernacle: you may consult the Schemes thereof in Torniellus, Ann. M. 2544. where you will finde the Altar stood not close unto the vaile, but a good distance off, towards the nether end, though not exactly in the midst. You

might as well have let the Altar in Eusebius stand close along the wall, in the middle betweene North and South, as the Doctor placed it; as have betraied your ignorance, both in the Criticisme and the fact, to so little purpose; yea and your honestie to boot. And here I would have left you and Eusebius, but that you will not let the Doctor goe away with any thing. For whereas the poore Doctor said, that the Gate or entrance of this Church, like that of Salomons Temple, was unto the East: you sayz 1.639 it is not true, and that there is not any such thing in Eusebius. You grant that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Portico was towards the West; the leading way or entrance into the Court, or Church-yard, as we call it now: And thinke you they went round about the Church, to finde another way at the further end? Besides, you might have found, if you would have sought, that there were three dores into the very Church it selfe, all of them in the Ea∣sterne end, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, asa 1.640 the Authour hath it. Finally, whereas you had said before, that thereb 1.641 was nothing true in all this relation, but that the word Altar is named in Eusebius; now you have ta∣ken from him that comfort also: that Altar being by and by (you say) interpreted, to be a metaphoricall Altar, even 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sanctification of a Christian soule. You might as well have said, the Temple there descri∣bed is a Metaphoricall Temple: because the Panegyrist descanting upon it, compares the Soule unto that Tem∣ple, as the sinceritie thereof to the holy Altar.

We have been long about Eusebius, but will be brie∣ser in the rest; as briefe as possibly we can, your old tricks considered. The next that followes is the first Councel of Constantinople, as it is called in Bish. Iewel,

being that sub Agapeto & Menna, as the Doctor had it. Here youc 1.642 conceive you have him at a fine advantage; Agapetus being dead before that Councell sate; and Menna Patriarch of Constantinople presiding in it. But Sir, you cannot chuse but know, that howsoever Aga∣petus died before the sitting of the Councell: yet it was called especially by his procuring; (being then at Constantinople) although hee lived not to see the effects thereof: his Legates also being there, by ver∣tue of a Commission to them made, when he was alive. And this was possibly the reason, why Binius in the top of every page throughout the Acts of this whole Councell, being 112. in all, sets it Sub Agapeto & Men∣na, as the Doctor did: your next exception, if it be not better, will be worse than nothing. The place allea∣ged by Bishop Iewell, is this, that Tempore dyptichoram, at the Reading of the Dypticks, the people with great silence drew together round about the Altar, and gave ••are unto them. The Greek text hath it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. and to that phrase the Doctor an∣swered,

thatd 1.643 howsoever 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in it selfe did signi∣fie a Circle; yet 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, could not be properly interpreted round about the Altar, so that there was no part thereof, which was not compas∣sed with the people.

This he illustrated with a like phrase in our English Idiom, of the kings sitting in his throne, and all his noble men about him: and by the very saying in the Greeke text of the Revelation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, round about the throne. Against this you have said but little, though you spend many words about it. All your great Grammar learning, out of Eustathius, and Hesychius, Tully, and Budaeus, excel∣lent Criticks all; that circles are exactly round,e 1.644 with∣out

any Corners, and that af 1.645 Circle differs from a semicir••le; is but your wonted art to divert the busi∣nesse. For did you not observe that the Doctor gran∣ted it, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of and in it selfe did signifie a Circle? If so, what needs all this adoe? The thing in question is not what 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth, or whether Circles are not round: but whether that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, can any way inferre that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church, so that the people, if they would, might runne round about it. For this you bring no proofe, but thatg 1.646 you thought the Throne in heaven had beene safe enough, and that it needed not a wall to rest upon. Why, who said it did? That in the Revelation, was only brought for illustration of the Phrase, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ not for the situation of the Altar against a wall. But then you say, the Angels may as conveniently be thought to compasse it about, as to cast themselves into a halfe mo••ne before the presence of Almighty God: and that all interpreters doe so expound it. You speake of all in∣terpreters, but you name us none; which shewes your all is very nothing: for where you have a store, wee are sure to finde it in the margin, how little soever to the purpose. But Sir, the Doctor speakes there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, h 1.647 after the manner of men, touching the refe∣rence which the Prophet had in his description of the Throne in Heaven, unto the thrones of Kings on earth. And if you speake, or apprehend him speaking in that manner; it would be very hard for you to un∣tie the knot, and shew usi 1.648 how foure beasts, though never so full of eyes, could compasse round the Throne in a perfect Circle. Nor doth that fragment which you bring us from S. Basils Liturgie, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, say more than what the Doctor told

you from the Revelation, that all the Angels stood round about the throne, Apoc. 7. 11. though Gentian Hervet, as you say, hath rendred it in orbem, which you translate in a ring or perfect Circle. For your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 k 1.649 in S. Peters Liturgie, you might doe well to keepe it by you, till the authoritie of that and other Liturgies affabulated to the holy Apostles, bee agreed upon. And had I thought you would have taken them for currant, I would have shewne you more in them for Priests and Altars, than you can doe with your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for placing the said Altars in the midst of the Church. However, by your owne confession, we have found an Altar in S. Peters Liturgie: and therefore to dispute ••dhominem, the name of Table is not 200. yeeres more ancient in the Christian Church, than the name of Altar. The compassing of the Altarl 1.650 in S. Basils Litur∣gie, is an allusion only to the Phrase in the booke of Psalmes: and so is that also in the epistle of Synesius, if such thing bee in him: you have referred us in your text, tom 1.651 one of his Epistles, but you tell not which. And in your Margin tell us that it is in constitut. habita ad Thatalaeum, but I find no such thing in his Epistles. But so or not so, all is one with you; and with me too in this particular, being thus answered to your hand. Last of all for your passages in S. Chrysostomes Li∣turgie, where it is said, the Deacon fumes the holy Table, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, round about, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in all the circuit or compasse thereof, as your selfe translate it; that might well be, and yet the Altar stand all along the wall. Fo•• with a Censer in your hand, you could make shift, no doubt, to cense or fume the holy Table, in all th•• cir∣cuit or compasse of it; and yet not take the paines to goe round about it: even as they doe, at this day in

the Church of Rome. But I must tell you by the way, that you have falsified your Authour, or at least chop∣ped him off, having more to say. For p. 64. whither you referre us, hee speakes of censing of the Altar, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you say well in that, but then hee addes. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the manner of a crosse; which over∣throwes your whole designe. For take it, as the Fa∣ther meanes it, and it is no such impossibilitie, as you thinke it is, but that a single mann 1.652 may doe it; and fume in the Altar in a crosse: and therfore the poore Doctors interpretation not so absurd, as you would make it. The Doctor will stand close enough to his interpretation, till you bring stronger Arguments, and more faire dealing to remove him from it. You shew your selfe on all, and on no occasions to have some smattering of the law, and therefore cannot chuse but know, that in defect of an appearance, a Iurie in some cases may be up ex circumstantibus: for which see, 35 H. 8. c. 6. 2 Edw. 6. c. 32. and 5. Eliz. c. 25. and 14. Eliz. c. 9. And yet I trust you will not say, the Iudges that determine in writ of Nisi prius, sit in the middle of the towne Hall wheresoever they come; because the people are conceived to bee circumstantes. None but this Minister of Lincolnshire would commit these fol∣lies. And yet it is no wonder neither: for you have given us centum tales, in stead of decem.

Having made sport, (to keepe us to your own sweet langugae) in the Greeke with t••e Councell of Constan∣tinople: we must next seeo 1.653 you doe as much in La∣tine, with S. Augustine. The place from him alleaged by Bishop Iewell, is this; Christus quotidie pascit: Mensa ipsius est illa in medio constituta. Quid causae est, O audientes, ut mensam videatis, & ad epulas non

accedatis? i. e. as he translates it, Christ feedes us daily: and this is his Table here set in the midst. O my hearers, what is the matter, that ye see the Table, and yet come not to the meat?

To this the Doctorp 1.654 answered, that mensa illa in medio constituta, in not to be interpre∣ted the Table set here in the middest; but the Table which is here before you: and this according to the Latine phrase afferre in medium, which is not to bee construed to bring a thing precisely into the middle, but to bring it to us, or before us.

In your reply to this, you trifle as before you did, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And be∣cause every Schooleboyq 1.655 knowes, that litterally and grammatically, medium doth signifie the middle part or space; therefore afferre in medium cannot signifie to bring a thing unto us, or before us. This said, you make another sally, to shew your Criticall learning (you have such store of it) touching the derivation of the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 out of Scaliger, and the latine word Mensa out of Varro, which was at first, say you, called Mesa, from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because this Vtensil, saith Varro,

is ever placed in the middle space between us: so that according to this great and antient Critick, it cannot properly be called a Table, unlesse it be placed, as Saint Austin reports it, in medio, in the middle.

Would you would leave this Criticall learning, except you were more perfect in it. All that you finde in Varro isr 1.656 no more than this, that mensa escaria, a boord for meat, is called Cibilla, and that it was once square, but afterwards made round: Et quod a nobis media, a Graecis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mensa dici potest. Finde you in this that the latine word for a Table was not alwayes Mensa; but at the first Mesa? So you would make your Readers think, that cānot eve••y day

consult the Author; and for that purpose you have falsified him in your margin accordingly; and made him sayf 1.657 what is not in him, viz. Mesa, quod à nobis me∣dia, à Graecis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, mensa dici potest. But the first Mesa is your own, no such thing in Varro: and consequent∣ly Mesa was not the first Latine word for Table as you have falsified the Author, only to place it in the middle. Neither doth Varro say, that Mensa was deri∣ved from the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, more than from the Latine: and further addes another reason of the name, which you would not see; and that is, quod ponebant pleraque in cibo mensa, because that on the Table the meat was served out by measure. Every man had his own dimensum, as the word still holds. So then, it may bee called a Table, although not placed in the middle. Your Grammer learning being showne, we must next take a turne in your Divine and Theologicall Philology: where we are toldt 1.658 of Audientes, genuflectentes, com∣petentes, and intincti, severall kinds of Catechumeni, in the primitive times; as if those names had never beene heard of, but amongst the fennes: you would be thought to lie at wrack and manger with Lady Philo∣logy, though you never kist her. For had you but the least acquaintance with her, you would not runne into those errours which you do continually. You tell us of these Audientes, thatu 1.659 if the Table were in the Chan∣cell, they could not be admitted to draw so neere as to see and view it: and therefore make Saint Austin say, that's the Lords Table there, which you see placed in the midst of the Church. Why? could they not more easily see it in the midst of the Church, than if it had been in the Chancell? Were they so Eagle-sighted a far off, and could they not discerne it, if placed neerer hand? This

is a mystery indeed, above my capacity. Perhaps you think, that commonly, and at other times, it stood in the middle of the Church: but when the Catechumeni were driven forth, and the holy Sacrament to bee ad∣ministred, it was removed into the Chancell. And then consider with your selfe, how fitly you would have the Table to bee set at other times in the upper end of the Chancell; and be brought down in time of the Communion into the body of the Church. Next you have made S. Austin say, that if these Audientes could but by chance get a glympse of the holy Table, they were in∣stantly (all discipline notwithstanding) to be baptized: and yet Saint Austin saith expressely, ut mensam vide∣atis, that they did see the T••ble, though they came not to it; nor do we finde they were baptized so present∣ly on the sight thereof. Therefore to set the matter right, I rather should conceive that the word illae there, is of specall efficacie: and points not to a Ta∣ble, which was then before them, (for then haec mensa est ipsius, might have been more proper): but to some Table further off, in the Quire or Chancell, made ready for all those that purposed to Communicate; which the said Catechumen! might see, though they came not neere it. And so Saint Austin in these words, Mensa••ipsius est illa in medio constituta,

must be thus interpreted; His Table is that yonder which is now in readinesse. What is the matter, O you Audientes, that you can look upon the Table; and yet not fit and prepare your selves to be partakers of the ban∣quet.

As for your note fromx 1.660 Albaspinus, that if the Audientes should but get a sight of the holy Table; they were all instantly to be baptized: you do most shame∣fully abuse that learned Bishop; who was too great

a scholler to be so mistaken. And therefore take along that passage for a close of all, to which you point us in your margin: where you shall finde he speaks not of their getting a glympse the holy Table, but of the holy mysteries celebrated on the Table. Si cui contigisset Catecumeno, casu aliquo, aut sacrificiis in∣teresse, aut occulis sacra illa intueri, (call you this a Ta∣ble) cum protinus sacro fonte abluendum esse, Such a notorious falsifier of all kinde of Authors, did man never meet with.

Next for Durandus, it was observed out of him by Bishop Iewell, that the Priest turning about at the Al∣tar, doth use to say, Aperui os meum in medio Ecclesiae: which proves not, as the Doctor saidy 1.661 that the Altar stood in the midst of the Church; but that the Priest stood at the midst of the Altar. You know this well enough, that the Priest doth stand so; but you must needs say somewhat, what soever you know: and ther∣fore bring Durandusz 1.662 to expound himselfe. Well then, what saith Durandus to it.

Per Altare Cor no∣strum intelligitur, quod est in medio Corporis, sicut Alta∣re in medio Ecclesiae. By the Altar is to be understood our heart, which is in the midst of the body, as the Altar is in the midst of the Church.

This is almost the only place you have cited fairly in all your book: & in congratulation to your selfe for your honest dealing, you presently flie out on the poore Doctor, as if there were no sensible sacrifice, nor materiall Altar: because Durandus in his way of Allegories, compares the Altar to our heart. Iust thus before you dealt with the Panegyrist in Eusebius; and too ridiculously in both. Therefore to let your Allegories passe, as not considerable in this case, we must reply unto the words. And here I will

make bold to tell you, that by in medio Ecclesiae here, Durandus doth not meane the middle of the Church, that is, the body of the Church: but which I know you meane to laugh at, the middle of the upper end of the Quire, or Chancell; there where the Altar stood in those times he lived, and long before him. Will you the reason why I say it? then look into the former Chapter, where hee will tell you of those rayles, or barres, which part the Altar (or the Altar place) from the rest of the Quire: as it is now in our Cathedrals, and many others of this kingdome. Cancelli quibus Al∣tare a Choro dividitur, separationem significat coelestium a terrenis. And so the Altar stood not in Durandus time, in the midst of the Church, but generally at the end▪ of the Chancell, and thus much briefly for Du∣randus.

For those exceptions which you make against the testimony produced by the Doctora 1.663 from Socrates and Nicephorus, about the standing of the Altars in Anti∣ochia; we must needs runne them over for your satis∣faction, though not worth the while. What they af∣firme herein, we have at full laied down in our former Chapter: Cassiodore being there brought in, into the bargaine. The first thing you except against, is that the place he cited from Nicephorusb 1.664 is not to be found lib. 12. c. 24. but lib. 12. c. 34. This is another of those malicious falsifications that you charge him with, p. 58. andc 1.665 you beshrew him for it, here. p. 228. A very easie errour if you mark it well; and such as Printers will commit, do we what we can. But it was found, it seems at last; that's well: more than man can say, of you and your quotations, I am sure of that: And so the wretched Doctor hath dealt with Socrates also,d 1.666 citing him right,

you say, in Latine, cap. 21. whereas it is the 22. Chapt. in the Greek. It would be well if you would cite your Authors right in any Language; or else finde greater matters to except against, before you quarrell: yes that you will you say.

For these Historians doe not note those rites of the Altars of the Citie of Antioch, as different from all other Altars, or from the gene∣rall practice of the Church: but that they differed in those rites from the Church of Rome, only, as Io∣sephus Vice-comes proves at large.

What ever Vice-comes proves in other places, I am sure hee proves it not in the place you cite; being de Missae Ritib. l. 2. c. 5. in which there is not one poore word that reflects that way. Nor will I take the paines to search, if hee saith it elsewhere. For whatsoever he saith in that, he can never prove it: the Authors being so expresse in the affirmation. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is in Socrates; contrarium ab aliis Ecclesiis situm, the trans∣latour reades it, diversum prorsus quam alibi situm, so Nicephorus hath it. The words are generall enough, without relation any way to the Church of Rome. Now where you say,a 1.667 that neither Socrates nor Ni∣cephorus, doe say that the Altars did stand Westward; that Socrates doth not speake of the position of these Altars, but the Churches onely; and that Nicephorus adding besides his Author, the posture of the Altars, doth presently correct himselfe in the words of Socrates: all these are worse than so many mistakings, as you have made them in the Doctor, they are wilfull falsehoods. For doth not Socrates affirme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; and doth Nice••horus say otherwise, than Sacra ara non ad Orientem, sed ad Occi∣dentem versus, collocata fuerat? what finde you in Ni∣cephorus

like a recantation, passing directly from these words to another matter? For shame presume not thus on the credulitie of your Readers: and think not all the world so stupid, as to bee cheated with your faire words, and a loaded margin. The rest of your exceptions are so slight, they need no reply. The Doctor saith not as youf 1.668 charge him, that all the people in Syria, might possibly place the Altar in the midst of the Church: but spake it onely of the people of the citie of Tyre. And for the pudder that you make about the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is another smack of your criticall ignorance: bee pleased to know, that without an•• wres••ing of the word, the Alta••s may be said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to look towards the East; as well as th••t Priests looked that way, which did officiate at them, or upon them. And if you will vouchsafe to look ing 1.669 Clemens of Alexandria, you will there finde that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is so used. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So hee in reference to some antient tem∣ples built amongst the Gentiles.

Thus having saved the Doctor harmlesse from your vaine assaults; we will next see, what you have studi∣ed of your owne against the standing of the Altar, at the East end of the Church. Where I must tell you your particular instances will prove but weake and sil∣ly Arguments, like the Cathedrall Church at Dover, or the round Church of Cambridge, which wee met with lately. That which you tell us from the Greek Chur∣ches is indeed considerable, if it were as true. You tell us out of Gentian Hervetus,h 1.670 that in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Chan∣cell there be two Altars, whereof the greater stands in the midst of that Roome, and the lesse close by, at the left side of it. Yet Bishop Iewell in his 13. Art. being of

the Pluralitie of Masses, cites many of the Ancient Fathers that say, there is but one Altar in every Church: and then concludes with Gentian Hervet; In Graetorum templis unum tantum est Altare, idque in med••o choro aut Presbyterio. Not in the middle of the Church then, we have gained so much: and wee have reason to beleeve it was not in the middle of the Chan∣cell neither. One of you I am sure is out with your Gentian Hervet, touching the number of your Altars: and think you, that you are not both out in the pla∣cing of them? No certainly say you, that cannot bee, i 1.671 because the setter forth of the Greek and Latine Litur∣gies, hath affirmed as much: viz. that there be in those Churches two Altars, the greater in the middest, and called the holy Table, the lesser called the Prothesis, o•• Ta∣ble of Proposition. And then you bring in Claudius Sainctes, to tel us, that in the Greek Temples, there is but one high Altar, and that placed in the midst of the Quire. You should doe well to reconcile your witnesses, be∣fore you bring them to give evidence. Claudius Sain∣ctes, as you cite him, hath told us of one Altar only; the setter forth of the Greeke and Latine Liturgies, as you please to call him, tels us of two; but placeth, as you cite him, the greatest only in the midst: and Gen∣tian Hervet setting the great Altar in the midst, hath placed the least close by it, at the left side of the grea∣ter. Your selfe and Bishop Iewell with your Gentian Hervet, and Gentian Hervet with your setter forth, and his Claudius Sainctes, agree but very ill together. We might doe well to keepe them withou•• fire and can∣dle, till they agreed upon their verdict: but wee will take an easier Course, and dismisse them presently. And first beginning with your Claudius Sainctes, you

cite himk 1.672 in his Edition of the Greeke Liturgie at Paris, 1560. but you cite neither page, nor place where a man may finde it. Indeed it was most wisely done to conceale the matter; that so your Reader might bee drawne rather to take it on your word, than take the paines to looke for it upon such uncertainties. But howsoever being looked for, and looked for with a diligent and care••ull eye; we must returne non est in∣ventus, no such words in Sainctes. Next for the set∣ter forth of the Greeke and Latine Liturgie, you might have done us a good turne to have told his name: at least not to have sent us to enquire for him inl 1.673 the Biblioth. vet. Patrum, Tom. 2. in Annot. without more punctuall direction. You mean, I trow, the setter forth of the Liturgies in Greeke and Latine; and them wee finde indeed in the second Tome of that edition. But when you talke I know not how▪ of a setter forth of the Greeke and Latine Liturgies, and send us to the Biblioth. vet. patrum, Tom. 2. you bid us looke into a place where no such man was ever heard of: the Greek and Latine Liturgies not being found in the second of those Tomes, but in the sixt. I see you were resol∣ved that whosoever traced you, should have much to doe. But having found your Author out, we finde you had good reason to conceale his name, and give us such obscure directions for the finding of him. For Genebrard whom you blindly call the setter forth of the Greek and Latine Liturgies, hath told us such a tale as will marre your markets.l 1.674 For hee divides their Churches into these five parts: the first called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the holy Tabernacle, so called quod gradibus in illam scandatur, because it is mounted up by steps; and this is entred into by none but the Priests. The se∣cond

hee entituleth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Quire or Chancell (properly and distinctly so intituled) Locus Clero & Cantoribus deputatus, a place assigned ••or the clergie and the singing men. The third was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the Pul∣pit-place, where the Epistles and Gospels were reade, and Sermons preached unto the people. ••he fourth called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or the body of the Church, wherein the people had their places, both men and women, though distinct: and last of all the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or place for Baptisme, neere which stood the Penitents. Now for the Altars which he speakes of, they stood not, as you make them stand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Quire or Chancell, distinctly and properly so called, and much lesse in the middle of it; but in the upper part thereof, mounted up by steps (and severed from the rest by a vaile or curtaine) which place was therefore called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; i. e. the Altar-place, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Altarium, whichm 1.675 before we spake of. Illic sunt duo Altaria, there, in that upper end, above the steps, stood those two Altars which you talke of: not in the middle of the Chancell as you falsly say. And there, the greater of the two did stand in medio, in the midle between North and South as they still continue: the lesser, which hee cals the Prothesis, standing on the left side thereof, and there∣on stood the bread appointed to be consecrated, till it was offred on the Altar. Nor doth he say, the greater is in the midst, and called the holy Table, and no more but so: but majus est in medio, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sacra mensa, &c. the greater of them is in the midst, and is called the Altar, the holy Table, the Holy of Holies, with ma∣ny other names which are there attributed to it. Where you may see, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath preceden∣cie of sacra mensa, though you are pleased to leave

out Altar; as if he called it onely the holy Table: this said, your evidence out of Gentian Hervet will bee ea∣sily answered. And here I cannot chuse but tell you, that herein you have shewne most foulely, either your ignorance or your falshood. If you conceived that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there did signifie the whole Chancel, then it shews your ignorance: if that you knew it signified no more than the upper part, in quod gradibus scanditur, and yet set downe withm 1.676 in the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Chancell, as you have translated it, then you shew your falshood. And so I leave you with an Vtrum horum mavis accipe; make your best of either: or if you will, take both; be∣ing both your owne. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which you find in Gentian He••vet, is that which you had met with in your setter forth, a place distinguished from the Chan∣cell, and raised above it, within the which the said two Altars stood, which your Author speaks of; and stood, as you were told before (one of your Authors bor∣rowing from the other both his words and matter,) though indeed one of them was no Altar, but a Table only; a Table either of proposition, or of preparation, no great matter which.

Next let us looke upon the Latines, and their use herein, from whom the English first received the faith of Christ, as your selfe confesse, calling their Austin, the Apostle of the Saxons. p. 223. And herein to begin with, wee have gained thus much, that neither the Tables heretofore, nor the high Altars afterwards did stand in the midst of the Church or Chancell; butk 1.677 so farre from the wall at least, as the Priests and Deacons might stand round about them. Wee hope you will come home in time. First you had placed the Altar in the midle of the Church; then you removed it very fairely

into the middle of the Chancell, and now you have ad∣vanced it so neere the wall, as there is onely roome for the Priests and Deacons to goe between. I finde you comming on apace, but that shall not helpe you: for I am bent to trust to nothing that you say, till I have examined it, no though it made unto my purpose: Now for the proofe of this, you bring us in some Au∣thours, and some precedents. Amongst your Authors,l 1.678 Walafridus Strabo hath been heard alreadie, who saith no more, but that in the first times the Altars in the Church were placed ad diversas plagas, according as, poore men, they could fit themselves, but makes the generall use to be otherwise, as be••ore was said. And so dom 1.679 Bellarmine, and Suarez too, two other of your Authours, as it relates unto the Churches, which ge∣nerally, they say, are built ad orientem, some few ex∣cepted, which could not otherwise bee erected? But Bellarmine, I assure you, doth not speak one word in the place ••y you cited, touching the fixing of the Altars in any posture; propter commoditatem loci, if the conve∣nience of the place require it. That's an addi••ion of your owne, no such thing in Bellarmine. And howsoe∣ver Suarez seeme to looke that way, yet he acknow∣ledgeth withall, that placing of the Altar at the East end of the Church, was the ancient Custome. For Vice-comes, he doth take it as you say, for a very cleere and indubitable as••ertion, Altaria medio in templo allo∣cata fuisse, that Altars were placed heretofore in the midst of the Church. And he doth take it too, I say, for as indubitable, and as cleere,n 1.680 non nisi Constantini tem∣poribus coepisse Christianos missam publice in Ecclesia con••icere, that till the time of Constantine the Chri∣stians did not celebrate the Sacrament in their Chur∣ches

publickly: but neither you nor I am bound to be∣lieve him in it. No matter how hee saith it, but how hee proves it.o 1.681 Your Aloysius Navarinus comes in here impertinently, who on these words, Circundabo Altare tuum, saith, that their situation was such in for∣mer times, that the Priests might compasse round about the holy Altar. But good Sir tell me in your next book, of what Priests he speaks. For that the Altar stood so in the law of Moses, we know well enough; and the Priests compassed them about, we know that also. But that the Altars stood so in the Christian Church, you do not tell us from your Author: which is a pregnant ar∣gument, tha•• it is not in him?p 1.682 But, as you say, the maine authority you relie upon, is the Pontificall: wher∣in the Bishop is enjoyned in three severall places at the least, to compasse the Altar round about, or cir∣cumcirca: which were it fastned to the wall, were as you say impossible for a man so to do. Iust so. But tell me in good earnest, do you conceive the Bishop is en∣joyned in the Pontificall, to go round about the Al∣tar, (as you meane round about it, when you tell us so) because you finde it, Pontifex circuit ter Altare, once; and circuit semel, twice, as your margin rightly. The circumcirca, is your owne; and none of the Pontifi∣cals. And for the compassings there spook of, they must be taken in circuitu possibili, to compasse so much of it, as may be compassed. And so you must inter∣pret another passage in the said Pontificall. viz. Thuri∣ficat Altare undique ad dextrum & sinistrum latus, an∣te & desuper, p. 2••3. and 232. of my Edition being of Paris, Anno 1615. Vndique there implies asmuch as circumcirca, and yet you finde not that the Bishop is to cense or fume the further part thereof. Why so?

because he could not come to do it. If not to cense it, then certainly much lesse to compasse it about, as you meane compassing. Compare your Circuit, with my undique, and tell me what you think of this pro∣per Argument, upon wiser thoughts.

From Authors you proceed to Precedents,q 1.683 Pre∣cedents answering these Authorities in all ages, and in all countreys whatsoever. In case your Precedents serve your turne no better than your Authors did, there's never a Scriveners Clerk in London, but will shew better Precedents for a poore Noverint Vniversi. And of this quality is your first, a generall Precedent, a perfect Noverint Vniversi. For as you say, you were extreamly laught at by all strangers, for making unto them such a foolish question, as they deemed it. And like enough, I would have laught at you my selfe, had I heard you aske it: for never did so great a Critick aske so poore a question. I know your meaning yet, how∣ever. You would bee thought to have been laught at, for thinking that the Altars generally stood at the East end of the Church: but if you asked the question, you were only laught at by the strangers, for thinking it a matter questionable, that they should stand in any other place than that. And though I take this for a tale, a very winters tale, fit only to bee told by such a confidence as yours: yet being told by one of the right faction, no doubt but it will passe for currant, and finde a credence among those who are not able to distinguish between chalk and cheese, but swallow all that comes before them. Your Noverint Vniversi being sealed and delivered, wee should look forwards to the rest of your observations; but we will borrow leave a while, to look upon the Church of Millaine,

and on the Reformation made therein, by the great Cardinall Borromaeo. It seemes, before his time,r 1.684 that there had been some Altars raysed in very inconveni∣ent places: some neere the Pulpit; some neere the Organs; some against one pillar, some against ano∣ther; and some neere the doore: yet finde I none particularly under the Reading Deske, nor do I think that you can finde a Reading Deske in any of the Mil∣laine Churches.s 1.685 Only because you sayd before, that the Pulpit and the Reading Pew might be called Altars no lesse properly than the Holy Table: you would now shew an Altar neere the Reading Deske, in hope the Reading Deske may one day become an Altar. I hope you cannot hence conclude, that the High Altar stood indifferently in any part of the Church; or that in those small Churches wherein there was one Altar only, that one and only Altar stood as it hapned in the body of the Church, undert 1.686 the Organ-loft, the Read∣ing Deske, the Pulpit, or you know not where. There's none so ignorant of the world abroad, but knowes that in the greater Churches there were severall Altars, none of the which come under our consideration, but that one Altar, which was disposed of in the Chancell. Your Pillar-Altars, and your Chappell-Altars were of another nature, and had their severall places in the Church, according as they might bee s••tuate with the most conveniency. But so, I trust it was not with the High Altar, as they call it. And yet in this you tell us, if we may beleeve youu 1.687

that in the severe reforma∣tion which that Cardinall made in all the Churches of the state of Millaine, he doth require that there be left a space of eight Cubits at the least, between the High Altar and the Wall, to admit the assistance of

more Priests and Deacons at feasts of dedication, and other appointments of solemne Masses.

If this were true, it were enough, we would seek no further. But there is nothing true in all this story. The di∣stance that you speak of, was not betweene the Altar and the Wall; but betweene the Altar and the Rayle, quod septum ab Altari co••gruo spatio dis••et, the rayle, or barres, and not the wall; as in the fourth Coun∣cell of Millaine, published by Binius, being the ex∣tract of those Acts, to which you send us. But lest wee should fall short of our present purpose, which is to set you for••h unto the world, for the most notable Counterfeit of these later Ages; wee will bee bold to borrow helpe from your owne deere selfe, against this man of Lincolnshire that so abuseth his good Au∣thors. You cite us in this place, Acta Eccles. Medi∣olan: part 4. lib. 10. de fabrica Eccles. and pag. 48. of your holy Table, you cite the very same againe. But there you sing another song, and report him rightly in these words.

When you build an High Altar, there must be from the foot or lowest degree thereof, to the rayles that inclose the same, ••ight Cubits and more, if the Church will beare it, that there may be roome for the clergie to assist,

(as sometimes is required at solemne Masses.)x 1.688 Et me mihi per••ide pro∣dis, me mihi prodis ait? What have wee here, ••he Minister of Lincolnshire, confessing guilty? His Au∣thor wronged in one place, and most miraculously righted in another? Now fie upon thee that coul••st not keep thine owne counsell; but must needs blurt out all, though against thy selfe. And so Ex ore tuo inique Iudex. The space you talk of was, as you see, betweene the Altar and the raile; and not betweene

the Altar and the wall, which was the matter to bee proved. The Cardinall was too good an Antiqu••rie, to make so great a distance as you falsly charge him with, betweene the Altar and the wall. And though he was not sainted,y 1.689 as you idely dreame, for taking downe those petit Altars in his Church of Millaine: yet such a reverend esteeme the Popes had of him, that the wholez 1.690 order of the Humiliati was suppres∣sed for ever; only because one desperate knave a∣mongst them, made an attempt upon his person.

This said, those few particulars which you have to shew, might very easily be granted, and do no preju∣dice at al to the cause in hand: and it were not amisse to do so, but that you falsifie your Authors with so high an impudence▪ in some of those particulars, which you have to shew. Your instance of ana 1.691 Antient Mar∣ble Altar, in the middle of the Catacombe, wee will freely yeeld you? For say you not your selfe, that it was a place, in which the antient Bishops of Rome were wont to retire themselves in time of persecution? If so, it was well they had an Altar. Those were no times to be sollicitous about the placing of the same, as be∣fore we told you. Next in Saint Peters Church in the Vatican you have found an Altar, called Altare Maggi∣ore; but the worst is, you know not where to place it. The Italian Author whom youb 1.692 cite, tels you the posture of this High Altar, was in the midst of the Quire: and yet Chemnitius, whom you cite p. 222. and allow of too, hath placed it ante Chorum, before the very Quire. This, as you say, was not observed by your for∣mer Author; you say true indeed. Your former Au∣thor, if you report him right, hath placed it in the midst of the Quire, and therefore could not well observe

that it stood before it. But stand it where it will, what are you the wiser? Do you not finde inc 1.693 Wala∣frid••s Strabo, that in this very Church there are ma∣ny Altars, some placed towards the East, and some in others parts thereof: Altaria non tantum in Orientem, sedetiam in alias partes esse distributa. And finde you not also ind 1.694 Chemnitius, that in that very Church there are an hundred and nine Altars; and then no marvell if some of them stand in the middle of the Quire, and some before it. Nor doth Chemnitius speak at all of that Altare Maggiore which before you spake of, for ought there appeares; but only tels you, apud Altare ante Chorum, that before the Quire there was an Altar. And, which most cleerely shewes your falshood, hee most perfectly distinguisheth that before the Quire from that under the whi••h Saint Peter and Saint Paul lie buried, which your Italian Author speakes of, by the number of Indulgences. You might have spared Chemnitius well enough, for any service hee hath done you; but that you love to clog your margin. And for Saint Peters Altar, place it where you will, either in the middle of the Quire, or before the doore, you cannot thence conclude that there was no High Altar anciently at the East end of the Church; no more than if a man should say, there is an Altar in the middle of King Henry the Seventh his Chappell at Westminster, ergo there is no Altar at the East end of the Quire.

From* 1.695 Italy your Bookes transport you into Ger∣many, and there you heard another winters tale, of that alacrity which Witikind the ancient Saxon found in the face of Charles the Great, when hee began to approach that Table which was in the midst of the

Church. For this you cite Cran••zius in Metrop. l. 1. c. 24. but there's not one word that reflects that way in all that Chapter, nor indeed could be, if you marke it; the Emperou•• Charles being dead and bu∣ried Chapt. ••8. That which you meane is Chapt. 9. (should 〈…〉〈…〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you for this mistake) and there indeed it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this sort: Postea vero mensam adieras••▪ Templo mediam, it a hilari mihi con∣spectus ••s vultu, &c. that the good Emperour chan∣ged his Count••••ance, at his approach unto the Ta∣ble. How ••eated? Templo mediam▪ What in the mid∣dle of the Church? I cannot tell you that. For then hee would have said, in medio Templi, and not Templo mediam. The Table Templo media was the High Al∣tar out of question, and stood as now it doth at the upper end of the Quire: and yet was Templo media just in the middle to the Church▪ or ••any man that comming from the lower end, did approach unto it. Nor doth Hospinian tell us,f 1.696 as you make him tell us, that in the Reformation which the Helvetians made at Tig••re, (so great a Clerke as you should have called it Zuric••) An 1527. they found that in old time the Fo••t had beene situated in that very place, where the Popish High Altar was then demo∣lished. 〈◊〉〈◊〉g 1.697 onely saith, Non obs••uris not is de∣prehensum esse, that it was so conje••tured by certaine signes▪ And thinke that those signes might not de∣ceive them. Besides, Hospinian speakes not of the Po∣pish High Altar, but cals it onely the High Altar, Al••a•••• summum. Popish was ••oysted in by you, to make poore men be••eeve that all High Altars, were ipso facto, Popish Altars, and therefore ipso facto, to

be demolished. Such excellent arts you have to in∣fuse faction in mens mindes, as never any man had more. From Germany you passe to France, where you finde nothing for your purpose. Youh 1.698 are informed, you say, that there they doe not fasten their High Al∣tars to the wall; but the lesser or Requiem Altars on∣ly. I dare bee bold to say, no man ever told you so: the contrary thereunto being so apparent; as I my selfe can say, of my own observation. So that your ge∣nerall being false, that which you tell us of the rich Table in the Abbie Church of S. Den••s, will conclude no more, than your Cathedrall Church at Dover. And yet you tell us false in that too. For that the Table isi 1.699 not laied along the wall, but stands Table-wis••, you find not in the Theatre, cited in the Margin: that you have added of your owne. Nor doth the Inscription which you bring, prove that it standeth Table wise: for the Inscription may as well fit an High Altar now, as a Communion Table heretofore. Besides, how ever itk 1.700 was used before, in case it bee not used so now, it makes no matter how it stands. For if it bee a Table onely, a faire rich Table to ••eede the eye, and not im∣ployed in any of ••heir religious Offices: place it in Gods name how you will; and make your best of it having placed it so.l 1.701 The ho••y Altar in the same Church placed before the Tombe of Charles the bald, stands, as you say, in a manner in the midst of that roome. Not in the midst expressely, but in a manner in the midst. Neither so, nor so. For the said holy Altar, as they call it, stands against the wall, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Chappell being behinde it▪ (a place appointed for the Sacrist) according, as you cannot chuse but have observed,

in many of our Cathedrall Churches in this Realme. And these indeed, are n•• strange postures in that Country; you say right in that: but very wrong as you intend it, as if it were not strange in France to have the Altars▪ stand in the midst of the••r Churches Both the rich Table that you speak of, and the holy Altar as they call it, stand there no otherwise than other Altars, both in France, and elswhere: which I can say of certaine knowledge, having marked them well.

The other three rich Tables which you tell us of,m 1.702 two of them in Const••ntinople, and one in Rome, conclude as little to your purpose: there being no proofe brought that they stood Table-wise, or were not laied along the wall; but on∣ly your meere say-soes, and some bold conje∣ctures. Nay it appeares most plainely, in tha•• wherein you instance first, that it was made to stand against a wall, and in no place else. For it is said of that incomparable Lady Pulcheria, and not Pulchelia, as you call her, the Emperours Sister, that making such a costly and magnificent peece of worke as the Table was:n 1.703 shee caused to bee inscribed on the Front thereof, that all might read it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the purpose of the gift, and true intentions of the giver. Had it beene then the use of the Church in▪ Constantinople, to place the holy Table like a Comm••••••on Table; no doubt but that shee would have caused the said Inscription to bee made accordingly. Not on the Front there∣of, for Front it could have none, except you

please to call the narrow ••nd by the na••e of F••ont, (as none will call it, if you do not;) but round about it. And being inscribed ••ound about, it might as ••asily have beene read, the Table standing Table-wise; as being on the Front, the Table stan∣ding Altar-wise. So that you have found out an excellent Argument against your selfe: and wee thanke you for it. Your second instance iso 1.704 of a Table, sent from France, by King Pepin, to the Pope, and dedicated to Saint Peter. How prove you that this Table was not made an Altar, nor placed Altar-wise? Marry say you, because the Pope returned this Answer to the King, that on that very Table hee had offered the sacrifice of praise to Almighty God, for the prosperity of his Kingdome. An admirable disputant. But good Sir, with your leave, might not the Pope offer the sacrifice of praise to Almighty God, on any thing but on that Table: or on that Table situate all along the wall, but in the posture onely of a common Table: or not upon that Table, changed into an Altar? I see you are excellent good at all things; but for non∣sequiturs, a very none-such. For your last instance of the holy Table offered up by Iustinian in the Tem∣ple of Sophia in Constanti••ople; you build on this, that the Inscription on the same was ingraven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, round about it▪ and therefore could not have beene seene, had the said Table beene laied ••••ong the wall. Thus you c••••••lude▪ and your conclu∣sion, as it should, followes deteriorem partem, in the worst sence too. Your Circuit, and your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 have beene scanned already. Nor can you

prove by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that the inscription on the Ta∣ble went quite round about it. It might bee done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not circum-circa. Cannot you walk 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about an Altar, or if that word offen•• you about a Table placed against a wall, backwards and forwards, from the extreme cor∣ner on the North-east, to the extreme corner on the South-east, and yet not walk quite round about it, in a perfect circuit? if no, you under∣stand not what you meane when you say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 if yea, then you may finde how the in∣scription might be engraven 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 on Iustinians Table, and yet the Table stand all along the wall. You see, I hope, by this time, the exceeding weaknesse of your cause; as other men may see by this, the extreme foulenesse of your carriage, in the handling of it.

But to what purpose tell wee you, of what you see: who being nor blinde, nor blinker, as you make the Doctor, do shut your eyes most wilfully that you may not see; or rather see too well, but will dissemble what you see. Great paines assuredly you take to prove that the Communion Table ought not to stand at the upper end of the Chancell: and that it is against the Liturgie and C••nons of this Church, against the practice of antiquity, yea and against the usage in the Church of Rome, to place it so. And which is yet more strange, you cast a scandalous staine on them which opine the contrary, as if they were of very desperate faith, and corrupt affections. For p. 76. you fling a jealousie abroad, as if in pla∣cing

the Communion Table Altar-wise, they meant somewhat else, than for feare of our gr••ci∣ous King they dare speak out: the Masse at lea••••, no question, who can take it otherwise. And worse than so, p. 204. you tell us, that these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Reformers, though they prepare and l••y 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the same, dare not (for feare of so many Lawes and Canons) apparantly professe their Ele••sinian doctrines: and that they are busied as yet, in t••∣king in the outworks, that that being done, they may in time have a ••out with the fort it selfe: With spight and calumnie enough. One that should read these passages, would thinke that your selfe did place a great deale of religion, in these outward matters: yet such is your ill-luck, or want of memory, or somwhat which is worse, that you confesse in other places, that placing of the holy Table in the upper end of the Chan∣cell, is of a very meane and inferior quality▪ not to be stood upon or gain••said, if it be•• re∣quired. For p. 67. you declare your selfe, that you would not advise a••y Clergie-ma•• of what degre•• soever, to oppose his Ordi••ary, eith••r 〈…〉〈…〉 other particular of so low •• nature▪ So low •• ••••∣ture, marke y••u that; and then consider with your selfe, how little cause you had, to take so much paines to ••o little purpose▪ but that you have a minde to d••stur•• the Church, that you may fish the better in a troubled water. So for the writer of the letter, hee sign••fi••th unto the Vicar,a 1.705 that the standing ••f th•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Table, was ••••to him a thing s•• ••••different, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of∣fence

a••d umbr••ges were taken by the town ag••inst it▪ he would neither move it, nor remove it. And you your selfe have brought him in discoursing with the men of Granth••m, of the indifferenci•• of this cir∣cumstance in its owne nature: as in another place, b 1.706 you make his Lordships opinion to be very indiffe∣rent, in the said placing of the Table, however the Rubrick of the Liturgie did seeme apparently to be against it. Nor is he onely so resolved in point of judgement, but hee is positive for the ••etting of it Altar-wise, in point of practice:c 1.707 the Table, as you tell us, in his Lordships private Chappell being so pla∣ced, and furnished with Plate and Orna••ents above any the poore Vicar had ever seene in this King∣dome, the Chappell Royall only excepted. A strange tale to tell, that for the placing of the Table Al∣tar-wise, the Rubricke should bee so apparently against it; and yet his Lordships opinion should be so indifferent in it: his practice peremptorie for the formes observed in the Royall Chappell; and yet that you should bee allowed and licenced to write kim kam, so flatly contrary to that, which in his owne house hee approves and practi••eth. More strange that you should take this paines to falsifie your Authours and disturb the peace and unifor∣mitie of the Church, in matters of so low a nature; wherein you would have no man disobey his Ordi∣narie. Were you not taken with a spirit of giddi∣nesse, we should have found some constancie in you, though but little truth. But thus you deale with us throughout your Booke; and wander up and downe, you know not whither: the biasse of

your judgement drawing one way, and your zeale unto the faction, pulling you another way. It seemes you have beene much distracted, ali∣udque ••upido, mens aliud su••det: and you are still irresolute what to do, or think. Though for the present fit, like the madde woman in the Poet, you set upon the businesse with a video meliora probo{que}: but will deterior•• sequi, do wee what wee can. In which madde mood no wonder if you fall into many impertinencies, and extravagancies, to which now wee hasten: and having made a full discovery of you in them, will conclude the whole.

SECTION III.

CHAP. IX.

A brief survey and censure of the first service of Extravagancies, in the holy Table.

The Ministers extravagancies, one of th•• greatest part of his whole discourse. His ignorant mistaking in the Mathema∣ticks concerning the inventions of Euclide, Archimedes, and Pythagoras. The Minister faulters in the originall of Episcopall autority. His ••ringing in of Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra, for the Iingle onely. The Minister mis∣takes the case of the German Priests. His ••••vils at the ••••rme of prayer before the Sermon; and turning towards the East i•• the Act of Prayer. The Ministers ignorant en∣devours to advance the autority of the Archd••acons. The Minister mistaken in the Diaconico••. What the Diacony was, and that it addes but little to the dignitie of Arch∣deacons, that the old Deacon had the keeping of it. The Minister absurdly sets the Deacon above the Priest. Po••tare Altare, not an honour in the first Deacons, but a service onely. The little honour done by the Minister to the Arch-deacons, in drawing down their petigree from the

first Deacons. The Ministers ignorant mistake in his own w••rd utensil. The Minister subjects the ••riest to the au∣tority of the Chu••chwarden, and for th••t 〈…〉〈…〉 Lindwood. His ignorant d••••rivations of the present Churchwarden from the old O••conomus. The Minister endevows to exclude the Clergie from medling in sacular matt••••••; and to that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 abuseth the autoritie of the ••••ci∣•••••• F••thers. His ignorance in the Cat••chisme, and confi∣dent mistakes in that. His heartlesse plea for bowing at the name of IESVS.

LAertius tel's us of Chrysippus the Philo∣sopher, that being a great Writer, a 1.708 he took up every thing that came in his way, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and swelled his Books with testimonies and quotations, more then needed. And thereupon Apollodoru•• the Athenian used to say, that taking from Chrysippus writings, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all that was either not his own, or at all nothing to his pur∣pose; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his Papers would be em∣ptie of all manner of matter. Our Minister of Lincoln Diocese is much like that Autor. To make his Book look big upon us, hee l••ft out nothing that hee met with in his own collections; or had beene sent in to him by his friends to set out the worke: and that it might appear a most learned piece, hee hath dressed up his margin with quotations of all forts, and uses. But with so little judgement and election, that many times he run's away so far from his may•• bu••inesse, and from the Argument which he took in hand; that wee have much adoe to finde him. And should one deal with him, according to the hi•••• that wee have given us of Chrysippus; we should find such a full in

the mayn bulk of his discourse,* 1.709 that the good man would have a very sorry frame, to support his Table. Such and so many are his impertinences, and vaga••ies; that the left part of all his worke, is the holy Table, though that were onely promi••ed in the T••••le: and we may say therof in the Po••ts language, Pars mi∣nima est ipsa puella sui; the dresse is bigger then the body. However, that wee might not ••eem to have took all this pains, in a thing of nothing; I have redu∣ced into the body of this answer, what ever of him I could possibly bring in, though by head and shoul∣ders: leaving the rest of his untractable extravagan∣cies, such as by no means could be brought into rank and order, to be here examined by themselves. In marshalling of the which I shall use no method, but that which himself hath taught me; which is to rank them as I finde them, and as t••ey crosse me in my way: taking them page by page, as they are pr••∣sented to my view; or dish by dish, as hee hath set them before us. If you find any thing of the change∣ling in him, or that his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 do not proove as full of ignorance and falshood, as his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is: I should conceive my time ill spent, in tracing him up and down in so wild a Labyrinth. Besides, we have in these extravagancies or vagaries, some fine smacks of Pu∣ritanisme, purposely sprinkled here and there to san∣ctifie and sweeten the whole performance; and make it ad palatum to the Gentle Reader. Begin then my dear brother of Boston, and let us see what prety tales you have to tell us, for entertainment of the time, by way of Table-talke: for justifying as you do, the sit∣ting of some men, at the holy Sacrament, I must needs thinke you have invited us unto a Common, not an holy Table.

And first to passe away the time till your meate come's in, you tell us two or three stories,c 1.710 of E••∣clid••, and his finding out of the Iacobs staffe▪ of Archi∣medes and his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when being in a brazen Lav••∣tory, he had found the Cor••net or circumference of the vessell: and finally of that sad y••••th Pythagoras, d 1.711 who having found in a Diagr••m an eq••••litie of so••e lines in a right ••••gled triangle, dow••e went a whole Oxe to the Gods, for the Inspiration. These are hard words beleeve mee, and you do very ill to talke in such a c••nting Language, and that to poore unlearned e 1.712 people, which are no Geometricians: but farre worse, trust mee, to betray your ignorance in so fowle a man∣ner, to those that can detect you for a most confident ign••ro, to trifle thus in matters which you understand not. It is a good rule and an old, in mathematic is aut scire op••rtet, aut 〈◊〉〈◊〉. But you that never cared for any rules, will not care for this. Incomp••r••ble, you say,f 1.713 was the delight of Euclide, when he had found how to make but a Iacobs staffe. I pr••y you, good Sir, who told you that Euclide made the Iacobs staffe▪ If it was Iacobs staffe, as you say it was; it could not be of E••clides making. And I would pray you next to tell me, why naming it a Iacobs staffe; you put 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the margin. Think you 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies a Iacobs staffe? The word you cite from Plut••rch where indeed it is; but a judicious and learned Mathematician, as you seem to be, would have considered with Xylander, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is vox nihili, no word at all, a mistake meerly of the transcripts. Then if you reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the l••ar∣ned do, it might be certainly a worke conteining some practicall The••remes wrought by the Quadrant or A∣strolabe, as well as the Iacobs staffe. And then again, if

Euclide wrote such Theoremes, it follows not that therefore he found out the Instrument. Many have told us of the use, but not found out the Author of it:g 1.714 though P. Ramus would have told you, had you asked the question▪ that it▪ was called Iacobs staffe, Tanquam à sancto Patriarcha illo oli•• inventus. However, were the difficulties more, and more debated by the learned in those noble studies, that's all one to you. For like a bold Adventurer, you clap it downe a Iacobs staffe, in the Text, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the margin: and then deride both it and them, as beingh 1.715 but a twelve-penny matter, not worth the speaking of.

From Euclide on to A••chim••des, who washing in a brazen Lavatorie, cryes out he had found it. What had he now found? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith your margin rightly: but very wrongly you translate it, and tell us it was nothing but the Corone•• or circumference of the vessell. What will you give me to relate the storie? Will you a••sure me on your word, though not worth the taking, that you will never medle with the Mathematicks, without further studie? Well then, thus it was.i 1.716 Hiero King of Syracusa, put out a Crowne to making, of pure gold: and the Artificer, like a knave, mixed some sil∣ver with it. This being informed of, Hiero would faine know, how much gold had beene taken out, and how much silv••r put in: and desired Archimedes to invent some way for the discoverie. He, at a cer∣taine time going into his Bath, observed a quantitie of the water to over-flow according to the bignesse of his body; whereby he presently conce••ted a de∣vice to solve the Kings Problem••, and cryes out, I

have found it: i. e. a way to discover the Artificers theft by the proportion of the water over-flowing; or in the words of your owne Author, did you un∣derstand him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a way of meas••ring the Kings Crowne; which he did accordingly. I ••ee you understand the language, as you do the Ma∣thematicks: and to betray your ignorance in both at once, must needs interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Coro∣net or circumference of the vessell. He foundk 1.717 a Co∣ronet of gol••, when he cryed out 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: though the invention was not worth a Tester as you tell the storie.

But the sad youth Pythagoras went beyond them all. Did he so indeed? And so do you too in relating what he invented. It is your master-peece of Ign••∣rance; not such another to be found in all the Coun∣trey. But what did he? Marry, say you, having found in a Diagramme an equalitie of some lines in a right∣angled triangle, downe went a whole oxe for the inspira∣tion. What said you, an equalitie of some lines? How many were they for a wager? There are but three in all, a triangle can have no more. One is not some; and all the lines in a right-angled triangle cannot be e∣quall, by no meanes▪ it is both false in the Art, and utterly would take away that excellent invention of Pythagoras. If then all three cannot have this equa∣litie, nor any one of them in it selfe; it must be either two or none: you needed not have kept aloofe with your equalitie of some lines. And to say truth, it is of none. For this invention of Pythagoras, respects not any equalitie or inequalitie of the lines or sides in a right-angled triangle; but itl 1.718 enquires the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or power of these lines: and it demonstrates

the square described upon the line subtending the right Angle, to be ever equall to the squares of both the other compounded. Now did you either understand the invention it selfe, or else what admirable use is made thereof in all the practice of Geometry, you would not grutch Pythagoras an Hecatombe; a poore Ox•• was nothing: although as you most ignorantly have set it downe, an Oxe had beene too much by halfe; A calfe had beene enough to offer for such a Bull. Not such am 1.719 Pious Bull indeed, as you have found out for the Doctor; but a profane, a Gentile, and a Pagan Bull.

Your next vagarie is, about Episcopall jurisdicti∣on; which we have met withall already, as it related unto practice, and the point then in hand betweene us: but wee must here conferre a little, about the in∣stitution of it. This you touch very gingerly; and so, as one may see, you have a good mind to betray the cause. The reverend Ordinaries, and their calling are founded (as youn 1.720 say) upon Apostolicall, and (for all the essentiall parts thereof) on divine right. The Re∣verend Ordinaries? And why not rather, I beseech you, the Reverend Bishops? Is the word Bishop so dis∣tastefull to your holy brethren, that you dare not use it? Or doe you think, you should be out of credit with them, did you affirme that in plaine and posi∣tive termes, that Bishops are of Christs institution, and de jure divino? It seemes you doe: and therefore in your Quo warranto, you ground their calling on Apostolicall and upon divine right. On Apostolicall in the first place, as being none of Christ our Saviours Institution, but onely founded by the Apostles, in their administration of the publicke government.

The Ius divi•••••• comes after, in s••cundis, but in up∣on the second: and that in some essenti••ll parts there∣of, but you know not what. I hope there are not many Ministers in Lincol••shir•• of this opinion. For let the Bishops stand alone on Apostolicall right, and no more than so, and doubt it not but some will take it on your word, and then pleade accordingly; that things of Apostolicall institution, may be laid a••ide. Where are their Ecclesiasticallo 1.721 wid••wes; what service doe the Deac••nsp 1.722 at the Table now; how many are there that forbeareq 1.723 from bl••••d, and things strangled? Therefore away with Bishops too, let all goe together. And this I take it, is your mea∣ning, though not as to the Application, yet as to the ground of the Application. I am the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be∣leeve it, because when Bishop Andrewes 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 had learnedly asserted the Episcopall Order to bee of▪ Christs Institution, I have heard that some who were then in place, did secretly intercede with King Iames to have had it al••••••ed; for feare, forsooth, of offending our neighbour Churches. This ••••are you are possessed with also: and therefore wa••ve not onely the name of Bishop, but the maine ground∣worke and foundation upon which they stand: Nay by this note of yours, Archdeacons hold by as good a claime as the Bishops doe. For being successours, as you say,r 1.724 to the primitive Deacons, who were or∣dained by the Apostles, and Ordinaries too, they know that too well: what lets, but that they meane themselves for those Reverend Ordinaries, which were ordained on Apostolicall, and (for the essentiall parts of their office) on divine right also. Here is T. C. and I. C. and who else you will; new England

in the midst of old▪ Yet all this while you are most orthodox in doctrine, and consonant in discipline to the Church of England.

Having thus founded the Episcopall calling on A∣postolicall authoritie, your next vagarie is upon the Doctor, for setting up the Vicar above his Ordina∣rie. How truly this is said, wee have seene already. And then you adde, that these judicious Divines that* 1.725 tamper so much in doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in discipline with Sancta Petra, will in the end prove prejudicious Divines to the estates of Bishops. Here is a fine jingle▪ is it not, to make sport for boyes? who cannot but applaud your wit, for bringing San∣cta Clara, and Sancta Petra, in a string together. For, good Sir, tell me in a word, what other use was there of S••ncta Petra; but that you love to play and dallie upon words and letters? In all his booke, being in all 27. Chapters, what passage can you finde that tends unto the prejudice of Bishops? Or how doth the poore Doctor, or any of those whom with so high a scorne you call Iudicious Divines, complie with any man that doth? Your Sancta Clara, and Sancta Petra make a pretty noise; but it is onely vox, & prae∣terea nihil.

The Doctor thus shaked up, you goe on againe un∣to the point of Iurisdiction; in which you spend two leaves together, but not one word unto the purpose. You tell ust 1.726 that of old, some Priests of Germany were reprehended by Pope Leo the Great, because they did presume in the absence of their Bishops, Eri∣gere Altaria, to erect Altars: then, thatu 1.727 a single Priest, quà talis, hath no key given him by God or man, to open the doores of any externall Iurisdiction,

thatx 1.728 no man should presume to dispose of any thing belonging to the Church without the Bishop. What needed this adoe, when neither, as you know your selfe, the Vicar ever did intend to build an Altar: nor is it as you say your selfe, in any of the Bishops powers to doe it if they were so minded. So farre are you from giving way, that Bishops, of their owne authoritie, may erect an Altar:y 1.729 that you denie them any authoritie of their owne, to transpose a Table. Nor doe you rightly sta••e the case, in Pope Leo neither. The businesse was not, as you dreame, that there were some Priests in France or Germany, that encouraged thereunto by the Chorepiscopi, or Countrey Suffragans, did presume in the absence of their Bishops, Erigere Altaria, to erect Altars, No such matter verily. The thing that Leo was offend∣ed at, was that some Bishops of France and Germany, did often-times appoint their Chorepiscopi (whoz 1.730 by the Canons of some Councels were no more than Priests) or sometimes others which were sim∣plie Priests, to set up Altars in their absence; and to hallow Churches: Qui absente Pontifice Altaria erige∣rent, Basilicas{que} consecrarent. As his words there are. The Bishops were in fault here, not the Priests: and you as faultie full as they, to raise a scandall both on them, and the poore Vicar, in things of which they were not guiltie. So that this needlesse disputation might have beene laid by, but that it is your fashion ••o wheele about, that being gotten on the right side, you may shew your learning. For having store sent in from so many hands, you think it would be taken for a great discourtesie, if you should not spend it.

Your next vaga••••e is about formes of Prayer; at which you have an evill tooth, that bites close, but deepe. The 55. Canon hath prescribed a forme of prayer, before the Sermon, according to the forme of bidding of prayers, prescribed and practised in the raignes of King Henry the eight, Kinga 1.731 Edw. the sixth, and Queene Elizabeth. This you turne off with a backe blow, as if you strooke at somewhat else: and in a word or two give a faire Item to your bre∣thren▪ to use what formes of prayer they list, with a non-obstante. It seemes by you (say you unto the Do∣ctor) That we are b••und onely to pray, but not to speake the words of the Canons, i. e. (for so must be your mea∣ning) as little bound to the one as unto the other. No man conceives that hee is bound to use in other things no other words then the Canons use, because there is no Canon that requires it of him: and by your rule wee are not bound unto the forms of Prayer in the Canon m••ntioned, although the Canons doe re∣quire it. Now as you fling aside the Canon, and leave your Clergi••-friends a liberty to pray what they list: so in another place, you cast aside the Churches customes; and give a liberty unto your Lay-brethre•• to pray how they list. It is an Ancient custome in the Church of England, that in the times of prayer in the Congregation, wee turne our faces to the East. This many of your friends dislike, and it is reckoned by H. B.b 1.732 amongst those In••ovations, which hee doth charge upon the Prelates; as if it were (for∣sooth) a tying of God to a fixed place. It seemes you were agreed together, hee to invent the charge, and you to furnish him with Arguments, to confirme the same. This makes you farre more like Ch••ysippu••,

than before you were▪ of whomc 1.733 Laertius doth informe us, that whosoever it was that found out the Dogmata, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hee had an ex∣cellent Art of finding proofes to make it good. Now to make good this charge of your friend H. B. you tell usd 1.734 that it is a Paganish thing to make God more propi••ious in any one corner of the world then hee is in an other▪ For this you cite these words of Minutius Felix, viz. Deo cun••ta plena sunt. Vbi∣que non t••ntum nobis proximus, sed infus••s est. But gentle Sir, those words are spoken in the Author, not in relation unto the placing of the Altars, or to the peoples turning of themselves in the Act ••f Pray∣er: but to the point of having Temples, i••e. such Temples as were then in use amongst the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, for the immediate and locall habitations of th••ir God. Which being, as he saith, unnecessarie, in regard that God was everie where, and filled all things with his presence; was a good Answer to the Ar∣gument that C••••ilius used▪ but very ill brought in by you, upon no occasion. Onely you please to intimate unto your dependants (who understand your meaning at halfe a word) that as they may pray what they will, for all the Canon; and h•••• they will, for all the Custome; so they may pray also when and where they will, for all our Churches. Excellent Do∣ctrine, credit mee, not a New-Englander of them all, could have done it better.

From your unnecessarie discourse about the juris∣diction of Bishops, and these ba••k-blo••es on the by, wee must next ••ollow you unto a more unnecessarie, about the Office of Archdeacons; which they that perhaps sent you in your notes, desired to have

extreamely heightned; but all the proofes they bring to exalt the same, ••end to the diminution of it. Now for the finding out of that authoritie, which you ascribe to the Archdeacons, or rather they unto themselves, you goe as high as the first Deaconse 1.735 (whose ancient power, you say, is now united and con∣centred in that of theirs;) and tell us many things that before we knew not. Fi••st, take it as we will, that

the very Altar it selfe with the Raile about it, hath beene termed in ancient Councels, the Diaconie, as a place belonging (next after the Bishop) to the care and custodie of the Deacon only. Secondly, that it is affirmed by an ancient Councell, that the Priest can boast of nothing that hee hath in generall, but his bare name; not able to execute his very Office, with∣out the autority, and ministery of the Deacon. Third∣ly, that in a Precedent of this very particular, it was the Deacons office, portare, to move and remove the Altar, and all the implements belonging thereunto, as saith Saint Austine. And thereupon you draw this inference, that from these first Deacons to our present Archdeacons, Incumbents have beene exclu∣ded from medling with the utensils of the Church, or Ornaments of the Altar: and for the proofe hereof, you tell us in the Margin out of Lin••wood, that they (the Archdeacons) have in charge omnia ornamenta & ute••silia Ecclesiarum.

This is a com∣pound dish, and was perhaps served in for an olla po∣drida, or the Gra••d Sallet of the Feast: and therefore that we may the better judge of the ingredients, wee will taste them severally.

And first you say, the very Altar it selfe with the ••••ile about it, in ancient Councels hath beene ••ermed

the Diaconie. This is the first Caper in your Sallet, and it tastes very high indeed; as high as the Councell of Laodicea, which was before the famous Synod of Nice. Now in thisf 1.736 Councell it is ordered 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. that no inferiour Minister should have place in the Diaconie, and touch the holy vessells, or the holy uten∣sils. This Canon, afterwards wasg 1.737 incorporated in∣to those made in a Councell held at Agatha or Agde, in Gaul Narbonnoyse, Anno 506. in this forme that fol∣loweth, viz. Quoniam non oportet insacratos ministros licentiam habere in secretarium (quod Graeci diaconion appellant) ingredi, & contingere vasa dominica. Now in al this you are mistaken very ••ouly; no man ever more. For neither was the Diaconion, the place between the wall and rail, where the Altar stood: nor do those Ca∣nons give the Deacon any dignity above the Priests; as you intend it. The Diaconion, or Diaconicon (as the old translation in Binius read's it) or the Diaconie, as you call it, doth signifie the Vestrie, and not the Altar place: a roome appointed for the keeping of the sacred uten∣sils, not for the ministration of the holy Sacraments. And it was called Sacrarium also, as being the reposi∣torie of the hallowed Ornaments: from whence wee have the name of Sa••rist, to whom the keeping of the same was in fine committed. That living magazin of Learning Sir Henry Spelmanh 1.738 could have told you this; Diaconion & Diaconicum, locus in circuitu Ecclesiae conservandis vasis Dominicis, & ornamentis Ecclesiae deputatus; alias secretarium, alias Sacrarium: and this he saith with reference to this very Councel of Laodi∣cea, which you build upon. Then there's Iosephus Vice Comes, whom you have magnified to our hand for the

i 1.739 most learned in ••ur age of all that have dealt with Rites and Ceremonies; who affirmes the same. For speaking of the Councell of Agatha or Agde, the se∣cond of the two to which you referre us,k 1.740 hee doth resolve of Secretarium, which is there said to be called Diaconion by the Grecians, that it is the Vestrie▪ Secre∣tarium i. e. locum sacris asservandis praestitutum, as hee there informes us. Nor can it but seem strange to any man that hath his wits about him as he ought to have, that the Altar with the raile about it, or the Altar place, should be entituled the Diaconie; wherein the Deacons had so little, if at all anything to do. But were it so as you would have it, yet were this little to the honour of the Archdeacons office as now it stands; and very much unto the Priests. All that is given the Dea∣cons here is but a trust committed to them above those other Ministers which were insacrati (as the later of your Councels cals them) not yet admitted unto any of the holy Orders, or to them onely of the lowest or inferiour sort, which are not properly to be called Or∣ders, but rather preparations to them. The washing of the plate, and laying up the sacred utensils, in their pro∣per places, was not conceived to be a fitting service for so high a dignity as the holy Priesthood: and therefore was put off to them, who being in ordine ad spiritua∣lia, in some degree or way unto it, were thought most fit to undertake it. So that this charge was plainly cast upon the Deacon, rather to ease the Priest, and for the honour of his calling; than to give any place or privi∣ledge unto the Deacon, (who, as you might have seen in thel 1.741 Canon next before, was not to sit downe in the presence of the Priest without speciall leave) to

perk before him. And you have done your Bishop but a sorry peece of service in giving himm 1.742 a part of so meane a charge, which was conceived to bee unwor∣thy of a common Priest. Polme occidist is amici, Non servastis, ait.

Now as in that that went before, you have betray∣ed your ignorance, and too great want of knowledge in Antiquitie; so in the next which now succeedes, you have betrayed a greater want, which is want of honestie. You tell us that the Pri••st can boast of nothing that hee hath in generall, but his bare name; and that hee is not able to execute his very office, without the authority and ministery of the Deacon. Without the authority of the Deacon? that were brave indeed: fit to be said by none but such a Minister as you, who care not what you say, so you may be heard. The practi•••• inn 1.743 Ignatius time, was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Deacons should be subject unto the Priests: but see how strange∣ly things were turned in a little time; the Priests are now brought under, and forced to yield unto the Dea∣cons. Good Sir, where may one reade of such a Law? Not in the Councell of Aquisgrane, or Aken, I am sure of that, though thither you referre us in your margi∣nall note. In all that Canon which you cite, the Dea∣conship is described as a place of Ministery, and not of dignity. Ipsienimo 1.744 clara voce in modum Praeconis ad∣moment cun••tos. The Deacons, as their Office is there described, do like so many cryers call upon the people to pray, to kneel, to sing, to be intent unto the Lessons: they call upon them also, to let their eares be open to the Lord their God, and are designed to read the Go∣spel. Then followes that which is presented in your

〈…〉〈…〉 officium non ha••et, that without them the Priest may have a name, but not an office: that is, their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and attendance was 〈…〉〈…〉 that without them the Priest could not do 〈…〉〈…〉 then according to the C••non, that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was not able to exe••••te his very Office with∣out the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the De••con and you say very well▪ none 〈…〉〈…〉 you for it. Thi•• ••oysting in of thei•• Au∣••••••ity was a trick of yours, one o•• ••ho••e many tricks 〈…〉〈…〉 And you may now conclude as well▪ that in some greater Churches, here in Eng∣land, the Priest is utterly unable to ex••cute his very office without the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Clerke, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Cu••ate, be∣c••use he cannot do i•• so conveniently▪ without their ••i••isteries: as that the Pr••ests in these days were an em∣p••ie name, and could not stir a foot in the dis••harge of their imployments, without ••••tority from the Deac••n.

That which you bring us from Saint Austi••, makes the m••tter plainer, plainer I mean as to the Priest; and sets the Deacon in his owne place, a faire deale below him. It was the Deacons office (as youp 1.745 informe us from Saint Aug••stine,) 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to move and remove the Alt••r, and all the implements the runto belonging. What then? Therefore the P••iests were not to meddle with the Alt••r, either to ••ove it, or remove it: that appertained unto the Deacon. But good Sir, let mee aske one question? Did this removing of the Altar be∣long unto the De••con••, Ministerialit••r▪ or A••toritati∣ve? You cannot say, that it belong'd unto ••hem, A••tori∣tative; because you said before, that it belōged to them, nex•• after the Bis••op A••l the autority then (••f your ••elf say true) was radically in the Bishop; the Deacon only ••••ved, as hee was directed. And then I would fain

know, whether you th••nke that this 〈…〉〈…〉 ••he Altar was so high an honour▪ that the 〈…〉〈…〉 durst not look after it, or aspire unto it. You must 〈◊〉〈◊〉 say you think so, though you know the 〈◊〉〈◊〉; or else this tale of movi••g and re••••vi•••• Altars, were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 non-sense. Now therefore looke upon your Autor, and hee will tell you for your learning that

it is quite contrarieq 1.746 Qu•• 〈…〉〈…〉 What a strange boldnesse is it, saith the Father; that any man should fancie an equalitie between the Priests & their own Ministers? what rash presumption may we thinke it to compare the Priests, unto the P••yters of the Ta••••rnacle, & of the vessels of the same, & such as were imployed about cutting wood. The Deacons in the Church of R••me, though somewhat 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then they should be▪ doe not presuso so it in the Congregation: and if they do not execute all mini∣steriall duties, it is because there are so many Cl••rks besides them. Nam utique & Altare portarent, & vasa ejus, & aquam in manus funderent s••cerdoti, &c. For otherwise, saith hee, they were to carrie or remove the Altars, with all the ••tensils of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and to bring water for the P••ie••t to wash his hands, according as it is in other Churches.

What thinke you now? is the removing of the Altar so high a dig∣nitie, as you would make the world believe? If 〈◊〉〈◊〉, how much more excellent were the Priests, to whom these mighty men did service; and brought them water for their hands? If no why doe you deale so shamefully with the Ancient Writers, in making them the instru∣ments to abuse your Readers? But this is so inveterate in you, it will never out.

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

exhibited, that hee ••ay see in what estate things are, whether worse or better▪ Your Authour saith no more then this▪ and this is very small amends for the disgrace you did them, in your former follie••.

Nor doth this reach neither to entitle them to any power of moving and removing the▪ holy Table, which was the thing by you most aimed at. The Constitution speak's of ornaments and utensils, of Books and Vest∣ments. To which of all these ••oure think you, can you reduce the Altar, or the holy Table? No doubt but you will reckon it amongst the utensils of the Ch••••••h▪ nay (such is your grosse ignorance) you think it would be∣come the place exceeding fitly. No word more fre∣quent in your book, then that of utensil▪ by which you mean the holy Table. And if it were not p••uper is nu∣merare pecus, I could as easily set downe how many times that word is used in your learned labours;t 1.747 as you have found how often that of Altar is in the D••∣termination that you wot of▪ His Altar was more pro∣per then your utensil, and might be used ten times for once, without any absurditie: whereas it had been chil∣dish and absu••d in you, to use your utensil, once onely, in that sense & meaning. By utensils your Autor means not, the holy Table, or the holy Altar, take which word you will, (nor never did man use 〈◊〉〈◊〉 so but your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 selfe:) but for the Vessell, Patens, Chalices, and the rest▪ which are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the same. And so you finde it inu 1.748 the Glosse▪ if you p••ease to looke. 〈…〉〈…〉 Next time you write, or print, let me be∣seech you to leave out this word▪ as being worn 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by your much using▪ and use those termes which either are commended to you by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (your own

rule, if you can remember) or generally were re∣ceived by the ancient Writers.

But go we after you, in your vagaries. As you have brought the Priest to be inferior to the Deacon: ••o you will do your best, to bring him under the Churchwarden. God help poore Priests that must be under so many Masters; Churchwardens, Deacons, and who else soever you shall please to set above them. But this, you say, is no new matter:x 1.749 Churchwar∣dens having beene of old, the Bishops hand to put all mandates in execution, that may concerne the utensils of the Church. For proofe of this, your Margin tels us, Oeconomus [est] cui res Eccl••siastica gubernanda man∣datur ab Episc••p••: that the Churchwarden is an Officer to whom the government of Ecclesiasticall mat∣ters is committed by the Bishop. A very honorable office. You could not have bestowed a greater pow∣er, upon the Chancellour himselfe. And the Church∣wardens are to thanke you▪ that to advance their place and credit, sticke not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your Authors, and to straine your conscience: and that too in so foul a manner, that in my life I never knew an equall impudence. There's no such thing iny 1.750 Lindwood, whom you have ••ited for your Author. That ad∣junct ab Episcopo, is yours, not his, then the O••cono∣mus there mentioned, is no Church-warden, but ei∣ther a Farmour or a Bayliffe▪ and last of all, the Res Ecclescas••ica which is therein mentioned, hath no relation unto the ut••nsils of the Church; but meerely to the Tithes and profits. I must lay downe the ca••e at large, the better to detect your most shamelesse dealing. ••he constitution is as followeth. First for the title, Rectores non residentes nec Vicarios haben∣tes

〈…〉〈…〉 That Parsons not being re••ident, nor having any 〈◊〉〈◊〉 upon their 〈◊〉〈◊〉, shall by their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (be they as they prove) 〈…〉〈…〉 The body of the 〈…〉〈…〉 in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, though more full in words. 〈…〉〈…〉 Now that we may the better know, what is the meaning of the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉, we are thus instructed in the 〈…〉〈…〉. What 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Episcopo.? No such matter, not one word of that▪ That's an old tricke of yours, and most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yours, of all the men I ever deale with. How then? why by the Rector onely? Is he not called both in the title and the Text, 〈…〉〈…〉, his owne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 So al••o in the Glosse. Dicitur 〈…〉〈…〉 And what to do? Either to farme their profits of them, or to col∣lect and manage their profits, for them. 〈…〉〈…〉 & sic bona Eccl••siastica administrent. So that you have at onc•• imposed foure falshoods ••n your Readers. For first, here's no Chur••hwarden, but a Bayliffe, or a Farmour; nor he appointed by the Bishop, but by the Parson; and being appoin••••d medleth not in any thing which doth concerne the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church, but the profits of the Parsonage: nor finally is here any word of executing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but onely of maintaining h••spitalitie▪ If this b•• all you have to say, I hope the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may hold his owne, without being

over-awed by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Parish; how great soever you would make them.

O but this i•• not all, say you, for the Churchwarden i•• an Ancient Gentleman, come of a great pigge∣house, and co••en Germ••n to the Bishop, at most once removed. For

youa 1.751 conceive our Latine Canons now in force, by calling him O••cono••us, make him re∣late u••to that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticall Officer, famous in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Latin•• Councels: next, that of old, he was▪ as now, a Lay-man, some domesticke or kin••••a•• of the Bishops, that managed all things belonging to the Church according to the dire∣acion of the Bishop▪

still you are out, quite out in e∣very thing you say. The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are not now in f••rc••, as to the phra••e and Latine of them. For they were pa••••ed in English▪ in the Convocation, and confirmed in English by King Iames: the Latine transl••••ion of them is of no authoritie, of no force at all▪ And if you will needs borrow arguments from an identitie of names, you should have first consult∣ed the Civill Lawy••••s, who would have told you, that Gardi•••••••• Ecclesi••, is a more proper appellation of and for the Churchwarden, then your 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Nor do the Authors whom you cite, informe you that the old Oecon•••••••• was at first a Lay-man, a friend or kins•••••• of the Bishops; but a Church-man meerely▪ b 1.752 〈◊〉〈◊〉 unto whom you send us, tels us plainly, that at the first the Bishop h••d the absolute and sole disposing of the revenews of the Church: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, no man, nor friend, nor kinsman, nor domesticke, for ought there appeares, being privi•• to i••: Which when it brought some ••eandall and com∣plaint upon the Bishop: it was ordained in the Coun∣c••ll

of Chal••edon, Can. 26. that the supreme admi∣nistration of the Churches treasurie should still re∣maine in him, as before it was, but that ••e should ap∣point some one or othe•• ••o be of counsell, with him in his actions. And from what ranke of men▪ should they take that choice? Not (saith your Author) from their domesticks, or their kinsmen, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but from the Clergie of the Diocesse. Finde you in this▪ that anci••ntly these Oeconomi were Lay-men, of the Bishops kindred? I thought you had be••ne better at a petigree, then I see you are. Other∣wise you would never have derived our present Churchwardens from those old Oecono••i,c 1.753 those Clerg••e••men Churchwardens, as you please to call them▪ of which if there be anything remaining in the Church of England, you have it in the Treasures of Cathedrall C••urches.

The Deacons and the Churchwardens being thus advanced, it is no wonder that the Priest be left to his med••tations: as one that is no more then a dull spectatour, and hath no sphere of activitie to move in. O Godblessec 1.754 say you, all good holy Church-men from such a misadventure; with contempt enough. God blesse them too, say I, from all suchd 1.755 merci••esse and hard-hearted men, (by whomsoever they are li∣censed) who labour to advance in this sort the authori∣tie of Churchwardens, or any other of that nature, so high above their Minister. Never did Clergie-man, so licensed and allowed of, speake so contemptiblie of the Ministerie, as this man of Lincolnshire: who though he bragges else-where of hise 1.756 buenas en∣tranas (as the Spaniards speake) those good and tender bowels which he hath within him; yet the shews little

pitie of these poore mens cases, which hee exposeth thus unto scorne and laughter. But it is true, and al∣wayes was, that a mans enemies are those of his owne house: and wee may speake it in the words, though not the meaning of the Prophet, Perditio tua exte est, that thy destruction is from thy selfe, O house of Is∣rael. This crie, like that about the Pietie of the times, being taken up, we shall be sure to meete withall in every corner of your booke: as if there were no life in the game you follow, if pietie and the true promo∣ters of it, should not be kept upon the sent. Nay you goe so farre at the last, that you disable Clergie-men in a manner, from being Executors and Over seers of mens wills and Testaments: tellingf 1.757 us of a passage in S. Cyprian, which lookes much that way, that it takes the Doctor by the nose, as one that cannot endure to be a looker on, and confined onely to his ministeriall me∣ditations. However other of your passages might escape the Licenser; I cannot chuse but marvell that he winked at this, being so contrarie unto his pra∣ctice. For did he not when he was in place, put many a Churchman into commission for the peace; not thinking it so great an avocation from their studies, but that they might doe well with both. And have you never been Executor or over-seer of any mans last Will and Testament; and found it no such heavy load, but that a man might beare it with content enough? But why doe I propose these questions, when you pro∣claime him for the Licenser of your holy Table, whose private practice in his Chappell, is so repugnant to the purpose of your whole discourse. But being li∣censed, printed, published, and scattered up and downe the Kingdome (as such things flie farre:) no doubt

but you have made good game to all the brethren of your partie; who are now authorised by so good authoritie, to turne their Ministers out of all im∣ployment, yea in such things as doe concerne his Church and calling; and bid him get him home to his meditations. Sponte sua properant. The people are too forwards in themselves upon these attempts: and you might well have spared the spur, but that you thinke they make not haste enough, because you out∣ride them.

Butyetwell fare your heart, you will say nothing without Fathers, though they say nothing for your purpose. S. Ambrose, asg 1.758 you say, complaines of the like complainers of his time, who held that the ••tudie of the holy Scriptures was but a dull and idle kinde of im∣ployment. Are you sure of that? The Father there saith nothing of the like complainers. There was no occasion why hee should. The Priests were then in too great honour, to bee controuled and baffled by inferiour Officers. Nor were there any Bishops then that laboured to suppresse their Clergie (or allowed others so to doe) by putting them into the hands of the V••strie Elders. That which S. Ambrose speakes of there, is that some men preferred the active kinde of life, before the contemplative; the doing of the workes of righteousnesse, before the studie of the Scriptures.h 1.759 Nos autem ociosos nos putamus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 verbo tantummod•• studere videamur. What, stops he there, as you have made him? I have before heard of a Gagger of the Protestants; but here behold a Gagger of the holy Fathers. The Father sure proceedes as followeth, Et pluris aestimamus ••os qui••perantur, quàm eos qui studiu•• veritatis congn••scendae exercent. Had

you gone forwards as you ought, you would have found but little comfort from S. Ambrose. For mark how your conclusion follows on his words. S. Am∣brose tells us of some men, who did preferre an active life before a contemplative▪ Erg•• according to Saint Ambrose, the Minister must be confined to his medi∣tations, and suffer the Churchwardens to rule the rost. i 1.760 S. Basil, he is brought in next, to bid his Clergie take especiall heed, that their Martha be ••ot t••oubled with many things. Admit that true. What then, Erg•• the Clergie must sit still, permit the people to do all, and rest themselves content with being lookers on, the dull spectatours of their active undertakings. But know you what you say, or rather what the Father saith in the place you cite? Tho••e Reg••l•• fusiores whither you referre us, concerne Monks, not Priests; those which did live in Monasteries, not those that had the Cure of Soules: which makes some difference in the case. But this is not all. The questionk 1.761 there pro∣posed is thus. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what order they (the Monks) should follow in entertain∣ment of Strangers. To this the Father answers, that their entertainment should be moderate, and verie little, if at all, above their ordinarie dy••t. And then come in those words which you have cited in your Margin▪ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Christ gave Martha little thanks for being so busie and distracted about her entertain∣ment of him. What thinke you now? Is this to bid their Clergie take especiall heed, that their Martha be not troubled about many things. i. e. that they referre all to the Churchwardens, and suffer them to do their pleasure in matters which concerne the Church?

Last of all for Synesius, he is brought in too.l 1.762 You have a very strange Commission, that you can call in all the Fathers with a testificandum; and when you finde they can say nothing, yet set them downe a∣mongst the number of your witnesses, and give it out that all goes with you. Were it not for this trick, the cause would quickly have beene tryed, and ne∣ver got such hold in the common vogue. What would you have Synesius say? Marry you send him in a ticket, and tell him that he must deliver upon his oath, that he conceived it fitter for an Aegyptian then a Christian Priest, to be over-troubled with matters of wrangling. This if Synesius should affirme, yet it would little helpe your cause, and that your Parti∣zans would report, that such a Reverend man as Sy∣nesius was, hath sworne directly on your side. But there is no such matter neither. All that Synesius saith is this,m 1.763 that in old times the same men were both Priests and Iudges; that then both the Aegyptians and the Hebrews, for a long time 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, were under the command and empire of their Priests; that Christ had severed the two offices; and therefore that Andronicus (to whom that Epistle is inscribed) should not endeavour to unite them. Nor doth he go thus farre in fine, allowing not much af∣ter, that those who have abilities to discharge both callings (though he confessed it of himselfe, that he was no such man:)n 1.764 might both execute the Priests office, and yet beare rule also in the Common∣wealth. So that this place serves very ill, to binde the Clergie to refer all matters of and in the Church, to the disposall of the Churchwardens, or other Elders of the Vestrie: but might have served exceeding

fitly (were it not for the close at last) to barre them from employments in the Civill state; for which use questionles••e it was here cited.

But howsoever you mistake, corrupt, and rather then the life would subborn the Fathers, yet one may cha∣ritably presume that you are perfect in your Cate∣chisme, and will not falsifie any thing which you bring from thence. I do most infinitely desire to finde some truth in you; but I know not where. You charge the Doctor for reporting, that by a Statute still in force, the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is called the Sacra∣ment of the Altar: though it be most true.

And then o 1.765 you adde, that presently after, this Act was revi∣ved by Queen Elizabeth (i. e. the Act about the Sa∣crament of the Altar) there was at the same Session an addition made to the Catechtsme (and that like∣wise confirmed by Act of Parliament) whereby all Children of this Church, are punctually taught to name our two Sacraments, Baptisme, and the Lords Supper▪

Which said, you draw up this conclusion: So as this judicious Divine was very ill Catechized, that dares write it now, the Sacrament of the Altar. Bringing the Doctor to his Catechisme, a man would sweare that you were excellent therein your selfe. But such is your ill lucke, that you can hit the ma••ke in no∣thing. For tell mee of your honest word, when you were Catechised your selfe, who taught you punctual∣ly to name the two Sacraments, Baptisme and the Lords Supper? Marrie say you, the Catechisme in the Com∣mon Prayer booke, in the addition made unto it by Queene Elizabeth, and confirmed by Parliament. I will joyn•• issue on that point, and lay my best prefer∣ment against yours, that you were never taught so in

that Catechisme. I see it's good sometimes, to have a littlep 1.766 learning in unlearned Liturgies. You were past age, good man, to be taught your Catechisme, when that addition was put to it. Look into all the Common Prayer books of Queene Elizabeths time; and if you finde mee that addition to the Catechisme, in any of them, I will quit the cause. Not one word in the Churches Catechisme, in all her reigne, that doth re∣flect upon the Sacraments, the number of them, or the names. That came in afterwards upon occasion of the Conference at Hampton Court:q 1.767 where you have it thus:

Next to this Doctour Reynolds complained that the Catechisme in the Common Prayer booke was too briefe, for which one by Master Nowell late Dean of Pauls was added, and that too long for young Novices to learn by heart: requested there∣fore that one uniforme Catechisme might be made, which and none other should be generally received: and it was asked of him, whether if to the short Ca∣techisme in the Communion book, something were added for the doctrine of the Sacraments, it would not serve.

You may perceive by this, that till that time, Ann•• 1603, there was no such addition to the Cate∣chisme, as you idly dream of: which all the Children of this Church (your selfe especially for one) were taught when they were children, and required to learn it. Nor was this Catechisme so inlarged, confirmed by Parliament; you are out in everie thing: but onely by King Iames his Proclamation, which you may finde with litle labour, before your Common Prayer book, if at lest you have one. You are so full of all false dealings with all kinde of Authors, that rather then be out of work you will corrupt your verie Primmer. Non fuit

Autolyci t•••• piceata manus: Like him that being used to steale, to keepe his hand in use, would be stealing rushes.

And now we thought we should have done. For see∣ing after all this entertainment, that you were putting your selfe into a posture, and began to bow; it was sup∣posed you would have said grace, and dismissed the companie. But see how much we were mistaken. The man is come no further then his po••tage, in all this time. His stooping onely was to eat, and not to reve∣rence. Being to speak of Altars, mentioned in the Apo∣stles Canons, he call's them Larders, Store-houses, and P••ntries; or if hee speake of the Communion-table, placed Altarwise, hee call's it dresser. Now comming, though unnecessarily, (his Argument considered) to speak of bowing at the name of IESVS, he cannot but compare it tor 1.768 a messe of pottage: and comming so opportunely in his way, he cannot choose but fall upon it. One would conjecture by his falling to, that he did like it very well: but if wee note the manner of his ea∣ting, there is no such matter. For marke wee how hee ••all's upon its 1.769 Giving those proud Dames to Donatus, that practise all manner of Curtesies, or Masks and Dan∣ces, but none by any means for Christ, at their approach to the holy Table: he add's, that

this come's in as pat as can be. How so? Marry say you, the Doctor was serving in his first 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 complained of for being a little santasticall in that kinde) to make his reverence, humbly and devoutly.

Doth this come in so pat, thinke you? The Vicar was no prond Dame, was he? Nor did the Alderman complaine of

him, for his light behaviour in bowing towards the holy Table, but in bowing at the name of IESVS. Yet on you run, from bowing towards or before the Com∣munion-table, to bowing at the name of IESVS, as if both were one: both warranted or enjoyned rather by the same Canon and Injunction; though you had said before, that bowing,t 1.770 though to honour him, and him onely in his holy Sacrament, is not enjoyned by the Canon. But being falne upon the dish, doe you like the relish? No, You must like no more of it, then the Bishop doth. The Bishop he must have it done, to procure de∣votion, not derision: and you will have us keep old Ce∣r••••onies, so that we taint them notu 1.771 with new fashions, especially ap••sh ones. Would you would tell us what those apish fashions are, that wee should avoid; or per∣swade him to tell us what we are to doe, to avoid deri∣sion of and from the scornfull. All our behaviour in that kinde, will be accounted apish, by such men as you; and being ex tripode by you pronounced for apish, must needs procure d••rision from such men as they. A lowly and accustomed reverence, to this blessed name, we have received, you grant, from all Antiquitie: but when wee come to do that reverence, you dislike it utterly. Two x 1.772 sorts of bowings you have met with in the Eastern Churches; the greater when they bowed all the bodie, yet without bending of the knee, lowly and almost to the Earth; the lesser when they bowed the head and shoulders only. But then againe you are not certaine whether that any of these were used in the Westerne Church, and by them delivered over unto us. So that you like nothing buty 1.773 to make a courtesie; and yet not that neither if it be not a lowly curtesie. Now to see men and amongst men the Priests, make a lowly curtesie,

Onely by bending of the knee, without the bowing of the whole body, or the head and shoulders; must needs be taken for a new and an apish fashion, fit to procure de∣rision onely and not devotion: and so you leave no re∣verence to bee done at all. Assuredly you meane so though you dare not say it. For having slubbered o∣ver so great a point, in that slovenly fashion, youz 1.774 shut it up with this proportionable close; and so much for your preamble, that is your Pottage. I see you mind your belly, and therefore we will step down unto the Hatch, and send you up the second course of your Extrava∣gancies: which how well you have cooked, will be seene apparantly, when wee are come to execute the Carvers Office.

CHAP. X.

The second service of Extravagancies, sent up and set before his guests by the Minister of Lincoln.

The Metaphoricall Altar; in the Fathers, good evidence for the proofe of Reall Altars in the Church. Ignatius corrup∣ted by Vedelius▪ My Lord of Chichesters censure of Ve∣delius. The Minister misreports Saint Bernard, and makes ten Altar•• out of foure. A new originall of the Table in the Christian Church, from the Table of Shew-bread; the Ministers fumbling in the same, deserted by those Autors that he brings in for it. The Minister pleads strongly for sit∣ting at the holy Sacrament; and for that purpose falsifieth Baronius, misreports Saint Austin, and wrongs Tertullian. The Benedictines sit not at the Sacrament on Maundy Thursday. Of the Seiur de Pibrac. The Minister advocates for the Arians, and will not have them be the Authors of sitting at the holy Sacrament; and for that cause deals falsly with the Polish Synods which impute it to them. Three Polish Synods ascribe the sitting at the Sacrament

to the modern Arians.* 1.775 The ignorance of the Minister about accipere & reservare in Tertullian. What the Stations were. Lame Giles. The Minister slights the appellation of the second Service as did the Writer of the letter, and brings in severall arguments against that division. The Ministers ignorance in the intention of the Rubri••ks. Of setting up a Consistory in the midst of service. The autority of the Priest in repulsing unworthy persons from the Sacrament; defended against the Ministers. He sets a quarrell between Cathedrall and Parochiall Churches; and mistakes the dif∣ference between them. The Injunctions falsified. Of being ashamed at the name of the Lords Table. The Minister a∣shamed at the name of Altar. Of pleasing the people; and the Ministers extreme pursuit thereof. The Minister fals∣ly chargeth on the Doctor, a foolish distinction of the Dyptychs. The conclusion.

NOw for your second course, it consists most of Lincolnshire provision, such as your own home yields without further search, some sorts of fish, as Carpes, and many a slipperie Eele, but fowle abho∣minable; fowle forgeries, fowle mistakes, fowle dealing of all kindes what ever. Nor can I choose but marvell, that in such verietie, there should be neither knot nor good-wit, or any thing that's rare and daintie: all ordinarie fowle, but yet fowle enough. To take them as they lie in order, (for I was never curious in my choice of diet) the first that I encounter with, is a Quelque Chose, made of all Altars; a stately and magnificent service, ten of them in a dish, no lesse. And this you usher in with great noise and ceremonie, assu∣ring us, that there we have what ever of that kind, the

whole world can yield us. If any of us have a minde to offer any spirituall sacrifices, of one sort or other;a 1.776 the ancient Fathers have provided you of severall Altars for them all: so many, that God neuer required more for these kinde of sacrifices. Take heed you fall not short of so large a promise, for you have raised our expecta∣tion to a wondrous height. But such is your ill lucke, that vaunting so extremely of your great performances; you perform nothing worth the vaunting. For neither are these, severall Altars, which you have set forth; n••r have you set forth all the Altars that are presented to you by the ancient Fathers: and lastly, were they ei∣ther all, or severall, they conclude nothing to your ••ur∣pose. Your purpose is, to shew unto your credulous Readers, that there is no materiall Altar to be used in a Christian Church: and for a proof thereof, you ma••e a muster of all those severall Metaphors and Allegorie••, which you have met with in old Writers, concerning Altars. This, did you weigh it ••s you ought, crosseth directly all your purpose; and at one blow casts downe that building, which you so labour to erect. All Me∣taphors and Allegories must relate to somewhat, that is in being: and when a thing is once in being, severall wits may descant, and dilate upon it, as their fancie serves them. I hope you will not think that there was no such thing, as the Garden of Eden; no such particu∣lar Vestments for the Pries••s, or sacrifices for the peo∣ple; because the ancient Writers, some of them at lest, have drawn them into Allegories; or can a••••ord you at fi••st word, a Metaphoricall Ephod, a Met••phoricall P••sch, or a Metaphoricall Paradise. You know what ••••imme devices may be found in Durand, about the Church, the Quire, the Altar, the ornaments and u∣tensils

of earth, the habit of the Priests, the Prelate; and whatsoever doth pertaine unto a Church, to the very Bell-ropes. And yet you would beb 1.777 laug••t at by all strangers, more then you were, when you de∣manded how the Altar stood in forreine Churches; should you affirme that in the Church of Rome, whereof Durand was, ther•• neither was a Priest, nor Prelate, neither Quires, Altars, Churches, or any ornaments or utensils to the same belonging. Or to come nearer to our selves, there is a booke enti••uled Catechismus ordinis equitum Periscelidis, written long since by Belvaleti, the Popes Nuncio here, and pub∣lished in the yeare 1631. by Bosquierus: wherein the Author makes an Allegorie on the whole habit of the Order, the matter, colour, fashion, wearing, to the very girdle. And were not you, or he that should approve you in it,c 1.778 a wise peece indeed, if on the rea∣••ing of that booke, you should give out, that really and materially there is no such habit, worne by the Knights of that most honourable Order, as vaine men conceive: but that their habite is, as some made the Saint, onely an allegorie, a symbol, or a metaphore. So that if all you say were granted, and that your ten tropicall, metaphoricall Altars, were ten times doubled; that would make to the prejudice of that reall and materiall Altar, which hath continued in the Church of Christ, since the Primitive times. Nay, as before I said, those metaphors conclude most strongly for a reall Altar; as the conceits of Bel••••aleti, Durand, and some ancient Fathers, do for the realtie of those severall subjects, on which they did expresse their fancies.

This said, we might put by this service, as not

worth the tasting; made rather to delight; the eye with various shews, then to feed the stomacke: but we will fall aboard however, were it for nothing but to shew what Quelque choses you have set before us. Now the first Altar of your ten,d 1.779 is Ignatius his Altar, the Councell of the Saints, and the Church of the first-begotten. For this you send us to his Epistle ad Ephesios, where there was never any such matter to be found, till your good friend Vedelius brought the old Father under his correction, and made him speake what ever he was pleased to have him. Igna∣tius, were he let alone, would have told another tale, then what you make him tell betweene you. For there he tells you of those men, that separate them∣selves from the communion of the faithfull, and do not joyne together with them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ine 1.780 a consent of sa∣crifice, and in the Church of the first-begotten, whose names are written in the heavens; This by a sleight of hand, is finely altered by Vedelius, and for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we must now reade 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Councell of the Saints, as you translate it. A pretty criticisme, but as too many of them are, more nice, then wise. For which and other his corrections of, and annotations on that Father, I rather choose to leave him to my Lord of Chichester, whom I am sure you know to be well versed in that kinde of learn∣ing; then take him unto taske my selfe. And he will tell you, if you aske him,f 1.781 Audacem illum & im∣portunum Ignatii censorem, nec quicquam attulisse ad paginas suas implendas, praeter inscitiam & incuriam, & impudentiam singularem, dum ad suum Genevatis∣mum ••ntiquitatem detorquet invitissimam, &c. Ac∣cording

to which Character you could not possiblie have met a fitter Copesmate; one every way more answerable to you, in all those excellent qualities, which are there recited.

Of your next nine, foure of them are the very same, onely brought in in severall dressings, to be∣guile the Reader.g 1.782 The second, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which you translate (and be it so) the commanding part of the reasonable soul, which is Origens Altar; yourh 1.783 third, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 righteous soule, which is C••e∣mens his Altar; the fifth, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the sinceritie of the minde, which is the Panegyrists Altar; the sixth, Cor nostrum, or S. Austins Altar: these are but seve∣rall expressions of the same one thing. The reasona∣ble soule, the righteous soule, the sinceritie of the soule, are but the severall habitudes of the same one soule: And for the heart, that also must be under∣stood spiritually, and so become a soule in fine. For if you understand it literally and materially, you o∣ver-throw your whole designe; in finding us a ma∣teriall Altar, for a spirituall sacrifice, against the which you have so learnedly declared before. Now it is worth your marking, that all these Authors (ex∣cept Clemens) do frequently in other places of their writings, informe us of the Altars in the Christian Church, materiall Altars either of wood or stone; for the officiating of Gods publicke service: as we have shewed at large in our second Section. Nor are you other then a trifler to produce them here, as if they knew no Altars in the Church for the mysticall sacrifice, but those which you have showne us from them for spirituall sacrifices. The same may be af∣firmed of your seventh, the memorie, which is Phi∣lo's

Altar; and of the tenth, that our faithi 1.784 S. Hie∣romes Altar. Philo, and Hierome both, acknowledg∣ed severall, reall, and materiall Altars, in their se∣verall Churches: though in the places by you cited, they solace and delight themselves in conceits and allegories. So that of all your Altars we have left but three, the fourth, eight, and ninth; and two of them will in conclusion prove but one. Of these the fourth is every place,k 1.785 (a most excellent Al∣tar) wherein, say you, we offer unto God the sweet smel∣ling fruits of our studies in divinitie. And this you make Eusebius his Altar. Now if one aske you what you meane by this every place, I know you cannot choose but say, that you meane the Pulpit, if not the tables end in some secret Conventicle: every place wherein you offer unto God the sweet smel∣ling fruits of your studies in Divinitie. But you finde no such matterl 1.786 in Eusebius, nothing that any way concernes your studies. For then, none but such learned men as you, could make every place an Al∣tar, for spirituall sacrifices; as all men may, in the true meaning of your Author. Of offering up your studies, and the sweet smelling fruits thereof (most fragrant fruits indeed, if you well consider it) not one word saith he. Your eighth, S. Bernards Altar, is, as you say, the Sonne of God, become the Sonne of man. Which howsoever it be true, as to the thing it selfe, and in that metaphoricall sense as the former were: yet have you no such Altar, in S. Ber∣nard; your very Margin saith the contrary. Your Author saithm 1.787 Altare Redemptor is humilis incarna∣tio: not that our Saviour God and Man, is become our Altar; but that the Incarnation was our Saviours

Altar. Or had S. Bernard said so, as he might have done, then had it beene the same with Aquinas his Altar, or the ninth of yours, which is the Sonne of God in heaven. I trust you will not separate the Sonne of God become the Sonne of man, from the Sonne of God now in heaven; as if our Saviour had not took his body with him, to the heavenly glories. Which if you do not, as you cannot (and I have so much faith in you, as to thinke you will not) you might have either reported S. Bernard rightly, or quite left him out. Theres none that doth defend the materi∣all Altar, or thinks the name of Altar may be given to the holy Table▪ but falls downe prostrate at this Altar: as being t••at one and onely Altar which san∣ctifies all our spirituall sacrifices, and divine oblati∣ons, and makes them acceptable in the sight of God the Father. Yet this concludes no more, that there should be no Altar in the Church, for the mysticall sacrifice; because our high Altar is in heaven, Altare nostrum est in coelis, asn 1.788 S. Irenaeus hath it: then that you may conclude that no man hath a naturall fa∣ther, because we have one Father which is in heaven, our Pater noster qui est in coelis, as the Scripture hath it.

In the next place you set before us a pretty quil∣let: the holy Tableo 1.789 in the Christian Church, not being exemplified, as you say, from the square Altars, Exod. 27. but from the long Table of the Shew-bread which stood in the Temple, Exod. 25. This is good fish indeed, if it were well fryed; but upon better view, proves not worth the eating. You say the holy table in the Christian Church was not exemplified from the square Altars in the Law: and yet you tell us, p.

126. that by the Canons of their Church, that very forme is required amongst the Papists, and to them you leave it. You might do well, before you make it proper to the Papists, and to them alone, to have considered of the forme of the ancient Altars; and told us what those Canons were, and of what anti∣quitie, that do so enjoyne it. You point us in your Margin, unto Suarez, in tertiam partem: as good and punctuall a direction to finde out the Canon, as if you had enjoyn'd us to enquire for your House in Lin∣colnshire, and never told us what's your name. Then for the Table of Shew-bread, to which you do referre the originall of the holy Table, you flutter up and downe, as one that knows not what to trust to: as most an end they do not that propose new fancies. For p. 125. you bring in the conceits of two Iewish Rabbins, tending you say, unto your purpose. How fo? Ezek. 4. 22. (it should be 41. 22.) it is thus written, And he said unto me, this is the Table before the Lord, meaning without doubt the Altar of incense. You say exceeding right in that, the Table spoken of by the Prophet, is the Altar of incense: but what hath that to do with the Table of Shew-bread? This you con∣firme by that which followeth. The question then grows, how the Altar, is called a Table:p 1.790 and you replie unto it from those Rabbins, that at this day the Table performes what the Altar was wont to do. Where first you blend together the Table o•• the Shew-bread, and the Altar of Incense, as if both one thing: and next you make the Rabbins speake of the Christi∣an Table, as if it did performe what the Altar should, whereas they spake it of their owne. For why should you beleeve that any of the Rabbins would conceive

so honourably of the Christian Tables,q 1.791 that since the destruction of the Temple, they should become the place of sacrifice and propitiation. Assuredly the Iews have no such conceit of the holy Table▪ and it was done but like a Gentile to report so of them. Last of all, where before you make the holy Table to be exemplified from the long-table of the Shew-bread, you shut up this vagarie with this handsome close, r 1.792 that the onely utensil you relate unto (for the forme and fashion of your Table) is the long-square table of the Incense. Which as it plainly contradicts what you said before, touching the Petigree of the holy Table, from the Table of Shew-bread, so it confutes the Scri∣pture also: which never told you of a Table, but an Altar of Incense; or if a Table, yet a square table cer∣tainly, for foure-square shall it be, saith the very Text, Exod. 30. 2. So excellent an invention was your new originall of the Christian Table; and so bravely followed.

But then you say, you have some Authors for it: so you have for every thing, till it is brought unto the tryall. Remember what you are to prove, and then shew your evidence. The point in issue, is that the forme and situation of the holy Table, in the Chri∣stian Church, is not exemplified from the square. Altars, but from the long Table of the Shew-bread that stood in the Temple. If you have any of the Fathers that speak home to this, we are gone in law; but all your wit∣nesses fall short. Isidore Peleusiota, whom you first bring in, speakes neither of the forme, nor situation of the Christian Table. But when a doubt was moved by Benjamin a Iew, touching the new oblation in the Christian Church, that it was dones 1.793 in bread, and

not in bloud, as were the sacrifices of the law: he makes replie unto the sa••e, that by the law, there were both bloudy sacrifices performed without, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the open Court, and that withi•• the Tem∣ple there was a tab∣e, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to be looked on by that people, whereon bread was pla∣ced. Then addes, that the said Benjamin was onet 1.794 of those, and that he did not know that truth, which had beene hidden in the law, but was now revealed. This is the totall of his evidence. And this makes nothing for the forme and situation of the Table, which was the matter to be proved; but onely that, as he conceived, the Shew-bread did prefigurate som••∣what, which afterwards was instituted in the Chri∣stian Church. And let me tell you as a friend, that if you presse this matter hard, as if our Christian sacri∣fice did relate to that; you give the Papists more ad∣vantage for their halfe Communion, then you will gaine unto your selfe, about the forme and fashion of your holy Table. You say indeedu 1.795 it will be long, yer we will bring so cleare and ancient an extruction for the forme and fashion of the Altars in Christianitie; though you brought nothing hence for either. When we see more, we shall know better what to answer. To make a transcript of your allegations, from Irenaeus and S. Ambrose, Origen, and Hierome, being no more unto the purpose, were onely to wast time and paper. All that they say, is nothing to the forme and situation of the holy table, but to the analogy and proportion, betweene the bread in the Lords Supper now, and the Shew-bread then: & yet you fal∣sifie your Authors also, to make that good. You tell us out of Irenaeus, that omnes justi sacerdotalem habent

ordinem; and you say true, they are his words. But when you say, all that are justified by Christ have a Priestly interest in this holy bread: though it be true you say, had it beene your owne; yet you untruly fa∣ther it upon Irenaeus, who in his fourth booke, cap. 20. whither you referre us, tell's us no such matter: The like may be affirmedx 1.796 of Saint Hierome also, whom you have cited twice for the self-same pu••pose, viz. In Epist. ad Tit. c. 1▪ and in Ezek. c. 44. though neither in his comment on that whole Epistle, or in his exposition on Ezek. c. 44. or cap. 41. which was most like to be the place; can we finde any thing at all which reflects that way. But what need further search be made in so cleere a case; and such as doth relate so little to the point in hand? Especially since another of your Au••hors,y 1.797 Cornelius à Lapide, from whom you bor∣rowed your quotations in the margin, p. 126▪ out of Saint Hierom, in Malach. 1. Cyrill, Catech. myst. cat. 4. and Dam••scen, de orthod. fid. i. 4. c. 14. takes these in∣terpretations to be onely Allegories; as indeed they are: Allegoricè mensa panum propositionis significabat mensam corporis & sanguinis Christi: asz 1.798 in the Tropologicall sence, saith hee, it signifies the works of mercie. Take for a farewell to the rest, that if you will derive the forme and situation of your holy Table, from the Table of Shew-bread: Your table must not stand at all within the Chancell, nor in the middle of the Church; but on the North side of the Church, as you your selfe have placed it, out of Philo, p. 210. which though it thwarts as well your owne booke, as the Bi∣shops letter: Yet youa 1.799 proclaime, you care not how the Altars stood either in the Iewish or Popish Church; your Table being quite of another race. And take this

with you too for the close of all, that if your Table be descended of the race you mean; it is more Iewish then the Altar: there being Altars doubtlesse before Moses Law, but no Tables of Shew-bread. Nor can the Al∣tars be more Popish then your holy table; there being Altars in the Church when there were no Papists.

I did before conjecture that you had invited us, un∣to a common, not an holy Table; and I am now confir∣med more in it, then before I was: so strongly do you plead for sitting at it, and in excuse of them that allow that gesture. A matter no way pertinent to your pre∣sent Argument, but that you must flie out sometimes, to please your followers: who but for such vagaries, would be little edified. Now for the proofe of this, that sitting at the holy Table is nor new, nor strange; you tell us,b 1.800 that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Lords supper were ••••ten for a certain time, at the same table; and that, for ought appeare's in any Antiquitie, in the same posture. At the same Table, in the same posture; that comes home indeed: but neither you, nor any one of those who have most endevoured it, have yet made it good. For your part you referre your selfe unto Baronius, whom you thus report.c 1.801 Vtraque coena jungebatur, which he cleerly proves out of Chrysostome in 1. Cor. Hom. 27. in the beginning thereof. So you, and were it so indeed, yet this speak's nothing of the posture. But the truth is, you have most shamefully abused Baronius, and the Father too you finde not in Baroni••••, utraque coena jungebatur, as if the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and the Lords Sup∣per, were eaten at the same Table, and that they made but one continued action onely. Nay, you finde the contraryd 1.802 utraque simul mensa jungebatur, are your Authors words: and you have better skill in Latine

then the World besides, if you can picke mee one and the same table, out of mensa utraque, certainly, mensa utraque doth imply two Tables: and this you could not but have seen in that which followes, communis & sacra, one common, and the other sacred. Take the whole words together, and you finde them thus. Quo∣niam utraque simul mensa jungebatur, communis & sa∣cra; quid in unaquaque prastare deberent admo••••••••. Here are two Tables then, not one; those Tables of two several natures, and not the same; and therfore the behaviour of the people quid in unaquaque praestare debent, to be more reverent at the one, then at the other. You have an admirable searching eie, that can finde here both the same Table, and same posture too; but a farre nimbler hand, that could so trimly turn two Tables, into one Supper. But this you say, is cleerly proved out of Saint Chrysostome. What, the same Table, and the same po∣sture? You are false in this too. Baronius doth pro∣duce S. Chrysostom to an use quite contrary.

However Christ, saith he, began first with his ordinary supper, and then proceeded to the Sacrament: yet in the following times, they began first with the holy Sa∣crament, and after went unto their Love-feasts.

And this is that for which he voucheth the Autority of that Reverend Father, Peracta Synaxi, post sacramentorum communionem inibant convivium: very plain & home. Had you dealt halfe as honestly with Baronius, as hee with Chrysostome, you had been blamelesse at this time: but then your friends, whom you strive to please, had lost an excellent argument, for a sitting Sacrament.

From the Church primitive you fall upon the Church ofe 1.803 Rome, which doth not absolutely as you say, cōdem•• this ceremony of sitting; for if it did▪ it would

c••ll the Maundie of the Benedictines, who at the lest once in the yeere, (that is on Maundie Thursday onely) receive the Sacrament in that posture. If this be all you have to say, touching the indulgence in this case of the Church of Rome, o•• the generall practice of the same; you have got but little. Onely you had a minde to let people see, that the Church of England was more rigid and severe in this kinde, then the Church of Rome. For if the Church of Rome should connive at this, being a thing of so long continuance, and done within the walls of a private Monastery; it cannot be drawn into example, or made a precedent for others to expect the like. But if it chance to prove, that it is not the Sacrament, but a resemblance onely of the olde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which on that day is celebrated sitting, by these Benedictines; have you not then deluded us, in a shame∣full manner? Bullinger thus relates the matter,f 1.804 that on that day, the Gospel of Saint Iohn being read pub∣lickly by the Deacon, in the mean time, ordine dispositis mensis convivae assident, the guests sit down in order, at their severall Tables. What then?

Frangentes panem azymum, & calicem invicem propinantes, &c. Brea∣king unleavened bread and drinking unto one ano∣ther, they keep on foot some tracts of the ancient supper.

What think you now? Is this a Sacrament or a common Supper; done in the Church, or in the Refectory? I hope you will not say, that they had mensas dispositas, several tables in the Church, and those readie furnished; or that they did invicem propinare, drink to one another in the holy Sacrament. Quanta de spe, how great a fortune are you falne from; that thought to gaine such mickle meed for this good ser∣vice? But yet you will not leave us sof 1.805 This custome,

as you tell us, mounts hig••er then Saint Benedict, to S. Austins time. This custome? what. Of sitting at the Sacrament upon Maundie Thursday? No such mat∣ter verily.

Saint Austine saith no more then this, thatg 1.806 some, (and those against the generall custom) did think it lawfull on that day, to receive the Sacra∣ment after other meats.

Not that they did receive it so, but that they thought it lawfull to receive it so, ut ••ost alios cibos offerri liceat corpus & sanguis Domini, as the Father hath it, which makes (I trust) as little for sit∣ting at the Sacrament at that or any other time; as that for which you falsified Baronius, hath made for all times.

But you go higher yet, and tell us that it was the ge∣nerall practice of the Gentiles, to worship sitting: that so it was enjoyned theh 1.807 Romans by an expresse law of Numa Pompilius; and that it seemes to be the custome of the Greeks also, by an old Quatrain of the Seiur de Pibr••c. How old I pray you was that Quatra••n? Not many thousands sure, nor many hundreds, no nor ma∣ny stories. The S••iur de Pibrac as I take it,i 1.808 was Chancellour to King Henry the Third of France; and so his Quatrain could not be very old, if you marke it well. And yet you thought it questionlesse to be verie ancient. You had not told us elsek 1.809 that the Apostles of Christ were not to learn ceremonies out of the lawes of Numa, or the Quatrains of Pibrac. Most learnedly re∣solved. They might as well have learnt divinity from the man of Lincolnshire, as ceremonies from the Qua∣trains of the Seiur de Pibrac. You tell us further in your margin,l 1.810 how that Tertullian makes it a generall po∣sture for all Pagans: so hee doth indeed.m 1.811 Perinde

faciunt nationes, as his owne words are. But then you had done well to have told us also, how highly hee condemnes it in them, and how irreverent he conc••ived it, assidere sub aspect••, contraque aspectum ejus, to sit them downe under the no••es (as wee use to say) of those verie Godsm 1.812 whom they did worship and adore. This had been some faire dealing in you, could it have stood with your designe, of justifying the use of sitting in the holy Sacrament. Nay more then so, you say of Cardinall Peron, that he brings a passage out of Tertul∣lian, to prove that some of the ancient Christians did a∣dore, sitting: and that this position of theirs, this sitting, Tertullian did not blame. Not blame? Why man, Ter∣tullian mentions it for nothing else, but to reprehend it. Nor was it then a custome to adore sitting, as you say. Tertullian never told you that; nor the Cardinall neither.n 1.813 But adsignata oratione, assidendi mos est quibusdam: some men assoone as they had done their praiers, were presently upon their breech: as you would have them now at the praiers themselves. Never did any wretched cause, meet a fi••t••r Advocate. You would perswade us, that there is▪o 1.814 little feare, that here, in England, the people will clap them d••wne upon their breech, about our holy Table: so I heare you say. But by those many libel••••us and seditious Pamphlets that have been scattered up and down, since your book came out; wee finde the contrary. Perhaps the good∣nesse of their Advocate makes them more forwards in the cause. I hope you know your owne words, and in them I speak, telling you,p 1.815 If you were a scholar, you would have beene ashamed to write this Divi••itie.

For forreigne Church••s next, you tax the Doctour,

as if hee didq 1.816 conclude the Ceremonies of so many neighbouring Protestants to be unchristian altogether. Where finde you such a passage in him? All that the Doctour said is this,r 1.817

that it was brought into the Churches first, by ••oth the modern Arians, (who stub∣bornly gainsaying the Divinitie of our Lord and Saviour, thought it no robberie to be equall with him, and sit down with him at his Table:) and for that cause most justly banished the reformed Church in Poland. And for the proof of this, he saith it was determined so in a generall Synod, as being a thing not used in the Christian Church, tantumque pr••∣pri•• infidelibus Ari••nis, but proper to the Arians onely.

This goes extremely to your heart, so that you cannot choose but wishs 1.818 that he had spared to abuse that grave Synod, to make them say peremptorily, haec ceremonia Ecc••esiis Christianis non est usitata, especial∣ly as ••ee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in into English, this ceremony is a thing not used in the Christian Church. Why how would you translate it, were you put to do it. The most that you could do, were to change the number; and render it, the Christian Churches, for the Christian Church, which how it would ••dvantage you, I am yet to seek. But be∣ing so translated, what have you to object against it; or to make good, that he hath any way abused so grave a Synod?

Marry say you, the Synod saith, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ceremo∣nia, licet cum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 liber••, &c. this ceremonie how∣soever in its owne••nature it be indiff••••••ent and free, as the rest of the Ceremonies &c. Which you say, sweetens the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 very much.

And so it doth indeed, sweetneth it very much to them which have a libertie to use i••: but not to them who are restrained to another gesture. Nor had you noted it, being so impertinent, but

that you would be thought a Champion for mens Christian liberty, as before I told you. Next you ob∣jectt 1.819 they doe not say it is a thing not used in the Chri∣stian Church, (that being a corruption of the Doctors) but that it is not used in the Christian and Evangelicall Churches, nostri consensus, which agreed with them in the Articles of Confession. If so, the Doctour was too blame, and shall cry peccavi. But it is you that finger and corrupt the Synod. The Doctour tooke it as he found it.u 1.820 H••••c ceremonia, (licet cum caeter is libera) Ecclesiis Christianis & coetibus Evangelicis ••on est usi∣tata; are the very words. If you can finde nostri con∣sensus there, it must be of your owne hand-writing. There is no such matter, I am sure, in the printed books. It's true, that in the former words it is so expressed, ne sessio sit in usu ad mensam Domini, in ullis ••ujus con∣sensus Ecclesiis, that sitting at the Lords Table be not used in any of the Churches of their Cōfession. That's nationall▪ as unto themselves. But then the reason fol∣lowes, which is universall. Haec enim ceremonia, &c. be∣cause that ceremonie was not used in any of the Chri∣stian Churches, or Evangelicall assemblies. This is the place the Doctour pres••ed; and you can finde no con∣sensus nostri there; I am sure of that: Nay, it had been ridiculous nonsence (such as you use to speak somtimes) if it had been so. Now where you tell the Doctor,x 1.821 that he ••••ole this passage from the Altar of Damascus; and having 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it did co••rupt it •• hee must needs an∣swer for himselfe, that it is neither so, nor soy 1.822 The Altar of Damascus doth report the place, in terminis, as it is extant in the Synod; and as the Doctor layed it down in his 〈…〉〈…〉 Altar No•• did he ever know 〈…〉〈…〉, till you d••rected him unto it.

But ••o or not so, all is one in your opinion.a 1.823 For both the Altar and the Coale are quite mistaken, as you give out, in thinking that the Synod did ever say, that this ceremony was brought in or used, by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 A∣rians. Neither brought in, nor used? that were strange indeed. What is it then that they intend? Onely, say you, that it is Arianis propria, a thing fitter for the Arians, who by their doctrine and ten••ts placed themselves cheeke by joule with the Sonne of God then for devout and humble. Christians, compassed about with neighbours so fundamentally here••icall.b 1.824 And this you say, the Altar espied at last, to be the meaning of the Synod, that sitting was proper to the Arians, not by u∣sage, but secundum principia doctrinae suae, by the princi∣ples of their doctrine onely; and so conclude, that con∣trary to all truth of story, the Doctor makes it first brought in by the moderne Arians. Had you looked forwards in the Synod▪ you had found it otherwise. For there it followeth,c 1.825 that sitting at the holy Sacrame••t first crept into their Churches, potiss. mum occasione & auspicio illorum, &c. especially by occasi∣on and example of those men, which miserably had fallen away and denyed the Lord that bought them. Nor was it so resolved▪ in this Synod onely, Anno 1583. It was concluded so befored 1.826 in the Synod of Petricone, in the yeare 1578. that sitting at the Lords Table was first taken up by them, who rash∣ly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 every thing in the Church, and ignorantly imitating Christs example, were fallen off to Aria∣nisme▪ But I will lay you downe the words for your more assurance. Sessionis verò ad mensam domini, &c. illi inter nos primi Authores extiterunt, qui omnia temere in ••cclesia immutantes, & sine scientia Christum quasi

imitantes, nobis ad Aria••ismum perfidi 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fa∣cti sunt. That's all that hath relation to the point in hand. The rest which is cut off with an &c. is a touch onely on the by, that the said sitting was repugnant to the use of all thee 1.827 Evangelicall Churches throughout Europe. What followes next upon this declaration of the Synod?

Quar•• hanc propriā ipsis, &c. Wherefore to leave this gesture as proper and peculiar unto themf 1.828 who handle both our Savi∣our and his Sacraments with the like irreverence; and being in it selfe, uncomely, irreligious, and very scandalous withall unto simple men.

Nay, before that, Anno 1563. it was determined to this purpose also in another Synod at Crac••vi••, that if perhaps any did use to sit at the Lords Supper, cere∣moniam eam Arianabapt••st is relinquant, they should desert it utterly,g 1.829 as proper and peculiar to the Arian Anabaptists. This makes it cleere as day, that sitting at the Lords Table, was brought into the Churches first, by the moderne Arians. That which you inter∣pose touching Iohn A Lasco is not worth the while. Heh 1.830 was not setled in Poland, as your selfe affirm, untill the yeare 1557. which was but sixe yeeres be∣fore the Synod at Cracovia, wherein this gesture was condemned of Arianisme. Nor was he setled then in∣deed, if you consider the Epistles unto Calvin, which your selfe hath cited: things not succeeding there, i 1.831 saith Vtentionius, to their hearts 〈…〉〈…〉 furiò∣se se opponit Satan propagationi regni Christi▪ so furi∣ously doth the divell oppose the propagation of Christs kingdome. But setled or not setled, all is one for that. The Arians were here started up before his comming: nor have I such a reverend opinion of

Iohn A 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but that some principles of his might tend that way also. And so I leave you to consider, whether the Arians or the Puritans are most bound unto you, for standing up so bravely to defend t••eir cause.

That which comes next to hand is 〈◊〉〈◊〉, a fo••le mistake or two, about the antient practise of the Church, and Tertul•••••••• meaning. You say,k 1.832 that in Tertullians time, they did not (as wee now doe) eate the consecrated bread upon the place, but accipere & re∣servare, re••erve it, and carry it home with them. You make this generall, that they did not as we do•• now▪ that is not eate the consecrated bread upon the place, whereas indeed it was but in particular cases: either in times of persecution, when they could not meet so often as they would, for feare of troubles; or in the Stations, or dayes on which it was not law∣full to worship kneeling. In the first case, they did accipere & reservare, receive it of the Priest at Church in severall portions, and then reserve it, that is, take it home, and eate it there, at such times as they thought most fit for their ghostly comfort: and this they did especially, that they might be sure to have it for their last viaticum, at the approch of sudden unexpected dangers. This they did use to eate in se∣cret, before other meates, as is apparant by that pas∣sagel 1.833 in Tertullian, Nonne sciet maritus quid secret•• a••te omne•••• cibum gustes? But this is no good proofe I trust, that therefore in the Church, they did not ••ate at all; because they did reserve some part to be eaten at home. That were to overthrow the nature of the holy Supper, and make the Communion to be∣come a private eating. In the next case, being that of

Station, which you with confidence enough, have ma••e to be a fast orm 1.834 publike meeting, (as if there were no publike meetings but on Fasts, nor Fasts but on a publike meeting:) it was ordered thus. There were some certaine times, in which it was not law∣full to worshipn 1.835 kneeling, as vis. every Sunday in the yeere, and the whole time from Pasch to Pente∣cost. Now in those dayes of Station, or standing daies, at which the people might not kneele, in the re∣ceiving and partaking the holy Sacrament; they ra∣ther chose to forbeare the Communion, then to take ito 1.836 standing. Which being well knowne unto Ter∣tullian, he wisheth them to come, though they might not kneele, and take it standing at the Altar, [Si & ad aram Dei steteris:] and to reserve and take it home, and eate at their owne houses, kneeling, according unto their desires. By doing which, accepto corpore Domini & reservato, by their receiving of it in the Church, and carrying of it home to eate it there, they shouldp 1.837 salve all fores: participate of the sa∣crifice, as they ought to doe, and yet retaine the old tradition, in those dayes of Station. This if you un∣derstood before, you did ill to hide it; if not, you are a little wiser then before you were.

The next that comes before us is a covered dish, and being uncovered, proves a Gelly,q 1.838 a Claudius Gellius in your language, a lame Giles in ours. Who this lame Giles should be, you cannot guesse you say, but indeed you will not. Lame Giles his haltings is the ti∣tle of a booke set out by Master Prynns, against Giles Widowes of Oxford: wherein the Doctor first en∣countred with the name of Dresser, applyed to the Communion-Table standing Altar-wise, and of the

which hee thought him to have beene the Author, till he observed it in the Letter to the Vicar of Gran∣tham, being the antienter of the two. But this is but a copy of your countenance. You have not so small interest in Master Prynne, as not to be partaker of his learned labours; though you seeme loth, both here and elsewhere, that any thing of his, should be ei∣ther pinned or prinned on you, or any friend of yours whoever.

This dish being thus uncovered, and set by, let us now fall more roundly to your second service. In the beginning of your booke, you tell us that the Do∣ctorr 1.839 faines, that the writer of the letter doth slight, but failes, for he doth cite and approve the appellation of second service. The Bishopss 1.840 letter hath it thus. The Minister appointed to reade the Communion (which you out of the booke of Fast, in ¹⁰. of the King, are plea∣sed to call second service.) And towards the latter end,t 1.841 either in the first or second service, as you distin∣guish. Is this to cite and to approve the appellation: Yes, that it is say you, and more. For the good wri∣ter of the letter, finding theu 1.842 Vicar used it (as it seemes) in his discourse, and that the neighbours boggled at it, excuseth it as done in imitation of that grave and pious booke. That grave and pious booke, good Lord, how wise you are upon a sudden, and yet how sud∣denly doe you fall againe to your former follies▪ That booke, as grave and pious as it is, was never in∣tended (as you say in that which followes to give Ru∣brickes to the publike Liturgie; and therefore howsoe∣ver the Fast-booke cals it (so grave and pious though it were) let never any Country Vicar in Lincolne Di∣ocese presume to call it so hereafter. Iust so you dealt

before with his Majesties Chappell. Having extol∣led it to the heavens, and set forth all things in the same,x 1.843 as wisely and religiously done: yet you are resolute, that Parish Churches, are not, nor ought not to be bound, to imitate the same in those outward cir∣cumstances. A grievous sinne it was no doubt, for the poore Vicar to apply the distribution of the Ser∣vice, in the booke of Fast, unto the booke of Com∣mon-Prayer: and it was very timely to be done, to ex∣cuse him in it, as if he did relate onely to the Book of Fast. Else who can tell, but that the Alderman of Grantham and the neighbours there, might have con∣ceived he used ity 1.844 in imitation of the two Masses used of old; that viz. of the Catechumeni, and that of the Faithfull: neither of which, the Alderman (a prudent and discreet, but no learned man) nor any of his neighbours had ever heard of. Great reason to excuse the Vicar from so foule a crime; which God knows how it might have scandalized poore men, that never had tooke notice of it, till it was glanced at in the letter.

The Vicar being thus excused, you turne your stile upon the Doctor, for justifying the distribution of the Common Prayers▪ into a first and second ser∣vice. You said even now, that you approved the ap∣pellation; yet here you give us severall Arguments for reproofe thereof. For first, say you,a 1.845 the Or∣der of Morning Prayer, is not (as the poore man sup∣poseth) the whole Morning Prayer, but a little frag∣ment thereof called the Order of Matins, in the old Primers of King Henry the eight, King Edward the sixth, and the Primer of Sarum, what no where else? Do you not finde it in your Common-Prayer book,

to be called Mattins? Look in the Calendar for pro∣per Lessons, and tell me, when you see me next, how you finde it there? Matens and Evensong, ••aith it there; Morning and Evening Prayer, saith the Booke else-where▪ which makes, I trow, the order of Morning prayer to be the same now, with the order of Mattins, and that in the intention of the Com∣mon-Prayer Book, not in the Antient Primers onely. Not the whole Morning prayer say you, but you speake without booke: your booke instructing you to finde the full course and tenor of Morning and Evening Prayer throughout the yeare. Yet you object, that if we should make one service of the Mattins, we must make another of the Collects, and a third of the Leta••••e: and the Communion at the soonest will be the fourth, but by no meanes the second service. Why Sir, I hope the Collects are distributed, some for the first, and others for the second service: there's no particular service to be made of them. And for the Letanie, compa∣ring the Rubrick after Quicunque vult, with the Queenes Injunctions, that seemes to be a preparato∣rie to the second service. For it is saidb 1.846 there,

That immediately before the time of Communi∣on of the Sacrament, the Priests with other of the Quire shall kneele in the midst of the Church, and sing or say plainly the Letany, &c.

And you may marke it in some Churches, that whiles the Letanie is saying, there is a Bell tolled, to give notice unto the people, that the Communion service, is now co∣ming on. Secondly, youc 1.847 object, that by this rec∣koning, we shall have an entire service without a prayer for King or Bishop; which you are bold to say, and may say it boldly, is in no Liturgie this day, either Greeke

or Latine. Stay here a while. Have you not found it o∣therwise in your observations? What say you then to these? O Lord save the King, & then, Endue thy Ministers with righteousnesse. Are these no praiers for King or Bi∣shop? Those which come after in the Letanie, & that in the praier for the Church militant; ••re but the same with these, though more large and full. Thirdly, say you,d 1.848 the Act of Parliament doth call it service, and not services; therefore (for so you must conclude) there is no distri∣bution of it to be made into first and second. So in like sort say I, the Act of Parliament doth call ite 1.849 Common-prayer, and not Common-prayers: therefore (upon the self same reason) there is no distribution to be made of prai∣ers for plentie, and prayers for peace, prayers for the King, and prayers for the Clergie, prayers for the ••ick, and prayers for the sound, & sic de caeteris. Lastly, you makef 1.850 the true and legall division of our Service, to be into the Common-praier, and the Communion: the one to be officiated in the Reading Pew, the other at the holy table, disposed cōveniently for that purpose. If so, then whēthere is no Communion, which is you know administred but at certain times, then is there no division of the service, and consequently no part therof to be officiated at the h••ly table; which is expresly contr••ry to the R••brick af∣ter the Communion. You are like I see to prove a very a∣ble Minister, you are so perfect in your Portuis.

But now take heed, for you have drawn your strēgths together, to give the poore Doctor a greater blow, ac∣cusing him ofg 1.851 conjuring up such doctrine, as might turn not a few Parsons and Vicars out of their Benefices in short time. How so? Why by incouraging them, in a Book prin∣ted with Licence, (I see you are displeased at the licence still) to set up a consistorie in the midst of divine Service, & to examine in the same the worthines of all Communicants. The Doctor findes it in his Rubrick, that so many as in∣tend

to be partakers of the holy Communion, shall signifie their names unto the Curate over night▪ or else in the morning before the beginning of Morn∣ing Prayer, or immediately after. From whence, and from the following Rubricks, the poore Doctor gathered,h 1.852 that in the intention of the Church there was to be some reasonable time, betweene Morn∣ing Prayer and the Communion.

For otherwise what liesure could the Curate have to call before him notorious evill••livers, or such as have done wrong to their neighbours, and to advertise them not to presume to come unto the Lords Table: or what spare time can you afford him, betweene the Reading Pew and the holy Table, to reconcile those men betweene whom he perceiveth malice and hatred to reigne, &c. as he is willed and warrant∣ed to do, by his Common-Prayer Booke.

Call you this setting up a Consistorie in the middest of Service? You might have seene, but that you will not, that here is nothing to be done in the midst of service: but in the middle space of time, betweene both services; when as the people are departed, and the Curate gone unto his house. This was the ancient practise of the Church of England. The Morning prayer, or Matins to begin betweene six and seven; the second service, or Communion service, not till nine or ten: which distribution still continues in the Cathedrall Church of Winchester, in that of Southwell, and per∣haps some others. So that the names of those which purposed to communicate, being signified unto the Curate, if not before, yet presently after Morning Prayer: he had sufficient time to consider of them, whether he found amongst them any notorious evill livers, any wrong-doers to their neighbours, or such

as were in malice towards one another, and to proceed accordingly, as he saw occasion. All this you wipe out instantly with a dash of wine,i 1.853 Exig••o Pergama tota mero, as the Poet ha••h it: as if the notice given unto the Curate was for nothing else,k 1.854 but that provision might be made of Br••od and Wine and other necessaries for that holy mystery. And were it so, yet could this ve∣ry ill be done, after the beginning of Morning Prayer (asl 1.855 you needs will have it.) For would you have the people come to signifie their na••••ies unto the Curate, when he was reading the Confession, or perhaps the Pa∣ter-noster, or the Psalmes, or Lessons; & then the Curate to break off, as oft as any one came to him, to bid the Churchwardens take notice of it, that Bread and Wine may be provided. Besides, you must suppose a Tavern in everie Village, and a Bak••r two: else you will hardly be provided of Bread and Wine for the Communicants, in so short a space, as is between the beginning of Mor∣ning Prayer, and the holy Sacrament. Nay, not at all provided in such cases, but by Post and Post-horses, & much inconvenience; the Market-towns being far off; the wayes deep and mirie: which what a clutter would make especially upon the Sabbath, as you call it; I leave you to judge. Assuredly what ever your judgement be, you are a Gentleman of the prettiest and the finest fan∣cies, that I ever met with.

Thus deale you with the other Rubricks, and wrest them quite besides their meaning; especially the third, which concerneth the repulsing of those which are ob∣stinately malicious, and will by no meanes be induced to a reconcilement. You tell us onely of the second, which requires the Curatm 1.856 to admonish all open and notori∣ous evill livers, so to amend their lives that the congre∣gation

may thereby be satisfied: that it were most ridi∣culously prescribed to be done in such a place, or in so short a time; and therefore that it is intended to be performed by the Curate upon private conference with the parties. Good Sir, who ever doub••••d it, or thought the Church in time of s••••vice, to be a fitting place for personall re∣prehensions? So that you might have spared to tell us, yourn 1.857 〈◊〉〈◊〉 laudable practice, in not keeping backe, but onely admonishing p••blicke off••nders upon the evi∣dence of ••act, and that no•• publickly neither, nor by name: unlesse there had been somewhat singular in it, which no man ever had observed but your own deere selfe; and that to be proposed as an I••stituti•• sacerdo∣tum, for all men else to regulate their actions by. But for the third, you say that it directs the Curate how o 1.858 to deale with those, whom hee perceives by inti∣mation given, and direction returned from his Ordina∣ry, to continue in unrepented hatred and malice: whom having the direction of his Ordinary, he may keep from receiving t••e Sacrament, and that in an instant without chopping or dividing the divine service. And then, that otherwise it were an unreasonable and illegall thing, that a Christian man laying open claim to his right in the Sa∣crament, should be debarred from it by the meere discre∣tion of a C••rate. Po••r•• Priests! I lament your case; who are not onely by this Minister of Lincoln Diocese, debarred from moving and removing the holy Table: but absolutely turned out of all autoritie, from bindring scandal••••s and unworthy pe••sons to approach unto it. That's by this Minister conferred on hisp 1.859 Deacon also: because forsooth it did belong unto the Deacon▪ to cry, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, looke to the door••s there, to the doores▪ and to take care, the Cate••••••meni, and

those which were not to communicate, should avoid the Church. O saclum insipidum & infacetum! Such a dull, drowsie disputant, did never undertake so great an Argument. As if the Deacon did these things of his own authoritie; not as a Minister unto the Priest, and to save him a labour. That which comesq 1.860 after from the Iesuites, and other Schoolmen will concerne us little who are not to be governed by their dictates and deci∣sions, but by the rules and Canons of the Church of England.

Now for the Rubrick, that saith thus. The Curate shall not suffer those to be partakers of the Lords Table, betwixt whom hee perceiveth malice and hatred to raigne, untill hee know them to be re∣conciled: and that of two persons which are at va∣riance, that one of them be content to forgive the other, &c.

the Minister in that case ought to admit the penitent person to the holy Communion, and not him that is obstinate. So for the Canons, they runne thus.r 1.861

No Minister shall in any wise admit to the recei∣ving of the holy Communion any of his Cure which be openly known to live in sinne notorious without repentance; nor any who have maliciously conten∣ded with their neighbours, untill they shall be re∣conciled; nor any Churchwardens or Sidemen who wilfully incurre the horrible crime of perjurie, in not presenting as they ought: nors 1.862 unto any that refuse to kneel, or to be present at publick praiers; or that be open depravers of the Booke of Common Praier; or any thing cōtained in the Book of Articles, or the Book of ordering Priests and Bishops, or any that have depraved his Majesties Sovereigne au∣thoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall &c.

Here is no run∣ning to the Ordinaryt 1.863 to receive direction what to do,

but an authority le••t unto the Priest without further trouble; and more then sou 1.864 a charge imposed upon him not to do the contrarie. Onely it is provided,x 1.865 that every Minister so repelling any, shall on complaint, or being required by the Ordinarie, signifie the cause un∣to him, and therein obey his Order and Direction. Ther∣in, upon the post-fact, after the repelling, and on return of the Certificate; and not before as you would have it: for proof wherof, with an unparalleld kinde of impu∣dence, you cite those very Canons against themselv••s▪ But so extreme a spleene you have against the Clergie, that upon all and no occasions, you labour throughout your Pamphlet, to lay them open and expose them to the contempt and scorne of the common people.

Now as you labour to expose the Clergie to con∣tempt and scorne; so you endevour, secretly and upon the by, to make the Chappels and Cathedrals guilty of some fowle transgress••on, the better to expose them unto cens••re also. They 1.866 Doctor charged thus on the Episto∣lar, whosoever he was, in his Coal from the Altar; and you confesse the action in your holy Table. For recko∣ning itz 1.867 amongst the Doctors faynings, that the wri∣ter of the Letter would cunningly draw the Chappels and Cathedrals to a kinde of Praemunire, about their Communion-tabl••s: you answer that he fayles, for the writer confesseth hee doth allow and practice it. Allow and practise it? What it? It is a relative, and points to that which went before; viz. a cunning purpose and intent to draw Chappels and Cathedrals into a kinde of Praemunire; which you acknowledge in plaine termes, the writer doth allow and practise.a 1.868 Adeo veritas ab invit•••• etia•• pectoribus ••rumpit, said Lactantius truly. It seemes your book was not so tho••••wly perused, as the

Licence intimates: for if it had, this passage had not bin so left to bewray the businesse. Yet you fall fowle upon the Doctor, and reckon it as one of his extravagancies,b 1.869 that he should charge the writer for making such a difference between the Chappels and Cathedrals ••n the one side, and the Parochials on the other, (in the point of Altars;) the Lawes and Canons (in that point) loo∣king indifferently on all. Which said, you tell him of some speciall differences (which he knew before) made by t••e Canons themselves, betweene Cathedrals and Parochiall Churches. But Sir, the question is not of those things wherin the Canons make a difference, as in Copes, monethly Communions and such like, which there you instance in: but in those things wherin they make no difference, as in placing of the table. And yet you are besides the ••ushion too, in stating of those very differē∣ces, which your selfe proposeth. One difference that you make betweene them, is in the place of reading the Letany; which is officiated, as it ought, would be found no difference. You know that in Cathedrall Churches, the Letanie is said or sung in the middle of the Quire, where Morning and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said: and you may know, that in all Parish Churches by the Queenes Injunctions, (which you have given us for a Canon) the Priests with others of the Qu••re, shall kneele in the midst of the Church, (where Morning and Evening Praier are said) and sing or say plainly and distinctly the Letanie set forth in English. Another difference that you make▪ is that Ca∣thedrals are excepted from delivering to the Queenes Commissioners, the Ornaments and Iewels of their Churches: the Articles expresly naming the Church-w••rdens of every Parish onely. Not to take notice of the

s••quele, which is weak and wrested, we will reply unto the Fact, and tell you plainly, there was no such mat∣ter, as delivering to the Queens Commissioners, the or∣naments or jewels of the Parish Churches; which you would gladly thrust upon us. All that you findec 1.870 in

the Injunction, (to which you send us) is that the Church-wardens of every Parish, shall deliver unto the Visiters, the Inventories of Vestments, copes, and other ornaments, Plate, Books, especially Grayls, &c. apperteining to their Church.

You see that not the Ornaments themselves, but the Inventories of them, were to be delivered to the Queenes Commissioners. No•• had you so expresly falsified the Queens Injuncti∣on, but that you finde the Piety of the times inclining to ado••••e the Churches: and you would fain cast some∣what in the way to hinder the good worke which is now in hand; by telling those which love to ••eare it, that in the reformation made by Queene Elizabeth, all Orna∣ments were took away, as tending unto Popery and Su∣perstition.

The lowest dish of all, as lest worth the looking after, is an extravagant wilde f••wle, which either hath no name, or is ashamed of it. The Writer of the Letter had ••aidd 1.871 unto the Vicar, that he did hope he had more learning, then to conceive the Lords Table to be a new name, and so to be ashamed of the name.

This, saith the Doctour,e 1.872 might have well been spared, there being none so void of pi••tle and understanding as to be scandalized at the name of the Lords Table; as are some men, it seemes, at the name of Altar, saving that somewhat must be said, to perswade the people that questionlesse such men there were, the better to indeere the matter.

Now you reply, to the last clause

of being scandalized and ashamed at the name of the Lords table; thatf 1.873 surely of that kinde there are too many in the world, some calling it a profane Table, as the Rhemists; others an ••yster-bo••rd, and an oyster table; the Vicar, if his neighbours charged him rightly, a Tresle: and you know who a Dresser, why was that left out? This said, you fall upon the Author of the Latine determinat••on, onely to make the m••n suspect∣ed of b••ing ashamed of the name of Table: and then upon the Churchg 1.874 of Rome, as being (you say) the true Adversary, that the letter aymed at, for leaving out of her Canon (in the Reformation of the Missall by Pope Pius Quintus) this very name of the holy Table, against the practise of all Antiquitie, and prece∣dent Liturgies. But Sir consider in cold bloud, that that determination came not out, till five or six yeares after the Bishops letter. Your selfe hath given it for a rule,h 1.875 that as all Prophets are not Ordinaries, s•• all Ordinaries are not Prophets: and therfore cert••inly the writer of the letter being no Prophet, as you say, could not at all reflect on this determination▪ Then for the Church of Rome, that comes in as idly: just as the Germ••ns were brought in, to beat downe all the Altars there; because the Country people here were scandalized therwith in their Parish Churches. Whether the Church of Rome be ashamed or not, at the name of Table, is not materiall to this purpose: the letter being writ in English, and scattered up and downe amongst English men; and therefore had you brought us some of them, that had conceived the Lords Table to be a new name, or were ashamed thereof, you had then done well. Which since you have not done, but wandred up and downe in a maze, or cir∣cle▪

〈…〉〈…〉

I ••ee you will be served in state: your second course being tooke away, there is a banquet yet re∣maining; some sweet meats from Placentia, and a piece of 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ There is a 〈…〉〈…〉 in the maine discourse, and an 〈…〉〈…〉 in the orde∣ring of it both of them intermixt so artificially, that it is hard to be discerned, whether of the two bee most predominant. But here, you give it cleere for the ••t p••pulo 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yea and ut magno in populo too, to make sure the matter▪ not onely justifying your owne poore endeavours in that kinde, but falling foule

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

upon the Doctor, because he joynes not with you in the undertaking.k 1.876 You tell us, that the first Prot••∣s••a••••s of the Reformation had a better opinion of the co••∣mon people: and that the first inducements of King Ed∣ward and his most able 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Altars and place holy Tables, 〈…〉〈…〉 up superstitio•• in the mindes of these, (by him, the Doctor so much despised) commont people. What an opinion the first Protestants had of the common people, is not now the question, but whether in their labours to reforme the Church, and root up superstition, they had relation to the hu∣mour of the people, or the glory of God. If you could shew us, that King Edward and his most able Councell▪ (as in your odious manner of comparisons you are pleased to stile them) aymed at this onely, in that act of theirs, populo ut placerent, to please the people: you had said somewhat to the purpose. But you had laid withall a greater scandall on that King, and his so able Councell, then all your wit and learning would be able to take off againe. If not, why do you bring King Edward and his able Councell upon the stage, as if they could say somewhat in your defence, when they had no such meaning as you put upon them▪ The people then, as it appeareth in the story, were so averse from that Act of the King and Coun∣sell, that they were faine to set outl 1.877 certaine consi∣derations to prepare them to it, and make them ready for the change, which they meant to make. Call you this pleasing of the people? It was indeed pre∣tended, that the change would be for the peoples good, and to root up superstition out of their mindes: but nothing lesse intended then the peoples pleasure. An honest care that all things may be done for the

common good, for training up the people in their o∣bedience to Gods Commandements, the Kings just government, and the Churches orders; no man likes better then the Doctor. If this will please the peo∣ple, take me with you, and you shall never want a second to assist you in it. And this is that placenti•• which the Apostle hath commended to us by his ownem 1.878 practise, first; I▪ please, saith he▪ all men in all things, no•• ••ee king 〈…〉〈…〉 profit, but the profit of ma∣ny, that they may be saved: and next by way of pre∣cept n 1.879 or direction, Let every 〈◊〉〈◊〉 please his neigh∣bour for his good to edi••••cetion. If you observe these rules, and looke not after your own profit, applause, or popular dependencies▪ but th•• edification of the people onely, that they may be 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ you have Saint Paul, both for your warrant and e••ample. The Do∣ctor had not faulted thus either in you, or in the write 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the letter, had he found it in you. But on the other side, ther•• is 〈…〉〈…〉 popularity which some men affect 〈◊〉〈◊〉, an art to feed the peoples humour, that they themselves may be borne up and hoisted by the p••oples breath: and this appeareth every where, as well throughout that letter, as your whole discourse. This was the disease ofo 1.880 Pilate in the holy Gospel. Of whom it is recorded there, that to please the people, he released Barraba•• unto them, and condemned Iesus: and this the itch of Dio••rephesp 1.881 in S. Iohns Epistles, who loving to have the preheminence a∣mongst ignorant people, disparaged the Apostles, and pra••ed openly against them with malicious words. In these designes to court the favour of the people, by casting scandals on the Church, and the publike government; and by that meanes to be admired and

honoured for a Zealoue Minister, and a stout Patriot for the publick; for aq 1.882 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Historian, or a r 1.883 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 & 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Orators language, the Doctor leaves you to your selfe. You may draw after you, if you please,s 1.884 A••b••bajaru•••• collegi••, & h••c ge∣nus o••ne, the love and favour of the multitude for a day or two: but you will finde it a weak staffe to relie upon, though it may serve to puffe you up, and make you think your self to be some great bodie. The Doctor hath no such designes, & therfore n••••ds not take those courses: knowing especially that Saint Paul hath said, that if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Butt 1.885 〈…〉〈…〉 You that did never any thing in ••ein, except a little ••or vain-glo••y; have better studied those deep points, then the Apostl•• did or could•• & have found out a way so to serve the Lord, that you may please the people too. And therfore Mait•• ••anto Pa••t•• simple S••int Paul, (I hope you can remember your own sweet words) that could not so well time it, as to se••ve t••o masters. How ••arre you are the servant of Christ, I have not to doe with; look you to that but how farre you have laboured to please the people, that I can tell you p••esently without more ado. What made you undertake this Argument, being▪ for ought you would be known of, no party in it: was it to shew your zeale and service unto Christ, or to please the people? What makes you speak so slightly of the Institution of Episcopall power: and having spoke so sl••ghtly of it, what makes you speak so doubtfully of the present government, as if all things were carried with an higher hand then they ought to be, rather with canon shot then with Canon law: was it to s••rve Christ,

〈1 page〉〈1 page〉

who had before-hand, as you say, 〈…〉〈…〉 down de facto: was not this done to please the people▪ Such pleasers of the peoples humours, we have too many in this kingdome: and you, I take it, l••ke Mu∣tatu•• Curio in the Poet, areu 1.886 〈…〉〈…〉. And yet you might have done all this, wothout exposing the poore Doctor to the common 〈…〉〈…〉 if so many x 1.887 provisionarie Saints of God, so many nerves and si∣news of the State, so many armes of the King to defend his friends, and offend his enemies; were by hi•• called in scorne, and for ••ant of ••it, po••re people. Good Sir, a word or two in private. Thinke you that there are no provisionarie Saints, no ••erves and sinews of the State, none of the Kings Ar••es in the Towne of Grantham? and yety 1.888 the Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Vicar, that it were fitter that the Altar should stand table-wise, then that the Table be erected Altar-wise, to trouble the p••ore Towne of Grantham. The Doctor tooke his phrase from thence, and onely turned those words upon him (if you mark it wel) which he had found there to his hand. Nor are you very free from so great a fault, in calling those provisionarie Saints, sinews, and nerves and Armes, thez 1.889 rude people of Grantham. Or if you needs will make him meane it of the people gene∣rally, tell me, I pray you what is the difference (for I know it not) betweene the people and the sub••ects. If none, as surely none there is, how durst your mo∣thers sonne in such a sta••e as this, in such a Church as this, and under such a Prince so beloved as this, call the said Saints, Armes, Nerves, and Sinews, for want of wit, or something else,a 1.890 poore Subjects. It's true, you make them faire amends, by giving them ••om•• secret notice, of their authoritie and power in the

civill government: concluding that extravagancie with theb 1.891 〈…〉〈…〉 man, Iraser po∣p••lo R••man•• 〈…〉〈…〉 But Sir, I hope you do not make your p••••re Sub••••cts in England, any way equall to the people in the state of Rome, who were so formidable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that time to all Kings and Princes,c 1.892 ut 〈…〉〈…〉 aliquen•• juxta ••o∣rum 〈…〉〈…〉 of the state, was in the people at that 〈◊〉〈◊〉, when this speech was used▪ and so your application of it in this place and time, must needs be either very foolish, or extreme∣ly factious.

〈…〉〈…〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Here you report his words aright, which you do not often; but then most sh••mefully mis-report his meaning. The Doctor doth not there lay downe a definition of the Diptychs, as you falsly charge him; but onely doth expound the word, as it related to the case which was then in hand. You may remem∣ber, that the Bishop had sent the Vicar unto Bish••p Iewel, to learne how long Communion Tables had stood in the middle of the Church▪ and Bishop Iewel tells him of a p••ssage in the fifth Councell of Constantinople, where it was said, that tempore Diptychorum cucurrit ••mnis cum magno silentio circumcirca Altare. i. e. saith he, When the Lesson or Chapt••r 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a reading, the peo∣ple with silence drew together 〈◊〉〈◊〉 about the Altar. Now when the Doctor comes to scan this passage, not taking any notice of this mistake in Bishop Iewel, he concludes it thus.f 1.893

So that for all is said in the fifth Councell of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Altar might and did stand at the end of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, although the people came together about it, to heare the Dip••ychs▪ i. e. the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those Pre∣lates▪ and other persons of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 note, who had departed in the ••aith.

〈…〉〈…〉 to be his definition of the Diptychs; a very ••oolish one, you say▪ and fool••sh it had beene indeed, had it beene layed downe there for a definition. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did you m••••ke it as you should, you would h••ve 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••hat it was never meant for a d••finition of the Diptych•• generally; but onely for an expos••tion of the word, as in that place 〈…〉〈…〉 if you look into theg 1.894 〈…〉〈…〉

〈◊〉〈◊〉 heare the Diptychs; and then, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c.

that the recitall being made of the foure holy Oecumenicall Synods, as also of the Archbishops of blessed memorie, ••uphemius, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and Leo, the people with a loud voyce made this acclamation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Gl••rice ••e to thee O Lord.

This is the truth of the relation in that Coun∣cell. And I would faine learne of you, being so great •• Clerke, how you can fault the Doctor for his ex∣position of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in that place and ••ime: when there was onely read (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) the commemoration of those Prelates, Leo, Euphe∣mius, and Macedonius, and other persons of chiefe note, those which had had their interest in the said foure Councels, which were all departed in the faith. You were neare driven to seeke a concluding quar∣rell, when you pitch'd on this. Onely you were re∣solved to hold out as you had begun: and as you en∣••red on the businesse, with a false storie of the Vicar; so to conclude the same, with a false clamour on the Doctor. But Sir, let me advise you, when you put forth next, to shew more candour in your writings, and lesse shifting wit. Otherwise, let the Dip••ychs▪ have as many leaves as any of your Authors old or new have mentioned to you: your name will never be recorded, but on the back-side of the booke; in case you do not finde a roome in theh 1.895 last co∣lumne of the foure, which you have given us from Pelargus. And so I shut up this debate with that Pa∣theticall expression wherewith Octavius did con∣clude against Ceci••ius. Quid ingrati sumu••? quid nobis invidem••s, s•• veritas d••vinitatis aetate nostri temporis maturuit? Fruamur b••no nostro, & recti sententiam tem∣peremus:

co••ibeatur superstitio, impiet 〈◊〉〈◊〉 expiet••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Rel••gio ser••••tur. Why are we so ingratefull, why do we envy one another, if the true worship of the Lord, be growne more perfect in our times, then it was before? Let us enjoy our owne felicitie, ••nd qui••tly maintaine that truth which we are possessed of▪ let superstition be restrained, impietie exile••, and true Religion kept inviolable. This if we do endea∣vour in our severall places, we shall be counted faithfull Stewar••s in our Masters house; and happie is the servans, whom his L••ra when he comm••th sha•• finde so doing. Amen.

FINIS.

Notes

• a 1.1

  One who had beene a singular friend to that towne when he was in place.
• * 1.2

  Sect. 1.
• b 1.3

  In the licence.
• c 1.4

  pag. 1.
• * 1.5

  Cap. 1.
• d 1.6

  pag. 4.
• e 1.7

  pag. 1.
• f 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Plut.
• g 1.9

  Si Troja dextra defendi pous est, &c. p. 60.
• h 1.10

  Walgraves presse, was the presse for Puritan P••mphlet•• in Q. Elizabeths time, whereof see Mar. Marre-Prelate, Epist. to the Con∣vocation p 23.
• i 1.11

  Holy table, pag. 5.
• k 1.12

  In the licence.
• l 1.13

  In Philip. 2.
• m 1.14

  Rom. 12. 20
• n 1.15

  And mends it by a kinde of Sa∣cril••dge, by taking from a noble Gen∣tleman his name given in ••ap∣tisme, p. 23.
• o 1.16

  Had the Do∣ctor kept him to his Accidence. p. 23.
• p 1.17

  Camdens Remain••s.
• q 1.18

  pag. ••.
• r 1.19

  C••n-none, and Common (or tri∣••iall) law. p. 23.
• s 1.20

  Rom. 2. 21.
• t 1.21

  Vell. Pat. l. 2.
• u 1.22

  The Title.
• x 1.23

  Pulch••a La∣verna, Da mihi fallere, da justūsanctum que vi∣deri. Horat.
• a 1.24

  pag. 12.
• b 1.25

  pag. 7.
• c 1.26

  pag. 7.
• d 1.27

  pag. 9, 10.
• e 1.28

  For besides it is uncertain whe∣ther he be of the Voisinage, &c.
• * 1.29

  pag. 3.
• f 1.30

  pag. 6.
• f 1.31

  pag. 7.
• g 1.32

  pag. 6.
• g 1.33

  pag. 6.
• h 1.34

  Whereupon the Alderman presently wrote unto his Lordsh. pag. 7.
• i 1.35

  The Doctor by his exquisite knowledge in the Can-none, & com∣mon (or triviall) law. pa. 23.
• k 1.36

  And having too much favour from his Dioce∣san. pag. 5.
• l 1.37

  Thi•• blinking Doctor. pa. 190.
• m 1.38

  pag. 6.
• n 1.39

  It is wel•• done that you af∣fect decency and comelinesse, &c. pag. 13.
• o 1.40

  pag. 12
• * 1.41

  Cap. 2.
• * 1.42

  Cap. 1.
• r 1.43

  I have writ∣ten to you some∣what more at large, &c. let. pag. 13.
• s 1.44

  Negat ionis fo••mula, quam foro Angliae, Reus, Actoris assertionem in∣fici••tur. Spelm. Gloss.
• t 1.45

  pag 8.
• u 1.46

  That squir∣rell. headed young man. p. 59.
• a 1.47

  pag. 8.
• b 1.48

  ••ut not without s••riking, &c. pag. 8.
• e 1.49

  Their chiefe governor being one of that p••o∣fession himselfe. pag. 8.
• d 1.50

  Onely they represented to hi•• Lp, that they were much sca••∣dalized with the putting downe of their sermons. ib.
• e 1.51

  pag. 8.
• f 1.52

  His Lp was heard over-car∣nest with the said Vicar, to tell him who they were that set him on these alterations. pag. 9.
• g 1.53

  pag. 9.
• h 1.54

  pag. 21.
• i 1.55

  lb.
• k 1.56

  lb.
• l 1.57

  pag. 12.
• m 1.58

  pag. 11.
• * 1.59

  Cap. 2.
• a 1.60

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In vit. Alex.
• b 1.61

  Eupho••mio in Epistol•• ad▪ Iacob. Reg.
• c 1.62

  pag. 32.
• d 1.63

  Vel. Pat. l. 2.
• e 1.64

  pag. 59.
• f 1.65

  pag. 33.
• g 1.66

  Vir. Aeneid.
• h 1.67

  Regnavit annos 35. in qu••bus n••c fa∣mes, nec pestis fuit in regno suo. pag. 27.
• i 1.68

  Bellarm.
• k 1.69

  Terence.
• l 1.70

  Printed 1615.
• m 1.71

  As those Probationers did, which (p••••adven∣ture) some Iustic•• his Clerk might tell you of. p. 25.
• n 1.72

  Coale from the Altar, p. 61.
• o 1.73

  pag. 190.
• p 1.74

  pag. 25.
• q 1.75

  pag. 25.
• r 1.76

  Coal, p. 61, 62.
• s 1.77

  pag. 26, 27.
• t 1.78

  Terence in Andria, Act. 1. S••••. 5.
• u 1.79

  Coal ••rom the Altar, p. 60.
• x 1.80

  pag. 31.
• y 1.81

  Vel. Pa••. l. 2.
• z 1.82

  ••a••e o•• the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p. 99.
• a 1.83

  pag. 32.
• b 1.84

  Double a piece of brasse coyn in France, of which five goe to an Engl••sh penny.
• c 1.85

  Co••l, p. 63.
• d 1.86

  pag. 32, 33.
• e 1.87

  Coal from the Altar. p. 26▪ 27.
• f 1.88

  pag 35.
• g 1.89

  pag. 35.
• h 1.90

  Coal f••om ••e Altar, 51, 52.
• i 1.91

  C••al. p. 27.
• k 1.92

  pag. 35, 36, 37.
• l 1.93

  pag. 36.
• m 1.94

  pag. 114.
• n 1.95

  pag. 37.
• o 1.96

  Missale An∣glicanum, in Alt. Damasc. p. 716.
• p 1.97

  C••al. p. 51.
• q 1.98

  Vide Bish: Hoopers 3. Ser∣mon on Ionah, before K. Edvv.
• r 1.99

  pag. 38. in marg.
• s 1.100

  Ibid. in marg.
• t 1.101

  Histoire d' Angleterre l. 21. §. 10.
• u 1.102

  Inlib. 3.
• x 1.103

  pag. 39.
• y 1.104

  I leave him to my Margin, where he shall finde two or three French-men, who out of the freedome of the nation, will be sure, parler ••out, &c. p. 39.
• z 1.105

  part 3. p. 42
• a 1.106

  pag. 40.
• b 1.107

  I••junct. for Tables in the Church.
• c 1.108

  pag. 41.
• d 1.109

  And there, if you be a good Hunts man, you may winde your horne, and blow the fall of that Injunction. p. 41.
• e 1.110

  Orders taken the 10. day of Oct. &c. Order 4.
• f 1.111

  Order 5.
• g 1.112

  Advertise∣ments partly for due or••er, &c. Printed. 1584. p. A. 4. 2.
• h 1.113

  pag. 42.
• i 1.114

  pag. 43.
• i 1.115

  pag. 43.
• l 1.116

  pag. 44.
• m 1.117

  pag. 45.
• n 1.118

  Horat.
• o 1.119

  Virgil.
• p 1.120

  pag. 47.
• q 1.121

  Camden in Eliz. An. 1558.
• r 1.122

  It being very like, that Cox, G••••nd••ll, &c. p••g. 47.
• s 1.123

  Which the writer of the ••etter ind••avou∣red to prove. pag. 46.
• t 1.124

  pag. 47, 48.
• u 1.125

  Displaying o•• Protestants. An. 1556. p. 81.
• x 1.126

  Coal, p. 23.
• y 1.127

  pag. 52.
• z 1.128

  pag 49.
• a 1.129

  pag. 53.
• b 1.130

  pag 57.
• c 1.131

  pag. 55.
• d 1.132

  Coal from the Altar. p. 24.
• e 1.133

  pag. 56.
• f 1.134

  pag. 57.
• g 1.135

  Tacit. de vit. Agri••.
• h 1.136

  Injunct. for Tables in the Chu••ch.
• i 1.137

  pag. 16.
• k 1.138

  pag▪ 48.
• l 1.139

  pag. 42.
• m 1.140

  pag. 58.
• n 1.141

  The Bishop entring into a discourse of the indifferencie of this circum∣stance. p. 8.
• o 1.142

  Co••l, p. 63.
• p 1.143

  pag. 58.
• q 1.144

  Virgil.
• r 1.145

  Cod. l. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14. l. 1••.
• s 1.146

  Iust. Instit. lib. 1.
• t 1.147

  Post-nati. pag. 41.
• u 1.148

  pag. 58.
• * 1.149

  Cap. 3.
• * 1.150

  Horat. Carm. 1. lib. 1.
• a 1.151

  pag. 60. 61.
• b 1.152

  Hist. l. 1.
• c 1.153

  Whereas in∣deed he is but a Divine of inv••n∣tion, &c. p. 1.
• d 1.154

  pag. 61.
• e 1.155

  pag. 59.
• f 1.156

  pag. 65.
• g 1.157

  pag. 66.
• h 1.158

  pag▪ 67.
• i 1.159

  pag. 69.
• k 1.160

  pag. 68.
• l 1.161

  pag. 66.
• m 1.162

  pag. 67.
• n 1.163

  Here i•• not onely I. C. but T. C. up and down, p. 70.
• o 1.164

  Concil▪ Nicen. c. 5.
• p 1.165

  pag. 66, 67.
• q 1.166

  Perpet. go∣vernment of Ch. ••. 14. p. 295.
• r 1.167

  pag. 67.
• s 1.168

  pag. 67.
• t 1.169

  Horat. de ••••te.
• u 1.170

  pag. 68, 69.
• x 1.171

  The Bishop entring into a discourse of the indifferencie of this circum∣stance. p. 8.
• y 1.172

  pag. 69.
• z 1.173

  pag. 69.
• a 1.174

  Horat.
• b 1.175

  pag. 68.
• c 1.176

  where little Pope Reg••lios hath p••ayed such Rex. pa. 7.
• d 1.177

  Egl. 3.
• e 1.178

  pag. 70.
• f 1.179

  pag. 61.
• g 1.180

  Coal.
• i 1.181

  pag. 76.
• k 1.182

  Coal from the Altar, p. 32, 33, 73.
• l 1.183

  Letter to the•• Vicar.
• m 1.184

  And is a s••ronger one than your head-piece is capable of, p. 75
• n 1.185

  Rubr. befo••e the Communion, and ••anon 82.
• n 1.186

  Rubr. befo••e the Communion, and ••anon 82.
• o 1.187

  pag. 75.
• p 1.188

  Barbatus in Clement. de elect. c. 1. n. 11.
• q 1.189

  pag. 61, 62.
• r 1.190

  Coal from the Al••ar, p. 10.
• s 1.191

  Coal, p. 10.
• t 1.192

  Coal, p. 51.
• u 1.193

  I am sure this te••••t is in the hig••est degree I••suiticall. p. 71.
• x 1.194

  pag. 78.
• y 1.195

  pag. 79.
• z 1.196

  pag. 79.
• a 1.197

  Coal from the Altar. p. ••.
• b 1.198

  pag. 64.
• c 1.199

  pag. 83.
• d 1.200

  pag. 84.
• e 1.201

  pag. 85.
• f 1.202

  I am af••raid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 judicious Divines that tamper so much in doctrine with Sancta Clara, and in discipline with Sancta Petra. p. 71.
• g 1.203

  Vel. Paterc. l. 2.
• h 1.204

  August de Civit. Dei l. 1. c. 7.
• i 1.205

  pag. 85.
• k 1.206

  Coal. p. 14.
• l 1.207

  pag. 86.
• m 1.208

  Vouz avez Fryth, Let him in Gods name come up to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. pag. 87.
• n 1.209

  Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 401.
• o 1.210

  pag. 87.
• p 1.211

  Ibid.
• q 1.212

  Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 401.
• r 1.213

  pag 88.
• s 1.214

  Vouz avez An honest man, Iohn Lambert. Put stand you by for a Monte∣bank, Iohn Coal. p. 8••.
• t 1.215

  Coal. pag. 14.
• u 1.216

  See the Acts and Mon. part. ••. p. 443.
• x 1.217

  pag. 88.
• a 1.218

  Coal. pag. 15.
• b 1.219

  pag. 89.
• c 1.220

  Acts and Mon. part. 3. p. 23.
• d 1.221

  I am sure he hath lopt off the head, which had a shrewd tale to tell. p. 89.
• e 1.222

  Leaving the relation like Philopoemens A••mie, all belly. pag. 89.
• f 1.223

  How like you Iohn Philpot. pag. 89.
• g 1.224

  Acts and Mon. part 3. pag. 23.
• h 1.225

  Coal from the Altar, p. 15.
• i 1.226

  pag. 90.
• k 1.227

  pag. 91.
• l 1.228

  Coal from the Altar, p. 15.
• m 1.229

  pag. 91.
• n 1.230

  In ••nswering to that place of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 objected to t••e Bishop of Lincoln, &c. ••e saith as you say. p. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• o 1.231

  pag. 92.
• p 1.232

  Coal from the Altar, p. 16.
• q 1.233

  pag. 92.
• r 1.234

  pag. 93.
• s 1.235

  pag. 94.
• t 1.236

  Ibid.
• u 1.237

  pag. 44.
• x 1.238

  pag. 52.
• y 1.239

  pag. 54.
• z 1.240

  pag. 95.
• a 1.241

  pag▪ 96.
• b 1.242

  V. Coal from the Altar, p. 16.
• c 1.243

  How many Presidents of that writ, can t••is great La••yer shew in the book of Entries. p. 5. 95
• d 1.244

  Correcting Magnificat, p. 77.
• e 1.245

  pag. 23.
• f 1.246

  pag. 97.
• g 1.247

  pag. 98.
• h 1.248

  Ibid.
• i 1.249

  pag. 98
• k 1.250

  pag. 116
• * 1.251

  Cap. 4.
• a 1.252

  pag. 86.
• b 1.253

  Injunctions giv••n by t••e most excellent Prince, Edward 6. &c. An. 1547. c. 9.
• c 1.254

  pag. 88.
• d 1.255

  Coal f••om the Altar. p. 28, 29.
• e 1.256

  part. 2. p. 70••.
• f 1.257

  Acts and M••n printed. 1596.
• g 1.258

  pag. 128.
• h 1.259

  p. 108, 109.
• h 1.260

  Letter (in the Coal.) p. 74.
• i 1.261

  Letter (in the holy Table) p. 17.
• k 1.262

  pag. 186.
• m 1.263

  Aeneid. l. 1
• n 1.264

  Minut. Felix.
• o 1.265

  Then the Supreme Ma∣gi••trate, p. 17.
• p 1.266

  Pellibus exiguis arcta∣tur Livius in∣gens. Mart.
• q 1.267

  Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 699.
• r 1.268

  Coal from the Altar, p. 41.
• t 1.269

  I will give you a short tast of his faining and his failing. p. 2.
• u 1.270

  pag. 128.
• a 1.271

  pag. 144.
• b 1.272

  pag. 145.
• c 1.273

  Ibid.
• d 1.274

  pag. 144.
• e 1.275

  Inter opu••∣cula Anglica∣na, pa. 550.
• f 1.276

  Epist. ad Buce••um.
• g 1.277

  pag. 143. in marg.
• i 1.278

  See then how well, on lookt in∣to t••e stori••s of the time, p 144.
• k 1.279

  Io. Stow, p. 593.
• l 1.280

  Imprinted at London the last day of fuly. An. 1547.
• m 1.281

  V. the s••a∣tutes of that King.
• n 1.282

  1 Ed. 6. c. 1.
• o 1.283

  Acts and Mon. part. 2▪ p. 658.
• p 1.284

  Ibid. p. 658.
• q 1.285

  Ibid. p. 659, 660.
• r 1.286

  Bucer in script. Anglic. p. 190.
• s 1.287

  2 & 3. Ed. 6. V. the statutes.
• t 1.288

  In script. Anglic. p. 191.
• u 1.289

  Io. Stow, p. 596.
• x 1.290

  Id. ibid.
• y 1.291

  Id. 597.
• z 1.292

  Id. p. 600.
• a 1.293

  Id. p. 603.
• b 1.294

  Id. p. 604.
• c 1.295

  Id. p. 605.
• d 1.296

  Id. p. 604.
• e 1.297

  In a post-script ad censuram, ep. 503.
• f 1.298

  Ioh. St••w, p. 605.
• g 1.299

  Id. p. 606.
• h 1.300

  Io. Stow, p. 607. and Brooke tit. Somerset.
• i 1.301

  Vide Stat. 5. & 6. Edw. 6.
• k 1.302

  Coal from the Altar, p. 39.
• l 1.303

  Epist. ad Bu∣cerum. p. 81.
• m 1.304

  pag. 144.
• n 1.305

  In praefati∣one ad censu∣ram.
• o 1.306

  He desired Calv••n to write by him to the Protector, &c. p. 144.
• p 1.307

  Not the let∣ter printed, bear∣ing date two yeeres before p. 144.
• q 1.308

  Epist. ad Protect. Angl. pag. 66.
• r 1.309

  It must be full 3. yeeres be∣fore, &c. p. 145.
• s 1.310

  Chrisoms, oy••e in Bapti••me, and comme••ora••ion of the dead. pag. 1••6.
• t 1.311

  Quia nempe ve••iti sunt, ut major re••ū muta••io fe••ri nō possit, praeser••••m ubi vicino••ū ratio habenda est. pag. 70.
• u 1.312

  Idem ibid. pag. 70.
• x 1.313

  Quoniam ver••or ne pauce ex••ē•• in regno vivae 〈◊〉〈◊〉: major pa••s au∣tem 〈…〉〈…〉 pag. 68.
• y 1.314

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• z 1.315

  Interea sc••psi ad illu••∣trissimū Duce Some••seti. p. 98.
• z 1.316

  Interea sc••psi ad illu••∣trissimū Duce Some••seti. p. 98.
• a 1.317

  Certū est D. Hopperum episcopatui suo restitutum esse. pag. 103.
• b 1.318

  pag. 148.
• c 1.319

  Vide Epist. illam ad Farellū. p. 384.
• d 1.320

  Epist ad Bulling. p. 98.
• e 1.321

  pag. 144.
• f 1.322

  Coal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Altar. p. 39.
• g 1.323

  And if we give it a date from the Printers placing of the letter, which is your childish and erroneous Cri∣ticisme. p. 143.
• h 1.324

  pag. 148.
• i 1.325

  Epist. ad Calvin. p. 97.
• k 1.326

  Epist. ad Cranmer. p. 101
• l 1.327

  But the Date seemes to bee much before An∣no 1551. which is D. Coals conje∣cture. p. 148.
• m 1.328

  Coal, p. 40.
• n 1.329

  Ibid. p. 39.
• o 1.330

  pag. 145.
• o 1.331

  Co••l, p. 40.
• p 1.332

  pag. 150.
• q 1.333

  Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 666.
• r 1.334

  Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 667.
• s 1.335

  pag. 150, 151
• t 1.336

  pag. 151
• u 1.337

  pag. 152.
• x 1.338

  5. & 6. Ed. 6. cap. 1.
• y 1.339

  pag. 53.
• z 1.340

  Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 660.
• a 1.341

  Acts and Mon. part. 2. p. 700.
• b 1.342

  pag. 48. Of the holy Table.
• c 1.343

  Ibid. p. 48.
• d 1.344

  pag. 183.
• e 1.345

  Coal from the Altar, p. 72.
• * 1.346

  Cap. 3.
• f 1.347

  pag. 38. of the holy table.
• g 1.348

  1 Eliz. c. 2.
• h 1.349

  Acts and Mon. part 2. p. 700.
• i 1.350

  Holy table, p. 97.
• k 1.351

  Acts and Mon. part 2. pag 700.
• l 1.352

  Coal▪ p. 74.
• m 1.353

  Holy table, p. 17.
• * 1.354

  Cap. 4.
• n 1.355

  Ibid. p. 16.
• o 1.356

  Ibid. p. 18.
• p 1.357

  Admittimus &c. Epistola ad Barthol. Hadder.
• q 1.358

  De cultu Dei extern. l. 1.
• a 1.359

  De praepa∣rat. Evangel. l. y. c. 6.
• * 1.360

  Sect. 2.
• b 1.361

  Gen. 4. 2, 3, 4.
• c 1.362

  In Gen. 8. 20.
• d 1.363

  In Ge. 8. 20.
• * 1.364

  Cap. 5.
• e 1.365

  Pet. de Moulin, de Al∣taribus & Sacr.
• f 1.366

  Cap. ••.
• g 1.367

  V. Bilson of perp••t. govern. of Ch. Ch. cap. 1.
• h 1.368

  Gen. 8. 20.
• i 1.369

  Scal. Emen. temp. lib. 5.
• k 1.370

  Gen. 14. 18.
• l 1.371

  Exod. 2. 16.
• m 1.372

  Aen••id. l. 3.
• n 1.373

  Pat••rc. Hist.
• o 1.374

  H••b. 9. 12. & 10. 14.
• p 1.375

  Col. 2. 17.
• q 1.376

  Perniciosas & mortiferas esse Christia∣nis. Hie••. Ep. ••d August.
• r 1.377

  1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25.
• s 1.378

  Ib. v. 26.
• t 1.379

  V. 21.
• u 1.380

  V. 10.
• x 1.381

  V. B. Mon∣t••gues App. p. 288.
• a 1.382

  Cap. 3.
• b 1.383

  Sed poste∣rioris avis. Tract. de Al••, cap. 7.
• c 1.384

  p. 46.
• d 1.385

  Epist. ad Philadelph.
• e 1.386

  ad Smyr∣rens.
• f 1.387

  abslinuisse non solum à vo∣cabalo templi, sedetiam sacer∣dotii. Bellarm. de Cult. Sanct. l. 3. c. 4.
• g 1.388

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In dial. ad T••y∣phomem.
• h 1.389

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• i 1.390

  p. 47.
• k 1.391

  Lett. to the Vicar. p. 75.
• l 1.392

  Co••••. p. 46.
• m 1.393

  Sed species immu••ata tan∣tum. lib. 4. c. 34.
• n 1.394

  Quemad∣••odum enim qui est à t••rra panis, percipi∣ens vocatio∣nem Dei, jam non communis panis est, &c.
• o 1.395

  Iam satis perspecta dif∣ferentia inter Iudaeos & Christian••s. ••ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap.. 4
• o 1.396

  Iam satis perspecta dif∣ferentia inter Iudaeos & Christian••s. ••ell. de cult. Sanct. l. 3 cap. .4
• p 1.397

  Hom. 11. Vol. primum, p. 209.
• q 1.398

  Et aut in verb•• Dei, aut ministerio Ec∣clesiae deservi∣re, &c. Ibid.
• r 1.399

  Vt ad Eccle∣sium veniant, & linent ca∣put suum Sa∣cerdotibus. In Ios. c. 9.
• s 1.400

  p. 46.
• t 1.401

  Divino sa∣cerdotio ••o∣norati. lib. 1. ••p. 9.
• u 1.402

  Orig. l. 8.
• x 1.403

  Minut. ••e∣lix cited p. 157.
• y 1.404

  Contr. Gent. l. 2. cited by B. Iewell, to which the letter doth re••erre.
• z 1.405

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cited p. 110.
• a 1.406

  cited p. 157.
• b 1.407

  Sic apud nos, religiosior ille est qui ju∣stior.
• c 1.408

  Lib. 7. in initio. cited p. 116.
• e 1.409

  Coal. p. 46.
• f 1.410

  p. 153.
• g 1.411

  Alii ••os fe∣runtipsius An∣tistitis & sacer∣dotis colere, &c.
• h 1.412

  p. 56. 57.
• i 1.413

  Iustit. of the Sacr. lib. 6. c. 5. §. 15.
• k 1.414

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Orat. 2. in Iu∣lianum.
• l 1.415

  p. 158. 159.
• f 1.416

  p. 8.
• g 1.417

  In quo ac∣cedamus fide & spiritual•• cultura, in ve∣raci corde, sine simulati••ne, in satisfactione fidei, quia nihil est visibile ho∣rum, neque Sa∣cerdos, &c. Ambr. in Hebr. 10.
• h 1.418

  V. p. 118. Where he is made to say, ni∣hil hic visibile.
• i 1.419

  p. 45. 46.
• k 1.420

  p. 140.
• l 1.421

  Non nego tamen habuis∣se primitivam ecclesiam ante Constanti∣n••m, Altaria seu aras. de orig. Altarium. p. 99.
• m 1.422

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. cap. 6.
• n 1.423

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.424

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p 1.425

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 1.426

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• r 1.427

  Lib. 17. c. 20
• s 1.428

  p. 109. in the Margin.
• t 1.429

  Lib. 10. c. 6.
• u 1.430

  Soli Epi∣scopi & Pres∣byteri, propri•• jam vocantur in Ecclesia Sa∣cerdotes. Aug∣de Civit. D••i, l. 20. cap. 10.
• x 1.431

  Orat. de 〈…〉〈…〉
• y 1.432

  Epist. 50.
• z 1.433

  p. 109.
• a 1.434

  p. 76.
• b 1.435

  Booke of Or∣dination.
• c 1.436

  Acts 5. 4.
• d 1.437

  p. 109.
• e 1.438

  Art. 31.
• f 1.439

  Hom. of the Sacrament, part. 2. p. 197.
• g 1.440

  Ibid. p. 198▪
• h 1.441

  Preface on Easter day.
• i 1.442

  Praier of the consecration.
• k 1.443

  E••hortat••on before the Com∣munion.
• l 1.444

  ••raier of the consecration.
• m 1.445

  Prai••r of the consecration.
• n 1.446

  ••rai••r after the communion.
• o 1.447

  E••hortation to the ••ommu∣nion.
• p 1.448

  Hom. p. 19••
• q 1.449

  Hom. ibid.
• r 1.450

  Rubrick be∣fore the Conse∣cration.
• s 1.451

  Prayer after the Communion.
• t 1.452

  Ibid.
• u 1.453

  Answ. to Peron. c. 6.
• x 1.454

  Memoriam ib•• sacrific•••• da••us non in∣viti. Resp. ad Card Be••. c. 8.
• y 1.455

  ••nsw. to Card. Peron. c. ••.
• z 1.456

  De verbo nullam se litem moturam. Ep. ad Card. Peron.
• a 1.457

  p. 105.
• b 1.458

  p. 106.
• c 1.459

  Defence of his 5 Booke against Gardi∣ner, p. 439.
• d 1.460

  Of the Re∣mish Sacrif. l. 6. ••. 5.
• e 1.461

  De Com∣memoratione ib. sacrificii seu sacrificio com∣memorativo. Respons. ad Car. Bell.
• f 1.462

  Appello Caesar••m. p. 287.
• g 1.463

  p. 95.
• g 1.464

  Appe••••••. p. 288.
• h 1.465

  Ibid. p. 286.
• * 1.466

  Cap. 6.
• a 1.467

  Letter p.
• b 1.468

  p. 102.
• c 1.469

  p. 14.
• d 1.470

  The 31 Ar∣ticle having ta∣ken a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Popish Lamb. p. 102.
• e 1.471

  Of the Sa∣crament. par••. 2. p 198.
• f 1.472

  p. 103, 104.
• g 1.473

  〈…〉〈…〉 it be not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pius Quintus ••is, yet is a kinde ••f pious Bull. p. 104
• h 1.474

  Coal. p. 8.
• i 1.475

  p. 75. 76.
• k 1.476

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• l 1.477

  〈…〉〈…〉.
• m 1.478

  ••f the Sa∣c••ament part. 2. p. 203.
• n 1.479

  p. 104. 105.
• o 1.480

  p. 105.
• p 1.481

  p. 10••.
• q 1.482

  p. 141.
• q 1.483

  p. 110.
• r 1.484

  p. 110.
• s 1.485

  1. King. 18. 18.
• t 1.486

  p. 115.
• u 1.487

  Eccle••iae mos obtinuit ut Sacrificium Altaris, &c. in Ma••c. c. 44.
• x 1.488

  p. 116.
• y 1.489

  Vt vobis non nostra, sed Va••ronis vestri sententia re∣spon••eamus. l. 7
• a 1.490

  p. 117.
• b 1.491

  V. p. 58. of the holy Table.
• c 1.492

  p. 117.
• d 1.493

  It would prove the wea∣kest argument, &c. p. 117.
• e 1.494

  Epiphan. lib. 1. haer••s. 28. n. 2.
• f 1.495

  p. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• g 1.496

  See the for∣me•• Chapter.
• h 1.497

  p. 12.
• i 1.498

  and y••t not constantly nei∣••her. ••b.
• * 1.499

  p. 47.
• i 1.500

  Answ. to Card. ••eron. cap. 6.
• k 1.501

  p. 120.
• l 1.502

  Appello Cae••∣sarem. p. 286.
• m 1.503

  p. 120.
• n 1.504

  I am sure this fellow is a mighty weake pe••ce to take up this leaden dag∣ger, &c. p. 118.
• o 1.505

  p. 121.
• p 1.506

  Pella••n. de Missa, l. 1. c. 14.
• q 1.507

  p. 121.
• r 1.508

  S••ripsit ex∣planation••s in omnes Ep••∣stolas S▪ Pa••li, ex Origine, Am∣brosio, Hi••ron••∣••••, & Augu∣st••no 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Ins••ript. Ecc••es.
• s 1.509

  Inlocum.
• t 1.510

  p. 122.
• u 1.511

  I•• Hebr. 13. 1••.
• y 1.512

  Ita Chryso∣stomum secutus est, ut ejus ab∣breviator dici possit. Bell. de scrip. Eccl.
• z 1.513

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In locum.
• a 1.514

  Defence of the transl. c. 17. ••. 17.
• b 1.515

  p. 119.
• c 1.516

  p. 170.
• d 1.517

  p. 95.
• e 1.518

  Preface to M. Io. Selden, p. 53.
• f 1.519

  p▪ 170.
• g 1.520

  Persius Sat. ••.
• o 1.521

  Cap. 2.
• h 1.522

  Quo••um Deus ••st ven∣ter.
• i 1.523

  p. 1. 0.
• k 1.524

  Ann. A. 57
• l 1.525

  p. 168.
• m 1.526

  Ad Ph••lad.
• n 1.527

  Hanc men∣sam Patres in∣terdum etiam Altare vocant▪ Exercit. 6. ••. 1.
• o 1.528

  p. 168.
• p 1.529

  Tacit. Ann. lib. 14. prope finem.
• q 1.530

  lib. 4. c. 20.
• r 1.531

  p. 165.
• s 1.532

  Appello Ca••••em, p. ••••6.
• c 1.533

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 46.
• d 1.534

  p. 160.
• e 1.535

  As the Lord du Ples••is doth acknowledge. p. 1••0.
• f 1.536

  p. 1••2.
• h 1.537

  ••pp••sed by all learned men t••at have lived, since Pamelius time. p. 165.
• t 1.538

  p. 4••.
• u 1.539

  p. 166▪
• x 1.540

  Cypr. Ep. li. 1. ep. 7.
• y 1.541

  p. 166.
• z 1.542

  Ibid.
• a 1.543

  Article.
• b 1.544

  Cited in the Co••l. p. 46.
• c 1.545

  Quam ab Apostolis Ec∣clesiae accipi∣ens, in univer∣so mundo of∣fe••t Deo. Lib. 4. cap. 32.
• * 1.546

  Cap. 7.
• b 1.547

  Hist. lib. 5.
• c 1.548

  Joseph. Hist. de bellis Ind••••∣orum.
• d 1.549

  Ant••q. I••d. lib. 13. cap. 6.
• e 1.550

  〈…〉〈…〉
• f 1.551

  〈…〉〈…〉
• g 1.552

  〈…〉〈…〉
• h 1.553

  〈…〉〈…〉
• i 1.554

  Pha•• sal. l. 1.
• k 1.555

  〈…〉〈…〉
• l 1.556

  Rosinus Aut. Rom. l. 2. c. 2.
• m 1.557

  Iul. Pollux li••. 2. c. 1. n. 8.
• n 1.558

  Bellicivilis lib. 3.
• o 1.559

  Iustin. hist. ••ib. 24.
• p 1.560

  in vit. Ca∣listi.
• q 1.561

  1. Cor. 11▪ 22
• r 1.562

  de Invent. ••••rum. l. 5. c. 6.
• s 1.563

  in vita Ca∣lixti.
• t 1.564

  Hist. Eccl. lib. 8. cap. ••.
• u 1.565

  Ibid. cap. 2
• x 1.566

  Theodor. hist. eccl. l. 3. c. 11.
• a 1.567

  Con••. Gent. lib. 6. in initio.
• b 1.568

  p. 156.
• c 1.569

  ibid.
• d 1.570

  ibid.
• e 1.571

  Potest in∣telligi simpli∣cit••r, quod nul∣la haberent simpliciter. Ha∣rald. in ma••g. 156.
• f 1.572

  v. Hospi. de orig. Altar cap. 6.
• g 1.573

  de rebus Eccles. cap. 4.
• h 1.574

  qu. 118.
• i 1.575

  Apologet. Cap. 16.
• i 1.576

  de rebus Eccl. Cap. 4.
• k 1.577

  Baron. Ann. Anno. 57.
• l 1.578

  Epist. ••2.
• m 1.579

  adv. Va∣lent. cap. 2.
• n 1.580

  Virgil. Aeneid.
• o 1.581

  Hooker. ••. 5.
• * 1.582

  Art. 3. §. 26.
• p 1.583

  Theodor. hist. Eccles. ••. 5. c 17.
• q 1.584

  lib. 7. c. 25.
• r 1.585

  Nicephorus lib. 6. c 33.
• s 1.586

  de Aedificii Iustin. lib. 1.
• t 1.587

  p. 218.
• u 1.588

  de rebus. Eccl. cap. 4.
• x 1.589

  p 219.
• y 1.590

  as viz. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in t••e Counc. La••d••. Can. 19
• z 1.591

  Hist. Eccl. l. 12. cap. 24.
• a 1.592

  Hist. 1. Ec. lib. 12. c. 34.
• b 1.593

  lib. 9. c. 38.
• c 1.594

  Art. 3. divi••. 26.
• d 1.595

  Apolog. c. 16.
• e 1.596

  Homil. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••umer.
• f 1.597

  de Hierarch Eccles. c. 2.
• g 1.598

  ad Tarsens.
• h 1.599

  de poeni∣tent.
• i 1.600

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. de Orth. fid. lib. 4. c 13.
• k 1.601

  p. 123.
• l 1.602

  qu. ad Orth. 118.
• m 1.603

  de Sp. S. cap. 27.
• n 1.604

  de Orth. fid. l. 4. cap. 13.
• o 1.605

  p. 224.
• p 1.606

  p. 223. 224. ex Bed. his••. l. 2. c. 3.
• q 1.607

  li. 1. cap. 3••.
• r 1.608

  Quod ••a necdum fue••at per••••cta nec dedicata. lbid.
• y 1.609

  p. 76. in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from the Alt. and p. 19. of the holy Ta••le
• z 1.610

  p. 203. 204.
• a 1.611

  Censura. cap. 1. p. 457.
• b 1.612

  Quam pri∣••um & seve∣rissime corrigi. Ibid.
• c 1.613

  Co••l. p. 50.
• d 1.614

  Lett. to t••e Vicar. p. 70.
• r 1.615

  p. 54.
• a 1.616

  Coal. p. 76. and holy ••able. p. 19.
• b 1.617

  Rubrick be∣fore the Com∣munion.
• c 1.618

  Coal. p. 76.
• x 1.619

  p. 19.
• e 1.620

  p. 205.
• f 1.621

  p. 59.
• g 1.622

  Coal from the Altar. p. 65.
• h 1.623

  Ovid. Met. lib. 2.
• * 1.624

  Cap. 8.
• i 1.625

  p. 77.
• k 1.626

  Iewell Art. 3. divi••. 26
• l 1.627

  Coal. p. 53. & 54.
• m 1.628

  p. 208.
• n 1.629

  I am not Sa¦laried to defend the writer of t••e le••ter, in all words and sylla∣bles. p. 45.
• o 1.630

  p. 209.
• p 1.631

  p. 210.
• q 1.632

  p. 208. 209.
• r 1.633

  p. 209.
• f 1.634

  p. 209. 210.
• t 1.635

  and this Al∣tar was close un∣to the vaile, as Tostatus and Ribera doe fa∣st••n it, p. 210.
• u 1.636

  Exod. 30. 4.
• x 1.637

  in Exod. 30.
• y 1.638

  p. 210.
• z 1.639

  it is not true that the Gate or entrance of t•• is Church, is sa••d to b••••pen to the East. p. 210.
• a 1.640

  Euseb. l. 10. c. 4.
• b 1.641

  p. 210.
• c 1.642

  p. 211.
• d 1.643

  p. 54. 55.
• e 1.644

  Circular▪ w••ich h••th in it no c••rner at all. p. 212.
• f 1.645

  Circulos aut semicirculos consectari. ibid
• g 1.646

  p. 211.
• h 1.647

  1. Cor. 15.
• i 1.648

  and round about the thron were foure beasts full of eies Apoc. 4. 6.
• k 1.649

  p. 214.
• l 1.650

  p. 214.
• m 1.651

  p. 214.
• n 1.652

  These are but sing••e men, and cann••t possibly be expo••nded to goe about the Alia, in the D••ctors absurd interpretation. ••. 214▪
• o 1.653

  p. 214.
• p 1.654

  Coal. p. 55.
• q 1.655

  p. 215.
• r 1.656

  de lingu. la••. lib. 4. n. 2••.
• f 1.657

  p. 215. in margin.
• t 1.658

  p, 216. 217.
• u 1.659

  p. 217.
• x 1.660

  Observat▪ l. 2. cap. 2. cited p. 217.
• y 1.661

  Coal. from t••e Altar. p. 56.
• z 1.662

  p. 226.
• a 1.663

  Coal. p. 56.
• b 1.664

  228.
• c 1.665

  and I be∣shrew him for this t••ick. p. 228
• d 1.666

  Ibid.
• a 1.667

  p. 229.
• f 1.668

  p. 229.
• g 1.669

  Strom. l. ••▪
• h 1.670

  p. 213.
• i 1.671

  p. 213.
• k 1.672

  p. 214. in margine.
• l 1.673

  p. 213. in margine.
• l 1.674

  de ritib. Graecorum, at the end ••f Sa∣cra m▪sterio∣rum ante con∣sec••atorum.
• m 1.675

  •• cap. 7.
• m 1.676

  In the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or Chancell the••e be two Altars, of which the greatest stood in the midst of that Roome. p. 213.
• k 1.677

  or at least wise so far••e from the wall, &c. p. 218.
• l 1.678

  p. 219.
• m 1.679

  〈…〉〈…〉
• n 1.680

  Vicecomes de mi••••a•• ritib. l. 2. cap. 21.
• o 1.681

  p. 219.
• p 1.682

  p. 220.
• q 1.683

  p. 218.
• r 1.684

  Concil. Me∣diolanens. 4. de Capelli•• & Altar.
• s 1.685

  p. 75. 76.
• t 1.686

  p. 221.
• u 1.687

  p. 221▪
• x 1.688

  Ovid Me∣tamor.
• y 1.689

  Made a Saint it s••emes f••r t•• is se••vice. p. 221.
• z 1.690

  Thuanus hist. l.
• a 1.691

  p. 220.
• b 1.692

  p. 221.
• c 1.693

  de rebus Eccl. cap. 4.
• d 1.694

  Examen Concil. Trid. pars. 4.
• * 1.695

  p. 221▪
• f 1.696

  p. 2••••▪
• g 1.697

  de Origin•• Altarium. ca. ••▪
• h 1.698

  p. 222
• i 1.699

  p. 223.
• k 1.700

  and by the inscription, must needs have been used for a Com∣munion Table heretofore. p. 223.
• l 1.701

  p. 223.
• m 1.702

  p. 224. 225.
• n 1.703

  Sozomen. lib. 9. C. 1.
• o 1.704

  p. ••25.
• a 1.705

  Holy Table. p 12▪
• b 1.706

  Against t••e which he concei∣ved the Rubrick to be very appa∣rent, but h••s Lordships opiniō. to be very indiffe∣rent. p. 12.
• c 1.707

  Ibid. p. 12.
• a 1.708

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ in vit. Chrys.
• * 1.709

  Cap. 9.
• c 1.710

  Pag. 50.
• d 1.711

  Pag. 51.
• e 1.712

  And that with people that are n•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. p. 52.
• f 1.713

  Pag. 50.
• g 1.714

  Geomet••••
• h 1.715

  Which not∣withstanding I can b•••• for 12▪ P••••ce. p. 50▪
• i 1.716

  Vitruv. l. 9. cap. 3.
• k 1.717

  His men 〈◊〉〈◊〉 g••t he had 〈…〉〈…〉 of go••d, and it was nothing but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or circumference of the v••ssell. p. 50.
• l 1.718

  Euclide, l. ••. Sect. 47.
• m 1.719

  V. p. 104. of the holy Table.
• n 1.720

  pag. 64▪
• o 1.721

  1 Tim. 5.
• p 1.722

  Act. 6.
• q 1.723

  Act. 15. 20.
• r 1.724

  pag. 79.
• * 1.725

  pag. 71.
• t 1.726

  pag. 72.
• u 1.727

  pag. 73.
• x 1.728

  p. 71.
• y 1.729

  pag. 67.
• z 1.730

  Qui juxta Canones Neo∣Caesarienses five secundum aliorum dec••eta patr••m, iide•• sunt qui & Presbyteri. Ep. 88.
• a 1.731

  Se•• the I••∣••unctions of K. Edvv. 6. Qu. Eli. and Latimers Sermon to the Co••vocation.
• b 1.732

  In his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Serm••••. p. 129.
• c 1.733

  In vita Ch••ysippi.
• d 1.734

  pag. 219.
• e 1.735

  Pag. 79.
• f 1.736

  Ca••. 10.
• g 1.737

  Concil. A∣g••th••ns. Can. 6••.
• h 1.738

  In Glo•••••• 100.
• i 1.739

  pag. 219.
• k 1.740

  De mi••••••e app••r••••u. l. 6. c. 4.
• l 1.741

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Con••. Laodic. c. 20.
• m 1.742

  Next after t••e B••shop, p. 79.
• n 1.743

  Ad Tar∣sens.
• o 1.744

  Concil. Aquisgra∣nens. Can. 7.
• p 1.745

  Pag. 79.
• q 1.746

  Quaest. ex ••troque 101.
• t 1.747

  For in this shorf discourse, this w••rd Altar is thun••red out 105 ••everalltimes. &c. p. 192
• u 1.748

  〈…〉〈…〉
• x 1.749

  p. 80.
• y 1.750

  Lib. 3. de 〈…〉〈…〉 re••••••ent.
• a 1.751

  p. 80▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• b 1.752

  In Conc. Chalced. Ca••. 26.
• c 1.753

  That th••se ••••urchwa••den•• f••••m that time 〈…〉〈…〉, &c. p. 81.
• c 1.754

  p. 62.
• d 1.755

  Ob be not ••o ••••rd•• hearted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 mercil••ss••. &c. p. 63.
• e 1.756

  p. 83.
• f 1.757

  pag. 167.
• g 1.758

  pag. 81.
• h 1.759

  In Psalm. 118. Serm. ••1.
• i 1.760

  p. 8••.
• k 1.761

  S. Basil. regul. fu••ior▪ 20. p. 454.
• l 1.762

  p. 82.
• m 1.763

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ep. 57.
• n 1.764

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lbid.
• o 1.765

  P. 95. 96.
• p 1.766

  Men lear∣ned onely in un∣learned Litur∣gies. p. 85.
• q 1.767

  Conf. p. 83.
• r 1.768

  For he was serving in his first messe of pottage. p. 100.
• s 1.769

  Take them Donatus far me. p. 99.
• t 1.770

  P. 99.
• u 1.771

  P. 100.
• x 1.772

  P. 101.
• y 1.773

  P. 100.
• z 1.774

  p. 101.
• * 1.775

  Cap. 10.
• a 1.776

  What if I finde you seve∣ra•••• Altars f••r all these spiritu∣all sac••••fices in the ancie••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉, p. 110.
• b 1.777

  〈…〉〈…〉
• c 1.778

  〈…〉〈…〉 p. 81.
• d 1.779

  p. 110.
• e 1.780

  N•••• con∣sentit in vo∣luntate sacri∣••iciorum, a•• Vedelius trans∣lates it.
• f 1.781

  Appar. pri∣mus num. 47.
• g 1.782

  p. 110. 111
• h 1.783

  p. 111.
• i 1.784

  p. 112.
• k 1.785

  Hol•• Table. p. 111.
• l 1.786

  〈…〉〈…〉
• m 1.787

  p 111. in m••rgine.
• n 1.788

  Li. 4 c. 34.
• o 1.789

  p. 123.
• p 1.790

  125.
• q 1.791

  Ibi. p. 125.
• r 1.792

  p. 126.
• s 1.793

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ep. 401.
• t 1.794

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• u 1.795

  p. 124.
• x 1.796

  P. 125▪
• y 1.797

  In Hebr. 9.
• z 1.798

  Tropolo∣gicè vero sig∣nificat opera misericordiae, in Hebr. 9.
• a 1.799

  P. 123. 124▪
• b 1.800

  Pag. 132▪
• c 1.801

  Pag. 132. in margine.
• d 1.802

  Annal. T. ••. Anno 57.
• e 1.803

  Pag. 133.
• f 1.804

  De orig. errorum circa coenam ••. 4.
• f 1.805

  P. 133.
• g 1.806

  Epistola 118.
• h 1.807

  Pag. 134.
• i 1.808

  Thuanus hist. sub. H. 3.
• k 1.809

  P. 135.
• l 1.810

  P. 134.
• m 1.811

  De Orat. c. 12.
• m 1.812

  Quem cum maxime reverearis & venereris. •• de ••rat. cap. 12.
• n 1.813

  Ibid.
• o 1.814

  P. 136.
• p 1.815

  P 132.
• q 1.816

  P. 135.
• r 1.817

  Coale from the Altar, p. 36.
• s 1.818

  P. 137.
• t 1.819

  〈…〉〈…〉
• u 1.820

  Synod. 〈…〉〈…〉.
• x 1.821

  P. ••37.
• y 1.822

  Altare Da∣masc. P. 751. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• a 1.823

  P. 138.
• b 1.824

  P. 139.
• c 1.825

  Synod. V••∣lodis••••••iens. in Harm. Con∣fess.
• d 1.826

  In Har∣mon. Confess. cap. 4.
• e 1.827

  P••aeter ri∣tus in omni∣bus per ••uro∣pam Evange∣licis eccles••is vulgo consue∣tos. ib.
• f 1.828

  Vt Chri∣stum, ita & sa∣••ra ejus irreve∣••en••er tr••ctan∣•••• bus, ibid.
• g 1.829

  Cap. 6. in ••••rm. ••o••fess.
• h 1.830

  P. 138.
• i 1.831

  Vtentioni∣••s Calvino, Anno 1557. in Epl. Calvin.
• k 1.832

  P. 161.
• l 1.833

  Ad uxorem lib. 2.
• m 1.834

  P. 160.
• n 1.835

  Di•• domi∣nico de geni∣••ul 〈◊〉〈◊〉 adorare n••fas e••••e du∣c••mus: eadem immunitate, a P••s••ha ad Pentecosten g••uidemus. Tertul. d•• Cor. M••lit.
• o 1.836

  Quod sta∣••••o solvenda sit accepto 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dom. Id 〈◊〉〈◊〉 orat.
• p 1.837

  Vtrunque salvum est, & participatio ••acri••••cit, & executio officii
• q 1.838

  P. 172▪
• r 1.839

  p. 3.
• s 1.840

  In the Co••l•• from the Altar, p. 71.
• t 1.841

  Ibid. p. 77.
• u 1.842

  P. 173. 174
• x 1.843

  p. 34.
• y 1.844

  p. 174.
• a 1.845

  p. 174.
• b 1.846

  Cap. 18.
• c 1.847

  p. 174▪
• d 1.848

  p. 175.
• e 1.849

  An Act for un••for••itie of Common prayer and Service, &c. 10. El. c. 2.
• f 1.850

  p. 175.
• g 1.851

  p. 176.
• h 1.852

  Coal. p. 2••
• i 1.853

  Ovid. epist. Penelop.
• k 1.854

  p. 176.
• l 1.855

  Immediatly af••er the begin∣n••ng of Morning Prayer. p. 177.
• m 1.856

  P. 177.
• n 1.857

  P. 181.
• o 1.858

  P. 177.
• p 1.859

  P. 178.
• q 1.860

  Su••rez. Domini••us a Soto and others p. 179. 180.
• r 1.861

  Can. 26.
• s 1.862

  Canon. 27
• t 1.863

  By intimati∣on given, and direction recei∣ved from his Or∣dinary, &c. p. 177.
• u 1.864

  No Mini∣ster shall in any wise, &c. as in the Canon.
• x 1.865

  Canon 27
• y 1.866

  Coal. p. 27.
• z 1.867

  p. 2.
• a 1.868

  Lactant. ••. 2. c. 1.
• b 1.869

  P. 182.
• c 1.870

  In••unction 47.
• d 1.871

  Coal p. 74. 75.
• e 1.872

  Coal p. 43.
• f 1.873

  Holy Table. p. 192.
• g 1.874

  p. 194.
• h 1.875

  p. 82.
• k 1.876

  p. 201.
• l 1.877

  V. Acts and mon. part ••. p. 700.
• m 1.878

  I Cor▪ 10▪ 33.
• n 1.879

  Rom. 15. 2.
• o 1.880

  Mark▪ 15. •• 5.
• p 1.881

  L p. 3.
• q 1.882

  Plutarch. i•• Demosth.
• r 1.883

  Isocrat. ad N••coc.
• s 1.884

  Horat.
• t 1.885

  Hor. de arte Poet.
• u 1.886

  Momentū∣que fu•••• muta∣tus Curio re∣••um▪ Luca. I. 1.
• x 1.887

  p. 201.
• y 1.888

  Coal. p. 76
• z 1.889

  The rude people replying ••e shoul•• set up no Dressers of ••words &c. p. 6.
• a 1.890

  Poore sub∣ject that are 〈…〉〈…〉
• b 1.891

  p. 202.
• c 1.892

  Iustin. hist. li. 29.
• f 1.893

  Coal. p. 55
• g 1.894

  Act. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1753.
• h 1.895

  The last was enumeration of som•• notori us & 〈◊〉〈◊〉 people, &••. p 236.